Ep. 2274 - IT WILL NEVER DIE: Democrats Unleash New Brand of WOKE

loves a challenge.

It's why she lifts heavy weights

and likes complicated recipes.

But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia.

She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more.

Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You were made to take the easy route.

We were made to easily package your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.

Tires matter.

They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road.

Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack.

Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy.

Fast, free shipping, free road hazard protection, convenient installation options, and the best selection of Firestone tires.

Go to TireRack.com to see their Firestone test results, tire ratings, and reviews.

And be sure to check out all the special offers.

TireRack.com, the way tire buying should be.

Democrats are embracing a brand new form of wokeism.

The old woke is dying, but something new and ugly is taking its place.

We'll explain.

Plus, Zora Mamdani now wants to debate Donald Trump and a shocking Daily Wire report, like a truly shocking report.

First, the Daily Wire is constantly innovating, constantly growing, because the battle for the culture requires new voices and new ideas.

We've told you about the importance of reaching the next generation, and now we're putting our money where our mouth is.

On Monday, Isabel Brown makes her debut on Daily Wire Plus with the Isabel Brown show.

We've been talking about the fire and the unapologetic clarity that Isabelle Brown brings, but frankly, you should take a look for yourself.

Take a look at what's coming this Monday.

Isabelle Brown.

Isabelle Brown.

Isabel Brown.

Isabelle Brown.

The wait is almost over.

She's joining Daily Wire Plus with the Isabelle Brown Show.

Cannot wait for you guys to see how hard we've been working.

I could not be more excited for this new adventure.

You can expect larger-than-life guests for questions to the nerds.

Meeting the President of the United States and the Vice President, and now meeting our new American hope.

This is crazy.

So psyched to be bringing you guys along on this journey.

Let's jump in.

This is exactly what we mean when we say the Daily Wire is expanding to cover every front of the culture of war.

And the only way to get every single moment of it, every episode of her show, every episode of every show we produce, all the movies, the documentaries, the investigative journalism, is with a Daily Wire Plus membership.

Join right now at dailywire.com.

Well, folks, one question a lot of people on the right and in the center and even on the left are asking themselves these days is whether peak woke is over.

After all, we suffered through legitimately a decade of wokeness.

Wokeness being the proposition that any disparity between groups was evidence of discrimination.

And this manifested as DEI.

It manifested as the idea that the government had to constantly rig the system in the reverse direction.

It was the Ibram X.

Kendi ideology, the Robin DiAngelo ideology, that, again, if any group was performing less well than another group, that had to be a result of a discriminatory system.

And it feels as though on a racial level, we passed peak woke.

That simply saying now systemic racism is not going to result in some sort of left-wing policy.

And that if you go up against that, you're going to be able to retain your career.

You're not going to be fired.

And there was peak woke with regard to transgender ideology.

The idea being that if you were a man who identified as a woman, you were part of a discrete and insular minority.

And that the problems you were having in your life were the faults of the systems around you.

And therefore, the systems had to be torn down in the name of justice and anybody who argued with you had to be destroyed had to be censored had to be taken off the air had to be punished and it feels like we're past that as well so where does the left go next where does the left go next well the answer is they're going back to something kind of old and what they are going back to is what could theoretically be titled economic wokeness Economic wokeness mirrors exactly the same argument as racial wokeness or trans wokeness, except it applies to economic categories.

And when I say this is sort of an old argument, it is because it's basically the argument that was made by Karl Marx.

And it seems as though Democrats are more and more moving in that direction.

I bring this up because Politico has a fascinating piece today by Elena Schneider titled Democratic Research Finds Voters Prefer Populism Over Abundance.

What do they mean by that?

Well, there are basically two wings of the Democratic Party right now that are sort of battling it out for ideological supremacy.

One could be titled the Abundance Wing.

The Abundance Wing is led by people like Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, who wrote the book Abundance.

The basic idea is that Democrats should be better technocrats.

They should stop attempting to destroy capitalism and instead they should go for better regulations.

That if you want more housing, what you might want to do is actually deregulate.

the housing market in certain areas.

Now, of course, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson are very strong Democrats and they want more government involvement in a wide variety of areas.

But their basic idea is that in order for them to achieve their goals, presumably of reducing income inequality or achieving greater fairness in society, they actually do have to follow some sort of effective policies that make people richer, that make the society richer.

Now, that's kind of an uphill battle in the Democratic Party, obviously, because a lot of the policies that the government involves itself in are actually quite bad policies.

But that is one side of the Democratic Party, as Politico describes it.

The abundance agenda is, again, basically this idea that overly bureaucratic regulations can actually make things worse.

Democrats could move in that direction.

They could move toward, you know, actually running cities well, kind of a Michael Bloomberg approach to governing New York City.

Michael Bloomberg was a quasi-Democrat, kind of an independent Democrat.

Or theoretically, they could move in a more radical direction, particularly on economics.

It seems, according to a brand new memo obtained first by Politico, that Democrats are being cautioned about relying on abundance ideas.

Instead, they need to push for an economic populism that basically is rooted in grievance.

According to Politico, the memo reads, quote, while there are elements of the abundance agenda that have appeal and the choice on which messages to deliver is not zero sum, a populist economic approach better solved for Democrats' challenges with working class voters.

If candidates are asking which focus deserves topmost billing in Democrats' campaign messaging, the answer is clear.

Though some voters believe excessive bureaucracy can be a problem, it ranks far behind other concerns and tackling it does not strike voters as a direct response to the problem of affordability.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, well, hold up.

Isn't actual good policy a response to problems of affordability?

This isn't about solving the problem.

This is about gaining political power, thus to wreck the system.

This memo, penned by Kamala Harris campaign veterans Jeff Jaron, a Democratic pollster and strategist Brian Fallon and the Liberal Economic Group Groundwork Action instead says that what people really want to hear from their favorite politicians is that rich people suck and they should be destroyed.

That's the basic proposition.

Progressives, led by Representative Greg Kaysar of Texas, have pushed economic populism, arguing the party must rebuild its relationship with working-class voters by vilifying billionaires and corporate power.

That's more in line with what the memo argued will reach voters, as quote, majorities of Democrats and independents and two in five Republicans believe the outsized power of billionaires and corporations in our government is a bigger problem than red tape and bureaucracy.

So, again, the idea is going to be that we blame all economic problems on the system, on the capitalist system that generates millionaires and billionaires, as Bernie Sanders would say, or on corporations that commit the grave sin of being incredibly productive and

thus garnering a bigger market share.

Now, the reason I'm calling this economic wokeness is because, in order to see the parallel, all you have to do is basically replace one word.

So, again, the idea for racial wokeness is that disparities are in and of themselves signs of discrimination.

Racial discrimination is in fact a norm.

It is not aberrational.

It's not bad apples.

It's part of the entire system.

And the system is designed purposefully by white people to discriminate against people of color.

That is the basis of wokeness.

It really goes back to critical race theory.

And the rubric that I'm using here is from the experts on this thing, people like Gene Stefanczyk and Richard Delgado.

To get to economic wokeness, all you have to do is replace the word racial with economic.

And now you say economic disparities are in and of themselves signs of economic discrimination.

Economic discrimination is ordinary, not aberrational.

It's not just that there's one price gouger out there, it's the whole system is designed to price gouging.

And who's it designed by?

It's designed by rich people, not white people, rich people to discriminate against the poor.

Now, the beauty of economic wokeness is that unlike racial wokeness, which can be debunked every time you look at group studies, studies, right?

The easiest way to debunk the sort of racial wokeness idea that the systems are in and of themselves corrupt because they benefit white people at the expense of black people or white people at the expense of people of color is you can always point to a group that outperforms white people.

Nigerian Americans are very, very highly educated and also black.

Chinese Americans have extraordinarily high median household income.

They didn't design the Constitution.

When it comes, however, to economic wokeness, there will always be some people who are poorer than other people.

Now, people move in and out of these categories.

This is why it is a mistake to talk about quote unquote, the poor and the rich.

There are many people who are poor now who will one day become rich.

There are many people who are rich who will one day become middle class or poor.

There's tremendous economic mobility in the United States.

By the available studies, if you are born into the bottom quintile of income earners in the United States, There's a better than 60% shot that you will not end up there, that you will end up in a higher bracket in terms of income by the time you are an adult.

With that said, this sort of economic populism is rooted in grievance.

And it's a real problem because it does have a popular appeal.

It is one thing to claim that America is racist or that America is transphobic or heteronormative.

Most people look at that and go, eh, eh, I really don't know that many racists.

I really don't know that many people who are like sitting around all day long thinking about transgenderism.

No, actually, if I say a man is not a woman, that's just because it's basic logic.

And if I say that people, you know, ought to make better decisions in their lives, that literally has nothing to do with race.

When it comes to the economy, however, when it comes to people's economic statuses, people have an amazing way of dissociating the rich people they personally know from quote-unquote rich people in general.

Most people in America know somebody who's wealthy.

And I would bet that the vast majority of people who know people who are wealthy, know good people who are wealthy and bad people who are wealthy, they probably also know a lot of poor people, some of whom are good and some of whom are bad, because people come in all shapes and sizes and all sorts of moral qualities.

However, when it comes to how people think of their own economic performance, the easiest pitch that you can make to somebody is, if you are having a tough time economically speaking, I can fix it by ripping down this guy.

Right?

That billionaire should not exist.

This is why Bernie is having a moment.

Now, the only thing that is preventing that is continued economic growth.

If we get continued economic growth, then economic wokeness doesn't apply.

If people feel pretty good about their direction in the economy, then economic wokeness won't help because people don't feel discriminated against.

They don't feel like they're put under the thumb.

If, however, as we are seeing in the polling data, people do feel that they are stuck, that they don't have economic mobility, and they have an entire legacy media infrastructure pushing this lie.

And they have people on both the right and the left making this argument that you can't get ahead in America.

No matter what you do, you can't get ahead in America, which is not true.

If you have politicians telling you that to garner more power, people believe it.

And if they believe it, they start tearing down the very systems that generated prosperity, like free markets, private property, capitalism in the first place.

And so it's quite dangerous for Democrats to move in the direction of economic wokeness.

And again, I'm not going to say that this is relegated to Democrats.

I think there are some populist Republicans who would love to move in this direction, talking about how the basic structures of capitalism are deeply unfair.

You see this sort of rhetoric arising, again, on the populist right.

Now, again, I understand the art of politics requires getting elected.

And getting elected requires dissimulating, dissembling, saying things that are not true.

And that many politicians are willing to say untrue things in order to garner that power.

That doesn't make it moral or good.

Then the sort of populist notion that capitalism is quote-unquote stacked against you in a country that is the richest country in literally all of human history and in which people

who are at the bottom of the economic ladder after income and wealth transfers, because we have massive wealth our programs in this country, are earning about $45,000 to $50,000 a year,

which is about the same, by the way, as the median household income in Germany or France.

That's like the bottom of the pile for the United States after those wealth transfers.

When you point that out,

people get mad, but it happens to be the case.

And so if Democrats embrace this next stage of economic wokeness, then I think that all of the pressure that's been built up, people feeling as though they are under the thumb, it's going to get poured in that direction.

And that's why economic success is absolutely necessary.

It's also why we need to make a robust defense of things like private property and free markets.

Already coming up, a shocking story broken by our own Cassie Akiva here at Daily Wire.

It really is an amazing, amazing story.

First, when was the last time you bragged about your wireless company?

Like, hey, did you know my wireless company gave away a thousand American flags to deserving vets and forgave $10 million in veteran debt?

Did you know that my wireless company raised almost half a million bucks to prevent veteran suicide?

When your wireless company is PureTalk, there's a whole lot to brag about.

You can even brag about the coverage you get with PureTalk, a 5G network that is insanely fast, dependable, and secure.

And you can brag about how much money you save with PureTalk.

Unlimited talk, text, 15 gigs of high-speed data.

It's just 35 bucks a month with mobile hotspot.

Again, I'm using PureTalk all the time.

I'm not home, using it to call my family, using it to make business calls.

The coverage is excellent, and I'm paying less money.

And the company likes America.

So that's a win all the way around.

It's time to switch on over to my wireless company, Pure Talk.

But if you need another reason, something to brag about, Pure Talk is the only wireless company that gives you a one-year free membership to Daily Wire Plus when you go to PureTalk.com slash Shapiro.

Again, choose a qualifying plan at puretalk.com slash Shapiro and relish your free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus.

PureTalk, wireless worth bragging about.

Also, I'm sure most of us think that home security means that you wait for something bad to happen and then there's like an alarm that shrieks at you and you hope that it makes people run away.

Here's the thing.

Once an intruder is already in your house, the damage is already done.

It's only going to get worse from there.

Your sense of security, that fundamental feeling of safety in your own space, it's been violated.

Real protection isn't just about responding to crime.

It's about preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

That's exactly why I've partnered with SimplySafe.

It's a system built around the idea that the best security is proactive, not reactive.

Here's how it works.

SimplySafe uses smart AI-powered cameras to identify threats lurking outside your home and immediately alert their professional monitoring agents.

These agents intervene in real time before the break-in even starts.

They access two-way audio to confront the person, trigger sirens, spotlights, scare them off, request rapid police dispatch when needed, all helping stop the intruder while they're still outside your house.

That's real security.

I've joined the more than 4 million Americans who trust SimplySafe with their security every day.

With a 60-day money-back guarantee and no long-term contracts, SimplySafe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every single day.

We love Simply Safe.

We use it at our studios.

It's how we know that when we leave for the night, our stuff ain't going to be gone in the morning.

Visit simplysafe.com slash Shapiro to claim 50% off a new system.

That's simply safe.com slash Shapiro.

There is no safe like simply safe.

Why is private property good?

Private property is good because you ought to retain the fruits of your labor because you are an individual human being with creative capacity and it is immoral for people to steal the things you create from you.

Private property is an outgrowth of basic individual autonomy.

Free markets are an outgrowth of private property because the the idea is that if I own the fruits of my labors, I can then alienate them, meaning I can trade them or I can sell them and that we can trade and both of our lives get better because I traded something I want for something that you want.

That is the predicate of a free market economy.

And that right does not begin with the government.

That right begins with God because after all,

God made us in a particular way.

The way that he made us.

was creative.

When it says that man is made in God's image, sort of Judaic understanding of that is man has creative capacity because the one thing you know about God from the very beginning of the Bible, like the very beginning, is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

God is creative.

What is man is creative.

Man has the capacity to create.

Man has the capacity to cultivate the garden, to labor.

And so keeping the fruits of our labor is something that human beings want.

This is why communism always fails.

Because if you tell people they don't get to keep what they earned,

that they basically should be treated as disposable labor widgets and all of the fruits of their labor is taken away and redistributed, people won't work.

They'll just stop doing it.

It's why communism always ends with coercion.

So the free market is not rooted in some sort of peculiar institution created by rich people.

It is rooted in basic human notions of autonomy and individual worth.

And that's why it's kind of scary when you hear an exchange between a senator named Tim Kaine, who you may recall was actually a vice presidential nominee with Hillary Clinton back in 2016, and Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas.

So they got into an exchange the other day in the Senate in which Tim Kaine got very upset because there was a nominee for a position who had suggested that rights do not come from the government, they come from God.

And this somehow set off Tim Kaine, despite the fact that this is very clear in our founding documents.

You state, and this is a quote from Secretary Rubio, our rights come from God, our Creator, not from our laws, not from our governments.

I find that very, very troubling.

I'm a devout person.

I was a missionary in Honduras.

We've got other devout folks in this room, Christian, Jewish, Muslim American.

The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator, that's what the Iranian government believes.

It's a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law.

and targets Sunnis, Baha'is, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities.

And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their creator.

So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.

Well,

that is just a gigantic softball over the middle of the plate for Senator Ted Cruz, who knows the words of the Declaration of Independence.

I mean, all you have to do is read that document once, as Senator Cruz points out.

That radical and dangerous notion, in his words, is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created.

And if you do not believe me, and you made reference to this, Mr.

Barnes, then you can believe perhaps the most prominent

Virginian to ever serve Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident

that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator,

not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God

with certain unalienable rights.

That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, you know, Senator Cruz had that one teed up for him, but that is a fundamental reality.

This is why capitalism, free markets, these are good things.

They're not just good in terms of being utilitarian, though they are.

I talk about in lines and scavengers at length, why markets themselves are good, why they are morally good.

They are not just good in terms of having good outcomes.

And I hear it constantly from people, you know, communism or social, these are great ideas.

They just have, you know, downside effects.

They just don't work as well as they should, but they're kind of nice ideas.

And my response is always, they are really quite terrible ideas.

You know what's a great idea?

Private property and free markets.

They are great and moral ideas.

Here's Red Red Wright in Lions and Scavengers, which you should pick up right now.

We are making a run at number one on Amazon right now, so now would be a great time for you to pick up a copy.

Quote, you own the product of your hands.

As we have explored, one of the fundamental principles of the philosophy of lions is that man is made in the image of God, a creative, choosing being with autonomy and power.

We thus have a right to our own labor.

The philosopher John Locke, one of the great influences on the American founding, explained this right to property.

Quote, every man has a property in his own person.

This nobody has any right to but himself.

The labor of of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

Private property goes to the essence of what it means to be a human being.

Without it, creative power is denied its source.

Property is embedded in nature.

As historian Richard Pipes notes, anthropologists have concluded that there never was a society so primitive as not to acknowledge some forms of ownership.

Every child understands this reality.

By the age of two, children understand the difference between their property and the property of others.

As researchers Nicholas Knowles of Michigan State University and Susan Gelman of the the university of michigan write preschoolers demonstrate an understanding of the nuanced contrast between ownership and possession they defend possession of an object more aggressively if they own it and strenuously object when their property rights as well as the property rights of others are violated every parent knows this too give one of your kids an allowance for doing chores then tell her to hand over half the allowance to her younger brother who's been sitting aside and casually watching television you're likely to end up with a major and rather justifiable tantrum on your hands private property is just a reality of the world virtually all animals human beings most of all, innately understand and believe in ownership.

Human beings then develop rules and rituals surrounding the ownership and dispensation of private property, regularizing and cultivating a set of neutral principles that enable us to live with one another.

From private property springs the system of the free market.

It's time for lions, for people who actually believe in the success of the United States to robustly defend the free market.

This is not something to apologize for.

No, you are not immoral if you're a billionaire any more than you're immoral if you are impoverished.

No, there is no point, no dollar point where if you earn above this dollar amount, suddenly you're now a bad person.

That's ridiculous.

Nor is the rich person rich because he is stealing it from the poor person.

We do not live in a subsistence society in which free market innovation and trade are uncommon.

We live in the most commercial society in human history, which means Bill Gates did not steal a damn thing from anybody to become uber rich.

And guess what?

He made a lot of people much richer, not just for owning his stock but also using his products or working for places like microsoft

it's important to mention all of this because again i think that we're going to end her fairly soon an economically woke era and there need to be aggressive defenders against that aggressive defenders on the right and if people are smart enough on the left too because free markets mean prosperity Now, again, you can argue about social safety nets, whether those should be provided at the

social level versus the governmental level or locally, state, or federally.

Those are all fair arguments.

But doing what the Democratic Party is about to do and what some parts of the Republican Party are about to do, which is to say the free markets themselves are fundamentally flawed and that you, you alone should control it.

You should centralize the power.

That is likely to be both counterproductive, economically speaking, it is certainly immoral.

And it is going to lead to more actual interpersonal conflict.

Because if you truly believe that people who are rich got there by screwing people who are poor, that justifies you in doing really bad things to people who are rich.

And by the way, maybe one day you will be rich because it turns out, again, a huge number of people who are rich now were not rich growing up.

I was not rich growing up.

I'm very rich now.

There may come a point in the future where I'm not as rich.

That is life.

And those decisions, for the most part, in a free society, are in the hands of people making good decisions.

Alrighty, coming up, we will get to this breaking story from Daily Wire.

It really is an incredible story, Plus, a very fraud hearing for RFK Jr.

on the hill.

First, if you've been living on credit cards just to cover groceries, gas, bills, you know those interest rates can be absolutely vicious.

Why keep paying 20% or more to the banks when you could call my friends in American Financing?

They have mortgage rates in the fives.

They're showing people every day how to keep more of your hard-earned money in your pocket and out of the hands of the credit card companies.

Right now, American Financing is helping homeowners save an average of 800 bucks a month by using their home equity to wipe out high interest debt with no upfront fees, no obligation, just a 10-minute call to a salary-based mortgage consultant.

And here's the kicker.

If you start today, you could delay two mortgage payments, which puts even more cash in your hands right away.

Don't wait.

Call American Financing right now.

866-574-2500.

That's 866-574-2500.

Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Shapiro.

That's AmericanFinancing.net slash Shapiro.

And MLS 1-82334, MLS ConsumerAccess.org.

APR for rates in the five started at 6.327% for well-qualified borrowers.

Call 866-574-2500 or visit www.americanfinancing.net slash Shapiro for details about credit, costs, and terms.

Also, blinds.com, it's going to bring your space to life your way.

From expert guidance to custom styles made to fit your project, they make transforming your space feel just as good as it looks.

The only thing they treat better than Windows is you.

You know the customer.

Blinds.com has been helping folks like you for almost 30 years now.

They've got this amazing team of over 100 design experts who actually know what they're talking about, and they're there whenever you need them.

What's really nice, they get that everybody shops differently.

Some people love doing it all themselves, others want the whole thing handled for them, soup to nuts.

Some people are in the middle, whatever your style, they've got an option that will work.

Plus, they back everything with that 100% satisfaction guarantee.

And here's the thing: no surprises when it comes to the pricing.

What you see is what you pay.

End of story.

They'll even come measure your windows for free.

No pressure, no endless sales pitch, just helpful service, especially great when you got those weird-shaped windows or a big project.

The selection is incredible.

Hundreds of styles with all kinds of textures, colors, patterns.

Really easy to find exactly what you're looking for.

Right now, blinds.com is giving our listeners an exclusive 50 bucks off when you spend 500 bucks or more.

Just use code Shapiro at checkout.

Limited time offer, rules and restrictions apply.

See blinds.com for details.

Alrighty, meanwhile, speaking of this sort of scavenger mentality, perhaps the apotheosis of the scavenger mentality is Zoran Mamdani.

Mamdani, of course, is lucky enough to have 8,000 candidates running against him, splitting all of the polling against him.

He's still stuck in the mid-40 percentage range, but he does have Eric Adams running against him, who's pulling 10 to 12 percent, Curtis Liwa, who's pulling 15 to 17 percent, and Andrew Cuomo is pulling somewhere in the mid-20s.

When you combine all of their support, Andrew Cuomo could theoretically pull it out if everybody else dropped out.

There was a rumor that the White House was offering Adams an incentive to drop out and Curtis Lewa an incentive to drop out.

Both yesterday came out and said they are not dropping out, which is just great.

I guess we're just going to Thelma Louise this New York mayoral race.

Here is Eric Adams.

I'm surprised

of how the standards of reporting in the New York Times has dropped so much.

I've never asked for a job with HUD.

I've never been

promised a job with HUD.

I have not communicated with the president.

What I must do is what I've always have said.

Stay focused.

Don't be distracted by all the sensationalism.

Run our city, keep it safe, and run for re-election.

Oh, great.

Well, if that happens, you're going to lose.

Curtis Sleewa, who, again, I like Curtis, but Curtis is not going to be the next mayor of New York.

Here he was saying he's not going to drop out either.

You can't bribe me.

You can't lease me.

You can't rent me.

You can't motivate me to leave this race.

I am running as the Republican candidate.

Okay.

Well, Nzor Mamdani is going to be the next mayor of New York.

I mean, it really is that simple at this point.

Meanwhile, Momdani is challenging President Trump to a public debate saying, let's cut out the middleman.

Did Eric came after ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo called on the Queen Socialists to debate him five times during a press conference on Thursday.

So, great job by Mom Dani trying to duck Andrew Cuomo.

So, Andrew Cuomo is his chief competition here, and Cuomo says, Why don't we debate?

And Mom Dani's like, Well, I'd rather not debate you since I'm running against you.

I'd rather debate President Trump, which, of course, only elevates him.

No matter how he does against Trump, he believes that will get out the New York base, which doesn't like Trump very much, out to the polls.

So, Mom Dani said, Let's cut out the middleman.

Why should I debate Donald Trump's puppet when I could debate Donald Trump himself?

So, first of all, I think that that would actually be quite amusing if President Trump were to take him up on that, because Mamdani is a complete, useless person who has never built a thing in his entire life.

And President Trump would make that extraordinarily clear.

So, there's a case to be made that Trump should actually just say yes.

What does he have to lose?

It would be highly amusing.

I mean, honest to God, I would pay good money to debate Zara Mamdani.

That would be a delight.

That'd be an absolute sheer delight.

However, he's in a commanding position that is basically just his way of avoiding a debate with the only possible competition in Andrew Cuomo.

So good luck to the city of New York.

We're in New York doing this book tour right now.

And I have to say, it is truly, it's an amazing city.

I mean, it's an unbelievable city.

It is a city that is built on commerce.

There's an author whose name is Stefan Zweig, who was very famous in Europe in the 20s and the 30s.

And then he ended up killing himself during during World War II out of despair at what had happened to Europe.

But he wrote a memoir called The World of Yesterday.

And in The World of Yesterday, he traveled to a bunch of countries.

He sort of describes getting to know the countries.

And one of the things that he writes, Stefan Zweig, that is really quite fascinating, is he writes about visiting America.

And he says, listen, when I went to Britain,

what I found is that I could basically walk into a pub and I could get to know people just by sitting down in a pub and buying a drink for somebody.

I went to France, I'd go to a coffee house and I'd be able to sit down, just get to know people right away.

Same thing in Germany.

He said he tried that in the United States, and it didn't work.

He said he went to a pub, and basically, everybody's kind of standoffish.

And he went to a coffee house, and everybody's kind of busy.

And so he wanted to know what it was that made America tick,

what made America different.

And so, what he ended up doing was he ended up going to employment offices.

He went to job offices and looked for a job, like applied for jobs.

And here's what he writes about America.

He says, my first impression was overpowering.

Although New York did not yet have the enchanting night beauty, which it now has, this is, again, 1920s or 1910s even.

The rushing cascades of light in Times Square were not yet present, nor the city's dreamlike heaven, which, with its billions of artificial stars, glitters at the real ones in the sky.

The appearance of the city, as well as the traffic, lacked the daring grandeur of today, for the new architecture was only trying itself out uncertainly with an occasional skyscraper and the astonishing development of taste in show windows and decorations had only modestly set in.

But to look down from the Brooklyn Bridge with its constant gentle swing at the harbor and to wander about in the stone canyons of the avenues was discovery and excitement enough.

But he said that he wasn't really able to connect with anybody.

He said there weren't any cinemas.

There weren't any small, comfortable cafeterias or art galleries, libraries, museums at the time.

He said in matters cultural, everything was still far behind our Europe.

He said, I was swept along like a rudderless boat in the icy, windy streets.

And so he instead decided to invent a game for himself.

He said, I pretended I was friendless and alone, a jobless immigrant with my last $7 in my pocket.

Do then, I said to myself, what they have to do.

Imagine you're forced to earn your own living after three days.

Look around and see how one begins here as a stranger without connections or friends to find a position.

So I wandered from agency to agency and examined the lists tacked on their door.

Here a baker was wanted.

There a temporary clerk who knew French and Italian.

Here a clerk for a bookshop.

This last, incidentally, was the first opportunity for my imaginary self.

And so I climbed up three flights of iron stairs, asked about the salary, compared it with the prices for a room in the Bronx, which I'd seen advertised in the newspaper.

After two days of job hunting, I had theoretically found five jobs by which I could have made my living.

He said, through this job hunting, I learned more about America in those very first few days than in all the succeeding weeks when I traveled comfortably to Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and Chicago.

Because what he realized is that America predominantly was a place of bustling and commerce and job hunting.

And Mom Dani is going to kill all that.

He's going to kill all that out of envy because he believes that's a bad thing, that it's a bad thing.

The sort of enervation that has set in.

This is the economic awokeness.

Just as racial awokeness creates enervation in people, it teaches them no matter how hard you try, you're not going to get ahead because shadowy, unseen racial forces are cracking down upon you.

Economic awokeness makes the same argument.

that no matter how hard you try, you just can't get ahead.

And you know what?

That's not true.

It is not true.

Okay, mobility has gone down in the country.

People are not moving nearly as much as they were.

If you talk to Generation Z folks,

their job picture, like what they believe that they ought to get out of job, let's just say it's very different for a lot of them than it was when I was 18, 19, 20 years old.

And either that's going to change or economic wokeness will win.

And the results will be the tearing down of the things that actually make the country prosperous.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business.

From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allberds continue to trust and use them.

With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into

sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com/slash special offer.

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, no, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's going to tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

AKA Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

Okay, meanwhile, a massively shocking report from our own Daily Wire, Cassie Akiva, doing the extraordinary reporting here.

So you may remember that there was a person named Tony Aguilar.

Tony Aguilar was a contractor for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, and he was fired.

And then he started making all sorts of claims on all sorts of major shows.

So he went on Tucker Carlson's show, and he claimed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and the IDF

had been doing a terrible job and the IDF was shooting children.

Here was Tucker Carlson interviewing Tony Aguilar.

By the way, he didn't just have him on Tony Aguilar once.

He had him on twice, Tucker Carlson.

So let me ask you about the story that you have told.

That's a really difficult story, awful story,

but about the boy who you were in contact with who was killed, shot to death.

What happened?

So, you know, this little boy is

similar in age to my son.

Brown eyes.

My son has brown eyes.

I see my son's

face when I look at him.

And

this little boy, you know,

he's not ISIS.

He's not a combatant.

This was on secure distribution site number two,

the 28th of May, our second day of doing distribution.

I'm on that location.

I didn't get this secondhand.

I didn't see it from afar and then assume I saw it.

I touched it.

I felt it.

Okay, and then he went on to claim that his boy was killed shortly thereafter by the IDF.

He called the boy Amir there.

Now, the Daily Wire had done reporting on this and found there were major inconsistencies in this story.

Not only were the details he shared about their interaction inconsistent with third-party footage of it, the boy's stepmother said that she'd seen the boy alive for at least two months months after Aguilar claimed he was dead.

In a tape testimonial, Siham al-Jarabiyah said the boy did not go missing until July 28th.

That's around the same time Aguilar began telling the story, but he said the boy was killed on May 28th.

Okay, so the Gaza Humanitarian Fund commenced a search for the boy after Aguilar began telling his story, basically blaming the GHF or the IDF for the phantom death of the boy.

And I say phantom advisedly because as it turns out, after interviews with family members and weeks of detective work, the boy, whose actual name is Abud, was found living with his birth mother after he abruptly left his stepmother's home in July.

The child's identity was confirmed through biometrics.

He remained in possession of a shirt that he wore in Aguilar's original viral video.

In fact, here is tape of Abud alive and well, thank God.

Okay, so again, a pretty astonishing story, but

very often the lie makes its way all the way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

Joining us on the line to discuss all of this, a little bit earlier today, I spoke with Brent Scher, the editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, who, of course, was involved in breaking this story.

Brent, thanks so much for taking the time.

Really appreciate it.

Yeah, of course.

So, I mean, this is an amazing story.

How exactly did we go about tracking down this information about this kid who, again, was alleged to have been gunned down by the IDF, particularly by a person who was at one time working for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

That was a claim that found an airing on Tucker Carlson, among other outlets.

Yeah, I mean, the story goes back about a month now when Tony Aguilar, who is the former Gaza Humanitarian Fund contractor, told the story to a very leftist outlet of this story about meeting a boy named Amir.

And he told all these really vivid details of his his interaction with Amir.

You know, Amir kissed his hand and said thank you in English, just to then walk off, where he was then gunned down.

And those are exact words by Tony Aguilar: gunned down by the IDF.

Our reporter, Cassie Akiva, who of course is on returning to leave, but still ran down this story because she's an amazing reporter,

she noticed immediately and reported some big inconsistencies in the story.

And that's when this whole thing started to unravel.

It was the small details of what Tony Aguilar was saying that didn't really jive with facts on the ground or what was seen in other footage.

Now, after Aguilar initially told his story, the Gaza Humanitarian Fund went out to find this boy because they, like Cassie, didn't believe the story that Tony was telling.

And, you know, they went through all their networks in Gaza that they have built while putting on aid for for the last few months.

And finally, they found this boy.

He was not shot.

He, in fact, had ran away from his home to live with his birth mother, where he's been for the last month.

And I'll say a big thing here is the Gaza Humanitarian Fund was very concerned that this boy, who Tony Aguilar called Amir, but his real name is Abud,

they were really concerned that this story, which went viral in the United States, put Amir's life in major threat because his story became a propaganda tale for not only Hamas, but everybody else who wishes bad on Israel.

Because by saying that Israel committed this heinous crime, they got what is probably their biggest war or their most successful battle against Israel right now, which is in the PR world.

So they thought that Hamas would go through great lengths to keep the fact that Amir was alive hidden from the world.

But thankfully, due to their work and Kazi's reporting, now the world knows this whole thing has been a lie.

I mean, it's an amazing story, and it just demonstrates, again, the willingness to hear this out.

I mean, this is like a full episode of Tucker's show.

He appeared, I believe, with center Chris Van Holland, Tony Aguilar, to tell this story.

It turns out that that was a completely false story.

And again, the Daily Wire had reported last month that there was a review of body cam footage from an American security contractor who's literally standing next to Tony Aguilar that showed a different interaction than what Aguilar originally described.

It showed the boy walking up to the man wearing the body cam and kissing his hand and then turning to Aguilar and asking for help, convincing the crowd to let them take the food.

And Aguilar touches the boy's shoulders and chest.

And then Aguilar says, This little young man here, obviously pretty young.

He has food.

Go home, go home.

Okay, thank you.

And then the boy walks toward the crowd.

So we did actually reach out to Tony Aguilar for comment on this.

What did he have to say?

Yeah, so that's actually really interesting.

Aguilar, about a month ago, when we wrote this initial story, when we wrote this initial story on the inconsistencies, Aguilar got back to our reporter and he said actually that he never actually confirmed that Amir was dead, but he saw a boy laying there and assumed that he was dead.

After we challenged the facts,

in the past few weeks, his story has gotten only more vivid.

He's told podcasts lately that he watched Amir get shot in the leg, shot in the torso, and saw him dead on the floor.

Now, again, we now know that the boy is alive and well.

He has zero bullet wounds.

So, I mean, we can't get inside Tony Aguilar's head and know whether he's actually mistaken or whether he just spun this whole thing up.

But nothing that he's said before our initial report or since has been anywhere close to true or proven true.

Now, again, one of the things that's amazing here is that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation moved to protect this kid.

And that does raise the question as to why they would have to protect the kid, except that presumably Hamas would want to retcon this thing by actually killing the kid.

Hamas would want to get a hold of the child, kill the child, and then essentially say to the rest of the world that the story must originally have been true because the kid is dead.

I mean, that would be the logical reason to put this kid under protection.

Theoretically, if Hamas were interested in protecting the civilian population, he would have been perfectly safe being alive and well in the Gaza Strip.

Yeah, and I mean, GHF is taking an immense amount of care to make sure that this boy actually survives because, you know, that's what their goal is, to be a humanitarian force in Gaza, a place that hasn't seen successful aid in months, years,

largely because it's mainly been through the United Nations.

But the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has done so much to not only find this boy, but then make sure that they can keep him safe from Hamas.

Because as you said, Hamas does not want the world to know what we reported this morning, that the entire story of the Israelis just indiscriminately shooting children at an aid site is bogus.

There's no basis in fact.

Now, so far, we've reported the story.

Fox News has picked up on the story.

That's about it.

You have not seen legacy media reporting on the story in any real way, which, again, demonstrates that the lie can make its way all the way around the the world before the shoe gets it, the truth gets its shoes on.

In the morning, are you surprised at all that the legacy media have not picked up on the story?

Um, I'm not surprised that it hasn't happened immediately.

I really hope that they do their reporting and get in touch with the Guzz Humanitarian Foundation, read our work, and see that it is indisputably true that this boy, that MSNBC for one, did a whole report on their site, special report, video, interviews, everything with Tony Aguilar on how this boy is dead.

That story has to be corrected.

These podcasts, you mentioned Tucker Carlson.

He had him on to vividly tell the story of Amir and use it as a, you know, cautionary tale about what's really going on in Israel.

Tucker Carlson has to address this.

And you mentioned a sitting Democrat senator, Chris Van Hollen, had

Tony Aguilar in, taped a taped a whole interview with him with a senator.

I mean, he needs to come out and say that, yeah, everything that I broadcasted to my voters and the people was wrong.

Well, Brent Scher, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, credit to you.

Credit to our reporter, Cassia Kivo, who dug this up.

This is a long process and it's very well substantiated.

Go check out the report at dailywire.com right now.

Really appreciate it, Brent.

Thanks, Ben.

Well, meanwhile, speaking of stories that have made their way around the world over and over and over and over, you know, the story of supposed Israeli genocide, that is a lie.

It has been a lie since the beginning.

It is not a genocide.

It's a war.

Israel has been extraordinarily meticulous, actually, in its pursuit of the war.

But one of the things that has been retailed, another lie that's been retailed, is that the reason that Republicans and Americans overwhelmingly actually are pro-Israel is because of Israeli money or Jew money or APAC money.

And this sort of lie has been wildly trafficked, particularly in sort of the comedian bro world.

A lot of comedians have been saying this sort of stuff.

And, you know, it's very hard to sort of deal with these claims from comedians because, on the one hand, they will make a claim that is certainly not a joke, like an actual serious claim.

They are comedians, so they will then play a Mott and Bailey game where they make a claim that's factually untrue.

They're called on the factually untrue claim, and then they put the clown nose on and they say, oh, well, I'm just a comedian.

You can't expect me to get it right, which is really a silly way to do things.

If you want to make a joke about a thing, make a joke about a thing.

If you want to make a serious claim, make a serious claim.

I think we can tell the difference.

So, for example, Andrew Schultz, who's been very critical of us here at the Daily Wire, for a variety of reasons that I can't quite discern, actually, because they don't seem ideologically coherent.

Here he was fairly recently claiming that AIPAC is basically running our politics, which, of course, has become a very hot talking point on large parts of the left and, I will say, a horseshoe theory part of the right.

But the real decisions, like if we're going to send more aid to Ukraine, if we're going to send more aid to Israel, those decisions are already made because we continue to make them.

Despite Americans not wanting them, the same decision gets made, right?

Over and over again.

America does not support this shit that's going on here.

None of us do.

We're seeing the death and we're seeing the destruction.

We're like, what the f has happened?

Why do we keep supporting this?

Like, what is going on?

It seems to feel, at least at this point, that

through APAC

or maybe through other means, there's incredible influence on our politicians.

I mean, Ted Cruz is just tap dancing for Israel, left and right.

Okay, so again, the implication here is that Ted Cruz is pro-Israel because he's been supported in congressional races by APAC.

Not that APAC supports Ted Cruz because he's pro-Israel and was already pro-Israel, but Ted Cruz is bought and paid for by APAC Money.

And this is a very common claim that's sort of made in the manosphere or made in the podcast prosphere or the comedian sphere.

It was a claim that was also made by the comedian Tim Dillon fairly recently.

If someone said, I hate gay people, I'd say, okay,

but I don't, is that grounds for them to be deported?

Doesn't this feel like it's going to a bad place?

Does it feel good?

Does it feel good?

It feels a little bit like

we're doing this at the behest of billionaire Israeli donors.

No, yes, perhaps.

Okay, so again, the theory here is that all of America's politics is from the shadows being run by AIPAC or Israeli billionaire donors.

Not sure who he's talking about there, or Jewish philanthropists or whatever the case may be.

That's really why Americans are pro-Israel or why Trump is pro-Israel or why Ted Cruz is pro-Israel or all the rest.

The reason I point this out is because if you are going to claim that money passing hands makes you a shill for the thing from which you are receiving the money, then I'm wondering precisely why Andrew Schultz and Tim Dillon, among many, many, many others, are perfectly willing to go to Saudi Arabia for hundreds of thousands of dollars

and perform for a regime that is responsible for a war in Yemen.

By the way, Saudi losing the war with Yemen was actually quite a bad thing, or at least pulling out of areas that led the Houthis to be in charge.

So I'm actually not even critiquing the Saudi war with Yemen.

That was the Biden administration.

But if you're going to be a war is always terrible and the people who perpetuate the war is there,

the only reason you'd be pro that is because you're getting paid.

Let's just talk about Saudi Arabia and, you know, the people who are paying people like Andrew Schultz and Tim Dylan to arrive.

So I asked our sponsors over at Comet, how many people were killed in Saudi Arabia's war with Yemen?

Quote, Saudi Arabia's war with Yemen has resulted in an estimated 377,000 deaths as of 2021, with the majority caused by conflict-related famines, disease, and lack of health care.

Roughly 150,000 deaths are directly attributed to military operations, including airstrikes and battles, many of which were led by the Saudi coalition.

At least 15,000 civilians were killed by direct military action, especially airstrikes.

The answer is actually probably much, much, much larger, by the way.

If the logic is that Israel is bad because war is bad, then Saudi would be worse because war is bad.

But no,

I mean, I assume that Andrew Schultz, who considers himself a social liberal, and so does Tim Dillon, that they understand that same-sex activity is still criminal in Saudi Arabia and can be penalized by everything up to and including the death penalty, depending on the circumstances.

That in rare circumstances, amputation for theft is still a penalty on the books, although lashes has become more common over there.

That migrant workers are still routinely forced into a form of trafficking very much akin to slave labor.

That actually it took until 1962 to abolish chattel slavery in Saudi Arabia.

That there is no such thing as free speech in Saudi Arabia.

If you're wondering about free speech, like Saudi Arabia ain't famous for it.

But apparently, you're allowed to take hundreds of thousands of dollars dollars from the Saudi monarchy in order to what?

Perform comedy over there?

Any critical words?

Any?

Any critical words of the Saudi regime?

See, here's the thing.

I don't actually think that Saudi is buying and paying for Andrew Schultz or Tim Dillon.

I don't think they're going to change their views on Saudi Arabia because Saudi is paying the money to go perform a comedy show.

But if the claim that you make is that all of our politics is run by secret money, by nefarious forces,

then you should be kind of careful about the people stuffing money in your pockets, shouldn't you?

You know, full credit to Tim Dolan.

He at least says the quiet part out loud, seriously.

Get over it.

Get over it.

We're going to Riyadh.

The House of Saud is paying us hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of us millions, not me.

But they're paying millions of dollars to comedians.

Get over it.

We're taking the money.

How about that?

How about that sorry oh you weren't invited oh you got nothing going on

boo hoo who

boo hoo hoo for you

i would never do it you weren't offered no one invited you

There's people that I respect that turned it down, but a lot of people are doing it like a lot, like almost everyone.

A lot of people are doing it.

They bought comedy.

So what?

All right.

Well, if that's the way that this goes, then I guess that's the way that this goes.

And I guess that

bizarre moral high ground that you've been claiming,

maybe you should let that one go, perhaps.

Okay, meanwhile, there's a big hearing yesterday.

RFK Jr.

was testifying in front of Congress, and things got quite heated at this hearing.

before the Senate.

The Senate Finance Committee had a hearing with him, and both Republicans and Democrats were pretty upset with RFK Jr.

Some of the Democrats were upset with RFK Jr.

over his take on vaccines.

Some of the Republicans were also concerned about turmoil over at the CDC.

And there's no question there's a lot of turmoil over at the CDC right now.

And it's just a reality.

The staffing has been a problem at the CDC.

There are super qualified people who are working at HHS.

Marty McCary at FDA, wildly qualified.

Jay Bhattachari over at NIH, supremely qualified.

CDC has been a mess.

Obviously, a lot of controversy coming out of a department that usually is less about vaccine standardization and significantly more about how to run, for example, the Medicare and Medicaid systems, which are actually gigantic, gigantic hundreds of billions of dollars programs.

Well, the things got pretty spicy.

Bill Cassidy, the senator from Louisiana, who voted in favor of Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation,

he asked him about Operation Warp Speed and vaccination because RFK Jr.

has basically been making the claim that he doesn't know whether the vaccine was helpful in any way.

Now, here's what the available data says.

What the available data says is that the vaccine was wildly oversold at the beginning, which is certainly true.

That is certainly true that it was wildly oversold.

There were claims made about the vaccine preventing transmission.

That wasn't true.

Those were overtly false claims that were made by public officials in positions of responsibility without any actual research even being done on that question

by,

for example, Pfizer.

We talked about it on the show when that came out.

And then there were claims that kids needed to get it, which was never true, or that young people needed to get it, which also was not really true.

And so the new standard has been, if you're old or obese, then maybe we'll recommend the COVID vaccine for you.

But RFK Jr.

and some of his rhetoric seems to have gone further, suggesting that the vaccine is responsible for, for example, millions of deaths, that it killed more people.

than it saved.

And the evidence for that proposition is very scanty.

Well, Senator Bill Cassidy sort of trapped RFK Jr.

yesterday on this matter.

Here he was.

Mr.

Secretary, do you agree with me that

the President deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?

Absolutely, Senator.

Let me ask you.

But you just told Senator Bennett that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.

Wait, that was a statement.

I did not say that.

Okay, then let me ask because you also were later.

Senator, I just want to make clear.

I cannot say that.

We'll check the the record.

That's a question of fact.

You also said that you are also, as lead attorney for the children's health defense, you engaged in multiple lawsuits attempting to restrict access to the COVID vaccine.

Again, it surprises me that you think so highly of Operation Warp Speed when, as an attorney, you attempted to restrict access.

Okay, so again, awkward moment for RFK Jr.

RFK Jr.

was also asked about whether the vaccine had saved lives.

Here was his answer.

Would you accept the fact that a million Americans died from COVID?

I don't know how many died.

You're the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

You don't have any idea how many Americans died from COVID?

I don't think anybody knows that because

there was so much data chaos coming out of the CDC and there was lots of

risk incentives.

And these are models.

I know the answer of how many Americans die from COVID.

This is the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Do you think the vaccine did anything to prevent additional deaths?

Again,

I would like to see the data and talk about the data.

You have had this job for eight months, and you don't know the data about whether the vaccine.

The problem is that they didn't have the data.

The data by the Biden administration, absolutely dismal.

Okay, so let me just be clear.

Public officials should be held to very high levels of scrutiny.

They should across the board.

There should be serious questions asked of those public health officials.

The vice president of the United States fired back on all this defending RFK Jr.

by pointing out the fact that the left totally robbed America of its understanding of science and belief in science.

He defended RFK Jr.

by tweeting out, when I see all these senators trying to lecture and gotcha Bobby Kennedy today, all I can think is, you all support off-label, untested, irreversible hormonal therapies for children, mutilating our our kids and enriching big pharma.

You're full of bleep and everyone knows it.

And there's absolutely truth to what J.D.

Vance is saying there, Vice President.

That's absolutely true.

I've made that point myself.

However, when it comes to the standards we use in science, those should be defended.

We shouldn't be, especially in a data-driven area, just asking questions.

We should be actually seeking real answers.

with great specificity so we can get to the answers as to whether, for example, the vaccine schedule should be changed.

Forget about removing removing certain vaccines.

Should the schedule be changed?

Should we tranche it out differently like they do in Europe?

Like these are all, I think, absolutely open questions and interesting questions.

So I asked our sponsors over at Comet, Project of Perplexity, how does the European vaccination schedule differ from the American schedule for early childhood?

And what Comet says, the European early childhood vaccination schedule is generally more flexible, varies significantly between countries, and often includes fewer mandatory vaccines than the American schedule, which is more standardized, covers more diseases, and typically follows a set timetable nationwide.

In the United States, most vaccines are administered at 2, 4, 6, and 12 to 18 months.

Some vaccines, like Hep B start at birth, others, MMR, varicella, hepatitis A, begin at 12 months.

In Europe, some countries adopt slower schedules, spacing vaccines further apart or starting later to allow for immune system development.

So these are all open questions and definitely worthy of investigation.

But I think if the purpose of the question is not to elicit an answer, but it's just to seed suspicion, that is, in and of itself, a bit of a problem.

And I would prefer to see HHS being run in a more thoroughgoing way,

a way that actually reestablishes trust rather than posing questions that are unanswerable in the extreme.

Alrighty, coming up, we are going to get into a fascinating move by the Trump administration.

They're now looking at the possibility of using gender identity disorder as a condition barring people from purchasing weapons.

Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.

If you're not a member, become a member.

Use code Shapiro checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

Click that link in the description and join us.