Ep. 2491 - Ladies, Get Your Sh*t Together

Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record? You're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai slash wire. The midterm elections are heating up. Congressional control and President Trump's agenda hangs in the balance. Every headline has the potential to shift the odds. And in a key Senate race, James Tallarico is currently trading at 52% to beat Ken Paxton. That means a $100 trade pays out over $180 with a win. Use code DAILY, D-A-I-L-Y, to get up to $20 when you trade $20. Kalshi, K-A-L-S-H-I, Kalshi, trade on anything. 18 plus only restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contract trading involves risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Kalshi products are not available in all jurisdictions. Prices, values, and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see Kalshi.com slash regulatory. Well, over the past few years, I've done a lot of shows talking about men. What men need to fix, where men fall short, how men can step up. I haven't really turned that same sort of attention toward the ladies. Well, ladies today. is for you. Because it's time for an honest conversation. We have some things to discuss. It's time to get your shit together. This is The Ben Shapiro Show. We do have a packed show today. A young American girl boss turns into a pissed off Islamist terrorist and then gets arrested. Our national debt is coming home, Druze. And The Daily Wire uncovers an extraordinary story about an Islamic terrorist sympathizer allowed back onto an American college campus with deadly results. But first, let's get to the big story today. So, victimhood, of course, has now become a drug of choice for pretty much every subgroup in the American population. And women are not accepted. But here is the thing. Ladies in American society, overall, you are not victims. Not remotely. Not remotely. You earn more college degrees. You have longer life expectancies. When adjusted for hours worked and time out of the workforce, you earn more than the men do. So, when I see women standing outside the trial of a mentally ill woman who murdered her three young children, including a baby, protesting something, well, I need to ask some questions. I need to ask some questions. That's what we're seeing. Now, again, I've said before that the sense of victimhood that men have right now is, in my opinion, overstated. We have many decisions in our hands as men that we are pretending we do not have. But at least there's some empirical basis for the idea that American men are failing because they are earning fewer degrees. They are committing suicide at higher rates. They're dropping out of the world. They're losing their jobs. They're in the workforce at higher rates, earning less money. That's not true of American women. But yet, lots and lots of women are addicted to this idea that they are somehow victims of the phantom patriarchy or something. This is the only way I can explain what the hell is happening outside the Lindsay Clancy trial. I do not understand this for the life of me. What are you protesting? Lindsay Clancy, that story is a tragedy and a horror. So, if Lindsay Clancy was the victim, of anything, I mean, obviously, her kids were the true victims since they ended up strangled by their mother. But if Lindsay Clancy was the victim of anything, she was a victim of her mental illness. Well, typically, you don't have protests against mental illness. It's like having a protest against cancer or a protest against heart disease or a protest against sunshine or wind. These are things that happen in life and bad things happen in life. And very, very rarely do people get together outside of a courthouse to protest. Typically, when you're outside a courthouse protesting, you are. Suggesting someone has been wronged by the system. And that's what women were doing over the course of the last few days. What are you doing, ladies? What are you doing? Here is some video of Lindsay Clancy supporters thanking Clancy's defense attorney outside the Plymouth courthouse. For what? For doing his job? Clapping for him? What in the world? What are you? What? What? Again, the whole thing's a tragedy. Lindsay Clancy, like every other person in the United States charged with a crime deserves a defense. And I'm even sympathetic to the mental illness defense here, as I've made clear. But what in the what in the world? And then women were making heart hands outside the Clancy. What are you doing? What is the what is the thing that you are protesting for or against? What is the thing? Are you just angry at postpartum psychosis? Because that's what we're talking about here. But I don't think so. I think that there is an underlying message. And here again is some of the video. Throw hands for Lindsay and mental health. Listen, if you've got a mental problem, you should go get the care that you need. But what in the world? She murdered her three children. What in the what in the world? What in the world? I've seen all these tapes of women who are saying they're just like Lindsay. They're just like, OK, first of all, if you say you are just like Lindsay Clancy, you should immediately be put into involuntary commitment because Lindsay Clancy murdered her three kids and then tried to kill herself. So if you are just like she is and she was a danger to herself and others, then you are a danger to yourself and others. And you should be immediately removed from society and put in a place where you can get care. But again, here are some of the women explaining why they are there. What would be your message to the people that say she should be found guilty? What are these women even doing there? What are they doing? This reporter from Frontlines and TPSA asks the women there, what would you say to the opponents who basically say that you should get the death penalty? And they're like, we don't know because they don't know why they're there. I'll explain, by the way, why they're there in a second. And of course, here are more Clancy supporters saying that we all need to educate ourselves in postpartum. Again, what are you protesting for? What is the thing that you are protesting for or against? Does anyone have a message for Lindsay? We support you, Lindsay. We are all here for you and we hope for a change. What would be your message to the people that say she murdered her children? I think there's more to this story that people don't understand. If you watch the trial, you'll see that. And I think we all need to educate ourselves in postpartum. I certainly have been educating myself and my heart goes to her and I just hope for the very best for her. Okay. Again, what are you protesting? Okay. So let's start with the obvious because there is an underlying idea here that women are victims. That is why this has become a sort of a trend is the idea that women are in some sort of vague way victims of the justice system or the American system or the patriarchy or whatever. Like, I don't even know what these women are protesting. Again, are they just protesting mental illness? What are they protesting? The prosecution has a duty to prosecute if they believe that the fact pattern demonstrates that. Okay. So let's start with the obvious because there is an underlying idea here that women are victims of the justice system or the patriarchy or whatever. So let's start with the obvious. Ladies with the obvious. No women in all of human history, in all of human history have it better than American women in 2026. There's a woman named Peachy Keenan over on X and she put out a tweet that is correct. She says, why are so many women so angry? They won. They got everything they wanted. Men have never been doing this badly and women have never been doing this well. They make more. They have a majority of jobs. They have a majority of college graduates. They make more money, have much lower rates of suicide, addiction and alcoholism and live longer. They won. They took over all men only spaces. They took over the Boy Scouts. They ended men's bathrooms. They can fly fighter planes and be in combat. Marriage is optional. Divorce is no fault. They win 99% of the custody battles. They can control fertility at will and they can't get drafted. We are all living in the female future. They promised. That is not wrong. She is not wrong about this. All right, coming up, we'll get to why are women so angry? I know an internal question for the gentlemen in the audience. First, you know what should make you mad? Spending more than you need on a wireless plan because that's dumb. I need a phone. I need data. Tell me what it costs. You get a spreadsheet to make sense of all of that. There are tiers, bundles, upgrades, promotional credits. By the time somebody explains your free phone, you've forgotten what you walked into the store for originally. Again, it's become way too complicated. It should be super simple and Pure Talk keeps it simple for you. The service speaks for itself. In a recent industry survey, Pure Talk was the only wireless company to receive five stars in every single category, coverage, support, value and data. And for just a few more weeks, Pure Talk is offering unlimited data for just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. After that, get unlimited data for just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. After that, get unlimited data for just 15 bucks a month for as low as $34.99 a month. No contract. Go to puretalk.com slash Shapiro to make the switch. My favorite wireless company. Pure Talk. There is a better wireless choice out there at just $15 a month for your first three months. Now would be an excellent time to make the switch. Again, it's very, very easy. You can talk to them right now. Check them out at puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Get the answers to your questions, then get the best sell coverage at the best price. puretalk.com slash Shapiro. That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Okay, so let's examine why are women so angry? Here's the thing. It is not economic underperformance. It is certainly not the patriarchy. It is not lack of education or anything like that. Women's happiness has declined. It has declined markedly. According to a study from PubMed Central, the early general social survey shows, from like 1950s through the 70s, high levels of female overall happiness. From the 80s to the 2000s, female happiness declined in both absolute terms and relative to men across every major demographic group. From the 2010s to the present, the well-being trends have continued to trend downward, driven by rising reports of anxiety, stress, loneliness, and other mental health challenges compared to previous decades. Now, again, that is happening. This is supposedly the paradox, what they call the paradox of female unhappiness. This is happening despite the fact that today women earn nearly 60% of all bachelor's degrees in the United States, that 44% of women age 25 to 29 have a bachelor's compared to 35% of men, that women, when you adjust for time in the workforce and time taken out of the workforce on an hourly basis, earn nearly 60% of all bachelor's degrees in the United States. And as Matt Walsh has pointed out correctly, the legal system is highly biased in favor of women, particularly when it comes to divorce and custody. Matt said, I would say that if you're a man and your wife attended this event, you need to immediately fight to remove your children from her custody. She's a threat to them and to you. And I don't think that's a good idea. I don't say that lightly. The problem is that every court in the country will side with her, not you, because women actually have the exact sort of unfair institutional advantage that feminists say men possess. And he is not wrong about that. So here is the controversial contention today. The reason why so many women in American society are so angry and so much unhappier than they were in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s is because so many women are single. This does not mean all men are good. Whether all marriages are good or anything stupid like that, that is not what we are saying. But when you look at the actual data, what it shows is that married women are happier, much, much happier than single women. In fact, married moms are twice as likely to be very happy than single or childless women, according to data from the 2022 General Social Survey. Here are some statistics on female happiness by marital status and having children. This is for women aged 18 to 50. So if you are married, 25% of married women without children report being very happy. Another 59% say that they are at least pretty happy. A very low percentage, like 16%, say they are very unhappy or not too happy. Women with children who are married with children, almost 40% say that they are happy, like very happy. Another 48% say that they are pretty happy. When you add those together, that means that 88% of women who are married with children say they are either very happy or pretty happy. Now, check out the unmarried ladies. Unmarried ladies, unmarried, no kids, 21.5% say that they are very happy. Okay, so literally almost twice as unhappy. And when it comes to the percentage saying they are not happy, just not too happy, 25% say that they are not too happy. And when it comes to the percentage saying they are not too happy, if they're unmarried with no children. Again, when women get married and have kids, they get happier. They do. By the way, the unhappiest group of women by far are unmarried women with children. Makes sense. You don't have a partner, you don't have a spouse, somebody to help protect you and care for you and take care of the kids or any of that kind of stuff. Now, if you look at men's happiness, the same thing is actually true. It turns out that married men with children are in fact the happiest men. This is not a joke. It's not a giant shock. It turns out that marriage is good for both men and for women. The happiest men are married men with children. 35% say that they are very happy. Again, not even as happy as the women. The women are happier. 49% say that they are pretty happy. And about 16% say that they are not too happy. Unmarried men with no children, only 13.8%, like 14% say that they are very happy. Another 64% say that they are not too happy. Another 64% say that they are kind of okay. But 22% say they are very unhappy. Or at least not too happy. So, marriage makes people happier. And marriage with children makes people significantly happier. And that is true for women and it is true for men. And women's happiness outpaces marriage. I mean, women's happiness outpaces men's happiness in terms of the trajectory and final outcome when they get married and have kids. And you know, we have an entire society built around the idea that marriage is an imposition on women and that women are suffering because of marriage. They lie. Now, why is this? Why do women get happier when they get married and then when they have kids? Why? Well, that is because men and women are different. I know. Controversial things being said today here on the Ben Shapiro Show. Men and women are different. The single most fundamental fact of human biology, women, men, not the same. Because among many other differences, men and women are driven differently. Our brains don't work quite the same way. Women are driven by compassion. This is, in fact, the driving evolutionary force in female biology. Why? Because women need to be compassionate toward children to keep the species functioning. They need to be there to care and feed and take care of children. This also means, unsurprisingly, a byproduct of that is that women are far more social than men in the deep sense. So men have kind of a loose aggregation of friends. Women have deep friendships with people. And by the polling data, women are far, far more likely to turn to family and friends for support than men are, which makes sense. Pew Research did it. A poll a couple of years ago, what it found is that men and women are equally likely to turn to their spouse for support. When it came to friendship, it turns out that 54% of women are extremely or very likely to turn to a friend for support. Only 38% of men are likely to turn to a friend for support. Other family members, women, 44% will turn to another family member. 26% of men will turn to another family member. So again, women are people-oriented. Men are things-oriented. This is why men also end up in engineering very often, because men like machines. They like things. Women like people. This is why women are overstaffed in places like nursing, and men are overstaffed in places like mechanics. It's also why if you leave a man alone for the weekend away from his wife and kids, the most likely outcome is that he will pop open a beer and watch football. And if you leave a woman alone for the weekend away from her husband and kids, she's probably going to phone one of her friends and go out for lunch or something. Now, if you take that in the toxic, direction, right, where men don't get married, men have aggressive antisocial instincts. And when you channel those aggressive instincts away from family, men are wildly destructive. If you think of the worst men you know, the worst men you know or have heard of, it is people who abandon all responsibility and then victimize everybody else. This is why the jails are filled with bad men. Men who are left to their own devices, who are not socialized, become nihilistic and gross, and they harm other people. The female compassion instinct, channeled away from family, however, results in unchanneled compassion. And that can mean sympathy for some pretty bad people. It also means a deep desire for control, because when you're dealing with people, you tend to want to control them out of compassion for them. And the worst women that you know tend to be people who are extremely, extremely controlling, which is probably why women are now more likely than men to endorse political violence. And coming up, it turns out that women are now more likely than men to justify a violence, which kind of gives a lie to that, if women rule the world, everything would be peaceful thing. But you know what else is a lie? That you do not need to prepare for your financial future when things get bad. You do. Okay, there's one event that is going to happen to everyone, and it's death. And you need to make sure that your family is taken care of. An estate plan lets you decide who will care for your kids, how your assets get distributed, what your healthcare wishes are. Those are decisions you should make, not decisions your family should have to guess during an already difficult time. Trust and will offers, an affordable attorney-designed estate plans online you can create in as little as 30 minutes. Their easy-to-use platform guides you through the process with plans tailored to your needs and the laws of your state. You can add attorney support, securely share access with trusted contacts, and update your plan as your life changes. Trust and will uses bank-level encryption to protect your information and has earned thousands of five-star views on Trustpilot. Trust and will, affordable estate plans, priceless peace of mind. Go to trustandwill.com slash Shapiro, get 20% off. That's trustandwill.com slash Shapiro, get 20% off, trustandwill.com slash Shapiro. This is not something you want to not do because, you know, it could always be too late. Just do it now. Get it off your plate. Trustandwill.com slash Shapiro for 20% off. According to a new study from National Contagion Research Institute, women are significantly more likely than men to endorse political violence. Female respondents were approximately 21% more likely than males to express some justification for murdering Zoran Mamdani, for example, and nearly 15% more likely to justify murdering President Trump than male respondents. And what exactly were these strong strongest predictors of tolerance for violence, heavy social media use. We'll get to that in a moment. Now, Rob Henderson has written about this in the Wall Street Journal. And he says, a newly published survey paper led by Samuel Pratt at UCLA built what they like to call the words can harm scale, a survey asking people how much they agree with statements like I could be left emotionally scarred by something I read. Who holds this view? People higher in the belief that words can harm tended to be younger, female, nonwhite and politically liberal. They rated themselves as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and the belief in the importance of silencing others at the same time. They exhibit lower emotional stability and a greater tendency to see themselves as victims of everyday conflicts. And they report higher levels of anxiety and depression. Again, when you remove women's compassion, which is a natural thing and a wonderful thing, an amazing thing. I'm watching my wife do it right now with a very, very annoying small child. OK, babies, very difficult, really, really rough. They're like five weeks into baby number five here. He cries a lot. Yes, he's. Yes, he's beautiful. Yes, he's a gift from God. And also, my wife is getting no sleep and he's difficult. That's the reality. But because my wife is a creature made by God to do compassion, she's unbelievable with him. Right. That is normal when you take that instinct and you channel it in the wrong direction because women care deeply about people and what people say to them and what they say to people and all the rest of that sort of stuff. They tend to think, for example, that words can hurt. Men don't think that as much because men, again, things, women, people, there are differences between men and women. This also means that women are. They're particularly susceptible to social contagion. Females are really, really, really susceptible to social contagion. They burn through female populations like wildfire. Why? Because women want social connection. And when they can't find a social connection, if they go online and they find fake social connection, that's a pretty good substitute, because as all husbands know, women want to be heard. This is the thing that women want more than anything else. They want to be heard. They want to be listened to. They want to be treated with compassion. I've told I've said this before, but it's true. Is a great. I learned early on in marriage. My wife would come to me with a problem and I, being a man, would want to solve that problem because I am a man. When I hear about a problem, I would like to solve the problem and never think about it ever again. I had to be informed by my wife before I got the message a few times, because like all men, I am thick headed. That what she did not want me to do was provide her a binder of solutions. She wanted me to hear what she was feeling. And that's what women typically want. Well, that also means that they are very, very, very vulnerable to social contagion. And social media exacerbates that in extraordinary ways. Here's psychologist Jonathan Haidt explaining this. When all the kids get a supercomputer in their pockets and they get the whole internet in their pockets, the boys rush over to video games, especially, and they can form teams. They can compete. It's really fun. The girls are really interested in what other girls are doing, what other girls are saying, what other people are saying, scandals, dating, breakups, all that sort of stuff. Social media gives you up to the second. Like, you don't have to wait for, you know, Seventeen magazine to come out every week. Like, up to the second, what's happening? So girls get drawn in, but it's an unending stream of social comparison, gossip, criticism, conflicts. That's just a really bad way to grow up, as opposed to hanging out with a couple of close friends and talking and bonding and having a small tribe. So this, by the way, is why social contagions have predominantly targeted young women. OK, trans is a beautiful example of this statistic. Just as a statistical example, gender dysphoria was almost entirely located among young males in its early iteration, and then it skyrocketed among young females. Why? Well, because people online started talking to each other and girls in groups started saying, well, if you're trans, maybe I'm trans. Wildly contagious because girls mirror what other people are saying. Again, gentlemen, this explains why your wife takes so long to get dressed for the club when she already looks good. OK, because she's not dressing for you. She's dressing to impress the other ladies. And that's just again, women are much more social creatures than men, just the way that it works. OK, so what does that mean for protests? Well, it means two different types of protests. Again, not all protests are created the same. When men gather to protest, it's usually for one reason. Either they really, really, really believe in the cause or it's time to riot and loot and grab a TV. Those are the reasons that men show up to protest. Why do women show up to protest? Because it is a playdate. It is a gigantic way to hang out with other people in a situation of social confirmation. And so polarized men will turn toward destructive societal movements and polarized women will turn toward ways that they can demonstrate compassion through things like protests with regard to Lindsay Clancy isn't even oriented around a thing. But here's the thing. Men and women moderate one another. That's the beautiful thing about marriage. And here's the other thing. If we teach women that men are bad and marriage is bad and the patriarchy is bad and their problems in life are. All about men and marriage and the patriarchy. Then what do we get? Unmarried women who don't like men and blame them for their unhappiness. And indeed, that's precisely what we are now getting. A study published by the New Statesman found is a survey of young British women. And young British men, young British men under 30. Do you have a positive or negative view of women? Positive 72 percent, 21 percent neutral, 7 percent negative women under 25 toward men. Do you have a positive or negative view of men? Women under 25, 35 percent positive, 27 percent negative, 37 percent neutral. How do you have a functioning society when about one third of women have a positive view of the people who they need to marry as a group? And so when you take all of this and then you add to it the wildfire of social contagion, what you get is people who believe they are being abused. They're being hurt online. Are you wondering why you're seeing all these weird clips of women online chucking ice at bathtubs or smacking doors with pillows or whatever? It's because they have been told that if you go to the online world, you will have a bunch of people who are hearing you, who are hearing you. And so this is why you get tapes of a lady throwing ice at a bathtub doing her mom rage routine. Why? Because what she wants is the clicks. The clicks are a form of compassion in her viewpoint. She's throwing ice at a bathtub on camera, on TikTok. Okay. I have never thrown ice into a bathtub. Because it allows me to feel angry without being destructive. I mean, I hope she cleans it up after. That's going to make a mess. Yeah, exactly. And then it's not enough. Got to throw more ice. I mean, I hope the ice machine works. Yeah, she set her phone up so she could do this. She brought special ice this time. Wow, she brought like a sheet of ice so she could really enjoy herself. But then she just dropped it. She didn't actually like. This is some serious girl bossing. Now, again, wow, the aftermath is ice. Cool. The aftermath is ice. The aftermath is the ice is broken. Okay. So here's the thing about this. Okay. Like I get annoyed with my kids too because I'm a parent. I have many children. My wife gets annoyed with our kids. It happens. And why are you taping it and putting online? Because you're looking for compassion in all the wrong places. And again, social contagions cross marital lines. So they can even affect married women. If you're being told over and over and over, your husband is terrible. Society is ignoring you. Compassion is to be found online. This is how you get drawn into this sort of crap. So what is this? The solution to all of this widespread marriage, not just you getting married, widespread marriage. This is why marriage is awesome. It's great. And you should do it. It's great because it makes men better and it makes women better. I know it's unbelievable that saying like absolutely basic things that civilizations have known for legitimately all of human history is now being treated as some sort of sexist trope, but all social science data backs this all of it, not some all marriage is great. It turns female compassion toward the immediate husband, children, family, because when you extend compassion and empathy to people far, far away, and then construct entire systems around that, you generally end up with tyranny. And what does it do to male aggressiveness? Well, instead of men tearing things down, it turns it toward defense of women and children. That's the bargain. It's the whole thing. It gives women a structure for their compassion and it gives men a structure for their aggression. Remove those structures and society. Completely collapses. You want to know why young men seem to be turning kind of fascist. And young women are turning commie. That would be your explanation. When young men are freed of social bonds, they become predators. And then they follow alpha predators into battle, particularly if he promises spoils and that they can do whatever they want. And when young women are freed of social bonds, they seek control via the community. And that's where we are. And it's going to get worse from here, a gang, because it turns out ain't nobody getting married. All right, coming up, we'll get to the actual solution to this gigantic problem. But I have another solution for you. OK, you run a business and you need to hire somebody good for your business. Where do you go for that? Well, you go to zip recruiter. So every so often you go to a store, you ask an employee where to find something. Instead of pointing toward aisle 12 and disappearing, they actually walk you over and help you find it. It's a small thing, but you remember it because they went one step beyond what was required. Well, you need that kind of initiative in your business. You need people who recognize what needs to be done. And then they take the action without having to be chased down and kind of forced to do it. That same instinct matters when you're hiring. The best. candidates don't simply submit a resume and wait, they make an effort to show you you why they want the job and why they might be the right fit. With ZipRecruiter, candidates can tell you in their own words why they're interested in your position, helping them stand out from the rest. And ZipRecruiter's new feature shows you the most interested, qualified candidates first, so you can spend less time sorting through applications and meet the right people faster. Their powerful matching technology quickly identifies qualified candidates. That's one reason ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site based on G2. Save time, meet great candidates sooner with ZipRecruiter. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day. Try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire. That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire. Meet your match on ZipRecruiter. In 2000, there were about 21 million unmarried men in the United States and about 18 million married men aged 20 to 39. Today, 30 million unmarried young men, 20 to 39, 15 million married men aged 20 to 30. Again, 39 is old, okay? 39 by marital status, that's old. Okay, I'm 42. I'm 42 and I've currently been married for 18 years and I have five children. The interminable delaying of growing up is destroying our society. We've made our society totally crazy. We took the single most important fact of human life that men and women are different and that we created an entire institution that's awesome in order to make them better and we obliterated it in the name of a supposed equality in all things that simply does not exist and then the consequences. So here is the solution. Young men, man up. Make yourself the best version of yourself. Go to church. Find a girl. Ask her out and then marry her and have kids with her. Young women, woman up. Go to church. Attract a man. Marry that man. Get married. Settle down. Have kids. You will be happier and you won't be a psycho. But here's what else you have to do and this is really important. Place yourself in a community with lots of other married people. Because it turns out human action is socially contagious. This is always true. People who live near other married people tend to get married. People who live near other married people who don't get divorced tend not to get divorced. Parents who move into communities with more kids have more kids. It's not enough to be the one married couple in an anti-marriage society with no fault divorce and an entire informational ecosystem designed to destroy your family. We do need to embrace marriage as a society again. And if we don't do that, what you're going to get is all of these pathologies that you're seeing each and every day. Okay, I do have to comment on one additional dumb take. Naturally, Candace Owens had her own form of stupid take care. So we've discussed some of the dumb takes here. This apparently, according to Candace Owens, it is the it is big pharma that is to blame for Lindsay Clancy. It's not that she was mentally ill. Postpartum psychosis, according to Candace, doesn't exist. It's just the drugs. Here is here's Candace Owens. I made my thoughts clear on this. The moment that she was arrested, the moment that it made the news. Lindsay Clancy is obviously not guilty. There are a fleet of doctors who should be imprisoned for what they put her on. I regularly speak out against big pharma. They get away with murder all the time. And in this case, they are getting away with the murder of really her three children, but also completely destroyed her life. When Lindsay Clancy, in my opinion, is not guilty. She was put into a an intentional psychosis when she probably just needed to give her kids away for a weekend to get better. But they can't. Give you these drugs that do not make things better. And the cocktail of 10 pharmaceuticals that she was on is absolute madness. Intentionally. So there's a conspiracy to get her to kill her kids or to make her mentally ill in order to sell various drugs to people. This is a stupid take. It's a stupid take. Postpartum psychosis is real. Now, again, medications interact with one another. And as I've said, I said this earlier this week, medical industry does not know that much about psychiatry. Psychiatry is a great mystery box. The human brain remains a mystery. We don't know what works all the time. It's basically you're sampling berries to try to determine which one will heal and which one will harm. And when it comes to mental illness, you have symptoms that appear as a result of going up on medication or going down on medication or interactions between medication, which is why psychiatry is extremely difficult. Prescription of psychiatry is extremely, extremely difficult. But the idea that big pharma is like invested in making people nuts is not true. It is not true. It doesn't mean that we have great care. Life is complicated. This idea that it's all a conspiracy, that big pharma just wants to make you paranoid, schizophrenic or wants to make Lindsay Clancy delusional enough to kill her children just for their profit margin. Like that's not how this works. That's not how this works. People show up with symptoms. They don't know what to do about them. It's disastrous. It's horrifying for her family. She was trying to intern herself at a facility because of that. Denying the realities of life in order to find somebody to blame. Sometimes, sometimes, I know this is difficult. There's not a clear path of blame. Sometimes there's not. Postpartum psychosis is a real thing. Sometimes it requires real medication. Sometimes those medications come with other effects that then require a second medication. Psychiatry is extremely complicated. By the way, we know this when it comes to physical health, right? You probably have a parent or a grandparent who has one of those pillboxes and is taking seven combinations of medicines every day. There's kind of this bizarre anti medical industry routine where it's like, well, you know, you don't need any medicine. Well, no, actually, sometimes you do. Sometimes you do. Doesn't mean they got it right in this case. They clearly didn't. But the notion that somehow this can be laid at the feet of over medication via big pharma, that is it. That is a very, very difficult case. There are certainly cases of over medication, right? The opioid epidemic would be an obvious one. The over prescription of Adderall for ADHD would be another one. Like there are clear times when this happens. This is not one of those times. This is just an incredibly difficult situation for everybody involved with it. Perhaps there was bad prescription, but the notion that it was purposeful, the word there is intentional, that it was intentionally done and that actually she was totally fine. She just needed a weekend off. That is so ignorant of what postpartum psychosis is. It's, I would say it's nuts without any, uh, without any sort of pun intended. All right. Now, speaking of toxic femininity. So it turns out that when you have toxic females, sometimes they can even turn terrorists. According to the New York post, Jessica Bowie, 35 from Albany allegedly began strategizing an attack in July to bomb the state capital of New York. Her goal was to place a bomb in a door dash food delivery bag. She purchased bomb materials from a home Depot on August 5th and planned the attack with the help of FBI informants for two weeks. According to the feds, she sent one of the informants pictures of downtown Albany with the capital circled indicating that was the building she wanted to target. She said that she wanted to do it on a day when quote, we know senators will be meeting. I want them to lose a lot of important documents as well. And quote, I want it to have a fact on the American system and destroy some of the tagut that is anything worshiped instead of Allah. In a message, she said she wanted to target my state capital. I deal in a way I could get away with and hop on a plane to ISIS controlled territory in Syria afterward. So the DOJ has now charged her with attempting to provide material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. So what the hell happened here? Well, here is a Jessica Bowie in 2014. Is this like a radical ISIS terrorist to you? Or does this look like a radical blue hair? Right? She's got the septum ring. She's got the whole thing going on. All right. She looks like a normal goth, chick who's overweight at a local university. That's what she looks like. And then she ended up in the arms of radical Islam. There is tape of her purchasing nails at the hardware store. You can see her there, dressed up in like the full regalia. And she's got like the full burqa on. Again, like the fact that people are dressing that way in America, I tend to be pretty loose about what I think people should wear in America. It seems to me that there is not a really great argument. I don't think there is a really great argument. I don't think there is a really great argument that people in America should be wearing around full beekeeper outfits. It's hard for me to imagine there is no compulsion whatsoever in the ideology of women wearing full on Doc Brown radioactivity uniforms to the Home Depot. In any case, she converted to Islam five years ago. She began by going by the Islamic honorific name of Aisha Saif. She's a frequent social media user who created 12 plus profiles on different platforms to espouse anti-American messages. On May 8th, she said, when I can migrate to ISIS held territory, I will poison these infidels. On May 28th, she posted praise be to Allah for September 11th. So I guess she's a Hatton Piker fan. She also discussed her belief that jihad is an obligation until the day of judgment to establish God's laws and enjoin good and forbid evil and fight until there is no fitna that is temptation. And then she recorded herself reciting a pledge of allegiance to ISIS, according to the FBI. And she wanted to encourage others to take the bayah, that's the oath to ISIS. She said she wanted to send authentic information to Muslims in my community to try to guide them to pure taweed, that is ISIS's definition of Islam, speak about jihad as openly as I can without getting arrested, and encourage secular Muslims online to join the Islamic state and send them authentic materials. She had also picked up some anarchist literature at the Social Justice Center, which she thought might have some good tips, inshallah. So she seems like a full-scale delight, by the way. They have the entire timeline in the in the complaint. She was arrested and she said, there's no helping me. You guys know enough. There's no helping me. I'm going to prison for the rest of my life. She told an informant she went from a little girl waving an American flag after 9-11 to now having stickers of the falling towers. Again, much of what she says has become commonplace, except for the actual terrorist act. And Democrats are running with a guy who says the same exact things about 9-11. I know Hassan Piker says, well, he walked it back. I'm not sure how you walk back exactly. America deserved 9-11. What changed in his ideology about America deserving 9-11? And when you walk something back, you should be you should be able to explain why you walked it back other than just political convenience. Here's Hassan Piker saying stuff that presumably this this would be terrorist agrees with. This is so insane. America deserved 9-11, dude. I'm saying it. I mean, like a couple of weeks ago, he literally put up the newspaper. Of 9-11 on his wall in his office. Now, Kathy Hochul, because she wishes to draw from this crowd for her political movement. She put out a statement that literally does not mention ISIS or radical Islam or terrorism at all. She said today the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI announced the arrest of an individual who allegedly plotted an attack on the New York State Capitol. Well, I mean, who could it have been? Maybe it was an animal rights protester. Who knows? Zoran Mamdani put out his own tweet in which he acknowledged that there was an ISIS. ISIS inspired plot. But that was pretty much it right now. If this had been a white supremacist inspired plot, you would have gotten seven paragraphs about American white supremacy. But if it was an ISIS inspired plot, then that's pretty much all you got to say. There is no place for terrorism or political violence in our city, our state or anywhere in our country. And one of the things that really annoys me about politics is when you draw a message that is so broad as to be totally meaningless. There is no place in our politics for bad things. I mean, here we're kind of talking about radical Islam. Relationship of Islam to the West. That's kind of the big issue. So you say, well, you know what? I oppose. I oppose all bad things. Bad things are bad. Great job. OK, so. The defense against even discussing these issues. Is Islamophobia, right? We're not supposed to. We're not supposed to talk about Islam in the United States and radical Muslims trying to commit terrorism or recruitment of people like. This woman, because that might be Islamophobic. So let's start. With some definitions for a second. It is not Islamophobic or anti-Semitic or Christ phobic to disagree with somebody's religion. That's called free speech. Anyone who believes in their religion thinks their religion is the best. That is definitional. The only relevant question is how do your religions values as practiced by humans interact with the values that we hold dear here in the West? So that required that discussion requires us to actually name some categories of various Muslims. We're going to talk about Islamophobia. So. Category one. Muslims are not committing terrorism globally. And that's pretty much everybody. It turns out because there are two billion Muslims on planet Earth and a very small percentage are actually committing terrorism. And according to Pew Research, you can see the data here. The percentage of Muslims in various countries who say that suicide bombing in defense of Islam is justified. I mean, there are some places like, say, the Palestinian territories where the answer is 40 percent, which is kind of wild. So can you say that that is? A terror supporting population? Broadly speaking, I mean, you probably can. Egypt is 29 percent. Afghanistan is 39 percent. When you get to the West, the numbers are pretty low. That's category one. People who overtly support terrorism. Then there are Muslims who don't believe in principles that are at odds with those Western civilization. Right. For whom there is no conflict at all. That is a limited number. Globally speaking, pretty limited. And here is some Pew Research showing. What Muslims across the world believe about making Islamic law the official law in their country, which, again, would be kind of anti-Western. Malaysia, 86 percent. Indonesia, 72 percent. Pakistan, 84 percent. Iraq, 91 percent. Niger, 86 percent. Palestinian territories, 89 percent. Egypt, 74 percent. And again, we're talking about global Islam here. And then there's category three. Muslims who are trying to outspokenly fight the more fundamentalist conceptions of Islam and make Islam more compatible with Western civilization. Here you are talking about a vanishingly small number of people. So, again, here's the thing. Just because most Muslims aren't committing terrorism, which, of course, is true, does not mean that Islam as a broad religious ideology is highly compatible with Western civilized values as currently practiced. Now, again, that can change over time. The practice of religion by practitioners of any religion can change radically over time. I mean, one wouldn't be a fool not to acknowledge that, for example, the practice of Christianity in its interaction with the state has changed pretty massively since, say, the year 1300. That is not true for Islam. It is not. Islam, as currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims globally, would not be considered moderate by most members of the West. And it's hard to say that Islam, as currently practiced across the globe, is generally a moderating influence. Wherever Islam grows in a society, liberty tends to backslide. This is as true in Turkey as it is in the UK. When Turkey was more secularist, liberty was better in Turkey. And now it's more Islamist and it's gotten worse. There are at least 50 Muslim-majority countries on planet Earth. Precisely zero are liberal democracies. Zero count them zero. By contrast, over 90% of all liberal, meaning individual rights guaranteed by government, democracies are countries with a Christian majority. The world's only Jewish state is a liberal democracy. Separation of church and state is a uniquely Western and Judeo-Christian phenomenon. It does not exist in Islam as practiced in Muslim-majority countries. To call those facts Islamophobic is to just pretend that facts don't exist. And that, of course, is kind of the point. So what happens when you mix political Islam with political leftism? That's where you end up with Jesse Bowie. So Raihan Salam, over at Manhattan Institute, he was raised Muslim. He writes in the journal Sapir, quote, Anti-imperialist resistance movement says inherently righteous and insisting real violence is always structural, always Western and always Zionist. Third worldism provides the moral vocabulary according to which attacks become, for some, not atrocities, but acts of liberation. And again, that's what happened here with Bowie. That is what happened with Jesse Bowie. She went from far leftist to radical Islam because that line wasn't that thick, actually. Because she had a third worldist ideology about America, presumably, and it shifted right over into the religious ideology. The religious ideology of Islam and a particularly radical form of it. But the West is going to leave itself wide open to this sort of stuff. They are. We here in the West are going to leave ourselves wide open to this because we refuse to acknowledge the threat. We treat people like Mahmoud Khalil, imported to the United States to protest against the West and say that the West is responsible for all problems all over the world. We're going to pretend that guy's a victim of the West when we say get the hell out. Entire article in The New Yorker comparing his son, his six-month-old. Old son to infant Jesus. If the Flemish had been more realistic about a Nazarene's complexion. How far will the Trump administration go to deport Mahmoud Khalil? I mean. I would hope pretty far since he doesn't support Western civilization. Now, when you are a civilization that refuses to acknowledge the threat, you end up with actual terrorist attacks at scale, at greater scale. Joining us online to discuss is Sarah Adams. Sarah was a targeting officer for the CIA, which is about as cool as it sounds. Her job was to disrupt terrorist attacks. By identifying the people and organizations that pose a threat to the United States. So she was on the ground in the Middle East and she'll lead the investigation into the deadly terror attack on our diplomats in Benghazi, Libya. She wrote a book about it. And now she's warning in a piece for the Daily Wire that we have people who are walking around on our campuses. The campuses don't even know about who have like actual terrorist beliefs and backgrounds here. Thanks so much for the time. Really appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks for having me. So Sarah, first of all, why don't you explain what it is that you did for the CIA? And how that's trained you to do kind of the investigations you've been doing now. Yeah, I was simply what was called a targeter. It was a profession that came out of 9-11, right? We had analysts, we had case officers. We kind of had no one in the middle who could really get the ops moving forward. And so we found and located terrorists as our main job. And so that's what I did for about a decade at the CIA. So when you look at there's a case that you've been following and you wrote about it for Daily Wire, which is totally insane. It's about a person named Mohammed Baylor Jawa, who went to prison for working with ISIS. But there's some back story here that is truly crazy, truly, truly crazy. I didn't give the back story here. The campus knew nothing about this guy's back story. Yeah. So the crazy thing is he went to jail in 2016, not just for supporting ISIS. He wanted to plan an attack against the US military. Right. So this isn't just like some financing or something. So he gets out early. Which is already another issue. He was supposed to serve 11 years. And right before getting out, he actually reapplied to Old Dominion. He'd been there previously. He got accepted. A month later, he joins. And yeah, they didn't receive anything from the FBI. And he was also on like a supervised release. Right. The Bureau of Prisons didn't give anything to ODU saying, hey, you know, he was a member of ISIS. So, yeah, the campus had no clue that they had a member of ISIS on the campus. and this ended in tragedy because in March, 2026, he actually entered a classroom for the ROTC program and opened fire and he killed Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shaw and wounded another couple of cadets. Now, this is totally insane. Obviously, the fact that this person was ever out in the first place is crazy. Why? What are the systems that are failing here? Is it just an informational system and or is this really just a blind spot for the American governmental system that they treat allegiance to ISIS or or devotion to the most radical forms of Islam as just another thing that you kind of get over and then we let you out of prison and now you're a normie? Oh, there's so many things on path here. So one is just how the state of Virginia works. You don't actually do any sort of background check when someone's in the admission process. So once you get admitted to school, then you get a voluntary form. You fill it out and say if you were involved in any sort of criminal activity, readmitted student. Students at the time, though, didn't get that. So he never got the form. But it's voluntary. You don't have to fill out anyway. Then we have no sort of reporting system in this country where it's mandatory to say someone's a terrorist, you know, like we have with the, you know, sex offenders registry that doesn't exist for terrorism, which is crazy. So there is no one that has to tell you. Now, of course, the person who was monitoring him had the ability to inform like employers. And the school and those type of things that he was a member of ISIS and they did not do that. As you can imagine, people who haven't really been overseas and fought against these terrorists, at the end of your question, you brought this up. They really do think a terrorist can reintegrate back into society. And that just usually never happens. And unfortunately, we have a long road ahead. There's a lot of terrorists that are going to be released and have been released on U.S. soil. So I'm getting into that a little bit for a second, because, what you're constantly hearing is that when you discuss problems like this, you're Islamophobic. This is the term that gets thrown around a lot. It's been thrown around, obviously, by the mayor of New York. You get this from Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. So how should Americans feel? I know there's a broad question. How should Americans feel about Islam more broadly? Because, you know, a lot of questions have been asked about whether if you are concerned about Islam as a broad religious ideology, this makes you Islamophobic, whether we should be talking about things in terms of radical Islam versus Islam or Islam versus reform Islam. Where do you come down on this question, having spent a lot of time in the Middle East? Well, you know, I'm anti-terrorist. And so, of course, I care about terrorists, Islamists, right? Because that's kind of can be a little more of the political side of it, too. At the end of the day, there are individuals and entities who want to cause us harm. Is it harm in our checkbooks? Is it harm, you know, on a school campus? That doesn't really matter to me, right? We have to fight them as kind of this unified front. And we don't really do a good job of that. And it's because people are afraid to be called Islamophobic. Well, I obviously, as you know, run investigations in four different countries. My entire team, you know, is Muslim, right? These people in their own countries have to fight these terrorists because these terrorists want to also destroy their way of life, right? They aren't moderates in any way. They are really extreme. I mean, the Taliban being the greatest example, and they want to build this concept of the caliphate and do all these type of things. And if you just say, oh, well, that that's cute, you downplay it. They're working on this every day, right? They are taking this serious. And I think we need to as well. Yes, well, this does have obvious implications for things like immigration policy, because, you know, one of the things that people like to say is, well, why can't we just vet people coming into the country? And it really is not as simple as that. How the hell do you vet hundreds of thousands of people coming from systems where they don't have shared intelligence with you, where they're probably not keeping track of this, and where the broad feelings about the West are, shall we say, not pleasant? The reality is that even in the countries that we consider allies, the broad population of those countries is not particularly pro-America, pro-West. If you go to Saudi Arabia, the regime may be pro-America, generally oriented toward America. That doesn't mean the population of Saudi Arabia. If you just imported a couple of million Saudis into the United States, that population would be free of risk. Yeah, and you have to remember, let's just talk terrorists aside. When they're moving around, they're changing their identity documents. So I know a Saudi, for example, okay? He went to North Africa. He was in the Somalia area. He's now come to the United States. He threw his passport away there, kind of like people do at our southern border. So he is in the United States, right? He's a Saudi. Who knows what nationalities he's living under? Who knows what name he's living under? So think about that. It's not just vetting also known individuals. We're now vetting people. We don't even have the correct information on them. So we have all these people who came over the border. We have 70,000 Afghans who didn't work for the U.S. government. There's fraudulent documents all over the place. Like you said, there's countries that aren't going to do vetting for us. Can you imagine going after the Syrian government to give us a background check on an Al-Qaeda terrorist? So it's a very frustrating thing, but I don't think a lot of people understand this because when you say, let's not take anyone in from a certain country, then, oh, you're Islamophobic again, right? Like the whole Muslim ban controversy years ago. And that's not the case. Like you said, they don't want to do it. They don't want to do it. They don't share useful information for us to vet anybody. Now, Sarah, how big a problem is it networks inside the United States that are fostering this sort of radicalism? I mean, there's tape that comes out pretty much every day from groups like Memory that is looking at public broadcasts, actually, like things that are on tape and are available, a broadcast from American mosques in places like Dearborn, where they're spouting exactly the same kind of radicalism that you would hear from ISIS. I mean, there's legitimately no ideological difference. How big are these networks in the United States? And what is the soft support network? Because it's not always just, you know, support via material support for terrorism. It's also ideological rootedness in a particular way of thinking. How broad and deep is that? Well, we have all that protected under free speech here, right? That's the one difficult thing. If I went to UAE and I went to a mosque, you're not going to hear what you're hearing on U.S. soil, right? Because it's forbidden to talk jihad and those type of things. So we're first allowing this to kind of get out of control. And it's protected. So that's a very, very frustrating thing. And as you've seen in those videos, they do have a freedom to say all those things. And they're using our laws against us, right? It's actually very, very smart of them. And again, it's banned in multiple countries for speaking like this. In Muslim countries who know, hey, there is a pathway, right? You indoctrinate, you radicalize, and you do that usually in your place of worship. Doesn't even really matter your religion. Now, then there's a freedom to say all those things. And it's actually very, very smart of them to say all those things. And again, it's very, very smart of them to say all those things. And the best way to put it is, okay, when 9-11 happened, right? Of course, we knew who the hijackers were, but we actually never really went after who actually funded them, who housed them, who drove them around the country. That network still exists from 25 years ago. And then there's similar networks like that, who let's just say you're extreme. They're giving you jobs, right? You're coming into Texas. They put you into jobs. It's something so simple. That person, sure, isn't a terrorist. They're not holding a gun, but they're making sure terrorists have employment for cover. So we have to remember all that's existing in our own backyards, and we actually don't have any real concept of it. It is pretty incredible how deep-rooted it is, considering that you literally have a member of Congress, Ilhan Omar, who wrote a letter to a judge asking for mercy on a person who is trying to join ISIS on the basis that he'd had a rough family life. I mean, this is really a serious problem in the United States. Now, one of the things that you talk about in this piece is the vulnerability on college campuses, which, again, they've been targeted sometimes, but they've not been targeted large scale. We have a movie coming out, Run, Hide, Fight Infidels, in which that is sort of the premise of the film, is that members of ISIS take over a college campus and basically commit almost an October 7th-style massacre. But our campuses are uniquely vulnerable to this sort of stuff. Yeah, in two ways. First off, just from the recruitment. So ISIS very famously has recruited on campuses for years. Especially in engineering programs. So first off, if you put a terrorist on a campus, they can influence. They can build a network. They can get access to young minds who really haven't determined who they are yet. And then, of course, we have the fact these are soft targets. These are kind of literal, little insular cities. I go to campuses all the time and do briefings. And most of the time, they don't even know I'm on campus. That's an issue, since I'm an al-Qaeda threat. You could park anywhere. You can walk in any building. Nothing's on campus. So it's almost like another mentality. It's like you feel safe there. Even when parents send their kids, they're like, oh, they're safe on campus. And it's just this idea that it's this bubble that you can't penetrate. And of course, we know that's not true, because the terrorists will always hit us where it's easiest and where you can gain impact. And what gains impact? Farming people's children. Well, that is Sarah Adams. She's a targeting officer at the CIA. Go check out her bombshell piece over at Daily Wire. Today, it is titled The Terrorist on Campus. Sarah, thanks so much for the time. Really appreciate the insight. Thank you. Now, again, the Democratic Party wants to pretend all this away, because if the Democratic Party does pretend all this away, then they will be able to presumably live off of the jet fuel of radical Muslims in their coalition. So Senator Chuck Schumer, who is a disgrace, he's a disgrace of a human. I have particular ire for Chuck Schumer, because Chuck Schumer pretends to be a high-ranking Jewish senator from New York. I say pretends to be, because no Jew worth his salt ought to be defending Abdul El-Sayed, a defender of Islamic terrorism and sympathizer with it. No one ought to be doing this. But again, Chuck Schumer is all about the power. He has always been about the power. In practice, he's as Jewish as a ham sandwich. Here is Chuck Schumer trying to praise the guy who, by the way, wants to defenestrate him as the Senate minority leader, praising El-Sayed for bringing new energy and talent into the Democratic Party. You pathetic cuck, honestly. Bottom line is we're going to win Michigan. Let me tell you why we're going to win Michigan. First, El-Sayed has brought in new energy and new talent into the Democratic Party, but also in Michigan itself. But second, Michigan, Trump has so bungled the Michigan economy. You know, the numbers for Trump on how well he's doing in keeping costs down in the economy is in the low 30s in the country. It's in the high 20s in Michigan. Why? He created a trade war with Canada. Anyone who's. Halfway decent as president knows that the Michigan economy and the Canadian economy are totally intertwined. And he's blown it. We're going to win Michigan. Again, he's perfectly happy to win Michigan, even with the guy who is pretty overtly pro-radical Islam. Amazing stuff there. And of course, the Democrats, they refuse to acknowledge. Again, all the ladies who wore handmaid's tale outfits to protest Trump are out there saying that the real threat to America is Christian fundamentalism, while celebrating Islamic fundamentalism. Truly amazing stuff. Jennifer Welch, the fact that this woman has an audience demonstrates the old P.G. Barnum suggestion that you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Here's Jennifer Welch. My goodness. I guess, you know, to each his own, I suppose. But the biggest threat I see to the United States right now is not the religion of Islam. It is fundamental. Christianity and the bat s**t sect of Christianity that Erica Kirk belongs in, where you have firework funerals where Grindr crashes, and you dress up like an assassin and do a bat s**t crazy video after your husband was violently murdered by an assassin. These people. These people. Man, I hope, I truly, I hope that they live in a place where they get to enjoy Sharia law. I really hope they do. Pretty incredible. And again, it is hilarious. Because Hassan Piker, who just despises America, he says, well, if I'm the enemy of America, why do I want you to have health care? Because, like, what? What? I mean, the Soviet Union would have said the same thing to Americans in 1970. If we hate America, why do we just want a more even redistribution of wealth? If you, if you buy, again, there he is. With the actual newspaper of the buildings falling on 9-11 over his shoulder and a Chinese flag over the other shoulder saying that he's not an enemy of America because he just wants you to have health care. A lot of people call me a radical, un-American, anti-American, Islamist, jihadist, which is, you know, obviously Islamophobia. It's very funny that they say that. But regardless, they think I'm an enemy of America. And I always ask them, like, if I'm an enemy of America, why do I live here? If I'm an enemy of America, why do I want you to have health care? Like, who's the real enemy of America here? You live here to take advantage of us. The guy who's making sure that you can't get health care, you shouldn't have a roof over your head, you shouldn't have financial security, or the guy who's telling you, like, no, we want to do that. It is possible. I don't know. Who's the real enemy of America? The guy who has a Chinese flag over one shoulder, 9-11 over the other shoulder, a Cuban flag behind him. Who's the enemy of America? You. And why do you live here to take advantage of it? You should go back to Turkey where you were raised and where you seem to have much more in common with the belief system of the government. This is absurd. It's absurd. But I guess this is the game that we are going to play. This is the game we are going to play. And again, Hassan Piker is, in fact, propping up a wide variety of Democrats at this point. A woman named Aisha Wahab won the California 14 special election yesterday to fill the seat for Eric Swalwell. And unsurprising, she is a Hassan Piker stan. Yes. Rapid fire. Do you support Medicare for all? Yes. Raising taxes on billionaires? Yes. Breaking up corporate monopolies? Yes. Canceling student debt? Yes. A data center moratorium? Yes. Codifying abortion? Yes. Abolishing and prosecuting ICE? Yes. Banning congressional stock trading? Yes. Ending Citizens United? Yes. Ending America's permanent wars? Yes. Ending all U.S. aid to Israel? Yes. But like I said, humanitarian aid is important to me, too. Okay. A free Palestine? Yes. What a. Great. Great. I'm so glad we're doing this entire exercise as a country. It can't go wrong in any way. It'll all be fine. We'll probably just pretend it'll be fine. All of which makes it more imperative that Republicans actually not lose in 2028. We'll get to that in just a minute because there's more show. You think the show is over? It's not, in fact. Over there is more show yet to come. But you have to be a member in order for that to materialize for you. So, go right now and check it out over at Daily Wire. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. ♪