The Ben Shapiro Show - Trump Protects The American Flag!…PLUS We Break a MAJOR Story

00:00:00.000 An epic episode of Good Trump, Bad Trump.

00:00:02.000 President Trump is saying that he's going to try to fight flag burning with actual criminal penalties.

00:00:06.000 We'll get into all the details there.

00:00:08.000 Plus, he tried to fire a Fed governor. 0.93

00:00:10.000 What exactly does that mean?

00:00:11.000 And we have a massive breaking story and exclusive here at Daily Wire exposing the American Medical Association, one of our most cherished institutions, again, opened up and eaten from the inside first.

00:00:22.000 We are one week out.

00:00:23.000 My first book in four years, Lions and Scavengers, hits shelves.

00:00:26.000 September 2.

00:00:26.000 That's right after Labor Day weekend.

00:00:28.000 It's about strength, cowardice, and the fight we are all in, whether we like it or not.

00:00:32.000 Go to dailywire dot com slash men to pre order now.

00:00:34.000 It's available everywhere.

00:00:35.000 Amazon, Walmart, Target, Barnes and Noble.

00:00:37.000 But signed copies are only ava at the Daily Wire shop.

00:00:40.000 Again, go to dailywire dot com slash Ben, we're one week out.

00:00:43.000 Don't miss it.

00:00:44.000 Well, folks, a little bit later on in the show, we're going to get to the American Medical Association.

00:00:49.000 We have a breaking story here at Daily Wire about the AMA.

00:00:53.000 It's pretty astonishing stuff.

00:00:54.000 Basically, they're now pushing gender affirming care, no matter what.

00:00:58.000 We've obtained secretly recorded footage of AMA president, doctor Bobby Makamala, and it's truly astonishing.

00:01:04.000 Wow.

00:01:05.000 We'll get to that a little bit later on in the show.

00:01:07.000 But we have to begin the day with President Trump.

00:01:10.000 So President Trump had himself a day yesterday.

00:01:12.000 It was an epic day of we're bringing it back because it was such a big day of this.

00:01:16.000 Good Trump, bad Trump.

00:01:18.000 Yes.

00:01:19.000 They're back.

00:01:21.000 Play the song, guys.

00:01:24.000 Okay, so yesterday, President Trump suggested via executive order that we are going to arrest people and put them in jail for flag burning.

00:01:41.000 Now, you don't know which way I'm going to go on this, right?

00:01:43.000 Was that bad Trump or was...

00:01:45.000 was that good trump wait for it wait for it wait for it it was actually good trump i'll tell you why it was good trump the reason it was good trump is because people are misreading the the executive order.

00:01:56.000 So what President Trump said, as always, is a very simplified version of what the executive order actually says.

00:02:00.000 First, here's what President Trump had to say while signing the executive order.

00:02:05.000 If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing.

00:02:12.000 You get one year in jail.

00:02:13.000 If you burn a flag, you get, and what it does is incite to riot.

00:02:18.000 I hope they used that language, by the way, did they?

00:02:20.000 Incite to riot.

00:02:21.000 Incite to riot, and you burn a flag, you get one year in jail.

00:02:24.000 You don't get ten years, you don't get one month.

00:02:27.000 You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record.

00:02:30.000 And you will see flag burning stopping immediately.

00:02:34.000 Okay, so number one, there is a ruling in Texas v.

00:02:38.000 Johnson that says that flag burning is indeed a legal activity under the First Amendment.

00:02:43.000 Now, I want to go through the history of this in just a second, but I first want to say what the exact executive order says because people are saying that it somehow criminalizes all forms of flag burning that is not actually true.

00:02:53.000 First of all, the president does not have the authority just via executive order to make anything criminal.

00:02:59.000 You can't just make things criminal via executive order at the federal level that requires some sort of congressional act.

00:03:05.000 The president can't just deem a thing illegal and it magically becomes illegal.

00:03:09.000 He can enforce the cur the current law by directing his DOJ to prosecute certain crimes that are already on the book.

00:03:15.000 So what exactly did the president sign?

00:03:18.000 Well, according to the executive order, it says the key part says.

00:03:24.000 Our great American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America and of American freedom, identity and strength over nearly two and a half centuries.

00:03:31.000 Many thousands of American patriots have fought blood and died to keep the stars and stripes waving proudly.

00:03:35.000 The American flag is a special symbol in our national life that should unite and represent all Americans of every background and walk of life.

00:03:41.000 Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative.

00:03:43.000 It is a statement of contempt, hostility and violence against our nation, the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty and security.

00:03:51.000 Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot.

00:03:55.000 American flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth.

00:04:03.000 Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to fighting words is constitutionally protected.

00:04:16.000 Okay, so notice what the executive order is doing here.

00:04:18.000 President Trump didn't write himself.

00:04:20.000 You know, obviously he has lawyers on staff who are doing this.

00:04:22.000 He is not saying that if you just burn an American flag at a protest, that you're going to go to jail because that would in fact violate Texas versus Johnson.

00:04:30.000 What he is saying is that like pretty much all other words in American life, if you do something that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, that is not protected by the First Amendment.

00:04:39.000 If I tell you, let's go, for example, attack that courthouse, that is words, right?

00:04:45.000 Those words are not protected by the First Amendment.

00:04:47.000 Why?

00:04:47.000 Because they are likely to incite imminent lawless action.

00:04:50.000 Also, there is a category called fighting words, which has sort of fallen out of common parlance.

00:04:56.000 Legally speaking, it's not clear what fighting words are, but traditionally what it meant is that if you insulted someone, if I called your mother a whore or something, you punched me, then you could say theoretically that those were fighting words that were not constitutionally protected.

00:05:07.000 Hey, so this EO.

00:05:09.000 doesn't do what everyone thinks it does.

00:05:11.000 It doesn't say that if you burn a flag under any circumstances, you're going to jail.

00:05:15.000 And so what exactly does the White House now expect the Attorney General to do?

00:05:19.000 Well, quote, the Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of the fullest to the fullest extent possible of our nation's criminal and civil laws against acts of American flag desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws while causing harm unrelated to expression consistent with the First Amendment.

00:05:33.000 This includes, but is not limited to, violent crimes, hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens or other violations of American civil rights and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate and aiding and abetting others to violate such laws.

00:05:48.000 So again, the the whole thing is designed to avoid first amendment concerns.

00:05:52.000 Now, it may never be invoked, but this is the reason why it goes under good Trump versus bad Trump.

00:05:58.000 So there are a few different positions on this.

00:06:00.000 Many of them are wrong.

00:06:01.000 Many things can be true at once.

00:06:03.000 One, according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the United States protects flag burning as a form of expression, as long as it doesn't violate other things like incitement to violence, for example.

00:06:14.000 To the Supreme Court decision in Texas versus Johnson is wrong.

00:06:17.000 It's a bad decision.

00:06:17.000 That 54 decision, which is held in high esteem by libertarians and members of the left, but but actually violates centuries of American precedent.

00:06:26.000 It is a bad decision.

00:06:27.000 Justice Scalia was wrong about this.

00:06:28.000 And I say that advisedly.

00:06:29.000 I'm a huge Justice Antonin Scalia fan.

00:06:32.000 He was the deciding vote 5-4 in Texas versus Johnson back in 1989.

00:06:35.000 He was wrong about this.

00:06:36.000 It's not true.

00:06:37.000 The First Amendment was not designed to protect flag burning.

00:06:40.000 It just was not, historically speaking.

00:06:42.000 And I'll get to that in a moment.

00:06:43.000 So two things are true.

00:06:44.000 One, the law currently says, until it is changed by the Supreme Court, flag burning is protected activity as expression under the First Amendment.

00:06:52.000 Two, that Supreme Court decision is wrong.

00:06:54.000 Three, the executive order is designed to avoid the reach of Texas versus Johnson by linking flag burning to things that are not protected by the First Amendment, right?

00:07:05.000 Because the truth is that if you're talking about expressive activity, anything could theoretically be expressive activity, right?

00:07:11.000 The question is does it violate other forms of criminal law?

00:07:14.000 So for example, if I strangle you to death with an American flag, can I say that that's freedom of expression?

00:07:19.000 No, that's a criminal activity involving the American flag, and I will go to jail.

00:07:23.000 So what they're attempting to do is link this with incitement, which is in fact a criminal activity for there are a bunch of people on the right who are saying, well, you know, it's criminal in America to burn the Pride Progress flag or the Black Lives Matter flag, so it should be criminal to burn the American flag.

00:07:37.000 Okay, it's not criminal in America to burn the Pride Progress flag.

00:07:40.000 If you wish to buy one and then burn it, you can absolutely do that.

00:07:44.000 Now, there are hate crime laws on the books that I think are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment that may be implicated by, for example, spiraling your wheels over some sort of gay pride flag painted on the sidewalk.

00:07:56.000 I think it's idiotic.

00:07:58.000 It's ridiculous.

00:08:00.000 It's no worse form of defacement of public property than than if you were to just do it on a crosswalk without a gay pride flag on it. 0.91

00:08:06.000 That's a question about hate crimes.

00:08:07.000 It really isn't a question about whether it's illegal to burn a Pride Progress flag or a gay pride flag or a BLM flag.

00:08:12.000 It is not.

00:08:13.000 So don't use one misinterpretation of law to justify another misinterpretation of law law.

00:08:19.000 It is neither legal to burn an American flag nor is it illegal to burn a Pride Progress flag under the current status of law in the United States.

00:08:26.000 When this kind of bizarre spiral to the bottom where everyone says a very simplified version of what they think the law is to justify another violation of the law, that is a very silly thing.

00:08:36.000 So all these things are true at once.

00:08:38.000 Now, I want to go back for a second to the idea that the Supreme Court decision in Texas v.

00:08:42.000 Johnson is wrong.

00:08:43.000 The American flag is special.

00:08:45.000 It should be special.

00:08:46.000 I've been a backer, my entire political career of a constitutional amendment that would, in fact, criminalize flag burning.

00:08:53.000 Why?

00:08:53.000 Because as we've seen in America, as our institutions fall apart.

00:08:57.000 As we have less and less fealty to anything in common, the American flag remains the only thing to which we should have total fealty.

00:09:05.000 The Constitution of the United States, the American flag, these are the bases for being a good American.

00:09:09.000 I know there's a lot of fought debate right now about what it means to be a good American.

00:09:14.000 Very, very basic standards to be a good American.

00:09:16.000 You should like the American flag because it's the flag of your country.

00:09:18.000 And two, you should really like the Constitution of the United States, the organizing founding document of the country.

00:09:23.000 Those seem to me like two very, very basic ones.

00:09:27.000 And all this talk about heritage Americans that you're hearing from the right. 0.88

00:09:31.000 The idea that you're a true American if your ancestors got here in 1710, as opposed to you're a bad American if your ancestors got here in.

00:09:39.000 1908 or in 1945 or 1983 or something.

00:09:42.000 First of all, it's a bunch of horse crap.

00:09:44.000 It's not true.

00:09:44.000 There are plenty of people who are descendants of people who came here in 1710 who are totally anti-american.

00:09:49.000 There are a lot of those people.

00:09:51.000 In fact, it is an anti-american idea that just because you got here at a particular point in time that makes you more American than an American who came here at a different point in time.

00:09:59.000 That's really, really silly.

00:10:01.000 Okay.

00:10:01.000 But and from the left, you hear this idea of American citizenship that American citizenship essentially means nothing and diversity is what American citizenship is all about, which is not true.

00:10:09.000 It seems to me that if you are going to form an Americanism around ideas, loyalty and love for the country,, the American flag is a very good place to start, which brings us back to that Texas versus Johnson decision.

00:10:22.000 I'm just going to point out here that's a bad decision.

00:10:24.000 It's a very bad decision.

00:10:26.000 Already coming up, we get into President Trump's executive order.

00:10:29.000 What does the thing actually say?

00:10:30.000 Plus, we'll get to President Trump firing a Fed governor and a breaking story here at the Daily Wire about the American Medical Association.

00:10:36.000 First, how many times have you said to someone, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

00:10:39.000 That's usually good advice.

00:10:40.000 It is not so true for a cell phone because cell phones degrade over time.

00:10:44.000 Over time, that battery life fades.

00:10:45.000 The processor can't keep up.

00:10:46.000 It's fallen in the toilet.

00:10:48.000 Maybe one too many times.

00:10:49.000 Fortunately, thanks to pure talk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty when you switch to pure talk this month., they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy 836 for free with a $35 qualification plan, just $35 a month for talk, text, data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch resistant gorilla glass and a battery that lasts all day long, all on America's most reliable 5G network.

00:11:09.000 I use pure talk all the time.

00:11:10.000 Obviously, I'm using my cell phone all the time.

00:11:12.000 Business calls, family calls, those things matter to me.

00:11:14.000 They matter to you too.

00:11:15.000 So why wouldn't you try out pure talk?

00:11:17.000 Supporting companies like pure talk is a smart thing to do.

00:11:19.000 You win by cutting your cell phone bill in half.

00:11:21.000 They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans make the switch in as little as ten minutes.

00:11:25.000 Go to pure talk dot com slash shapiro, get your free phone today.

00:11:29.000 Again, that's pure talk dot com slash shapiro to switch to my wireless company., America's wireless company, pure talk.

00:11:35.000 Again, that's pure talk dot com slash shapiro.

00:11:38.000 Also, if you're a homeowner, you do need to listen to this in today's AI and cyber world.

00:11:42.000 Scammers are stealing home titles.

00:11:44.000 Your equity is the target.

00:11:45.000 Here's how it works.

00:11:46.000 Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and then just like that, your home title can be transferred out of your name. 0.95

00:11:54.000 Then they take out loans using your equity or they even sell your property.

00:11:57.000 You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or execution notice.

00:11:59.000 So when was the last time you checked on your home title?

00:12:01.000 If your answer is you never have done that, well, you probably should.

00:12:04.000 And that's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock today.

00:12:06.000 You can find out if you are already a victim.

00:12:08.000 Many people at the Daily Wire, including people on this very team, trust Home Title Lock to protect what is likely one of their biggest assets in a time when the economy is sort of up and down and all around, your home is a massive asset.

00:12:20.000 You don't want anyone stealing value in it.

00:12:22.000 Use my promo code shapiro at hometitle lock dot com.

00:12:24.000 You'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection.

00:12:28.000 That's 24/7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts for any changes.

00:12:32.000 If fraud does happen, they'll spend up to a million bucks to fix it.

00:12:34.000 Don't be a victim, protect your equity today.

00:12:37.000 Go to hometitle lock dot com, use promo code shapiro.

00:12:40.000 That's hometitle lock dot com promo code shapiro.

00:12:43.000 By 1932, every single state in America had a flag desecration statute.

00:12:49.000 Even though according to the Supreme Court, the flag was a federal symbol, states could still criminalize the desecration of the American flag.

00:12:56.000 And typically, this was designed not only at preventing marking the flag or mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, defying the flag or anything of that.

00:13:06.000 It was also originally in many of these states prevented from from advertising.

00:13:09.000 You weren't supposed to use the American flag in advertisements, which of course has basically gone by the wayside over the course of time.

00:13:15.000 You see the American flag on all sorts of gear now.

00:13:19.000 Well, in West Virginia Board of Education v.

00:13:21.000 Barnett, 1943, the Supreme Court started to say things like people could not be compelled to salute the flag because refusing to do so is freedom of speech.

00:13:29.000 And you can make that argument that that at least is a fairly decent argument.

00:13:32.000 Justice Jackson wrote, if there is any fixed start in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.

00:13:41.000 Now, again, I think that's an arguable opinion.

00:13:43.000 I think that saying that you should actually, you know, like the country and like the flag, that's not a horrible prerequisite to being an American citizen.

00:13:51.000 But you can see the counter argument, which is the freedom of speech at the federal level at the very least, not at the state level.

00:13:57.000 Remember, the First Amendment to the Constitution applies to Congress.

00:14:01.000 This Congress shall make no law bridging freedom of speech.

00:14:03.000 It does not apply to the states.

00:14:05.000 The states routinely in the early days made lots of laws bridging freedom of speech.

00:14:09.000 However, you can see the attempts by the Supreme Court to sort of carve back much of the law surrounding the flag.

00:14:16.000 In 1968, Congress passed a federal flag desecration law, which was meant to mirror many of the state laws.

00:14:23.000 The federal law made it illegal to knowingly cast contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it.

00:14:32.000 And then there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases, again under the very, very liberal Warren Court that carved a lot of this back, including 1969 saying that you could curse the flag, 1974 saying that you could sew the flag to your pants, that you could sit on it in a way to shame it.

00:14:45.000 And then that all culminated in the Texas v. 1.00

00:14:47.000 Johnson decision, which was written by Justice Brennan.

00:14:50.000 The court there found that the flag burning it was symbolic speech and that Texas' statute was content-based.

00:14:56.000 Justice Scalia, who was the deciding vote in that case, he said, If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal wearing scruffy, bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king.

00:15:05.000 Okay, but as Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative justice, wrote in dissent, in holding this Texas statute unconstitutional, the court ignores Justice Holmes' familiar aforism that a page of history is worth a volume of logic.

00:15:17.000 For more than two hundred years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our nation, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.

00:15:27.000 He pointed out that every single state, except for Alaska and Wyoming, had statutes at the time prohibiting the burning of the flag.

00:15:33.000 He says the American flag, throughout more than two hundred years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation.

00:15:39.000 It does not represent the views of any particular political party.

00:15:42.000 It does not represent any particular political philosophy.

00:15:44.000 The flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.

00:15:50.000 I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress and that the laws of 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

00:15:57.000 The government may conscript men into the armed forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibitit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.

00:16:05.000 And of course, Justice Rehnquist is right about that.

00:16:07.000 So the reason that this goes under good Trump is on the merits.

00:16:11.000 He is not wrong. 0.53

00:16:12.000 Flag burning, bad.

00:16:14.000 The EO does not prohibit flag burning per se.

00:16:17.000 That is not what the EO does.

00:16:18.000 He does not have the power to do that.

00:16:19.000 He even said that in that quote, he says it's about incitement to violence.

00:16:22.000 Now it's going to be very hard to prosecute that.

00:16:23.000 It just will.

00:16:24.000 But the reason it's also good is because it is good politics.

00:16:27.000 Because now what you're going to see is a bunch of leftists going out in the street burning the American flag, which is precisely what Trump is tempting them to do.

00:16:33.000 You know that's what he's doing.

00:16:34.000 He's baiting them.

00:16:35.000 President Trump is saying, you know, you believe that America is all about burning the American flag that America, American citizenship is about quote unquote dissent is patriotic.

00:16:44.000 Well, hitting the American flag is not something that most Americans actually like very much.

00:16:48.000 Okay, so that goes under the category of good Trump.

00:16:52.000 Although I can see why, again, there are a lot of people on the libertarian right who are upset about it.

00:16:56.000 Cool your jets.

00:16:57.000 That's not what he's saying in the EO.

00:16:58.000 Okay, now it's time for unfortunately.

00:17:04.000 Here he comes flying in from the side.

00:17:06.000 Here he goes.

00:17:06.000 Yes.

00:17:08.000 It's time for some bad Trump.

00:17:09.000 All right.

00:17:10.000 Yeah, yesterday was a real mixed bag gang. 1.00

00:17:12.000 So yesterday, the president fired or tried to fire the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook.

00:17:20.000 was the Federal Reserve governor who is on the so-called Fed Open Markets Committee.

00:17:26.000 They decide collectively on whether to lower the interest rates or not.

00:17:30.000 She has been an opponent of lowering the interest rates.

00:17:32.000 She was appointed by Joe Biden.

00:17:34.000 He doesn't like her very much, the president of the United States.

00:17:36.000 And so on the basis of an allegation that she falsified mortgage documents by essentially claiming two separate homes as her primary and getting a mortgage on the basis of that allegation, not adjudicated, no guilt actually found.

00:17:51.000 He's attempting to fire her.

00:17:53.000 I do not like.

00:17:54.000 I do not like number one because you shouldn't fire people on the basis of of allegations alone at the federal level.

00:18:00.000 When you're talking about government employees, this is not according to the statute.

00:18:04.000 Typically, if you are a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, then the only way that you can be fired is for gross misconduct.

00:18:12.000 This does not amount to even remotely gross misconduct.

00:18:14.000 You can not like it.

00:18:15.000 If she's found guilty, you can fire her theoretically, but the idea that you can just kind of fire willy nilly anyone who violates the law, but not even allegedly violates the law, this is setting a pretty bad predicate.

00:18:29.000 I understand that a lot of people on the right right right right now are cheering President Trump's massive centralization of power in the executive branch.

00:18:35.000 They're cheering it over tariffs.

00:18:36.000 They're cheering it over the Federal Reserve.

00:18:39.000 They're cheering it over the taking of stock and intelligence.

00:18:41.000 They're cheering a lot of these things.

00:18:43.000 I do not cheer this stuff because the more you grow the executive branch, the more the left will have control when eventually they win the presidency.

00:18:49.000 And I'm old enough to remember when the right thought they would never lose an election again.

00:18:53.000 That was 2005.

00:18:55.000 And then next thing you know, Nancy Pelosi took Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama was president by 2008.

00:19:00.000 I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats thought they would never lose power.

00:19:03.000 That was about 2015.

00:19:04.000 And by 2017, Donald Trump was sitting in the Oval Office.

00:19:08.000 And so this idea by either political party that if you mess with the mechanisms of government in a major way because it is convenient to do so, it won't come back to bite you in the ass.

00:19:17.000 That has never been true in the history of American politics and it's not true now.

00:19:21.000 So on a moral level, you shouldn't fire people based on allegations specifically because you don't like their politics.

00:19:26.000 That is not the way that you're supposed to.

00:19:28.000 If you want to say the president should be able to fire anybody he wants at the Federal Reserve because he doesn't like their politics, I think that is actually a more solid case based on the unitary executive theory than the case that you should be able to sort of jerry rig an allegation, a criminal allegation to fire somebody.

00:19:43.000 That I think is ridiculous.

00:19:44.000 But then on a sort of pragmatic, practical level, the markets right now are looking for stability.

00:19:50.000 The markets right now are searching for any line of stability.

00:19:54.000 And they're not finding it.

00:19:55.000 They're not finding it here.

00:19:56.000 They're not finding it there.

00:19:57.000 And they're not finding it anywhere.

00:19:58.000 Right now, the president is about to get what he wants from the Federal Reserve.

00:20:02.000 He's about to get those lower interest rates.

00:20:04.000 The chances that Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve are going to lower the interest rates by 25 basis points in September are really, really high.

00:20:10.000 They're really good.

00:20:11.000 So why is he screwing around with this right now, other than a sort of petty revenge minded goal or the attempt to completely remake the FOMC, which by the way, undermines his agenda.

00:20:26.000 Because if you don't have an independent Federal Reserve, then what you end up with is a belief by the markets that the president is basically manipulating the money.

00:20:33.000 And if the president manipulates the money, that's bad.

00:20:35.000 It's bad when a Democrat does it.

00:20:36.000 It's bad when a Republican does it.

00:20:38.000 It's actually the case, the strong libertarian case, the laissez faire case against the Federal Reserve in the first place is the idea that you shouldn't have centralized banks that are manipulating the money supply.

00:20:48.000 In any case, President Trump yesterday put out a letter directed at Lisa Cook, quote, Dear Governor Cook, pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of nineteen thirteen, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve effective immediately.

00:21:04.000 The Federal Reserve Act provides that you may be removed at my discretion for cause.

00:21:07.000 I have determined there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position., as set forth in the criminal referral dated August 15, 2025 from mister William J. Poulty, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to miss Pamela Bondy, Attorney General, there is sufficient reason to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.

00:21:26.000 For example, as detailed in the criminal referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year.

00:21:34.000 Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating it would be your primary residence the next year.

00:21:38.000 It is inconceivable.

00:21:39.000 You were not aware of your first commitment when making the second.

00:21:42.000 It is impossible that you intended to honor both.

00:21:44.000 Okay, so first of all, I just want to point out here.

00:21:47.000 I also do not like the precedent of the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency digging up the mortgage records of various political enemies and then publicly putting that out there.

00:21:57.000 I don't know why Bill Pulte is doing that.

00:21:59.000 If you want to make a criminal referral, do it behind closed doors to the AG.

00:22:02.000 And if the AG actually has the goods, then go prosecute and then fire Lisa Cook, but I didn't like it when the Democrats kept trying to leak Donald Trump's IRS records. 0.65

00:22:11.000 And I also don't like it when the FHFA is now attempting to leak the records of a governmental official that they don't like via some sort of criminal referral, which doesn't mean anything.

00:22:23.000 Criminal referral from the FHFA has the same amount of actual content as me making the criminal referral to the DOJ.

00:22:32.000 The DOJ can take it under advisement.

00:22:34.000 They can do what they want with it, but that shouldn't be public in any case.

00:22:37.000 President Trump writes the Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks.

00:22:43.000 The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve in light of your deceptive and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.

00:22:52.000 They cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.

00:22:55.000 Okay, again, the only reason people know about this is because Pulte made it public.

00:23:00.000 This does not seem like smart policy to me, either moral or smart.

00:23:05.000 Well, Lisa Cook said she's not going to leave.

00:23:07.000 She said, quote, President Trump purported to fire me for cause when no cause exists under the law, has no authority to do so.

00:23:12.000 I will not resign.

00:23:13.000 I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.

00:23:18.000 So we will see how the Supreme Court rules in this matter because it is not particularly clear that the Supreme Court is going to go along with all this.

00:23:25.000 Naturally, leave it to the Democrats to come up with the stupidest possible response to this.

00:23:28.000 Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader, instead of saying the president is tyrannically attempting to expand his authority over the Federal Reserve by jerry rigging charges and firing people he doesn't like, instead, he makes it about the fact that Lisa Cook is black.

00:23:42.000 Quote, Dr. Lisa Cook is the first black woman ever to serve in the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

00:23:46.000 To the extent anyone is unfit to serve in a position of responsibility because of deceptive and potentially criminal conduct, it is the current occupant of the White House.

00:23:53.000 Okay.

00:23:54.000 Okay.

00:23:55.000 I mean, why is it always and forever for the Democrats about the race, as opposed to maybe just not like what he's doing?

00:24:01.000 Already coming up, we have a breaking story about the American Medical Association that's pretty damned shocking.

00:24:06.000 First, I love movies about real heroes who have the courage to stand up against evil to protect people.

00:24:10.000 We need those stories today.

00:24:11.000 That's exactly why the incredible story told in Bao Artist at War caught my attention.

00:24:15.000 The film opens September 26.

00:24:17.000 You can visit bowmovie dot com to see the trailers.

00:24:19.000 Bao Artist at War tells the remarkable true story of Joseph Bao, a gifted artist and forger who risked his life to save others during the Holocaust.

00:24:26.000 There he found not only the strength to survive, but unexpected love with Rebecca.

00:24:29.000 It's a gripping story of survival, love and courage.

00:24:32.000 It is incredibly moving.

00:24:34.000 It's exciting.

00:24:35.000 It's pretty harrowing.

00:24:36.000 It's not just another Holocaust story.

00:24:37.000 It's a film about how art and love can save lives literally and spiritually.

00:24:40.000 Joseph Bao was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.

00:24:43.000 He forged documents to help others escape, but he was also a poet, an animator and a romantic.

00:24:48.000 His story, his love and his resilience.

00:24:49.000 It's like something out of fiction, but it happens to be real.

00:24:52.000 If you love Schindler's List or Jojo Rabbit films that show not just what was lost but what was fought for, you need to see Bao.

00:24:57.000 Artist at War opens only in theaters for a limited run beginning September 26.

00:25:01.000 Go to baomovie.com..com to watch the trailer, read about Joseph's real life journey and find showtimes near you.

00:25:08.000 Also, I have some exciting news.

00:25:09.000 Brick House Nutrition just launched their Labor Day sale.

00:25:12.000 The timing could not be better as we head into the fall right now.

00:25:14.000 You can save 25% on everything with code Labor Day 25.

00:25:17.000 And I mean everything, including their best selling weight loss formula, lean.

00:25:21.000 This doctor formulated supplement helps turn excess fat into energy while reducing your appetite and curbing those pesky cravings.

00:25:27.000 No needles, no prescriptions, just results.

00:25:29.000 Also, grab limited time discounts on Field of Greens.

00:25:31.000 That's the daily go to super fruit and vegetable drink.

00:25:34.000 Everyone knows and loves.

00:25:35.000 They're so confident in it.

00:25:36.000 They promise your doctor will notice your improved health or your money back.

00:25:39.000 And check out Radiance.

00:25:40.000 Their super collagen booster.

00:25:41.000 It's a total game changer.

00:25:42.000 Plus, they've got their new Brickhouse Way protein and so much more.

00:25:46.000 Producer Justin is restocking that Way protein this week because he needs to bulk up.

00:25:50.000 Listen, this 25% off deal is only for a few days.

00:25:53.000 If you've been thinking seriously about getting serious about your health this fall, now would be the moment.

00:25:57.000 Use code Labor Day 25, start feeling stronger and more confident than ever.

00:26:00.000 Had on over to brickhousenutrition dot com, use code Labor Day 25 for 25% off.

00:26:05.000 That's brickhousenutrition dot com, code Labor Day 25, brickhousenutrition dot com.

00:26:11.000 Unfortunately, there is yet more.

00:26:15.000 Bad Trump.

00:26:15.000 Again, it's a day of a lot of it's a mixed bag for president Trump.

00:26:19.000 So President Trump, of course, and the federal government have now taken a 10% stake in Intel.

00:26:24.000 I do not like bad.

00:26:25.000 The federal government should not be taking gigantic stakes in private companies.

00:26:28.000 When they do that, it makes them too big to fail.

00:26:30.000 It means that if the company starts to fail, the federal government is going to pour more money in.

00:26:35.000 And so essentially, you now have a federally subsidized business that is publicly traded.

00:26:40.000 And so if you're an investor, I suppose it's a smart idea to buy Intel because now the chances Intel goes bankrupt are extremely, extremely low.

00:26:48.000 However, this is a very bad predicate because once you have the federal government intervene, okay, if you don't like DEI, for example, if you think DEI is bad, what do you think happens to the the policies and procedures at Intel?

00:26:58.000 If a Democrat is elected president.

00:27:00.000 Now the federal government owns ten percent of Intel.

00:27:03.000 A democrat is elected president.

00:27:05.000 Do you think that they start ramming home DEI inside Intel?

00:27:09.000 You bet your ass they do because once the government is involved in policy making, political angles take precedence over business angles because they can always just subsidize with your taxpayer dollars and yet here is President Trump yesterday saying that he wants to do much more like we just did with Intel where the government is taking stakes in private companies.

00:27:26.000 What do you say to some who say this is a bit hypocritical and is this the new way of doing industrial policy?

00:27:33.000 Yeah, I sure it is.

00:27:34.000 I want to try and get as much as I can.

00:27:36.000 If people come in and they need something as an example.

00:27:38.000 For example, as a real estate person, if I have an agreement and I have a I have any form of a stop gap where I can stop somebody from doing something, right?

00:27:50.000 I have a covenant in an agreement and they come to me and they say, would like you to would like to do something but you have us restricted.

00:27:59.000 If I do that, they usually have to pay.

00:28:02.000 Now, in the case of Intel was interesting, but I hope I'm going to have many more cases like it.

00:28:08.000 Terrible case.

00:28:09.000 We should not do this.

00:28:10.000 Not at all.

00:28:10.000 The difference is that when President Trump was in the private sector, if he wished to subsidize a business by grabbing a piece of his equity, That's his problem because then if the company goes down the tubes, he's the one who pays.

00:28:20.000 But if Intel goes down the tubes, guess who pays?

00:28:22.000 The answer is you.

00:28:23.000 You pay.

00:28:24.000 So no, the government should not be involved in policy making at Intel.

00:28:27.000 It should not be grabbing stakes of gigantic American companies.

00:28:30.000 It is a problem.

00:28:31.000 And yet this apparently is the way that the Trump administration wants to do.

00:28:34.000 But again, if you even if you like what President Trump is doing because you like President Trump, understand when the shoe is on the other foot, you're not going to like it very much.

00:28:42.000 I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were very upset about Barack Obama subsidizing Salindra.

00:28:48.000 I'm old enough to remember all this.

00:28:50.000 And it was bad.

00:28:51.000 It was wrong.

00:28:53.000 And yet here was Kevin Hassett of the Council of Economic Advisers saying that, yes, we want more ownership stakes in America.

00:28:59.000 No, no, we don't.

00:29:00.000 I don't.

00:29:01.000 I'm a taxpayer.

00:29:02.000 I don't want it.

00:29:02.000 If I wanted to buy Intel stock, I could buy Intel stock.

00:29:05.000 I don't want to buy Intel stock.

00:29:06.000 I don't think it's good stock.

00:29:08.000 Why in the world are we trying to set up an American sovereign wealth fund?

00:29:11.000 We are not a Middle Eastern potentate.

00:29:13.000 We are not the country of Norway.

00:29:15.000 The idea that the federal government has to personally invest in various businesses is a violation of the basic free market principles of the United States.

00:29:23.000 It is a tremendous neglect of the very fundamental economic principles upon which President Trump ran.

00:29:31.000 This is not good policy.

00:29:32.000 It just isn't..

00:29:33.000 And Kevin Hassett knows that.

00:29:36.000 Okay, so we should expect the US government to be taking more equity stakes in businesses around the country.

00:29:43.000 That is something that if you're a CEO this morning watching us, you should say, okay, the sovereign wealth fund may be coming and trying to effectively buy in some kind of equity stake.

00:29:54.000 It's possible, yeah, that's absolutely right.

00:29:57.000 That if in the past the federal government has been giving money away liquidity split to companies and the taxpayers have received nothing in return.

00:30:06.000 And so now what's happening with the Intel deal is the CHIPS Act money is going to out as planned, but instead of just going out and disappearing into the ether, the US taxpayers are getting a little bit of equity.

00:30:17.000 I can really not see how anyone would think that's a bad thing, unless you thought that the government was going to go in and run the company.

00:30:24.000 But these are going to be shareholders that don't have voting rights.

00:30:27.000 The government's going to stay out of it.

00:30:30.000 Oh, yeah, the government's going to stay out of it.

00:30:32.000 Famous last words.

00:30:32.000 The government's going to stay out of it.

00:30:34.000 Name a time when the government has ever stayed out of it.

00:30:36.000 Seriously, if you get in bed with the government, you shouldn't be surprised when they that's the way that it works with the government.

00:30:41.000 This is ridiculous.

00:30:42.000 It's ridiculous.

00:30:43.000 Someone's getting screwed.

00:30:44.000 It's either the taxpayer or the company.

00:30:46.000 Somebody is.

00:30:48.000 And meanwhile, again, more on the bad Trump front.

00:30:51.000 Again, I wish not on the economic level.

00:30:53.000 This is the place where Trump should be the best, right?

00:30:54.000 He's a businessman.

00:30:55.000 He understands how business works.

00:30:57.000 And yet here we are still fussing around with China. 0.87

00:30:59.000 Why is TikTok still operational?

00:31:01.000 Why?

00:31:02.000 Congress passed a law.

00:31:03.000 Congress should stand up for its prerogative.

00:31:04.000 TikTok is a blight on the American body politics, is a Chinese propaganda outlet that gathers information on all of its users. 0.87

00:31:12.000 Why in hell is the Trump administration continuing to maintain TikTok alive?

00:31:18.000 But it's more than that.

00:31:19.000 It's more than that.

00:31:21.000 The President of the United States yesterday announced that he was going to allow 600,000 Chinese students to remain in the United States.

00:31:31.000 That's insane.

00:31:32.000 Why?

00:31:33.000 Why?

00:31:33.000 The vast majority of these people are going to go back to China, bring the IP of the United States along with them after having trained at American universities.

00:31:40.000 All that really is, these 600,000 Chinese students, is a gigantic subsidy to low-level universities because foreign students pay the full freight at these universities. 0.89

00:31:49.000 How is this a good thing?

00:31:51.000 This is bad.

00:31:51.000 It's bad immigration policy.

00:31:53.000 It's bad financial policy.

00:31:54.000 It's bad foreign policy.

00:31:56.000 Why in the world would we allow 600,000 Chinese students to come and study at our universities?

00:32:02.000 That's nuts.

00:32:04.000 I mean seriously, what what are we talking about here?

00:32:08.000 I hear so many stories about we're not going to allow their students, we're not going to allow their students to come in.

00:32:13.000 We're going to allow it's very important, 600,000 students.

00:32:16.000 It's very important, but we're going to get along with China.

00:32:19.000 But it's a different relationship that we have now with China.

00:32:22.000 It's a much better relationship economically than it was before.

00:32:28.000 Okay, so Laura Ingram yesterday had on Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and basically she'll act him over this correctly.

00:32:36.000 How is allowing 600,000 students from the communist country of China putting America first? 0.96

00:32:44.000 Well, the president's point of view is that what would happen if you didn't have those six hundred thousand students is that you'd empty them from the top, all the students would go up to better schools, and the bottom fifteen percent of universities and colleges would go out of business in America.

00:33:01.000 So his view is he's taking a rational economic view, which is classic Donald Trump looking at higher education and saying, but why do you want to do that?

00:33:10.000 Until we modify that.

00:33:11.000 That just happens.

00:33:11.000 That's Harvard and UCLA and UCL Berkeley.

00:33:15.000 And I mean, you're all helping those schools.

00:33:17.000 Why?

00:33:17.000 They're like, you know, basically factories of anti-American propaganda.

00:33:22.000 Now they're getting a big lot of cash because of the Chinese students.

00:33:26.000 I mean, I know, I know, I know President Trump has always been very pro-Chinese student.

00:33:31.000 I just don't understand it for the life of me.

00:33:33.000 I, I, those are six hundred thousand spots that American kids won't get.

00:33:39.000 I mean, she has right about that.

00:33:40.000 Not only the six hundred thousand slots that American kids won't get, those are six hundred thousand slots that are going to Chinese nationals who will likely go back to their mother country with an American education in hand and all the connections they made in the United States in hand. 0.56

00:33:54.000 Some of those people, by the way, will get hired at major tech companies and many of those people will be canning information back to the Chinese because how do you think the IP moves?

00:34:01.000 What in the world?

00:34:02.000 like really, this sort of absolute inconstance in policy is maddening.

00:34:08.000 Are we trying to box China in or are we trying to let China out? 0.99

00:34:12.000 I mean, at the same exact time this is happening, the president is threatening more tariffs on China.

00:34:17.000 He's saying that maybe more tariffs are coming based on rare earth magnets.

00:34:20.000 If they don't give us their rare earth magnets, then we're going to tariff them at 200 percent.

00:34:25.000 So what's the consistent policy consistency when it comes to economic policy is the thing that allows investors to know that their money isn't just going to disappear or go away.

00:34:35.000 That policy is going to flip on a dime.

00:34:37.000 Inconstance in economic policy is a problem.

00:34:41.000 There were lots of problems with FDR's policy during the Great Depression, which lengthened the Great Depression by full on eight years.

00:34:46.000 Terrible economic policies across the board.

00:34:47.000 But one of the big ones is that legitimately every day, FDR would wake up in the morning and he would decide, spur the moment, to make decisions about things like the price of gold.

00:34:56.000 And that is bad.

00:34:56.000 That is not good economic policy.

00:34:58.000 Here's the president.

00:34:58.000 At the same time, he's talking about 600,000 Chinese students coming in, talking about maybe we need 200 percent tariffs on China.

00:35:04.000 That's after we negotiated a 35 percent tariff with China.

00:35:08.000 What's the actual through line here?

00:35:12.000 But we have a very strong relationship, Howard.

00:35:15.000 I would say you economically with China now getting much better.

00:35:19.000 They have to give us magnets.

00:35:20.000 If they don't give us magnets, then we have to charge them 200% tariff or something, you know?

00:35:26.000 But we're not going to have a problem, I don't think, with that.

00:35:28.000 I think that's perhaps behind us.

00:35:37.000 And nobody needed magnets until they convinced everybody 20 years ago, let's all do magnets.

00:35:42.000 There were many other ways that the world could have gone.

00:35:44.000 But so for it, it'll take us probably a year to have them.

00:35:48.000 We're heavy into the world of magnets now, only from a national security standpoint.

00:35:55.000 All right.

00:35:55.000 So, you know, I'm in.

00:35:57.000 favor of boxing in China.

00:35:58.000 I've said before that we did this ass backwards.

00:36:01.000 We certainly should have attempted to make better trade arrangements, solidify our supply chains and all that stuff before we got into a trade war with China.

00:36:10.000 Instead, it's kind of playing hokey pokey with China here. 1.00

00:36:14.000 You're putting our tariff foot in, our putting our tariff foot out.

00:36:17.000 We're putting our tariff foot in and we're shaking it all about while letting six hundred thousand Chinese students into the country. 1.00

00:36:22.000 Okay.

00:36:23.000 Well, it's not all bad Trump.

00:36:24.000 Okay.

00:36:25.000 I do have some good Trump.

00:36:26.000 I know.

00:36:26.000 I want to be in a good mood as well.

00:36:28.000 So we do have some more good Trump.

00:36:29.000 So some good Trump.

00:36:31.000 The President of the United States continues to push forward with his push to stop crime in major American cities.

00:36:39.000 Yesterday he said, listen, I'm not, I'm not violating the law.

00:36:42.000 And again, this is something that he's pointing out overnight.

00:36:44.000 He's not, he's not violating the law.

00:36:46.000 And when the judges make a decision, he actually is abiding by it.

00:36:49.000 So he said, listen, I'm not a dictator.

00:36:51.000 Like some people want me to be, but I'm not.

00:36:54.000 I'm thinking about, you know, when I have some slob like Pritzker criticizing us before we even go there, I made the statement that next should be Chicago, because as you all know, Chicago is a killing field right now.

00:37:06.000 And they don't acknowledge it.

00:37:08.000 And they say, we don't need him.

00:37:09.000 Freedom, freedom.

00:37:10.000 He's a dictator.

00:37:11.000 He's a dictator.

00:37:12.000 A lot of people are saying, maybe we like a dictator.

00:37:15.000 I don't like a dictator.

00:37:16.000 I'm not a dictator.

00:37:16.000 I'm a man with great common sense and I'm a smart person.

00:37:22.000 And when I see what's happening to our cities and then you send in troops instead of being praised, they're saying you're trying to take over the republic.

00:37:32.000 These people are sick.

00:37:35.000 Okay, now the president threatening this sort of stuff.

00:37:39.000 Again, it's designed to get Democrats to take the side of criminals and they have been doing that.

00:37:44.000 They have been basically taking the side of the criminals over and over again.

00:37:47.000 So this is the president wrong footing the left.

00:37:49.000 Is he going to be violating federal law?

00:37:50.000 No, he's not going to be violating federal law when it comes to this sort of stuff.

00:37:55.000 And here he was yesterday slamming the press when the press was saying, Oh, the crime rates are fine.

00:37:59.000 No, they're really not.

00:38:02.000 Everybody before me is happy what I'm doing.

00:38:04.000 Most of you won't say that because you're radical left.

00:38:07.000 The newspapers are so dishonest.

00:38:09.000 The press is totally dishonest.

00:38:10.000 But that's all right.

00:38:11.000 We've gotten used to it.

00:38:12.000 And we won in a landslide.

00:38:13.000 So they obviously lost their power.

00:38:15.000 I mean, it's impossible to imagine that when you get 97% negative stories, purposely negative stories, even though you've done 97% positive things, that they could that you could win an election in a landslide winning all seven.

00:38:31.000 Think of it.

00:38:31.000 All seven swing states winning by the popular vote by millions of votes.

00:38:37.000 We had it fantastic.

00:38:39.000 The best is your districts.

00:38:41.000 Out of three thousand districts, I guess we won three thousand five hundred.

00:38:46.000 We won two thousand seven hundred fifty and they won five hundred.

00:38:52.000 And that's to me the best of all.

00:38:54.000 And we had tremendous in every way the election.

00:38:56.000 And it's hard to believe you can do that when you have a corrupt media.

00:39:00.000 But you are.

00:39:01.000 Many of you are corrupt and there's nothing we can do about it.

00:39:04.000 But we keep winning and we're going to keep winning.

00:39:08.000 He's not wrong about that.

00:39:09.000 The president has been tossing over the table in a wide variety of the ways.

00:39:12.000 As I say, much of it good, some of it bad.

00:39:15.000 The reason for that is because so many of America's institutions have been hollowed out from the inside by the left.

00:39:20.000 We'll get to that in a moment.

00:39:21.000 First, when we started Daily Wire, we did it to bring truth to America without that leftist bend.

00:39:25.000 Then, Harry's Razors pulled their advertising from us because, you know, Michael Mull said that boys aren't not girls.

00:39:30.000 So we launched Jeremy's Razors to be the sole company in the industry to deliver a great shave that isn't afraid of biological reality right now.

00:39:37.000 You can try Jeremy's Razors for just $7.99 barber-grade blades, a moisturizing Alice strip, a weighted handle, and a damn good shave for only $7.99.

00:39:44.000 Behold it.

00:39:46.000 See you, this razor.

00:39:47.000 This is the very razor of which I speak and that $7.99 that is our lowest price ever join the hundreds of thousands of daily wire listeners who use jeremy's razors go to jeremy's razors dot com slash pen today join the fight for sanity that's jeremy's razors dot com slash pen so as I say so many of America's major institutions have been hollowed out from the inside we saw a lot of this of course during BLM summer we saw this during COVID and we know this about the American Medical Association so we here at the daily wire have now obtained damning exclusive footage

00:40:17.000 of a private hour-long meeting between the current president of the American Medical Association Dr. Bobby McCamala, Michigan representative Brad Paquette and former guest of the show Dr. Doctor Aton Haim, whom you may remember as the Texas Children's Hospital Whistleblower.

00:40:31.000 This material is pretty catastrophic for the AMA.

00:40:33.000 It proves beyond any doubt their support for trans health care is based on fake science, willful blindness, total abandonment of all evidence-based medicine, all of which are supposed to be antithetical to the existence of their organization, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. 0.87

00:40:47.000 Now, as many of you know, the Daily Wire has already landed a major blow against the trans industry by investigating Vanderbilt Hospital that culminated in a Supreme Court victory earlier this summer, and that allowed Tennessee and other red states to ban barbaric transing of the children procedures. 0.91

00:41:01.000 The British government has totally walked back their policies in the wake of the CAS review, the Trump administration's health and human services report and Michael Schellenbroger's WPATH files have exposed the medical experts' own admissions of doubt.

00:41:11.000 The FTC has begun examining gender affirming care, so called as a consumer fraud, which of course it is. 0.99

00:41:17.000 Confronted with all these defeats, the trans activist army continues to double down. 0.75

00:41:22.000 Gender ideologues continue to seek legitimization in law.

00:41:24.000 Teachers' unions, medical establishment, they all leave children across the country vulnerable to medical abuse.

00:41:29.000 So how are they still able to do this?

00:41:31.000 Well, because they have one gigantic pillar that they continue to stand on as the authority of the largest medical association in America, the American Medical Association or AMA.

00:41:40.000 So the AMA is supposed to be the gold standard for medical associations.

00:41:43.000 They preside over a quarter million dues paying members.

00:41:46.000 That is to say, physicians, medical students, plastic surgeons.

00:41:49.000 Basically, if you're a doctor, you have to be a member of the AMA.

00:41:51.000 They publish a comprehensive code of medical ethics.

00:41:54.000 They run public health campaigns.

00:41:56.000 They operate as a quasi governmental organization.

00:41:58.000 They issue the majority of their continuing education that doctors must receive in order to maintain medical licenses.

00:42:03.000 So back in 2008, the AMA adopted something called Resolution 122 in support of drugs and surgeries used today to quote unquote, treat gender confusion.

00:42:14.000 And they proclaimed that they would reject the myth that such treatments would be like hormone therapy and cutting the breasts off healthy youngsters, fake vaginas being made are experimental and declared them instead safe and effective treatment.

00:42:25.000 for gender identity disorder.

00:42:26.000 The AMA couched all this as a matter of non-discrimination, as if there was no difference between a mastectomy for a woman with breast cancer to save her life and cutting off a 16-year-old girl's breast because she is gender confused.

00:42:38.000 By 2021, the AMA dove in with laser focus on gender confused kids.

00:42:42.000 The AMA's then vice president and CEO, James Madera, wrote a letter to state governors urging them not to ban the castration, sterilization of gender confused kids, claiming empirical evidence demonstrates that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression, and that the science backed the use of hormonal sterilization surgery to prevent gender confused patients from killing themselves.

00:43:05.000 This idea has consistently been trotted out there for as their excuse essentially for medical mutilation that without these horrifying hormonal and surgical interventions, patients would kill themselves.

00:43:17.000 That was never true.

00:43:18.000 In the Supreme Court oral arguments regarding US v.

00:43:21.000 Scrumetti, a transgender ACLU lawyer and activist named Chase Strangio buckled under pressure from Justice Alito admitting suicides were, thankfully and admittedly rare among trans youth in 2022.

00:43:32.000 The then president of the AMA, Dr. Jack Resnick criticized all scrutiny of gender affirming care as quote unquote disinformation.

00:43:40.000 I'm angry.

00:43:40.000 I'm angry about how science and medicine have been politicized, about the flood of disinformation that seeks to discredit data and evidence, undermine public health.

00:43:54.000 No, we didn't pick this political fight, but we will stand up for our patience, for the policies of this House, and for our profession.

00:44:00.000 Thank you.

00:44:11.000 Moralize cloud our ability to care for transgender patients. 1.00

00:44:15.000 Drivers of disinformation say that gender-affirming care clinics are performing genital mutilation surgeries on teens, are not involving families in care decisions, are using medical treatments on young children who show up after wondering for one day if they're trans.

00:44:32.000 Of course, we know that these procedures have in fact been performed on gender confused kids.

00:44:36.000 Before we get to anything else, the AMA's blatant disregard, ignorance, deceit on this basis alone should disqualify them as an authority on the trans issue.

00:44:43.000 Unfortunately, the evidence that we've obtained indicates there's much, much more where that came from.

00:44:48.000 So let's dive in.

00:44:49.000 All right, up in Michigan, a former teacher turned Republican state representative named Brad Paquette decided to go straight to the source, a fellow Michigander and the incoming president.

00:44:57.000 of the AMA, Dr. Bobby Mukamala Paquette also invited Dr. Aiton Haim, who you may remember as the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower.

00:45:04.000 The footage of their meeting, which we're bringing you exclusively here today, completely discredits the AMA.

00:45:09.000 For starters, AMA president Dr. Bobby Mukamala cites many statistics that are flat out wrong.

00:45:14.000 He declares puberty blockers are reversible only to be confronted with the facts about the real risks from Dr. Haim, who is not only an AMA member, but a doctor with experience surgically placing puberty blockers in pediatric patients with actual endocrine disorders like precocious puberty.

00:45:27.000 In response, Dr. McCamala demonstrates no alarm, dodges Dr. Haim's questions and even mocks Dr. Haim's concerns in one of the most unprofessional moments of the entire encounter.

00:45:36.000 Take a look.

00:45:38.000 Let me ask one question.

00:45:39.000 Okay, so you said that puberty blockers are reversible, right?

00:45:44.000 What they're recommending the time to use these blockers are Tanner stage two before the start of puberty when children are eleven, twelve years old, right?

00:45:52.000 WPATH, right?

00:45:54.000 Even, even, I'm not going to say this again, I'm just going to say it one more time, I'm not an expert at all.

00:45:59.000 I'm not an expert at all in the science that you're talking to me about.

00:46:03.000 I refer to the experts.

00:46:05.000 Basic.

00:46:05.000 If you'd like an opinion from an expert on this, feel free to talk to an expert.

00:46:09.000 So infertility is a result of puberty blockers being used in Tanner stage two, a micro penis.

00:46:16.000 Micropenis is an absolute.

00:46:21.000 Wait, wait, wait, wait.

00:46:22.000 Hold on, hold on.

00:46:23.000 That's crazy.

00:46:24.000 If you can't see that, what he's doing with his hand is he's opening and shutting his hand like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:46:29.000 Nuts faced with legitimate science challenging his position, the AMA demonstrates total neglect of duty.

00:46:34.000 Unfortunately, this was just the first indication of the stupidity and dishonesty of the AMA in response to Dr. Himes' point that medications and surgeries do indeed cause irreversible damage.

00:46:44.000 Dr. McCamala simply repeats long debunked claims that the patient regret rate for all of these interventions is supposedly only two percent.

00:46:52.000 Right.

00:46:54.000 Do you know what the percentage of people are that actually change their gender identity after identifying with a particular gender?

00:47:00.000 Yeah, it's very high.

00:47:01.000 No, it's not.

00:47:03.000 Yeah, according to what?

00:47:06.000 According to the people that see these patients, the, the, the, the people that regret pursuing a change in their gender.

00:47:14.000 Yeah.

00:47:15.000 So they say, you know what?

00:47:16.000 I shouldn't have done that is two percent at highest.

00:47:21.000 Okay, so that's not true.

00:47:22.000 The most off-cited study claiming that two percent regret rate is by Bustos et al.

00:47:26.000 Regret after gender affirming surgery at first.

00:47:29.000 That sounds great.

00:47:30.000 A systematic review, a meta analysis right there in the title., the keyword surgery indicates the study does not measure regret for the tens of thousands of American teenagers who took any measures up to the point of surgery, like, you know, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, which still forever alters their body, their voices, their future fertility.

00:47:45.000 A criticism of that study published in the International Open Access Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons claims Bustos left out several relevant papers, inappropriately included another, and miscalculated the basic data.

00:47:56.000 Additionally, of the studies included, many lacked adequate follow-up, only tracking patients for a year or two.

00:48:01.000 Regret often takes an average of eight years to manifest.

00:48:04.000 In one of the studies Bustos reviewed, there was a 36% loss to follow-up rate, meaning we have no idea what happened to those patients.

00:48:10.000 But methodological negligence is just one part of the problem.

00:48:13.000 It's as always the case.

00:48:15.000 The whole notion of being trans doesn't have any internal coherence, of course, because the idea that a man believes he's a woman, therefore he's a woman, is totally anti science.

00:48:23.000 Here's what happens when doctor Haim presents doctor Bobby with the AMA's own statements, showing how the AMA has totally contradicted itself on whether gender identity is even alterable.

00:48:32.000 It's kind of an important thing to determine before you start cutting healthy body parts off children, you might think.

00:48:38.000 So they're saying that underlying the assumption is not based on medical and scientific evidence, right?

00:48:53.000 So in this, according to this brief, they're saying that gender identity cannot be changed, right?

00:49:00.000 That it's not based on medicine or science.

00:49:02.000 But then when you go to another one, it actually says that it can and should be changed.

00:49:06.000 I mean, you've led the so gender identity is something that goes on here, not here or there.

00:49:14.000 Yeah, yeah.

00:49:14.000 So, but according to this, it's saying the assumption that it can change is not based on medicine or science.

00:49:25.000 But here, it's saying no neither gender nor sex are stable objective categories.

00:49:32.000 And then in this one, it's saying gender describes someone's inner sense of being a woman, a man, another gender or gender's or no gender.

00:49:43.000 And the problem with these definitions is obvious.

00:49:46.000 They're self evident, right?

00:49:48.000 They're not I don't see it as self evident because I'm not understanding what your concern is because these are things that the gender identity is something that happens from somebody's brain.

00:49:58.000 But this says it can't change, right?

00:50:00.000 This is saying that the assumption that gender identity can change is not based on science.

00:50:06.000 In this one, it's saying it's not.

00:50:08.000 So I'm obviously saying objective measures.

00:50:14.000 These are obviously incompatible statements.

00:50:16.000 Either gender identity changes or it doesn't.

00:50:19.000 Dr. McCamwell has apparently sided with the idea that it can change, which is kind of a wild position to take when you're defending the amputation of a teenager's reproductive organs.

00:50:28.000 What the policy of the AMA is that gender identity is something that comes from something here, not the chromosomes, and what people think they are can change.

00:50:41.000 And wherever it lands, if it's causing them suicidal ideation because they think they're something something and that's not something that's accepted or getting them into trouble socially.

00:50:52.000 That's why the rate of suicide is at fifty percent or higher in this population.

00:50:57.000 So it's a mental thing.

00:50:58.000 I'm not sure exactly.

00:50:59.000 I mean, again, I'm not sure.

00:51:00.000 I can't read all the stuff you've highlighted, but I'm just telling you what the policy of the American Medical Association is.

00:51:06.000 So just to be clear, you said that the gender identity can change.

00:51:13.000 Yes.

00:51:15.000 Dr. Bobby is making up that statistic.

00:51:17.000 There's not even a random activist study from a blue hair gender fluid.

00:51:19.000 They them in Portland that claims that there is a actual fifty percent suicide rate.

00:51:24.000 When doctor Bobby has no incorrect claims to make, he then returns back repeatedly to his assertion that he's not actually an expert.

00:51:28.000 And he's not an expert in endocrinology or plastic surgery.

00:51:32.000 But as the president of the AMA, he's supposed to be an expert in the AMA's code of ethics and at the bare minimum, the Hippocratic Oath.

00:51:37.000 Doctor Haim points out the obvious problem.

00:51:39.000 If the AMA is not the expert on this, then who precisely is when confronted with the findings of the HHS report and W paths to seed, which doctor Bobby admits he has not read, he then becomes defensive and reflex.

00:51:51.000 As we've seen in the most recent HHS report, all those organizations have been implicated in concealing evidence that doesn't support their recommendations, right?

00:52:03.000 These people are hiding studies that don't support their conclusions.

00:52:07.000 That's what WPATH was doing with the data.

00:52:09.000 But you're telling me that the people that take care of these patients at the University of Michigan are hiding data?

00:52:17.000 They might be involved in it if they're in WPATH and we're responsible for making those guidelines, absolutely.

00:52:23.000 That's beyond doubt.

00:52:24.000 We have the data.

00:52:25.000 We'll go ahead and file a case against them and we'll see where it goes.

00:52:28.000 But that's not at all what they do.

00:52:30.000 This is a theory.

00:52:31.000 No, no, no, no.

00:52:32.000 There's no data.

00:52:34.000 All you have to do is read that report.

00:52:36.000 I can't believe you guys haven't read this.

00:52:38.000 I mean, you guys are the leaders of the AMA.

00:52:42.000 Ultimately, doctor McCamala connected, representing Paquette with one of the AMA's esteemed trans medicine experts.

00:52:48.000 He assured him that this expert would be able to answer his questions.

00:52:50.000 You'll never guess who they put forward for the job.

00:52:53.000 Doctor Jesse Krakoyin, a family medicine doctor who is trans herself.

00:52:57.000 On tomorrow's show, we bring you that call with doctor Krakoyin, which was in many ways even more disturbing.

00:53:02.000 Here's a quick look at how ideologically steeped AMA's expert really is.

00:53:07.000 So when we are seeing very young children, we're talking about social functioning.

00:53:12.000 We're talking about how they feel.

00:53:14.000 We're seeing whether it's consistent.

00:53:16.000 But, you know, when I. I had a seven year old patient in Marquette, for instance, who identified as transgender.

00:53:24.000 She had for years, her main concern was how to diminish any appearance of a bulge in her ballet leotard. 0.57

00:53:32.000 So our medical treatment was just how do we avoid rashes in this kid.

00:53:37.000 At the same time, mom was expressing that before they let her socially transition, before they let her grow her hair out and choose her own name, she had frequently talked about wanting to die and that that had stopped as soon as they let her start making those choices.

00:53:53.000 By the way, Jesse Krakowian is supposed to be a man.

00:53:55.000 What does that sound?

00:53:56.000 Noticed something about the voice there.

00:53:58.000 Remember, that's a medical doctor, not some activist on TikTok espousing how they've affirmed a child's confusion and strung along their parents in their activist crusade.

00:54:05.000 Routine way, something this insane exits the mouth of the AMA's apparent top transgender expert upon whose opinion the AMA's policies apparently will rely is absolutely astonishing. 0.60

00:54:15.000 We'll bring you the rest of the story tomorrow.

00:54:16.000 For today, Dr. Bobby Makamala and the AMA's feat should be held to the fire.

00:54:20.000 The AMA must be stopped from rubber stamping barbarism and experimental medicine.

00:54:23.000 Go over to ama exposed dot com dot That's ama exposed dot com to learn more and sign on to our petition.

00:54:30.000 Obviously, Daily Wire has been fighting this for a very, very long time.

00:54:33.000 Mentioned Vanderbilt.

00:54:34.000 Matt Walsh has done amazing work on this.

00:54:36.000 Our entire company has had a policy since the very beginning that we only refer to people by their actual biological pronouns.

00:54:42.000 We fight the fight here at Daily Wire.

00:54:44.000 This is just another example.

00:54:46.000 Okay.

00:54:46.000 Meanwhile, an immigration judge has now said, remember Kilmar Abrigo Garcia, that was the guy who very likely was a human trafficker.

00:54:55.000 Remember that guy?

00:54:57.000 And then you remember that the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador and they probably should have waited to deport him to El Salvador and then they brought him back to adjudicate what to do with him next.

00:55:05.000 And then they said, okay, well, we are now going to try him and then we're going to deport him and maybe we'll send him to Uganda.

00:55:11.000 Well, a federal judge on Monday said that actually the Trump administration is absolutely forbidden.

00:55:17.000 from removing him from the United States.

00:55:19.000 US District Court judge Paula Zinnas, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked Abrego Garcia's deportation to Uganda until she can hold a hearing to determine whether the administration will let him contest his removal to the third country.

00:55:32.000 She said, Your clients are absolutely forbidden at this juncture to remove mister Abrego Garcia from the continental United States.

00:55:38.000 That is the understanding that we have.

00:55:40.000 The government suggested that his deportation is not imminent.

00:55:43.000 Meanwhile, his lawyers say that he has been detained by ICE again as well as he should be.

00:55:48.000 He is an illegal immigrant who is allegedly involved with MS thirteen trafficking.

00:55:52.000 mister Abrego Garcia was taken into custody by ICE this morning.

00:55:55.000 As he was leaving the jail in Tennessee on Friday, he'd been given a notice requiring him to check in at 8 a.m. this morning.

00:56:01.000 The notice stated that the reason was interview.

00:56:03.000 Clearly that was false.

00:56:12.000 There was no need for them to take him into ICE detention.

00:56:14.000 He was already on electronic monitoring from the U.S. Marshall Service and basically on house arrest.

00:56:19.000 The only reason that they've chosen to take him into detention is to punish him.

00:56:25.000 Well, I mean, they're taking him into detention because they're going to deport him, presumably.

00:56:29.000 Hilariously, Abdulgarcia's lawyer then said they might send him to Uganda.

00:56:34.000 Why are they sending him to a place where they don't speak English?

00:56:37.000 The official language of Uganda is English.

00:56:41.000 As Kilmar Abrego Garcia was leaving the jail in Tennessee and was in his car on the way up to Maryland, the government designated Uganda as the country of removal.

00:56:58.000 It is preposterous that they would send him to Africa, to a country where he doesn't even speak the language, a country with documented human rights violations.

00:57:10.000 Uh, when there are so many other options.

00:57:15.000 Well, um, I mean, he might need another option for a lawyer.

00:57:18.000 This does not seem like a particularly good lawyer.

00:57:20.000 Meanwhile, Democrats, they have decided that the only way forward against President Trump is, of course, resistance.

00:57:25.000 The problem is they have no idea, like, at all, how to resist in any way that doesn't alienate the American people with their sanity.

00:57:32.000 So the DNC had its summer meeting yesterday, the Democratic National Committee, and I don't know what's wrong with these people.

00:57:37.000 They literally opened their Democratic National Committee with a land acknowledgement as Ken Martin head of the DNC.

00:57:45.000 What do they think they're doing?

00:57:46.000 Like, if you want to alienate more Americans, please. 0.54

00:57:48.000 Please donate more Americans.

00:57:48.000 Please do more of this.

00:57:49.000 Seriously.

00:57:50.000 Like, I'm happy the Democrats are doing this, but I have to say, it's one of the most moronic things I've ever seen.

00:57:54.000 Why are you opening a DNC meeting by suggesting that America is all stolen land?

00:57:59.000 Okay, guys, if you never want to win an election again, I suppose you can continue to do this stuff.

00:58:03.000 This is Lindy Somek, who is from the Saginaw Ojibwe Nation, and she's going to deliver our land acknowledgement today.

00:58:11.000 Indeed.

00:58:12.000 Hmm.

00:58:17.000 Boojoo.

00:58:19.000 Lindy Somek, Ninjinikaas, Omek Dotum, Saginaw Chipwa Dojaba, Anishinaabe Kwei and Dao.

00:58:26.000 Good morning DNC members, friends and relatives.

00:58:30.000 Let's talk about the land for a second.

00:58:34.000 The DNC acknowledges and honors the Dakota Oyate, the Dakota people, who are the original stewards of the lands and waters of Minneapolis.

00:58:42.000 The Dakota cared for the lands, lakes, and the Wakatonka, the Great River, the Mississippi River, for thousands of years before colonization.

00:58:51.000 This land was not claimed or traded.

00:58:53.000 It is a part of a history of broken treaties and promises, and in many ways we still live in a system built to suppress indigenous peoples' cultural and spiritual history.

00:59:05.000 Oh, good Lord.

00:59:06.000 Oh, good Lord.

00:59:06.000 You're going to win back men the middle of America by saying that America is all stolen land and that those systems of theft are perpetuated into the present day.

00:59:16.000 Happy New Year to you.

00:59:16.000 Oh, Ken Martin, who is a very inspiring speaker, the head of the DNC, he also says, It's time to fight.

00:59:21.000 And then he says the word damn.

00:59:23.000 Because if you curse, that means that you're really, really passionate.

00:59:28.000 Now look, folks, I'm sick and tired of this Democratic Party bringing a pencil to a knife fight. 1.00

00:59:34.000 We can't be the only party that plays by the rules anymore.

00:59:38.000 We have to stand up and fight.

00:59:40.000 We're not going to have a hand tied behind our back anymore.

00:59:43.000 Let's grow a damn spot and get into this fight, Democrats. 1.00

00:59:50.000 Hmm.

00:59:51.000 Hmm.

00:59:51.000 He said damn, but don't worry.

00:59:54.000 That was actually just the beginning.

00:59:55.000 Then Tim Walls came forward, you know, the governor of Minnesota who was the most horrifying vice presidential candidate I've ever seen.

01:00:02.000 And Tim Walls then proceeded to say the S word, not just damn, the S word, which means he's super, duper, duper passionate.

01:00:11.000 The privilege of my lifetime was stand beside someone we know was the most qualified and would have been a fantastic president in a president Harris.

01:00:23.000 And look.

01:00:25.000 We wouldn't wake up every day to a bunch of on TV and a bunch of nonsense.

01:00:30.000 We would wake up to an adult with compassion and dignity and vision and leadership doing the work, not a man child crying about whatever's wrong with him.

01:00:42.000 Yeah, it went great for them last time with this message.

01:00:44.000 Probably they need to do more of this, but don't worry.

01:00:46.000 They have another over white white man who they are going to trot out there to rip President Trump. 1.00

01:00:50.000 That would be Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who must be lowered into the state capital by Crane.

01:00:55.000 And he was also riping President Trump over the possibility of a National Guard deployment to Chicago.

01:01:01.000 What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted.

01:01:08.000 It is illegal.

01:01:09.000 It is unconstitutional.

01:01:12.000 It is unamerican.

01:01:14.000 This is not about fighting crime.

01:01:16.000 This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city, in a blue state, to try and intimidate his political rivals.

01:01:28.000 This is about the President of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our city.

01:01:40.000 cities and end elections.

01:01:45.000 Resistance, yeah, end elections. 0.79

01:01:47.000 God, they just can't, they can't stop themselves.

01:01:49.000 Meanwhile, the least popular mayor in America, Brandon Johnson, Chicago, he says that while he's protesting the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, he says, we have to stop sending people to jail.

01:01:59.000 Dude, it's because you want to stop sending criminals to jail that anyone is even talking about crime in your city.

01:02:05.000 Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a publicity stunt to invoke chaos and terror, the federal government should spend that money on proven solutions to crime and violence reduction.

01:02:17.000 We cannot incarcerate our way out of violence.

01:02:21.000 We've already tried that and we've ended up with the largest prison population in the world without solving the problems of crime and violence.

01:02:29.000 The addiction on jails and incarceration in this country, we have moved past that.

01:02:35.000 It is racist.

01:02:36.000 It is immoral.

01:02:37.000 It is unholy.

01:02:38.000 And it is not the way to drive violence down.

01:02:43.000 Hmm.

01:02:44.000 Hmm.

01:02:44.000 Good luck, Democrats.

01:02:46.000 I can't imagine why you keep losing.

01:02:47.000 Why?

01:02:48.000 Well, maybe because Barbara Lee, who is another person considered for Joe Biden's vice president before he picked the unbelievably charismatic and so brat Kamala. 1.00

01:02:57.000 Harris, Barbara Lee is the mayor of Oakland. 0.97

01:02:59.000 And here she is saying that the police in Oakland won't actually work with ICE.

01:03:03.000 This is the DNC meeting.

01:03:06.000 Now, Donald Trump, you know, he trashed Oakland.

01:03:09.000 He lied about us.

01:03:11.000 But Oakland is not afraid.

01:03:14.000 We embrace all residents, including our immigrant communities.

01:03:19.000 Our police do not cooperate with ICE.

01:03:24.000 We don't.

01:03:27.000 Good luck to you, Democrats.

01:03:29.000 My goodness.

01:03:30.000 And they've got like a target rich environment.

01:03:32.000 And the best they can come up with is that they are going to not cooperate with ICE, allow crime to spiral in their cities and say damn and at the DNC with land acknowledgements.

01:03:44.000 My goodness, they are truly terrible at this.

01:03:47.000 Truly, truly terrible at this.

01:03:48.000 Well, in cultural news, I just wanted to point out there's an update on the great story of our time, Cracker Barrel.

01:03:55.000 So Cracker Barrel has now admitted they could have done a better job with their logo redesign.

01:03:59.000 They said Uncle Herschel will still be on the menu.

01:04:04.000 That's of course the white dude leaning on the barrel.

01:04:07.000 Apparently the origin of Cracker Barrel for those of us who have never been to it, like I keep kosher, I've never been to a Cracker Barrel.

01:04:11.000 Apparently the origin of.

01:04:13.000 the Cracker Barrel logo is that when you would go to sort of an old country store, there would be a barrel outside filled with chips, like filled with crackers to keep them dry so they didn't rot and mold inside.

01:04:25.000 And there would be some old dude lying on it.

01:04:27.000 And that was basically the Cracker Barrel thing.

01:04:29.000 And then they redid the inside of Cracker Barrel as well to make it, I don't know, less kitschy or something.

01:04:34.000 And it all was a giant fail.

01:04:35.000 So now they have acknowledged that this was in fact a failure.

01:04:38.000 It's going to go over like New Coke.

01:04:40.000 And so there are a bunch of people who are, you know, basically not going to Cracker Barrel now.

01:04:47.000 But I will assume that they are changing course.

01:04:50.000 Apparently, according to the company, they've issued a statement, quote, If the last few days have shown us anything, it's how deeply people care about Cracker Barrel.

01:04:57.000 We're truly grateful for your heartfelt voices.

01:04:59.000 You've also shown us we could have done a better job sharing who we are and what we'll always be.

01:05:02.000 What has not changed and what will never change are the values this company was built on when Cracker Barrel first opened in 1969.

01:05:08.000 Hard work, family, scratch cooked food made with care, a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you're from or where you're headed.

01:05:13.000 That's the Cracker Barrel you'll always find.

01:05:15.000 The things that people love most about our stores are not going anywhere.

01:05:17.000 Rocking chairs on the veranda, a warm fire in the hearth, pegg games on the table, unique treasures in our gift shop and vintage Americana with antiques pulled straight from our warehouse in Lebanon, Tennessee.

01:05:26.000 We love seeing how much you care about our old timer.

01:05:28.000 We love him too.

01:05:28.000 Uncle Herschel will still be on our menu.

01:05:30.000 Welcome back.

01:05:30.000 Uncle Herschel's favorite breakfast platter on our road signs and presented in our country store.

01:05:34.000 He's not going anywhere.

01:05:35.000 He's family.

01:05:37.000 So, you know, we'll see if they if they actually just go back to the original logo, probably they will probably they'll have they'll say it was an experiment.

01:05:46.000 It didn't work and they'll go back to their original logo, I would imagine because it's so generic.

01:05:51.000 What a terrible marketing move.

The Ben Shapiro Show - August 26, 2025

Trump Protects The American Flag!…PLUS We Break a MAJOR Story

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript