The Megyn Kelly Show - 2021 Year in Review: The Best of The Megyn Kelly Show | Ep. 230

Episode Date: December 27, 2021

In this special edition of The Megyn Kelly Show, we look back at some of the interviews that shaped the year that was 2021, featuring: Josh Rogin of The Washington Post talking about COVID and the Wuhan Lab, Douglas Murray on our cultural drift on identity, Tim Dillon on establishment comedy, Kmele Foster and Rich Lowry on how to properly fight against Critical Race Theory, Marcus and Morgan Luttrell on Biden's botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and Janice Dean on the fall of Governor Cuomo.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Today is our year in review show where we look back at 2021 and some of the biggest stories in the news through some of my favorite episodes of The Megyn Kelly Show. And what's fun is this will be our all new show for our SiriusXM listening audience. Today, we are pulling from our archives on the podcast from shows between January and September before we launched on SiriusXM Triumph Channel 111. I want to start with the biggest story in the world for a second year in a row, and we hope the final year in a row, COVID. As recently as earlier this year, you could not put out a social media post or a YouTube video claiming COVID originated in a Wuhan lab. You

couldn't even question whether it did. Never mind claim that it did. But slowly that started to change. And in no small part, thanks to Josh Rogan of The Washington Post, mainstream media is not all bad. They've got some great players here and there like Josh. Josh joined me in April in what became a viral interview because he spoke clearly and honestly about the origins of COVID. I mean, he was truly one of the first to actually say this stuff out loud. But also, as he says, how the story got all screwed up. Knowing how it started is important. And I think there are still there's sort of three categories of people. One that believes it came from an animal, a wet market over in China where they serve, you can walk through and see live animals people like to eat.

Number two is from a lab in Wuhan, China, where people were creating intentionally some sort of virus, the coronavirus, COVID-19, to hurt people, potentially as a military weapon. And number three, it was in a Wuhan lab being studied and accidentally got released, right? Do I basically have the three possible sources outlined? And your belief after all your reporting is what? So basically, what I lay out in the book is that there's plenty of evidence to support the still unproven theory that COVID-19 originated from an accidental

leak from one of the labs in Wuhan that was doing what we call gain-of-function research. That's where they collect all the bat coronaviruses they can find, take them 1,000 miles from where the bats live to Wuhan, which is 1,000 miles away from the bats, by the way, and then they experiment on them to make them more virulent, to make them more dangerous. Why do they do that? Well, they're trying to predict the next pandemic, right? And this is a program supported by $200 million of US taxpayer-funded research, okay? And what it was, was hundreds of scientists, American scientists and Chinese scientists, going around scooping up all the most dangerous viruses that you could find and bringing them to this very lab that happened to be 10 miles where the outbreak broke out and playing around

with them in ways that you know we understand are risky and dangerous and have very little to no oversight okay and if you came to this in a story if you were an alien you dropped down on earth uh not knowing how this issue of the origin had become hyper politicized for a couple of important reasons I'm about to get to. And you just looked at that set of facts. OK, you've got bats a thousand miles away. You've got the number one bat coronavirus research lab, which was doing research on how to make these viruses more infectious on humans. And that's where the outbreak broke out. Well, Occam's razor would tell you that we should probably check out that lab. OK, that's not to say so obvious. It seems so obvious like that. out, well, Occam's razor would tell you that we should probably check out that lab, okay?

And that's not to say- It seems so obvious. It seems so obvious. You say it like that, like, oh my God, wait a minute. This is the number one lab in the world researching bat coronaviruses? And that's where the outbreak was? And it gets worse because two years before the outbreak,

a US diplomat traveled to that very lab and took a look at it three trips and said they didn't have enough trips and said they didn't have enough safety procedures, they didn't have enough staff, and they warned about the very studies that they were doing, because they were publishing some but not all of their studies, about making these viruses more susceptible to infect humans in a very specific way. That is, an S-protein with an ACE2 inceptor. What they would do is they would take these mice and they would give them human-like lungs, and then they'd run the virus through them a few hundred times and see what

happens. Now, the virus that caused the pandemic infects the ACE2 inceptor with the S-protein. It's the exact same thing that the diplomats warned about in these cables that I wrote. But okay, so now I'm going to tell you how the story got all screwed up. And this is also in the book. Basically, what happened is that, you know, when the virus broke out, it became a battle in the media between, on the one hand, Trump and Pompeo, who, you know, as you know, most of the media didn't like and wanted to discredit or, you know, there were some reasons that they had lost credibility, to be honest. And then you had these scientists. Then these scientists were the friends of the Wuhan lab.

And they were led by this guy named Peter Daszak, who works at the EcoHealth Alliance. But basically, it was a whole group of them whose life work was invested in this. This is what they had spent their last 20 years doing. They had raised $200 million doing it. If the lab were found to be guilty, their careers and legacies would be ruined forever. And they know this. So they immediately tell everybody, there's no way it could be from. And we know this because we know everything that happened in the lab, which, by the way, is not true. And we talked to the lab

people, our best friend, the bat woman, Dr. Shenzhong Li, and she said we didn't do it. Case closed. It must be the market. OK. And because of the if you just remember, you know, we were all going through this crazy time in April, May 2020. You know, it was very disruptive and very dystopian. I remember it. And it was hard to know really what was going on. And there was a campaign going on. People were getting sick.

Everyone said, don't worry about the origins. By the way, the reason we need to know about the origins is not because we're trying to blame China. Because you can blame them for a number of things. Either way, that's what people don't get. There's plenty of blame on China without the origin thing even being involved. We need to know because we need to know how to prevent the next pandemic because if we don't

know how it started, then we can't prevent the next one, which is pretty important. So listen to this. So these scientists, again, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, they go everywhere. 60 Minutes, you name it. There's no way the lab could be involved. And then Trump and Pompeo were like, well, we're pretty sure it was the lab, which may have been going beyond the evidence.

But, you know, that's kind of their style. So the media, most of us, most of the media were like, oh, yeah, I'm going to believe the scientists over Trump and Pompeo. And they wrote that that way and they called Tom Cotton a conspiracy theorist. And then, you know, that was it. And now we're here a year later and there's a ton more information and there's a ton more we know about it. And, you know, there's a lot more evidence now pointing to the lab. I'm not saying we know the lab did it. We don't know. I'm just saying we should investigate it. And all of a sudden, these journalists can't they can't think again. They can't, you know, resist the, the, they, they have, they must resist the idea that they might have been wrong a year ago,

you know, which I say, if I'm wrong and then tell me I'm wrong and I'll change my mind. If I get new information, I think new things. That's just how I think the honest journalism should work. But for a lot of people, it's just like, no, Pompeo is not credible. The scientists said this. And then we get to the WHO report, which I know you want to talk about, but I'll just, I'll intro it here by saying this, the guy that the WHO gets to do the investigation is Peter Daszak, who has a clear conflict of interest as I've ever seen in my entire life. They rejected the people that the US government wanted them to put on the, then then they had a investigation that was you know

determined the scope was determined by the chinese government the investigation was overseen by the chinese government tony blanket said the report was written by the chinese government and then you have the same scientists who've been denying this the whole time who have declared conflict of interest say oh no it couldn't have been the lab we don't need to investigate the lab forget about the lab we went to the lab it's ridiculous this is okay peter dazek he we have the soundbite then we'll play it this is just from march 28th so it's very recent it really is crazy it's like so the chinese got to pick who was going to write the report who was going to come over they chaperoned their chosen investigators the entire time they were there never let them alone it wasn't an independent thing

and um not surprisingly okay yeah then maybe they didn't do the report maybe they were there, never let them alone. It wasn't an independent thing. And not surprisingly, okay, yeah, then maybe they didn't do the report. Yeah. And then not surprisingly, the lab theory was dismissed. And in a report that's 123 pages, they spent two lines, you know, saying, oh, it wasn't a lab. Like they didn't look into it at all. It's a total whitewash and a service to CCP propaganda, unlike I've ever seen. China Communist Party. Okay, so here's that guy you've been referring to, Peter Daszak, who is one of the, quote, investigators that's supposed to get to the bottom of all this. For all of us, 2.7 million people dead. He's over there trying to figure out how it got started on our behalf,

and the world's behalf. And here he is talking to Leslie Stahl on 60. Something like 75% of emerging diseases come from animals into people. We've seen it before. We've seen it before. We've seen it in China with SARS. Is the lab leak theory any more or less speculative than your pathway? For an accidental leak that then led to COVID to happen, the virus that causes COVID would need to be in the lab.

They never had any evidence of a virus like COVID in the lab. They never had the COVID-19 virus in that lab? Not prior to the outbreak, no. Absolutely. No evidence of that. Were there Chinese government minders in the room every time you were asking questions? There were Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff in the room throughout our stay. Absolutely. They were there to make sure everything went smoothly from the China side.

Or to make sure they weren't telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You sit in a room with people who are scientists, and you know what a scientific statement is, and you know what a political statement is. We had no problem distinguishing between the two oh my god okay so there's a lot of things to unpack there let me just go through the top ones okay so and you didn't even play the part where she asked him to her credit don't you have a clear conflict of interest and his answer was something like well don't you want the people

who know the lab best to investigate the lab which is like absurd when you think about it it's like having no robert kardashian investigate oj it's It's like, I know OJ, I'll do the investigation. You know what I mean? It's crazy. But anyway, the other things that he said that were wrong is like, they didn't have it in the lab. They didn't have it in the lab. Well, they wouldn't be able to admit it or they would get killed, right? This is the thing about the Chinese system that people need to understand is that those scientists may be very nice people. They may be trying to solve the pandemic. They may be mortified that they might have actually sparked the pandemic while trying to solve the pandemic, but they don't get to make these decisions. They've got a general sitting up

behind their shoulder who's got a party guy sitting behind his shoulder who's got Xi Jinping sitting behind his shoulder, okay? And if they had a smoking gun, they would destroy it and bury it and we would never find it, which is a separate problem. And the whole idea that we shouldn't investigate the lab, by the way, was refuted during that exact day by Peter Daszak's boss, Dr. Tedros, the head of the WHO, who I don't think anyone would call like an anti-China pro-Trump conspiracy theorist, quite the contrary, right? This is the head of the WHO who said, you know what? They didn't really investigate the lab. We're going to have to investigate the lab. And you have to think to yourself, why would Dr. Tedros say that? Why would he take a big,

you know, crap on his own report as they're releasing the report? It's unprecedented. And the only reason that makes sense is because he's trying to salvage the credibility of this organization that Peter Daszak is trampling on. OK, and he knows that the United States is about to release the statement saying this is not going to be all of the investigation. We don't think it was a real investigation, which is exactly what Blinken, to his credit, said. He said, well, because if you think about it, the Biden administration, they're not they weren't there. there right they're not married to this one theory or another theory they don't care which way it turns out they're not like you know unlike a lot of the the unlike 60 minutes they don't they don't they didn't get it wrong the first time right and you know the the media is

now trying to like tiptoe into this idea of oh well maybe it could be the oh no okay oh how dare you say oh that's racist and then here comes robert, right, who is the head of the CDC at the time of the outbreak. Now, not a perfect person, not didn't go through the pandemic making zero mistakes. I'm not here to say he's a saint, but he's a virologist. He's seen the intelligence. And he says on CNN, he says, yeah, I'm pretty sure it was the lab. It was this gain of function research. He's saying that based on how the virus acted. That's evidence. He's saying that I saw how the virus acted. I saw the intelligence. By the way, the intelligence is also evidence. The Trump administration put out a lot of facts about secret work at the lab. In other words, the Trump

administration, confirmed by the Biden administration, called Peter Daszak a liar. OK, they can't both be telling the truth. Now, Peter Daszak is calling the Biden administration a liar. They're all liars, according to Peter. Peter's like, everybody's a liar except for me. Oh, and by the way, the Chinese people who are my chaperones, they were just there to make things go smoothly, go smoothly. And we all know what that means. Come out the way we wanted to.

Right. So that's why, you know, it's actually in a way good that you weren't following this at the time because you had an open mind when this all happened a month ago. And common sense and Oculus Razor point you towards, oh, we should probably take a look at the lab. And again, I create a fourth category of people. These are people who just want to figure it out. You don't believe that any, that's me. Okay. I'm that category. I don't care how it started. But I do care that we figure it out because you know what the plan is to respond to this virus? This is going to blow your mind. The plan is to take that research, that Peter Daszak research, and spend $1.2 billion expanding it sixfold.

What? The Global Virome Project. That is the response. That is the plan response. $200 million, which failed to predict under the PREDICT program. It's called PREDICT. Which failed to predict, much less preempt the pandemic. They're now now gonna times it by six and throw 1.2 billion dollars into it and i i swear to god dig up 500 000 new viruses that are transmissible to humans in the wild and take

them to labs and play around that's the no that is whose plan whose plan the world's plan global viral project is an international project heavily supported by, you guessed it, Peter Daszak and Anthony Fauci and all the rest of them, all the people who have made their careers in virology based on this idea that the best way to stop pandemics is to dig up a bunch of viruses in the wild. But you know what? Maybe that's not the best way. Maybe we should spend that money on monitoring and surveillance that when outbreaks happen, we can squash them easily and on placing, you know, medical resources and things in the places where the bats are rather than dragging the viruses to a lab. And then there's an outbreak next to the lab and everyone's like, oh, it must've been the market or something like that, by the way.

Well, that's what, so wait, I want to, I want, there's a lot to unpack and what you just said too. So by the way, so, so you said earlier that we put American money into this lab in China, from which we believe. All right. So then. So how much American money is going into this fake solution, which is actually probably another cause of yet another pandemic to come? Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to expand the program that, again, we don't know, but may have caused the current pandemic, as opposed to where you could spend that money. And just to back up. So let's just back up and make it super simple

for people to understand. Crazy, right? What we're being told by people like DASIC, the World Health Organization, is now that after all the study and thought and investigation, quote unquote, in China, we think the virus came from bats in a cave, was a thousand miles from the lab.

Is that what you said? That's right. Okay. Researchers, you know, that yes, they were in Wuhan researching bat coronaviruses. They were doing that. But a thousand miles away, what we had was bats in a cave. That's right. wet market. For those of us who don't totally understand, what exactly is a wet market? My understanding is live animals that people want to eat, but do they eat them? I don't get it. No. Again, I think this is like a trope because I've been to China. I've been to a lot of these Southeast Asian countries. They're markets. You go to the market. You can buy anything you want.

You can buy some fish. You can buy some meat. Some of the animals are alive when they're in the market. They're not alive when they sell them to you. These are how markets work, okay? And so this whole, and again, if you think about it, it's kind of crazy because people are like, oh, well, unfortunately people have associated this lab accident theory with like a rise in Asian American hate. But if you think about it, isn't it more racist

to say that like, oh, Chinese people eat weird stuff and that caused the virus, especially if it's not true? When we come back, one of my favorite guests ever. I was so looking forward to this interview. He didn't disappoint even a little. If you're not already madly in love with the intellect and musings of Douglas Murray, you're about to be. We'll be right back. Early in the new year, last January, Douglas Murray came on our show for a two plus hour conversation. I loved it. Loved it. I've listened to this on my free time just for kicks more than once. It was a conversation that wound up becoming the blueprint for so much that would happen in 2021. Frankly, Murray's book, The Madness of Crowds, which you have to read,

tells the story about gender, race and identity. And in this part of our conversation, Murray says the line I have repeated so many times on this show in response to people's questions about how you deal with being shamed for not being the right member of the right identity group with the right past that you can claim you've been victimized by. The famous Douglas Murray line of, we can all do that. Listen to how it unfolded. In pushing us to be, quote, anti-racist, of course, the language is incredibly racist. The positions being taken are incredibly racist. And in an attempt by some of the wokesters to fight for what they would say is equality of women, they need to denigrate men and they need to elevate women. It's not, as you've pointed out repeatedly, this movement isn't about equality for various groups

that have been targeted historically. It's about better than. It's about elevating them above. And people can feel it. And if you're in one of the targeted groups, maybe you like it if you're a wokester. But I think most people understand this isn't about equality. It's about subjugation of a new and different group. And it feels unfair. It feels wrong. That's right. Yes, it's, I mean, to sort of steel man, what's been happening, I think it's just worth saying at the outset, you know,

the whole ideology of wokery, I mean, starts from a reasonable place. And I always think it's worth crediting when an opponent or somebody you think has come to reprehensible conclusions nevertheless has started with a serious question. There has been in our societies historically racism. There has in every society. But American society has had a particular issue with racism in the past. And so there is a legitimate argument that some of that may be lingering

still in the present day. That's the thing to contend with. It's true that women have been prejudiced against in career options, among other things, in not that far off memory. You know, it's not ancient history. It's true that gay people, LGBT people, to use a term I don't like, have been prejudiced against until, again, not that far ago i mean we're only talking about the 60s and 70s legalization occurs in countries like ours so these are serious things to contend with and

an element of the left says look just because you've got full equal legal rights does not necessarily mean that the whole thing's been sorted out. Sure, you know, people are equal under the law, but there is still these inequalities and inequities that will be existing. That's a serious point, and it's worth considering. The problem is that two things happen. Firstly, people on the political right, broadly speaking, don't like to concede points the political left are onto and have thought about a lot in case the political left then uses it to push through their own agenda. It's the same with people on the political left with the political right. People on the political left don't like to concede that there are problems around, for instance, immigration, because they fear that

the political right has been thinking about this. And when the political left conceives that it's an issue, it's not just open borders and, you know, kumbaya. Once it conceives that it's an issue, then the political right will be playing some nasty game and will smuggle in bad stuff. So everyone's got this fear, and it paralyzes real discussion. But so as I say, let's concede the political left is on to something with this whole issue to do with historic injustice that may have still been percolating down into the present day. The problem is the political left has been answering this on its own, unaided, I think, by any serious contestation by the political right, and has been making this on its own, unaided, I think, by any serious contestation by the political

right, and has been making assertions that by this stage, as I identify in the manners of crowds, by this stage, are really at a stage of overcorrection. Whereas I say, it's not enough to say women are the equal of men, they've got to be better for a bit. We see this endlessly, weirdly, in the political realm with that, you know, that one that comes up occasionally, why female leaders have done better in the era of COVID, for instance. This is a constant one, you know, because the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a woman, and New Zealand's done rather well in the COVID era, that's because New Zealand's led by a woman.

This sort of thing. And, of course, lots of people just don't notice it. I think a lot of people notice it and just let it go by. But the implication of it is that there's something better about women, that if we just had more women in charge, there'd be a lot of things that were better dealt with, better handled. I think that people don't particularly like that kind of chat. You're either equal as men and women or you're not.

It's possible as well, which is is what i submit that there might be different competencies around the edges of different tendencies different uh directions people go in depending on their gametes and chromosomes it's it's it seems to be the case but if you just assert that one sex is is just better than the, as well as being equal, the position I say equal and better, then people again notice there seems to be an unfairness. You can play this in each of the identity groupings. I mean, the only one I have a social crampon on is the gay one.

Not that it's ever done me any good. But it's only caused me pain. But I mean, you know, I don't like it when I see some gay people talking about themselves and being talked about by others as if they're magically better than the straights. It's not as common as the men and women one because it's much more of a minority issue. We're not talking about a 50-50 thing here.

We're talking about a 3% of the population issue. But I don't like it when I hear gay people being talked about as if they're just so much more fabulous and better than the boring straights. There was a magazine in America the other day that ran a piece about the problems we all know about heterosexual partnerships. If you keep talking like that, it sounds like you want to do away with heterosexual partnerships. And if you do away with heterosexual partnerships, you'll do away

with the human species quite fast. So I wouldn't go down that route. But I don't like that talk. I don't think anyone does. I think they notice there's an unfairness. It was unfair when people talked about the gays as being less than straights. And it's unfair if you talk about the straights being less than the gays. And then you get to the worst one, which, of course, I jumped straight into in the Mansour Crowds, which is what you do on the race one. It is so despicable and

i think we recognize everyone in public life recognizes it would be so despicable to talk about anyone who was black whether they were a public figure or a private figure and just talk about with them about them with contempt because of this what it, happenstance of birth. Some people are black, some people are white. The idea that you would talk about someone in a derogatory manner simply because they were black is so morally reprehensible that the people who do it, and there are some, are just pushed to the farthest margins of public life, and we don't want to be around them.

So how did we get to this position, and why should we tolerate it, that there are very, very prominent figures who seem eager not just to demean white people because of the color of their skin, but to actually cause them hurt, to deliberately provoke them, to say we're actually not going to listen to your concerns. And by the way, this isn't a fringe thing anymore. That's why I write about it. That's why I'm interested in it. If it was just a few tenured academics at a few low-grade American universities whose students, unfortunately for the students, have to listen to their professors trotting out a load of divisive stuff like this.

Well, that would be bad. But it's not the position we're in. We're in the position where the now president of the United States, who has talked so importantly about trying to unify the country, a week before his inauguration releases a video saying we are going to focus on those small business owners who suffered this year because of the virus and the shutdown. We're going to focus on small business owners and we're going to have a special focus and prioritize black-owned businesses, Latino-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, Native American-owned businesses. And you look at this and you think, why can't you say, we will as a government of all of the people in the United States prioritize anyone whose business has suffered. We will be looking after you all. We'll be looking out for you all. of people white men why do it why why say your concerns are secondary and that's what i say we're in this strange period because i think that the the thing i diagnose is that we have been that some people primarily on on the left have been going for an overcorrection on each of these issues.

And the problem with going for an overcorrection is you don't know when you've overcorrected too far. You don't know when you've done it for long enough. Who would you follow to tell you you've got to go back to equal? I think that they won't. I think the overcorrection will cause a swing the other way. Because what man wants to be denigrated just because he's a man and be ignored? When people say, look at male suicide rates and prominent female voices and others say, why are you talking about male suicide rates, you loser? Why would you just put up with that endlessly why would you put up endlessly whatever your skin color with being denigrated because of your skin color why would anyone put up with if they're

heterosexual being talked about as if they're some kind of second class citizen so so this just has to stop we have to find a way to get back to equal. But I think it's going to require people of all sides to work really hard on this and to try to resist very deep instincts that we all hold. Well, I think you're right, because I've said in the context of the Me Too movement, and I think it applies to the Black Lives Matter thing, all of these identity politics issues, if you really want advancement for a group that's been historically unequal in some cases, you're going to have to have buy-in from the group that's in power. Women who want to find themselves in more corporate board suites aren't going to get there by just summarily ruining the career of men

for one stupid comment in an elevator. That's just going to make the men afraid of us. And it's fine. I can say that as a woman. If I say that about black people need white people's buy-in in order to achieve true equality, it sounds racist. But I believe it's true there too. I think the answer to remedying whatever disparities that are actually there because of systemic bias, what have you, not this widespread, everything's biased and everything's systemically racist. But whatever, if we want to take a hard, honest look at what systems could be improved or where is bias still lingering in a way that's problematic,

then you need buy-in from both sides, right? So from the people in power and the people who aren't, instead of what we're getting, as you point out in your book, the pushing of classes at like the University of Wisconsin in Madison, you point out there's a course on, quote, the problem of whiteness. And this group effort to demonize one group, I guess, in an attempt to elevate the other. But all that does is demoralize and probably anger people who are now being judged thanks to their own immutable characteristics. And it's utterly unhelpful and yet it's growing it's growing it's such a strange late empire thing to be doing that's one of the things i just can't get out of my mind in all of this is it feels so late empire to be doing things that are so self-destructive and divisive at a time when we're in real trouble economically we're in real trouble financially you know i mean it's it's no longer some kind of weird sci-fi uh fear that china will overtake america as a global power in our lifetimes, certainly in the lifetimes of your children.

That's not some nightmarish, dystopian thing anymore. And the country that is vying with America for global dominance is one which currently has a million people in concentration camps because of their religion and ethnicity. It's one where Western companies outsource labor that is slave labor, where prisoners unpaid who've done nothing wrong work for free at all hours for companies that are subcontracted to major American companies where all of the money and profits goes to a few people at the top. Is this an acceptable moral situation? Is it something we want to encourage?

Having seen what's happened in Hong Kong in the last year, I mean, for the last many years, ever since the handover, but in the last year in particular, after seeing how the Chinese Communist Party cracks down on the people of Hong Kong, is anyone happy about the idea of China overtaking America as a global power? Does anybody think that China will be prevented from doing that if America just completely nixes the whiteness studies courses at certain low-grade or top-grade universities. Does anyone think that the advance of the Chinese economy and of their ability to snuff out human rights around the world using a checkbook is going to be lessened if there are more performative feminist dance studies courses at Berkeley. You know, what exactly do people think the end goal of all this is going to be?

That's why I say it feels so late empire. It feels like a totally unwinnable and dangerous and unhelpful, nasty, retributive cycle that an empire gets stuck in just before it becomes irrelevant. When I listen to these protesters and what's happened on the college campuses in particular, I'm mystified because they don't seem to see that bigger picture. This is America. We're part of a global economy. There are real problems happening around the globe that we can and should be focused on. Perhaps our generation could help fix them. They seem to really think they're in a revolution right now to upend the patriarchy and, you know, fight for racial equality once and for all. Social justice is what it's all about. And the anger, the anger from folks who have grown up at the best possible time in American history to have been a woman, to have been a person of color, like the best. And yet we've got a couple of examples of this,

since I knew you were coming on and we're going to talk about the madness of crowds. And I know you've written about this and I've talked about it on the show, but what happened to Brett Weinstein at Evergreen College up in Washington state where all just for background for people who aren't familiar, all Brett did was to students of color who had been doing sort of a voluntary sick out once a year to make a point about what life would be like without people of color who had been doing sort of a voluntary sick out once a year to make a point about what life would be like without people of color on college campuses and their value and their contributions. One year they came and said, now we want it to be reversed. Now we want the white people to not show up. And Brett Weinstein, a professor there, a very liberal guy said,

that's different. And I think I'm going to object because I think one race telling another not to show up is problematic. Well, you would have thought the guy showed up in a KKK hat, you know, wearing blackface underneath it. And it was insane, the reaction to him. But what I want you to listen to for the audience in this soundbite is the anger over that. All right, so listen. Hey, hey, ho, ho. These racist Asians have got to go. the anger over that. of our administration is white. The thing is that my ancestors were slaves and your ancestors were not.

Your ancestors came here of free choice and decided to bring along my people, not of their own free will, to work and build this country. And so I'm just letting you know that slavery still has repercussions in society today. And that is what we're here about. Those repercussions. It doesn't go away. It's not over. Yeah.

I mean, right? How do you argue against that? I think, I mean, what we saw at evergreen i i i've got to know brett and his wife heather in recent years they've become good friends i i really admire them both they're just really extraordinary and kind and good human beings as well as being extraordinarily clever um i thought that what happened at Evergreen was a sort of prelude to the main event of what has happened subsequently in America because it showed what happens when a mob crowd becomes hysterical.

We've known that the title of The Madness of Crowds comes from the subtitle of a book from the 1850s called Extraordinarily Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by a Scottish journalist who described this sort of thing. That's why I used the title. Crowd madness is what happens when people get whipped up into believing that what they see is just impossible to cope with, impossible to tolerate, and then they go off. That was what happened at Evergreen. And what also happened was basically the disappearance of the adults from the room. You know, there's an important point to make here about the nature of political disagreement, which is that historically, certainly for the last few hundred years, the left advances a set of claims, propositions and more.

And conservatives temper them. That's one analysis of the way in which, to use an old-fashioned term, the political dialectic works. That the conservatives say, hang on a minute, because you've got to be careful when you stampede. You've got to slow it down at the very least. Now, of course, saying slow it down, whoa, is a less sexy and appealing thing, particularly for young people. Because as we all know, when you're young, it is a wonderful thing to also feel that you are in a moment of great change. Everybody wants to be in a moment of great change uh when they're young in particular to be in

what is it the words were said bliss it was in that dawn to be alive about the beginnings of the revolution on the continent um that's what it feels like when you're young when you haven't seen the revolution when you haven't seen the blood on the streets, when you haven't seen what happens afterwards, the desire to turn over the whole damn thing is an instinct of the young to say things are so totally intolerable on my liberal arts college in Oregon that I'm going to pull the whole damn thing down. I'm going to burn down the whole building. That's what happens when you're young and you've never seen the results. And unfortunately, it happens again and again throughout history. We both know this. We can think of examples in our own lives and careers. And there are many cases from the past, you know, and there were serious cases where this same truth

held. The French kings were pretty incompetent. But once the post-revolutionary famines occurred, the French peoples learned that there were new levels of incompetence that they had never dreamt of. You know, the Shah of Iran had quite a lot of people in prison who were political opponents. Some thousands of people were in prison who were political opponents of his. And many people thought it just couldn't be worse until they met the Ayatollah in person. And they realized that a few thousand people being in a prison system was nothing compared to a system which decided to just shoot people on sight and hang them arbitrarily in the street for reported offenses against the new regime. I mean, these may sound like extreme examples, but they're not. They are on a continuum. When you say this thing

is intolerable and the whole damn thing has to be pulled down, you are inviting people to join you in relearning a lesson that people in history have had to learn again and again. And I simply suggest, as a small-c conservative, that people are better at understanding the risks of very, very violent and sudden change, that they step back from that impulse, that they weigh up the pros and cons of this, that they don't say, I mean, also, by the way, when you say what should one say to a person who says these things, I think this is what the adults say. We can all do that. We can all do that. You know, I mean, I'm not denying for a moment that the history of American slavery was bad, but who exactly was the past rosy for? Back in a minute, we're going to lighten things up with Tim Dillon. He is wonderful, totally hilarious, incredibly smart.

You are not going to want to miss this. Love, Tim. Tim Dillon came on in February and had me and my team laughing for hours. My husband loved this interview. Tim goes up on like this higher register when he does this one voice and you're going to die laughing. He also, however, it wasn't all jokes because he spoke some real truth about the way comedians, particularly the sort of establishment-approved comedians on late-night TV these days, have become heralded as these brave truth-tellers.

Now they're teachers, says Dylan. And he hilariously explained why that is such a mistake. I've always been interested in where this started. And I think that it might have started when Tina Fey did that really brilliant and funny impression of Sarah Palin on SNL. And it may have also started with Jon Stewart, an equally brilliant guy

who did a very funny show called The Daily Show. But what started to happen eventually was that people started to believe that their job was to be a teacher, was to be somebody who would affect culture with political humor and that it would not be for the sake of being funny. I mean, there's been political humor forever. And I'm sure some of it was written with the intent that it would affect people. But there became this idea,

and it became rather explicit, that the job of a comedian was to move the needle in a meaningful way in the political world. And I don't know where that happened, but those are two good examples of where it may have began, it was that sarah palin because that nailed sarah palin that that impression was viral and people talked about it and people were saying that you know i don't know if she

could recovered from that it was so good and it was kind of right on and then of course john stewart uh did did kind of a great job at being this political comedian that did provide real information. But what has happened, like everything else, is that it has grown into a cottage industry of people who are putting their opinion in front of their comedy. And this is a big problem because it's not always funny. And in fact, it rarely is funny. And that's why you just use the word dark, which is a great word for it, because when you're putting your opinion out first and you're not worrying about the content, the humor, you're not recognizing the humanity of your opponents. You're not seeing the other side, which is what comics should always do. It's how you can really be funny, especially about meaningful

topics is looking at someone else's. I mean, there's not a great lawyer out there who can't argue the other side of their case. I mean, it's essential, right? It's the whole point of a great attorney, a great litigator is that they know what the other side is going to do and they understand the strengths of the other side. And I think he's a great comedian whose job is to make large numbers of strangers laugh. You have to kind of have some baseline respect for them as human beings. And when we turn everything into this endless, you know, festival of politics and politicized identities, we forget that the people that disagree with us are human beings and that those people, you know, are not enemies. They're people that for whatever reason have a different experience than you so when i watch those late night hosts i go they're they're at the the best way to say

it is they're not really doing their job and they're they've carved out this you know group of people that want to hear them say things they agree with, similar to somebody on maybe Fox or MSNBC. And to me, it's not interesting. And it does get dark and it gets sad because they don't want to do it. You know, when you look at Jimmy Kimmel, he doesn't really want to do it. You're just making so much money

and you become a cog in this Hollywood machine and you're getting $20 million, $30 million. You're expected to do it, but they don't want to do it. You could see it in their faces that nobody got into comedy to lecture people about who to vote for. Nobody. Are you surprised to see these guys being treated as these sage advisors in this serious suit? I mean, to me, it's antithetical to what a comedian generally looks like and projects like and wants to be perceived as. Yeah. Well, what it is is also, you know, people have Google. People can remember that Chelsea Handler made a living doing race material.

And now Chelsea Handler does documentaries about white privilege. Jimmy Kimmel had a show called The Man Show where they like, you know, did wet T-shirt contest. And now he's talking about health privilege. Jimmy Kimmel had a show called The Man Show where they did wet t-shirt contests and now he's talking about health insurance. Stephen Colbert did a show where he was a very funny kind of guy that was impersonating Bill O'Reilly. And he got away with saying a lot of crazy things because it was satire and it was very funny. And now a lot of these same people exist.

They act like satire doesn't exist. And if you say something, you're dead serious about it. And if you make a racial joke, you're a racist. Or if it's a homophobic joke, you're a homophober. If you make a joke about trans people, you're diminishing your trans identity. And all of these people are very Google-able. They've all had long careers. None of them felt this way years ago. And I mean, I don't mean you don't have to go back 10 years. You can go back right before Trump got into the primaries. Like this is a new, relatively new phenomenon in mass where all of these people are every day tweeting. I mean, I have comedian friends of mine that are tweeting about trade agreements all day. And it's like, what are you doing? They're tweeting at Mayor Garcetti. They're like, you better. These people have roommates. They're on drugs. It's like, and they're going, what's the budget of LA? The cops better be not getting more than this percentage of the budget. I'm like, the budget? You can't afford a car. So it's

a mind virus. Truly, it's a mind virus. And people like me have been, I think, pretty well received kind of pointing it out because a lot of people are going like, oh, yeah, man, that's kind of the way I feel. Like they grew up watching these comics. These guys were very funny. Colbert, Kimmel. These guys were really, really funny people. But now I think they feel that for whatever reason that that isn't their job.

They have to do what they're doing. I read something. It was you. It was a bit you were doing about him saying something like, the comedians are the ones who get on stage and basically say, we're fucked up. We're fat. We can't stop doing horrible things.

Only a psychopath would look at us and say, yes, show me the way. I mean, it's crazy. I mean, could you imagine going out to a nightclub and then asking the guy on stage for tax advice? We've lost our minds here. I mean, this is completely insane. I don't go to my dentist laying in the chair and go, let's be funny now. People got to specialize in things. You can't be everything. And this flies in the face of a lot of the ethos of young people today who want to be everything. They're

like, I want to be a YouTuber and a rapper and a stock mogul. And I want to start an app. And I want to be a venture capitalist. And I want to be an artist and write three books. And I want to be a YouTuber and a rapper and a stock mogul. And I want to start an app and I want to be a venture capitalist. And I want to be an artist and write three books. And I want to be a chef and have a line of, I mean, it's like, guys, we need to get good at a thing here. And then we need to start there and then maybe move on. But like this idea that you would ever look at the comedian, hopefully we say things that are smart. Hopefully we say things that are funny

hopefully we make you think i didn't tell anyone to vote i'm just with i got flack for this people like people go like this to get a voting plan i had comedians were going on twitter going get a vote get a voting plan what are we doing what is what is a voting plan get to the poll and vote i mean you all got a popeye's chicken sandwich. You can vote. This idea that no one knows how to vote. We got to come up with a plan. The idea that I, who

put on wigs and say crazy things and I'm funny and a goofball and admit all these embarrassing things about my life, I'm going to tell you who to vote for. It's just not my job. It's not my job. If you want me to do that, then go somewhere else. Go find another person who's going to tell you to vote. And then it's so important to vote. It's just, to me, it's patronizing. I'm not

patronizing you. If you're going to vote, you're going to vote. If you're not going to vote, you're not going to vote. It's absolutely none of my business. You know, it'd be insane. It'd be like me being on stage and like, you know, you know, looking at my audience and pointing out a guy in the audience going, Hey, why don't you call your brother? Have you spoken to your brother recently? Why don't you call him? What about your wife? Have you taken her out?

It's like, dude, what am I, a life coach? I'm trying to be goofy. When we come back, we're going to take a look at one of the Megyn Kelly show debates. This one was on a term you likely had not heard a year ago, but has now become a household name. Critical race theory. That's next. Since the launch of the podcast, that was September of 2020. Then we launched with Sirius in September of 2021. But since the launch of the podcast, we have embraced being a platform for respectful debate. Love that. Love that people will trust us with that. And we've done a good job of it. We've had both sides of the Israel-Gaza debate on.

We've had both sides of the transgender athlete debate. And over the summer with critical race theory on the tips of everyone's tongues, suddenly, we had two guests on who had vastly, we had two guests on who had vastly different opinions on how best to productively fight back against the racial drift in schools. They both wanted to fight back, but had very different views on how it was best done. Camille Foster and Rich Lowry have been on before multiple times. And truthfully, they probably agree on a variety of topics, probably more than they disagree on. But when it comes to CRT, what it is, what states are doing about it, and how to counter it, right, as opposed to because what David French has said and what your your your op ed in The New York Times said, Camille, was, you know, a meaningful way of getting back at this is by filing lawsuits. And I'm all for that, by the way. I've been saying this is part of the solution for sure. Just, you know, it's currently not lawful to discriminate on the basis of race. And so if you're dragged into some training session as a teacher and told that you're less than because you're white, your school's violating the law. So I'm all for the lawsuits. But what the conservative movement and the non-woke people have said is it's not good enough. We need these laws because we need immediacy. It's not a free

speech issue at all. This is about the citizenry telling the government what it can teach their kids and that this is a useful tool in the arsenal that should be unleashed ASAP for the well-being of our children. So let's start with that, Rich, on whether you agree that this is a, this is, without putting aside the wording of the laws, whether this is a good way of fighting back. First of all, I appreciate the conversation. And Camille, congratulations on the op-ed. There are not many op-eds that people are discussing two or three weeks later, whatever it is. All those columnists are very jealous. So congratulations on that. I think this is a worthy effort. On the lawsuits, it just puts incredible pressure on individual teachers or parents to undertake what could be a years-long effort to try to push back against this stuff through the courts.

And if we're admitting that actually that is in play, as the authors of this op-ed do, we're admitting that this is poisonous and toxic. And why should we tolerate that in our public schools? And public schools are public institutions. Teachers are state actors. They're teaching state curricula in state-owned buildings that parents, if they aren't pursuing some other alternative, have to send their kids to. So they are profoundly small D democratic institutions and forbidding these poisonous concepts from being foisted on children is an appropriate small D democratic action. So I don't see, in theory, any problem with this at all. In fact, I welcome it. Again, Megan, as you've stipulated, the wording in some of these cases is problematic and could have been crisper and more clear.

But I just reject the idea that that is out there, that this is going to stop the teaching of slavery or civil rights. If you look at Tennessee, which the authors of the op-ed spend some time on, that statute, what they forbid is the promoting of the concept that individuals should feel ashamed or discomfort because of their race. So that's different than saying, oh, here's the Atlantic passage, which was this horrifying, nauseating human rights abuse. And you might feel uncomfortable learning about it because it's a terrible topic. That's not it. It's a teacher going out of his or her way to say, you should feel guilty because you are white or you're black or whatever it is. That is forbidden. And it just seems to me with public schools, which we don't need adventurous instruction in public schools.

That's something for colleges and universities when you're dealing with adults, when you have instructors who are engaging in academic research, where academic freedom is a core value. This is different. This is supposed to be between the 40-yard lines. This is kind of consensus values and instructions in our society. So these efforts strike me as worthwhile. I wonder about the way that you just characterized that, though, Rich, because especially when you say, this shouldn't be taught in schools. Well, what is this? I mean, we are talking about a sprawling catalog of practices and issues that people have serious concerns about. And when we talk about K through 12 education, we're talking about, you know, children as young as four and five

and children as old as 17 and 18. And in a high school class, there are certain things that young people ought to be exposed to. It seems the way that this is talked about, even what you just said there about the Tennessee law, if your interpretation of this is correct, it might be the case that kids in a civics class couldn't watch a presidential debate because someone in one of those debates might talk about, say, white privilege, white supremacy, structural racism, or some of these other concepts and might make an assertion to the fact, to the possibility that, or might make an assertion along the lines of white people have unique particular privilege.

It is a reality that people are talking about this now, that many Americans feel a particular way about these issues now. And finding constructive ways for students to be able to engage with these questions and issues in a classroom setting with one another, it seems to me that it's urgently important that our institutions are kind of up to that task. And one of the things that I want to highlight here is that the editorial doesn't only suggest that we can go pursue lawsuits. It also says explicitly that a better approach to trying to ban things, this kind of negative

approach to curriculum, you can't do this, you can't do that, is to build better curriculum that is more thoughtful and is more constructive and affirmatively gives us a sense for how to navigate these complex issues together and not imagine ourselves as just kind of pushing approved knowledge into young brains, but equipping young people with the talent and the skills necessary to grapple with hard issues. Let me ask you, so that sounds nice, but what we're up against is a teacher's union. I mean, both of the largest teachers unions in the country are determined to teach this despite their gaslighting of us now, right?

Saying no, no, no, no, no, we're not. I mean, they, they lifted the dress up this month. We're in the national education association. That's the largest teacher's union. They had an annual conference this month. This is a great story. And they, because the official word sort of out of the left, right? The media, the pundits, democratic lawmakers has been, we're not teaching CRT in K through 12. That's not happening. And then the National Education Association at their annual conference

is like, we have a six-figure campaign we're unleashing to fund a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against those who are fighting our CRT rhetoric. They're basically saying it's very reasonable. They said it's reasonable to teach critical race theory, and we're going to fight back against those who are pushing against us. They forgot. They forgot about the official talking point. And then the Heritage Foundation reported on it. And they promptly, the NEA, removed all the items on their website that mentioned CRT. Like, whoops, we didn't say that. You didn't see that. But it was too late. And the second largest teachers union, American Federation of Teachers, that's Weingarten's

union, they've said, too, they're investing, I think it's $5 million into future legal fees to defend teachers who insist on teaching CRT, even though Weingarten is also insisting that CRT is not being taught. Okay, it's being taught. And even the polling, NBC had a report on this recently, it was over 50% of teachers either want to teach it or admit privately that they are teaching it. So I would love to just build better curricula, but we're up against a group of people who really wants to shove this down our kids' throats. Yeah. And I think you raise an important point. The reality, as I mentioned earlier, it is, it would be wrong not to acknowledge one, that there have already been sort of activist excesses in various schools across the country.

It is hard to quantify this problem. I can't say how many schools this is happening in or where the worst things are happening. And I think that's really important that nobody can really quantify this just yet. So it's important to kind of keep our concern constrained in that way, but at least to be aware of this reality. And you're right to point out what the teachers unions have done. Ibram Kendi was speaking at one of these events and they pledged to buy copies of his books stamped and to pollute schools with it all over the country. That bothers me. I have serious problems with that. At the same time, one wonders about the appropriate approach to this. And one has to also wonder about the degree to which the way that concern has been generated about these issues and the way that it's being focused at the moment, if that isn't contributing to just kind of a spreading of a brush fire,

as opposed to really constructive approaches to trying to address this problem. I think what's not talked about often enough is the practical limitations of a strategy of trying to pass statewide bans on various things. How many states can we actually get these things passed in? What percentage of states won't have this protection at all? I imagine if you don't have a red legislature and a red governor's office, that's not happening. And it's also the case that the most awful excesses seem to be concentrated in particular places. I've seen a lot of stories out of New York. I've seen a lot of stories out of New York. I've seen a lot of stories out of California. I haven't seen quite so many out of Tennessee.

In fact, what I've seen out of Tennessee recently is a teacher who got fired who seemed to be hankering for the opportunity to get fired over these things. And it turns into a national news story. And it seems to me that that isn't necessarily what we want. I'm thinking, I think a lot about the missed opportunity here. I imagine these angry parents going to these meetings, these school board meetings and demanding something better. Like, I don't know, school choice, for example. Like, it is not as though the statewide ban initiative, this haphazard project, isn't one that will cost a tremendous amount of resources and energy. And it's not as though there aren't meaningful risks associated with it. And it's not

as though it's guaranteed to work. If these bans are sufficiently, if they're sufficiently narrow so that they don't run afoul of the constitution and so that they don't run afoul of making it difficult to teach complicated materials, they're probably not going to be able to stop most of the things that people are concerned about. The reality is that this is a cultural issue, that there is a broad societal issue here, and we have to be meaningfully engaged in our local school boards, going to meetings, meeting with teachers. There are no shortcuts here. And anyone who is telling you what there are is wrong. So I've been working with a bunch of groups on this.

FAIR is one of them. And also Parents Defending Education, which is a nonpartisan group, just trying to represent parents who are struggling with all this. And I know that one of the things that Parents Defending Education really wants is for concerned parents to run for school boards. Yep. You got to get on school boards. You can't just sit at home and lament. You got to get in the positions of power. So Rich, why isn't that the answer? Like grassroots efforts, taking advantage of this enormous energy we've seen among parents who are outraged about this to get them on school boards and change the curriculum that way, as opposed to at the state level? Oh, it has to be a huge part of the solution. So I disagree with Camille about these laws. Most of them, you know, I think they're legitimate concerns about some of the wording, but let's say we, and I take his point, you know, this is only happening in red states with red legislatures and Republican governors. Let's say

we do this in 15 states, one that leaves a huge part of the country, right? 35 states where you haven't done it. Two, if all we do, even if we pass these kinds of laws in 50 States, just keeping teachers from making kids feel guilty from over their race. That's not a huge victory, right? That's a really minor and defensive victory when you think about it. So absolutely the school board fights are essential and developing curricula or that, that teaches truthful versions of American history or protecting curricula that already do that is absolutely the ultimate name of the game. And the beauty of our system and having a highly localized system of education is you can be a parent in a small town somewhere or a suburban county, and you can go get 200

signatures on your petition to get on the ballot or whatever it takes. And then you win 800 votes in the school board race, and you are hugely influential in how the education of your children and your neighbor's children is going to be carried out. That's a beautiful thing. And parents who are concerned about this should absolutely take advantage of that. And that's something that can happen not just in red states. It can happen in states all around the country because, you know, you look at a county by county political map and, you know, there's swaths. The country, if you break it down that way, is mostly red because there's so many red localities.

And so that's that's that should be the name of the game more than the state laws. I defend these state laws. I think what they're trying to do is righteous. defensive and prophylactic action compared to taking over these school boards and preventing the education blob from imposing this stuff on our schools. And I also take Camille's point that mostly, you know, you look at where this is happening. It's happening a lot of places, but it's Cupertino, it's Portland, as you point out, it's a lot of New York, but it's coming everywhere unless you stop it. And this is the history of these sort of things. Not that we want to get into trans, but, you know, we would have a lot of us would have said, oh, look, 10 years ago, Berkeley says biological males should be able to go to female bathrooms. Isn't that insane? You know, that would never happen here, but it's spread everywhere. So I think while this debate can be won and before it's too late, it's important to undertake these state measures and the places where you can pass them and fight school board race by school board race all around the country. Because if you get control of school

boards, you can you can go as broad as you want. I mean, one of the things about these laws is they don't stop the indoctrination on trans issues. You know, all this stuff about letting your kid leave in the middle of the day to go get cross-gender hormones without telling the parents and not looping the parents in. If your kid decides one day to go from being a girl to being a boy, they don't tell the parents. Like, it's crazy how at our school, our all-boys school that we left, they were literally asking the boys every week whether they still felt like boys. That is what my son and his friends told me. It was insane. Like gender is

just something that's completely fluid. It could change day to day. And just checking back in at an all boys school with these boys to see whether that changed for them. Like, just stop it. Stop it. If my kids got an issue, I want to be supported. You don't need to keep suggesting it. Stop it. If my kids got an issue, I want to be supported. You don't need to keep suggesting it. Right. It's like, is anyone feeling suicidal? Anyone today? Anyone feeling it a little like some of these things are suggestible. We've seen evidence on that with the trans craze through Abigail Schreier and Lisa Lipman, who did the study and so on, especially with respect to girls. Anyway, my point is, none of these laws address any of that. But you get control of the school boards. And you can you can so that I think we all agree that that, but you get control of the school boards and you can,

you can. So that I think we all agree that that would be a nice way of fighting back, getting more local control moms for Liberty down in Florida. This group I spoke to, they're, they're all about that. And that's awesome. But like it or not for good or for worse, there is a push with the States, you know, more and more to do this. I should point out States on the other side have done it too. Several states have mandated the inclusion of this CRT education into their education systems, like California, but several others as well, all blue states. And now red states are doing it the other way. And I do think it's worth noting they have discretion. The states do have discretion to set the curriculum in their schools. They can banish

texts. They can restrict teachers' speech. It's different from colleges. The K-12 kids are a captive audience. There's a great piece on National Review of Rich by Stanley Kurtz saying, there's a good reason that we can do more to silence or control K-12 teachers than we can college professors. They're a captive audience. They're minors. They're vulnerable to the authority of these teachers. They you know, they're held in much higher esteem than college professors are. And Stanley said this is abuse what's happening to them. I've said that, too. I do think this is child abuse. So to you, Camille, what of the argument that this is, this is an emergency. Like we,

we wouldn't let schools all over the country say the KKK wasn't all wrong. They had a lot of good points. Hitler, he made some good points. Like we wouldn't never allow that. And, and I think people view this kind of messaging, you know, I mean, there's just one, this is actually out of Oklahoma red state teacher told his students to be white is to be racist period. You know, I mean, there's just one. This is actually out of Oklahoma, Red State. A teacher told his students to be white is to be racist, period. You know, that we covered the public schools in Buffalo teaching five year olds about racist police, making them watch videos of dead children allegedly sort of coming back from the grave to talk about racist cops and so on. So you can see the feeling by folks who oppose this, that this is an equal emergency to stop. Well, again, my perspective on this emergency, however, is, you know, does a

sledgehammer actually fix those problems? And it seems to me that it does not, in fact, fix those problems. That is almost certainly the case, that with this local system that we have, a solution that does make a lot of sense is for parents to get involved in a circumstance like that, to go to their school board, to make the issue known to local officials, and to create a bit of a scandal at that institution and achieve the change that they want. That's what makes sense here. A statewide ban, again, it seems to me is going to cause no shortage of problems. And while I know Rich has some disagreement about this, the reality is that the way many of these pieces of legislation are written today, they're going to have a number of far-reaching consequences that can't really be anticipated and could further politicize issues. I have good

reason to believe that the degree to which folks are actually kind of overreaching here and creating a bit of a panic is probably inspiring more controversy and will inspire more concern and will make the states that are more interested in these policies perhaps even go a bit further in kind of cementing their perspective here. And to the extent folks who are interested in bans go too far in their attempts to try and restrain some of these things, it is entirely possible that they could turn public opinion against them very quickly and sort of cement some of these things in the institutions and create a great deal of sympathy for someone. The last thing that you want if you're someone who's concerned about creeping racial essentialism

in public schools is kind of a sympathetic victim who is fired for something that seems rather frivolous to people looking at it from the outside that makes people very suspicious about these restrictions. And I don't want to create the perception of Ibram Kendi's book being secret knowledge. If 16-year-olds have access to this book, what if they bring them from home? Are you going to take those things away from them? Are they forbidden in the library? I mean, I think it's really important to just bear in mind the kind of limitations of what these schools can actually do. It's not the worst thing in the universe if there is something in the library, say, at the school that is perhaps somewhat questionable from all of our shared

perspective, but that a kid might have access to. There are going to be questions. These conversations are going to happen questions. These conversations are going to happen. It is impossible. It is impossible that students won't have conversations about Black Lives Matter in their high school government and politics courses. I mean, my wife in her second year in high school participated in a debate club and debated affirmative action back and forth. These things will happen. And I don't think it is an even realistic possibility that we can put the genie back in the bottle and sort of put a shield around ourselves and not have these conversations. The question becomes how to do these kinds of things productively, not to try to ban them out of existence. Next up is one of my favorite and

most moving interviews we have done on this show with two inspirational heroes, true heroes. People overuse that term. These guys are true heroes who happen to be identical twins, the Luttrells. Stay with us. Marcus and Morgan Luttrell are identical twin brothers, Texans, Navy SEALs, and wise and unfiltered men who have been through some truly horrific experiences. When they came on to talk with us in August, it was one of the most powerful interviews I have done since launching the Megan Kelly show, since before that, I mean, in my career. You can find the full interview in our archives. It's episode 149. And man, is that worth your time? But we kicked off the show with the Afghanistan debacle, which was happening as the interview was taking place. And that story, the botched withdrawal by the Biden administration

became a major topic in 2021. We spoke with Robert O'Neill, the manched withdrawal by the Biden administration, became a major topic in 2021. We spoke with Robert O'Neill, the man who killed bin Laden about it. And he was amazing. My gosh, that interview that was from Memorial Day. Please go back and listen to that because it's freaking amazing to hear him tell the story of how he shot bin Laden. But the Luttrells had quite a deep and impressive take on it. God, listen to these guys. It's tough to watch. Obviously,

all of us have a connection there. The scenario that's unfolding right now with Americans still there waiting, feeling that lost feeling, that sense of hope, not hopelessness, I wouldn't think because we're still here. I've had that. I mean, literally over there by myself, not knowing what to do, and y'all came and got me. I never forgot that. I spend the rest of my life trying to make my soul bleed showing each American how precious that is to me. And when something like this happens to you, you have a taste for what America truly is. I mean, I wanted to hug the first person I saw. And it ought to let you know how wonderful this place is. And in America, it is a place, but moreover, it's the people. And there are people literally holding on to the outside of

our aircrafts trying to get here and falling from the sky just to meet y'all, just to hang out here. Because all they have access to so far is just the people in the military. We're kind of regimental. The true spice of America is our people back home. And people are flooding to get here. We not only have Americans over there that we have to get back. Just bottom line, you got to get them back. Not cost alone, send in expendables or send in just the rest of the military and put us in there. We'll go do it. Y'all have truly never seen the full weight of what we're capable of because you just never had to implement that. But it's I think the emotion that I'm feeling more over than anything else.

And most of the veterans are as a man. There's still people back there. We don't leave anybody behind. I never had PTSD, but I started to get it thinking that there's some of our countrymen stranded somewhere and they need our help. And I know that firsthand because y'all came and got me. So I know it's possible. Y'all sent the entire military in to get me.

And I was in hell. They're on the border of it so it it's um it kind of resonates real real uh real close to home here yeah i would say you you've got a deep appreciation of what it means to be stranded out the middle of the country wait for somebody to come get you trying to kill you people trying to kill you yep right you can't even imagine what it's like when you set foot back here it looks different feels different feels different. I mean, we're, we got, we're going through some stuff here in America and we're a family, families do that and we'll get through this. And as I've been, we've gone through it. The way I always look at it as man, nothing will ever change how much I love everybody here for coming to get me and what I try to do to show that. Biden's now saying that we'll go back, we'll get,

we'll get the military guys and we'll get the Americans. The promises are less explicit on getting those who helped us, the translators and sort of the Afghan people who were in support roles to our men and women in uniform over there. I wonder what you think about that, Morgan, let me ask you that one, because we heard from a lot of military guys who are upset about that and knew how much we relied on those helpers when we were over there. You couldn't tell the difference between ourselves and our translators or our support. Rounds come down, Rage, they did not discriminate.

And those that were tasked to us fought just as hard as we did. And we've always said, and I always wanted them to have the opportunity to come over and be here because they defended our country just like it was their own. So it's very disheartening to see, or hear, excuse me, that that's a possibility that that won't happen. And maybe call me an eternal optimist that there's enough people surrounding the administration that says, no, they need the opportunity and they must have the opportunity to come. We need to rescue them just like we need to rescue all the Americans that are waiting on us. Period. Let me tell you something.

Not only do they serve us and help us overseas, they were in the front. We watched those tur those terms and, um, especially the ones that are signed to us thousands of missions. We pinned a couple of those guys with seal tridents. They were such great operators. I mean, they gave it everything they had. Those are the ones you definitely want to bring back. Otherwise, why else would anybody help you? And if they're, if they're willing to help you in the worst situation ever, they'll obviously help us over here when things are good, too, and when things are bad. I was actually listening to the New York Times podcast, The Daily, today, and they were talking about this soldier who had served in Afghanistan.

He was talking about the relationship that you develop with the translator. Here he is. His name was Colin Daniels, served in the Army for six years, 28 years old. Here's just a little bit of that guy. Listen. We would tell the Afghans, whether they were interpreters or civilians or Afghan army, that they could trust us as Americans. Because I like truly believed that America was the, I, I, I believed in America and they did too. And, um, and like we, we told them on an individual level, trust us, trust us on this patrol, trust us on an individual level, trust us.

Trust us on this patrol. Trust us on this KLE. Trust us on all this. We have your back. Because they just were aspiring to be free. What's more American than that? And, you know, when push comes to shove, like, I don't disagree with having to leave Afghanistan. Like, we can't do it forever. But when push comes to shove, these people that soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines

told, hey, man, you can trust me. It's a lie now, you know? Excuse me. You can hear that guy's pain. You can hear it. There is. Because the relationships, they're most certainly carved out in pain and misery

and most certainly blood. So the fact that you look, and it's just as important looking left and right and seeing who's standing there with you, they're there. So I can empathize with him knowing that we did. We did. That was always conversations that you had with those individuals that supported us.

Some of them wanted to come black. Yes. I mean, because that's how it was always articulated to us. You'll have that opportunity. I would say the vast majority of Americans still believe that. And I won't maybe preface this with saying, I don't think there was an intentional lie to the individuals that supported us over there from Afghanistan, the locals that supported us and the army and the interpreters. And I don't think we intentionally lied to them. I think once again, if you look at the administration, they weren't prepared. And I think their decision-making was not orchestrated properly. And then it just came completely off the rails.

What do you make of that? Because Biden's out there today saying that it could not have been done better. He says he does not think it could have been handled in any better way. Do you agree with that? No, no, no, no, not at all. Most certainly, I think they have absolutely got everything backwards. I think we should have remained in place and started evacuating civilian population. Those are the ones that can defend themselves properly. Then you come into the interpreters and then the army and then whomever else. And where do you want to leave behind?

It's systematic. We can handle ourselves. We're designed for that part. You get everybody else, and then we go. I don't know if he's... I saw the ABC interview, and I don't know why he won't... This is something Trump would have done. He's like... Because he's like... He would never answer, hey, August 31st is at the deadline. Will troops remain in place? And he kept dancing around it. Trump would have been like, I would, because he's like, he would never answer. Hey, August 31st is at the deadline. Will you, will troops remain in place? And he kept dancing around it. Trump would have been like, we'll stay there until the day I die. Until every American's out of there and every support staff's out of there.

I don't understand why that's a problem. Yeah, we're going to stay. If we got to go back, you know, we did this wrong. We, we messed up. We effed up. But I'm going to course correct this and I'm sending in the Marines and the airborne. And we're staying and we're staying until the last person's out. And then we'll put a date. I don't know why that's so hard. We heard a very different message from President Biden. Let me just give the audience a sample of what he said to George Stephanopoulos so they know what

we're talking about. But it was very deflecting. It was not a message of I'm taking responsibility. It was basically reminding me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House. All is fine. All is calm. Remain calm. All is fine. All is well. No, I got one better than that, Megan. They had one of the spokesmen out and there was a Jim Carrey movie where he works for a global company like phone with Dick and Jane. He's on there trying to tell you what a great company it is. And then they have the other, the real live stream going and it's all falling apart and they're doing their level best. I heard him say, we got communications with the Taliban and we got guys coming in and out of the airport.

That's probably a gate guard outside the airport saying, yeah, come on, bring them up in here. We don't negotiate with the Taliban. They don't negotiate with us. That's the whole point. That's why we can just go in there and get our Americans out. We don't have to ask for permission. There's no stable government. And the president bailed, right and he grabbed a bunch of coin and hauled but america's

a lot of things do we have our bad part yeah we do but the only time you have to stand up and be recognized as an american to understand his values is when we say the pledge and when and that because if you are stranded somewhere just one of us if one of our people is stranded somewhere and needs help, we will send the entire country to come get you. That's the blessing to be an American. And the trust level goes, they sleep in the camps with us, those Turks and everything. They have a position of watch. I mean, if they can't trust us, if we go over there and we go on the missions and it's like a half trust with them, well, man, that doesn't make you feel too safe. Yep.

Let me stand back because I want to get the audience up to speed on Biden. Let's just listen to a sampling of what he said on ABC. When you look at what's happened over the last week, was it a failure of intelligence, planning, execution, or judgment? Look, I don't think it was a failure. Look, it was a simple choice, George. When the Taliban, let me put it another way. When you had trained, up to 300,000 of them,

just leaving their equipment and taking off. That was, you know, that's what happened. That's simply what happened. But we've all seen the pictures. We've seen those hundreds of people packed into a C-17. We've seen Afghans falling. That was four days ago, five days ago. What did you think when you first saw those pictures? What I thought was we have to gain control of this. We have to move this more quickly. We have to move in a way in which we can take control of that airport. And we did.

So you don't think this could have been handled, this actually could have been handled better in any way? No mistakes? No, I don't think it could have been handled in a way way? No mistakes? No, I don't think it could have been handled in a way that we're going to go back in hindsight and look, but the idea that somehow there's a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don't know how that happens. I don't know how that happened. So for you, that was always priced into the decision? Yes. What do you make of that, Marcus?

I think it's been a few days now. So my hindsight is we see what happened. I don't have to say anything. I don't have to suggest something. I don't have to belittle anybody. I don't have to talk smack about anybody. I don't do that anyways. It's right there in front of your face. You can literally turn on television and watch it.

You don't have to have somebody tell us. It's there, right? I mean, I think he most certainly, I think every one of his answers was taking a political stance instead of the stance of the commander in chief. And a commander in chief would not shift blame and point fingers. A commander in chief would stand up and say, mistakes were made. We own it. And this is what we're doing to course correct it. I will say that the only way, the reason you know that that's happened is when someone tries

to explain it. And any situation that you get into, when the outcome presents itself, there's no explanation and that's the way it was supposed to go. And even when it snowballs, the contingencies, people can pick that up. You can see it. If you just constantly happen to defend it and try to explain, not defend it, just just try to explain it then that's how you know yeah something's gone wrong can i can i can i offer something from my love my level what when i say my level my rank when i was in the military we were serving over there and that was at an operator's level on the ground the day one week one when i first I first stepped foot in Afghanistan in the early 2000s, talking with the villagers, talking with the army, what you're seeing as far as the

Taliban coming in and how they've taken back the country, in my opinion, that was always inevitable. It was going to happen. It's happened over millennia. Alexander the Great got stopped there everybody stops right there uh what was not inevitable was how it happened now we could have done it differently where we wouldn't be in the position of american lives are in jeopardy that most certainly would have changed in my opinion, in Morgan's opinion. The fact that we've,

we fought in that war and the Taliban has come back. They just waited us out like they did everyone else that was going to happen. And I think you've heard a lot of leadership say that. Well, the amazing, when you see something spread that fast, it means people are allowing it. To take that, because Afghanistan is a little bit smaller than Texas. And to consume it like that would have meant there were little to no resistance. And when you watch TV and you see all of them, the Taliban on the road with our weaponry, the way they're moving and walking, the way they're carrying themselves, just the way they carry themselves.

You know, we trained them. That's the Afghan army. So they were already, that whole thing was going on underneath the watch. It spread like a wildfire. I mean, coming from the North down to the South, it could go districts ahead. Hey, the Taliban is moving in. Americans aren't here anymore. I don't have any backside support.

I'm Taliban now. That's right. Well, a lot of people, they do have to self-preserve, right? They do to save their own lives, to save the lives of their families. They always said that. It's like, what are we supposed to do when you leave? They're doing it. And we weren't there to stay. I mean, we didn't go in to occupy. That's the only way you can truly change it is to get the people to take control or we have to stay. And then you just, you build a society there. And you said it best, Megan, it's self-preservation. If I have to survive and the Taliban is coming through, I need to conform.

And so is that a good thing or a bad thing, or is it just a thing? Surely just a thing. I'm curious how you guys, cause you sound different about it. When I talked to Rob O'Neill, for example, you know, the SEAL who killed bin Laden, one of the guys who went in on that mission, the guy who fired the shot and he's pissed off. And he said, you know, what, what did, what did our guys die for? What was I there for? You know, he's like, I don't like the whole country's now back in the hands of the guys we were sent over there to fight. You know, Al Qaeda is going to get another stronghold there, another foothold there and launch more terror attacks on us. So what did our guys die for? He said, I'm angry. I'm, I'm pissed. Do you, have you talked to anybody like that? Like, what do you think, what do you make of that perspective? Dr. Robbie? I've been, I've been

filled in phone calls since this kicked off. And I think I might have a little different response to most people. And I don't mean to anger anybody, but I tried to level this, the situation saying we, we lost our brothers and sisters over there. We went over there and we fought for 20 years and now it is it all for nothing. I always, and I've been saying since all this happened, it's like, I'm proud to have gone over there and served. And I tell everybody, hold your head high because you did exactly what you were supposed to do that your country asked you to do. And is it tragic that we've lost? Are the loved ones that lost someone, are they hurting and dying?

Yes, they are. But their loved ones and mine, and I always, and this may not be the case, but I try to, I tell myself this every day, they died doing what they love doing. And because they lost their lives, others lived. And then I tell all the individuals that served with me, it's like, hey, look, you know what? We did exactly what we were tasked to do. Is it over? Did we lose or did we time out? Because inevitably, if you don't have anybody to surrender to you, there's really no end of the quarter. Yeah. There was never going to be a spike the

ball in the end zone moment in Afghanistan. There wasn't. It was. Yeah. When that dude came down to get some milk and cookies and found Rob O'Neill in his kitchen blasting right in the face. That kind of ended that. Love Lillitrell brothers. Okay, last one. We're bringing you my buddy Janice Dean. JD is up next in an emotional triumphant moment.

Stay with us. Janice Dean is not just a frequent guest on the show she is one of my closest friends in fact I was listening to one of the podcasts from the guys at Ruthless and they thought she should have been time's person of the year I love that they are such good judgers wish they'd been in charge uh JD bravely fought on behalf of her in-laws, who tragically lost their lives in New York State nursing homes in the midst of the pandemic, thanks in part to that order assigned by Governor Andrew Cuomo, sending COVID-positive patients back into nursing homes. 15,000 seniors would later die. And she went from meteorologist at Fox News to a leader of the group speaking out against Andrew Cuomo.

As Letitia James' attorney general report was released in August, what ended up becoming the beginning of the end for Cuomo, Janice came on and took a much deserved victory lap. about you, but I'm reeling. I'm kind of reeling in my seat about what we just heard, the specifics of what these women alleged and what he and his office allegedly did in response. I don't even know how to put this into words. I always assumed that the sexual harassment charges would be the thing that might get him for many reasons. And I am so proud of those brave women today, those young women who really risked their careers and their livelihoods and their reputation to go against this powerful monster and to see our Attorney General Letitia James, who's a Democrat, go up there and just line by line, you know, deliver the information, the disgusting behavior. It's all about power. And, you know, it doesn't matter if we're talking about the nursing homes or we're talking about him giving out friends and family COVID tests. It's all about abuse of power with this guy. And I think today is the first day that we're going to hopefully see some accountability. It's already starting to happen. The New York state Senate majority leader,

a Democrat has, has, uh, already said he can no longer serve. He himself, um, said this, this tweet is making the rounds May 17th, 2013 quote, there should be a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual harassment. And we must send a clear message that this behavior is not tolerated. There's no room for any of this in any workplace and certainly not in the state house of the great state of New York. I want to go through with you some of the specific allegations because we learned a lot, a lot from Tish James, that presser and the document, the executive summary and so on that they put out, which is over 160 pages long. Just so people don't have to take your word for it or my word for it. Let's, let's see exactly

what the women went in and told Letitia James. And by the way, her independent investigators, a lot of these, they take pains in the report to point out are corroborated by independent texts, friends who came forward, aides who admitted they saw it, state troopers who witnessed some of the behaviors. It's not to say Andrew Cuomo doesn't deny it, but just know this isn't just, I mean, with all due respect to Christine Blasey Ford, it isn't just somebody coming forward after 30 years and saying, this is what I remember without any corroboration. This is painstaking. Executive assistant number one. Had close.

This is her allegation, according to the executive summary, had close and intimate hugs with him. Kisses on the cheeks, forehead, at least one kiss on the lips, touching and grabbing of her butt during hugs and on one occasion while taking selfies with him, comments about her personal life relationships, calling her and another girl mingle mamas, inquiring multiple times about whether she had cheated or would cheat on her husband, asking for her help finding him a girlfriend. And then there was this at the executive mansion, November, 2020, when the governor during another close hug with this young executive assistant quote, reached under her blouse and grabbed her breast. That's sexual assault. It doesn't even have to be that egregious and unwanted physical touch. It's a

sexual assault under the law. That is clear. If in fact that happened and it's pretty detailed under the blouse, grabbing a young woman's breast, who is a lowly executive assistant for you. There's a reason that's number one in the complaint against this guy. You know, it's, it's hard for me to listen to because I had that happen as well in an office in New York,

uh, little superior. He did the same thing to me, uh, grab my breasts from behind. So, um, uh, little superior. He did the same thing to me, uh, grab my breasts from behind. So, um, so I feel for these women. I really do. I know it's kind of triggering. It is kind of, I hate that word, but God damn it. It is you, you say that. And I, it brings me right back to that office. And I know it's not about me. It's about these strong women, but you have to understand that this kind of behavior, we can't put up with

this or tolerate it anymore. These brave women. I remember that what I was wearing that day when my boss did that. Um, so to hear that, uh, and to be, to be in an office with an attorney and to, you know, they're strangers, right. And you're telling them your deepest, darkest secrets that you don't even tell your boyfriend or your husband. Oh my gosh. He, I mean, I just having gone through this, you've gone through this, you just want him to go away and shame. He, he allegedly did this to this woman and the complaint says for over three months, this executive assistant kept this groping incident to herself and quote, planned to take

it to the grave. Been there, right? Been there. But she found herself becoming emotional while watching the governor's state at a press conference on March 3rd, 2021, the following. Listen to the comment that brought this woman forward. I want New Yorkers to hear from me directly on this. I fully support a woman's right to come forward. I now understand that I acted in a way that made people feel uncomfortable. But this is what I want you to know. I never touched anyone inappropriately. I never touched anyone inappropriately. She wasn't going to tell.

Even though other women had come forward already, the dam had already broken. This young woman wasn't going to tell because you know very well, along with me, that women are terrified of getting this label slapped around them, that they're a complainer, that they're going to be a me-too-er, they don't want to get hired, they're afraid that they won't get hired. And that was the thing that did it. And she went to the investigators. She actually, she confided to colleagues who reported her allegations to senior staff in the executive chamber, who honestly, JD, the stories about the senior staff are almost as concerning. The web of aides who couldn't have cared less about the 11 women, staffers and outside the department as well, who came forward.

I don't know what to say. It's, they all need to go. They all need to resign in shame. And the fact that these people, his administration, continued to try to smear these women. You know, up until a couple of weeks ago, when Rich as a party, his top aide, was saying, I don't know if we can trust, you know, what's going on in the AG department. I don't know if we could trust these women and what they're saying. And, you know, the governor, too, I remember a couple of weeks ago saying,

you will be shocked when you find out, you know, what happened to me. You know, like the truth. Yeah. Yeah. Like, yeah. You know, it goes back to don't be mean to me. You know, he's the victim. Give me a huge effing break.

We think back on your past year, you know, when you first sort of took up this mantle as an activist, when it comes to him and this issue, how do you think you've changed? I can't give up. I mean, there have been so many times where even Sean, my husband has said to me, how long are you going to keep doing this for? And I won't give up. I won't give up. I can't. I've gone this far, right? I mean, this is over a year in and the dam is breaking. What if I hadn't gone on Tucker Carlson's show in May and said, this is what I think is going on. I've become friends with these women who have come forward. We have become friends and I've messaged several of them today and told them I am standing in solidarity with them and we've got this. I feel people think I'm political.

This has nothing to do with politics i don't care who they voted for i'm so proud of these young women megan i'm i'm so proud of those young women so proud of janice for all she did fighting so publicly this year honestly you guys i mean it took a toll you know she's an emotional gal emotional gal, but she's strong. She's stronger than she looks. That's for sure. And, you know, here we are now. What a difference a year makes with Andrew Cuomo pushed out of office. Chris Cuomo fired. Chris Cuomo's book deal, radio deal done. Andrew Cuomo having to give back his five point one million dollars of his book. I mean, it's like, oh my gosh,

that weather bitch knows what she's doing. Remember, that's what Cuomo turned out to be calling her. Chris Cuomo was calling her the weather bitch. We've decided to own it. I'm gonna get a t-shirt. I'm gonna get one for her that says the weather bitch. And I'm gonna get one for me that says, I'm with the weather bitch.

You know, it's like owning your term of disparagement. In any event, she's amazing. And I love her. And I hope you do too and i'm very grateful to all of you for spending the time with jd with me with all of us this year my team and i think about you guys every day what what do you want to hear about what would interest you what's interesting in terms of the the news diet it can't be all hard news can't be all soft news get to get some features in there we need stuff for our souls

right we think about those balance uh balances we strike on a daily weekly monthly and now yearly basis uh and we love to do it love to do it for you and thank you for allowing it 2021 has come to a close but we're coming back january 3rd in the meantime please if you would be so kind give me the christmas or New Year's present of downloading The Megyn Kelly Show. Do it now, would you? It would really help me. On Apple, Pandora, Spotify, or Stitcher. It's free. And if you hit that little download button, it helps. And it also lets you write me a comment, which I read all of them at the Apple site. So if you do it on Apple, I will read your comment, I promise, and some of which I respond to on the air. Also go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. You can subscribe there too,

if you'd like to see the show. Got some exciting things planned for you there in the new year. Thank you for listening and happy new year. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.