The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's Border Chaos, and Marine Charged in Subway Death, with Stephen Miller, Liz Wolfe, and Sara Gonzales | Ep. 549

Episode Date: May 12, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Stephen Miller, founder of America First Legal, to talk about the end of Title 42 and the dangerous consequences of an influx of migrants into America, how border policies transform a state’s political landscape, the true motivation of the activists driving the policy and what will happen now, the horrific realities facing migrant children and families, what actually happens in immigration "court," the lack of transparency and consequences, what's happening in sanctuary cities, how the Trump administration handled the issue, and more. Then Liz Wolfe, associate editor of Reason magazine, and Sara Gonzales, host of BlazeTV's The News and Why It Matters, to talk about the Marine charged with manslaughter in the subway death of Jordan Neely, politicians changing their tune now that there's been activist pushback, the rush to racialize the story, Hollywood celebrities like Charlize Theron's raunchy "drag queens" telethon, a "Transformers" cartoon pushing gender ideology, what's behind the rise of trans ideology in our culture, the disturbing and misogynistic writing of a trans Pulitzer prize winner, and more.Miller: https://aflegal.orgWolfe: https://reason.com/people/liz-wolfe/Gonzales: https://www.youtube.com/@NewsandWhy 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. Title 42 has officially ended and U.S. Border Patrol is bracing for an influx of migrants to our southern border. I mean, there really is no southern border. I mean, there really is no southern border. You read the reports about what's going on down there, and it is absolutely horrific. We have opened the gates. Just come on in. It's at the point now where it's like, come in and we'll never talk again. But we're relying on you and your honor to maybe show up in front of an immigration court at some point like three years down the road.

That's what they're saying at a time when we have eight, 10, 12,000 migrants crossing the border. Now, keep in mind, Obama's DHS secretary, Jay Johnson, said we are at crisis levels when 1,000 are being apprehended a day. 1,000. Now we're talking about 10, 10,000 a day. And we've already set records on this. Last year, it was 2.4 million apprehensions at the border. And we're on pace potentially to beat that this year. These are not the sweet children who the left would like you to believe. Yes, there are some of those who are promptly being exploited by these border crossing folks who make their, they make, they make it their business to exploit them sexually, exploit them financially, and then throw them in the United States with not a care for their well-being. They get raped. They get assaulted. Children, women, these are not all those people.

We're talking about rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, gang members, even terrorists flooding across our border right now. It was not a mystery to Joe Biden that Title 42 was going to expire. That was the COVID measure that allowed us to turn people away without even entertaining what you're, let's face it, what are mostly false asylum claims. They don't need asylum here. How do you pass right through Mexico and not get asylum there? Now we said, oh, that's true. We should make them try to at least seek asylum. If you're fleeing death, destruction, sexual violence, and you just say, I got to get out of my country. What's wrong with Mexico? Why don't you stop there? Go get asylum from them. You know what's happening? We cracked down and said, yeah, you do have to apply for asylum there. And Mexico

promptly just said, that's me stamping the papers without even looking at them. Yeah, he sought asylum. Yeah, he sought asylum. Yeah, he can go now. It's all such a farce. It's a shell game. So yeah, now they flood into the United States without so much as, in many instances, a tap on the shoulder saying, hey, can I see your papers? Hey, do you need asylum? Hey, what's your plan when you're in the United States? So Joe Biden knew this was going to be coming, that Title 42 was going to be ending because there is no COVID pandemic. Even the WHO has now admitted that. And we've done basically nothing. We're sending some troops down there, like a handful. But really, Texas is the state that's been left to fend off these migrants from coming across the border. God bless Greg Abbott, who sent a couple thousand National Guard troops to the border to try

to fend off the migrants. And according to reports from Fox News, Bill Malujan's been doing a great job. These migrants are looking at them like, what are they doing there? Who are they? What? Who are these people? They're not used to being turned away. They're used to just walking right in. And thanks to Greg Abbott, some of them are getting some pushback now because it's reached true, true crisis levels. We do not have the facilities to house these people. We've talked about the plan, the actions by some of the Southern state governors like Abbott, like DeSantis in Florida to ship the migrants elsewhere to sanctuary cities. That's pretty much their plan. Great. You want to be a sanctuary city? Here's a bunch of migrants. Why should we have to deal with it down in Texas? Totally get it. And frankly, support it.

Even though I happen to live near one of those sanctuary cities, New York. And now Mayor Adams is trying to bust those migrants out of Manhattan. Oh, I thought we were against the busing plan. OK, what happened to Sanctuary City? What happened to come here? We're not going to turn you over for deportation. Different story now. Now he's trying to bust them to places like Rockland County.

That's just north of New York City. And he's getting pushback. You got the Republican city manager there saying they're not coming to our town. So your problem, Adams, we're not a sanctuary city. You deal with it. Where I used to live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, there's like migrants everywhere. They're in hotels right around the corner. These are beautiful neighborhoods. People raise their children. Migrants in this hotel, migrants in that hotel, then another whole hotel of homeless people. Who would live in those conditions? I'm sorry. I don't care if it sounds heartless. No normal person wants to raise their toddler on a street that's

got two hotels full of migrants with all the people I just listed and another hotel full of homeless people, half of whom are cracked out on drugs. Now, last night, a federal judge blocked a Biden administration policy that would allow the release of the migrants again, as without court dates. It's just the honor system, okay? And the House GOP passed the last second bill addressing border security, but do we have faith in any of this? Joining me now is a man who knows immigration policy better than anyone, I think it's fair to say, Stephen Miller. He served as a senior advisor to President Trump and is now fighting the Biden border policies as president of America First Legal, which is a great group.

America First Legal has become a thorn in the side of the Biden administration and other administrations at the state level who are trying to obfuscate facts that they think will be bad for the political left, trying to get everything from that manifesto that was written by the shooter, the trans shooter down in Nashville, Tennessee, to trying to find out what's really happening at our southern border. So, Stephen, thank you for being with us. Hey, great to be with you. Thank you. All right. So put it in perspective for us now, how bad it is right now and is likely to get. Well, it's unprecedentedly bad. It's the worst that it's ever been in American history. It's never been worse than it is right now, not just in the history of our country, but the history of any country. In fact, the 10,000 apprehensions that we had recorded just in the last couple days, so 10,000 per day, is the highest single-day record since the founding of our country. But again,

even other countries would pale in comparison in their histories as well, too. So we're living through a time period now that has no equal, it has no comparison point, it has nothing that you could possibly use to contextualize it really with anything. And I would also say that 10,000, of course, is just a portion of what we know is crossing the border, because in addition to the 10,000 known apprehensions, you also have a huge number, as you've discussed many times, a huge number of gotaways, too. And, you know, we know of about 20,000 gotaways in the last full seven-day period. But there's a second category of unknown gotaways. So those are people that you don't know that you miss.

You just miss them. And so even if you're being charitable and you say that that's an equivalent number, so say 20,000 known gotaways, 20,000 unknown gotaways, that's 40,000 gotaways in a week on top of an average of 8,000 to 10,000 a day. So on the high end, that's 70,000, right? So you get 70,000 in a week potentially of apprehensions plus another 40,000 in gotaways. So that's basically the size of a mid-sized American city every week. My God.

Where are we supposed to put them? What are we supposed to do with them? I mean, I understand the idea of the Biden administration, these far-left Dems, like we're pro-immigrant. I mean, they'll mention the Statue of Liberty to you

if you start talking to these people. Really, what are we supposed to do with these people? What is going to happen with this level of chaos? The whole notion that we have this obligation to let in unlimited numbers of poor migrants from developing countries is basically, as I understand it, is predicated on the idea that a poem was added to the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty several decades after it was gifted to us by the French as part of a fundraiser for refurbishing the base of the statue. That's basically it. In other words, it was a poem that was added some years

later after the statue was erected. The statue was a gift from the French. If you study the Statue of Liberty at all, there's broken chains at the bottom of the foot. And it was really an abolitionist monument and a monument about freedom and about liberty enlightening the world. And that's what the torch stands for, liberty enlightening the world. And so it's meant to be a symbol of American freedom

pointing outwards and illuminating the globe. It has nothing to do whatsoever with immigration. But that idea has stuck in the American mind on the part perpetrated by the media now for many generations. But the Biden administration's objective to get from day one, since they entered office, none of this is an accident. The objective from day one, from the very beginning, was to admit as many illegal aliens as humanly possible into the country. And that's, of course, what they've been doing. All the policies they canceled, they knew what canceling them would do, and all the new policies they put into place, they understood what the effects of those would be. And so in particular,

what you see happening with the use of what's known as parole, and so this may be somewhat, it may seem like an esoteric topic, but it's important. Let me just say to the audience that this is the new plan. This is part of the Biden administration's new plan that I guess we're supposed to feel better about. And they're calling it parole, which is a weird word because people have it, have a notion of what that means in the criminal setting. Explain what this new plan of parole for these illegal migrants is. Yes. So in immigration law, there is a provision known as parole, you know, the same word that

you hear in the criminal justice context that says that the Department of Homeland Security, on a case-by-case basis, for humanitarian or other exigent circumstances, can parole someone into the country that would otherwise be ineligible for entry. And it's designed for situations, as an example, if somebody shows up at the border and they're in kidney failure and they need emergency dialysis, you might say, well, we're going to give you humanitarian parole so that we can get you to the hospital and figure this out. And so that would be a very individualized, very specific, very targeted grant of relief for a very narrow purpose. And they said that we're going to use it to categorically admit illegal immigrants by the hundreds of thousands, we're going to create an application, an app, the CBP1 app that I guess NGOs can give you on their phones that you can apply for parole, or we'll just parole you straight out of Border Patrol facilities. The reason why this is

significant, and this is what I've described as their end game, this is what they've been driving towards for two years, and removing Title 42 was the last step in this process, is that parole confers a DACA-like benefit. And for those of you who don't remember, DACA, D-A-C-A, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that was Obama's program for so-called dreamers or younger illegal aliens. And so when you're paroled, not only do you have a two-year immunity, a renewable two-year immunity from deportation, but you can also apply for a work permit. And you can also apply for what's known as, and again, I'm using immigration terminology here, but what's known as an adjustment of status. And what that means is your current status is paroled. But if you fall in love with an American, why?

Then you can adjust your status to being a legal permanent resident. And then you can adjust again to being a citizen. Or if a company wants to hire you, well, they'll just sponsor you for a work-based green card. And now you're, again, you're a legal permanent resident. So they're admitting people on a pathway to permanence. And they'll also be able to then go to Congress and say, in a short time, we've got all these people here. They fled their home countries. There's no way we could possibly deport them all. They've been living here for years. They've put down roots, don't you know?

And they've had kids now. They've had children, and the children are citizens, and we can't split up families. So I guess we'll just have to make them all citizens. That's the plan. And that's that's what's happening now. So I'm not even describing something that's theoretical. This is one of those things like, well, Stephen, where's the proof? The memo has gone out to the field. The directions have been given. The technology has been deployed. This is what is actually happening now in the real world. What they say that their new rule will, quote, bar most people from applying for asylum if they cross the border illegally. So the people who cross in with this expanded parole program where it's like, OK, just just come on in,

you know, we'll check back. And if you want to apply for change in status to go from illegal to lawful in some way, go for it. None of your past behavior will be held against you. How does this how does that interact with this claim that their new rule is going to bar most people from applying for asylum if they cross the border illegally? It's just not going to be an asylum claim. Well, so a couple of important points on this. The first is that the regulation that people are talking about does not do at all what people are saying and haven't saying it would do. So during the Trump administration, we had an actual transit ban that was in place said that if you cross through a safe third country, you are ineligible for asylum in the United States of America. And it was a categorical prohibition.

And so Mexico obviously is a safe country. We know this because millions of people live and work in Mexico and are not being persecuted by their government. And to be clear, the term safe in this context, in the world of immigration law, means safe from persecution. That's what safe means. It means safe from persecution. And so the government of Mexico is a democratic government that respects human rights, that has basic due process. So nobody's being persecuted by the government in Mexico. So this policy, all it does is it says that if you haven't applied for asylum somewhere else, that you then need to apply for parole in the United States instead. So it's just a funneling mechanism to push people into this

parole scheme. But even if you break that rule and you say, no, screw you, I'm not applying for parole, I'm just coming across and I'm demanding entry, then you have the right to see an immigration judge. And once you assert your right to see an immigration judge, you're going to be released. That just is going to happen. This is a very important point to understand. The Border Patrol facilities were not set up and were not designed to hold tens of thousands of people waiting to see immigration judges. Once you ask to see an immigration judge, you will be sprung loose. You are free and you will go on about the rest of your life and you will never be leaving this country unless a future president sends an ICE officer to come find you. And so this is a distraction play, again, to create a predicate or a pretext so they can go

to court and say, oh, we're not just paroling people. See, the parole is part of this broader enforcement continuum, this plan that we have. So it's entirely pretextual, Megan, which being a very gifted attorney as you are, that's a term you understand very well. But it's basically it's just a fake reason to say that you're doing something when your real objective, again, is to create this DACA like status for hundreds of thousands and ultimately millions of illegal aliens. I mean, is the goal just to create more Democratic voters? What is it? Is it bleeding heart liberalism? Why would they be allowing this kind of crisis to emerge from our South and now be bused up to the North such that virtually all these major cities are going to feel the pain? People ask me this question a lot, and I've reflected on it a great deal because people want to know, how is it possible that an entire administration and all the members of Congress

who support that administration and all of the outside groups that support that administration could be so willingly complicit in a policy that's yielding so much human misery. You have human trafficking, sex trafficking, and labor trafficking, as even the New York Times documented, particularly with minors on a scale that has never been witnessed before. Hundreds of thousands of minors have been trafficked into the country. You have the fentanyl deaths setting records year after year, families being separated in a permanent and irrevocable way. The only way they can visit loved ones is at a cemetery, at a graveyard. And then you have gangs that have operational control of our territory that are abusing people and murdering people on both sides of the border,

the destruction of the labor market for the working class and the working poor, and the decimation of our healthcare system and our education system, to name but a few social ills. And I think the answer is exactly what you said, and it's very straightforward. California was once the most conservative free state in the country. If you wanted to live the American dream, you wanted to get your family in the station wagon, drive across country and just strike out and see if you could start a small business or get a good job or just earn a good living. You went to California. That's what you did. And this was the state that not only elected Reagan governor, but also voted in presidential elections for conservatives,

for national office, for almost the entirety of the 20th century up until 1992. and that was the tipping point and from 1992 until today only leftists for the highest office in the land and um the reason for that is because mass migration turns politics leftward and it's a lot of reasons why i mean one is that people who come from uh from countries that have no history of limited government and no experience with them to government don't find that to be intuitive so so that's one reason just the actual voters themselves they would say well why wouldn't i vote for higher taxes on someone who's not me to give services to somebody who is me right that's intuitive it's very intuitive to say there's people who are richer than me so i'll tax them more and then you're going to give me more money, right? That's intuitive. It's not intuitive what we have or have had in America

to say, if more people who aren't you also have freedom, then they will also be productive, and they will also create more jobs, and then those jobs will pay higher wages. But there's a secondary effect that pulls politics left, which is the destruction of the middle class. When you have good, high paying middle class jobs, that forms the center of a conservative society, a strong family and a strong community where people are able to get a job that can pay a living wage, that can support a family where you can have, if you want to, a one-parent working home, if you want to, a two-parent working home, but either way, you're financially secure and you have a good education system and a good healthcare system. When you completely destabilize the labor market and the social safety net, people then begin demanding more and more and more government services because the jobs aren't

paying enough, So you need more earned income tax credit and you need to have more food stamps. You need to have more public housing and the education system can't keep up. So you got to keep funneling more and more money into that. And nobody has health insurance. I mean, how many years have we heard, Megan, there's 30 million people that have health insurance. We need socialized medicine. We need socialized medicine. The vast majority of people in this country who do not have health insurance are not citizens of this country. There are many American citizens that have health insurance, to be clear, and they should get it, and we should make sure they do have it. But the vast majority of people who do

not have insurance of any kind, in any way, any shape, or form whatsoever, are not U.S. citizens. But again, that's used by political parties to demand free government services. So an open border both imports the voters who will vote for one party and one ideology, but it also changes the political landscape of an entire community. So you end up with the Manhattanization of America, where you have these very large cities where nothing works, nothing is functional, nothing is safe, nothing is efficient. And the solution is always going to be you have to tax more and spend more. It's bleak, Stephen. It's so bleak. Do you, you know, I've been listening to the reporting on the approach, the new approach by the Biden administration, and it's all over the board, even amongst the left. I, you know, I listen to NPR. I listen to the New York Times, the Daily and read the Times as well. And even they seem to be struggling with whether these are going to be

effective measures, whether they're going to be ineffective or whether they might be even more effective than the Trump administration. They seem to actually want to be toying with he's going to be tougher. He's going to be tougher with these reforms than than Trump was on people trying to get across the border because he's saying, if you try to do it illegally and you get caught, you're out, you're out for five years and you can't reapply. So you better go through the proper channels to get into this country or else, which is new for him. Yeah. Right. So this version of events inquires us to believe that he canceled every single policy that was working incredibly well and then put in place a whole series of policies designed to make it as easy to enter the country illegally as possible.

But it was really just secretly a head fake to come up with some new and different and better plan. The people who are driving immigration policy, I talked to Iceland, I talked to border agents, and obviously I know the names of the higher ups at DHS, and of course in the White House too. Ideologically, the people who are setting policy believe that borders are racist, that borders are wrong, and that we don't have any right morally or otherwise to deny people entry into this country. The way they look at it, to be very blunt, Megan, is they see, and to use sort of the language of the day, they see America as a racist colonial superpower. So this is their worldview. They think that we stole wealth and riches and plundered and pillaged from foreign countries, from indigenous people, from the developing world.

And at a moral level, they see this as the ultimate act of wealth redistribution. So, you know, but they believe the West, you know, from the, going back to the times of the British Parliament back when we were colonies, but they see that the West stole and plundered this wealth and they think this is a form of redistribution to those who they believe are rightfully entitled to the riches of this nation.

That is their, that is That is for the true believers. Biden doesn't have much going on upstairs. He's a party man. And so he is doing what his party is telling him to do, and he is doing it completely. But for the ideologues that are driving this policy, that is absolutely what they believe. And that is why they are constitutionally incapable of saying the sentence, illegal immigration is wrong. If you come into the country illegally, you have no path to release.

You will be detained. You will be deported. You will be going home. And you, if possible, will be sent to jail. And if you try again, you'll be sent to jail for more than a year. One of the things that we did in the Trump administration is we aggressively prosecuted. So we didn't just deport people, but we aggressively prosecuted immigration crime, not just immigration fraud, but 1325, USC 1325, which is the misdemeanor illegal entry, and then 1326, which is the felony illegal entry.

And we aggressively prosecuted illegal border crossing to send the message that what you're doing is criminal. This is criminal. And if American citizens go to jail for the minorest violation, you get one little thing wrong in your tax forms, or you make one little mistake interacting with a regulatory agency, or you make one little mistake in Washington

in terms of what box you check here or there and you know you spend years and years in jail but if you come across the country illegally in plain violation of federal law nothing happens to you that's wrong we said that's wrong so we've prosecuted people for doing that and biden has completely gutted all of our prosecution initiatives i don't remember the numbers okay but here's here's how here's what he says he's coming back with just to over you know i should have been more clear about this at the top. Okay, I mentioned the new rule that they say is going to bar most people from applying for asylum if they cross the border illegally or fail to first apply for safe harbor in another country. So they're kind of saying,

they are saying you now need to apply for asylum in another country, which is just so obvious, right? Of course, if you're truly fleeing prosecution, you're fine with Mexico. You just need to get away from the prosecution. That's not what it's about. They want to be in the United States and they want to do it fast and they don't want to follow the rules. Migrants who get an appointment through a new app they're putting out, the one O-N-E app set up by the border patrol will be exempt from this threat. So you're supposed to go on some app and create an appointment to, you know, have your, I guess, asylum claim scheduled for hearing. Then they say, this is the point they say is in their favor.

The administration will expand expedited removal processes under Title VIII, the decades old section of the U.S. Code that deals with immigration law. This allows the government to remove from the country anyone unable to establish a legal basis such as approved asylum claims. It would bar these migrants from the country for five years. So they're saying, if we catch you trying to get into the country or in the country and you haven't made an appointment through the app and you haven't been processed as a true asylum seeker by applying for asylum in Mexico or someplace else first, then we're going to be kicked out, and you will be removed, and you won't be able to come back

for five years. Is that a step in the right direction? This is not true. It's just not what's happening. What is the article that you're reading from, just so I know? I'm trying to see the source on this. I'm reading from my packet, which my team- Okay, sorry. Because I was saying immigration- Well, the sources are all over the place. New York Post, Political New York Post, and Daily Mail. The thing about immigration reporting in this country is that so few people who do immigration stories actually understand immigration law that they fall for literally any spin the administration pushes to them. So I've been seeing for two years, they always announced, oh, there's a new crackdown in the middle of the Haiti migrant camps. They were saying the

administration has some tough new crackdown plan. They push out this fake story every few months when the PR gets bad and hope everybody moves on to the next thing. If you really want to break it down, the regulation in question says that you have a rebuttable keyword, rebuttable presumption of ineligibility if you didn't apply in a previous country. The word rebuttable meaning that you can overcome it by asking, again, do you see an immigration judge? So in immigration law, Megan, there's all kinds of things that could sound tough on paper that dissolve upon contact with reality because of how enforcement actually works. If you allow an alien to seek a lengthy process when they enter this country,

then there's no way for border patrol to remove that person. If an alien shows up from Peru and tells a story and says, I couldn't apply in Mexico because the cartels threatened me. So I need to see a caseworker and then I need to see an immigration judge. Megan, that person is not going anywhere but to the city of their choice, St. Louis, Omaha, Nebraska, New York City. After two years of this, you think immigration reporters will stop falling for the same crap. The illegal aliens who want to get in will get in. It's happening right now. It's happening every day.

They show up at the border in the morning, and they're on to the next city in the evening. You see them on TV going on to the destination of their choice. Then they text their friends and their family with their new phones and say, hey, I just got in. The other point, though, about this is that in reality, the way it works on the ground is that when you have more aliens in your facility than there are caseworkers to interview them, the difference between those two populations gets released. So what would be the capacity under current staffing and procedures for the Border Patrol to verify the life story of an illegal alien from Ecuador coming to our border, who would then have a right to both see a USAS asylum caseworker and then also to see an immigration judge? Not to mention, Megan, where are they putting the families? They closed down family detention.

They don't use it for long-term detention anymore. What about minors? 100% of minors get sent to HHS. So minors exempt, families exempt. So now we're just talking about single adults. So you want to verify the life story of the single adult that's come into the country. How many could you do a day at the border with current resources? 100? 200? Maybe 250 if you're really pushing it. There's not like there's 50,000 caseworkers from USCIS just sitting down in the tent on the border interviewing people. The entire USCIS workforce is dispersed all across the United States doing H-Bs, H2Bs, green cards, naturalizations, every single immigration benefit in the country. And by the way, they're also raging liberals too, caseworkers, which is why we had to cut them out of the process in the Trump administration.

So we know exactly what the outcome is gonna be. Even NBC News, NBC News had this headline, Biden administration to allow for the release of some migrants into the U.S. with no way to track them. And they were talking about in part what you just mentioned, how we had overcrowding at least beginning in March of 2021. It was getting severe because we've had this problem since he took office. And so back then they began releasing migrants without court dates. So what's going to happen, right? They began releasing them without court dates. They had previously been enrolling these migrants in a program known as alternatives to detention, which required them to at least check in on a mobile app until they got a court

date. So at least we made ourselves feel better, or I guess gave ourselves political cover by saying, here's an app, check in on your court date. Then it got too overwhelming. And in March 2021, we began releasing them without court dates to alleviate overcrowding. Good luck. Enjoy the United States. And the new policy that he's pushing, this parole thing, releases them, quote, on parole with a notice to report back to ICE, the ICE office, but doesn't enroll them in anything. I mean, it's really just an official adoption of the overcrowding problem resolution, which was, you're on your own, enjoy America, check out the McDonald's, check out the Chick-fil-A. And you know what? Here's a bus ticket to New York where they will put you up in a hotel,

courtesy of the taxpayers, the actual US citizens who work hard for their money, will pay for all of your needs. Welcome to America. Let me give you a hypothetical, Megan, because I dealt with this myself in 2017 through 2021, where we would deport somebody and people could catch wind of the details from the interior, right? So we would deport someone and they'd say, oh my gosh, how can you deport that illegal alien? Don't you know, they have, you know, three kids here in the United States and they're enrolled in the local elementary school and, you know, so on and so forth. Right. By the way, the adult can take the kids back home if they want to, or they can leave

them with a relative if they're if they're given birthright citizenship, which is a different conversation, of course. But they would always say, how can you do this? How can you do this? All the millions that Biden has let into the country, they're starting new families here. They're having kids here. They're enrolling their kids in school. They're bringing in more relatives here. So the next administration is going to have to come in and they're going to have to find

and deport all of these individuals who will now have U.S. citizen children in many, many, many cases or children that will be declared by by longstanding policy to be U.S. citizen children. once you release an illegal alien and they put down roots in the country and they get a job, that you create an entire lobbying industry to defend against their deportation, just like we've seen with deferred action for, quote unquote, dreamers now, right, for the last decade. Once you're freed from Border Patrol or ICE custody, the alien wins. That was the number one insight of the Trump administration. And so that's what this whole regulation is balderdash. It doesn't mean anything because once you put someone out of a border patrol facility into the street, they're not going home. And so even if they say to you, hey, well, we don't think you're eligible for asylum under the new regulation, but you did ask to see an immigration judge. So you will have an appointment in three years and

you can make your case then, but you probably won't be eligible. It makes no difference, Megan. It makes no difference. They're not going home. What people don't understand about immigration courts is they're not criminal courts. There's no handcuffs. There's no bailiffs. There's no jail. There's no consequences. You know what it means to go to immigration court? It means you get in the family minivan, you drive to the local federal building where they have the DMV and the social security office. You park your car by the meter. You put in the money. You go up to floor four. You walk down the hallway, not the first door, not the second door, not the third door, but the fourth door. You walk in. You have a nice

conversation. The judge says, hey, I'm sorry, but you lose. You walk out the door. You go back down the hallway, back down to the first floor, back to your car. You drive home. And that's the end. No one comes and picks you up, Megan. No. And you're here in the United States you've been given an ID card you've been given a job you've been given health care that the rest of us are paying for and in some cities you've been given the right to vote

and then you've been given the right to bring all of your relatives right across the southern border to do exactly the same thing as your numbers go up and up and up by the thousands stand by quick break more with Stephen Miller. Could you find a smarter guest on this right after this? Don't go away. Let me ask you something. What rate of illegal immigration do we have in 2020? Do you know

anything? I asked you a question in office. Do you know anything? How long have you been in? I've been in office 11 years now. OK, the countering the talking point of the Democrats, which this media reporter happily parrots, is gosh, the problem can't be fixed. There's one little problem with that. It is an utter and complete lie. In 2020, the last year of the Trump presidency, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. You ask what have I done? I've championed the men and women of Border Patrol. I've championed securing the border. I've championed remain in Mexico. And we turned this problem

around and solved it. And we went from Joe Biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. And the first day in office, he made political decisions to cause this problem. And you should be ashamed of yourself because you're a reporter and you're not reporting facts. You're telling lies. And spot on Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who has chosen to make this his problem, unlike so many others. And Stephen Miller, he just tweeted out another good question. Why is AOC not here? She still owns the white pantsuit. Why is she not here with her head buried in her hands? They don't give a damn about the dead bodies. She went down there for a photo op, trying to make it look like the Trump administration

was torturing children with a family separation policy. Now, as they're dying in the river, as their desperate families come across because they've been led to believe they're gonna have this entry here, they're gonna have this life here, and kids are dying and adults are dying. No, I don't know where she is, but she chose not to

make a photo op out of that. Well, first of all, God bless Senator Ted Cruz. And I can feel the authenticity of his anger. It's the anger that I feel. It's the anger I know the border agents feel. It's the anger I know the men and the women on the ground feel. And we need every lawmaker who cares about this country to feel the same righteous anger. I dealt with this with AOC and the rest of them firsthand, where you had all the fake tears, all the crocodile tears, all of the performative outrage when we were trying to stop child trafficking, stop human smuggling, stop the cartels from engaging in these war crimes against minors and against women and against families, as well as, of course, the destruction of American communities. And they didn't care at all about the human

suffering then, and they don't care at all about the human suffering then, and they don't care at all about the human suffering now. Because for them, it's about one thing. It's about political power. So as Joe Biden is now overseeing and running the largest human trafficking operation in the world, he is now the global human trafficker in chief. Not a word of protest, not a word of complaint, not a word of indignation. Well, you know what else, Stephen? Our border czar, people may not remember, it's Kamala Harris. She's the new Stephen Miller. She's the person he placed in charge of our border. And is she down there with Ted Cruz trying to assess what's happening on the ground and talking to Border Patrol and figuring out what's going on? No. You know what? The New York Post reporting

today she is visiting Atlanta today for a Democratic Party spring soiree. They say she'll depart Washington around noon. She will appear at the DNC finance event before being the guest of honor at the Democratic Party of Georgia's spring soiree. That's what she's doing as the people are dying. Yes. And, you know, you have people drowning in the river. You have people being raped and beaten by the cartels. And you have hundreds of thousands more who are released into the United States who owe a life debt to the cartels, who are effectively slaves for the cartels. Not to mention the national security risks involved when you have countries from as far away as China and everywhere in between being able to get anyone they want to into this country. The cartels decide who crosses the border and when and where. They are a complete operational control of the border. You

talk to Asians, they will tell you this. They direct the human flows. They direct the movement of people into this country. And so they might push a huge group of, say, women and children into one area, while agents are then pushed to then process that group. They'll then push their contraband and their criminals and their conflicts into another group. And so when you tolerate mass migration, you surrender your very national security, your national defense, your national integrity to foreign transnational criminal organizations. and they are now calling the terms. They are now calling the shots. And border agents are left with the miserable task of just ferrying illegal immigrants deeper and further into the United States. You know, Ted Cruz talked about 2020.

I want to be very clear with your audience here, Megan, about what we had in place in 2020. So we had, everyone knows about Remain in Mexico by now, right? So Remain in Mexico was, if you ask for asylum, we'll send you back to Mexico and you can wait there for your court date if you want to, and then we'll drive you to the court and then we'll drive you right back. But then we layer on top of that something else known as a safe third agreement, which is even more powerful than Remain in Mexico. A safe third agreement says that if you apply for

asylum in the United States, we can choose to send you to a different foreign country to seek asylum there instead of here. And if you don't want to do that, your asylum claim is rendered null and void, and we can automatically deport you. Then on top of that, we had the third country transit rule we talked about that requires you to apply in a previous safe country. Then on top of that, we had Title 42. And then on top of that, we had a series of rulings and decisions to make clear that asylum only applies to people who are victims of actual state persecution.

So you combine all those policies, we had a multi-layered defense that enabled us to remove or deport every single body that crossed the border from any country anywhere in the world. That's what Joe Biden inherited. So if border agents apprehended 2,000, then 2,000 would be left out of the country. If they apprehended 3,000, 3,000 are being sent out of the country. Whatever number they got, that's the number that we sent away. It was the most effective multi-layered border security strategy ever put into effect. Under George Bush, as we know, millions got in. Under Obama, millions got in and they got amnesty as well too. And under President Trump, for the first time in history, we had a policy of universal

deportation that had never been put into effect before. They deported Mexicans in the past. But if you came from faraway countries, it was always, we'll release you and we'll see you in court in seven years. Lastly, in the time we have left, these sanctuary cities, let's talk about them. You've got places like New York, I mentioned, now awash in immigrants speaking Spanish in schools where we have no teachers who speak Spanish. The amount of resources going to deal with these kids, we don't have it. We don't have it. You got Chicago, where in 2019, while Trump was in office, Lori Lightfoot, the mayor, tweeted out, yes, Chicago must be a sanctuary city. We've got to stand up to the Trump administration's racist anti-immigrant terror and make sure every Chicagoan is safe regardless of citizenship status. And we've got to strengthen the welcoming city ordinance by eliminating any carve outs.

Now, as Chicago is dealing with the busing situation, the courtesy of the Southern state mayor, uh, governors, she issues an declaration. On Tuesday, she's receiving an influx of illegal immigrants into the city. She says it's overwhelmed the local facilities and the personnel. She says we've declared a national humanitarian crisis. She has requested federal and state aid for emergency shelter and resettlement

because some 8,000 migrants have moved into Chicago since August of 2022, which is a nothing. 8000. My God. Spend some time with some of these cities in Texas who are dealing with hundreds of thousands, hundreds. So what do you make of these? Is it going to make a difference is my question, really, for these sanctuary cities as they have to deal with it the way the Texans have? Well, you get what you vote for, right? The sanctuary cities voted for politicians who want to be a sanctuary for illegal aliens and criminal aliens. Importantly, to sanctuary cities specifically prevent local law enforcement from turning criminals over to the feds. So you get what you vote for and these education systems will be destroyed. This is one of the most fundamental threats that we have, is that if you have millions of people who do not speak their own language fluently, or cannot read or write in their own language fluently, and you bring them to our country, then that's going to divert resources

from all of our own kids who've just suffered through the pandemic. The bottom line, and this is what I want to close with, is that people are getting what Biden has been trying to give them from the beginning. This is the end game. This has been the plan. And parole, as we discussed today, is the final step in that plan. Yeah. Don't be fooled because our DHS secretary is lying to us about how the border's not open. Our vice president, immigration czar, is attending a spring soiree in Atlanta instead of bothering to even, as you point out, protectually go down there to make it look like she cares. And these policies he's announcing as his fix are a joke. Stephen Miller,

what a pleasure. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it, Megan. Thank you. All the best to you. The Marine who put Jordan Neely in a chokehold has been arrested this morning. We're going to get to that and more with two new guests to the show. Joining me now, Liz Wolfe, associate editor of Reason Magazine, and Sarah Gonzalez, host of Blaze TV's The News and Why It Matters. Liz and Sarah, welcome to the show. Thanks for having us.

We're super excited. Thanks. Oh, good. Awesome. All right. So let's talk welcome to the show. Thanks for having us. We're super excited. Thanks. Oh, good. Awesome. All right. So let's talk about what's happening in this Neely case. It's actually just so dark. They are now charging this Marine, Daniel Penny. And this morning, he was in jail. He's a 24-year-old former Marine. He was charged Friday with second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely. He was released on bond following a brief arraignment in which he did not yet enter a plea, but his lawyers say that they are confident he will be fully absolved of any wrongdoing. The charge of second degree manslaughter requires them to prove

he caused Mr. Neely's death, did so recklessly, meaning that he knew that the chokehold he put this man on the subway he was threatening passengers in could kill that man and unreasonably chose to apply it anyway. If convicted, he could spend up to 15 years in prison, which isn't going to happen. I don't think he'll be convicted, and he certainly isn't going to spend 15 years in prison. But this whole thing is a farce. The whole thing's a farce. He's been charged, I have to say, as somebody who lived in New York for 17 years, I just moved last year. I'm disgusted by this. I find this absolutely outrageous that they left these New Yorkers to themselves, but to their own devices. This lunatic goes on there. Oh, yeah. The Michael Jackson video. That was years ago. The guy has gotten to be much more threatening, aggressive, a serial criminal, assaulted an old woman whose orbital bone he broke, as well as her nose. Another old man assaulted, tried to kidnap a seven-year-old

kid. And this guy had to step in to protect the subway riders, and this is the thanks he gets, right? So they're trying to deter anybody else from stepping in and doing a similar Good Samaritan act. There's new news breaking in this whole case as a subway witness to the event speaks out and says as follows. Okay. And then I'll get your reactions on it. She's a 66 year old female witness. Debbie will tell me it says both that she spoke to the New York Times and that she spoke

to the New York Post. Not sure which it actually was. New York Post. Okay. She said that there are more videos of the altercation that led up to the chokehold. And she believes that those videos will absolve Daniel Penny. She says, hopefully people will submit these videos, maybe even anonymously, but they're out there.

She said, because there's more to this story. She said it's to the point where when all of it was done, she went back and made sure that she said thank you to Daniel Penny. She said Neely came on the train and that he brought on the chokehold himself by threatening the entire train. Many of them were taking Neely's threats seriously. These are quotes. He said, I don't care. I'll take a bullet. I'll go to jail because he was saying I will kill people on this train. He said, I would kill a mother effer. I don't care. I'll go to jail because he was saying, I will kill people on this train. He said, I would kill a mother effer. I don't care. I'll take a bullet. I'll go to jail. This gentleman, Mr. Penny, the defendant now did not stand up, did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word.

It was all Mr. Neely that was threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wanted, then Mr. Neely, this is from other reporting that was out a week ago, took off his black jacket as though he was about to begin some sort of fight. That's what guys do when they're about to fight. And we understand from this collective reporting, that was when the defendant now, Daniel Penny, stood up and tried to subdue this out of control passenger. So, Liz, let me start with you. What do you make of the decision to charge him and the change now in the mayor's tune?

Because while the mayor was originally reasonable, now he seems out for blood. Well, we saw this from Mayor Eric Adams and we also have seen this a little bit from Governor Kathy Hochul. They've changed their tunes. At the very beginning, it seemed like they were very understanding of the subway passengers who perhaps feared for their lives and of the Marine, Daniel Penny, who may have acted in self-defense. We haven't fully established this in a court of law, so I'm very curious to watch these proceedings. But initially, Adams and Hochul sort of were giving kind of vague quotes, seeming like they were on the side of Penny. And now I think that they saw the degree to which protesters and activists and people online have treated this as if it's the second round of George Floyd, as if it's the summer of 2020 all

over again. They've changed their tunes and I think are resting on some of the initial vagueness to sort of retcon their own words and act like they were always in favor of this different telling of events. I mean, I keep seeing people on Twitter talking about this and calling this a racially motivated crime, a hate crime, or even a lynching. And the thing that I want to draw people's attention to is the fact that Neely was presumably acting in a very threatening manner to the point where it wasn't just Penny who felt the need to subdue him. But I believe two other passengers are seen in that video operating with him, people who he didn't know, random strangers who clearly assess the situation as one in which they also needed to step in. So I think that that shows that it wasn't premeditated

and shows that there might be far more to this than meets the eye to call this a lynching to call this racially motivated to call this a hate crime in any way uh i think is is really taking it too far we need to establish way more about uh the the situation that transpired directly before this and i think more and more about the mayor's change in tune and how he he came out initially like well, you know, people need to feel safe down there. Kathy Hochul too. And then when they read the room, this very, very liberal borough of Manhattan, they did a 180. Now you've got this mayor. And by the way, one of the men who helped Daniel Penny subdue Jordan Neely was a person of color. I don't, the report saying he was black. I can't really tell from the video what his race was, but he did not appear to be a white man. The second guy, I don't know.

The defendant in the case is white, and Jordan Neely was black. So Eric Adams comes out, Sarah, and adds this little bit of gasoline to this fire that's already starting to burn here in Manhattan. Listen to him. One of our home is dead. A black man, black like me. A man named Jordan. The name I gave my son. A New Yorker who struggled with tragedy, trauma, and mental illness.

A man whose last words were a cry for help. A man named Jordan Neely. The circumstances surrounding his death are still being investigated, and while we have no control over that process, one thing we can control is how our city responds to this tragedy. One thing we can say for sure, Jordan Neely did not deserve to die. Oh my God. Do you believe the race baiting? One of our own, a black man like me, a man named Jordan. My God, like what's your evidence that this had anything to do with Jordan Neely's race? Yeah, I mean, well, we see this from the left, from the radical left all the time, right? They all they have is race wars. All they have are class warfare. They thrive off of this chaos. They thrive off of the division. And that's why you're seeing them continue to make this about

race. But I want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here of the radical left operating in such a way that they are trying to make law abiding citizens feel too scared to defend themselves. Case in point, go back to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, right? This was a clear cut self-defense case. And you saw the evidence. You saw him get dragged through the trial. You saw the entire world seemingly against

him for just defending his own life. At the end of the day, he was found not guilty. What happened after that? He is now being civilly sued by some of the parents of the deceased criminals. And I will highlight they were criminals. Then you saw it here in Austin, here in Texas with Daniel Perry, a very close name to Daniel Penny, but Daniel Perry, who was trying to defend himself against the violent BLM protesters. They just sentenced him to 25 years and Governor Abbott is waiting for the pardon board to get back with him so that he can pardon this man. But these radical DAs, the radical left, they want law abiding citizens to be too scared to defend themselves.

They want the chaos. This is why they're allowing criminals, the actual criminals, people like Jordan Neely. They're allowing criminals out into the streets. They're allowing illegals to flood into the country. They are allowing all of these while telling us law abiding citizens that we don't have the right to own a gun to protect ourselves because they are thriving off of the chaos and division. He says, one thing we can all agree on, this man did not deserve to die. That's a tricky question, actually. That's a lot trickier than the way he phrases it, because Daniel Penny's defense has to be that he was unleashing the potential of deadly force, and therefore my use of potentially deadly force on him was legally appropriate. And so, you know, it's not morally deserved. It's legally very left. But Manhattanites ride the subway. And we have all seen these lunatics down there who make us fear for our lives, for the safety of our children, who make you get off. I've done it. I've gotten off early. I didn't wait until my stop

because I was scared that there was some lunatic on board my train that it didn't matter where I got off. Just need to get off and get away from this person. And I'm never on the subway. These people who ride it every day. I just wonder what kind of a jury would if this case gets in front of a jury would actually convict this guy. Well, I was pregnant recently. I recently had my son. And when I was pregnant, I live in Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn. I refused to take the J line and the M train because, you know, that subway station near my house was not a place where I felt very safe. When I would ride that train, I noticed, you know, a huge uptick. It's tough because we all sort of operate from a place of anecdata. I don't necessarily have excellent data to substantiate this. I've never heard that. I

like that. But I mean, there were so many crazy people and it felt like something that arose out of the pandemic, you know, and so I got to the point where I would only take the G line. I didn't really feel comfortable taking certain lines. You know, you don't want to be pregnant in a vulnerable position or holding a young child on a train where there's very unpredictable and possibly violent people. The thing that I do think that people need to really keep at the very forefront of their minds is we don't want people turning into vigilantes. The reason why we don't want that is because they will inevitably fail to exercise proper discretion, fail to be as judicious as we want them to be. And they'll decide what a threat is and how to pacify it in very different ways. Where I draw that line and

choose to act might be very different than where you draw that line, Megan, or you, Sarah. And so we don't want people becoming vigilantes. But this is sort of what we invite when we ask cops to sort of abdicate their responsibility. And when we as New Yorkers sort of shift our expectations for what NYPD will do. I think Mayor Adams has actually been experimenting with some interesting policies in terms of trying to ensure that subways and subway stations are appropriately staffed with NYPD officers in order to help people when there are these really scary situations. But we should be very careful about what happens when people turn into vigilantes. If this guy, God forbid, gets convicted and gets actual jail time, it's going to be chaos down in the subways when you know that if you step

in to save someone who might be in trouble, you could be going to prison and then the city will not have your back. The cops, the mayor, the prosecutor, and then your fellow New Yorkers will not have your back. It will stop people from intervening. It will stop good Samaritan behavior. And so there's a lot riding on this, not just in New York, but beyond because this case has now gone national. And we don't know anything about Jordan Neely. We know he had a severe drug problem. He was suicidal in and out of mental institutions. And how much, how many drugs did he have in his system on the day of this incident that led him to come on and say, I don't care if I die, I'm effing going to kill.

Like, let's find out before we just start throwing the book at this former Marine who, unlike Neely, served his country honorably, did not have a long, any criminal history that we know of. Right. We've decided to make him the villain and then bring his skin color into it, which is the ultimate. All right. I want to switch gears and talk about something else in the news now, because while we were all going about our lives and living well, Hollywood decided that they needed to hold a telethon, not for the kids with muscular dystrophy, not for the victims of Ukraine, but this time it was for the drag Queens for drag Queens. Hollywood held a drag isn't dangerous telephone and they raised over half a million dollars to save the drag Queens. No, it's not going to our military, right? Like this is great. You could,

you could help kids with autism. We could go down the list. No, this is for the drag Queens. Um, and among those who spoke out about this was actress Charlize Theron, um, who obviously I, I don't know, but I have, I feel like I have some weird connection to this person because she played me in a movie. Um, and I was aware that she had one child who she says is trans. She says the child's been trans since age three and they transitioned him from male to female, quote unquote, they transitioned him. And listen to Charlize Theron speaking out about this. Sot 7. We love you, Queens. We love you, Queens. We're in your corner and we've got you and I will fuck anybody up who's like trying to fuck with anything with you guys.

It's really in all seriousness. There's so many things that are hurting and really killing our kids. And we all know what I'm talking about right now. And it ain't no drag queen because if you've ever seen a drag queen lip sync for her life. Yeah. It only makes you happier. It only makes you love more. It makes you a better person. Yeah. It only makes you happier. It only makes you love more. It makes you a better person.

Okay. So why doesn't Charlize Theron come and fuck me up? Because I'm 100% against her on this. Yes, there's fun drag queen shows. I've been to them. When I lived in Chicago, we went to one that was super fun. It was all adults. But there are drag queen shows out there right now that are deeply disturbing and they're

happening in front of young children. So know what you're supporting. Understand what we're actually seeing out there, which can include absolutely the grooming of young children. Even she should be against that trans kid or not. Sarah, you've done great reporting on this. You actually was it last year or the year Sarah, you've done great reporting on this. You actually, was it last year or the year before, but you got some dark video of one such incident. We've got a bit of it. I'm going to show it and then you can explain what it is we're seeing.

All right. So here's, I'll explain to the audience. It's a drag queen person. And you tell us what this person is doing, Sarah. Yes, he is throwing his dress, his skirt up to reveal a cat on his underwear. I'm sure you can make the connotation there. And the important point to note is that you see the word over and over and over again, talking about how good it is, talking about how sweet it is, talking about how people want to F this person's P. And they are doing it all, of course, in front of this young child. And that honestly was the most grotesque song choice that they used during that event, but it wasn't the raunchiest behavior that I saw that day. So this was October of last year. And I have an organization called Defend Our Kids Texas. And you would think in Texas, we wouldn't have to form an organization

dedicated to stopping the sexualization of children of all states, Texas. But we had to. And so I went in to this brunch. It did say on the original form, all ages are welcome. It did say, you know, we get a little raunchy, so be advised, but all ages are welcome. And so I went in and I said, I know I'm going to see at least one child here. And of course, there she was. They were handing out vibrators as part of their gifts. They were, you know, there was one of the drag queens who was wearing an incredibly revealing outfit, very sheer. You could see the bottom of her breasts just barely covering her nipples. And this is just, this is what is happening in,

I really feel like I have to emphasize this, Megan. I grew up in this area. This is Plano, Texas. This is like suburbia, right? This is what you would think to be a very red, very conservative, very reasonable when it comes to children area. And yet I went there and I saw this young child

being exploited and being sexually abused. And this is what I try to tell people. This is not a parental rights issue. This is a child abuse issue. This is the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. You are infecting their young mind that is not ready to process such images, such language, and you're infiltrating their minds with this. Of course, it's going to affect them

mentally. And so we're fighting it here in Texas, but it's just disgusting how they've turned this drag queen thing into such a cultish behavior. Drag queens are not under attack. All we're doing is simply asking them, please stop doing this in front of children. You would think that it wouldn't be controversial. It wasn't controversial five minutes ago to say, stop sexualizing our children. You're so right. I agree with every word you just said. I've said this, like, remember when Carrie Lake was running in Arizona and they tried to make a thing out of the fact that she as an adult had seen a drag queen. Meanwhile, she was objecting to drag queens in schools. It's not the same thing. They conflate it because apparently allowing drag queens to perform in front of little children

is really important to them. Otherwise, why would they conflate these two issues rather than just seeding the one and defending the right of adults to perform as they want in front of other willing adults? It can be a fun thing. Bachelorette parties go out and see a drag queen show. It's with a cocktail in a bar where it's only people above 21. Fine, whatever. There may be some people who care, but no one's really targeting that. They're targeting the exploit. And you know what happens? And I know the word groomer does get overused. What happens is if you introduced, introduce sexual behavior and like sexual references, just sexualization in front of children too young, it gets them

used to it. It ignores the child into that behavior. And then I'm not saying drag queens are pedophiles, but you don't know who's in that child's life. You don't know whether that kid is exposed at the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts or on a school trip or, God forbid, in a church to somebody who will exploit that familiarity with that kind of talk and that kind of behavior. And the child's defenses are now down because you've put them down. So it is a problem, Charlize. Believe me. What do you make of it, Liz? Well, I really think I look at I look at states like Florida revoking the liquor licenses of bars that host drag shows. And I think, you know, one of the big problems there is for adults like me, where sometimes my friends will drag me to one of these things. You know, when the liquor license

is revoked, that means I'm not able to drink to get through it. So that's a big problem. Obviously, it makes a lot of sense to attempt. They're attempting to punish the business. I understand what they're doing. As a libertarian, I really, really reject that. I don't think that that is the role of the state to be doing that type of thing. But the thing I actually really take issue with is the fact that we've made drag, for whatever reason, culturally and politically, such a thing. This used to be relegated to this very niche area. It was the subculture. It was kitsch, and it was caricature, and it was focused specifically. It wasn't really designed for bachelorette parties or for me or for you. This was really something that was fairly fringe. But for whatever reason, so much of the left has made it so that you have to be 100% completely affirming and completely in favor of,

and perhaps even wanting to personally attend drag shows. And then so much of the right, I think sometimes draws a decent distinction between, hey, this is permissible activity for adults to engage in, but certainly not children. But there's also a certain fixation that I see from some conservative commentators on this. And it drives me crazy that we're at this point culturally where we've picked this really absurd kind of lame thing and blown it up to be this thing that we all have to get on board with, or we all have to fully reject. And look, I'm a parent. I absolutely do not want my kid to be in any sort of environment where they're exposed to this type of sexual material. I do think it is important, though, that we separate out and differentiate drag shows with, you know, a high degree of eroticism and sensuality present and with legitimately

inappropriate themes versus others that are authentically tame. Though I am very confused by it's almost like parents who take their children to these types of events, even the really, really tame ones, are doing so perhaps not because the child is asking to go, but almost out of a desire to show that they are capital C correct in their beliefs. And the thing that I always go back to is something I heard a comedian say once, which is that, you know, when the audience is clapping at your jokes instead of laughing, that's a problem

because humor ought to be transgressive and humor ought to be a little bit shocking and humor ought to be clever. And if they're clapping, that's sort of them demonstrating that they are affirming the things that you're talking about. And that's sort of a sign

that you as a comic have failed. You haven't pushed the boundaries. I would let my kids and have let my kids watch Mrs. Doubtfire, I guess Tootsie, which they wouldn't enjoy yet. It's kind of above their level. But I don't think there's anything wrong with them seeing somebody like cross-dressing for the purposes of a role or a funny story. It's not like, oh, my God, you saw a man dressed as a woman. Shield your eyes. But you're, so there is, there is a place where like,

it's not offensive and it's not sexual, but what they want is like the drag queens dressed in like bondage wear to show up at libraries. We've seen this and read to our children's and for us to say like, oh, that's normal. It's not normal. We need to speak out. And here's a related matter. So we've got now

the gender stuff, the nonsense about, yes, you can change your gender. Yes, there's such a thing as being both genders at once. That's a lie. That's a lie. There's no such thing as non-binary, both woman and man. Yes, there's a thing where you could have both sex organs. That's it. It's a very infinitesimal amount of the population. Virtually all these people who are saying they're non-binary do not have that problem. So there is a show called The Transformers, and this was on, I think, Disney Plus, was it? Was that on Disney Plus? I'm trying to get the actual network that this was put out on. But Transformers is something that like every kid on earth enjoys and has played with and might be attracted to in the form of a cartoon.

Here's just a sample of the messaging that's found its way into a simple cartoon about the Transformers. Watch this. My pronouns are they, them. Thanks. I'm Sam. I'm she, they, but you already know that. Sometimes the world can be a scary place. It's hard to know who's dangerous or not. That's true, though disappointing. Hey, it's okay. I know I'm safe when I'm with my friends or other non-binary people. Non-binary?

People who aren't female or male. Oh my god. Oh, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have assumed. I always knew my pronouns felt right, but... What a wonderful word for a wonderful experience. Oh, my God, Sarah. Yeah, Sarah's covering her face. Paramount Plus.

Paramount Plus is airing this. You wouldn't know. You'd put your kid in front of the TV. Paramount Plus. Transformers. Boom. Good. We're off to the races.

And then that crap comes up? Yeah, this is why I don't, my child, my older child, my younger child doesn't really watch television, but my older child, I heavily vet every single thing I allow him to watch. And he is very annoyed by it because he's 10. But I think it's a necessary thing for parents to do if they want their child to consume

any type of media these days, because it's everywhere. And it's just so fascinating to me because they're always like, we're not coming after your children. That's preposterous. And then they inject all of their wokest ideology in every single piece of children's programming that they possibly can. There is no reason for a weird transformer robot to be talking about pronouns. It's obvious they're coming after your children. They want to inject them with this radical ideology because they want to normalize it. They want to feel normal.

The problem is it's not normal and it's not true. And teaching our children untrue things is not okay. It's just fascinating to me that they... Look, I think what's happened is that all of these weirdos, I'm just going to call them weirdos, all of these weirdos are taking these jobs in media for children. You see it at Disney Plus. Megan, you had to say, is this Disney Plus? Well, it very well could have been because these are the same types of people who are taking the jobs at Disney Plus. They're taking over children's programming. They're taking over comic books. All of these woke people are taking over all of these children's programming. And this is the result of that. And I just think it's so sad because I remember back

when we were younger and I watched Saturday morning cartoons, it was like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles eating pizza and fighting bad guys, not weird non-binary robots. What world are we living in? I object to the normalization of this. This is not normal. The people who suffer from genuine gender dysphoria have a real problem. This is not something to want for your kid. No normal parent would. And so I object to the attempt to normalize it instead of otherize it. I actually believe in otherizing it. And that doesn't mean we treat people who are going through this poorly or were cruel. But we should not accept it as though, sure, this is one of the menu items available to you on your life choices. No, it isn't. It isn't. This is something that will really F you up. It really will. I mean, talk to the detransitioners. If you decide to go down this route, the odds are you're going to have massive problems in your life, many of which will be irreversible, right? But that's not the story that the robot is going to tell you, Liz. I frequently defer to my friends, Jesse Single and Katie Herzog, who have the wonderful podcast

Blocked and Reported on this. I think they do such a good job of communicating that for some people who, you know, are authentically trans to the extent that you guys, you know, might think that that exists or not when they are adults and they have been, you know, grappling with that and seeking help with that for a very, very long time. Perhaps in some limited cases, transitioning makes sense, but that we need to be so much more cautious with the way that we're messaging this to kids and the degree to which we're allowing kids to transition at a really young age. They do such a good job of speaking with some of the whistleblowers who have worked at some of these hospitals where they're allowing kids to have either top or

bottom surgery from really young ages. And I think Jesse and Katie do an excellent job with all this. The thing that always comes to mind for me, though, is do kids want to be watching this? Like, I'm sorry. Like, I have a really young kid. So maybe I'm just not aware of, you know, what a typical seven or eight-year-old boy wants to watch. But like, are the kids who are sitting down to watch the Transformers, like, do they want this? Or do they want, like, cool action stuff, right? Like, to some degree, you know, I'm a libertarian. I think like surely, you know, companies are only offering things if there is authentically a market for them. But then I sometimes look at stuff like this and I'm a little bit like, well, this seems almost like this top down imposition of their hobby horses, but not necessarily the thing that like little kids are interested in. Why are we doing this?

They think they're teaching tolerance. That's why they do it. They think they're teaching tolerance in the same way as we might show like a little black boy and a little white boy walking down the street, holding hands, the MLK dream, and just sort of bake it into your experience so that it's normal and you don't see anything about it. And that was a good plan. But now they're doing it with something that is genuinely dangerous. Well, I think this goes back to my earlier point. Like, why did it, why did drag shows have to become in the mainstream? Why did this have to be a thing

that sort of liberals overall decide that we have to be obsessed with and love and always attend and then take, you know, our children to, not all liberals, but like there's to some degree this like pervasive cultural shift that's really weird. And I sort of wonder like, do kids actually want any of this or are

kids just kind of wanting to like go play in nature or watch the cool action? Like they always take it too far. You know, Sarah, you go to like Heather McDonald's written about this, but you go to like any college campus and you go into any human sexuality course or something like that. And you might even get this at the high school level when you if you take where they make you take sex ed, they're not just like, this is how babies are born. And these are the potential contraceptives you could take to prevent that. And if you choose not to have a baby, there is the option of abortion or you could like, that's how they used to do it. Now they talk about things like fisting. I mean, they get graphic, they bust out vibrators, they give out vibrator. It's like, this is absurd. This is somebody working

out their own sexual kink on young people. Yes. And these are the people who have infiltrated academia, right? The left has worked for so many years to infiltrate the institutions that really matter and can affect and shape Americans. One of them being the education system and higher education. The other one, of course, being the medical community. And so now we have all of these doctors who maybe have their, you know, they have their medical degree, but they're going to sit here and tell a parent that their three-year-old can change their gender. I mean, these people don't belong anywhere

near the medical community or children. But it's fascinating because I'm sure that you get called anti-trans, right, or a transph sure that you get called anti-trans right or a transphobe I get called anti-trans for the work that I do all the time which is fascinating because again it's all about protecting the children um what you do as an adult doesn't really bother me um but it's fascinating because I would make the argument anytime I get called anti-trans I'm like I actually think I care about these people more than you guys do, right? I care about them more than the doctors who just want to make them lifelong patients,

more than the psychotherapists who are saying, oh, you've had one visit with me. Here are your cross-sex hormones. Here's your prescription to go get a double mastectomy at 15. I mean, I care about these people more than any of the people who are pushing them into a lifestyle that is going to irreparably harm them and in some cases push them closer to suicide and other things that they cannot undo. And it's just so frustrating to me that we always get called anti-trans. I feel like we're the only ones who care enough about these people to speak up and say, stop pushing children into not only a not normal lifestyle, but a dangerous one. And I think to your point,

Megan, are not, but mostly people are not really trans. Most of these people are unhappy kids who are looking for a place to land their unhappiness and feel special. And there used to be anorexia, used to be cutting, used to be whatever, different hair. And now it's the trans thing, which unlike, you know, I mean, anorexia and cutting are dangerous too, but when you cut, I know somebody who went through this dramatically. When you cut, you might cut your arms, you might burn your skin. It's not good. It's deeply troubling, but you don't start cutting off your body parts. You don't render yourself sterile for the rest of your life, ruin your ability to ever achieve climax as a sexual being and do it as a minor

with your parents. Okay. Like that's, you know, we recognize cutting as something that's dangerous and needs to stop this. We're celebrating it as something that gets snaps. Like, yeah, you go girl, go ahead. Sorry. Well, to your point about, you know, teaching know teaching fisting uh in sex ed classes these days or handing out vibrators or whatever there's you know we're holding these things in tension the fact that we're imparting this knowledge on kids at ever younger ages in very sort of like weird and aggressive ways but also at the same time you actually look at the statistics for gen z they're not touching each other they're not going out there and doing like backseat car shenanigans. They're not even getting freaking driver's licenses these days. And I think to some degree, or the kids all right,

trend pieces kind of overstate some of the concerns. But we also have to consider that a lot of these kids, you know, their lives were turned upside down by the pandemic. These are crucial times for development. I'm thinking of, you know, people who were maybe in ninth or 10th grade when the pandemic started. And it's actually important for their development within reason that they learn how to socialize and learn how to talk to the opposite sex and learn how to start their lives as romantic and sexual beings in a healthy way, as we all sort of did at the age of 16 or 17. So at the same time that we're having adults sort of foist some of these ideas on them at, you know, earlier and earlier ages and kind of weird banners, we're also seeing a lot of kids sort of not knowing what to do and being increasingly withdrawn and retreating. And I'm very concerned about what, you know, we're going to reap what we're sowing. And I'm very worried about what that will look like. So I just think that that's something people kind of need to keep in mind. It's important to let kids explore these things on their own. But like, are adults in their lives

actually serving them by being so almost grotesque in their explanations of different sexual acts at ever younger ages? I don't really think so. I know. I can't stop myself, but I believe it's from Tommy Boy, one of the greatest movies of all time. That's when the porn comes in. That's when the porn comes in. Right? But seriously, part of the problem is these kids are immersed in porn all over the place from age 12. They just go on the internet.

I mean, if you go on Twitter right now, it's in your follows, whether you want it or not. And I'm sure a lot of these people are looking at that like, I'm not doing that. Sorry, go ahead. We need to get kids away from internet porn and away from TikTok and all these things. And we need to get them touching each other. We need to get them looking at Playboy magazines again, you know, return to the essentials, back to basics.

Good old-fashioned smut. All right, stand by. Much more to discuss after the break. Liz and Sarah, come back. Okay, so speaking, we were joking about the porn, but it actually is a real problem. And it's actually, it's a problem even for adults. Seriously, like that crap can infest your sex life in a very negative and dreadful way. Just stick to the real deal. Like honestly, just stick to the real deal. I got a lot of thoughts on this, which I'll get into one day, but in any event, it's certainly not appropriate for children and

can set weird expectations. And the girls are thinking they need to behave like porn stars in order to have a normal sexual relationship. And the guys are expecting that too. It's just bad, bad, bad. But it also does explain some of the gender craziness that we're seeing, like the trendy gender thing. Like I'm non-binary or I'm, you know, I'm a boy when I'm really a girl. And you need to look further than the latest Pulitzer Prize winner for evidence of this. Now, this has been a controversy this week because they awarded the Pulitzers this week. And God, what was it? Oh, it was, was it Politico? Politico was upset that they're reporting on the Supreme Court leaker didn't didn't get it. Oh, well. OK, so this is from Redux.

The well, we know that this guy won the Pulitzer Prize, but this is what how they describe a male academic who identifies as a transgender woman. So it's a biological guy who's walking around as a woman trying to be, has been awarded a Pulitzer Prize for literary criticism. And they say it's prompted an outcry on social media as users draw attention to his history of disturbing comments about how pornography influenced his transition. This is a man who was born Andrew Long Chu, who now goes as Andrea Long Chu, a 2014 graduate from Duke, then a doctoral student in comparative literature at NYU. And he was the book critic. She, whatever, this person was the book critic

at New York Magazine. And now the writing's been granted this Pulitzer. So this person, if you look at this person's history they've got a lengthy history reports redux of equating womanhood with pornography addiction quoting again in 2019 choose first book females was published by verso press the thesis was that anyone can become female not. And that being penetrated during sex defines womanhood. Okay. Getting effed makes you female because effed is what a female is. Chu, the now Pulitzer Prize winner, writes in the short book, describing himself as once being a sad, pretentious boy, furious about rape, hopelessly addicted to pornography.

Chu claims that it was his obsession with pornography that led him to begin identifying as transgender. In 2018, Chu published an essay titled Unliking Women. This to me is the most offensive thing I've read of all. Here it is, ladies. The truth is, he writes, I've never been able to differentiate liking women from wanting to be like them. I transitioned, this is his view of us, for gossip, compliments, lipstick, mascara, crying at the movies, being someone's girlfriend,

for sex toys, for feeling hot, for getting hit on by butches, for Daisy Dukes, bikini tops and all the dresses, and my God, for the breasts. How on earth is this person winning any awards from any respectable institution on earth? This is so deeply offensive. If you had written this stuff, think about if you said, I'm now black, and you put every stereotype about a black person in why you want to be black. Pick the worst things in your mind. I won't say them here. Just the most derisive, offensive ones and said, this to me is what it is to be black, so I want to be black. You would be run out of town.

You would not be getting awards like the Pulitzer Prize. And yet that's what happened, Sarah. And all the literary world is celebrating this person. Yeah. I mean, I think it goes back to, you know, our conversation earlier about all of these institutions. You know, you mentioned how is this person being given an award from such a prestigious institution? I would argue it's not a prestigious institution anymore. And this is just one of the examples of that. All of these institutions have been infiltrated by all of these woke individuals and they're pushing this ideology. And now we're supposed to normalize sexual deviancy and we're supposed to not even normalize it, but celebrate it at this point. I mean, it is just so incredibly offensive and misogynistic. And I seem to recall,

guys, like five minutes ago when the left pretended like they cared about women and women was the most important thing. Women were the most important thing to them and they wanted to protect women. And the evil Republicans had created a war on women and the left was going to save the women. Now they're like tossing the women directly out of the boat and replacing them with these men. And I would say subpar men. And also, as you mentioned, Megan, mentally ill men. I mean, this is not a sane individual. This is an individual who needs help. And our society has decided instead of helping this person, we are going to enable and embolden these gross deviancies and elevate these people to the very top. I mean, I'll go back to Leah Thomas, you know, a lot of these, or I should

say William Thomas, a lot of these people have these disorders. Perhaps this writer has a obvious, like I would say an obvious disorder here. A lot of them, a lot of these people who identify as trans, the men are apparently have autogynephilia. And instead, again, instead of treating the disorder, we are enabling them. And it's just very, very offensive. We're celebrating it. We're pushing others to lean in. I mean, that's what's so sick. They say here, Liz, that according to a CV, Chu presented his views at Columbia, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Vassar, hello, which was always a woman-only institution,

at Yale, Chu was invited to read his article on liking women that I just quoted from. And on his website, Chu boasts that the essay, quote, has become essential reading in gender studies classes around the country. So that's what you're going to get the most. I mean, what the disorder appears to be is misogyny, if you ask me, and I don't know why this person felt the need to go so far as to try to pretend to be one of us, but this is deeply, deeply insulting stuff.

Well, I just think it's wild that this person thinks that like, I cry at the movies. I cried when the Golden State Warriors won the NBA finals last year, because you know, I have standards. But no, I mean, it's absurd. And I think there's this component that I keep going back to with all of this stuff, whether it's trans issues, or whether it's, you know, a lot of the drag show hysteria, which is, we're really operating from a place of caricature. And it's surprising to me that people feel so comfortable doing that, you that. I really appreciated the work of second wave feminists. The one area in which I absolutely sort of deviate from them is that I consider myself very staunchly pro-life, but second wave feminists had a lot of things

right. And you actually read some of the writings from the 1970s. You read Brenda Fagan-Festo and Mark Fagan-Festo and some of these really, really wonderful writers and thinkers. And the way that they talked about gender roles back then were absolutely revolutionary. But today they seem backwards because it was very much focused on, you know, egalitarian marriages between, you know, husbands and wives and men who know how to take care of emotional vulnerability between spouses, all things that to me seem like perfectly healthy expectations and things I, you know, desire and thankfully have in my personal life. But, you know, a lot of people sort of see that that view of gender roles that the second wave feminists promoted as totally backwards now, because for whatever reason, the third wavers, and I guess sort of now we're in this fourth wave, almost have this like, over emphasis on stereotype and caricature of women, and sort of have these what seems to be kind of like flimsy

gender essentialist views of what we are. I'm sorry, but I am not just my, you know, ability to wear mascara and lipstick. I am not somebody who likes to go to brunch. I don't cry in the movie theater. I like to be aggressive at work when the situation calls for it. I edit a bunch of people and sometimes you need to put your foot down in certain ways and make tough calls. And I find it really offensive that people, you know, will sometimes claim they want to become like us and yet act like we are nothing more than these sort of weak and feeble makeup creatures who are constantly having our emotions get the better of us. I find that really insulting. Or like we are no more than our vagina. I mean, honestly, this person has written,

getting effed makes you female because effed is what a female is. Screw you. You don't know the first thing. It's just evidence is how he knows absolutely nothing about being a woman. This is so fucking offensive. How does this guy get the Pulitzer Prize? How do they even consider this man for the Pulitzer Prize? That is absolutely not what makes you a female. That is what you people are doing to try to become female, putting lipstick on your face, putting makeup on your face and getting a hole cut instead of your penis. Guess what?

Doesn't make you a woman. Never will. I'd like to. Also super offensive to lesbians, right? Like being penetrated isn't the only thing that makes you a woman what are you going to say to the legions and legions of lesbians living perfectly happy lives together i'd like to also just point out um we here all three of us have actually grown children in our wombs and birthed babies something that these men will never do no no he will never do that and he will never understand the pleasure

of being an actual woman in the complexity that comes with it. He will sit in envy while he tries to be us and tries to claim our labels and tries to infiltrate our spaces and tries to call us bigoted for not allowing it. Well, guess what? Get out.

The whole Pulitzer, everybody who won a Pulitzer, it's some woke thing to your point, Sarah. I looked down the list. It's always like some racial expose or some gender expose. You can't win it anymore by good, you know, hard reporting, investigative reporting. It has to be something that tickles the woke bone. And the fact that women, even by those people get erased, get ignored, get, get demeaned by selecting somebody like this just shows what a joke the woke are okay i'm very sad that we didn't get to get to the ad blue the bluey story which in which there's all this backlash in

the uk for a fat dog saying he needed to lose weight we'll save that for the next time because it's a great great story i know i'm. Liz, Sarah, thank you both so much. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Maybe I will write, I'm going to, you know what? Maybe I'll write something. I'll put it next week's, because I think we're already about to release this week,

this week's American News Minute. If you would like to sign up for the American News Minute, go to megankelly.com and sign up now. It's my email to you on Fridays, and we bring you the greatest hits of the week, and we tell you all the news you need to know in under 60 seconds. Very popular. We've had a great response to it. And I always update you on my troublemaking Stradwick, who is just as bad as ever. And this week we have photographic evidence of his crime.

He's not a smart criminal. So check it out. I want to tell you before we go next week, two big guests who have never been on the show before Roseanne Barr. And then Dan Bongino speaks out for the first time, uh, on our show and his first time giving an interview about his departure from Fox. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.