The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's Classified Docs, Free Speech Crackdowns, and Woke Golden Globes, with the Fifth Columns Hosts | Ep. 468

Episode Date: January 10, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by the hosts of the Fifth Column podcast, Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch, to talk about President Biden now being investigated for mishandling classified documents, the similarities and differences to Trump's handling of documents, whether Biden will run again, John Bolton announcing he's running for the GOP nomination, a professor fired for daring to show a 14th century painting of the prophet Muhammad, the media still displaying Islamophobia in how they cover this story, the need to exercise free speech and not be shamed, the absurdity of "blasphemy" laws, Jordan Peterson being investigated in Canada for "misgendering" and "deadnaming" and more, Canada's insane speech crackdown, the woke Golden Globes happening tonight, new "gender neutral" workwear, the normalization of gender fluidity, Damar Hamlin's miraculous recovery, and more.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. Well, classified records, classified, I say indeed, top secret classified records from Joe Biden's time as vice president are found off campus at a private office in D.C. They've known about it on the Biden team since before the midterm elections, but you didn't get to know about it because, well, why again? Joining me now are friends from the Fifth Column podcast, Michael Moynihan, Matt Welsh and Camille Foster. Lots to get to today, guys. Welcome back to the show. Hi, Megan. Thank you for having us. OK. No, it's not exactly the same as the Trump situation, but it's in the same lane. And we were

just lectured for the past year about what a hideous, hideous crime it is to take top secret documents out of the White House and store them at an unsecured private facility. There are actually Biden defenders online right now trying to distinguish between the fact that, well, these were at an office because it was Biden's, quote, think tank at the University of Pennsylvania. That's different than being in an office at President Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago. I mean, it's absurd if he had top secret documents at his think tank, unprotected, unlike the ones at Mar-a-Lago by any secret service, etc. Then they've got some explaining to do. And we're entitled to an answer as to why they've known it since November 1st,

and we only get to know it January 10th. Camille, thoughts on that? I see you shaking your head. Well, I mean, it strikes me that there's always a bit of kind of partisanship in these controversies, whether it's Hillary Clinton with her damn emails and everyone saying, oh, it's obviously nothing going on here, or Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago and saying, oh my God, you need a SWAT team to come in and take a look at this. Now it becomes the Republicans' opportunity to insist that we need to do something about this, anything right now. And Democrats' opportunity to say, of course, there's nothing to see here. The only consistency with respect to the handling of classified documents that you're likely to get from anyone is when it is a person who isn't in power and they get stuck or stung for having classified documents or handling them in a way that isn't necessarily consistent with

the law, those people generally don't get any sort of special or preferential treatment. They're generally not subjected to the same sort of opportunity to simply be immune to whatever prohibitions exist on the way that these documents are handled. And ultimately, what I would love to see isn't merely some consistency, is an appreciation for the fact that we probably over classify things in this country, and as a result, end up wasting a bunch of time having kind of these ridiculous, like haphazard sort of scandals where we don't even know what the substance of the documents are only that, oh no, it's classified material. So, you know, a little bit of consistency would be great, but the better thing to do here is to think about

what this actually says about classification and over classification in the US. That's a great point. And by the way, unlike a president, a vice president can't declassify documents. And these were from his vice presidential think tank. No reason to believe he as president went back and declassified them. So they may they appear to be legitimately classified and never declassified. That's why the lawyers found them and handed them in. And I realize that's different than what happened in the Trump case, where it was the National Archivist who figured out we were missing classified documents, went knocking on the door at Mar-a-Lago effectively, and then was kind of told that they were complying. And there are real questions about whether they were in returning the documents.

I get it. However, you and I both know there's zero chance next to zero. I'll give it a 2% chance the Biden lawyers would have called any attention to these documents had we not just been through the Trump fiasco. They would have let them sit in these cabinets untouched, just like every other president has done, because I think in general there was sort of a he wants his little note from Kim Jong-un, you know, like he's that's, you know, like only with Trump. I think, you know, Jim Jordan's already out saying different rules for Trump versus everybody else. That's in general true. And I think that general motivation is what pisses people off about the Mar-a-Lago raid. And now here's the greatest absurdity to Camille's point about like, can we just kind of understand in general that we're maybe over classifying stuff? Now, the Department of Justice has opened an investigation. The FBI is also involved.

There could be a special counsel appointed, as they did in the case of Donald Trump. Merrick Gar garland the attorney general has assigned the u.s attorney in chicago to review the documents the u.s attorney uh in northern illinois is now looking at this i'm not sure why it's illinois given that this is all this is all happening i think at the university of pennsylvania but in any event that's absurd like this to me is crazy now because they overreached in the case of trump we got oh let's go back to every single let's go carter's still alive let's go see what's in his drawers so to speak that is an image megan that i really wanted to what's in jimmy carter's drawer

i want to i want to classify that like the worst reality show ever although you know what it speaks to one other thing just to build on what camille was saying I want to classify that. It's like the worst reality show ever. Although, you know what? It speaks to one other thing, just to build on what Camille was saying, is that another problem with presidential papers is that they're supposed to be, at some point, declassified. And they're not being. We had a whole dumb media bubble about a week or two ago about the declassification or lack thereof of some of the JFK assassination stuff. And I was like, dude, it's 60 years ago. Like there is nothing in there that we need to keep secret anymore. It's not going to show something that isn't true. You know, it's not going to prove your theory about it. But it's probably going to show that, you know, some

agency, some three letter agency was trying to cover their ass at some point. Let's just go ahead and not over classify all those papers, too. I think an important distinction between the three cases that we're talking about here, I think the Hillary Clinton case and the Donald Trump case have way more in common than this one does, which is to say both of them showed by their actions and their descriptions of their actions that they were trying to take information that didn't necessarily belong to them, trying to minimize it and trying not to cop it back up when asked about it, which is very different than, oh, look, we found this in the file and we're going to hand it over immediately. I don't know about the motivation. I suspect that you might be right, Megan, but it's speculation of about like, oh, we better make this look good because we're giving Trump such a hard time of it. In which case, that's

okay. I mean, if you're going to follow the law better than you were otherwise, I'm decently happy with that motivation. But I think it's important. And a lot of the Jim Jordan comments and Kevin McCarthy comments are really juvenile, which is not surprising coming from these guys trying to make it seem like exactly the same. It's not exactly the same. Just not. No, which is not surprising coming from these guys trying to make it seem like exactly the same. It's not exactly the same. Just not. It's not the same. You know, there was a lot of negotiations and back and forth between the Trump people. There's a lot of lawyers said this and then that didn't turn out to be true. None of this is apparent in this case. I suspect. Here's why it's a story. Here's why it's a story. Remember Biden on 60 Minutes after the Trump-Mar-a-Lago story

was revealed. Look at this. When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself looking at that image? How that could possibly happen? How anyone could be that irresponsible. And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? By that, I mean, names of people who helped or etc. And it's just totally irresponsible. How could that happen? And by the way, as a refresher, the reason that infamous picture of the Trump documents at Mar-a-Lago were fanned out on the floor is because the FBI did that. Trump did not take them out of the boxes. That was the FBI who did that for a good photo.

And Joe Biden knew that. He wasn't referring to the fact that the documents were splayed out. And if he was, he was wrong because it was the FBI who did that. But he was referring to the fact that Trump had classified documents down at Mar-a-Lago. What sources and methods could be in there? You know what he had? Top secret documents with the sensitive compartmented information designation known as SCI, which is used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources.

So it's a story. I don't really give a damn that they're not exactly the same. He has some explaining to do, and he has effectively compromised himself in his fight against Trump when it comes to what happened at Mar-a-Lago. And no amount of window dressing, I'm treating them both the same by Merrick Garland, is going to be able to rehabilitate that weakness now. I mean, he's definitely going to come to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn't violate any law. Joe Biden's fine. Joe Biden had no intent. Joe Biden cooperated with the feds. Nothing to see there. And he's going to come to a different conclusion, we think, in the Trump case. But he's been hamstrung as a result of this. This is a public nightmare. It's an embarrassment,

a PR nightmare now for Merrick Garland, because Trump at every turn is going to say Joe Biden had top secret information sitting there for how many years now in a place that he's pointing out already has received not the think tank, but the university. Fifty four million dollars from China. Right. Unsecured. There was no secret service agent like spare me a few things. Well, first of all, I want to point out that I believe it to be deeply unfair for Scott Pelley to ask Joe Biden questions minutes after he just woke him up because I hadn't actually seen that clip. And I was like, is he in bed? I mean, the document. I mean, this is wild. And the other the other thing, too, to that point, Megan, is am I the only one who didn't know that Joe Biden had a think tank? No, you're not. Joe Biden get a think tank. You're not. A guy can barely think for five minutes, you know, with one contiguous thought,

but he has a think tank. That's, that's really interesting. But I have to actually agree with both Matt and Camille on this is that, you know, and you in the sense that they aren't the same things, they're material, materially different in a lot of very, very significant ways, but that doesn't make it not a story. And when you have things like this, when you have, you know, Joe Biden going out there and saying all the, I mean, I can't imagine anybody doing this sort of thing. And well, I can imagine you doing something similar, not the same, but similar. And the reaction that you get to this from the media and from people, I mean, look, go back and look at the reactions to what Sandy Berger did. Sandy Burglar went into the National Archives.

It wasn't even stuff that wasn't getting to the National Archives. It was stuff in the National Archives that he attempted to remove in his socks and then pleaded guilty to it. I mean, so this is not like without precedent or everything, but I was actually looking at the CNN story on this this morning before I even knew we were talking about this. And I actually noted this because there is a very,

very funny play. This is how media plays this, is that acknowledging that there is a problem with the fact that November 1st, they discover these things, they wait till after the midterms to say it. And granted, it is, give them credit in some sense, if you want to be generous, to say that they found these things and they turned them in. Right. And as you, I think you're right too, that had it not been for the Trump situation, they would never have done so. But this is how CNN framed this. That's it. Critics will also wonder why Biden didn't immediately disclose the discovery. And this is the key point, The discovery of less than a dozen documents. Typically, you frame this as more than X, less than a dozen. But if you think it's a lot, it's less than a dozen.

Less than is a very, very subtle media. It's a blip. I know it's just one more example on how they they run cover for Biden. Again, none of this is to excuse or not excuse anything going on in the Trump lane. It's just there is a different, a double standard. Just the mere like on him, like white on rice approach to Trump in these documents is one example of it. Again, did Joe, what did Joe Biden do after the Mar-a-Lago scandal to go satisfy himself that he didn't have those kinds of documents sitting everywhere? Right. Like, what did he do? Because the only reason they found these is because they were moving office space.

They needed to vacate the office space, probably because there was no thinking going on in the tank. And nobody was showing up. And they probably, that's why they had to. Nobody knew it existed. It wasn't out of due diligence. It's coal mining ancestors, Michael. It's truck driving days. It's Amtrak riding days.

In any event, it's, we're we're gonna this is what's gonna i predict this is how it's gonna play out we're gonna get an announcement that that that investigation is going nowhere because they've been very cooperative it was just a mere error just like hillary clinton's server was just a mere error like they determined with her and the trump admit uh trump situation at mar-a-Lago could very well result in charges. In fact, the smart bet right now is that it will. Speaking of Biden, the smart money these days says he will run again. There's speculation now that he could be planning an announcement as soon as this spring, which would not be atypical for these kinds of things. And all these Democrats are now appearing in the papers as saying,

Team Biden, yes, I wasn't in support of it before, you know, but now I am. Now I think he can do it, you know, because of those midterm results. So, okay, I get it. You think he's got more political strength than he used to. None of this addresses his deterioration of functioning right like we've just decided that no longer matters and somehow that's going to get

better as he gets older i mean all these democrats who actually were raising concerns about it beforehand now have just decided to either ignore it or, you know, it's no longer a problem. He gave a speech in last December, middle of the month, to a bunch of veterans, a town hall, actually. And at it, he told this really kind of heartwarming story about giving a purple heart to his uncle, Frank Biden, who served in the Battle of the Bulge. And, you know, he gave it to him late in his life and he presented it to him as vice president. And his uncle refused to take it because, you know what, he lived and his brothers out there died in the field. He just would not take it. And he's talking to this group of veterans like, you know, that's the ethic that you guys have. And I'll get that. Here's the problem. His uncle died in 1999 um joe biden was not the vice president in 1999 um there's also no record that the uncle ever received a purple heart um this kind of stuff happens every month with joe biden and also in the very next sentence that he that he said he's and he's trying to like relay it to modern uh ethic of the warrior ethic he's like and that's just like all you guys out there in v. I mean, I mean, Iraq.

So like, this is the functioning of the president. He's a fabulist. He's maybe not as spectacular as George Santos, but he's got a really long career of making crap up about his life, about his actions. He was just down at the border. He had said, I believe,

before that he'd been there already as president, which he hadn't been. He's mentioned that he's gone to Iraq and Afghanistan a couple of times during his presidency. Nope, he has not. This is constant. He is talking about things. He said that he signed the they got the legislation passed to get a student loan. No, that's not how that worked. None of it. He constantly talks about stuff that doesn't happen and he's the president he's the executive chief executive

of kind of an important uh organization here and his brain is increasingly cheesy i suspect that all the democrats who are saying oh god yes biden 2024 are basically like g Newsom, like I'm really supporting Joe Biden. I think he's going to keel over. Let's start this network over the side. That's what I think is happening. Right. That's exactly right. There's no way that they've had a genuine change of heart when it comes to his competency.

There's just no way. And there it reminded me of this clip that made the news this morning, actually, that we had a good laugh over because he had yet another. I mean, I guess this one was a gaffe and not a lie, but he was shaking hands with somebody, with a guy. Oh, no. A guy from the Salvation Army in El Paso, Texas, when he went to do that border visit on Sunday. He was introduced to a member of the Salvation Army wearing a uniform, which can be confusing for someone in Biden's position. And he seemed, for at least a moment, either he confused the

guy or he misspoke, confused him for an a member of the secret service oh my god and then he corrects it at the end i'll let the viewers decide what happens here watch it oh no listening audience shows biden being clearly introduced to a member of the salvation army and did he did he spend time with the salvation army in poland yeah in in iran yeah shakes his hand and says i spent some time with the secret service in poland and ukraine and then he continues on to say to either correct himself or realize that he said secret service and changes it to salvation army but can i tell you, I was laughing about this because over Christmas, we had a bunch of friends over and we had this tradition

of going to the 21 Club years ago when it was open. They closed during COVID, never reopened. And every year at the 21 Club, they bring in the Salvation Army band and you donate to the Salvation Army and you'd sing Christmas carols. It was super fun. So as a surprise for our friends, we got the Salvation Army band, a small portion of them, to come to our party and gave them the donation and all that. My friends were delighted. And here's just a little clip of that and then I got a comment.

Watch. Wow. Yay! Now little did I know that i was standing in the presence of trained killers we were the most protective people in the state of connecticut thank god i'm so glad the president let me in on the secret did you realize that joe biden was in your house playing bass i mean that was an extra thing for free um by the way is it what is the i know that he doesn't know who he's talking to but is the poland and ukraine thing something that i'm unfamiliar with i spent time with the secret service of the salvation army either one in

poland or ukraine i don't even know if that's true but we were talking about this on the fifth column that the greatest podcast in america just the other day when during the January 6th ceremonies, Biden spoke of a police officer who was killed during and not Brian Sicknick, right? Somebody else. And of course, that officer was killed a couple of months after by April and April by a black Hebrew Israelite or some extremist of that sort. And it really got no play in the press, none. I mean, he's saying this, he brought the family there. So there's some sort of deliberation there too. So the thing that we're talking about on the podcast that I realized is that we're trying to figure out if the guy's brain is made of cheese or if he's a fabulist and neither one is good right I mean it could yeah it could be both too and you go through these things over and over and over again and there comes just like there was a there

was a type of this thing with Trump when he would just kind of, you know, BS about everything. And it was just such a fire hose that people stopped kind of fact checking or caring. But Biden, it strikes me as a different thing. They tried to keep up with Trump. This one, they just kind of ignore. And, you know, they're just like, hey, does this really matter very much? And when you have a guy like Rick Santelli on CNBC, the man who kicked off the Tea Party movement with that big speech, saying, hey, these are the best job numbers I've seen in God knows how long. Things like that are resonating with Democrats. Like, you know, let's just let's just go with him. But no one is thinking of a know, is the head of the NSA

or something. What is it going to be like in 2028? I mean, good Lord. Oh, no. Steve Krakauer, my executive producer, had a great line this morning. We were exchanging the video and we were laughing about this mistake. And he said, I wonder how many Taliban they killed. You know, I mean, Biden was like one step away from asking that if the poor little guy there. So I just I just wanted a donation and to play you a Christmas carol. I didn't understand I was going to be. But yeah, you're absolutely right. These things don't tend to get better as time goes on.

And I guess we've just decided to ignore that. But listen, fear not, America, because we have the solution to this problem. No, it's not Donald Trump and it's not Ron DeSantis. It's not Glenn Youngkin. It's not Kamala Harris. It is John Bolton. John Bolton is going to run for president. He's made it clear. We know because he announced it on Good Morning America. No, wait. Good Morning Britain. Good Morning Britain, which is a delightful show, but it's in Britain. And so there we go. We have two Republicans now officially running for president. John Bolton's in the race.

What do we make of that? Oh my Lord. Not much. It's the rise of the neocon. The neocons are back. We have a little bit of history, John Bolton and I. We all used to work at the News Corp building together, actually, for a little bit. And he used to be a frequent guest on our show, The Independence, when we were there. But I have no reason whatsoever to believe that there is any constituency desperate to see John Bolton as the Republican nominee for president of the United States, nor do I suspect, and I don't do political

prognostication, that there is any way in hell that he could actually win a national election. I'm sure he knows that as well. So one has to imagine that he has some ulterior motive for suggesting that he will run for office, either that or a head injury. One of the two. Or even a primary. There's no way he's going to win a Republican primary, my God. No. By the way, he too is 74. Can we get any young blood running for office? Sorry. Wow. No. But can we get anybody under the age of maybe 70? That would be terrific. Yeah. There's one-

Or at least from the now or never caucus. That's what's going on there. But there's one positive thing, and this is good for everybody's shows uh whether it's a show at the fifth column is i would love for him to run because i'd love to see him in a debate i mean it's obviously he knows he's not going to win because he announces this on you know good afternoon bulgaria or wherever the hell he did it but it's like this is like an actual run it's like as long as you get him on stage with trump and they worked in the same room together they did the i mean particularly all the tension about north korea venezuela other foreign policy things i'd love to see that but that's just for fireworks other than that you know yeah that'd be fun i think let's give a shout out here he would

normalize re-normalize the use of mustaches in American presidential politics. It's been a really long time. I mean, you look at the pictures on the walls of the 19th century. It's stash after stash. And rightly so. So, like, bring that back. I prefer it to be more of the Bolton porn stash than the Brooklyn man bun stash that I see all around me. However, that's what we're missing.

Matt Walsh, wouldn't you prefer to see John Stossel in that lane as as good libertarian? Isn't he your favorite? Absolutely. But he's not a Republican, Megan, as you know. Well, he's a libertarian. So, you know, there's like sort of the Ron Paul Rand Paul lane there, you know, that you go Republican independently in the Green Party, Rand Paul lean there, you know, that you go Republican and you can't do it independently. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, whatever it is.

In any event, we'll see how that plays out. It's just there's going, you know, I've referred to this a few times, like Charles C.W. Koch at National Review wrote an interesting piece not long ago saying to these other Republicans who want to run, don't, don't. He didn't say it this way, but he basically said, if your name's not DeSantis or like you're not one of the top, top two, then don't do it because Trump's going to get the nomination if you if there's 10 other Republicans. Right. He's he's got more Republicans in his corner than most of these other, including right now, according to most polls, DeSantis. So if there's a fractured field over there, if it's just the two of them against each other, that's one thing.

But if it's Trump versus a fractured field, the same thing could happen as happened in 1516. And if you think John Bolton's the last guy to do it, you're crazy. All these other guys, they're going to have too big an ego. They're going to throw their hats in the ring. They want to bolster their own name, identity. And a lot of them want shows on cable news. It's so pathetic, but they do. And this is what we're in for over the next six months. All right. let me stand you guys by, because when we come back, we're gonna talk about what's happening to this professor at this university who with trigger warnings,

with like a two minute warning, with like a countdown clock, told the class that she was going to show a picture of Muhammad. What the university has done to this woman, what the one student who led the charge did to this woman is absolutely disgusting. And wokeness is creeping in, as you know, at every college campus. There's plenty of examples about it. So we'll get into it next. More with the fifth

column, guys. Straight ahead. Stand by. So guys, Hamlin University is in St. Paul, Minnesota, a private university founded in 1854, oldest university in Minnesota. In 2021, it was ranked 15th in the Midwest among master's universities, according to U.S. News and World Report. And they have a teacher named Erica Lopez Prater. She's an adjunct professor teaching an online class about Islamic art. And she tackles, as the class suggests, Islamic art. Now, she knew that she was going to show this very famous picture that is shown regularly in art history classes of what Muslims consider to be the Prophet Muhammad. And this is verboten for some Muslims. Other Muslims disagree that this is verboten and think it's fine.

But of course, we've had all sorts of history, even in our own country, never mind in France with Charlie Hebdo, where people have been killed for drawing Muhammad. So it gets crazy when you go down this route. Now, we live in a country where you're allowed to do that. You're allowed to show it. You're allowed to talk about it. You're allowed to draw that. You're allowed to show it. You're allowed to talk about it. You're allowed to draw it.

It's called the First Amendment. We're allowed to. Could offend people. OK. We generally bank on the fact no one's going to get killed and certainly not fired for showing something that some may find objectionable, but that is regularly shown in classes at the university level. This woman herself says she was shown this picture when she was a graduate student. So what did she do? Did

she just pop it up there at random, you know, where some people could be offended? You could make the case that that's okay too, but she didn't. In the syllabus, she warned images of holy figures, including the prophet Muhammad and the Buddha would be shown. She asked students to contact her with any concerns if they had them. No one did. In the class, she prepared the students, telling them in a few minutes the painting would be displayed in case anyone wanted to leave. According to Daily Mail, it was a two minute warning, plenty of time for a grownup to stand up and walk out the door. She told the New York Times she spent a few minutes explaining why she was going to show the image, how different religions have depicted the divine, and how standards do change over time.

I do not want to present the art of Islam as something that is monolithic, she said. And by the way, in the wake of this controversy, various Muslim groups have proven it's not monolithic. They've come out to say we all view this very differently. What did the university do? Okay, at first nothing. But then a senior in the class who was presumably subjected to all of those warnings decided this was a problem. Her name is Aram Wadatala, a business major, president of the university's Muslim Student Association. You'd think she'd be paying attention to the trigger warnings in the syllabus, in the classroom, et etc. Here she is. She claims she was blindsided. Blindsided, I tell you,

by this image. After the class ended, she stuck around to voice her discomfort. And here's what she said in a public forum website, quote, I'm like, this can't be real. As a Muslim and a black person, I don't feel like I belong. And I don't think I'll ever belong in a community where they don't value me as a member and they don't show the same respect that I show them. And then she gets a bunch of other students not in the class to join her in saying this was an attack on their religion, yada, yada, yada. The professors fired. I mean, you could have seen it coming. They say this is about a university starved for tuitions in a heavily Muslim area saying, let me bend the knee so nobody pulls their kid or their tuition,

even though not all Muslims feel the same about this again, right? But they've just bend the knee so nobody pulls their kid or their tuition, even though not all Muslims feel the same about this again, right? But they've just bent the knee despite the clear First Amendment implications of that disastrous decision. What do you guys think of it? Beyond the First Amendment, I mean, I'm going to leave the First Amendment out of this, you know, as a private college here. There is a million problems with this, and one doesn't even almost know where to begin. I mean, first of all, you said, Megan, this student was given all the warnings, and apparently she didn't pay attention or was asleep at the wheel. I disagree. I think she heard all of them, and I think she set this up very deliberately. I mean, her response is exactly what made me think this when she says, I'm like, this can't be real.

It can't be real that in an art history class where you've been told you're going to see a 14th century image that includes Muhammad, that you saw one. It can't be real. And then says, a Muslim, a black person, I don't know what this has to do with race. What does this have to do with being black? So you can tell she's going through the playbook already as a Muslim and as a black person, a black person, you know, who is a Christian would not have any response to a picture of Mohammed. I don't feel like I belong. You're the president of the Muslim Association and the entire administration is seated to your completely lunatic demand. One person. So when all these news stories say Muslim students, plural, there was one in the class. There was one who objected because it's very easy to make hay out of all this stuff. The one thing I will say that is incredibly positive, there is a very, very positive thing that has come out of this. It is not for the professor who was an adjunct, essentially has no... They didn't renew her contract, they, for all intents and purposes, fired her. The response has been great. Beyond

what the university did, which was disgusting and shameful. One person, by the way, who said that it was undeniably Islamophobic, what happened was somebody at the university, and get a load of this person, Dr. David Everett, who's Dr. David Everett, according to New York Times, he is the associate vice president of inclusive excellence. What? I mean, this is the type of nonsense bullshit that we're dealing with here. The vice associate vice president. Now imagine in that chain, there's president, you know, vice Roy's of inclusive excellence said that this is Islamophobe. But as you pointed out, the world does not agree, including people in the Muslim world.

A number of Muslims have come forward and say this is actually ridiculous. The idea is a is a kind of white left wing academic idea that there's no there's a full on prohibition of depictions of Muhammad. That's not true. It's not in the Quran. There's some Hadiths that say things about this, but not explicitly. And in certain parts of the Muslim world, particularly in Iran, you see a lot of this stuff. And there was an Iranian professor at Duke who said, I left during the Iran-Iraq war, and I brought an image of Muhammad with me, and it's framed in my office. He actually spoke about this. And also the New York times did a very good piece about it. That was clearly saying, this is kind of crazy. So you have a number of people that are saying, pushing back on this stuff. When I think about two or three years ago, no one would have said anything. And I think the

pushback here is, is actually, is actually pretty, pretty heartening. Michael, I have to disagree with you though, um, about the Islamophobia. I think this was an example of Islamophobia, as have a lot of these similar examples have been, which is to say it is fear that Muslims are going to blow you up. Sure. That is preventing people from giving them the cowardice of dealing with this um and you're right that it's a the new york times piece was pretty good what was what was missing from that new york times piece um well it was it was one click in but it was one click in they did actually show the image i did see it somewhere else where the face i swear to god the face of muhammad was pixelated pixelated

as if it was uh i found it online it was on twitter so they had to click one in but they but they had to click one in um but also on the in the print uh edition because this is in the sunday paper they had five pictures the online story has six pictures all of different people but the new york times itself won't show unadulterated in its pages any image depictions of Mohammed. They had an article. This is right around the time of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015. They had an article about the history of a statue that stood for a half a century on a courthouse in lower Manhattan.

That statue was of Mohammed because we have statuary and representations of Mohammed. It's actually a sign of respect. There's one up in the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court to this day. New York Times policies that they would not show a statue of that. They did. They had an article about this statue and its history and about how about 50 years ago it was taken down and sent to a warehouse in New Jersey or something. And it was taken down out of exaggerated sense of like, well, we don't want to offend anybody. OK, what's an interesting story about local history? They didn't show even a historical archive photo of the statue.

A couple of months later, they ran a piece, obviously, in the art section about a depiction, I think it was Pope Benedict, him being displayed by condoms. It was a condom art of the Pope. They could display that without any problems at all, and the reader's representative was invited to explain the apparent discrepancy. You won't show an existing statue that was not intended to offend that lived historically in New York City in an article about that, but you will show the Pope admitted to the condoms as Father Guido Sarducci famously said. And they said, well, you know, communities take great offense.

And so we have to be subject to, you know, respectful of their desires. This is the heckler's veto. The New York Times has, even though this is a very good article and everyone should go read it, the New York Times has contributed to the atmosphere that we have in this country,

which is that in professional media, with the exception of a few explicitly ideological places, there is a taboo against showing depictions of Muhammad, even though Muhammad was a really existing human being. He's not like a person that was invented and did Noah really have an arc kind of situation? No, it's Muhammad. He lived. And there were actual depictions in an art history context and others um and we are exercising a taboo that the new york times which is the leading newspaper in this country still for some reason um has been an integral part of and until we break that taboo i'm afraid that charlie abdo which has amazing cover this week i look forward to megan showing that one later on um charlie hamfield's going to have a huge

target continue to have a huge target on its back because it's one of the only uh publications in the broader western world that has balls anymore well to your point um to your point fy we we don't gratuitously show things that you know are going to be deeply offensive to others on our show either. And I never have. But this is relevant and we will show it. And if people are offended, they don't have to look. But this is the image that she showed in class that, again, is shown in virtually every art history class. One one professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan supported this teacher showing it, saying to study Islamic art without this, without the it's the compendium of Chronicles image

would be like not teaching Michelangelo's David. Right. Like this is a big one for this particular subject matter. And people like me and people like you and people like The New York Times and people like this university can't be shamed out of covering the news properly or teaching our history properly by the heckler, as you point out, no matter how rabid they may be. But they have been. And by the way, care, of course, is on the wrong side of this, as they always are. But there's been this other Muslim group called the Muslim

Public Affairs Council that came out and said to the point you guys were making the the the, you know, silver lining. This painting is not Islamophobic. It was commissioned by a 14th century Muslim king in order to honor the prophet depicting the first Quranic revelation from the angel Gabriel and saying that the as a Muslim organization, we recognize the validity and ubiquity of an Islamic viewpoint that discourages or forbids any depictions of the Prophet, especially if done distastefully. However, we also recognize the historical reality that other viewpoints have existed and that there have been some Muslims, including and especially Shia Muslims, who have no qualms in pictorially representing the Prophet whatsoever. And they go on from there. So it is nice to hear this. They came out and said this professor ought to be thanked for her role in educating students. All these academic

freedom defenders are coming out, which really is First Amendment freedom. That's what they're talking about. It's not no, it's not a government issue. It's not state trying to silence speech here. But it's free speech is a principle we have in this country. That's right. Because we're Americans and it manifests in the crackdown on academic freedom where speech of a certain kind is silenced, usually of the right, usually of the kind deemed offensive. If we're going to start saying offensive speech, even if it's really offensive to a large group of people, cannot be used in the classroom. We're done as an American experiment. We're done. I mean, I want to add a little bit here, but you all have spoken passionately and eloquently to all of the salient points here, I think. The one thing I want to

underscore is just how bizarre it is to read media accounts of scandals like these. And I use scandal in a very, there'd be asterisks if I could put them into my speech. The thing that always startles me is how you will never find a specific restatement of the offensive thing that was said. You won't find the picture of the offensive thing that was displayed. It's this amorphous crime, which makes it very obvious to me that the injury, the particular injury, real or imagined, isn't the point. The particular offense isn't really the point. The censure, the excommunication is the point. The climate, the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty is the point. And I've been reading recently, I've been rereading Emerson because his essay, Self-Reliance, and something

occurred to me yesterday just about the nature of fundamentalism and cowardice and cynical indifference in all of these institutions, and the fact that those three things really are the mutual enemies of all progress and all intellectual freedom. And the reality is that campus environments are awash in this sort of fear and uncertainty about what might get you in trouble. And the most dangerous thing anyone can do who finds themselves in these environments, regardless of their politics, because I think it's conventional to regard this as, oh, look at wokeness run amok. These are people kind of destroying their fellow travelers. And it is not as though there aren't examples of politically conservative people investing in the same sort of tactics. But the most dangerous thing that you can do is self-censor, is not say things that you know to be true, is not be willing to look at things that might be potentially offensive in a context like this, to not explore ideas that might be deemed controversial or outside of the mainstream. That is literally what the entire project of learning, of knowledge creation, is all about,

overturning sacred cows, overturning old previously held beliefs, essentially committing blasphemy on a pretty regular basis within the scientific and academic establishments. It's absolutely vital. And that is what people do not understand about free speech as both the legal kind of architecture of free speech in terms of the protection from the government, but certainly with respect to free speech as a cultural norm, as an attitude that we all adopt

because we have a deep appreciation for how essential this cultural valence is to protecting any semblance of freedom in the long run. If I could add just a quick point to that, Camille mentioned two words that are really important here. One is fundamentalist, and the one is blasphemy. We are acceding to a fundamentalist view of Islam if you accede to this demand. This is something that has fundamentalist roots. It's a Wahhabist kind of concept, and as has been pointed out out it's not across the board on these things

it's not you know shia uh sunni uh sufi for instance everyone's looking at this uh stuff differently but what the blasphemy is also important too because even if it offended everyone i don't care if it offended 100 of people 100 of mus Muslims, doesn't matter. We professors, other students, people trying to learn people in any environment should not be subjected to the dictates of somebody else's religious blasphemy. I don't have to sit there and say that's blaspheming for me. So therefore, you can't hear it. That is a reason why we have these separations of church and state. And, you know, for instance, if I was somebody who said, I am very offended by Robert Mapplethorpe, or I'm very offended by Andre Serrano's Piss Christ, and we cannot have this in the classroom. Not only can we not have

this, if we do have this, the teacher who did show that for a very sort of banal reason, because they're trying to teach the history of something, not trying to proselytize, that person then gets fired. And then people in the administration pile upon them and say, they are racist, they're an Islamophobe, or in this case, they're religiously phobic. We don't say Christophobic or anything, Catholic phobic. But that doesn't happen because we don't apply blasphemy laws and blasphemy rules to people who don't adhere to that religion. So your blasphemy laws are your own business. Keep them away from me. So true. But of course, there's an element in this case, it may be financial, as I pointed out, because the university wants this is a heavily Muslim area. But there also may be a fear element,

you know, look at what just happened to salman rushdie right it's not that wasn't his sin is you know depicting an image of the prophet muhammad but he wrote that book um that obviously has been deemed deeply problematic and there was a fatwa issued on him and he was just attacked and the latest news on him was the book, by the way, was the Satanic Verses. He's blind in one eye. He has three serious wounds in his neck. One hand is incapacitated because the nerves in his arm were cut and had about 15 more wounds in his chest and torso. So it was a brutal attack. It was attacked by a man who rushed the stage and stabbed him repeatedly.

Identified as 24-year-old Hadi Mati matar a fairfax new jersey who's now pleaded not guilty to second degree attempted murder but i mean that this is what people are worried about i had to tell but didn't you want to go to the did you go to the draw of the prophet muhammad day i can't remember you did something one of you guys did something i might have done something like that why are you drawing attention to this, Megan? This is the Streisand effect. I'm sorry. I'm just saying, like, the reason I know Pam Geller, she's very controversial and so on. But like, there's a reason people feel the need to do this, because it's standing up for a bedrock American principle to offend, to be free to offend. And it's also the Spartacus idea, you know, at the end of Spartacus, everyone says, I am Spartacus.

When everybody's Spartacus, nobody's Spartacus. And that's what you hope happens in situations like this. If we all say this, if we all come out in defense of Sunday, but if everybody's kind of wavering and, you know, Salman Rushdie isn't dealing with this since 1989. the fatwa was introduced to the world and they have never attracted it, the Iranians. And so, you know, there's a cash prize for killing him there. You know, he's had security for most of his life. He gave up that security recently saying, you know, I want to live a normal life. But, you know, there was a cartoonist that nobody's ever heard of who drew a teacup, a picture of a teacup that said, I am Mohammed. And it was a joke. A woman named Molly Norris. She's disappeared. She disappeared. She changed her name. She disappeared. There was some suggestion that she was under threat.

I don't know how true that was. There was, you know, we had, when I was at Reason Magazine, Matt was there too. And we had a visit from law enforcement who said, you know, maybe you don't want to talk about this. Maybe you don't want to do this. I mean, look, the point is, is that it's always going to be, you know, I mean, from Salman Rushdie today, the heckler's veto is kind of the violence veto. It's not even the heckler. And saying, if you keep talking about this, is it worth it? And enough people make that threat and you cut off an entire area of inquiry. You cut off an entire area of discussion and the fanatics win and everybody else loses. And, you know, this is another example of that. It's really disturbing. They they're not

going to reverse the decision. They're talking about their students safety. They think they made this decision in the name of safety of the students on campus. Of course, it's exactly the opposite because they're talking about the kind of safety this girl is complaining about, how she shouldn't be subjected to any ideas that she finds offensive. Great discussion. The fifth column, guys, stay with me. Plenty more to get to. Stand by. The Golden Globes are coming back tonight. Did you know that? We'll get into it. And don't forget, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel, 1-11, every weekday at noon east. The full video show and clips, fun clips,

by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash megankelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, follow us, download us on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. By the way, I see your notes. It's very annoying. For some reason on Apple podcasts, there's like repeats in the show. We don't know why it's happening. We submit it to them clean. And it apparently is only an Apple thing. So, you know, if you want to avoid it, you can go to Stitcher or whatever. But yeah, that's annoying. We hear you and we're looking into it. Guys, so not totally unrelated to our last discussion is what's happening to Jordan Peterson. And of course, it's coming to a university or profession or classroom near you. So if you don't think you're affected or your kids are going to be affected by this nonsense, think again. Just as an aside, the University

of Michigan just came out of spending $18 million a year on DEI programs, 18 million. They have DEI advisors in the dozens now to DEI-ify everything, science, phys ed, you name it. The entire system now is created not to help your child learn or become a critical thinker, but to think about everything through a racial or a trans or a woke-ified lens, it's deeply problematic. Jordan Peterson, the latest example, this is upsetting. Just as California passes this regulation that its doctors out there aren't going to be able to dispense COVID misinformation, if a doctor in California now says something that's anti what Pfizer would say about the vaccine, he could potentially be in trouble. And Jordan Peterson, though,

in Canada is going through this in a way that is too familiar. He's, of course, a famous author, famous podcaster, pundit. He's just sort of become a cultural commentator, but he's also a hero to a lot of young men who feel adrift in a society that spent so much time lifting up women that they, in too many cases, have erred in putting down men and left many of them feeling untethered, unhopeful, and uncared for. And Jordan speaks to them very effectively. So the Ontario College of Psychologists, this is the profession's governing body in Ontario where he is, he is a psychologist, has launched an investigation of Jordan Peterson to examine complaints about his comments on Twitter and on the Joe Rogan podcast. I kid you

not. They're investigating this. Okay, what did he say did he say oh my patients are dumb asses you know something like that where you'd be like oh that's not good you shouldn't do that as if you're right no they're mad that he called now elliot page ellen page the name she went by professionally for her entire acting career and by which we all know her nobody knows who elliot pages called her ellen and he called her the pronoun her instead of him. He called Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, a prick. For this, he gets investigated by his professional board. It's incredible.

It's incredible. He went on Joe Rogan, as I said. Hold on. It goes on. He also called Justin Trudeau a puppet. They didn't like that. A couple of other examples that are worth mentioning. He objected to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover of a plus-size model, saying, sorry, not beautiful, and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.

It's not nice. It's his opinion. He's entitled to it. No, he could lose his license now for saying that and a couple of other random things they are now demanding two things that he makes the following public statement imagine how infuriating this would be right if your governing board of podcast authority or authorities told you you must say the following sentence it's a quote they want him to repeat. I may have lacked professionalism in public statements and during a January 25th podcast appearance.

Number two, they have mandated that he take a remedial course in social media communications with a board issued therapist. Oh, my God. They're China. Canada's China. It's happening. And he of course has refused giving them the big middle finger, which yay, good. Please stand firm. But he could lose his license because of this. I'm horrified. What? I mean, canary in the coal mine, Canada is always ahead of us a little bit on the weird wokeness overreach. What do you think? It's not the first time in Canada's recent history where they came across this. It's actually pursuant to our previous segment. A guy named Ezra Levant, who's a conservative commentator there, used to be the publisher of the Western Standard Magazine, got in the crosshairs of the, I believe it's called the Human Rights Commission.

Moynihan, you might remember this. That's what it's called. They have a Human Rights Commission that will pull you to have a secret hearing. So it's a governmental or quasi-governmental body to have a secret hearing about your offense, in his case, was related to making comments about Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad. They published the image of the Prophet Muhammad after the cartoon controversy in 2006. He ended up writing a piece. He leaked out what happened in the secret meeting online, and it caused enough of an outroar at the Human Rights Commission that he was able to sidestep the worst possible sanction of it.

But, you know, every day you were talking earlier, Megan, about how the First Amendment, damn it, we're America. Absolutely correct, because we are cousins to the Canadians in so many different ways. They don't have a First Amendment. It shows really badly. It showed during the trucker protests, as did a lot of really kind of authoritarian differences between the country. Sadly, we're we're aping too many of those here in this country as well. The Biden administration is trying to. It's awful. You're imagine that you have a professional licensing board similar to the previous case. That's not one of his patients that has complained. He's a clinical psychologist.

And the best stuff in his books, by the way, have to do with his clinical practice, not necessarily throwing rhetorical grenades into the tent of wokeness. It's just him talking insightfully about what happens and observations that he gleans from talking to people and trying to help them. None of his patients complained. Why is a professional board saying a damn thing? If there's anyone who's supposed to teach a remedial course in Twitter communications, it might be the guy with probably the most Twitter followers of anybody in Canada. I don't know. Like maybe he's got something to say that he

goes a little bit overboard sometimes, but he's clearly used social media to create an entire industry there. It's horrifying that they've done this and not surprising. And I'm glad and not surprised that he's telling them to go shove it. But that's the problem. He said to your point, who tell me who who complained, who specifically what exactly who exactly was harmed, how, when, to what degree, and how is that harm measured? And he says, it's difficult to communicate with as many people as I do and to say anything of substance without rubbing at least a few people the wrong way now and then. Of course, and he says, these criticisms have nothing to do with my work in psychology. They're critiques of my public comments on cultural, political, and social topics, all of which you appear to find insufficiently leftist.

It's it's no coincidence, right? They're not pouring over the remarks of somebody who's out there saying the most woke, radical, of course, racist stuff that we hear out of the BLM crowd. That's no problem. That'll get a complete pass. But Jordan Peterson gets targeted. Why? To make an example of him, right? To instill fear. I mean, it's not as if they have some consistent standard. I mean, if there's standards at all, I mean, the the psychologists college or whatever it is that this governing body that says you cannot practice and you shall not be able to practice. If you have these kind of opinions that we think are odd or off or not, you know, on our side of the issue.

And one of those includes calling the prime minister a prick, whereas it is totally fine for the prime minister to be the prime minister. When every time I open the paper, there's a new picture of him in blackface. But I suppose that's OK. Let's not apply these standards evenly to anyone at all. But the ridiculous thing was, I mean, by the way, Jordan Peterson has a right to appeal this. He did not appeal. He skipped that and collected his $200 and said, I'm suing you, which is the exact appropriate way of dealing with this. If there is a body that says you can or cannot practice your profession based on these political views, I mean, moments like this, that you do really appreciate the First Amendment. It's moments like this in Canada. It's moments like you often see in the United Kingdom, where somebody has an, you know, an errant tweet, or not even an errant tweet, just something that somebody finds offensive, they report to the police, and the police show up at their door and say, can you

step outside? And did you write this on Twitter? There is something totalitarian about that. And then you make it worse. And how do you make it worse and more totalitarian than you could ever imagine? The film I just watched from 2018 called The Trial. And it is made up entirely of archival footage from a trial in 1930 in the Soviet Union of economists who were accused of being wreckers of the Soviet economy. And there is that moment, as you explained, Megan, where to free themselves, they have to step up to the microphone and read a statement. And you can see it in their eyes that it's killing them to do so. But it's the only way that they can do so without the regime killing them. Now, this is obviously not that, but you're killing somebody's career. And to make them do that, who sits down and says, I don't like this guy's views. Let's convene a quorum of people

in our society and say, hey, guys, do you guys hate Jordan Peterson too? Let's go after him. Imagine what goes through a sick mind, somebody who needs a psychologist to look at them, I suppose, to go after somebody who they just disagree with. It's repulsive. It kind of reminds me of, by the way, Canadian Debbie. I don't know how you're surviving up there, Canadian Debbie. You're as offensive as Jordan Peterson, my producer. She's correcting me that he didn't call Trudeau a prick.

It was his advisor. It was the Trudeau advisor. He called Trudeau a puppet. Whatever. called trudeau a prick it was his advisor it was the trudeau advisor he called trudeau a puppet whatever the point is um this reminds me of i do hits in the uk on gb news with my pal dan wooden and the rules are different over there when it comes to speech and journalism and they actually do police you you're like you have to like make sure you're offering exactly the right amount of other sideness if you're the anchor over there. Like, who cares? Why can't you have a Fox News and MSNBC over in Great Britain?

Well, you can't. Even on sort of the more right wing channel, you better make sure that you have the left wing voices represented or you're going to be in trouble with the government over. I mean, it's bizarre. And this is why and how one of the ways that Meghan Markle got Piers Morgan basically fired. And it's in the news this week because she went on with Oprah. She said the royal family was essentially racist because they had concerns about the darkness of her potential babies or her upcoming baby's skin color. And Piers came out and said, I don't believe you.

I think you're a liar. You lied about that. And I don't believe you. I think you're a liar. You lied about that. And I don't believe the mental health story that they ignored your concerns. I don't believe any of this. She complained to their government regulators. And then the TV channel said, Piers, you have to apologize for this. You're fired. And he walked out.

And he's saying right now, the wake of now Harry saying, we never accused anybody of racism. That's not what we were at. What actually happened? They're not racist. He's like, where do I go to get my job back? But my greater point is just government trying to force you to say something a certain way,

right? Or get down on bended knee because you've chosen to say it your way, whether it's Canada or great Britain, we're not talking about China. We're not talking about Afghanistan. Right. This is not Saudi Arabia. These are, as you point out, like our kissing cousins. It's it's too close to home. And as I say, on the DEI front now, I don't know if it's a majority, but many, many American colleges are requiring students to take these DEI, quote, anti-racism or social justice courses, which reinforce the same kind of thinking and performance art. Just as an example, at Georgetown, all undergraduates must now take two, quote, engaging diversity courses.

At Davidson College, the requirement goes under the title of justice, equality and community. Students have to fulfill it by taking courses like racial capitalism or reproduction and queering performance. One more Northern Arizona University, if your kid goes there, their general education curriculum requires nine credit hours of diversity perspectives, including a unit on intersectional identities. I could go on. There's a whole list of other colleges who have fired professors for not being sufficiently woke, for opposing affirmative action, for criticizing the term anti-racist as actually being racist and so on. This is like it's it's everywhere. And has been for some time, too, by the way. It's unfortunate to say. Just a quick thing

is I had to do this when I was in college. I had to take two, as a history major, two diversity history courses. And the beginning of my career is a complete and utter pain in the ass. I made the argument that a course about Japan is diverse, but the modern Japanese empire and they're like, no, that's not what we mean. So sorry, Camille, go ahead. Well, no, I mean, the appropriate response to any such mandate is to get into the course and to say what you think and to be honest and to be candid and by so doing be incredibly disruptive, I suppose. It's worth bearing in mind that we have many of the same kinds of licensing institutions here in the United States. And yes, they can be a vector for all sorts of nightmarish awfulness.

One wonders what they ought to exist for. And it's kind of like beyond a perfunctory rubber stamp that someone has actually secured a degree. I'm not sure that I would like those things to exist. I mean, one story that I'm not sure I've ever told in public is that my wife and I were doing marital counseling, as people do. We're fine. We love each other, et cetera. But we had this woman who was our marital counselor, and I would never report her to the board for this. But in the course of our conversations, she discovered that I had unusual politics for someone who happens to look like me, and at some point begins to interrogate my views on diversity, equity, inclusion, etc.,

and suggests explicitly, or at least asks, if I think that the reason I have trouble accepting the kind of importance and significance of white supremacy as a force in my life and in society is not because of some kind of inborn white supremacist ideas that I've adopted myself. This is a marriage counselor. My wife isn't complaining about these views. She's being politicized into this context. Now, of course, I wouldn't report her because I don't think that's appropriate. I don't want her to necessarily lose her job. But if anyone came to me and asked, do you think this woman would be a great marriage counselor for me and my wife? What do you suspect my answer would be a great marriage counselor for me and my wife? What do you suspect my answer would be? I paid for that hour. I didn't pay for any more after that, but I paid for that hour. And I think that's the appropriate way for these things to be decided.

It is imperative to keep that sort of thing in mind because there are so many instances where people say, oh, there's not enough fairness in social media and in all these other contexts. What we need is some sort of fairness doctrine for Twitter, for Facebook. We need some agency to come in and ensure that conservatives, that libertarians are appropriately represented in these contexts. And that solution will not work. At some point, the abuse will happen. It is a vector of attack. And the only protection for a culture of free speech, the only way to safeguard it is to practice it and insist on it. And yes, when when necessary, you take it to the mat, you take people to court, you do what Dr. Peterson is doing in this particular case, because it is unconscionable. Compelled speech is. Are you kidding me? Yeah, it's about conditioning, right?

I mean, isn't that the whole point? Megan, you brought up your favorite person. And I know, I listen to the show. And I'm just like, I don't know if I can listen to this. She loves Meghan Markle so much. And so this thing about Meghan Markle, the regulator in the UK is called Ofcom. And Jeremy Clarkson, whose old brand is that he's a dick, right? His whole point.

He used to be the host of Top Gear. He has a column in The Sun. And he wrote this very funny column about Meghan Markle, which which had i want to talk about this yeah keep going yeah he alluded to uh something in game of thrones you know take her out naked and you throw throw excrement at her and it's a scene in game of thrones shame shame shame and it's a joke and that's his brand and that's who he is and you know the conditioning aspect of it and this is not even people even notice in the uk i always do when i'm reading this stuff is they in the news stories say how many complaints that offcom got offcom got 6 000 complaints about

this television story this day i mean that doesn't happen in america there's there's no in like people don't say oh my god i have to go to some government agency and complain about, you know, a mean kind of, you know, article in the newspaper. That's the thing about Jordan Peterson and all this stuff is to condition people to not speak or when they do speak, condition others to report them. And that's really, really, really kind of totalitarian in its basic nature that that whole thing with that columnist was no it wasn't a nice piece but i watched game of thrones so i understood the reference immediately as you did right it was it was it was classic scene at a game of thrones where uh they did that to this one actress well to this one character he he doesn't he's not saying he calling for that actually to be done to megan markle he's saying this is how much i loathe her

that i that I would pleasure, I would take pleasure in something like that. And so, like, to me, the reason, one of the many reasons I can't stand this person, her, is... I love derailing the show by bringing her up. But seriously, one of the reasons is, do you know the amount of shit I have taken in my career as a public figure?

You know, whether it's from being on the wrong beat, from being at Fox News, from being on the wrong side of Trump, from upsetting Vladimir Putin for a time, from being on the wrong side of Steve Bannon, from being on the wrong side of NBC, from being on the wrong side of Fox News. Do you have any idea like the amount of media ink those entities I just mentioned can control? Right? And the viciousness of the pieces that have been written about me. I can remember a couple in particular. Abby never forgets. She's like my Irish sidekick. She's not even Irish.

She's got my Irish. She was like, F everyone. I forget no one. I remember everything. Anyway, I was never turned into this whiny baby my irish he was like f everyone i forgive no one i remember everything um anyway it like i never i was never turned into this whiny baby bitch about it like prince harry is he's a whiny yeah in any way you have ideas and you can that's all that's all she has i mean her entire personality is someone who's aggrieved you can actually you know respond to these things and talk about a million other issues i could have run around being like I want her fired and I want him fired. And I want and how dare they and misogyny.

And yes, there has been a lot of misogyny. I'm not denying that one. The only person I specifically raised it with on when it came to me was never President Trump. It was Steve Bannon, who I do think is horrible. But in any event, that's all they do. That's all they do. And it's like the the the principle that these people are allowed to say whatever they want about me, you know, as long as it's not defamatory by our very tough legal standards or about her or about him is an important principle. It may not be enjoyable to go through. It tends to be temporary in nature.

Most grownups suck it up, get through it, and go on leading their beautiful lives. These two refuse to. One thing that's worth mentioning about the Canada situation in particular, right? So Jordan Peterson is hauled up for calling, not even Trudeau, but a Trudeau advisor, a prick. What did Trudeau call the trucker protests?

Called them terrorists. So he's not like a rando, you know, or not even rando, but he's not a well-known author, an academic. He's the prime minister. He actually can affect laws. He can, I don't know, have an emergency decree that suddenly allows him to seize the assets of a bunch of people who are engaging in peaceful protest. And he calls them terrorists, which is a definition under the law

in Canada that puts you in a pretty precarious and difficult situation. Is he being hauled up in front of a human rights commission or a professional licensing board for bad-haired prime ministers? No, he's not. So there's always a power imbalance that are used in these situations against private citizens in the service of power. It's just like blasphemy laws in general. They're always used by people in power against those who don't have the power, which is why, you know, if you're trying to say that I want this free speech, I want this speech restriction in the name of helping the powerless, you are wrong, sir or madam. That is the exact opposite of how this stuff works. Free speech is the greatest tool exactly for the downtrodden against the powerful.

It's always going to be used. The fairness doctrine, Michael mentioned before, was used when it was actually in effect in America. Broadcasting law, it was used to marginalize viewpoints. Of course it is. It's not you think libertarians are going to get a fair hearing under the fairness doctrine? No, it's going to be the people who have power, which is Democrats and Republicans and officeholders using it to basically nullify people from being invited on television broadcasts and elsewhere. I'm glad that it's gone. Yeah. And a small but important historical footnote is when the Fairness Doctrine was retired. And this is really important. Was it 87, Matt, around there? It was around there, yeah. 86, 87.

What does that coincide with? The beginning of talk radio and the beginning of Rush Limbaugh in an absolute sea change and how Americans viewed politics because they didn't have to be spoon fed by the three networks and PBS or their local newspapers or their statewide newspapers. They actually had an outlet for views that weren't being aired. And that changed everything in a certain group of people in this country never got over. And, you know, the number of people I have heard, people that I know who are smart people saying, what do we do to ban Fox News? How can we get Fox News off the air? Not how do we debate them? How do we run them off the air? That's a very, very common sentiment amongst people I know.

And that probably says a lot about my friends. But but yeah, no, but it's also the max boots of the world. I mean, there's a lot of people who think that that is the root problem. It's it's not. It's actually a root solution to allow free speech and to allow the rise of Fox or MSNBC or whatever the hell you want to watch out there. And it's a it's a damn shame that Republicans and conservatives led by Donald Trump in this example, he's talked about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. He's he's put up mergers for analysis because he doesn't like the way that he's talked about on Saturday Night Live. I mean, it's ridiculous. And now there's a whole brand of conservative who's out there thinking, yeah, I want to use the force of government to compel speech or to compel certain elements of fairness to social media companies or to broadcast companies. They're undoing or they're threatening

to undo decades worth of good conservative activism, which understood that these types of regulatory schemes are going to be rigged by the Lyndon Johnsons of the world in ways that are really, really ugly and bad. We need to keep freedom as the kind of central pursuit of media approach and policy in this country. That's all true. However, you are wrong about Justin Trudeau's hair. That is his one greatest thing. Him and Gavin Newsom. I'm sorry, but they both have good hair.

That's the fact. You're defending Gavin Newsom's hair. Yeah. I'm on record. You can hold it against me. I said it. If I can do a Keith Elberman impression here, you, ma'am, are a disgrace. He's actually said that about me many times. Oh, I'm sure he did.

All right, let's shift gears to something lighter. I'm really enjoying this discussion. You guys are so smart. It's great talking to you. Did you know the Golden Globes are coming on tonight? Are you guys all ready? Got your popcorn? Got your cocktails?

Nope. Literally had no idea. I do have my cocktails cocktails but unrelated to what's on television i only hope top gun wins all of the awards that's my only hope that's a movie wasn't that wasn't that in the 80s oh there's a it's like no it's a top gun maverick wait you mentioned cocktail reminded me of something i've got to tell you something so my husband doug brunt has a has a new podcast it's called dedicated with doug brunt where he interviews famous authors like really successful people.

How did you become such a famous author? And he just had somebody on. He's going to kill me for not remembering who it was. But their drink was the French 75. Oh, yeah. That is delicious. That's for me. I'm like, what is this wonderful thing?

It's got you wouldn't think it would go together. It's like gin and champagne with a hint of lime juice, I think. A little sprig of orange rind up there at the top. Sure. Correct. Well done, Matt Welsh. I recommend go listen to Dedicated with Doug Brunton. You will hear for yourself.

Today, he's got the guy who does screenwriters too. And he's got the guy who um who did chernobyl uh like fantastic that's a great yeah i know yeah absolutely fantastic show grant mazen thank you what's the first name is grant craig thank you craig mazen uh i haven't listened to it because it just came out but great podcast and event check it out so the golden globes are tonight and i'm like okay what did they are they coming back swinging right because they were canceled because it was like golden globes so white basically right it was it was like hollywood foreign press which votes on the nominations was all white and then it came out

that they were i didn't actually know this because i'm not a hollywood person but they were neck deep and like buying the votes like everyone all the studios were whining and dining. The people who are part of the Hollywood foreign press. I guess, what's that show? Emily in Paris. It came out that they took a bunch of these people with votes over to Paris for like two nights for like the equivalent of $1,400 a night hotel and accommodations and so on. And lo and behold, that show got nominated, right? So it's kind of how it works.

Anyway, it became controversial, especially because of the diversity thing. And they canceled it. Like, didn't happen for two years or happened. It was canceled for one year. And then the next year they did it, but they didn't have a TV show. Tonight it's back on. Did they get Ricky Gervais? Come out swinging.

Say, you know what? We're over that wokeness nonsense. We're just going to be us and we're going to try to drive numbers which we've never done before no no they have jared carmichael has anybody ever heard of jared carmichael i think he was a receiver for the eagles in the 80s yeah he was great yes they got your dentist surprise oh man it's i don't what my team tells me is he's a sort of wokefied comedian who they use on mbc a lot steve forgive me for quoting your text publicly he's one of those sort of comedians who really just talks about race and sexual identity a lot. That sounds fun. That sounds really like a laugh riot.

So he's going to be hosting it. And this in the midst of like a season where, you know, there's like a push to get rid of the gender categories now over at the Oscars and potentially the Golden Globes. The LA Times thinks that best actress is sexistist and what we really need is gender neutrality in all the awards um they're saying the grammys went gender neutral 10 years ago so they're going more woke than ever and they'll probably have fewer ratings than ever because the movies being featured other than top gun maverick, are going to be woke

and pandering and all the things we've seen coming out of Hollywood the past several years. So will anybody watch? And are we happy this thing is coming back? Are you joking to see Hoagy Carmichael talk about race before movies I've ever seen? Good Lord, no. I will say this. I noticed this morning, there were two things this morning that I noticed. One was a story that said, you know, the inexorable rise in the murder of transgender people. That was the first thing. The second one I saw, and I'm not going to derail this, Megan, it was the Meghan Markle proves. And these two things hit me. And I said, Oh God, these are the things that no one looks into. And they're just established as facts and no one's ever checked them. And I want to throw to Camille on this because it was the same thing happened in, in the,

the, the Oscars and the golden globes. And it was, um, uh, Oscar is so white. And, um, the reason I do a podcast with Camille is because he's a clever guy who says, wait a second, and starts digging into the numbers. And it turned out that Oscar's so white wasn't even true. Correct, Camille? Am I wrong about this? No, it wasn't true. And I don't remember the exact figures, but I went back and crunched the numbers for like 30 years on the nominations for like the top categories. And I think Black people secured like 25 or 30% of the nominations, which I mean, 13 odd percent, 18% of the population of

the United States, it's 13, right? That's pretty impressive. And I believe that Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, some of the most nominated and decorated actors and actresses in Hollywood also went and looked at like box office numbers to see. Like, do people are with are they willing to see films with black people and leads? Yeah. Hell, yes. Samuel L. Jackson, I believe, is like the number one guy associated with films and dollars earned at the box office. We have a preposterous obsession with race, and it precedes evidence. It is all about presumptions. And I don't know how I feel.

I guess I don't care if they want to get rid of the sort of gendered actor, actress categories. But I can't for the life of me understand why having the two be segregated by gender would actually be bigoted. Well, you will care. How does that work? You will care, sir, when Samuel L. Jackson never wins another award again because he's the wrong gender. That's so much the worst for him, not me, actually. But that's what, like, I love this woman, Sasha Stone. She's come on this show and she does awards daily.

She's been writing about Hollywood forever. And this is the point she's been making, which is, you know, they're so, they're so woke-ified now in Hollywood. If you merge the categories, good luck to all the future men, like who might've otherwise won an award. They're not going to.

It's going to be, you know, eight of the top 10 are going to be women women women women maybe they'll throw like the bottom two to like some man who also checks another uh some sort of diversity box but like the moyni hands and the welshes of the world you can forget it you're not you're never getting a shiny golden statue i don't get anything i fired. I'm not getting any awards ever. You got some Emmys. You got a bunch of Emmys. I have two Emmys, but would you like to see them? I could just bring them on camera. No, I have them on the desk at all. Why would you I mean, the studios must absolutely hate this, by the way, because it reduces the number of people who get awards and therefore the number of things you can put on posters that, you know, Academy Award winning film

is now, you know, you had five people and now it's, you know, two or, you know, 10 people and now it's five. I can't imagine there's much appetite for this. And it's one of these things that is satisfying a hunger that nobody has. Yeah. Nobody is that, like,

well, except the LA Times. There's female actors who are like, I can't, I can't, I need to compete with the men because what happened for a long time was in bookstores. There was somebody famous. And I can't remember who said this is in the eighties or nineties said, you know,

I don't want to be a black writer. I just want to be a writer. I want to be in with writers. That's what I do. And then, you know, as time went on, segregation became more voguish.

So it's amazing. This coming back the other way, because the voguish thing is like now there's African-American writers, there's an Asian-American writer section, there's female writers. There's not just writers. And so that's good. But somehow this is bad. Who decided that? I don't know why we're not. When is it good and when is it bad? Somebody call me about that. Well, and honestly, it's like, yes, acting is sort of like like sailing. Sailing is something you can do great if you're a woman or a man. Right.

It's like you don't necessarily need a gender category, but it's you do have to sort of look at the opportunities that are being offered in today's day and age. It's all Marvel. Right. It's all like superheroes. My, you know, sort of armchair understanding of that is there are way more roles for the guys there than there are women so i'm not sure the la times is right that it's going to have this this great effect of elevating more women um you know because that's what they want to see they're saying uh that that uh the best actress is is

sexist and that this started 95 years ago and that the Emmys and the Oscars have to follow course in what the Grammys did. They're worried that also about non-gendered acting categories. Did you know? Did you guys watch The Crown? No. I haven't watched it. No. No.

No. Does anyone? Apparently the woman. No. Well, the person who played Diana is a non-binary in like the most recent iteration. And they brought this person up as an example who was submitted for an award under the she, the actress category. But since then went non-binary. So that person has no category.

So we have to get rid of the categories because non-binary. I'm going to do my Donald Trump impression. Wrong. That's wrong. By the way, I hate this ex-post facto thing we do this all the time. You don't go to the 1976 Olympics in Montreal,

look at the clips and say, look at Caitlyn Jenner. It was Bruce Jenner. I'm sorry. When you did the role, that's what exists. I will call you Caitlyn now. I could care less about this stuff. It doesn't animate me in any way. But to go back and say, no, no longer. She wasn't playing a non-binary princess. She was playing Diana and she identified as a woman at the time. Does this bother you? Because the New York Times, my friend who we text every day,

emailed me an article from the New York Times this morning, and it's entitled Defining Non-Binary Workwear. How non-binary professionals thread the needle of getting dressed for the office. I would submit to you, gentlemen, that these pictures do not thread any needle whatsoever. There is no needle being threaded oh can you see this for the listening for the listening audience the first one was a man in a dress with sneakers on his bare legs this is not threading the needle no no and now this is a man with facial hair you know skirt i mean you're not allowed to say man whatever it's a non-binary person and these folks are go by not mr or miss but mix mx that's the new thing and they're talking about how they're really sick of you know dress codes that go female or go male and they really just want to be themselves and wear you know what whatever the hell they want and that they just want to be thought of for their thoughts they want to be looked at for their thoughts and not because of what they're wearing. And of course, the answer

to that is to just dress according to the identity that you say you are. But then they're like, I don't say I'm a woman or a man. So what do you think? The New York Times article maybe suggests that you're a little more concerned about that than you're letting on. But we have a listener, a super fan who is non-binary. And we have asked this person, a they, how to navigate this and try to be respectful and everything. And they, and again, it's still hard for me because it's a plural and confusing. It's already taken. They is taken. It's already taken. I it's already taken i get i like mix better um said something to me one time of like look you know you're you you mean well you screw up what's what's the big deal you're

trying i mean there's a person who listens to fifth column so they're they're obviously not particularly sensitive about these things but you know i feel like some of this stuff is just laying minds for people to step on yes and that's what offends me like i'm i try my best i try not to offend people that's actually not true that's not offends me. Like I try my best. I try not to offend people. That's actually not true. That's not true at all. Wait a second. Let me stop that.

Can we cut the tape? Can we go back and forth? I do try to offend people if it's funny, but I don't go out of my way to do it. And if somebody wants to call something funny. That's also not true. I can't get over the fact that I feel like people are setting me up all the time. I don't think, guys, if you walked into the office, if you go into whatever reason or vice vox, I can never remember which one it is, Michael. I got fired.

Oh, okay. Then FM. If you walk into your robustly staffed fifth column podcast center and you see what appears to be a man with facial hair i mean facial hair like full beard and mustache wearing a cute little dress that's like a mini dress like that guy that person in the other picture with little sneakers down below and like this person has man hair but we've seen somebody on the show with like the long blonde wig with, with the beard. What would you say?

Would you, I wouldn't, I wouldn't bat an eye. I honestly wouldn't. I mean, it's just, I live in Brooklyn. I see this stuff all the time.

I just doesn't interest me in any way. I mean, I don't believe that you wouldn't walk out and be like, Oh my God, did you see what happened there? What's going on there? I worked around worked around that a lot i'd be honest i'd be like what's happening why i like i really feel like whatever you are is fine with me but this is it's a bridge too far i'm sorry but this is just too jarring it's too disruptive the average

customer or client coming into your firm if they see that is going to be like whoa i mean you go to the Midwest, you're not going to have the Brooklynites. You're going to have people who haven't seen that and aren't used to that and actually find it kind of problematic. Go ahead. I respect every response. I don't even notice it, but yeah, go ahead. Yeah. At a minimum, if you want to be judged for your ideas and not on the basis of what you wear, I mean, that may mean that you want to dress a bit more conservatively in traditional ways. But if you don't care that people are going to stare at you and look at you because you look unusual, then that kind of comes with the territory.

I will say that I'm probably, I'm not probably, I'm very much in the Moynihan camp. I don't really care what other people wear. Not terribly interested. I will say that someone like a Billy Porter, like I've seen dude on the red carpet at the Oscars in like a black tuxedo gown thing. And he looks remarkable in it. What do you mean remarkable? I think he looks ridiculous. He gets celebrated. He gets put on the front of magazines. I just feel like, you know what? No, I just feel like- The changing norms around gender stuff- I don't accept them. I don't accept them. I'm not going to bully this person, but I don't have to celebrate it. I'm offended by it. We wear the dresses.

You don't have to celebrate it. I think the point that I'm making is that some people look good in this stuff. People will say I'm a bigot just for having this opinion. Sorry, go ahead, Camille. But this is kind of the point. At a minimum, we ought to be able to acknowledge that there are subjective assessments of what looks good and what is interesting and what is attractive to us. And I can say Billy Porter looks really good on the red carpet. The two guys that you just showed me or they, them, I don't know. I have no idea who they are. But those two images not attractive

voice to what bothers me about billy porter and also harry styles in women's clothing looking more and more feminine like the like it bothers me because i object to the merger of gender as a real thing i really do But women didn't used to wear pants. My grandmother used to object to women wearing pants. That's not the same thing. And we've gotten over that. Are you objecting to David Bowie, Megan Kelley? I feel like he was an artist who was being provocative.

And I don't see that the same as insisting that we merge gender, that we get rid of gender. I don't think it's insisting. I mean, Prince, do you object to Prince? Same thing. How do you object to prints? Same thing. How do you distinguish him from- He was wearing a thong and eye makeup and his hair was crazy. And he was writing songs

about all kinds of perverted stuff. Of course, he's the same as David Bowie. And I feel like we've always had room for these eccentric artists, but this is going mainstream. The whole New York Times piece is about, this is like mainstream, going to be at your office.

Well, guess what? The Supreme Court has already made very clear that you can have dress codes at the office and you can say people who identify as female, it can be somebody who's a biological male. That's fine. But you have to dress as a female like we are. The law recognizes employers with the ability to say you may not do the cross thing at the office. You got to pick a lane. And so while I have plenty of trans people who I know and love, I think that the confusion of the beard and the man hair versus the female dress, I don't think America's ready for it. I really don't. With respect to their own identity, I think it suggests that something's possible that's not actually possible, that's actually being forced on us by this sort of woke, very small contingent.

And while I wouldn't bully the person, I wouldn't allow it in my office place either. Again, the freedom to make determinations about your own office place is something that shouldn't be violated in any way, shape or form. I think the basic principle of toleration and acceptance of one another and the freedom to let your freak flag fly, whatever that may sort of generally mean for you personally, is something we should all generally embrace. And I actually think that we could do with a heck of a lot more sanity around conversations about trans issues, about gender, about all these other things. I think it would be wonderful if people could acknowledge that it is not the same thing

at all to express concern about whether or not there is something that is kind of harmful happening with the number of young people that are identifying in one way or another, to ask a question about that trend is not at all the same thing as being hateful, as threatening to hurt someone or insisting that you are challenging whether or not trans people exist. I think that the kind of absurdities in our language, the kind of necessarily exaggerated assertions about the harm that's being leveled against people like is is inherently bad. But I also think that it's imperative for us to just acknowledge that norms change. And so long as we're holding on to the right things, toleration, free expression, again, the cultural free expression we've been talking about all along

here, getting away from compelled speech. Okay, but I don't agree with those. I don't agree that that's a complete list. I was with you. I was with you up until, like, I think gender's a real thing. I don't think it's as fluid as these people want me to believe that it is. I think that there's something going on there with people, and a lot of them need to work it out, and a lot of them want attention.

And I'm not, actual, you know, gender dysphoria and being a trans person. That's real. I don't accept that. That's not real. I, when it happens very young, typically in males, it's been documented, but this sort of I'm neither and I'm going to mix from both. I don't know what that is to me. That seems like attention grabbing and I am not ready to accept that as a new norm. That still makes me uncomfortable. I'm allowed to say that. Okay. If you want to call me names because of it, that's fine. That still makes me uncomfortable. I'm allowed to say that. Okay. If you want to call me names because of it, that's fine. That's how I feel. I certainly would dramatically discourage that in anybody I happen to be raising. All right. Like I, you look how, like, I feel like you need to fill up a different bucket, a different psychological bucket.

If that's where you're getting your kicks from. And there's a reason why this hasn't been a thing for ever, right? Like there has non-binary and wearing like the women's clothing while you look like a man and not picking a lane. That's brand new. I'm not the only one feeling uncomfortable with it. And they attempt to totally normalize and mainstream it like the New York Times did. I stole the last word. No problem.

We're coming right back. Fifth column. Let me squeeze in a quick break. Guys, let's end it on a happy note. DeMar Hamlin out of the University of Cincinnati Health Hospital. He's going back to a hospital in Buffalo. He's tweeting. He's Instagramming. And he reportedly woke up, you know, from his his it wasn't a coma, but he was intubated and sedated and said, did we win? Did we win the game? Which is so sweet. But of course, since it's a new show, it's not going to be all sunny. get several think pieces by random people, including Karen Atiyah of the Washington Post, who says, why is America addicted to this violent and brutal game? Considering that nearly 70% of the NFL's players are black, the Hamlin episode is a reminder that almost every weekend, Americans

tune in to watch mostly black men bash into one another for the profit of white team owners. It goes on from there. She's not the only one. Long piece over at someplace called Scientific American talking about how his collapse highlights the violence black men experience in football. Is this a chance to talk about what we're doing to just just the black men on the field on Sundays who are getting paid? You're only allowed tens of millions of dollars, by the way. Yeah, it's for the black, by the way. Yeah. It's for the enrichment of the black men and the white owners.

Yeah. It's like everyone's up there with their dollar bills in their hand going, get more, kill each other. It's like, no, they're getting paid a ton. Is she suggesting that we should be watching hockey instead? I just want to try to figure out what the- Yes. White people bashing each other's heads in. She wants hockey hockey to be a more lucrative sport celebrated by more Americans. Why should America's football?

Don't take don't take the wind out of our sails. You know, it was like it was actually such a lovely unifying moment for the whole country. Black, white, left, right. Football, non-football. Everybody's rooting for this guy and celebrating his choice to make a bunch of money playing this game, which, by the way, has resulted in millions of dollars now going to his charity, not to support the injury. I'm just saying he was thinking of others even when he got this great deal. And let's just celebrate him and his recovery and not make everything a racial debate. Amen. Amen. Amen. All right, guys, such a pleasure.

Enjoyed it as always. I did look up the Charlie Hebdo cover this week and I am disturbed. My real gear is done. We'll be back tomorrow. Lots of love, guys. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.