Michael Knowles (8:25)

You've been told that black Americans are being violently victimized by white Americans.

Candace Owens (8:29)

White supremacy.

Matt Walsh (8:30)

White supremacy.

Ben Shapiro (8:31)

White supremacist terrorism. White supremacy. White supremacy.

Candace Owens (8:34)

White Supremacy is waging a war against us.

Michael Knowles (8:36)

Every major media story about interracial violence of the last 20 years has featured a black American being harmed by a white American. You know their names. George Floyd, Ahmaud, Arbery, Breonna Taylor, who was shot by the cops accidentally when her boyfriend started shooting at the cops. Trayvon Martin, who was shot by a Hispanic man under disputed circumstances, but close enough. Whenever a black person is shot by a white person, the media are all over it. Joe Biden does press conferences and invites the victim to the White House. Benjamin Crump shows up on CNN and MSNBC to complain about the inherent victimhood of black existence in America. 20 million people go out in the streets to protest. In the middle of June 2020, Joy Reid sets her hair on fire. Here's the statistical White Americans are significantly more likely to be victimized by black Americans than black Americans are to be victimized by white Americans. When it comes to violent crime, the stats are. Now let's start with a simple fact. Nearly all crime is intraracial. White on white, black on black, Hispanic on Hispanic. The only group for which that is not true is Asian Americans. But when it comes to black versus White crimes or white versus Black crimes, black Americans are far more likely to be perps than victims. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, citing the National Crime victimization survey, in 2019 there were 562,550 interracial crimes concerning blacks and whites. 89,980 of those crimes featured a white perp and a black victim. 472,570 of those crimes featured a black.

Ben Shapiro (10:10)

Perp and a white victim.

Michael Knowles (10:12)

In other words, 84% of violent interactions involving black and white people involved black people victimizing white people. That's not a statistical aberration. A common argument that you hear all the time is that, well, maybe the problem is that when white people attack black people or when black people attack white people, that maybe not all of it is getting reported. Maybe it's a reporting problem. Well, this is why murder is a useful statistic.

Ben Shapiro (10:34)

Because murder is always reported.

Michael Knowles (10:36)

There's an actual dead body. You can't hide behind dumb arguments about white crime being underreported or black crime being over reported. When it comes to dead people, every year the number of whites killed by blacks exceeds by a factor of about two the number of blacks killed by whites. Let's take 2019. According to FBI statistics, there were 3,299 white Americans murdered that year. 2,594 of them, 79% were killed by white perpetrators. 566 17% were killed by black perpetrators. Now 2,906 black Americans were murdered that same year. 2,574 of them 89% were killed by black perpetrators. 246 8% were killed by white perpetrators. Compare those two numbers. 566 white Americans were killed by black Americans. Only two hundred and forty six black Americans were killed by white Americans. Now let's adjust for population size because it turns out there are a lot more white people in America than black people. So generally you'd expect to see if all the other factors were equal. A lot more white on black crime than the opposite. There are about 235 million white Americans. There are about 47 million black Americans. This means that one out of every million white Americans killed a black person. By contrast, 12 out of every million black Americans killed a white person. The disparity between the stats is perfectly obvious. The reason that crime is currently wildly under policed in major democratic areas is because the left will not acknowledge reality. Way better to pretend that the criminal justice system is discriminatory than to acknowledge the obvious truth disproportionate crime among black populations. But ignoring that problem doesn't make it go away. It makes the problem worse. And the people who generally suffer are not white Americans. They are black Americans. American According to Alan Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Quote Relative to their share of the US population, 60% white people were underrepresented among offenders in non fatal violent crimes, overall 52%. They accounted for 45% of offenders involved in aggravated assault and 31% of offenders involved in robbery. Black people were overrepresented among offenders in non fatal violent crimes, overall 29% relative to their share of the US population. 13% half of all offenders involved in robbery, a third involved in aggravated assault, 34% more than a fifth involved in simple assault, 23% and rape or sexual assault 22% were black. According to Pew Research center, black men are the most likely to go to prison. There were 2,272 inmates per 100,000 black men in 2018, compared with 392 inmates per 100,000 white men in 2018. Black Americans represented 33% of the sentenced prison population, nearly triple their 12 to 13% share of the U.S. adult population. Whites accounted for 30% of prisoners, about half their share of the adult population, according to another study printed in the journal Science Advances. Quote Lifetime risk of imprisonment for black males rose from more than one in five in 1986 to nearly one in 2004, before falling to roughly one in six, 16.2% in 2016. Even though the current number is way lower than the prior numbers, it's still way higher than ever recorded among white men. So why is this happening? Why disproportionate crime in the black community? The single most obvious factor correlating with violent crime is lack of fathers in the home. According to the Institute for family studies, only 37% of black children are living in a home headed by their biological parents. 72% of black fathers have had a.

Ben Shapiro (13:57)

Child out of wedlock.

Michael Knowles (13:59)

Studies show the number of fathers in a neighborhood can actually help alleviate the problem of lack of fathers directly in the home. There's a network effect, a neighborhood effect. But it's rare to find a black neighborhood with a lot of present fathers. As a study from Harvard, Stanford and the U.S. census Bureau found, just 4.2% of black kids currently grow up in areas with a poverty rate below 10%. And more than half of black fathers present. That compares to 63% of white kids. Now, there are those who will argue that if it's white racism that's causing the absence of black fathers. That's a weird argument given the fact in 1960, when white racism was really a serious American problem, less than a quarter of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today, that number is like 72%. So as racism in the United States plummeted, the rate of single motherhood in the black community went up. Blaming racism for the rise in single.

Ben Shapiro (14:47)

Motherhood makes no sense.

Michael Knowles (14:48)

Statistically speaking, differential crime rates don't have anything to do with with inborn racial differences. This isn't actually about race. It has to do with behavior. When you incentivize father absence, crime goes up. When you fail to police crime, crime goes up. When you make excuses for black on white violence or pretend that the real problem of violent crime in America is white on black crime goes up. Particularly among the populations who are being ignored, Black Americans.

Ben Shapiro (15:19)

Again, why is all of that relevant? The reason that all of that is relevant is because when you are talking about the sorts of narratives that the legacy media would proclaim as important, those are the kinds of narratives that they will never talk about. And they are important because again, if you actually wish to reduce, for example, interracial crime, then you want to look at where the interracial crime is actually occurring, and you want to focus in on cases that are good evidence that such interracial crime is is in fact occurring. We get to more on this in a moment. First, it's been over 10 years since the US government's surveillance of citizens was revealed. Not much has changed. Americans are losing the privacy battle against our government. Big Brother is watching you. If we don't fight back, we risk creating Norwellian dystopia here, which sounds scary, but there is a quick and easy solution that can help you reclaim your freedom. ExpressVPN ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts your entire Internet connection, creating secure channels that shield your online activity from everyone government agencies, data brokers, even your Internet service provider. Your digital life remains completely private. Rated the number one VPN by experts at CNET and the Verge, ExpressVPN combines powerful protection with remarkable simplicity. With just one click, you are now protected. It works seamlessly across all your devices, supporting up to eight connections simultaneously. I use ExpressVPN all the time. Obviously I'm not in my home studio right now. I'm using ExpressVPN. If you want to protect yourself from corporate and government spying the way we do, go to expressvpn.com Ben get four extra months of privacy for free. That's E x p r e-s vpn.com Ben get yourself an extra four months for free. Expressvpn.com Ben to get yourself four extra months for free using ExpressVPN for years, you should do the same. Also, the American Dream is under attack. Hardworking patriots like you, drowning in debt. Creditors like that, of course, because it means they can charge really, really high interest rates. Those high interest rates. Endless student loans crushing mortgage payments. When you're broke, you are easier to control. This is where you need PDS debt. They've helped thousands of people break free from debt by understanding your unique financial situation and creating a personalized plan that actually works. The there's no minimum credit score required. They're genuinely focused on helping you save more, pay off debt faster, put money back where it belongs in your pocket. What sets them apart? PDS Debt holds an 8 plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and boasts hundreds of five star reviews on both Google and trustpilot. Those aren't just numbers. They represent thousands of real people who've escaped debt and reclaimed their financial freedom with the help of PDS debt. And I have too many friends who've fallen into that and it ruins your life. Absolutely ruins your life. Unless you get it solved, you are 30 seconds away from being debt free. Get your free assessment. Find the best option for you right now@pds debt.comBen that's pds debt.comBen Again, pds debt.comBen if you've got a debt problem, go get it solved. Fix your life right now with my friends over at PDS debt. That's PDS debt.com Ben unfortunately for the left, certain types of violence are to be either ignored or to be justified. So last night on Sean Hannity show he had on Taylor Lorenz. Taylor Lorenz used to be a journalist for the Washington Post. She now works for Medi Hassan at his new outlet. And she is an absolute horror show of a human being. She has made her bones lately by celebrating the murder of the health United Health care CEO was killed by Luigi Mangione. She's sort of a, a fanboy of Luigi Mangione because she thinks that he's good looking and she has a sort of a crush on him. She obviously has a screw lose here. She was on Sean Hannity's show proclaiming her support for the violence.

Sean Hannity (18:27)

Simple question, can you condemn that? Can you take a moral stand and condemn that?

Matt Walsh (18:34)

What I condemn is the violence of our system. And I would love for you to acknowledge that.

Sean Hannity (18:38)

I'm not asking you to condemn the system. Do you, Taylor? Do you condemn people that call for assassination?

Matt Walsh (18:45)

You're gonna ask if I condemn Hamas next? This is crazy. I would love for you to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, Sean. And we seem to be talking past each other. I want to talk about the fact that Hamas.

Sean Hannity (18:54)

I hear you loud and clear.

Matt Walsh (18:56)

Because of cost. We need to talk about this. 70% of Americans, by the way, believe that the insurance company practices are responsible in part for Thompson's death. These are signs of an un.

Sean Hannity (19:06)

You want to put a rationalization. I am saying anybody that wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican or a father or a husband. And I speak that that is a simple truth that anyone with a heart would, would easily say on national TV that you're having a hard time with.

Ben Shapiro (19:26)

So again, this is the left justifying violence on the basis of the politics. And this is the theme and the running theme of today shows that depending on whom the violence is directed at and whom the violence, who perpetrates the violence, we can tell who the media will side with, whether they will ignore the story or whatever. Another great example of this just this week, targeting a Democrat, by the way, not targeting a health care CEO. So it turns out that the person who set fire to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence on Sunday indicated that he was motivated by his views on Israel and Gaza, according to the Washington Post, and believed that Josh Shapiro needed to stop the killing of Palestinians. Now Josh Shapiro is the governor of Pennsylvania. He's not the President of the United States. He has zero plenary power over foreign policy of the United States. Even if you were to agree with this guy. But the reason that the media aren't playing this up as an act of politically motivated attempted murder is because much of the media agrees with this guy. Imagine if this were a right winger Trump supporter who had decided to try and kill Josh Shapiro. That would be a narrative for the rest of the year, minimum, right? You never hear the end of it. It would be right wing violence being bred by the podcast sphere in order to target people like Josh Shapiro. But because the person who decided to try and kill Josh Shapiro and his family is apparently a psychotic left winger who hates Shapiro because Shapiro's a Jew and too pro Israel for his like. The media are not going to talk about the problem of radical anti Israel feeling leading to violence, despite the fact that very often in the past year or so has led to violence and certain types of violence are not to be discussed, to be ignored or to be downplayed. That is also true with regard to illegal immigrant crime. So yesterday the White House, in an attempt to push back on the narrative that is being pushed by the legacy media, that the the people who are being deported from the United States are all innocent and wonderful and all the rest and the administration doesn't care about Americans. They put forth a an angel mom. That angel mom's name is Patty Morin. She's the mother of a woman brutally slain by an illegal immigrant named Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez as she was exercising on a Maryland trail is according to dailywire.com Mary Margaret Olahan reporting. The 23 year old murderer was arrested in June in Tulsa, Oklahoma and charged with first degree murder and first degree rape in Rachel Moran's death. And here is what the angel mom had to say. And this received almost zero legacy media coverage because they treated it as an irrelevant story.

Patty Morin (21:54)

To have a senator from Maryland who didn't even acknowledge or barely acknowledged my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen. Why does that person have more right than I do or my daughter or my Grandchildren. I don't. I don't understand. Understand this, okay?

Ben Shapiro (22:41)

For the legacy media, this was not worthy of coverage because, again, an illegal immigrant murdering an American is not worthy of coverage. It is heavy coverage when an illegal immigrant with a pretty significant violent history apparently is deported. Even if the due process concerns are a real concern, the level of sympathy that is being put forward by the media and the attempt to sanctify K. Abrego Garcia stands in stark contrast to the way that they are treating people like Patty Morin, whose daughter was beat to death with rock. It's pretty incredible stuff. The person she is referring to there is, of course, Senator Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen headed down to El Salvador to try and visit the prison at which illegal immigrants are being held. Deported illegal immigrants. Chris Van Hollen said, they won't let me talk with the deported man. He went down there to apparently make a show of his sympathy for this wonderful deported ban. We'll get to the details on the deported man in a moment.

Chris Van Hollen (23:35)

So I asked the vice president if I could meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia. And he said, well, you need to make earlier provisions to go visit seacot. I said, I'm not interested at this moment in taking a tour of Seacot. I just want to meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia. He said he was not able to make that happen. So I asked him if I could get on the phone, either video phone or just a phone, and talk to Mr. Abrego Garcia. He said he could not arrange that. He said, maybe if the American Embassy were to ask, maybe that could happen.

Ben Shapiro (24:14)

So much sympathy for Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Now, again, if you want to protest lack of due process, you should be standing in front of the courts. You should be standing in front of the White House. Flying down to El Salvador to show sympathy for a man who, according to the UK Daily Mail, is violently accused by his own wife of beating her up multiple times. Bad look for Democrats, but again, that's the sort of stuff that gets brushed under the rug in service of a larger narrative, apparently. According to the Daily mail, Abrego Garcia, 29, was deported from Maryland to El Salvador by the Trump administration. Of her connections to Ms. 13, his wife accused her husband of violently beating her multiple Times. In a 2021 court filing exclusively obtained by the Daily Mail. In November 2020, he hit her with his work boots. In August 2020, he hit her in the eye, causing her to get a black eye, according to her petition. That same day, Abrego Garcia started driving quickly scaring his wife as their one year old was in the back seat. She said she was afraid to be close to him. In May 2021, after an argument at a gas station, the Salvadoran migrant punched and scratched his wife, leaving me bleeding. Remember, this is a person who is pitched by the media as Maryland father.

Candace Owens (25:18)

Right?

Ben Shapiro (25:19)

Maryland father. Sounds like it. Sounds like a wonderful, wonderful person. It turns out, by the way, that according to Robbie Starbuck, Tennessee Highway Patrol caught the same Abrego Garcia in 2022 driving without a license and suspected him of trafficking the seven people inside. When they called Joe Biden's FBI because he was on the terror watch list, the FBI told them to photograph everybody and let them go. Sounds like a wonderful person. So glad the Democrats have decided precisely where to place their sympathies. What kinds of crime are worthy of reporting on and which kinds of crime are not worthy of reporting on? And it is precisely for this reason that because Democrats have picked some of the worst people in humanity to spend their empathy and sympathy on, Americans are likely to ignore some of the due process concerns about, for example, this person because he's a totally unsympathetic victim. So Chris Van Hollen again down in El Salvador, he says that according to the El Salvadoran vice president, the reason that this guy's being held there is because Trump is paying. The point that Van Hollen is making is that the Trump administration has claimed they no longer have control over whether Abrego Garcia comes back to the United States for one final hearing before he's deported permanently. He's saying that's not true.

Chris Van Hollen (26:29)

And his answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at seacot.

Ben Shapiro (26:46)

Again, multiple things can be true at once. One can be that the due process concerns that are being raised by the courts are legitimate concerns and the Trump administration should deal with them. The other is that Democrats have politically decided to spend their empathy and sympathy on some of the worst people in humanity, truly. And to ignore particular types of crime that don't fit the thing they are attempting to push now. Speaking of the due process concerns, yesterday Judge James Boasberg, you'll remember him from the hearings where he suggested that planes of migrants from Venezuela needed to be turned around midair, and then they were not. And the Trump administration claimed, well, we did keep some planes on the ground. Other planes were already in the air. There was nothing we could do. It was an oral order. It wasn't a written order. And all the rest now, Boasberg says he's going to launch proceedings to determine whether any Trump administration officials defied his order not to remove those Venezuelan migrants from the country. Now, this is kind of a weird filing by Boasberg, in the sense that the Supreme Court has already decided that the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies act in order to deport people. We'll get to more of this in a moment. First, self care routines can seem overwhelming time consuming. What if the most transformative self care upgrade required 0 daily effort? This is where Bullet and Branch comes in. Upgrading your bed sheets is a simple one time change that delivers years of luxurious sleep. With their breathable, buttery soft fabric that improves with every wash you slip between the sheets, the day's stress melts away instantly. Bolen Branch's 100% organic cotton sheets were pivotal in my sleep quality. From the very first night I could feel the difference. These aren't just any sheets, they really do have this incredible softness that puts you in instant relaxation mode. Plus you can pair them with Bolen Branches, Airy blankets, duvets and quilts for the perfect seasonal upgrade. What really impressed me is how they get even softer with every wash. I didn't think that was possible, but after a few months it felt even more luxurious than when I first got them. And believe me, I've tried other premium sheets before. Nothing comes close to the breathable comfort of these things. By the way, when I'm on the road, I literally bring Bullet and Branch products with me on the road because they help me sleep better. The best part? They're woven with the finest 100% organic cotton on earth with designs and colors for every mattress size and bedroom style so you can find the perfect fit. This spring, upgrade your sleep during Boll and Branch's annual spring event. For a limited time, get 20% off at Boll and Branch.com/Bend that's Boland Branch B O L L a n d branch.com/Ben to get 20% off site wide for a limited time. Exclusions apply. See site for details. Also, there is a growing expense eating into your company's profits. It's your cloud computing bill may have gotten a deal to start now. The spend is sky high and increasing every single year. What if you could cut your cloud bill in half and improve performance at the exact same time? Well, if you act by May 31, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure can help you do just that. OCI is the next generation cloud designed for every workload where you can run any application including any AI projects. Faster and more securely for less. In fact, Oracle has a special promotion where you can cut your cloud bill in half when you switch on over to OCI. The savings are real. On average, OCI cost 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, 80% less for networking. Join Modal, Skydance Animation and today's innovative AI tech companies who upgraded to OCI and saved offer only for new US Customers with a minimum financial commitment. See if you qualify for half off@oracle.com Shapiro that's oracle.com Shapiro go check them out right now oracle.com Shapiro AI is going to be a part of every business. There is no reason for you not to have the infrastructure you need. Go check them out right now, oracle.comshapiro and see if you qualify for half off. And second of all, the Supreme Court has also decided that this case was filed in the wrong place. It shouldn't have been filed in Washington, D.C. it should have been filed in the place closest to El Salvador, which is actually at a federal court on the southern border. Nonetheless, Postberg is now trying to suggest that he is going to hold in contempt members of the Department of Justice for not listening to his judicial orders. Democrats, of course, are celebrating all of this because they are saying it just underscores the unwillingness of the Trump administration to follow the law. Attorney General Pam Bondi fought back against Boseberg yesterday. Here's what she had to say and.

Pam Bondi (30:31)

Will he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom. You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges. You just spoke about that. It's been a pattern with what they've been doing. This judge had no right to do that. They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government. And the question should be why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?

Ben Shapiro (31:02)

Okay, so again, that's going to be the angle from the Trump administration. And it isn't a terrible angle specifically because Democrats pick the exact wrong people to defend. And meanwhile, the State Department continues to do good work in terms of deporting many of the worst people in the United States. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, joined us online yesterday to discuss all of this, to talk about what the State Department has been doing. Not only has the State Department been deporting people who come to the United States on things like student visas and lie about their actual belief systems and what they are here to do, but also the State Department yesterday shut down a branch of the State Department that is specifically designed very often to target American information that the left doesn't particularly like. Here's my interview with Secretary Rubio. Joining us on the line, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio, thanks so much for joining the show. Really appreciate it.

Candace Owens (31:52)

Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

Ben Shapiro (31:55)

So let's talk about this major move that you just made at the State Department. Getting rid of a big chunk of the censorship bureaucracy that had been created and pushed a while back, but then exacerbated over the course of the last few years. Hidden. What's the story with what you are doing over at the State Department to get rid of the body formerly known as the Global Engagement Center?

Candace Owens (32:16)

Yeah, I think you have to understand the history behind it. It's real brief. You know, they started it by saying, you know, Al Qaeda, isis, all these terrible groups are radicalizing people online. We should do something about it. And, you know, back when they came up with that 12 years ago, whatever it was, people are like, you know, that would make sense. And then it metastasized, and it's like, oh, there's foreign interference in our elections. We need to start going after that. Well, then by 2020, it became a moment to go after voices inside of American politics and begin to label people. And they put a guy in charge who basically was going around saying, trump speaks just like these foreign terrorists. His supporters speak just like these foreign terrorists. So now you have an individual running a State Department entity that was labeling American speech by Americans as foreign interference. And then really the kicker was not only were they doing all that formally from the State Department, but they were taking State Department money and they were giving it to these third party groups who were supposed to be, like, independent, you know, verified arbiters of what's true and what is and what's good and what's bad. And these groups were deliberately targeting. I believe you were one of the. One of the ones they targeted. I think the Federalists began putting labels on people. Now, you may say, okay, well, what's the importance of label? Well, that's not just the issue here. The issue is not only did they put labels on people, that was then used to go to social media companies, it was used to go to outlets and say, you have to deplatform these people or you have to cut back on how much views they're getting, you have to go after them, in essence, silence them. So, in essence, it metastasized and meta. And the metamorphosis into a government run entity that was targeting political speech in America, labeling it disinformation and silencing it all paid for by the American taxpayers, directly and indirectly. And that ends. So what happened when we took over? Right before we took over, they got rid of this Global Engagement Center. They renamed it and moved it somewhere else. But, you know, renaming something doesn't change it. You still leave the thing around. So we've undertaken, you know, 12 weeks of looking. How do we reorganize this whole thing? How do we get rid of it? How do we get. And that's what we're announcing today, is we're taking the whole thing down. And it's about $50 million. I mean, it's not a small amount of money. And we're not going to be in the business of doing this anymore. In fact, we're going to be in the business of promoting free speech in America and around the world as a core American value. And that really is what we're going to be about right now. And we're also going to go back and look at as an accountability project all of the instances in which this was used as a weapon against American political voices. And the reason why that's important is not just because of accountability. It's to make sure it never happens again. You document these things so that someone in the future, when they get some bright idea like this, realize, you know, why we shouldn't do it, because this is what it turns into.

Ben Shapiro (34:58)

And, Secretary Rubio, it's a really good object lesson in what happens with some of these government agencies, which start off decades ago with the right purposes, and then gradually are infiltrated by people with a significant political partisan agenda who then proceed to weaponize these institutions against Americans. We've seen this in usaid, obviously, we see this here with the GEC turned into another sort of body that was then hidden inside these agencies. And when people like President Trump talk about the deep state, this is the kind of stuff that he's talking about.

Candace Owens (35:27)

Yeah. So USAID is another great example. Humanitarian aid. It was created for development and humanitarian aid. Where it really went off the rails is when humanitarian aid and development aid was turned into how do we infuse domestic political priorities into what we fund around the world? So when it became a domestic political priority to take on, you know, transgender rights, now all of a sudden you've got programs by Americans couched as humanitarian or development aid in other countries around the world. In essence, they injected domestic political considerations into foreign aid. And the result is, you know, that has to be rolled back. So it's another example. We're going to continue to do humanitarian aid. What we're not going to do is use humanitarian aid to spread a domestic ideological movement globally. We're not going to do that.

Ben Shapiro (36:15)

You know, Secretary of Rubio. Secretary Rubio, obviously, this is a. It's a big move by the State Department. You make a lot of moves over at the State Department that are different than your predecessors. That includes moves to get out of the United States people who are terrorist supporters, not just people who say bad things, but people who are actual terror supporters, act in ways that are conducive to actual terror groups. I wanted to give you a moment to sort of explain the approach that the State Department is taking in taking a look at, for example, student visa holders and what, what are the standards that are being used to determine whether somebody should stay in the United States or should go? Because obviously, opponents of the administration are arguing it's violations of free speech. People have the ability to say what they want. That's not an argument that the administration is. Is actually arguing with. The administration is not trying to crack down on free speech. You're trying to actually stop something else.

Candace Owens (37:01)

Yeah. Well, let's start with the baseline, okay? No one is entitled to a student visa to enter the United States. No one. It's not a constitutional right. It's not a law. Every day, consular officers on the ground in face to face interviews are denying people visas for all kinds of reasons, because we think you're going to overstay, because we think your family member is a member of a drug ring, whatever it may be. We deny visas every day all over the world. No one's entitled to a visa. Let's start with that, because I hear some of this reporting out there, like, like if somehow you're allowed to have a visa unless we can come up with a reason why you shouldn't have one, that's not true. The burden of proof is the other way. Now, let's say you go to a window somewhere in the world and say, I want to go to the United States to study at a university. And as part of that interview, it comes out, you think Hamas is actually a good group. We probably would not let you in. I would hope we wouldn't let you in. Okay, but let's say we don't ask you that question and you get into the US On a student visa and all of a sudden it becomes obvious you think Hamas is a good group. Well, then we should revoke your visa. In essence, if we would have denied if we learned things about you once you're here that would have caused us to deny you a visa when you were overseas. That's grounds for revocation. It is not in the national interest of the United States. It's not in our foreign policy interest. It's not in our national security interest to invite people onto our university campuses who are not just going to go there to study physics or engineering, but who are also going to go there to fomet movements that support and excuse foreign terrorist organizations who are committed to the destruction of the United States and the killing and the raping and the kidnapping of innocent civilians, not just in Israel, but anywhere they can get their hands on them. That's not in our national interest. So we have a right to deny visas before you get here, and we have a right to revoke them if we believe that your presence in our country undermines our national interest, our national security and our foreign policy. And that's what we intend to do now. Now, listen, there are other student visas that are being canceled that have nothing to do with us, by the way. And that has to do with someone, for example, who is here on a student visa and has a dui. And I don't know. That's not us, that's dhs. But I don't know if people realize if you commit a crime while you're in the U.S. that's an automatic grounds for revoking your visa. And no one was ever doing it. They weren't doing. They weren't cross referencing the system. Now they're starting to do that. So that's the majority of these, but we have identified. I can't tell you the exact number because it's static and it's constantly moving.

Ben Shapiro (39:19)

But.

Candace Owens (39:19)

But when someone is presented to me and it's clear that this person is a supporter of a foreign terrorist organization, we're gonna remove them from the country. You're not gonna be here. It's just that simple. What a stupid thing. What a ridiculous thing to invite people in your country so they can be part of these movements that are terrorizing fellow students, tearing up campuses, shutting down campuses. We have campuses in America that couldn't even operate for weeks. People couldn't go to class. Are we crazy? What other country in the world would allow this? We shouldn't allow it.

Ben Shapiro (39:49)

Yeah. Secretary Rubio, I think that the controversy that's arisen over, for example, the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, who is one of these students at Columbia University, who has a green card, but who is also engaged in protest activities that violated the law, who obviously was sympathizing openly with terror attacks by Hamas and all the rest of this. The sort of controversy here. There's a common thread to the opposition to the Trump administration on this stuff, which is, as you mentioned, this bizarre idea that people are somehow owed entry to the United States. I think that ties in very strongly to the Democrats new approach to what's going on with this, with this Salvadoran migrant who's now been deported to El Salvador. The administration has taken a legal position that basically now that he's in Salvadoran custody, that it's up to the Salvadorans whether to return this person to the United States or not for further due process concerns. But that's really not the case that's being made by opponents of the administration. Many of the opponents of administration are making a. A more significant case, which is the idea that basically if you get into the United States, you are somehow owed a permanent status in the United States. And you're seeing this across the board, ranging from the Trump administration's moves to get rid of temporary protected status for people who have entered en masse under the Biden administration, to the resistance to DHS or the State Department making moves with regard to the tens of millions, possibly of illegal immigrants who've been brought into the country by the Biden administration. There's this bizarre supposition that, that everyone on earth is somehow owed passage to the United States and permanent membership in our society.

Candace Owens (41:12)

Yeah. And I think it explains to you why we have the immigration crisis that we had. And it was the belief they would all say, we believe we should have immigration laws, of course, but if you get into the United States, you should be allowed to stay. If you make it here illegally, no matter how you got here, then you should be allowed to stay. I mean, I think that that mindset that's being revealed in these cases tell you how you get 12, 13, 14, 20 million people entering the country unlawfully and illegally over the last few years because of this mindset that, yeah, we have immigration laws, but we don't really mean it. Once you get in, you should be allowed to stay here indefinitely and we have some sort of obligation to accommodate you here in the country. That's how you create this mindset that led to that crisis. And people know it. It's all incentive based. People believed under Joe Biden, rightfully, they believed, if I could just get across the border, I'm going to get to stay. And in 90 something percent of the cases they were absolutely right. And that's why more people kept coming. There's a reason why no one's coming now. You know, one of the problems I'm facing right now with countries in the Central America and the Western Hemisphere, U turns, A lot of people were headed here. They realized Trump was serious, they made a U turn, and now these countries are complaining. Oh, they're stuck in my country. Well, you facilitated their transit for years now. Now they're stuck with them as a result of it. But that's actually happening. Why? Because the incentives are no longer to come. The incentives are not to come. It's been successful. It's the most secure border we've had in my lifetime. I mean, if you just think about it, and, and it's not just because there are people there. It's because people aren't coming anymore because they know that the President is serious about enforcing our immigration laws.

Ben Shapiro (42:38)

Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, really appreciate your time. Thanks for what you're doing inside the State Department to get rid of shadow organizations designed to crack down on free speech, as well as to move people out of the United States who actually don't like America very much. Secretary of State Rubio, thanks so much for stopping by.

Candace Owens (42:52)

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Ben Shapiro (42:54)

Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped pretty significantly yesterday. It was set to open significantly lower today, as well as a lot of dyspepsia in the markets over the Trump tariff war. Obviously, this was also prompted not only by the Trump administration's announcement that it was going to bar the export of particular chips to China from Nvidia, which has been sinking Nvidia stock. But also Jerome Powell yesterday warned of challenging scenarios facing the Federal Reserve. He's saying essentially that the tariff war is likely to drive up inflation, so it makes it harder for him to to drop the interest rates. And he said he saw a strong likelihood that consumers would see higher prices and higher unemployment as a result of President Trump's tariff wars. Here was Jerome Powell yesterday, the header of the Federal Reserve.

Jerome Powell (43:37)

Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent. Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the effects, on how long it takes for them to pass through fully to prices, and ultimately on keeping longer term inflation expectations well anchored.

Ben Shapiro (44:00)

Powell then added, you would worry the process will take some years, that the inflationary process might be extended. When you think about supply disruptions, that's the kind of thing that can take time to resolve. It can lead to what would have been a one time inflation shock to be extended, perhaps more persistent. That means that it's unlikely that he's going to lower the interest rates. Powell also added that the federal debt right now isn't at an unsustainable level. Theoretically we could get out of it, but he said it's certainly on an unsustainable path. So further spending, further sales of bonds in order to fund our national debt, that's probably not a good idea.

Jerome Powell (44:30)

US Federal debt is on an unsustainable path. It's not at an unsustainable level. And no one really knows how much further we can go. Other countries over time have gone much farther, but we're now, you know, we're running very large deficits at full employment. And this is a situation that we very much need to address. Sooner or later we'll have to. And sooner is better than later.

Ben Shapiro (44:56)

President Trump decided that the best solution here would be to attack Jerome Powell. He's not going to change his economic policies. He says the European Central bank is expected to cut interest rates for the seventh time. And yet, quote, too late. Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always too late and wrong, yesterday issued a report which was another and typical complete mess. Oil prices are down, groceries are down. The USA is getting rich on tariffs. Too late. Should have lowered interest rates like the ECB long ago, but he certainly should lower them now. Powell's termination cannot come fast enough. Naturally. The stock market was like, dude. And so the stock market dropped. On the news that President Trump is going to ignore these sort of warnings that Powell is giving out about the economy. The question is whether Powell learned his lesson or whether Trump is right and he's too late. I think the answer is Powell learned his lesson, right? It was Jerome Powell who spent a year saying that inflation was transitory and then it turned out it was not transitory at all. And the lesson he learned from that is that when you screw up the supply chains, inflation is likely to be a persistent feature of the economy. World trade wars are likely to lead to persistent inflation in the economy. That's exactly what he is saying right now. Meanwhile, the US China decoupling is arriving. According to the World Trade Organization, the WTO anticipates trade between the US And China will screech to a halt. This year. Trade of merchandise between the two countries will drop by 80%, a drop that would have topped 90% without the white House's recent exemption for smartphones and other tech goods. The total volume of goods traded around the world is expected to contract by 0.2% this year. That is an abrupt turnaround from a near 3% increase last year. And the WTO is anticipating that the trade slowdown is going to spill over into weaker global growth about 0.6 percentage points below its initial forecast. So what is President Trump trying to do here? That's sort of the big question. What is the end goal? Well, there is something that has been called the Mar a Lago Accords proposed by the chairman of the White House Council on Economic Advisors, a man named Stephen Morin. He outlined that idea in a 41 page essay. It was titled A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System is according to finance Yahoo. He's a Harvard trained economist and basically he proposes what he calls the Mar a Lago Accords. He says the deep unhappiness with the prevailing economic order is rooted in persistent overvaluation of the dollar and asymmetric trade conditions. His basic idea is that everybody should show up at Mar a Lago, all these various heads, various countries, and rejigger the entire global trading system so as to please the United States. Mirren wrote President Trump views tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals. It's easier to imagine that after a series of punitive tariffs, Trump trading partners like Europe and China become more receptive to some manner of currency accord. In exchange for reduction of tariffs to lower the value of the U.S. currency. Moran said U.S. partners could sell dollars in their possession. What's the goal of devaluing the US Currency? Presumably the goal would be to more easily raise debt so the US Would not have to repay our, our debt quite as regularly. It would limit the potential rise in interest rates caused by fear over inflation. And there are some who call this a de facto default. And the whole goal would be to reshore some manufacturing in the United States. The goal would be to devalue the American dollar, basically pay people back in inflated dollars. That, that is sort of the, the economic goal here. But there may be a broader goal. And here is the question for the Trump administration. It's totally not clear at this point what the Trump administration approach is going to be to global politics. Now, President Trump is a utilitarian, as I've said many times, he lives in the world of reality. That means he tends to pick fruit, fruit off the tree of policy, meaning he tries to find the best policy. He uses that, then he finds the next best policy and he uses that. There's no kind of thoroughgoing gestalt to the Trump administration. There are people who try to weave a gestalt around President Trump, who try to suggest that there is a thorough Trump philosophy of life and of administration that is going to be applied. And I see no evidence of that. It's much more sort of grab bag politics with President Trump, which definitely has its upsides and it also has its downsides. It means that there's not a ton of predictability. It also means he's unlikely to stick with plans that don't work. But some of the people who are attempting to sort of weave a Trumpian philosophy around President Trump there you would see, you know, a debate inside the administration. That debate inside the administration is taking the form of, on one side, J.D. vance, Steve Witkoff, David Sachs. On the other side of that divide would be presumably Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz. And the question there is one that David Sachs, I think, expressed really, really well on the all in podcast the other day. So the case that Sachs makes. And again, David is a brilliant guy. I think he's wrong on a lot of this, but he's quite brilliant. He says that the Trump agenda is basically to reverse the attitude of the United States toward everything from immigration to foreign policy. A consensus that he says was built in the 1990s. Now, I think that he's right on immigration, I think he's wrong on all the rest. But here is what he is saying Trumpism is really all about.

David Sachs (49:41)

Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital. So basically the unfettered free trade agenda. And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We'd deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted. And the person who has represented the shift in this consensus to I'd say a new agenda of economic nationalism and geopolitical nationalism is Donald Trump. When you have a bipartisan consensus that included both Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats around these three pillars of globalism, and then I'd say that country turns against that, that's not gonna be a smooth process. That is gonna be potentially a violent process. It's gonna be a disruptive process.

Ben Shapiro (50:35)

Okay, so what are the three pillars of globalism that he is talking about? So he suggests three. One is open borders. Totally agree. That has been rejected not just by the United States, it's been rejected all over the west, which is why you're seeing the rise of populist anti immigration parties. And that's totally Justifiable. The second is free trade. He says, well, there was a great consensus about free trade, and that has fallen on its face. Free trade is bad. Well, actually, free trade is quite good. The question is why we let China into the club. And so the debate that's happening inside the administration is whether free trade itself is the bad or whether free trade with China is the bad. And it's totally unclear which side of that ledger President Trump comes down on at this point. He seems to really like tariffs. Again, there are people like Peter Navarro, there are people like Howard Lutnick, there are people like David Sachs, presumably, who are very much in favor of curbing free trade capital and all the rest of it. That would be a really dire thing for the American economy. The American economy is the most powerful economy on planet Earth, specifically because we have been oriented toward freedom of commerce, free trade. This has been true for, in terms of freedom of commerce has been true for legitimately a century in the United States. And we are the dominant global power economically because of exactly this. The idea that free trade needs to be thrown out because it's, quote, unquote, been debunked, I think that's a just wrong statement on its face. And then finally, Pax Americana. So here the idea is that America puts troops all over the world in order to defend the consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators. Well, no, actually, the Pax Americana is not based on the idea that American troops will always be greeted as liberators. The Pax Americana is based on the idea that if we don't fill the gap, somebody we don't like will. It has nothing to do with the feelings of the people who are on the ground. That was a mistake that Bush made with his sort of Wilsonian foreign policy. The idea that we had to be greeted as liberators, it was all about the permission of the people who we were going in and dealing with, as opposed to America should pursue her own national interest. And that national interest is actually deeply entangled with America remaining the global hegemon. But what does this speak of if we are rejecting open borders, free trade, Pax Americana, Again, I think everyone agrees, no open borders, everyone. Okay, but free trade impacts Americana. Let's say we reject those things. What does the world then look like? What the world looks like is America retreating from the world. It looks like America basically saying, screw it. To policing the world's oceans, for example, in the Red Sea. Here you saw that represented by J.D. vance in that open signal thread that got revealed by Jeffrey Goldberg, where he was actively arguing who cares if the Red Sea gets shut down? They're members of the Department of Defense who have been stacked in by allies of the Vice president who are very much in favor of the idea that it doesn't matter if Taiwan gets taken over by China or if the Middle east is beleaguered by Iran, or whether Russia takes over not only Ukraine, but other parts of Eastern Europe, that that really makes very little difference at all to the United States. That America ought to withdraw from its place as the leading power on planet Earth. And instead we should sort of speedrun the end of American empire. We should try to reshore as much as humanly possible. If prices go up, well, you weren't here for the cheap TVs anyway. And if you crater the global economy, it won't have any dire effect for American citizens. I think that's totally wrongheaded. I actually don't think that's where President Trump is. I don't think President Trump wants to speedrun the end of American power on the globe. President Trump has said over and over and over again that he's a peace through strength guy. So if there are people who are attempting to sort of defeat the peace through strength idea with the idea of an American withdrawal, which sounds, frankly, just like Barack Obama. Totally like Barack Obama. It's a multilateral world. We need people like China just needs to be more responsible player. But even if they're not, does it really matter if the United States is involved in that? Iran can be brought into the family of nations so we can withdraw from these particular areas. Russia, we need a reset button. I'm struggling to see the difference between some of the foreign policies proposed by the. By the new neo isolationist sort of right. And Barack Obama's foreign policy. They look exactly the same to me. I can't tell the difference between them. Like, just in terms of actual practical policy. You can see this coming to a head over the president's Iran policy. So the president has been oriented since 2015 in a very anti Iran direction for good reason. Iran has spread terrorism all over the Middle East. Iran is threatening global oil supply. Iran obviously has attempted to assassinate President Trump himself. So one of the big debates is what should be done with the Iranian nuclear program. Now, the reality is that right now, basically, a single sortie would take out the Iranian nuclear program. And Iran does not have the capacity to generate any sort of serious conflict that would affect the United States in the Middle East. What are they gonna do, hit Hawaii? Okay. The reality is that Iran's proxies have been devastated. Iran has never been more vulnerable than it is right now. If Iran gained a nuclear weapon, that immediately turns around. Suddenly Iran is a threat to pretty much everybody, including the Saudis, including the uae, including Israel, including Europe, by the way, that is why the Trump administration has expressed over and over and over that Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon. But the approach that they are now apparently taking is a very Obama esque approach. We played you earlier this week, Steve Witkoff, the absolutely befuddled negotiator on behalf of the United States, suggesting that Iran should be allowed to keep a certain level of enriched uranium, which is exactly what Barack Obama was arguing. And now apparently, according to Axios, there's open debate inside the administration in which people are taking sides along the lines that have already suggested. One camp, according to Axios, unofficially led by Vice President Vance, believes a diplomatic solution is both preferable and possible, that the United States should be ready to make compromises in order to make it happen. Vance is highly involved in the Iran policy discussions. This camp also includes Steve Witkoff, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Now, again, it's unclear where Pete Hegseth actually falls along these lines. Certainly many of the people have been staffed under DoD, under, underneath hegseth are people who are sympathetic to sort of the Vance Witkoff position. It also gets outside support from MAGA influencer and Trump whisperer Tucker Carlson. So first of all, if Tucker Carlson is giving you your foreign policy advice, all right, I mean, that is a choice. That is a choice, by the way, culminating today in a New York Times leak is something that used to happen all the time where the Obama administration would get some sort of information on a potential Israeli military action and then it would end up on the front page of the New York Times the next day. Now, apparently that's happening in the Trump administration as well. There's a piece titled Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike after divisions emerged in his administration. Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month, but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran's ability to build a bomb at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically. Almost all the plans would have required US Help, not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself. Again, this is according to, I am sure, Department of Defense sources who are working aligned with the sort of Vance philosophy of the administration. This article, by the way, is devastating for intelligence. I mean, it lays out, like, actual details. The article talks about what exactly Israel was going to do. There's the possibility apparently of a commando raid. Quote, initially at the behest of Mr. Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft. Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Netanyahu wanted to accelerate it. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have required American assistance. According to officials briefed on the plan, some American officials were potentially open to it. That would have included General Michael Kurilla, the head of US centcom, and Mike Walls, the national security advisor. And then, of course, I mean, it's pretty clear who's leaking this, honestly. And so the question for the Trump administration, for President Trump is whether he actually wants internal divisions being leaked to Barack Ravid at Axios and whether he wants them being leaked to the New York Times. And so the question becomes, what exactly, again, is the philosophy of this administration? If they are looking for an easy off ramp with Iran that basically allows Iran a clear pathway to a nuclear bomb in the belief, as David Pack says, that the Pax Americana must end. Ok, then we should hear about that. Like, what does the future look like? Because, frankly, I don't think that that is what President Trump historically has supported. That's not what he told me on this show. He has always said that he's a peace through strength president. So what exactly is the philosophy here? That is the great debate inside this administration. Again, it's taking a head over Iran, but it's not just about Iran. It's also about world trade. It's about America's position in the world. It's. It's about whether America wishes to remain a global leader or whether America wishes to recede into a sort of multinational hodgepodge, a sort of lobster pot of grasping for power. That is a very dangerous game. And the fact that it's being pushed by very prominent voices inside the administration is a problem. It also, by the way, means less success for the United States. And we should point this out. If there is an economic downturn. I can't say this enough. If there's an economic downturn, if the world situation gets more chaotic, not less. Under President Trump, Alexander Ocasio Cortez will be the next President of the United States. It will be someone from the left. It will not be the extended run that Republicans are hoping for, that I am hoping for. It is not going to be a conservative century if, in fact, the Trump agenda fails, or if the Trump agenda just turns into the Obama agenda on foreign policy and trade, if that is what happens. If somehow President Trump's own campaign promises are thwarted by people inside his administration who do not actually agree with those campaign promises, who have a different view of foreign policy, a different view of global economics, if that. If that is what ends up happening here, the result is not going to be a Republican century or even a Republican decade. The result is going to be a backlash that comes in the form of a populist left progressive who comes in and wipes away everything that conservatives actually like and want. That is the danger. There's a high stakes game. And so I think it's worthwhile having a conversation over what exactly the world vision, the global policy of the administration is at this point, because, frankly, there are too many mixed signals. And those mixed signals are leading to confusion, not just in markets, but also in terms of foreign policy. And that confusion is likely to lead to violence. Confusion in foreign policy. Predictability in foreign policy, as in markets, leads to more quiet, calm, peace, growth, chaos, as in not like the madman theory of politics, where you don't know if he's going to punch you or what, but a sort of chaotic view of foreign policy in which the default position is American withdrawal is not likely to lead to a more peaceful world. It's likely to lead to precisely the opposite. And by the way, I should point out here that when we talk about Department of Defense officials who are oriented against the peace through strength idea, the reality is the Pentagon has now been hit with a series of leaks. And those leaks are coming in large part from people who are very much aligned with the sort of isolationist wing of the Republican Party. Dan Caldwell, senior advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Darren Selmick, Defense Department Deputy Chief of Staff, were escorted out of the Pentagon by security officers, had their building access suspended pending further investigation. You know, it'll be fascinating to see how all of this plays out, and the future of America rests on it. And meanwhile, the hottest story of the day is that Elon Musk has a messy personal life. Now, of course, we know that already. That, of course, is no shock. A long article in the Wall Street Journal basically featuring Ashley Sinclair, who I have to say, there are no heroes in this story. There are just no heroes in this story. Everybody is acting horribly and badly, and it's ugly and seamy and gross. I have long been an advocate for traditional marriage and children within it. I know this is like a wildly controversial position in today's world. I think it's bad not to do that. I think it's actively bad not to do that. And if you're the girl who took Elon Musk's check in order to get pregnant and now you're disappointed with the situation, don't make you a hero. And if you're Elon Musk and you're impregnating everything in sight, that also does not make you a hero. Those are villainous actions, all of them. They are all bad. And I can say that even though, again, I, like many of the people involved on a personal level, the actions themselves are sinful and wrong. We ought to at the very least recognize sin for sin. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ashley Sinclair wanted to prove Elon Musk was the father of her newborn baby. But to ask the billionaire to take a paternity test, the right wing social media influencer had to go through Musk's longtime fixer, Jared Burl. Sinclair told Burchell, quote, I don't want my son to feel like he's a secret virtual offer. Sinclair some advice. His boss was a very big hearted, kind and generous person, he said. But Musk had a different side. When a mother of his child goes the legal route, that always, always leads to a worse outcome for that woman than what it would have been otherwise. Vir's job is running Musk's family office, but behind the scenes, he also manages the financial and privacy deals Musk wants for the women raising the world's richest man's babies. Musk has at least 14 children with four different women, including pop musician Grimes and Siobhan Zillis, an executive at his brain computer company, Neuralink. Multiple sources say they believe the true number of Musk's children is much higher than publicly known. Which, I mean, you would assume that that's the case given the fact that he is basically swearing people to silence and giving them a lot of money to keep their mouth closed. Apparently, Elon Musk offered Ashley Sinclair $15 million and $100,000 a month in exchange for her silence about the child they named Romulus. Similar agreements had been negotiated with other mothers of Musk's children. Burchell told Sinclair, by the way, she could have kept silent. She could have and just taken the money and you know, that probably wouldn't better for the kid is the truth. Because now the kid is going to be at the center of every controversy. Also, there was a clue that it was Elon Musk's kid. The kid's name is Romulus. So there's that. The fight with Sinclair over the terms of the deal for their baby has been going on as Musk has assumed one of the most influential roles in the United States government. Of course, Musk's baby making project is relevant to his ambitions for NASA. He said on X making people multiplanetary is critical to ensuring the long term survival of humanity and all life as we know it. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence, according to people familiar with the matter. Again, not into it. Not into the eugenic nature of that. Not into the idea that you shouldn't be a father to your children. And again, there are some of these kids who. Elon's actually a really good father too, right? I mean, he's actually taking little X around with him pretty much everywhere. He's very connected to that kid. But you should be like that with all of your kids, not just some of your kids. And that also means you should be connected to the mother of your kids. Because how kids behave in their future relationships between man and woman is modeled on how their parents behave with one another. If you don't know who daddy is because mommy's taking a big check to have been impregnated with you, that is not exactly a great way to grow up. Again, all this stuff is a curiosity to most people, but it is part of a broader collapse in traditional morality that is terrible for the West. There are two questions when it comes to the collapse of the west with regard to birth rates. One is how do you have more babies? And the other is how's that connected with marriage? And the West's answer to that for literally as long as the west has been, the west has been, those two things are the same. It's the same question that the way that you have more babies is to get married and then have more babies. Because babies need a father and women need a husband to support them and protect them. And the fact that that is now sort of seen as passe is quite bad. Because guess what? Elon Musk can make that happen for himself. He's the world's richest man. But number one, it's not good for the kids. Number two is not good for their moms. And number three, it's not good for the people who are going to model themselves on this sort of behavior, this sort of bizarrely pagan belief system that predates traditional religion. It's also mirrored by people like Andrew Tate, which is impregnated as many women as possible does not make the world a better place. It makes the world a much worse place. Young men who have no father figure in their life because daddy was off sleeping around with a bunch of women, impregnating them and leaving those kids don't end up particularly well in the long run or even the mid run, or even in the short run. That is not a that is not the way to build a civilization. The show continues in a moment. We'll get into Democrats who are somehow finding ways to blow it despite the fact that there is emerging a target rich environment for them. Plus, we'll get to the mailbag. Remember, you have to be a member in order to watch. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro Checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.