Fox News’ Dana Perino CAUGHT praising Hillary Clinton





Liz Wheeler criticizes recent Republican debate moderators, highlighting a video of Fox News’ Dana Perino praising Hillary Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative. Wheeler suggests the Republican National Committee and Fox News don’t genuinely support conservative candidates, pointing to the debate’s “dumb questions” as evidence.

Next, Liz highlights various viral moments from the first impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden. She notes particularly explosive statements made by Congressman Jim Jordan and Congresswoman Nancy Mace. Liz concludes by enumerating the multitude of evidence exposing Hunter Biden’s corrupt business dealings, and that the Left is evading these facts to protect Joe Biden.

Then, Liz discusses Senator Fetterman’s stance against Chinese government officials buying US land, linking it to national security concerns. Wheeler finds humor in Fetterman’s analogy that the US should reclaim its farmland since China is “taking back our pandas.”

She also comments on the Senate’s recent establishment of a dress code, criticizing Senator Fetterman’s casual attire and referencing the “Shorts Act” initiated by Senators Manchin and Romney. She emphasizes her disappointment that the recent Republican debate did not address issues like January 6th or the weaponization of the federal government.

Liz concludes by promoting her book, “Hide Your Children,” encouraging readers to leave positive reviews and share their feedback.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Senator Fetterman said something that made sense. He said that the Chinese government or Chinese government officials should not be allowed to buy up any land in the United States. This makes sense. We’ve talked about this on the show before. It’s crazy to me that Chinese investment companies, which obviously because they’re businesses in China are tied to the Chinese Communist Party, would be allowed to own any American land. Obviously we shouldn’t let them do that. That’s a national security risk. They’re trying to subvert our country from within. Why would we let them own our land? So I’m listening to this, I’m like, oh wow, Federman actually making sense for one, but then wait, then you hear the, and he gives this reason and he goes, yeah, the reason we shouldn’t let ’em do this, the reason we should take back our farmland is because they’re taking back our pandas. And I was like, what? I want to listen to this again because it’s just so funny. Listen for his panda comment. Rebecca, can we play this again? 

And let me say, I hope many of our colleagues agree the Chinese government and other US adversaries should own zero agricultural land in our country. I believe that. I mean, they’re taking back our pandas. We should take back all of their farmland. 

I mean, if you weren’t convinced already that the Chinese shouldn’t own farmland because they want to take over ourian, maybe you’ll be convinced because they’re taking back our pandas. So let’s take back our farmland since they’re taking back their pandas. Funniest darn thing he has ever said. My word. So last week, Senator Chuck Schumer abolished the dress code rule in the Senate. So that’s why Fetterman is allowed to dress like a slob on the Senate floor. And there’s been backlash against this actually from both sides of the aisle. Maybe Republicans have been louder in their opposition to this because it’s so disrespectful and demeaning of the United States Senate for him to show up dressed like worse than a gym bum. But the Senate collectively overrode Chuck Schumer and established a formal dress code. This is from the Daily Wire the US Senate passed on Wednesday, a formal dress code putting an end to the brief reign of the Fetterman rule named after Senator John Fetterman and his penal for casual attire. 

Well, that’s the nicest way of saying that he dresses like a bum. Senators approved the resolution by unanimous consent, meaning no member objected to passing it through the expedited process, codifying what were effectively long standing expectations that senators wear business attire on the Senate floor. This was Chuck Schumer. Though we’ve never had an official dress code, the events over the past week have made us all feel as though formalizing one is the right path forward. Yeah, changing your mind there, Chuck. I wonder why that is. Is it because of the tremendous backlash? Because everyone sees you indulging this man child who can’t even wear pants to work? Senator Manchin said or no? The bipartisan resolution was put together by Senators Joe Manchin and Mitt Romney. It’s called the Shorts Act. I love the acronyms for some of the legislation that Congress passes. The Shorts Act said Men must wear a coat tie in slacks or other long pants on the Senate floor and the Senate’s sergeant at arms will enforce the dress code unless two thirds of the chamber vote for a change. 

This is Manchin’s comment. Just over a week ago, we all learned that there were knots, in fact, any written rules about what senators could or could not wear on the floor of the Senate. So Senator Romney and I got together and we thought maybe it’s time we finally codify something that was the precedent precedent rule for 234 years. So funny, it’s actually, it is funny. There’s no question that it’s funny, but it’s a little infuriating that the Senate can get their act together and pass something like that so quickly. And yet when there’s things that actually matter, what do they do? Nothing. They do nothing whatsoever. I had another comment or I had another thought about the debate, the Republican debate from this week, from Wednesday night, there was a clip that we didn’t play when we were doing our analysis, our post debate analysis that became more relevant the next day. 

It became more relevant yesterday on Thursday because of the New York Times’ response to it. So if you’re watching on YouTube, you’re not going to be able to see this part because YouTube has terms of service that prohibit us from even speaking about this topic. So you can join us at Wheeler. I’m not trying to put this beyond a paywall, it’s perfectly free. But YouTube are sensors and we want to stay on YouTube if we possibly can. So we’re going to talk about this and it’s worth following along because it’s quite funny, but you will have to go to Wheeler. So now that you’ve been forewarned, we will probably go silent for a moment on YouTube. As I say, the forbidden Vivek Ram Swami was talking about the transgender ideology during the Republican debate, and he accurately identified transgenderism as a mental illness. This is the clip itself. Take a look at this. First 

I have be very clear about this. Transgenderism, especially in kids, is a mental health disorder. We have to acknowledge the truth of that for what it is. And I’m sorry, it is not compassionate to affirm a kid’s confusion. That is not compassion, that is cruelty. So I will ban genital mutilation or chemical castration. I want to know under the, 

Okay, so this is not that controversial of a comment because it’s common sense, it’s reality. You’re not allowed to say that on YouTube. You’re not allowed to say anything related to transgenderism and mental health or you will be censored. You’ll get a strike. Which of course is why we’re talking about this only on rumble. So this happened. I heard it. I saw it in the debate. We all did. I was like, oh, good. One of ’em is speaking out strongly in favor of reality. You guys know my feeling about Vivek. I’m not sure that he believes this or not. I’m not sure whether to trust him or not. I do appreciate him saying this. A lot of people saw him say this, so that’s good. Well, the next day on Thursday, the New York Times put out a fact check. They might’ve even put it out Wednesday night. 

Actually, it might’ve been a realtime fact check, but it went viral on Thursday following the debate. And they FactCheck this and read this. So this is what they’re fact-checking. His comment, transgenderism, especially in kids, is a mental health disorder. They cited that to Vivek Ramus Swami. They then say, this is false. So fact check by New York Times, but listen to what they write. Being transgender according to the New York Times is not a mental health disorder. Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria or psychological distress as a result of the incongruence between their sex and their gender identity. Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis in the psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders and can be given to children, adolescents, or adults. What the heck? Wait a second, wait a second. So it’s not a mental health disorder, it says in the New York Times, but it is a diagnosis in the DSM five. 

Wait a second. Is there a contradiction there? They read what they write. Do they not see that they have completely contradicted themselves? Honestly, they probably don’t even recognize it. They’re so intellectually compromised by this ideology, but I think it’s hilarious. I actually appreciate that they did that because it made Vivex comments go viral again. So even more people saw the truth about what transgenderism really truly is. The other thing that was trending on X the day after the debate was Porky Pig. And at first I was like, oh, what is this? Is this something that I don’t get? Or is this some pop culture reference that I missed? And I clicked on it and Porky Pig was trending because of Chris Christie’s attempted insult, we’ll call it of Donald Trump when Chris Christie called him Donald Duck. And the worst insult on the face of the earth. 

So embarrassing, so awful. Well, apparently X formerly known as Twitter were like, yeah, it’s funny that you would call someone Donald Duck, their porky pig, and this is trending higher than Donald Duck. So to say that it backfired on Chris Christie is just a smidge funny, just a smidge funny. I don’t understand why Chris Christie is running for president. He’s just running on this anti-Trump vendetta. He’s obviously not going to win. He’s already been governor. I don’t know what he wants or what he’s pursuing in life besides another table full of donuts, but the fact that Porky Pig was trending hilarious, absolutely hilarious. You’ll also notice, and I didn’t talk about this yesterday, but I do think it’s worth talking about that. Nowhere in the debate did anyone mention January 6th or the weaponization of the federal government, and I don’t solely blame the moderators for this, they should have asked about it of course, because this is one of the most important issues in our country right now. 

It’s an issue that the Republican base cares about. Fox News fired Tucker Carlson over coverage about it. So maybe that’s why the Fox News moderators didn’t mention it. Maybe the R N C didn’t want to talk about it because the R N C just wants elitist and not conservatives. But what I was really disappointed by is that none of the candidates brought it up on their own. When you’re preparing for a debate, you don’t just prepare answers that are direct answers to the question, right? You’re not just spitting out facts that exist on your website when you’re asked a question in any kind of interview or any kind of debate, you get to decide what you want to say. So if it’s a dumb question, you can answer whatever you want. You can say whatever you want. You don’t just have to answer like yes or no. 

You can bring up a topic if you feel that the topic is relevant, even if the question isn’t related to it. And I frankly was quite disappointed that none of these Republican candidates, when they were asked stupid questions, like for example, when Dana Purino said, which of your fellow candidates would you want to vote off the island? Why didn’t one of the candidates step up and be like, I can’t believe you’re asking me this when you haven’t asked me about January 6th, when you haven’t asked me about all of these January 6th defendants that are still in pretrial detention that have been sentenced to two decades in prison, some of whom weren’t even at the Capitol when the rioting happened. I can’t believe you’re not asking me about the weaponization of the D O J, how they’ve labeled parents as domestic terrorists just for challenging school boards. 

These candidates have in their power. I mean, this was a long debate. It was two hours. All these candidates got quite a bit of time to talk. I know there was a lot on the stage, but if you add up the amount of time that they talked, there was plenty of time to bring up topics that these candidates felt the American people and the Republican base should hear, and yet they didn’t. And I find that disappointing because what I want in a politician, and maybe we should do an entire episode about the ideal Republican candidate, basically this unicorn that we want to run for president, how he would behave, what he would say, the policies that he would promote. Maybe we should create this fantasy politician in a whole episode and then we should have that as the standard upon which we judge all of the presidential candidates who actually don’t deserve our votes and won’t save our country. 

So maybe we should do that. But it’s very disappointing and disheartening to me that none of these candidates brought this up on their own, even though it seems to me they had plenty of opportunities. I mean, they wasted time talking about Nikki Haley’s curtain gate. That was, I mean, listen, I’m very critical of Nikki Haley because I think she’s never met a war that she doesn’t like, but the Curtain Gate thing was a deliberate attack by the New York Times that was so thoroughly debunked. She didn’t buy these expensive curtains. They were purchased by the Democrat who held her office before her in the Obama administration, that even the New York Times issued a correction at the bottom of that article saying, we shouldn’t have put Nikki Haley’s name or her photo associated with this story. It wasn’t accurate to associate her with it, and we have retracted it. 

Tim Scott spent his time, he has this valuable time in front of the Republican base of this debate, and he spent it bringing that up instead of the weaponization of Department of Justice and the F B I and what’s happened to the January 6th defendants and even the charges against Trump. I mean, how hard would it have been for one of these candidates today? Listen, we all wish that Trump was here and we’d like to challenge him to a debate, but let’s get one thing straight. We’re on the same side. He is the target of a witch hunt. And because they’re going after him, just because he’s a political opponent doesn’t make us applaud that we know that he is simply the next one standing in the way that it’s him first, then us. And then none of them said that they all had the opportunity and none of them took that opportunity. 

And I find that very disheartening. So like I said, maybe we’ll do a full episode creating our fantasy president of the United States and try to hold all of these candidates to the standard of what the perfect politician and president ought to be. In the meantime, if you haven’t gotten your copy of my book, hide Your Children, exposing the Marxist Behind the Italian America’s Kids, and you obviously aren’t looking hard enough at this screen because we’ve got just a couple of them on display here. Just in case you forgot, or just in case you looked past one, you could see the other one. You’ve looked past the other one and we got 10 more on display. So go to hide your children or Amazon or Barnes and Noble or walk into the local bookstore and ask them. Also, guys, please leave me five star reviews on Amazon because we know if it’s not today, it’ll be tomorrow that the leftists will start spamming my book page with all kinds of one-star reviews because they know it’ll deprioritize in the Amazon algorithm if it doesn’t have a high five star rating. 

So if you’ve bought it and you like it, leave me a review. You can write a comprehensive one. You can just write a short one that says, I love this book. It’s valuable. Give me five stars and let me know what you think. One of the most interesting parts of Publication Day to me wasn’t just, oh, this huge project coming to fruition. It was being able to hear your thoughts about it. I know I challenged the prevailing Republican narrative on how we should fight back against all of this Marxism, and I know that it’s a new way of thinking about politics for even a lot of conservatives. I mean, I’m relatively new to this way of thinking. It has been a slow evolution of my thought in the past five, six years, probably coming to a culmination only in the last two or two and a half years. 

And I want to hear what you think. I want your feedback and your thoughts. So get your copy at Hide your Children or Amazon or Barnes and Noble, and then let me know what you think of the book. You can do that on Twitter now known as X. I’m Liz Wheeler. You can do it on Instagram. I’m official Liz Wheeler. You can do it on my or in the comment sections of any of these videos on YouTube or on I appreciate you all. You have been wonderful buying this book, and this week has been a whirlwind that I am so grateful for. So on that note, thank you for watching. As always, thank you for listening. Thank you for reading my book. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show. 

Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top