Speaking at CPAC Argentina Wednesday, Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro argued that the country and its president, Javier Milei, have offered the world a vision for economic success. “Argentina, the eyes of the world are on you. If you succeed, the rest of the world is going to follow you and I believe that you will succeed,” Shapiro said. “If you remain courageous and honest, liberty will succeed, because liberty must succeed.” Join me today in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to break down the difference between free markets and socialism—right in the heart of a country leading the way toward a new dawn of capitalism. https://t.co/Ckm5gUncsG — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 4, 2024 Shapiro called Argentina’s economic revival “perhaps the most important political development on planet Earth at this very moment.” “Thats thanks to the people of this country who have finally stood up and they’ve said ‘enough,’” Shapiro said. “Enough to socialist evil, enough to the impoverishment, enough to the lies, enough to the bulls***. It’s time to take a chainsaw to all of it.” Shapiro touted Milei’s record of cutting the number of government ministries from 18 to eight, downsizing the bloated public sector, and slashing the budget by 32%, leading to Argentina reporting surpluses. He also pointed out that inflation is declining in Argentina as the stock market is skyrocketing because of Milei’s actions. “President Milei is now leading the world forward to a new golden age of liberty,” Shapiro said. “He’s doing so with extraordinary audacity and courage.” Shapiro’s speech was a fierce defense of free markets against socialism that destroyed the Argentine economy. “Free markets are moral and they are just,” Shapiro said. “They reward merit. They reward hard work and solid decision making. The assumption by socialists very often is that people who succeed in society are sort of leeches, that they are the people who work the least. That isn’t true.” Shapiro stated that socialism, at its core, stems from envy. “Socialism encourages revolutionaries who produce literally nothing and destroy everything that they touch. It encourages laziness. It encourages stupidity and it encourages dishonesty at scale,” Shapiro went on. “Socialism is just evil,” he added. “Socialism is the philosophy of the thief. It is the philosophy of the man who would prefer to burn everything down rather than to build anything up.” Shapiro praised Millei for subscribing to the Austrian school of economics, which teaches that individual actions are motivated by self interest. “President Milei is intelligent, unlike most of our political class,” Shapiro quipped. “Argentina is a perfect example of how all of these bad ideas, when implemented, cost people their lives, cost people their livelihoods and destroy entire civilizations.” Shapiro noted that in the early 20th century, Argentina was among the richest countries in the world. But its failure to fully develop free markets and inclusive economic institutions, coupled with decades of tyranny and corruption, set the country on a downward spiral. That downward trajectory persisted until Milei assumed leadership and addressed these long-standing issues. “Until the rise of President Milei the government was able to basically expropriate property rights at will with impunity and the result was radical impoverishment,” Shapiro said. “If you look at the record of Argentina from 1980 to 2023, it is one of the rare countries in the West where it actually got harder to live here. In fact it took more time to work to buy basic goods in 2023 than it did in 1980.” Milei, a supporter of strengthening relations between Argentina and the United States, told Shapiro on his podcast in April that he believed his citizens needed to embrace the values of freedom that are values in the United States though they are under attack. Shapiro said, however, he believes that Milei is leading the freedom movement in the world. “Javier Milei, Argentina, you are leading the West back on to the right path,” Shapiro said.

Proponents of transgender procedures on children made three stunning admissions on Wednesday as they argued against a Tennessee law protecting children from the irreversible procedures before the Supreme Court.  The admissions — that cross-sex hormones can cause infertility, that people regret the procedures, and that transgender procedures aren’t associated with lower suicide rates — undercut leftist activists’ core arguments that the procedures are necessary and lifesaving.  These revelations were made as justices heard oral arguments in the case brought by the Biden administration and the ACLU against Tennessee for a law that shields children from transgender procedures like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.  The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications and affect the over two dozen states that passed similar laws. The ACLU and the Biden administration argue that Tennessee’s law is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  During arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar about the side effects of putting children on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.  “I want to acknowledge gender-affirming care with respect to hormones can have some impacts on fertility,” Prelogar said in response to Kavanaugh. “With respect to hormone use, there are effects on fertility.”  She then claimed that a lower court “found” that “many individuals who are transgender” can maintain their fertility.  “There are measures they can undertake and they have to be counseled on those risks. As I said before, I can understand that could be a hard tradeoff but it’s not unique to this care,” she asserted.  Cross-sex hormones have been shown to cause infertility, deadly blood clots, heart attacks, increased cancer risks of the breasts and ovaries, liver dysfunction, worsening psychological illness, and other serious conditions. Later, during arguments, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, a woman who identifies as a man, admitted that the data on suicide and transgender procedures wasn’t as clear as pro-transgender activists have previously claimed. Proponents of transgender ideology have claimed that so-called “gender-affirming care” is life-saving, and told parents that they can either have a living child with the treatments or a dead child without.  This claim was referenced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but Justice Samuel Alito pressed Strangio on the link to suicide and what the available data showed.  Strangio first claimed that it was “clearly established in the science” that the medications reduced the risk of suicide.  In response, Alito pointed to research from the Cass Review produced by the NHS in the United Kingdom that said that “there is no evidence that gender-affirming treatments reduce suicide.” Strangio replied by saying that “there is no evidence in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide” but claimed that the procedures would reduce suicidal thoughts. Recent research has shown that, contrary to these claims, transgender procedures can actually increase the likelihood that minors will attempt suicide. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE During oral arguments, both Strangio and Prelogar admitted that there are people who regret undergoing transgender procedures. They both claimed that this was a “smaller” number of people than “those who benefit and find it medically necessary.”  This would contradict a growing movement of “detransitioners” who have come out and opposed transgender procedures on children.  Chloe Cole, who was put on cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and had a double mastectomy as a teenager, has become one of the most outspoken advocates against transgender procedures on women.  “This case really means everything to me,” Cole told The Daily Wire before the case, “because if a law like this were in place in my state while I was growing up, if this were just federally banned across the board when I was going through this, this never would have happened to me.”  After the arguments wrapped, analysts predicted that the Court would likely not overturn Tennessee’s protections.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew a wave of backlash when she dismissed concerns about risks associated with gender transition surgeries — particularly among patients who are minors — by arguing that all medical treatments, even aspirin, can have side effects. The Court heard arguments on Wednesday in the Tennessee-based case United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti, which deals with the state’s law banning irreversible gender transition procedures for children, and when Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice raised the question of harm to patients, Sotomayor interrupted to voice her objection. “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?" Justice Sotomayor: Taking aspirin has risks too. Unreal pic.twitter.com/Jav7uexplc — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 4, 2024 Noting that there was always the chance that some would choose to reverse course, or de-transition, Rice posited, “So it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk and the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left for —” “I’m sorry, counselor,” Sotomayor interrupted then, her tone exaggerated. “Every medical treatment has a risk. Even taking aspirin.” Sotomayor continued down that same path, going on to argue that with “any medical treatment,” there would be some who were adversely impacted. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE Critics were not impressed with the liberal Justice’s comparison, however, and said so via X. “No joke, Sotomayor should simply be impeached for this statement,” Will Chamberlain posted. “Cavalierly dismissing the butchering of children by saying ‘well aspirin has side effects too’ is beneath the dignity of the highest court in the land.” No joke, Sotomayor should simply be impeached for this statement Cavalierly dismissing the butchering of children by saying “well aspirin has side effects too” is beneath the dignity of the highest court in the land pic.twitter.com/TjhWE7ZaMZ — Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 4, 2024 “Listen to Sotomayor’s voice as she patronizingly begins, ‘I’m sorry counselor, every medical treatment has its risks. Even taking aspirin.’ As if removing kids’ body parts and sterilizing them for life is remotely comparable to taking aspirin. This is abhorrent reasoning,” Fox Business host David Asman added. Listen to Sotomayor's voice as she patronizingly begins,"I'm sorry counselor, every medical treatment has its risks. Even taking aspirin."As if removing kids' body parts and sterilizing them for life is remotely comparable to taking aspirin. This is abhorrent reasoning. https://t.co/CajQ2kfCLp — David Asman (@DavidAsmanfox) December 4, 2024 “Taking a Tylenol is significantly less risky than surgically removing a child’s penis and installing a ‘neo-vagina’ in its place. This should be … obvious?”Christopher Rufo said. Taking a Tylenol is significantly less risky than surgically removing a child's penis and installing a "neo-vagina" in its place. This should be … obvious? https://t.co/Lw5DOzcDDo — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) December 4, 2024 “Sotomayor’s response seems laughable until you realize that it’s the default view of millions of progressives, including those who run institutions, the entire education system, corporations and government funded NPO’s,” Ian Miller said, adding, “Then it becomes actively dangerous.” Sotomayor’s response seems laughable until you realize that it’s the default view of millions of progressives, including those who run institutions, the entire education system, corporations and government funded NPO’s Then it becomes actively dangerous https://t.co/nwJ5lbyfBu — Ian Miller (@ianmSC) December 4, 2024 A number of others noted that, much like the Tennessee law that specifically targets the medical gender transition of minors, doctors also do not recommend giving aspirin to children.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared Tennessee’s law against irreversible medical interventions that seek to change children’s sex to laws against interracial marriage. The comparison came as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the Constitutionality of a Tennessee law protecting children from hormone therapies and surgical procedures that attempt to modify their sex. “They sound in the same kinds of arguments that were made back in the day, 50’s and 60’s, with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving,” Brown said, referencing the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which resulted in the overturning of the law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Justice added that she sees “parallels” as to “how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegnation statutes in Virginia operated.” ?INSANE Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strains to compare U.S. v. Skrmetti to Loving v. Virginia, suggesting that a law protecting kids from experimental medical “treatments” to make them appear like the opposite sex is similar to a law preventing interracial… pic.twitter.com/7nAQQkZzQD — Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 Brown continued on with her comparison between the two laws. “In that case, everyone seemed to concede up front that a racial classification was being drawn by the statute, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races,” Brown said, referencing Loving v. Virginia. “When you look at the structure of that law it looks, in terms of … you know you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics, it’s sort of the same thing.” CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE “It’s interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is here in this case,” Brown went on to add. Despite Brown’s comments, however, some analysis of the case indicates that the Supreme Court may be leaning towards siding with Tennessee and upholding the state’s law, potentially opening the door to a federal law modeled on it. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh “all seemed to come down on Tennessee’s side,” an analysis in Axios reads, adding that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are unlikely to oppose the ban. Justice Kavanaugh, who was nominated to his position by Trump, also pointed to Europe’s strict regulations on the use of irreversible medical interventions that seek to change the sex of children.

Detransitioner Chloe Cole said that the debate around child sex-change treatments and the fact that it had reached the Supreme Court in itself is “insane.” Cole appeared on “The Ben Shapiro Show” on Tuesday and slammed child sex-change surgeries. Cole, 20, was a victim of such procedures when she underwent a double mastectomy as a teenager. “Arguing whether it’s ethical to castrate or disfigure a gender-confused child is ridiculous enough,” she told Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro. “But, also, that we’re arguing whether it’s constitutional or not is insane.” “I mean, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there is no way that they could foresee that people in the future would be using it as an excuse to perpetuate the institutional abuse of children,” she continued. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in the case over a Tennessee law that bans so-called “gender-affirming” surgeries or hormonal procedures on minors, including surgery, puberty blockers, and hormones. The Biden administration, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and several teenage plaintiffs are challenging the law on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “It’s not discrimination at all, actually. We’re not discriminating against children of either sex or children who are trans-identifying,” Cole said. “We’re barring these treatments completely for the use of trying to transition children at all, regardless of how the child feels about it, how they identify.” “Sure, a lot of people on the left will claim that this is a subversion of a parent’s rights and of children’s rights. But a parent, no adult has the right to harm a child. A parent’s rights end where it infringes on their child’s,” she added. Detransitioner @ChoooCole joins @BenShapiro to discuss the United States v. Skrmetti case pic.twitter.com/lNl8J4MzYX — The Ben Shapiro Show (@BenShapiroShow) December 3, 2024 Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office has argued that the “Constitution does not prevent the States from regulating the practice of medicine where hot-button social issues are concerned. People who disagree with restrictions on irreversible pediatric procedures for gender transition are free to advocate for change through state elections.” Similar bills have been enacted in more than 20 states, therefore the Supreme Court’s decision could have a wide-ranging impact on laws regulating and banning sex-change surgeries for minors. Cole appeared outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday to rally in support of the Tennessee bill. Detransitioner @ChoooCole: “We need to fight for our children and families!!” pic.twitter.com/lbtcYwH5eG — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) December 4, 2024

The recent victory of Donald Trump at the national polls ushered in “morning in America” as much as it indicated a repudiation of wokeness. His vow to dismantle the Department of Education offers the US an enviable opportunity and appointing the media tycoon Linda McMahon indicates a welcome, business-minded (read: meritocracy-based) approach. To effectively revamp our schools and the specific ways we invest in, approach, and even define education, depends on some hard truths and our willingness to confront them. Americans have spoken by refuting the Division, Exclusion, and Inequality movement taking over our culture and our schools. Parents rejected the leftist push for gender ideology, critical race theory, and pornography in our schools to support girls-only locker rooms and their hard-won Title IX sports. Yet the war is far from won and success in this battle only slows the advance. To preserve our traditional values, we must examine how we arrived where we are today, fighting culture conflict within our own families. While President-elect Trump addresses education on the federal level, our communities must tackle these issues locally at the same time. We can celebrate our public victories against Bud Light and Target, but if the battles for the hearts and minds of our young people continue inside our schools, we may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. According to Pew Research, the U.S. ranked an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science on the most recent international academic achievement studies survey taken in 2015. We currently spend more per student than almost any other country to achieve those discouraging results. Why are we fighting to preserve such a spectacularly failing institution while the world sprints past us? Because school is good. That’s the resounding mantra we all ingested. Schools are where we all learned to trust the experts, especially the educators, so it’s nearly impossible to repudiate the efficacy or validity of our “factory schools” and teachers. Despite our reluctance, analysis of the problem demands transparency and candor. First, for decades, schools have coached pupils (us) to believe that their highest goal is college prep and career readiness (read: money). Where decades ago we believed in entrepreneurship, integrity and independent innovation, now culture holds that the only way to the money is the institutional road. It’s no wonder parents would sacrifice their children on the school’s altar! Save the schools or my child will not succeed! As parents see the blatant lies in our schools, the pornography, the abject ignorance, and the abysmal academic performance, belief in that ultimate fiction has recently (finally) been unseated, and we can (and should) criticize our schools. The Marxist principles of the teachers’ unions directly contradict traditional American values, but with their market stranglehold they can afford to ignore our condemnation. Inflicting their evil dogma on impressionable minds is their second incentive to preserve their institutions. We are now in a race to see who converts the culture first. If we, however, continue submitting our children to their indoctrination, we will soon reach the tipping point where our own offspring will vote down the Second Amendment and for a surveillance state. And while laws may countermand the Marxist mantra, many ideological teachers don’t heed the law. Enter the school choice debate. On the surface, government funds following the child makes sense. The parents can vote with their feet and their dollars. But financial infusions typically inflate costs, negating the value of injected money. Further, government intrusion disrupts honest brokerage: in the case of education, it will oust any educational endeavors unwilling to subject themselves to government scrutiny – which would be the only authentic players in the game. Universal school choice (read: single-payer education) would kill innovation, putting us right back to where we are now. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE The future is uncertain, and foundational transformation is the only way to prosper. That’s why Trump has floated tax credits for families with school-aged children. This might afford them more flexibility to raise and educate their children without the strings of government forcing its ideas on them. The most radical idea in education is reverting to first principles — training the student to teach himself. This is how education used to work, before we began our modern “factory school” experiment. It is how the founders – those geniuses who devised our representational republic that so few of our citizens currently acknowledge – became educated. The education revolution begins with the recognition that it doesn’t take an “expert” to train a child to be an adult; parents should do that. Parents want a better route forward for their families and their children’s futures, and home education offers that pathway. Most parents are smart enough to be their child’s teacher. Indeed, the parent’s level of schooling is not reflective of academic outcome for the homeschooled child. Ultimately, all wisdom is self-taught and children need wisdom more than they need to drill math facts, memorize dates, or learn about lubrication. Many parents still feel enslaved to the system, brainwashed to conform by its past self-proclaimed glory. The new learning model, however, is independent of what any woke “educators” recommend, and for good reason. Independent-minded parents choose home education instead, to foster in their children a devotion to truth, appreciation for wisdom, and the love of freedom. * * * Sam Sorbo is an education freedom advocate. A successful Hollywood film actor, producer, and writer, Sam took a step back from her career to homeschool her three children. She has authored numerous books, including her newest releases: “Parents’ Guide to Homeschooling“ and “Christmas 40 Days Devotional,” with husband Kevin Sorbo. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Popular radio personality Charlamagne Tha God flamed the hosts of ABC’s “The View” — while sitting at their table — for dishonest coverage of President-elect Donald Trump’s staffing choices and cabinet nominees. The conversation between the show’s cohosts and Charlamagne began with the week’s hottest topic — namely, President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his embattled son Hunter despite claiming repeatedly that he would never do so. Whoopi Goldberg trotted out her previous claim that Biden had not actually lied about whether or not he planned to pardon Hunter — even though NBC’s initial report on the pardon suggested that Biden had made the decision shortly after Hunter’s conviction and his administration had made a conscious decision to tell the public otherwise. “You don’t know that it was a lie,” she said. “You really think he changed his mind over Thanksgiving weekend all of a sudden?” Charlamagne replied. WATCH: Whoopi goes on the whine about how Democrats that to follow the law and hold themselves to standards: “At some point you get to the place where you just go, so I’m just going to follow the straight and narrow always, because that’s what’s expected of Democrats?” pic.twitter.com/u4QctjfqYM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 4, 2024 “At some point, you get to the place where you just go, so I’m just going to follow the straight and narrow always, because that’s what’s expected of Democrats?” Goldberg complained. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE Goldberg then tried to suggest that there was a double standard in play and that Trump never got the kind of scrutiny Biden did. WATCH: Charlamagne calls out Whoopi for refusing to admit “when Democrats are wrong.”Then they kiss and make up. pic.twitter.com/9gVKtQ1Oil — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 4, 2024 Charlamagne challenged Goldberg directly, noting that she appeared to have a hard time admitting it when Democrats were in the wrong. Goldberg objected, claiming that she did just that all the time on the show. Sunny Hostin pivoted back to the question of whether or not Biden had lied about pardoning Hunter. Unsurprisingly, she argued that he had not lied at all, but had simply made a “pragmatic” decision — one that directly contradicted all of his previous statements on the subject. WATCH: Charlamagne calls out Sunny Hostin for all her legal notes as an example of the new not covering Trump honestly: CHARLAMAGNE: I saw you had to apologize a couple times last week. So somebody is coming with some notes… HOSTIN: I’m not apologizing, I’m making a legal note. pic.twitter.com/KtWhh7UNTT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) December 4, 2024 Cohost Sara Haines asked whether Charlamagne believed that media would ever cover Trump honestly, and he replied, “The didn’t do it before, why would they do it now?” The cohosts all began talking at once, claiming that their show, at least, had covered Trump honestly. Charlamagne referenced the excessive number of legal notes Hostin had been prompted to read after their discussions about Trump’s appointees, and argued that was an indication that the show was not covering Trump honestly. “I saw you had to apologize a couple times last week. So somebody is coming with some notes from downstairs,” he said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m making a legal note as an attorney at law,” Hostin rebuffed him.

The Supreme Court seems poised to reject a challenge from the Biden administration and the ACLU to Tennessee’s law shielding minors from irreversible transgender procedures, according to comments made by justices during oral arguments on Wednesday. Throughout oral arguments on Wednesday morning, the conservative justices were skeptical of arguments from U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and the ACLU, who argued that Tennessee’s law violated the 14th Amendment. The law prevents doctors from giving children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which come with a variety of long-term health risks. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito strongly pushed back against Prelogar and the ACLU, with Alito pointing to data contradicting claims that transgender procedures were necessary to keep kids from committing suicide. Alito also pointed to recent decisions in the United Kingdom to restrict transgender procedures for minors. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts also seemed hesitant to weigh in against Tennessee. “It strikes me as a pretty heavy yellow light, if not red light, for this court to come in, the nine of us, and to constitutionalize the whole area, when the rest of the world, or at least the people who the countries that have been at the forefront of this, are pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment,” Kavanaugh said. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE Both Kavanaugh and Roberts said that it seemed like it might be best to leave the issue to the states. “If the Constitution doesn’t take sides, if there’s strong, forceful, scientific policy arguments on both sides in a situation like this, why isn’t it best to leave it to the democratic process?” Kavanaugh asked. “We’re not the best situated to address issues like that,” Roberts said. “Doesn’t that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than try to determine them for ourselves?” The liberal justices on the court, including Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, both seemed like they would move to strike down Tennessee’s law. Jackson tried to compare the law to old laws that prevented interracial marriage. Headlines from the legacy media predicted that the law would be upheld. NBC News wrote, “Supreme Court skeptical of challenge to Tennessee ban on transgender youth treatments,” while CNN wrote, “During arguments, SCOTUS conservative majority appears ready to endorse Tennessee law.”