great fourth of july, and i hope the world doesn't, you know, yack while i'm away because they will call me back, i'm hoping. anyway, thank you for joining us. have great fourth, and in the meantime let not your heart be troubled. the great laura ingraham is next with "the ingraham angle." [applause] >> laura: i'm laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle." color-blind with rage. that's the focus of tonight's angle. >> mr. president, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. it's great to have you. >> thank you. >> don't go anywhere, it's a very exciting day around here. we'll have reaction. >> laura: well, that was interesting. today we saw that joe biden has lost far more than his awareness of basic television etiquette.

he's lost all credibility. after the supreme court 6-3 decision striking down the use of racial preferences in college admissions biden was sent out by whoever winds him up to lie. >> affirmative action is so misunderstood. many people wrongly believe that affirmative action allows unqualified students, unqualified students to be admitted ahead of qualified students. this is not, this is not how college admissions work. >> laura: the white house people aren't that ignorant. they know the truth, that the entire point of racial preferences is to give minority candidates an edge. regardless of their test scores or their transcripts or their resume, it's classic discrimination and it's based on race. >> colleges set out standards for admission and every student, every student has to meet those standards. then and only then, after first meeting the qualifications required by the school, do colleges look at other factors

in addition to their grades such as race. >> laura: okay. what's less believable? that he didn't know that hunter was making millions off the chinese or that he doesn't know that affirmative action is a total scam? how many of you know someone whose son or daughter didn't even get wait listed at a university despite having stellar grades. maybe a varsity sport, maybe high s.a.t.'s, while a minority student in their class with an average or maybe even below average academic record, got in. it happens every season. thousands and thousands of times during the application process. >> no one is setting up to seek up against the injustices faced by our community [inaudible] >> laura: justice thomas's

concurrent in the case was an absolute tour de force. the best piece of legal analyst and writing that i think i have ever read. he went right at the university's reliance on racial box checking in admissions. you have to read it. all racial categories, he wrote, are a little more than stereotypes suggesting that immutable characteristics somehow conclusively determine a person's ideology, beliefs, and abilities. of course, that's false. members of the same race do not all share the exact same experiences and viewpoints. far from it. a black person from rural alabama surely has different experiences than a black person from manhattan or a black first generation i am immigrant from nigeria, in the same that a white person from rural vermont has a different perspective than a white person from houston, texas. yet universities' racial policies suggest that racial identity alone constitutes the being of the race or the man. that's the same naked racism

upon which segregation itself was built. small wonder, then that all these policies are leading to increasing racial polarization and friction, he wrote. and that's the practice, obviously not just hideously unfair, it's constitutional under the equal protection clause, court found. unfair to nonminorities. and to the minorities themselves. now here's more from justice thomas. he writes, i continue to strongly believe and have never doubted that blacks can achieve in every avenue of american life without the met meddling of university administrators. systems with objective grading scales are critical to that belief. such scales have always been a great equalizer. offering a metric for achievement that bigotry could not alter. racial preferences take away this benefit, eliminating the very metric by which those who

have the most to prove can clearly demonstrate their accomplishments. both to themselves and to others. he went on to discuss how historically black colleges aren't diverse at all, but have been incredibly successful at changing lives for the better and educating generation after generation of black students. now, look, this case, truth be told, was not even a close call. and at a time when it's rare to find a strong consensus on any hot-button issue, right now, in america, there is overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the use of racial preferences. a new "new york times" poll shows that 78% of republicans and 72% of independents and 58 percent of democrats say they oppose affirmative action at private colleges and universities. a similar finding from the annual survey by the scotus poll. look at those numbers.

wow, wow, wow! now, certainly most americans will be relieved by the court's ruling today. but not everyone was happy. just look at these faces. >> laura: now think about it. they are mad that universities can no longer discriminate based on race. they are upset that the court followed the original meaning of the equal protection clause. they are mort fired that their diversity shell game has been exposed for what it is. not just unconstitutional but grossly unfair, stigmatizing, and, frankly, just patronizing. for decades liberals leaned into the diversity charade, shaming colleges into admissions, and to used a missions to right past wrongs and achieve a more diverse student body. but despite all of that, all those years of diversifying,

their conclusion now is that america is somehow more racist than ever. but their finger-pointing about racism is pointing right back at them. because with their reactions today, we're reminded that they are the most racist and intolerant bunch out there, and i'm telling you, they will not give up. they never give up easy. in fact, biden is not sure that the court's decision is even the end of the issue. >> we can't let this decision be the last one. we can't let this issue be the last word. >> laura: can't let it -- what happened to reviving faith in our government, joe, in our democracy, mr. president? wasn't that the whole stick that you pulled in 2021? is the court now not part of the democratic process? last time i checked it's one of the free branches of our government. will colleges try to get around

this ruling, i guess maybe even try to ignore it altogether? remember, they only respect judicial decisions they agree with. maybe like the gay marriage case or the state voting rules cases handed down earlier this week. as for the constitution, a lot of those same radicals believe it's a document that was written by a bunch of old dead white guys so its words need to be kind of like silly puttied, stretch them as much as you want to fit any situation and if the court doesn't rule accordingly it's just illegitimate. >> the majority decided that race can only be solved by ignoring what is sow evident in every aspect of our lives. >> the ethics and the scandals that hangs over the court as well as the larger legitimacy question. >> i fear what will happen, and will there be many lawyers who look like charles and i in the future or doctors or accountants? it is a problem, and it's not preferential treatment.

>> laura: now, they can fume all they want. but as one of the main forces behind the case remarked this opinion marks the beginning of the restoration of the color-blind legal covenant that binds together all multiracial and our multiethnic nation. but not according to the deeply negative view of america from the court's newest and arguably the most activist justice. ketanji brown jackson. despite recusing herself from hearing the harvard companion case she decided to chime in on the nc state decision, coming darn to personally attacking justice clarence brosseau who wrote that powerful concurrence. jackson accused him of having "an obsession with race consciousness," and also this. she wrote the takeaway is those who demand no one think about race, a classic pink elephant

paradox, refuse to see much less solve for the elephant in the room. the race link disparities that continue to impede achievement of our nation's great potential. our country, she writes, has never been color-blind. just as clarence thomas, again in that barn burner of a concurrence, wrote a devastating rebuke to follow justice jackson, as she sees things we're all trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black americans still determining lives today. she uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth and well-being. her desire to do so, is unfathomable to me. are americans to be perpetually

divided by race? the elite say yes. but a good majority of americans and six supreme court justices on the court say no. politicians who defend the racial spoil system that has royaled so much of american society, they do so because they want to keep the people scared and divided. after decades of democrats in charge and their fake appeals for racial healing, what's happened to urban america? its worse, it's worse off, not better off. healing, real healing, comes when all americans are treated equally without regard to race. the left fears what we're building. a multiracial, multiethnic coalition that believes in helping american workers and upholding our constitution. and that's "the ingraham angle." joining me is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against harvard. president and general counsel of the center for equal

opportunity, and the president of jcm and former clerk as well as myself, and justice thomas. people i talk to who were at the court today said you could feel the tension, like emanating from justice jackson, when justice thomas very, very, it was a stirring reading, i understand, from the bench of his concurrence, and apparently, she just was staring blankly ahead, like, you know, reading very disgusted. what do you make of that very personal, from her at least, back and forth? >> yes, you know, reading dissents from the bench -- it's definitely out of the ordinary. i don't think you have to look must further to see you can't paint all people of the same race with the same brush. justice thomas and justice jackson clearly opposite sides of this issue, despite having

the same skin tone, they have very different opinions and i think that just illustrates his point about how using race as a proxy for trying to create diversity is so wrong headed, not to mention completely unconstitutional. he had such stirring words about how this is hurting not just asian americans and great illustrations of the historical racism against asians in this country that's just been kind of papered over and not focused on but also how it hurts those who are trying to help and that's something he's felt so strongly in his own life, people undervaluing his own contribution because they assume he's only achieved what he did because somebody must have givgive givgive en him a bump for his race. >> laura: while i'm painfully aware, i hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly

enunciated in the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states, that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law. devin, i found his concurrence to be exceedingly optimistic and hopeful, and very positive about what's possible for especially african-americans without the patronizing, you know, pushes and crumbs being thrown to them by college administrators. >> i think that's right. that's exactly what i saw as well. it's actually a big difference from what i saw in the majority opinion from chief justice roberts, which i thought was actually quite harsh in its rebuke of the schools which was a good thing, but justice thomas sort of smoothed things out, i think, with his concurrence, in talking about the history of our country and why it's so important for us to uphold the values that this country was founded on, and was founded

again on through our reconstruction amendments after the civil war. one of those being the 14th amendment, which these cases turned on, right? the equal protection clause and the 14th amendment, and why, at the end of the day, if we're actually really serious about treating everyone equally, including racial minorities in this country, it really at the end of the day, benefits everyone, especially those individuals who otherwise go throughout their lives with a stigma of being a diversity higher or diversity admit, which unfortunately must have been supremely awkward for ketanji brown jackson when this case came down today. >> laura: john, this must be an amazing day for you, young man, because, you know, you joined this case as a plaintiff. you got a lot of brief for it, and today, harvard's

communication to the greater harvard community was that this was a very difficult day. your response to harvard's reaction, to really validating your claims that this was unconstitutional from the outset. >> yes, i'm very happy that the supreme court ruled in favor of the sffa but i would just like to say there is definitely a lot of fight left to do. this is just a court ruling, and we still need to execute and make sure that racism is eliminated from college administrations. >> laura: carey, my concern, that i mentioned in "the ingraham angle", the left never stops, right? they just -- they are energizer bunnies on these cultural issues. they will die on those hills. and are you concerned that there won't be an easy way to ensure that they comply with this ruling and not try to backdoor some type of rarely preference

especially at the elite universities? >> yes, it's a definite risk. we saw this after reconstruction when people started to introduce grandfather clauses and poll taxes to get around, oh, no, this is race neutral and we all know it wasn't. i think they are trying to do the same thing and they have already telegraphed that. hey, just put it in your personal statement and then we know what race you are and that will serve as us checking the box. a lot of people will have to be checking harvard's work and making sure they are not just using a backdoor mechanism to circumvent the court's ruling and that they are truly living up to that promise of equal admissions policies for all races and true equal protection. >> laura: devin, there was a moment when biden came out mitt day and he was leaving the room, reporters were shouting questions, do you think this is a rogue court, he stopped and turned around and said, it's not normal. the court is not normal. total pejorative.

he later elaborated on this on msnbc. >> you said this court is not normal. what did you mean? >> what i meant by that is, it's done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history. and that's what i meant by not normal. >> laura: devin, when a case has been decided in an unconstitutional manner the court has always held that precedent does not stand. obviously, it would make no sense and we've seen that time and again and the left has been very happy when precedent has been overturned but not in this case. >> yes, no, actually one of the things that i think is really interesting in these cases that i haven't heard much talk about today is that the court had the opportunity to overturn the harvard and unc admissions process sees through title six which is a civil rights law. that very unambiguously says schools that receive school funding can't discriminate.

in their admissions processes, for example. what the court decided to do i think is really important to note. it decided to say that actually, the constitution says that this is illegal. you can't do this. and by doing that, i think the court really elevated something important for all americans to take heed to and that is, you know, from the founding of our country through, you know, to civil war, through the second founding, through reconstruction to today, the constitution is endearing. the fact that all people are created equal means something and the court was not interested in just punting this in an easy way by deciding these cases under the civil rights law which is very unambiguous. it decided to go down deep and say, look, i know that there are a lot of, you know, competing arguments about what the original meaning of the 14th amendment, equal protection clause, is, and you're going to hear that from dissenters in this case, but you know what?

here's what it actually means and here's how we're going to pivot in this country away from allowing the original public meaning of this particular law to be taken advantage of. >> laura: john, really quickly, are you optimistic that this will be a real, the death nell for the diversity movement on the backs of our constitution, or are you concerned that there will be end runs attempted around this ruling? >> yes, i'm optimistic that this will be the sort of end of race-based admissions. i wouldn't put the end of sort of diversity. i think diversity is broader than just diversity of race. so, you know, it's more about diversity of thoughts. you can have people from different backgrounds, and even though they are the same race they can think differently and bring different perspectives.

yes, i'm optimistic that we can execute on this decision and hopefully -- >> laura: yes, they have been trying to make, the diversity argument. panel, great to see you. a historic day. was the u.s. attorney in delaware ever really conducting a true investigation into hunter biden? wait until you hear what we just got into. we find -- you will love it. speaking of hunter, miranda divine is here to tell us one of the more disturbing details from his child support case. that's all coming up next.

moving this summer? join the 6 million families who discovered a smarter, more flexible way to move, with pods. save up to 30% off* until july 10th. whether you're moving across town or across the country. save up to 30% at pods.com today.

>> can you explain the rationale for not appointing a special counsel? >> he had more authority than a special counsel. he had and has complete authority, and, as i said, to bring a case anywhere he wants, in his discretion. >> laura: now, that's the official word from the doj, but an irs whistleblower says something totally different about u.s. attorney david wise's authority in the hunter biden probe. >> there was and witnessed it personally. he started with, he's not the deciding person on whether or not charges are filed or not. >> not the deciding person on whether charges are filed on biden?

>> that's correct. >> laura: someone is lying. and now we have more questions considering this bombshell today. hunter biden's former business partner tony, contacted david wise's office and offered to testify before the grand jury, but he never heard back from them. now, if i didn't know any better i would think it's almost as if wise's office was never really conducting a real investigation at all. just a pretend one. house republicans are just as curious as "the ingraham angle" is and they are demanding more than a dozen federal officials to appear on transcribed interviews. one of those is the committee's chairman, congressman jayson smith, joins me. congressman, what's your first question for david wise? >> well, i tell you, we have a lot of questions for david wise. that's why you see myself, jim

jordan, and jamie has asked for them to come in for a transcribed interview. mr. wise is kwd to go before house judiciary committee. there are eight employees for the department of justice who have been asked to go before the judiciary committee. two irs employees are asked to go before the ways and means committee and two fbi agents have been asked to go before the oversight committee to get down to what happened in the october 7 meeting where mr. chapley along with the other whistleblower has stated that mr. wise directly said that he did not have the authority to bring charges, that someone else above them did. >> laura: that sounds like a first question to me. joe bodiesen claimed today it was just total independence that he was not engaged in any meddling in any of this at all, this was on msnbc. >> i made a commitment that i

would not in any way interfere with the justice department and how floated. not once, one single time with the attorney general, on any specific case, not once. >> laura: congressman he's basically saying if there was any malfeasance, don't look at me, look over at garland's people. >> laura, this is the same individual that said he knew zero about his son hunter biden's business dealings, and we presented documentation last thursday in the ways-and-means committee that came from the whistleblowers that showed the message from hunter biden to a chinese business associate saying that we want to hear from you, and i'm sitting right next to my father to see if you will respond to us accordingly. give me a break. i can't believe that. we have seen numerous times through these whistleblowers,

laura, that the justice department, biden's justice department, has delayed the investigation of hunter biden. in fact, they have delayed it so much that the statue of limitations expired for the tax crimes of 2014 and 2015 tax years. they also die volleyinged information to hunter biden's lawyers in order to basically let them know that they were coming in with the search warrant at a storage unit in northern virginia, and then we saw what happened to the prosecutor in delaware. they continued to deny his request to bring charges in washington, d.c., in california, and they also denied his request of a special counsel. >> laura: all right. well, someone is lying here, and y'all have to find out, and then something has to be done. action has to be taken. congressman, we appreciate you, thanks so much. >> laura: to another hunter biden legal issue, the laptop. the first was deposed today for

six hours as part of a lawsuit by delaware computer repair shop ownerall paul macisaac. he's the one who gave biden's laptop to the fbi when hunter didn't come back to pick it up. here's how hunter said everything went. >> laura: joining us now is "new york post" columnist and fox news contributor. miranda, what are your sources telling you about this depo today? >> well, they are being very tight-lipped about it. but i think it's a pretty safe bet to say that it was a pretty grueling session, and that there were a lot of questions asked about the laptop and all the lies that have been told about it. i think we know from gary shepley's testimony, that the fbi had authenticated the laptop before they even possessed it

from john paul -- he gave them the serial number. they matched that with hunter's i cloud account. by february 10 of 2020, the fbi forensic team had completely authenticated that not only was it from hunter biden but it contained evidence of tax crimes, that it was reliable evidence that could be used in court, and it had not been tampered with, and yet, you know, joe biden, hunter biden, all their proxies, five former directors of the cia, the fbi, they all lied. they all pretended that this was stolen. this was russian disinformation. this was hacked material and that's why john paul sued for defamation because he was sick of it, so i think you will get a lot of questions about the origin of the laptop and also maybe even questions like, hunter, were you lying when you wrote that what's that message

from your father's house in delaware to the chinese to shake them down for $5 million? were you lying when you said your father was sitting right next to you and he was also involved and wanted to know why the money hadn't come? >> laura: well, we'll see what the lawyer and the defense attorney does in that case. miranda, hunter biden settled his arkansas child support case today, and part of it reads, hunter, additionally agrees that he shall assign to the child his paintings, which shall vary in size with a minimum size of 24 by 24. the child shall select the painting, the net proceeds of any sales of the painting shall be wired to an account designated by london roberts. miranda, 20 seconds for that, your response, $5 a month and the lousy paintings? >> yes, look, i think this was london roberts idea. i think she thinks they will be worth something. she's read in the media they are

worth $50,000 or a hundred thousand each. good luck to her. i'm not sure they will be worth that when joe biden leaves office. >> laura: they are worth to it china, maybe, worth it to china. thank you. rfk jr. provided a compelling and well thought out response to the criticism that he's some anti-vax crank last night during a town hall but that wasn't enough for those who still want to silence him. greenwald will join us. he's next to tell us why.

>> laura: before rfk jr. and news nation decided to do that town hall critics were warning that it was a dangerous platform to give to a man they actually might disagree with. can you believe that? a professor at usc's journalism school, of all places, said, it's wrong and irresponsible to give a town hall to kennedy who repeatedly spouts demonstrably

false claims and makes that the center of his campaign. that sentiment was shared by the prominent media gatekeepers as well. >> on the democratic side you would do a town hall with somebody like robert f. kennedy jr.? >> i would not. he spreads dangerous information about childhood vaccines. >> it's completely discredited and it's not true at all. he's so dishonest. >> laura: yes, why debate or grapple with ideas that you disagree with when you can just shut him down? thankfully the town hall went forward and the exchange on his most vulnerable issue was raw and i found it really compelling. >> your vaccine stance is to the health and well-being of millions. medical experts are deeply concerned about your message. how can we help you to come to the side of science? >> i have never been anti-vaccine. and i have said that hundreds and hundreds of times, but it doesn't matter because that is a way of silencing me using that

pejorative, vaccines should be tested like other medicines. they should be safety tested and unfortunately, vaccines are not safety tested. they are not -- of the 72 vaccines doses now, mandated, essentially mandated or recommended, they are really mandated for american children none of them, not one has ever been subject to a pre-licensing placebo-controlled trial. >> laura: now joining us is glen greenwald. great to see you back on the show. now, you would think that if the elites were so confident that they were on the right side of, let's just say, vaccine issue, that they would have no problem debating, confronting, whatever you want to call it, rfk jr. so what are this so afraid of? >> yes, i hope you're doing okay after this dangerous man with his dangerous ideas was allowed to be heard on television, i

know how threatening that might be. it's really amazing, laura, that somebody who is a presidential candidate whether you like it or not, who is polling at 20%, that means millions of people in the democratic party say they intend to vote for him for president, and this inclination on the part of people who teach journalism or call themselves journalists, to say that he ought not to be heard from, he ought not to be challenged, he ought not to be engaged, is shocking in one way, but in another way, the liberal establishment in the united states has explicitly adopted view that people who they disagree aren't people who are wrong but people who are so beyond the pale that they can't be heard from and this is just an expression of that really dangerous mindset. >> laura: glen, other than the vaccines the other reason he's per santa nongrata is he has some, well, unconventional things to say about the war in ukraine. >> we've neglected many, many opportunities to settle this war peacefully. myself and my family are very,

very sympathetic to the ukrainian people. i think the way we have conducted the war is bad for the ukrainian people. it's terrible for the ukrainian people loop. whether or not now, the democrats are really going to want to shut him up now, right, after that comment? >> i think that's the main reason actually. i don't think they care about the vaccine issue. i think they are promoting that because they think that's what will discredit him. i think what they are most worried about, two things, fact that he's a democrat, the only one standing up and saying joe biden's war policy is wrong and dangerous and is absolutely not helping the ukrainian people but destroying the country of ukraine for our own benefit or the benefit of a tiny number of arms dealers and the second thing is he's reminding people that the health establishment during the covid pandemic lied and got a huge amount wrong. not about vaccines exclusively but about things like the origin of the pandemic, about the efficacy of masks, about so many things that they got wrong, shutting schools, and that's what they are worried about. the vaccine is just a pretext to

use to try and destroy him and then use those other things as the real reason they don't want him heard from. >> laura: yes, glen, another pretty interesting thing about rfk, he's not necessarily dogmatic on the issues that deliver or reflects a response from most democrats. issues like what's going on at the southern border, watch this. >> i was with trump's wall but being down there i see we're required to give -- there are highly densely populated areas, you need a physical barrier. no nation can survive if they can't protect their borders. >> laura: glen, i mean, he's finding some nuance, some, you know, wiggle room there for maybe some type of compromise or moving closer to actually, we have to enforce our border, that viewpoint. and that's outrageous for the

democrats. >> this is the thing i was most struck by, laura, when i interviewed him, he's a politician with a very rare attribute, which he has a completely open mind including about things that he previously believed, but he's willing to say were wrong. there were things, for example that he said, he used to believe in russia gate. now he realizes he was prop pa began died by a fraud. there were things in the middle of the interview that i questioned him about aggressively, maybe you're right about that and i'm wrong and the issue of immigration is an incredible example because a lot of democrats do care about the crisis at the board, they pretended to care under trump, nobody talks about the board anymore but he's somebody who is coming forward in a way that will appeal to a lot of people and say i'm not as dogmatic as you say, i'm willing to be open-minded and find pragmatic solutions independent of ideology and more than anything i think that's what a lot of people are looking for. >> laura: yes, common sense. just plain ole common sense. glen, it's great to see you tonight. thank you so much. on a hot summer day and night, you want to reach for that diet

soda, it's so refreshing and so healthy, wait until you hear about a really disturbing new report. about what you might be consuming with that diet soda. stay with us. - [female narrator] five billion people lack access to safe surgery. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you. give today.

>> laura: what do the diet versions of all of those products have in common? aspa aspartame. it's in everything from soda to chewing gum. despite the fda's declaration that it's safe for the general population reuters is now reporting that the world health organization will label it as a possible carcinogen next month. what? joining us now, former coca-cola consultant and co-founder of true med. what should the millions and millions of people across our country think now about the

aspartame that they are consuming? >> this is a wider takeover of scientific research and as a former practitioner i can say aspartame companies executed this masterfully. they bought off the decision makers. 95% of the usda panel is paid for. you can't make this up but they are paid for by food companies directly. and millions of that money comes from aspartame companies. number two is you buy the research. food companies spend 11 times more on nutritional research and tens of millions of that is spent by aspartame companies. of those conducted, a hundred percent of those funded by aspartame companies said it was safe and 92% said it was harmful. and the third is, pay the

influencers, there was an all out effort over the previous decades to take this rigged research and advertise aspartame as a better option for kids. today, as we said, 80% plus of schools and pediatric wards serve aspartame beverages, food, and marketing as better for you. this corporate takeover of scientific research, i believe, is one of the biggest issues in the world, the biggest issue that the country faces. the losers are our kids who are being gas lit. the winners is pharma because we're all getting sick. >> laura: the international sweeteners association if you can believe one exists, responded today to us saying we have serious concerns with preliminary speculation which may mislead consumers about the safety of aspartame. parse those words a little bit there, their lobby is really -- their lobbying arm is pretty effective. >> oh, yes, i mean, let's just

look at a child. let's just look at what they are being told. we have food companies funded nih research saying lucky charms are healthier than beef. we have aspartame companies outspending, you know, nonpartisan, nonbias researchers 11-1. we have kids being told by the usda nutrition guidelines that a 2-year-old, 10% of their diet can be sugar. we have an absolute onslaught on addicting and serving our kids, these franken foods and chemicals. being gas lit to even wonder whether these chemicals are good or bad, and we wonder why rates of childhood diabetes, heart disease and cancer are all going up all at once. >> laura: obesity, all of it. we're going to stay on this issue. thank you very much for joining us. a lot of information out. the most telling biden flub today, we'll tell you about it next. ♪ when bucket lists need checking... points need redeeming... work trips need crushing...

or anniversaries need... celebrating? no matter who you are, where you're going, or why. with 24 trusted brands by wyndham to choose from... your wyndham is waiting. get the lowest price at wyndhamhotels.com

we're traveling all across america talking to people about their hearts. ooh, take this exit. how's the heart? i feel like it's good. you feel like it's good? how do you know when it's time to check in on your heart?

how do you know? let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a medical-grade ekg. want to see how it works? yeah. put both thumbs on there. that is your heart coming from the kardiamobile card. wow! with kardiamobile card you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. how much do you think that costs? probably $500. $99! oh really? you could carry that in your wallet! of course you can carry it in your wallet, right? yes, yes. checking your heart anytime, anywhere has never been easier. don't wait. get kardiamobile card for just $99 at kardia.com or amazon.

[bushes rustling] [door opening] ♪dramatic music♪ yes! hon! the weathertech's here. ♪ weathertech is the ultimate protection for your vehicle.

laser-measured floorliners... no drill mudflaps... cargoliner... bumpstep... seat protector... and cupfone. ♪ what about my car? weathertech. >> we hold these truths to be zell equal that all men are created equal.

it's a uniqueness of america. >> laura: given the fact that he considers so little of the constitution is it any won't their he misquotes it that line is from the declaration of independence, sir. all right. programming note, be sure to catch my special on affirmative action. the big case that came down, the diversity verdict, it's available now on fox nation. always remember to set your dvd at 7:00 p.m. but gutfeld! is next. * [applause] [applause] >> greg: happy thursday, everybody. some break news, the supreme court has ruled that race-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional. it's been around for 45 years and i guess one of the justices finally read