Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an NBC News anchor says on the air that he doesn’t care about being fair or hearing both sides. I actually agree with him, and feel much the same way. Also Five Headlines including CNN’s claims that there is no way to determine the sex of a baby at birth. And a school district took Thomas Jefferson’s name off of one of their schools, but they’re having trouble finding a new name. Apparently everyone in history, even very recent history, is problematic. Plus, Jill Biden butchers the Spanish language while standing in front of a very Nazi-esque flag. And in our Daily Cancellation, the woke mob finally comes for The Office.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, an NBC news anchor says on the air that he doesn't care about being fair or hearing both sides.
I actually agree with him on that point, and I feel much the same way, and I'll explain why.
Also, five headlines, including CNN's claim that there is no way to determine, no way at all, the sex of a baby at birth, and a school district took Thomas Jefferson's name off of one of their schools, but they're having trouble finding a new name.
Apparently, everyone in history, even very recent history, is problematic.
Who knew?
Plus, Joe Biden He butchers the Spanish language while standing in front of a very Nazi-esque flag.
And in our daily cancellation, the woke mob finally comes for the office.
We knew it was going to happen.
Now's the time.
We'll deal with that today and much more on the Matt Wall Show.
Well, don't care is the wrong way of putting it.
I should say that I actively oppose those things, oppose them and how they're interpreted and applied in modern society.
Tolerance can be fine, but it depends on what you're tolerating.
There are intolerable things, many intolerable things, which should not be tolerated.
There are also intolerable people and quite a few of them walking around.
Now, even if you are tolerating a tolerable thing, you don't deserve credit for it.
There's no courage involved in simply tolerating something.
I can tolerate stuff from my couch.
I can lay on my couch and tolerate everything.
I can tolerate many things while sitting at the beach.
As long as I'm not actively opposing something or someone, then I'm tolerating it by definition.
Why should I get credit for that?
If I call myself a tolerant person, all I'm saying is that I don't actively oppose very many things.
Another term for that is pushover.
See also weak, cowardly, lazy.
Diversity can also be fine, but again, it depends entirely on the context.
What sort of diversity are we talking about?
And is this diversity for its own sake?
Diversity for its own sake, that is, diversity that is achieved by ignoring things like merit and skill, is bad.
Diversity that happens as an accidental byproduct of prioritizing merit and skill is fine.
If you, for example, end up with a racially diverse fire department because you've hired people based on racial quotas without respect to their ability to actually do the job, then you've done a very bad thing and people will probably die because of you.
If you end up with a racially diverse fire department because you hired the best people and it just so happens that the best people came in an eclectic mix of races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, then you've done a fine thing.
I mean, it's fine.
Though personally, I don't much care if the fire department is all black or all white or comprised completely of transgender Polynesians, so long as they're all the best applicants based on merit and skill, and will do the best job of saving the old lady from the burning house.
That's all that matters.
What about equality?
Equality under the law is very good, though more of a theory than a reality in this country.
Some people are above the law, even though they shouldn't be, as we've seen BLM rioters, for instance.
Spiritual equality, that is, the recognition that we are all humans made in the image of God, is also good.
But equality in any other sense is bad.
That's because equality doesn't exist in any other context.
And so it must be created artificially.
My neighbor and I both are supposed to be equally subject to the law.
We both were created by God.
But other than that, we're different, not equal, not the same.
One of us is smarter, better looking, more virtuous, more talented, etc.
and so on.
These differences should be acknowledged and they should lead to different outcomes.
If they're not acknowledged and we're forced to have the same outcome in spite of them, then we're being stuffed into an artificial box and our individuality and thus our humanity is being denied.
This is bad, which is why equality is bad most of the time.
That brings us to fairness.
Fairness, again, has a limited positive application.
There are situations where fairness must be emphasized, such as in a courtroom.
It is unfair to make Derek Chauvin stand trial in Minneapolis after the city has already admitted guilt by settling a lawsuit with George Floyd's family.
That's unfair.
That's bad.
But outside of the courtroom and a few other contexts, attempts to be fair tend to lead, ironically, to even more unfairness.
And this is all a very long way of saying that I agree partially With NBC News anchor Lester Holt, who turned some heads this week when he gave a little soliloquy on air where he spoke out against fairness.
Here's what he said.
The unprecedented attacks on the press in this period I'm sure will fill plenty of books and be studied in classrooms, maybe even here.
But I have a few early observations I'll share about where this moment brings us and what we can learn.
Number one is, I think it's become clearer that fairness is overrated.
Well, before you run off and tweet that headline, let me explain a bit.
The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in.
That the sun sets in the West is a fact, and a contrary view does not deserve our time or attention.
I know recent events assure that you won't have to look far to find more current and relevant examples.
I think you get my point.
Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
Providing an open platform for misinformation, for anyone to come say whatever they want, especially when issues of public health and safety are at stake, can be quite dangerous.
Our duty is to be fair to the truth.
Holding those in power accountable is at the core of our function and responsibility.
We need to hear our leaders' views, their policies and reasoning.
It's really important.
But we have to stand ready to push back and call out falsehoods.
Now, he's sustained plenty of criticism from the right for saying this, but I agree with the general point he's making.
I don't agree with the way that he will apply, and is applying, and has applied, along with all the rest of the left-wing media, this idea.
You know, when he talks about not giving equal fair time to unsupported, ridiculous ideas and claims, what he means, obviously, is that he doesn't think he should give fair time to any idea or claim that originates from anyone on the right.
That's what he's saying without saying it.
What he's doing here is giving himself and his profession an excuse to be dishonestly biased against conservatives.
Obviously, that's his point, and I'm well aware of that.
However, the basic idea is correct.
Not all ideas and thoughts and opinions and claims should be given equal weight.
Not all should be respected or listened to.
You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to have your opinion taken seriously.
If it's a really stupid, bad opinion, I don't have to take it seriously.
I don't have to sit down and contemplate it.
Hmm, let me think about this.
There are some opinions where I can hear it and say, that's dumb.
That's it.
That's all I have to say about it.
I'm not going to consider it further than that.
This is one of the problems I have with conservatives who, when discussing diversity, will say, well, we need diversity of thought.
That's what we need.
Well, sort of, but not really.
I think society should be open to, and kids in school should be exposed to, a wide array of intelligent, worthwhile, and defensible ideas and opinions.
But some ideas should be ignored.
Excluded.
Yes, excluded.
Because they have no worth.
Because they're delusional and wrong.
And by treating them with respect, by being fair to them, We give the impression that there may be some merit to these ideas, when there is no merit.
For example, the idea that a five-year-old male child may actually be a girl if he says he is.
He might have a little girl trapped inside him, and so he should be dressed up like one and referred to as one.
It's one of those ideas, has no merit.
Lester Holt was not referring to this insanity when he said that some claims are unsupported, but this is nonetheless the best example to prove the point.
The claims made by left-wing gender theorists are wholly worthless, without value, without merit.
They should not be respected.
We should not give equal weight to the idea that a boy with a penis is really a girl.
We should not treat it like a claim that's just as valid and plausible as the claim that a boy with a penis is a boy.
We don't need diversity of thought.
Well, we need to embrace both thoughts.
You know, you could have a penis and be a boy or a girl and we need the diversity of these.
No, we don't.
Kids in school should not be taught that there are two equal and valid theories on this subject.
They should be taught the facts of biological sex and informed that any opposing ideas are simply false and should be ignored.
Of course, what's actually happening is the opposite.
They're taught that boys can have vaginas and get pregnant, and that any contrary opinion to that is false and should be ignored.
The left, as Lester Holt just explained, is not worried about being fair to our viewpoints.
They're not willing to hear them out, even when our viewpoint is the viewpoint of basic biological science.
Now, for too long, the right, in an effort to seem open-minded, has responded to this intellectual intolerance from the left by saying, but we just want all ideas to be heard.
We want all opinions and viewpoints to be given an equal hearing.
It's not what I want.
I'll tell you right now, that is not what I want.
As Lester Holt said himself, you know, it's about the truth.
Except that he doesn't really care about the truth.
I do.
What I want is the truth.
I want the truth to be heard and known and respected.
I want a society based around truth.
Grounded in a respect for and an acknowledgement of and an understanding of truth.
I don't want to give untruth an equal platform.
I don't want to give it equal space on the stage.
I don't want to respect it.
I don't respect it.
We should not be fair to lies and deceptions and delusions.
We shouldn't give them our respect.
We should attack them head-on.
Destroy them.
We should be unfair to them and intolerant of them.
Because, again, as was said, the only thing that really matters is the truth.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Before we get to the five headlines today, I've got to tell you about our good friends over at ConstitutionCoach.com.
As we've been talking about, many conservatives, all conservatives really, say they love the Constitution, they love our liberties and freedoms, it's so important to defend them and all of that.
But how many of us actually stand ready to defend them?
How many of us really understand these issues that well?
My friends over at constitutioncoach.com have a lot of great programs for equipping citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution.
I have experienced this myself at their Constitutional Defense Course, which, by the way, you take over at the premier firearms training facility in the nation in Nevada.
And it's just a place that you have to see for yourself and it's an experience you have to have for yourself.
You get live classes with Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach, and you also get the physical training as well.
You get to join hundreds of other patriots from across the nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people.
The fellowship part of this is really important as well, because we're not alone.
There are other people, there are other sane people in the world too, although it may not always seem that way.
Whether you have shotguns your whole life, or you're a beginner, wherever you are, I'm telling you, they're going to bring you to a whole new skill level.
That's what they did for me.
So, Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class on April 25th, but it'll fill up fast, so visit constitutioncoach.com today.
You can watch my video there to find out more about how you can be a part of this one-of-a-kind training.
That's constitutioncoach.com.
All right.
Well, you know, the tooth fairy saga continues, by the way.
Speaking of, I just said the truth matters.
Well, here's an example of not telling the truth.
I was saying yesterday, my daughter is very smart, critical thinker, and which I'm proud of her for that.
But she's starting to figure the tooth fairy thing out.
And yesterday, you know, I went into her room before I left in the morning and she told me that she'd lost her tooth.
And she didn't tell us the night before that she lost it because she wanted, she was running a test to see if the Tooth
Fairy would still come.
Even if she doesn't tell mom and dad. And of course, Tooth Fairy didn't come, what a coincidence, because she didn't
tell us.
And then, so, the problem is that my wife, she really wants to, she realizes that it's a house of cards, and if you
lose the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, then you lose Santa Claus.
And she really wants to hang on to Santa Claus for the kids for one more Christmas.
It's really, you know, she just wants one more Christmas out of it, which means we got to keep the Tooth Fairy going.
And this is becoming difficult, because last night, my daughter... I'm not making this up.
This is... She came up with this on her own.
Because she's really trying to figure this out.
And so, she came up with a plan last night, where she...
First of all, she had a tooth under the pillow, of course, and she put out some food for the Tooth Fairy.
I don't know.
That's not usually part of the Tooth Fairy deal.
The Tooth Fairy doesn't usually eat.
So she put out a little bowl of water and I think some peanuts.
Maybe the Tooth Fairy eats peanuts.
Why not?
Everyone likes peanuts.
And then she put out some baking soda around the dish so that she could get the footprints of the Tooth Fairy.
Really, the Tooth Fairy's probably Probably flying, but still.
And then she also said, she asked if she could use one of our phones and put a camera there so she could capture the tooth fairy coming in.
And this was this whole plan she concocted.
And my wife told her, yes, let's do all that.
And of course, I'm saying to my wife, what's your plan here with the camera part of this?
How are you going to make that?
Apparently, there is an app for this exact situation, where a little girl is trying to figure out if the Tooth Fairy is real.
And anyway, there's an app where you can have a Tooth Fairy come in and show it to the kid.
So we got her.
We fooled her for another few months.
Yay us.
I'm so proud of us.
All right.
So we begin with an article on CNN.com about Kristi Noem, who has signed some executive orders dealing with the boys in girl sports issue, but she still refuses to sign legislation, but instead she's doing executive orders.
The article talks about that, but then it gets to the kicker.
We'll read here.
It says, South Dakota's Republican Governor Kristi Noem banned transgender girls and women from competing on women's sports teams at public high schools and colleges via a pair of executive orders issued on Monday.
Of course, what she actually banned was boys playing in girls' teams.
The move came after Noam angered conservatives by killing a bill that would have created a similar prohibition.
In a news release explaining her veto at the time, Noam cited her concern that the bill would take the state's colleges and universities out of compliance with national rules, so we know about that.
She's worried that the NAACP would punish the state of South Dakota.
That the NAACP would get really mad and punish them.
If this ban was put in place and it applied to colleges and she didn't want to make the NAACP mad and get punished by them.
Or rather, the NCAA, I should say.
She doesn't want to make them mad and get punished by them, so she decided to do the executive orders instead.
Now, here we get to the kicker.
It says, though the two executive orders signed by Nome do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they reference the supposed harms of the participation of, quote, males in women's athletics.
And they put quotes around males.
Yeah, quote-unquote males.
But we don't need the quotes there.
We are talking about actual males.
It says, an echo of the transphobic claims cited in other similar legislative initiatives that transgender women are not women.
The orders also reference biological sex, a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates.
And here we go here.
It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth.
And there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.
There is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.
Now, the first part of that sentence is right.
That there is no way to know a baby's gender identity, because that's a made-up concept.
Gender identity doesn't exist.
Kids have to be indoctrinated into believing in this thing called gender identity.
Babies haven't been indoctrinated yet, so for them, gender identity doesn't exist.
That's true.
The rest of it, though, is where we go wildly off the rails.
There's no consensus.
Think about the claim here, okay?
Think about the claim.
This is in a news article.
This is not an editorial.
A CNN news article saying there's no consensus criteria for figuring out the sex of a child.
They're not just saying that technically we can't really know the sex.
Now, that would be totally wrong also.
They're claiming that there's no consensus criteria.
Yes, there is.
So this is wrong, horribly, ridiculously wrong on two levels.
Not only can we obviously tell the sex of a child, most of the time all you got to do is look between the legs, but there is clearly a consensus criteria.
Every childbirth that happens on earth, everywhere, And it has been this case since the beginning of humanity.
The criteria has been, let's look at the reproductive organs on the child.
That's been the criteria.
That's what hospitals do.
I have been there for the births of four children.
That's the way it goes.
So even if you want to claim that we can't know the sex or that the sex of a child is fluid, again, all that obviously totally wrong, you would have to, you would think, at least admit that there is right now a consensus criteria.
If you want to say that that criteria doesn't work or whatever, then fine, make that case.
But to deny that the criteria even exists at all?
Well, this is what we get from the left, obviously.
They will just simply wave their hand and say that truth, that this isn't happening.
You thought that that was happening.
You thought that in every hospital in the world, when a baby is born, they look between the legs and decide and figure out what the sex is.
They don't assign it, by the way.
There's no assignment happening.
The doctor isn't looking and saying, okay, this one's going to be a boy.
Then you just stamp the word boy on its head.
That's not the way it works.
But that is how they're determining it.
And the left says, no, that's not happening.
What you think you're seeing, you're not seeing.
Oh, but these are the pro-science people.
Remember that.
These are the people who feel entitled, feel like they're in a position where they can accuse other people of being anti-science.
Right.
Okay, number two is from TMZ.
It says Deshaun Watson's attorney says 18 professional, he's the quarterback for the Houston Texans, involved in a, there's many sexual assault accusations coming out against him, a lot of lawsuits.
And so here it says, Deshaun Watson's attorney says 18 professional female massage therapists are going to bat for the QB, saying they had nothing but positive experiences with him over the years.
Rusty Hardin says the women all worked with the Houston, Texas QB at some point over the past five years, completing more than 130 sessions without any sort of incident.
Hardin issued a statement saying, These women say they are deeply troubled by the accusations made against DeSean and that these claims are wholly inconsistent with their experiences with him and who they believe him to be.
All of them stated that DeSean never made them feel uncomfortable or demanded anything outside the scope of a professional massage.
Okay, so we've got Other female massage therapists coming out and saying, oh, well, he didn't sexually assault me.
And that's supposed to, I guess, cancel out the dozens of female massage therapists who said that they were sexually assaulted.
Now, already, I would think that this defense raised, there's a problem here with this defense.
The first problem obviously is, well, just because he didn't sexually assault those women doesn't mean he didn't do it to these others.
But also, how many female massage therapists does one guy need?
So if you've got the 18 who are coming out and saying, he didn't assault me, and then you've got, I don't know what we're up to.
We're up to like over 20 who are making claims that he did assault them.
So what is that?
Like 40?
This guy's had 40 female massage therapists in the last five years, 40 different ones.
It's not just he's had 40 massages.
I understand if you're a professional athlete, maybe you get a lot of massages because of all the, you know, the damage being done to your muscles.
But you need a different massage therapist.
You have to keep finding different ones, 40 of them.
Yeah, it sounds to me at a minimum, this is a guy with some issues.
And then you consider 20 accusations doesn't mean just because there's so many accusations doesn't make it true.
And again, I'm the, I'm the, I'm, you know, I'm not, I'm the last guy to immediately assume that someone is guilty just because a claim is being made.
You know, but sometimes it's just a matter of probability and looking at the numbers.
Either 20 women are all lying individually or this one guy is lying.
What's more likely?
You add in the text messages allegedly from him that have been produced, actual evidence.
It's pretty rare that you have physical evidence presented in these kinds of cases.
It's a pretty compelling case being made here.
That this guy might be a serial sexual abuser.
And he's a major star.
He's a major NFL star.
And yet, somehow, you hear about this case, but it's not getting the kind of attention that you might expect.
I wonder why that is.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, parents at Litchfield Elementary School in Arizona are infuriated over the district's proposed equity plan that's infused with elements of critical race theory, the idea that America is rooted in racism.
The district's transformation equity work plan centers around the definition of anti-racism, which claims that being not racist is insufficient.
The definition suggests that parents and educators must be actively fighting against racism in all its forms, though what is considered racist is often subjective.
During a school board meeting, parents slammed the board members who crafted in support of the equity plan.
One parent threatened to hold a recall campaign against board members.
So we have some of the audio here, and I always appreciate that when there's audio of parents or students fighting back, resisting.
That's a good thing.
That's encouraging.
So let's play this.
Let me just tell you, my kids are a minority group.
I am Hispanic.
Never once have they come home and said that they felt victimized
or discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity.
I've done a lot of research into this transformational equity work document,
as well as Mr. Kendi's theory, radical theory, unproven.
Without a lot of supporting facts, and I'm deeply concerned for my kids who are in this district.
I have had over a dozen teachers reach out to me frustrated and upset over what is being thrown their way with this transformational equity work.
Thanking me for speaking up for them because they can't do it themselves for fear of retaliation and possible discrimination.
Further on, the document references reducing disciplinary action by race, reviewing library books, and hiring based on race, ethnicity, gender identity, faith, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, and age.
You know what?
We have fought and battled for equal rights in this country.
This doesn't sound like equal rights.
This sounds like we're going to go higher based on meeting a quota.
Well you'll have to excuse some of the dramatic music there underneath, that wasn't our edition.
But there is parents speaking out against this insanity, which is great.
At a minimum is what's going to be needed, parents to be aware and involved in speaking out.
If you feel That you have no choice but to send your kid to public school, then you, at a minimum, you got to be doing this.
You have to be on top of it.
You have to be aware of everything that's happening, talking to your kids about it every day when they get home.
Right?
Get the full report of what happened, what they were taught.
Go to the school board meetings.
You pay attention.
You got to do this.
You have to do it or you're going to lose your child.
That's where we're at.
You're going to lose your child.
Maybe not physically, but you're going to lose them mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
You're going to lose them in every other way.
The school system is going to take your child from you and replace your kid with someone else.
Turn him into something.
All the values, all the ideas that you have Instill all the priorities and everything that you have instilled in your child.
The school system's job that they've given themselves is to take all that away and replace it.
But I can't help but think every time I watch a video like this, I can't help but think that it's a little bit like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble.
There's too much.
The school system now, school systems across the country are so fundamentally beholden to, you know, left-wing doctrines that there's not a lot that can be done to change it.
Except for, as I always say, get your kids out of the public school system.
A little bit more school craziness.
A school district in Illinois is looking to take Thomas Jefferson's name off of a school, but they're having trouble now.
Figuring out who to replace, what name to put in place of Thomas Jefferson, because what they're discovering is that everyone in history, even like recent history, even recent presidents like, say, Barack Obama, are also problematic by the left standards today.
Here's a report on this from the local affiliate, the local ABC affiliate.
Let's watch that.
Those against the Obamas as a name choice say the former president failed to deliver on promises to the immigrant population.
Tonight, Waukegan's Board of Education heard concerns from the public over one of the finalists in the running to be the new name for Thomas Jefferson Middle School.
I want to urge the school board to drop the names of Barack and Michelle Obama from consideration.
I personally don't object to the name, but I have to be aware of the concerns.
The country's first black president and first lady Barack and Michelle Obama is one of the top three choices for the school's new name, but one that's drawing opposition in the area with a large Latinx population.
We feel that Barack Obama disserviced us.
He denied us and he didn't stop the deportations the way he promised.
Members of the area's Latinx community held a protest outside the meeting's doors.
If you're removing the name of Thomas Jefferson, one oppressor, The name of Obama is another oppressor, and our families do not want to see that name.
Mauricio Sanchez's father was deported in 2015 during the Obama administration.
It was something very sad.
We couldn't even say goodbye to our dad.
We just hoped for him to be able to get out.
He said his dad is still in deportation hearings to this day, and the Sanchez family says the Obama name is a reminder of their current struggles.
You gotta love it, you really do.
Obama's an oppressor too, you remove one oppressor, Thomas Jefferson, can't replace him with another, Barack Obama.
Yep, he's an oppressor, fine.
Everybody is.
There's no getting around it.
Nobody, I mean really, nobody is woke enough now.
It's impossible.
The only people who could be woken up is someone maybe who was born yesterday.
That's how recent it has to be.
Then we name all the schools after infants.
After gender-fluid infants.
They're the only ones who could possibly be woken up.
Anyone who existed prior to five years ago is going to have done things that are considered problematic now, or held views, or said things that are considered problematic.
I mean, my goodness, Barack Obama was anti-gay marriage for most of his life.
He ran in 2008 as a pro-traditional marriage candidate, which is crazy to think now, but it's true.
And they haven't even brought that up yet.
He deported a few people.
He was against gay marriage.
Man, this guy was a bigot.
I guess you gotta take all the names down, all the statues down, and replace them with nothing.
Give all the schools numbers.
That's it.
Here's someone who might be woke enough, I don't know.
Demi Lovato announced that she is pansexual.
So she's a pansexual now, she's kind of been...
graduating from one level to the next.
I think at one point she said she was a lesbian or maybe a bisexual, but now she's pansexual.
And here she is on Joe Rogan talking about, well, here she is talking about living her truth.
And then she gets into how she's pansexual.
Well, let's listen to that.
For someone like me, who's always tried to please other people by being what they want me to be,
whether it was a sexy pop star in a leotard or engaged to a dude,
like I had to speak my truth and tell the world, hey, my truth isn't going to be
what you want it to be anymore.
I'm chopping my hair off because it feels right to me.
A lot of my fans want me to have long hair.
They love the long hair.
How do they feel about the double unicorns on your shirt?
They haven't seen them yet.
Only you have.
But we'll find out.
And I'm eager to know.
It's hilarious that people have expectations about your looks.
Like how you should wear your hair.
Yes.
But that's being a pop star.
It sounds so hard.
That's being a pop star.
People have expectations.
But she had to speak her truth and live her truth.
I gotta say, I'm kind of disappointed in Joe Rogan that he Listen to her say that and didn't roll his eyes.
At least I don't think he did.
It wasn't on camera.
But when someone uses the phrase, speak my truth or live my truth around you, and they're not being ironic or sarcastic, the only appropriate response is to roll your eyes and say, shut up.
That's it.
I don't care who it is.
That's the only appropriate response.
You definitely can't nod your head and go along with it.
Oh, huh?
You're speaking your truth.
Great.
That's so brave.
So brave.
She goes from there to talk about how she's attracted to, she's a pansexual now, and she's so fluid.
She's so fluid now, she says.
And she clarified that she's attracted to anything.
Anything!
Not even anybody.
Anything.
Including maybe actual pots and pans.
So, in a very literal sense, she's pansexual.
I just love hearing these celebrities complain about fame.
Even putting the pansexual stuff to the side, because we know they're, look... Yeah, the LGBT crew, they're so oppressed that every celebrity in existence right now is desperate to be a part of the club, and they're coming up with anything they can to be in there.
That's how oppressed they are, right?
But the rest of it about, oh, people don't like it when you chop your hair off, or... They have expectations.
Yeah.
You're famous, you have cultivated You don't become famous by accident most of the time.
You have to cultivate that fame.
You have to try really hard to be famous and to maintain your fame.
Because even Demi Lovato's at a level, she's really famous, but she could stop being famous if she wanted to.
If she went away, did something else, people would basically forget about her and not care in a few years or a few months.
So don't complain about it.
Everybody has an opinion.
They're all looking at you.
Of course they are.
It's what you want.
This is the situation you have tried really hard to create for yourself and maintain.
I'm not really interested in the complaints about it.
Finally, a little bonus thing here.
I gotta play this.
We can't move on without playing it, even if you've already heard it.
Jill Biden, Dr. Jill Biden, Esquire, was giving a speech to a group of Hispanic voters, rather Latinx, Latinx voters, I should say.
Excuse me.
And she attempted a bit of Spanish herself, and it didn't go well.
Here it is.
So say it with me!
Si se puede!
The future is ours!
Thank you!
Si se puede.
It sounded like she was trying to say Padre, but she had a speech impediment.
So, that's what it sounded like.
Okay, so she was going, I think, for the phrase, yes, we can, but she said, si se puede, Padre.
So that's like, yes, what would that be?
Yes, we're the father?
Did it become an episode of Maury all of a sudden?
She was going for yes we can, which is si se puede.
P-U-E-D-E.
I think, in fact, the correct pronunciation is plead.
I believe.
Si se plead.
But that's what she gets for attempting.
This should be something that all politicians or, you know, People in the political light should know.
Don't attempt to speak a foreign language unless you know it really, really well, which she obviously doesn't.
And on top of that, if you were watching the video there, you saw a really curious flag in the background, which looks a lot like a Nazi flag.
It kind of has the Nazi eagle, the same color scheme.
It looks much more like a Nazi flag.
We can assume it's not actually a Nazi flag.
She wasn't really at a Hispanic Nazi rally, we can assume, probably.
But it looks much more like a Nazi thing.
It looks more Nazi-esque than, say, the stage at CPAC.
You gotta stretch a lot more to make the stage at CPAC into a Nazi symbol than you did with that flag of the eagle and the red and everything.
But of course we get the controversy over the stage, but not over that flag.
Can you imagine if that was Trump giving a speech in front of a flag like that?
We would quite literally never hear the end of it.
All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
Okay.
First comment says, there's a 0% chance Matt is not wearing skinny jeans with that shirt.
Dom says, I was watching this on the Daily Wire, but came to YouTube just for the comments on Matt's shirt.
Michael says, I've been avoiding the comment feed for months in an effort not to get banned, but after seeing today's shirt, I no longer have fear.
Go ahead, Matt.
Put me out of my misery.
Stephanie says, Matt is trolling us.
We're all focusing on the shirt, but little do we know that he's also wearing skinny jeans.
Another comment says, Matt's wife doesn't mind that he's taken to wearing her blouses.
That's pretty progressive.
Matthew says, Walsh's wife was unavailable for shirt check when he left the house today.
His daughter dressed him in this thing as payback for the tooth fairy lies.
Amber says, how did you fit into your grandmother's blouse?
Melinda says, great show.
Good point, like always.
Great shirt.
My mom had a tablecloth like it once.
And then someone else says, nice shirt, Matt.
Do they make it for men?
Okay.
Yeah.
So I'm gathering from the comments that y'all didn't like my, um, My polka dot t-shirt that I wore yesterday.
Was that hard for you guys?
Was it difficult for you to, was it hard for you to see me in my hideous shirt?
Was it so hard that you needed to leave a thousand comments?
And even to leave, to message my wife?
My wife got messages, people telling on me for the shirt that I wore.
Was that hard?
Oh, isn't that too bad?
Well, how hard do you think it is for me to be cyber bullied like this?
I came to work yesterday feeling great.
I was feeling confident in my polka dot t-shirt.
I left the house.
I was whistling joyfully, and I was saying to myself, gee whiz, I cannot wait for the gang to see my new shirt.
They're going to love it.
And this is how you respond.
I'm not mad.
I'm disappointed and hurt, frankly.
This is cyberbullying.
I'm not going to back down.
I'm not going to be intimidated by it.
I'm not going to be stopped from wearing my truth.
Even when my truth is polka-dotted?
So I tell you what, here's what's gonna happen now.
Here's what's gonna happen now.
I'm gonna wear that damn shirt once a week for the rest of the year, just to spite you people.
Don't put it past me.
You think you can shame me out of wearing something?
This is your fault.
You did this.
You're gonna have to look at that shirt every week now for the rest of the year.
Your own behavior did this.
Every time you see it, I want you to think about, The way that you bullied me.
I want you to think about the hurt that you caused.
Shame on you.
How dare you.
And it's a great shirt.
I don't care what you people say.
Now a quick word from Rock Auto.
If you need auto parts, you've basically got two choices.
You can go to the auto parts store, waste all your time driving there, walking around, looking for what you want.
Everything's expensive.
There's not a great selection.
They're not going to have what you want.
They got to order it online.
You can do all that, or you could just pull your phone out of your pocket and go to rockauto.com.
I know what I do.
It's really a no-brainer.
RockAuto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear.
RockAuto.com is a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
You can go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Best thing of all, prices at rockauto.com are reliably low, and if you see the price at rockauto.com, you know it's not going to be better anywhere else.
They're giving you the best possible price, and it's going to be the same whether you're a professional or a do-it-yourselfer.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
Why spend twice as much to get access to a smaller selection of parts?
There's no reason to do it.
You can get an amazing selection with rockauto.com, reliably low prices, all the parts your car
will ever need.
So go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
And remember, as always, to write Walsh in their "How did you hear about us?"
box so that they know that we sent you.
Now, also got to tell you about Candice, of course.
Well, you've heard us talking about Candice.
She joined The Daily Wire a few weeks ago with the premiere of her new talk show, Candice.
The show streams on dailywire.com Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, but you can get the audio podcast, Candice, on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast.
Candice hosts a series of guests on the show each week, making for lively panel discussions and insightful interviews.
There have been a lot of featured guests.
Really excited to announce that if you watch the show this Friday, there's going to be a particularly brilliant, and I have to say, handsome guest who makes great decisions in the kinds of shirts that he wears.
And that's me.
I'm a guest on the show.
So you could watch for that reason, or you could just watch because it's a great show in general.
If you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, look no further.
Head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today and be sure to leave a five star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we're canceling, on top of everyone, of course, who was making fun of my shirt.
You're all banned from the show.
Needless to say.
We're also canceling Kat Ann.
You've never heard of her before, and that's part of the point.
She's an actress who, so far as I know, has appeared in one thing of note, and that's a Christmas episode of The Office.
That was many years ago, season three, a two-part episode called A Benihana Christmas.
In the episode, she, an Asian woman, plays a waitress who Michael ends up hitting on and trying to use as a rebound because he's depressed after just breaking up with his girlfriend, if I remember the plot points correctly, and I probably do because I've seen all the episodes of The Office 16 times.
Anyway, Kat, 15 years later, has decided that it was actually racist, that the role that she was playing was racist.
She's decided this a decade and a half later.
Here she is on TikTok explaining.
So these are the things I've learned as an actress on the Benihana Christmas episode of The Office.
I actually understood why BIPOC actors play racist roles.
You know, sometimes you gotta pay your rent, sometimes you wanna join the union, sometimes you just don't want your agent to drop you.
Also, this episode was before, you know, wokeness.
So the Benihana Christmas episode is actually one of the more popular holiday TV episodes.
And the storyline with myself and the other Asian American actress is that we were the uglier versions of the actresses at the Benihana.
Also that all Asian people look alike.
We're one big monolith and we're just one big walking stereotype without any personality or individuality.
Which is problematic.
Oh, it's problematic?
That's what it is, yeah.
I mean, it's very problematic.
It's a problem.
It wasn't a problem when she cashed the check.
I assume she did cash it, after all.
Wasn't a problem when she read the script.
Wasn't a problem at all, at any point, until now.
But now it's a problem.
Not just a problem, but problematic.
That's the worst kind of problem to have.
Now, let's go through this, okay?
First of all, she says, while trying to explain why she took this allegedly racist role, that this was quote, before wokeness.
So now this is like the new BCAD we're going to have.
We're going to have B-W-A-W.
Before wokeness, after wokeness.
What does that mean?
Well, she believes, and is not alone in believing, that at some point in the last, like, five years, society went through some kind of great mystical awakening.
And we suddenly realized that a bunch of stuff we thought was fine and normal is actually bad.
Nobody can ever explain how this awakening occurred and why we should consider it an awakening rather than, say, mass delusion or a moral panic.
There is, after all, plenty of precedent for mass delusion and moral panic.
There is no precedent, historically, for an entire society suddenly all at once to become enlightened.
True moral enlightenment doesn't work that way.
It has never worked that way.
Societies can become morally enlightened in certain ways, or more morally enlightened in certain ways, but those gains are won slowly over long periods of time, and much struggle is required to achieve it.
So, if you find that Everyone woke up one day and became hysterical about some new alleged evil.
If you find that everyone is suddenly freaking out about something that just a minute ago seemed normal and fine, there's a much greater likelihood that what you are experiencing is a panic, not enlightenment.
And panic, by the way, is pretty much the exact opposite of enlightenment.
Second point, the characters were stereotypes, she complains.
Yes, well, it was a comedy, okay, built around stereotypes.
Many comedies are.
That's the nature of comedy.
What made The Office so funny and relatable is that every character was a distinct personality, but also a type.
So you could say as you watched, you know, oh yeah, I know this person.
I have this person in my office.
Michael Scott was Michael Scott, but he also was everyone's incompetent boss.
Jim and Pam worked so well as characters because they felt like the type of people that you could meet on the street.
Angela was the uptight white Christian woman.
Creed was the weird old guy.
Stanley was the, you know, not messing around, no time for your crap black guy.
All of the characters were stereotypes intentionally, but also they were developed personalities in their own right.
That's what made the show work.
That was the point of the show.
And a lot of the humor in the show came from Michael having no social awareness or self-awareness and saying insensitive things even while mostly trying to be politically correct.
He was the butt of the joke.
The joke was on him.
It was about his buffoonery.
But even though Michael's obliviousness and unintentional insensitivity was the joke, even so it must be considered offensive these days because the jokes often dealt with race, sexual orientation, etc.
They just dealt with it.
That's it.
It wasn't really making fun of people for their race.
It was a joke that dealt with race.
It was a joke where race was a part of the joke.
You aren't allowed to have jokes that deal with those subjects, even if the jokes aren't actually saying anything offensive about those subjects.
So it was only a matter of time before they got around to the office.
There have been attempts in recent years, back in 2019, The website Screen Rant ran an article titled, 10 Episodes of The Office That Aged Poorly.
Then listing, it lists the episodes that quote, aged rather poorly with their flood of inappropriate jokes.
And of course it lists all of the funniest and best episodes.
Now that never really caught on in 2019, but right now, in this environment, it's a different story.
Already there are headlines in all the major media publications based on what this unknown actress said, and they're all declaring that the office is now problematic.
I'd say, this is my prediction, we have a few weeks before NBC starts removing some episodes, attaching offensive content disclaimers to others.
This is not a very bold prediction.
We know that all comedy must eventually end up on the burn pile.
Comedy involves laughing at or about something or someone.
And such an uproarious and unregulated display cannot be allowed by the robotic prudes who run our culture now.
One such prude, a hypocritical prude, as prudes often are, is Kat On.
And so she, along with all the people in the future who are going to cancel this show and get it banned, as we know it's going to happen, they are all canceled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
CNN doesn't believe that doctors can know a baby's sex at birth.
Hollywood boycotts Georgia over election integrity measures.
And a prominent newsman says fairness is overrated.
