Ep. 977 - Navy Prepares For Battle With Pronoun Training
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Navy puts out a new instructional video teaching sailors and other military members how to use and respect a person’s preferred pronouns. We have the actual instructional video, which you have to see for yourself. Also, Republicans sell out on gun control. But did they actually sell out or are they simply doing exactly what we expect them to do and what they always do? And a mother raises a quarter of a million dollars based on a horrific story of her son being bullied. The only problem is that the story doesn’t seem to be true. When will people stop falling for these scams? And in our Daily Cancellation, the Left is justifying child drag shows by comparing them to 90s cross dressing comedies like Mrs. Doubtfire. But this argument actually undermines and destroys their own premise. I’ll explain why.
Join us for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com, and pick up your copy of the “What Is A Woman?” book here: https://utm.io/ueFMe
Watch our Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie” with Gina Carano: https://utm.io/ueFOe
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Try X-Chair RISK FREE for 30 days. Save $100 OFF your X-Chair at xchairWALSH.com.
Unlike public schools, Freedom Project Academy is built on Judeo-Christian values and classical curriculum, dedicated to providing mastery of subject matter, not propaganda. Request your FREE Information Packet at www.FreedomForSchool.com.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Wall Show, the Navy puts out a new instructional video teaching sailors and other military members how to use and respect a person's preferred pronouns.
We have the actual instructional video, which we will play for you today, because you have to see it for yourself to believe it.
Also, Republicans sell out on gun control, but did they actually sell out, or are they simply doing exactly what we expect them to do and what they've always done?
We'll talk about that.
And a mother raises a quarter of a million dollars based on a horrific story of her son being bullied The only problem is that the story doesn't seem to be true.
At what point will people stop falling for these kinds of scams?
In our daily cancellation, the left is justifying child drag shows by comparing them to 90s cross-dressing comedies like Mrs. Doubtfire.
But this argument actually undermines and destroys their own premise.
and so I'll explain why all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
You know, in the past, public schools were simply neglecting foundational subjects
like math, English, science, and history.
Many looked the other way.
Now we see woke teachers proudly bragging on social media about pushing radical, sometimes sexually charged, propaganda on kids as young as five years old.
There are even reports of teachers secretly hosting drag shows for students without the consent of parents, all with the blessing of unions and some members of Congress as well.
So if you want a real education for your child, you need Freedom Project Academy.
They have perfected live online learning for more than a decade.
Freedom Project Academy is built on Judeo-Christian values and classical curriculum.
They're dedicated to providing mastery of subject matter, not leftist propaganda.
All you gotta do is go to freedomforschool.com.
That's freedomforschool.com to request your free information packet today.
And you gotta do that because think about this, what is a college degree worth if the average public school graduate can only read and write at a seventh grade level?
Go to freedomforschool.com.
That's freedomforschool.com.
And get your child enrolled at Freedom Project Academy before spots fill up.
That's freedomforschool.com.
Freedomforschool.com.
Yesterday, we talked about the fact that we live in a theocracy.
Not a Christian theocracy, of course.
We aren't that fortunate.
But a theocracy which governs according to the leftist religion.
Now, I firmly believe that leftism is the modern equivalent of a religion and that much of what it does and how its adherents behave Can best be understood through the lens of religion.
Though I also do worry that I'm insulting religion by calling leftism a religion.
After all, most religions are much more impressive, intellectually richer, more systematically coherent, have far greater and more meaningful substance than leftism does.
Perhaps it's just better to call leftism an ideology or a political theory and leave it at that.
But that, I think, doesn't quite capture what this thing is in its fullness.
It doesn't account for the zeal of its adherence, or its dogmatic nature, or the faith required to believe anything that it preaches.
What makes this a religion, ultimately, is that it has its own high priests, its own sacraments, its own holy days, its own spiritual convictions, its own tenets and dogmas, its own canon, its own catechism.
It hunts for heretics and punishes blasphemers.
It exiles its apostates and calls for complete submission to its doctrines.
It has its own higher power, its own god, which is the self, the individual ego.
It may be a flimsier, weirder, less intellectually rigorous, shallower version of religion, but it is a religion all the same.
And that's how we can begin to make sense of this.
As the Washington Free Beacon first reported, quote, the Navy is training its members to create a safe space by using proper gender pronouns in a new instructional video modeled after a children's show.
The official training video is meant to emphasize, quote, the importance of using correct pronouns as well as polite etiquette when you may not be sure of somebody's pronouns, according to the Navy, which late last month published the video online.
The Defense Visual Information Distribution Service touts the video as an official U.S.
Navy video posted by Air Force Staff Sergeant John Vannucci.
Now, if you go to the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service website, it will connect you over to the Naval Sea Systems Command website, where you can find a longer explanation for this pronoun video.
In an article titled, Empowering a Diverse Workforce, Naval Sea Systems Command Inclusion and Engagement Projects Take Shape, we're told the following, quote, The Diversity Team is creating a video series called NAV Speaks to educate and empower employees to reach their full potential.
The program started off as a TED Talks kind of video platform for the NAVSEA community to connect employees to opportunities.
The video platform bridges employees to programs, resources, and opportunities for leadership development and career advancement.
By highlighting diverse voices and perspectives, NAV Speaks educates and empowers future leaders who will represent the community they serve.
NAV Speaks will transition to the Office of Engagement, Diversity, and Inclusion at the end of the fiscal year.
So, we go back now to the Washington Free Beacon report, with a little more added context.
It says, The video is the latest bid by the military to foster a more sensitive environment for its members and staff.
The Army mandates similar gender identity training and trains officers on when to offer subordinates gender transition surgery, according to a Washington Free Beacon report in March.
These programs are part of a larger push by the Biden administration to make the military more welcoming to transgender individuals.
Now, with all that in mind, it's time to actually watch the video.
And I'm sure you didn't think that you'd escape this segment without being subjected to the video itself.
You know me better than that by now.
And so here it is.
This is the actual instructional video produced by and for the Navy.
While other countries are training their military members on how to more effectively brutalize and kill the enemy, we're training ours with this.
Hi, my name is Johnny, and I use he, him pronouns.
Hi, and I'm Conchie, and I use she, her pronouns.
And we're here to talk about pronouns.
What is a pronoun?
A pronoun is how we identify ourselves apart from our name, and it's also how people refer to us in conversations.
Using the right pronouns is a really simple way to affirm someone's identity.
It is a signal of acceptance and respect.
If it's a signal of acceptance and respect, how do we go about creating a safe space for everybody That's a good question.
A really good way to do that is to use inclusive language.
Instead of saying something like, hey guys, you can say, hey everyone, or hey team.
Yeah, and now that you say that, another way that we could show that we're allies and that we accept everybody is to maybe include our pronouns in our emails or, like we just did, introduce ourselves using our pronouns.
But what would I do if I misgender someone?
I think the first thing to recognize is that it's not the end of the world.
You correct yourself and move on or you accept the correction and move on.
The most important thing I can tell you is do not put the burden of making you feel good about your mistake on the person that you just misgendered.
Oh, thank you for telling me that.
Thank you for telling us that.
She says that we must not put any burden on the person that we just misgendered, but that person can put all kinds of burdens on us.
In fact, we are saddled with the burden of having to adopt and affirm that individual's misconceptions about reality.
We must participate in their game of charades, whether we're in the mood for a game or not.
If that person is playing dress-up and make-believe, the burden is on us to abide by the rules of their game.
We can't simply exist and mind our own business and live the way we like.
We must live how that other person wants us to live and think the way they want us to think and say the things they want us to say.
This is all in the name of creating a safe space for that person.
Now, if we would like a safe space of our own, a safe space from this kind of lunacy altogether, we're out of luck.
That's what we've learned in this Navy instructional video so far.
What we haven't learned, though, is anything that has anything to do with being in the Navy.
Maybe eventually we'll get around to that.
Let's keep watching.
Yeah, and another tip for you to remember their pronoun next time, it's in your mind, kind of go through a progression of three good things about the person using their pronouns.
So let's say the person chooses to use they, then you will in your mind go, they have a nice shirt, they have a nice smile, they are really smart.
So that kind of sticks in your brain.
That is so helpful.
No, it would be more like, uh, they have blue hair, they are delusional, they are pushy and annoying, uh, they can kiss my ass.
I'm not playing this game.
Am I doing that right?
See, that's the problem with this trick.
It assumes that there's anything nice to say about the kind of person who prefers the pronoun they.
Now you've got me searching for the one positive needle in this haystack of unpleasant personality traits, and the whole thing's gotten a lot more complicated.
And what you still haven't done with this video is explain why I should care about anybody's preferred pronouns in the first place.
Why is this my problem?
Give me one good reason why I should give a damn.
Let's see what you got.
I want to know what would I do if I want to know someone's gender identity or pronouns.
The most important thing is do not pressure anybody into giving you their pronouns.
Some people may be going through the process of discovery and they are not ready yet to tell you what their pronouns are and that's okay.
So I should just lead with my pronouns and they may follow or not and if they don't then I can just continue to use gender-neutral language.
Yes, exactly.
Just to share something with you that happened the other day at a cookout I was at.
We were talking about pronouns and somebody was disagreeing with how different people see themselves as different pronouns and the argument was if you look like a female then it's she her because that's what's normal and if you make me call you something else then you're infringing on my rights and I was really taken aback by the comment and I really wasn't sure how to respond and the only thing I could really think quickly to say was it's not about you at all and
It's mostly and ultimately about respect.
It is about respect.
What kind of cookout in hell are you attending where people stand around talking about pronouns?
There's no way these people even eat meat, so what are they grilling?
Imagine finding yourself at a barbecue where they've got nothing but zucchini and tofu burgers on the grill and everyone begins every conversation by giving their pronouns.
By this lady's telling, it sounds like there was maybe one normal person who wandered into this zoo and made the very good point that females are she-her, and it's an infringement on his free speech rights to try and force him to call a female anything other than that.
The lady in the video, sitting next to her hen-pecked Patsy, whose only role is to just agree with everything she says, apparently, is, uh, she says that she was shocked to encounter someone who feels this way.
Which, that doesn't surprise me after we filmed What is a Woman.
Of course, we encounter many people like this who are just shocked.
I mean, they can't believe that anyone exists who would disagree with these ideas that they invented 15 seconds ago.
And she insists that it's not about you, and really this is just a matter of respect.
But see, that's the problem.
If you're telling me what I have to say, and what I have to affirm, And the beliefs that I have to pretend that I hold, then how is it not about me?
No, it's definitely about me.
Okay?
It is.
I mean, I'm the one we're talking about, right?
Now you see, it goes the other way around.
If you have preferred pronouns that differ from your biological identity, and I decline to use them, and we are talking about my own actions here, so this is, we're talking about me, not you, That decision on my part is not about you.
It's not an attack on you personally, any more than I'm attacking you personally, when I say that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or that the sun is hot, or that the ocean is made of water.
I am simply choosing to live in reality.
That's all.
You might prefer that I live somewhere else, but that's not my problem.
Okay, I am no more under an obligation to live in your fantasy land, because you want me to, than I am to live, you know, in Cincinnati, Ohio, because you want me to.
You might as well tell me, I want you to pick up and move to Cincinnati.
Why should I do that?
Because I want you to live there.
That's where I want you to live.
What?
That's not about you.
I want you to live there.
How is it not about me?
You're talking about where I live.
I want to live in reality is where I want to live.
And you should respect my desire to exist in reality and to use words that make sense and to abide by the rules of proper grammar.
I demand that you respect that.
I'm the one demanding respect.
And if you won't, then I am under no obligation to respect your lack of respect for me and for reality.
See, this is how we have to start framing this because it's true.
When you go around talking about your preferred pronouns, that is a lack of respect for everybody else.
Telling me your preferred pronouns is a lack of respect.
You are disrespecting me by trying to impose this on me.
But I feel like we've strayed from the point here.
Right?
The real question is why any of this is being discussed in an instruction video for the Navy?
Will preferred pronouns make the military more ready, more able, more lethal, more prepared to devastate and destroy our enemies?
Is there some sort of tactical advantage to having service members who possess a deep knowledge of non-binary gender identities?
No, of course not.
Of course there isn't.
But we live in a left-wing theocracy.
And these are its doctrines.
And they always, always come first.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Many of us spend more time every day in our office chair than in our cars or
on our beds.
That's why it's so important to invest in the right chair to spend those hours with the right level of support and comfort to get the most productivity out of your day.
Xchair has made my time at my desk not only more productive, but it's honestly my favorite place to sit.
For any reason.
Not only does Xchair's patented Dynamic Variable Lumbar, or DVL, offer the ultimate customized support, but my Xchair can even give me a massage, or heat up, or cool down.
It can do all of that.
And now, thanks to Xchair's new FS360 armrests, I can even adjust my armrest to the perfect position for me.
All these unique Xchair features help the hours at my desk fly by in complete comfort.
That's why I love my Xchair.
So go to xchairwalsh.com, now that's the letter X, chair, w-a-l-s-h dot com, or call 1-844-4XCHAIR for $100 off your order.
XChair has a 30-day guarantee of complete support and comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little as $30 a month.
xchairwalsh.com.
We start with this from the Daily Wire.
It says more than a dozen Republicans joined a largely Democrat effort to advance a gun control bill in the Senate on Tuesday night.
Notable Republican senators, including Senators John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell, helped Democrats pass a procedural vote 64-34, a mere two hours after the text of the bill circulated.
The bill could be passed later this week by the Senate and then move on to the House, where it's expected to pass.
The bill would then go to President Biden's desk.
Notably, the 80-page legislation includes language on highly controversial so-called red flag laws.
So they had, in two hours, they had read, you know, the entire 80-page legislation and thought about it deeply and decided to go ahead and move forward.
According to Fox News, the bill provides grants for states that implement their own red flag laws and offers additional funding for both school safety measures and mental health services.
Cornyn, though, claimed on the Senate floor Tuesday that the bill would not create a national red flag law, adding that states could receive the funding regardless of whether they enact such a program.
Quote, the measure also creates penalties for straw purchases of firearms, requires more gun sellers to register as federally licensed firearm dealers, and closes the so-called boyfriend loophole by prohibiting gun access for people convicted of domestic abuse against an intimate partner.
Gun owners of America said in a press release sent to the Daily Wire that the legislation would encourage backdoor universal background checks by redefining many private sellers as gun dealers, financially incentivizing states to enact unconstitutional red flag laws, and would allow for so-called enhanced background checks, which are arbitrary delays in transferring firearms to adults not yet 21 years old.
So that's the basics of the bill, as far as anyone knows.
against 80 pages and they voted to move forward with the legislation after just two hours
of the text being made available and being circulated.
The full list of the 14 Republicans who voted on the bill, there's no surprises here at all.
John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Bill Cassidy, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr,
Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, like I said, no surprises.
Shelley Moore, Capito, Joni Ernst, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, and Tom Tillis.
And Susan Collins, of course.
How could I forget?
The usual suspects decided to vote for this bill.
The problem with the bill are numerous.
We've talked about most of the problems already.
Starting with the fact that none of these Measures would have done anything to prevent what happened in Uvalde, Texas or what happened in Buffalo.
And we know that because a number of these measures were already on the books, including the red flag laws in New York, and that shooting still happened.
So that's the first issue.
And the second issue, and it goes beyond this too, but you know, we don't really need to get beyond the red flag laws.
And the ways that these are going to be used.
And, you know, some people are saying the red flag laws are going to be abused or misused so as to disarm and punish the ideological opponents of the regime.
But I wouldn't call that a misuse or an abuse.
That's actually what is intended.
That is, in fact, the proper use of these red flag laws.
That's why they're being put in place, is precisely for that reason.
To give the regime the ability to disarm whoever they want.
Because all they have to say is that, oh, there's a red flag on it.
That person might be dangerous.
Remember, it's not that they're saying that if you're convicted of a violent crime, we're going to take your guns away.
That's already the case.
That law is already on the books.
In like 15 different forms.
If you're a violent criminal, For one thing, you're going to prison, or you should be anyway, unless you're a violent criminal in Los Angeles or San Francisco.
But ideally, you go to prison, we don't have to worry about you committing acts of violence against the public at that point.
So we're not talking about that.
What we're talking about is someone who has not been convicted of any violent crime, but which the state declares is a potential threat to commit violence in the future.
And that is, to put it very mildly, extremely subjective.
And it's up to the, we have to trust that the state will have some sort of insight into this.
Maybe they have those, what was it in Minority Report?
Those psychics that they kept in a giant vat of petroleum jelly with their brains hooked?
Am I making this up or was that in Minority Report?
That was Minority Report.
Okay, thanks.
That's what I never understood about that movie, is that it's in the future.
And they've got all this crazy technology, and you think, oh, they have technology to read the future, and they don't.
They just have psychics in a vat of petroleum jelly.
Anyway, so is that what it's going to be?
Do they have the psychics in the petroleum jelly that they can, you know, and the psychics will tell them if someone's... I don't think so.
It's up to the state to determine who they think is going to be violent in the future, and we don't need to speculate about this.
The ruling regime, what do they consider the red flags to be?
We already know.
If you're on the right, then automatically you're a suspected terrorist.
If you're in the PTA, if you're a parent at a school board meeting, objecting to anything that the school board is doing, you're a suspected domestic terrorist.
That's a red flag.
Take the guns away.
If you don't, if you watched that Navy instruction video and didn't agree with everything you saw in it, Then that's a red flag.
And by the way, that's not just that you might commit violence in the future.
You are committing violence right now.
If you misgender someone, that is an act of violence.
That's genocidal.
That's murderous.
So that's how these laws are going to be used.
Republicans support it anyway.
Should we be surprised by that?
Well, of course not.
And if you are surprised by it, then I think, and the people who are surprised by it, still have not quite Come to understand that these people, these Republicans, the reason why they're betraying you is, yeah, we could say that they're cowards and that they're squishes and all of that stuff, spineless.
It's not exactly it, actually.
I mean, they are cowards, but that's not really the problem.
Or at least the problem goes beyond that.
The real problem is that they don't believe what you believe.
Okay, so it's not as though they believe firmly in gun rights, but then they were just scared, right?
And they collapsed under the pressure and decided to support this bill anyway.
That's not it.
They don't care about gun rights.
They don't care about any of this stuff.
They don't care about any of the things you care about.
They don't believe what you believe.
They believe what the supposed opposition believes.
They agree with the Democrats on almost everything.
And even the disagreements they do have, they don't really care that much about them.
This is the fundamental problem with conservative leadership, so-called conservative leadership, pretty much everywhere in every institution.
In government, in media, a lot of the conservatives who have put themselves into positions of being sort of spokesmen and leaders in media, it's true of them.
In the churches, In all of these areas, we often chalk it up to cowardice, and that's a big part of it.
I mean, I wrote a book called Church of Cowards.
But even beyond that, these people, they don't actually believe this stuff.
That's the first problem.
And that explains what they did.
Now, for a simpler, though far more tragic case of cowardice, we go to Uvalde, Texas.
And the first thing that we have to mention down in Uvalde, and I just saw this headline pop up.
Let me see if I can find it again.
So I just saw, before we went on the air, I saw this headline pop up.
This is Breaking911 on Twitter.
It says, Robb Elementary, the Texas school where 19 children and two teachers were killed in a mass shooting, will be demolished, according to the Uvalde mayor.
So they're going to demolish the school.
Now, it's very interesting because Uvalde is the site of a massacre, right?
A horrific crime.
And it also is where this law enforcement scandal and cover-up revolves around.
And they're going to demolish it.
Which seems an awful lot like getting rid of the evidence to me.
This is from the Texas Tribune, and it's worth going to the Texas Tribune to read the latest on this story.
And it is a story that just, it really does get worse every single day.
And you get to a point, you think, well, it can't get worse than this.
This is as bad as it could possibly get.
And then more revelations, it gets even worse.
So it's worth going to Texas Tribune to see.
They've been following the story and reporting on it.
But I'll read a little bit from this.
This is the latest, as of yesterday afternoon.
It says, the officers in the hallway of Robb Elementary wanted to get inside classrooms 111 and 112 immediately.
One officer's daughter was inside.
Another officer had gotten a call from his wife, a teacher, who told him she was bleeding to death.
Two closed doors and a wall stood between them and an 18-year-old with an AR-15 who had opened fire on children and teachers inside the connected classrooms.
A halogen bar was available.
That's an axe-like forcible entry tool used by firefighters to get into rooms like this.
Ballistic shields were arriving on the scene, so was plenty of firepower, including at least two rifles.
Some officers were itching to move.
One such officer, a special agent at the Texas Department of Public Safety, had arrived around 20 minutes after the school shooting started.
He immediately asked, are there kids still in the classroom?
The agent said, if there is, then we have to go in.
And another officer answered, it's unknown at this time.
The agent shot back, y'all don't know if there's kids in there?
He added, if there's kids in there, we need to go in.
And then the reply came, whoever is in charge will determine that.
The inaction appeared too much for the special agent.
He noted that there were still children in other classrooms within the school who needed to evacuate.
Well, there's kids over here, he said, so I'm getting kids out.
And he went to get the kids out.
This exchange happened early in the excruciating 77 minutes on May 24th that started when Salvador Ramos walked through an unlocked door of Robb Elementary and walked into the classroom and began shooting.
And we're told now that there were basically four bursts of shooting from the shooter.
And that this continued throughout the 77 minutes while these officers were outside the room.
Now, the San Antonio Express News reported that there is no evidence that officers tried the doors on rooms 111 and 112.
They didn't even try to open it.
This contradicts a key assertion by the Evaldi School Police Chief, Pete Arredondo, who told the Texas Tribune that officers tried the doors, found them locked, and had to wait for a master key to unlock them.
So this Arredondo guy has been doing nothing but lying from the very beginning, and he claimed they couldn't get into the door, they didn't have a key.
Turns out the door was unlocked, they didn't even try to open it, and they also had a tool in case it did turn out to be locked, they had a tool to open it anyway.
Here's this detail.
It says another officer who entered the hallway was Ruben Ruiz of the Uvalde School District Police Force.
His wife, teacher Ava Morales, had called him on his cell phone and told him she was bleeding heavily.
She says she is shot, he told the officers on the scene.
The video from inside the hallway doesn't capture what Ruiz did inside the school, but a DPS official told the Tribune that Ruiz was soon escorted away by other officers on the scene.
Okay, so...
Just to summarize here, and like I said, there's plenty more revelations.
You can go read the whole article.
They're sitting outside the classroom for 77 minutes.
They have ballistic shields.
They have heavy firepower.
They didn't even try to open the door, which it looks as though now was unlocked the entire time.
They could have just opened it and went right in.
And this scumbag is executing children this entire time.
Meanwhile, one of the officers, his own wife, is bleeding to death inside the classroom.
And we hear from other sources that were there that he said he wanted to go in.
They told him to stand down.
He refused and tried to rush in to save his wife, as any husband would, and they stopped him, detained him, took his gun away, and brought him out of the school.
Repeating a scene that was very similar to what was going on outside the school, where there were parents trying to rush in to save their kids, and they were being detained.
I mean, according to reports, at least one person was tased.
So these cowards are sitting there and doing absolutely nothing at all.
And the people who want to do something to save their loved ones are being physically prevented from doing so.
So the physical force is being used against the husbands and parents who are trying to save, you know, their wives and children from certain death.
It keeps something else in mind, too, because, you know, there's this question about, and I think there's still a question, we still don't know for sure, During that 77 minutes, while the cowards were just sitting outside in fear, afraid to move, we still don't know for sure how many kids were shot during that time.
Most of the shooting happened in the three minutes before cops arrived on the scene.
But we do know that he continued to fire, so there were kids being killed, there were victims being claimed that entire time.
There were also people that were shot in the first three minutes and were bleeding to death, like this officer's wife.
But then there's something else too, that along with the physical, trying to save these kids physically, just the idea of leaving kids in that classroom, in that situation, for over an hour.
I mean, the unimaginable psychological and emotional toll that that must take on these kids.
And they have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
Can you imagine what that was?
I mean, you can't.
Nobody can.
To be a, you know, an eight-year-old kid, hiding under a desk, inside this classroom for over an hour, while your friends are bleeding to death all around you, and there's this crazed gunman just walking around taunting you, that's... I don't think you ever fully recover.
There's no way to fully recover from the psychological trauma there.
And my point is that that would be reason enough Aside from actually saving the lives of the kids who had not yet been murdered, just saving them from the psychological and emotional trauma is reason enough to go in there and risk your own life in the process.
So this is obviously cowardice, but of a particular kind.
Yes, they feared for their safety, you know, so it's physical cowardice.
But it's also moral cowardice.
Because that's the one thing that comes out from all the reports we're reading now.
As there are more and more revelations every single day, is that everybody was waiting around for the order.
Alright, we just heard how the one, you know, law enforcement officer shows up, he says, why aren't we going in?
Oh, we're waiting for the order.
We're waiting.
Waiting to be given an order.
And then the police chief, that soft, puffy, pudgy little worthless coward, Arradondo, he was there and he was waiting around for whatever he was waiting for, a sign from heaven, I don't know.
And so everyone's just waiting because nobody wants to make the call.
That's what this is.
It's a physical cowardice of they didn't want to put their own lives on the line, obviously, even though that's the job they signed up for.
But there's also the moral cowardice of not wanting to make the call, not wanting to be the one to say it's time to go in.
You want to hide behind the order.
Someone gives you the order.
Because finally, when the order was given, and it was clear, finally they did go in.
After it was far too late for a lot of those kids.
But that's, I think, much of the cowardice that was going on that day.
Hiding behind the order.
You want to get the order for someone so that if it goes wrong, you can blame them.
And that to me is even, that's even sicker than the physical cowardice part of it.
As sick and revolting and pathetic as that is, the fact that all those men, so-called alleged men, were outside that classroom, Worried for their physical safety, but also thinking to themselves, well, if this goes wrong, I need to be able to blame somebody.
I don't want to go in myself.
You know, we need a higher up to order it.
And so that we can blame them if it doesn't go well.
That's part of the calculation as they're sitting outside the classroom and kids are dying.
Is how do I protect my own ass?
Physically and also just career advancement and everything else.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the government cannot ban taxpayer-funded tuition assistance for private education from being used by citizens for private religious education.
In the case Carson v. Macon, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that the state of Maine's tuition assistance program, which barred guardians from using the funds for private religious education, was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts opined, quote, This is the right decision, of course, and the objections are absurd.
otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
In short, the prohibition on status-based discrimination under the free exercise clause
is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination.
This is the right decision, of course, and the objections are absurd.
Sotomayor said that this erodes the separation of church and state,
which it doesn't really, but also the separation of church and state
was never meant to be a legal principle way that we see it now, today.
That was something that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists because he was worried about the state's influence on the church, not the other way around.
And he also didn't write it, okay, it was not written into the Constitution.
And besides, the other thing is that public schools are already effectively religious institutions.
They are already institutions that teach and preach and indoctrinate kids into the religion of leftism, as we've talked about.
Now, the left, in criticizing this, they've once again revealed that they don't understand their opposition, and also that they see everything in terms of racial and ethnic identity.
That's just how they see everything.
That's the lens through which they view everything.
So they expect us to view things the same way when we don't, in fact.
Like, that's not... When we encounter an issue, we don't immediately start breaking it down along racial lines and start thinking about, well, how is it going to affect this group and that group and everything.
We don't do that.
But they do.
So, there's been a lot of this kind of thing, like this from Wajahat Ali of The Daily Beast.
He tweeted, Private Islamic schools and Jewish schools should open up all over Maine.
The state has to fund you now, so take advantage of it.
Move your communities there as well.
Let's see what the Supreme Court says.
And I guess he thinks that conservatives are going to say, oh no, we didn't mean that.
No, we don't want any Islamic schools or Jewish schools.
No, of course, everybody on the right is saying, okay, great.
Sounds good.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's fantastic.
Open up Islamic schools, open up Jewish schools, open up all kinds of private education facilities.
That sounds great.
And if you're a Muslim parent, And you say you want to send your kids to an Islamic school?
I think that's a fantastic idea.
I think it's better than sending them to public school.
And that, of course, is how all conservatives are reacting to this tweet.
Saying, yeah, okay, sounds good.
This is just the left revealing its own bigotries.
This is like when the lady on The View, who I think was Joy Behar, said about gun control, said, well, wait until black people get guns, then conservatives will oppose it.
And of course, our response is, number one, they have guns, and number two, that's great.
The more, the merrier.
We want more people to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Fantastic!
We've got no problem with that.
Ali followed this up with this tweet.
He says, Do Maine taxpayers have to fund a Church of Satan school?
I mean, based on the Supreme Court ruling, the answer would have to be yes, right?
Well, as far as that goes, main taxpayers already do fund Church of Satan schools.
That's called the public school system.
So that's already happening.
We already have, there are thousands of schools in this country that are effectively run by the Church of Satan, and it's called the public school system.
So that's already happening, we're aware of that.
And having more schools that are run according to the doctrines of other religions rather than Satanism, to me, sounds like a great idea.
I think we're all on board with that.
Okay, I want to move to this, and first I want to read you a little bit of a story from April of this year, and then we'll get to the update.
This is from the Washington Examiner in April of this year.
It says, a fundraiser for a Connecticut child recovering from second and third degree burns has raised over $230,000 as of Wednesday night.
The money will be used to help the family of six-year-old Dominique Crankall, Crankle, I think probably is how you pronounce it, find a new place to live.
Crankle was hospitalized Sunday after another child covered a ball in gasoline, set it on fire, and threw it at him, according to the family's GoFundMe page.
Kayla Deegan, who's Crankle's sister, said, quote, this kid downstairs has gotten away with too much and has a history of bullying.
The mother thinks he's innocent.
The family thinks it's a joke.
Even though Dominic can't talk because he's in a lot of pain and all swollen, he said to my mom, please don't take me back there.
Crankle is able to eat a few bites of food past his extremely swollen lips, but he is expected to recover.
Okay, so the story was that this child was attacked by two bullies who they all live in the same apartment complex, I think, and they were outside.
The child was attacked by these bullies who lit a ball on fire, tennis ball, and threw it at him maliciously.
And this is the story the family told, and it's the story the mother of the victim told, and they raised lots of money off the story to buy a house.
But then this from the Daily Wire.
This is yesterday.
It says, in April, the family of a six-year-old, Dominic Krenkel, accused other neighborhood children of a bullying attack after Krenkel suffered second and third degree burns, but newly released surveillance footage cast doubt on the family's allegation.
Dominic Krenkel was reportedly playing in the backyard of his family's home in Bridgeport, Connecticut, with neighborhood children when the incident occurred.
The children who were unattended were reportedly lighting things on fire with gasoline, and Krenkel's mother and sister claim the six-year-old was set on fire by bullies who threw a tennis ball at him.
However, those claims have come into question after police said there was no wrongdoing, and footage of the incident was released to the public, and I saw the footage being circulated on social media.
The Daily Mail reports, newly released video appears to disprove a Connecticut mother's claim that her son was targeted by bullies, instead showing a seeming accident as kids play dangerously with fire.
You know, you can see in the video clearly that they're just, the kids, they have, these are kids ranging in age from 6 to 8, and they somehow got their hands on gasoline and a lighter, and they're just playing with it and messing around, and then one of the kids gets set on fire.
And then one of the other kids, you can see in the video, one of the other kids that was slandered as a bully, By the other child's mother?
He uses his own bare hands to try to put the fire out.
We can assume he's burned himself in the process.
He tries to help the boy by putting the fire out.
And probably saves him from suffering much worse damage.
Now, I actually saw this story when it first happened, and I didn't talk about it on my show because I didn't believe it.
And the reason I didn't believe it The version where the kid was attacked by bullies who lit a ball on fire and threw it at him?
The reason I don't believe that is, for one thing, they're raising money for a new house off of the story.
And I wish people would just get this through their heads, okay?
And I'm beseeching you for your own sake.
Nobody can afford in this economy to be wasting money on scam GoFundMes.
Okay.
And every GoFundMe you see, you should be skeptical of.
Doesn't mean never donate to any of them, but be skeptical of them.
Because unless you know the person personally, there should be immediate skepticism.
Unless you know the person, or it's a GoFundMe for AOC's abuela.
Those are the two scenarios where you can give without worrying about it.
Outside of that, be skeptical.
And if there was some sort of incident that happened, And the victim, or the family of the victim, the first thing they do is set up a GoFundMe.
And they're going to use the money in a way that doesn't even have anything really to do with the incident.
Now, it's one thing if they said, we're going to raise the money because he has terrible burns and we need to get him plastic surgery to take care of the burn, the scars.
They don't even say that.
They say, we want the money to go buy a new house.
And people are giving to that GoFundMe?
Like, you didn't see?
Talk about red flags, you didn't see them there?
And also, Right?
Occam's razor here.
Like, go with the simpler explanation.
And when you see a story like this, there's a much simpler and more believable explanation for how a six-year-old boy got burned by fire and gasoline.
And that is that they were messing around with fire and then he got burned in the process.
That's a believable and simple explanation.
Because here's the thing.
If you are leaving young boys aged six to eight unattended With gasoline and a lighter, somebody is getting set on fire.
That's a 100%... It's not even a possibility.
It's a 100% certainty that's gonna happen.
So it's pretty obvious this mother was not paying attention to her own son, and that's how they somehow got their hands on gasoline and a lighter, and now she's trying to shift the blame, and in the process, you know, like, defaming these poor kids and this other family who are not the villains in this.
This is just a terrible accident.
Okay, one other thing before we get to the comment section, I wanted to read this from Mashable.
It says, earlier this week, a Twitter user shared pictures of what she thought looked like cameras disguised as fire sprinklers scattered throughout her Airbnb in Philadelphia.
This prompted other users to begin sharing their Airbnb horror stories on Twitter, while an investigation conducted by the Philadelphia police concluded that there were no hidden cameras in the Airbnb.
The social media damage had already been done.
And so that's why on Twitter there was a trending for a while, Airbnb, people were sharing their horror stories of being in Airbnbs.
And some of the tweets, someone says, LOL, Airbnb hosts are like, I need you to take your shoes off in the house, take the garbage out, turn the music down, and if you want to live under this roof, you've got to follow my rules.
It's like you're living at your parents' house at 19 as a service.
Someone else says, we just abandoned an Airbnb in New York City, claimed to have AC and a double bed, also had lovely stains on the sheets and couch.
And there was apparently a turd that was, I don't know, was this Amber Heard's house that she was staying at?
But there was fecal matter in the house, apparently.
A lot of other horror stories like this.
I'm just reading this to get to the point that I want to make, which is, why are you all staying at Airbnbs?
There are limited circumstances where I can understand it.
Like, if you're going away on vacation, you want to find a home, like a lakefront home or something, and maybe you use Airbnb for that.
If you need a long-term rental, you're staying somewhere for three months, maybe you use Airbnb for that.
But people use Airbnb when they're just visiting town for a few days.
They use it when they're traveling.
And that's what I don't get.
You want to go stay in somebody's house?
You want to stay in someone else's house and pay for it?
Staying in other people's houses, that's the worst thing.
I don't like staying in my own family's.
If I'm visiting family, I prefer to stay in a hotel than stay in their house.
Because it's uncomfortable.
It's awkward.
You know, nothing is set up the way that you would set it up.
You're in someone else's house.
It's their rules.
It's their everything.
They never have their kitchen set up the right way.
Every time I'm in somebody else's kitchen, I'm just thinking to myself, why would you put the forks and knives here?
Why would you put the cups there and not over there?
It doesn't make any sense the way things are laid out.
Makes no sense to me.
Especially when you consider there's a whole industry that had previously been set up for the purposes of providing accommodations to travelers.
It's called the hotel industry.
And hotels are great.
I love hotels.
I'm a hotel enthusiast.
Some hotels aren't good, but you know if they're not going to be good based on the brand, based on the price, so you know what you're getting into ahead of time.
And the hotels are specifically designed for the purpose of staying in for a few days when you're on the road.
You know where everything's going to be.
If you can't find it, you can call down.
And there's a whole staff that's there, and their whole job is to just wait on you, hand and foot.
There's a bar.
Someone will come and make your bed every morning if you want.
They'll bring fresh towels.
It's fantastic.
The only reason it's staying at Airbnb is that it's cheaper, but it's actually not cheaper anymore.
A lot of times it's more expensive.
So stay in a hotel.
This message brought to you by the hotel industry.
Actually, I'm doing it for free because that's how generous I am.
Well, the Sweet Baby Gang has proven yet again that it's financial loyalty knows no bounds.
The Virtue Signal patch, which was released on Monday, sold out yesterday.
In fact, I invented it in my head, live on the air, just riffing.
Last week, and then we put it on, and then we actually made it, and then it sold out right away.
So these things move fast on The Matt Wall Show.
In fact, it almost sold out as fast as the people who actually engage in virtue signaling.
Almost.
I think we could do better, though, because many of you may not have had the chance to secure your patch, and because I am wildly generous, we are going to be restocking the patch to give you another opportunity to seize the moral high ground.
Head over to myswagshack and dailywire.com slash shop to claim your virtue signal patch and the indulgent sense of self-satisfaction that comes with it today.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Jonathan says, "Hey Matt, an important point you missed about Megan Rapinoe is that she, like many others,
have closed the door on the generation behind them after they had success."
She didn't have to compete with boys growing up, and she's rich and famous because of her success, but she's closing the door for other women in her position because she's got hers.
It's similar to comedians who made a living telling provocative jokes, and then telling young comedians those same jokes are offensive.
That's a good point.
That's exactly What's happening here and you said she didn't have to compete against males, but she did as we talked about yesterday She did at least one time have to compete against Boys who were under the age of 15 and she lost but now right?
She's this is this is what all this is why I despise even more It's one thing to have the Gen Z tick-tock generation leftists who are just have been crazy from birth and that's one thing But to have these older The kind of old, crusty, over-the-hill leftists who made it across, right?
Like you say, they made it to success and now they're pulling up the drawbridge behind them in this way?
That's even worse, I agree with you.
Let's see.
Dennis says, Juneteenth does not have to be racial animosity turned into a holiday.
Racial animosity is acting like you're just as oppressed as your ancestors and society never recognized slavery as wrong.
A celebration of the end of slavery is the polar opposite.
I got a lot of comments like this.
Oh, Juneteenth... It doesn't have to be that.
It doesn't have to be this leftist thing.
And you're right, it doesn't have to be.
There's no reason why it had to go in this direction, but it has.
I mean, that's... It doesn't have to be this, but this is what it is.
And this is... Now, you could go and talk about the other versions of Juneteenth that they had in Texas or wherever else, but this federally recognized Nationwide holiday.
Like this version of it that was invented a couple of years ago.
It exists for all the reasons we talked about yesterday.
For racial division, grievance mongering, white guilt and all of that.
That's why that exists.
And it's got nothing to do with patriotism.
It's actually got nothing to do with celebrating freedom.
As great as it would be to have a holiday like that, but again, we actually do have a holiday like that, and the great thing is that it happens just a few weeks after Juneteenth, July 4th.
That's a time for celebrating freedom.
It's not a coincidence, by the way, that many of the most ardent advocates of Juneteenth are not big fans of July 4th, because freedom isn't really their bag.
It's not what they actually care about the most.
Jesse says, only Matt could take a lovely sentiment about the sharing of birthdays and turn it around to benefit him with him being given more presents.
Matt is truly a master at being alpha male to even one-up his son on who got the baddest stitches and trauma trophy.
Matt, you are a kid in an alpha male adult body.
Is that really alpha male status?
To try to one-up, as I did, my nine-year-old son after he got stitches?
Does that make me alpha male or just incredibly petty?
I guess it's up to you to decide.
And finally, Raptor Jesus says, I do love how Matt pronounced the commenter Prince Vegeta's name.
It's Vegeta, Matt.
He's from Dragon Ball Z. Well, Raptor Jesus, did you expect me to actually know that?
You know how I am with pronunciations.
And maybe I've never covered my stance on anime, but you could probably guess what it is.
So you can't be too surprised by that, but thanks for that information anyway.
Coming up next week, we have our biggest live event of the year, Backstage Live at the Ryman.
There are only a few tickets left, so don't miss out on this incredible event.
We want to make sure there's a lot of Sweet Baby Gang representation there, so make sure to snatch those tickets up.
Now, what is Backstage Live?
It's your favorite Daily Wire host in person like you've never seen them before.
You have to see it to believe it.
Just take a look at last year's event.
It was amazing.
We were in the presence of greatness.
The energy of having everyone on the same page was amazing.
If your family member is still waiting for Fauci to give them permission to leave their house, it might be time to cut that off.
I'm actually pretty excited to meet all of them.
I love everybody's opinion individually.
I don't have a favorite.
I like them all.
I found out a way to make football players cry in high school.
My high school experience has helped a lot.
I'm just excited to be here and be surrounded by like-minded people and to just, you know, feel that energy.
Who should we remove from office?
One politician, the most powerful politician in the country, Dr. Fauci!
What are you talking about?
We're doing culture here.
I'm so thrilled to see this happening.
If they say to half of the country, you can't, that half of the country needs to say, screw you, we will.
Backstage Live happens right here in Nashville on June 29th.
Get your tickets now.
So get your tickets today at dailywire.com slash Ryman.
But if you can't join us in person, be sure to tune in live to the live stream by becoming a Daily Wire member at dailywire.com slash Walsh.
Not only will you be able to see the live stream, but you'll get access to our entire content library, including What is a Woman, Terror on the Prairie, great shows like this one, and so much more.
Use code Walsh for 25% off your new membership at dailywire.com slash Walsh.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now in fairness, you have to understand how difficult this is for the left.
They're in a very tough spot, you know, though of course they put themselves in this spot.
They've decided to go all in defending drag shows for children.
Given that this is an entirely indefensible and abhorrent and utterly shocking and degraded practice, there really aren't any good arguments available to them.
They could therefore abandon their child drag advocacy and reclaim whatever sliver of dignity they might have had left.
They could throw up their hands and say, okay, you know what?
We may have gone a little too far with this.
Actually, it is super weird and disgusting to have cross-dressing fetishes performing for preschoolers.
So never mind.
Let's just forget about this whole thing.
They could do that, but they won't.
They never backtrack.
They never apologize.
They never admit that they're wrong about anything.
Their only option is to go full speed ahead all the time, and that leaves them scrambling for ways to justify the pedophilic combination of drag queens and children.
This week on social media, they seem to think that they've maybe stumbled upon a talking point which might accomplish this feat for them.
The problem is that the argument they've settled on actually undermines the premise that they seek to defend.
Once again, they've pulled the pin out of the grenade, and then they just dropped it at their own feet.
Certainly not the first time that this has happened.
So in recent days, Mrs. Doubtfire, the 1993 Robin Williams comedy
where he pretends to be an old woman so that he can nanny his children
without his estranged wife finding out.
And it's one of those movies from the 90s that when you describe it now, it just sounds really weird.
But that movie has been trending on Twitter, and that is due to tweets like this one from alleged comedian Whitney Cummings, who wrote, quote, These old weirdos, worried about drag queens and kids, forgot that our favorite movies as kids were Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, and The Nutty Professor.
Yes, because the people who don't want men to cross-dress in front of children are weirdos.
We're the ones who are weirdos.
But this comparison to old comedies involving men in drag has become popular.
Mocking concerns about the drag queen-child combination, Max Kennerly tweeted, I was 11 when I saw Mrs. Doubtfire.
It had a lasting negative impact on me.
Specifically, I couldn't comprehend how they didn't realize this was cake icing, not facial cream.
Had the whole world gone mad?
My young mind was damaged.
Emily Murnane, another woman who pretends to be a comedian, tweeted in a similar vein, It's true.
I watched Mrs. Doubtfire as a child and grew up to be a morally depraved loser, and I do not see how this could be a coincidence.
Well, she wasn't joking about being a morally depraved loser, at least.
A guy named David Grossman chimed in with his own version of this hilarious joke, tweeting, You think that's bad?
I was 13 when I saw Will Ferrell dress up as Janet Reno on SNL.
This led directly to heroin.
Now, there are many other examples of this talking point, but you get the idea.
Many of us grew up watching comedies involving men in drag, and we turned out fine, relatively.
So, what's wrong with children at drag shows?
That's like the argument.
Well, the first and most obvious response is that, to my memory, there is no scene in Mrs. Doubtfire where Robin Williams strips down to a thong and twerks on the ground while children throw money at him.
Maybe I'd go back and watch it again, but I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.
That's precisely what happens, though, at drag shows.
You don't have to be the most perceptive person in the world to notice a difference here.
Namely, the difference is that the point of one is to be funny, while the point of the other is to be sexual.
There's a reason why these drag shows are not at comedy clubs.
They're at gay clubs.
There's no neon sign in the background that says Chuckle Hut or Laugh Factory.
Instead, the neon sign says, as was the case in one of these drag shows for kids, it's not gonna lick itself.
The drag events are sexually charged by their nature.
That's the point of them.
That's why they exist.
The audience at a drag show does not sit there and point and laugh the whole time.
They're not there to mock the drag queen for how ridiculous he looks.
And the children at the drag show are not meant to come away with the idea that it's absurd or silly or stupid for men to dress like women.
Quite the opposite.
And that brings us to the second and most crucial point, and this is where the grenade goes off and blows to pieces the people who tried to throw it against us.
The point is this.
Mrs. Doubtfire could not exist today as a film.
It couldn't be made.
And that's not because conservatives would object.
It's the left that would have a conniption fit over it.
Why?
Because the comedy in Mrs. Doubtfire, and films similar to it, entirely revolves around the fundamental absurdity of males dressing like females.
We're supposed to laugh about it and at it.
The cross-dressing man is essentially a clown wearing a ridiculous outfit for our amusement.
Indeed, the comedy makes no sense, there is no comedy at all, unless you recognize the differences between men and women and believe that somebody in one category can never cross over to the other.
The laughs come from that basic understanding.
Mrs. Doubtfire is funny because it's absurd.
And it's absurd because a man is wearing women's clothing.
And that's absurd.
But the left says that we have to take cross-dressing men seriously.
They say it's not comedy at all, but a deep expression of their inner being.
What's more, they say gender is fluid, and so there's nothing fundamentally absurd about a biological male presenting himself as a female.
In modern America, Mrs. Doubtfire would be condemned as a transphobic, homophobic, gender exclusionary, reinforcing the gender binary and all that.
Or else, if something like it was made today, it wouldn't be a comedy, but a drama.
It would be the inspiring story of a man who identifies as an elderly woman and struggles for it to be accepted, you know, by society and his own family.
Like, if the exact movie of Mrs. Doubtfire had never existed, and then was made in 2022, the left would watch it and either they would want to burn at the stake everybody involved, or they would think that it's an inspirational drama.
Like, they would not see it as a comedy.
Unless I'm wrong.
Perhaps I should take these leftists at their own word.
They're saying that modern drag shows and Mrs. Doubtfire are the same.
That's what they're saying.
Okay, so can I then point and laugh at drag queens?
Can I say that they look ridiculous?
Can I teach my children that when they see a man dressed like a woman, it's funny and silly and they should not take it seriously.
They should laugh at it.
Now, I have taught my children.
That's exactly what I've told them on the few occasions when we've been out in public and they have, unfortunately, incidentally, witnessed something like this.
I've told them, that's silly, that's ridiculous, that's all that is.
And I'm going to tell my children that whether I have permission from the left or not.
But are they now endorsing that approach?
Something tells me they're not.
Not intentionally, anyway.
They're just saying whatever they think will be most effective in the moment, even if it contradicts everything else they say in every other moment, as usual.
And for that reason, they are today cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
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 producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
