Ep. 1013 - The Gender Surgeon Who Will Butcher Children Of Any Age
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we have reported on many doctors who butcher children but today I’ll tell you about the worst one yet. This one says he does not abide by any age limit at all. Also, Joe Biden tries to rewrite history and cast the Democrats as the party of law and order. The Democratic governor of Minnesota also tries to rewrite history, claiming that the school shutdowns never happened. We all imagined it, apparently. A brave young man shows up at a girl’s basketball tournament and completely dominates. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the pundit who has decided to die on the hill of defending gender surgeries for children.
Become a DailyWire+ member and tune in to Backstage TONIGHT at 7pm Eastern / 6pm Central: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
—
Today’s Sponsors:
ZipRecruiter makes hiring so much easier because they do the work for you. Sign up for FREE! www.ZipRecruiter.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we have reported on many doctors who butcher children, but today I'll tell you about the worst one yet.
This one says he does not abide by any age limit at all.
None.
Also, Joe Biden tries to rewrite history and cast the Democrats as the party of law and order.
The Democratic governor of Minnesota also tries to rewrite history, claiming that the school shutdowns never happened.
We all imagined it, apparently.
A brave young man shows up at a girls basketball tournament and completely dominates.
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the pundit who ...has decided to die on the hill of defending gender surgeries for children.
Learn all of that and more today on The Matt Wells Show.
(upbeat music)
Hiring is challenging, especially right now when you have so much on your plate.
Luckily, there's one place you can go where hiring is simple, fast, and smart.
A place where growing businesses connect to qualified candidates.
That place is ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter does the work for you.
ZipRecruiter uses its powerful technology to find and match the right candidates with your job.
You can easily review these recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site based on G2 satisfaction ratings as of January 1st, 2022.
And right now, to try ZipRecruiter for free, my listeners can go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Last night, the media was frantically reporting the news of a bomb threat at Boston Children's Hospital.
Now, immediately, the left, as you would expect, jumped on the story.
They were barely able to hide their glee.
I mean, they were excited about it because it was an opportunity to blame conservatives.
And they blamed conservatives for the threat, mostly singling out Libs of TikTok and myself.
I was tagged thousands of times last night by leftists condemning me for my involvement in the bomb threat, and if not my involvement, then at least my role in promoting, you know, this kind of violence.
Except that, of course, I have never promoted any violence of any kind, least of all have I encouraged anyone to bomb a hospital.
Libs of TikTok has done no such thing either, and though I haven't specifically asked her this question, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that she agrees with me and with every other rational human being on earth that, you know, bombing hospitals or threatening to bomb them is evil and insane behavior.
Now, of course, this doesn't really need to be said.
Everyone knows that we have never advocated violence and never would.
Everyone knows that all we have done is report what these institutions are doing.
The fact that so many children's hospitals and other medical clinics are doing terrible things to kids is a reason to criticize them, not us.
The left screams, how could you accuse children's hospitals of drugging and mutilating kids?
Well, because they are?
I mean, that's why we're accused?
Because that's what they're doing?
That's how we can say it?
I wish they weren't doing it.
I wish we didn't have to talk about it.
And that's exactly why I am talking about it.
And will continue to.
But what about the bomb threat?
Well, a funny thing happened.
The next morning, the story had gone away completely.
Like it never happened.
Just gone away.
Now, you might expect that it would be in the headlines of every mainstream media outlet.
Next thing you know, there's a bomb threat, right?
Like, that's the headline.
It was the headline Tuesday night.
By Wednesday morning, it was gone.
And that's because, as some outlets quietly reported much later last night, police quickly determined that the whole thing was a, quote, false alarm.
In fact, according to a report on Boston.com, cops showed up to the scene at 9.20 p.m.
and had cleared it by 10 o'clock, 40 minutes, and they had determined that it was a false alarm.
Now, this does not seem to mean that there was really a threat, but no bomb, right?
Like somebody called in a threat, but then they couldn't find a bomb.
That's not what seems to have happened.
Because in that case, you'd think it'd take them a little bit longer than just over half an hour to clear the scene.
Also, they would still be looking for the culprit who made the threat, because making a threat, even if there's no bomb, is obviously a crime.
But they're not saying that we're looking for anybody, there's no suspect.
Instead, they just moved on, and so has the media.
And this leaves a lot of unanswered questions and raises an even greater suspicion that perhaps this was less a false alarm and more a hoax meant to demonize the right.
Or else maybe it was just a bag that somebody accidentally left in the corner of a hallway somewhere.
Or maybe something else.
We don't know.
We don't know because we haven't been given any more information.
And there may be a reason why we haven't been given any more information.
Whatever the case, what we can say for sure is that, as always, the left's narrative about the event was wrong.
And it was wrong on several levels.
And it was intended to defame me and others on the right because defamation and intimidation and emotional blackmail are the only tools they have available in their tool chest.
What they cannot do, what they steadfastly refuse to do, is engage on the actual topic and discuss the issue head-on.
Instead, they'll continue to demand that we stop talking about it, while they come up with ever more elaborate fantasies about the phantom violence and chaos we're supposedly causing simply by talking about it.
Now, it's a clever trick, actually, because they claim that children are not being mutilated, that this is all a right-wing fairy tale, and then, when we provide explicit examples to support our claims, they scream that we're promoting violence.
Obviously, the tactic here is to create an environment where nobody is allowed to make a counter-argument.
The left has rigged the game completely.
They're right about everything, and if you provide evidence to prove they aren't right, then you're a terrorist.
Which means that, well, effectively, they're still right.
That's kind of the choice that they've given us.
Like, you can either just accept that you're wrong, or you can be a terrorist.
Those are your two options.
What the left says to the right is, on the issue of the transing of kids, either just admit that you're wrong and we're right, or you're a terrorist.
Those are the only two options.
This is what they resort to because they cannot defend the indefensible, and they know it.
After all, what can anyone really say to vindicate, for example, Dr. Scott Masser of the Gender Confirmation Center in San Francisco?
Now, the left says that children are not being surgically transitioned.
And yet, Dr. Scott Masser in San Francisco has a section on his website titled, Adolescent Top Surgery.
Mosse assures us that he follows, quote, strict guidelines before operating on a child, which means that he will operate on a child and has many times.
Indeed, he provides a range of services to adolescent girls.
He'll chop their breasts off if they want to become boys, even though they can't become boys.
He also offers non-binary procedures for those children who desire to be neither male nor female.
All this is outlined on his website.
It's right there.
Chris Ruffo has looked into Mosser's business as well and found that he charges between $8,500 and $10,000 a pop, generating $20 million in revenue for his clinic.
As Ruffo says, gender ideology is a booming business.
There is millions of dollars involved.
Ruffo also dug up this clip of Mosser himself describing his approach.
And I want you to listen to every word of this.
I'm super committed to gender surgery.
In the past, I used to do cosmetic surgery.
I'm a board-certified plastic surgeon, and I've always been drawn to things that are deeply impactful.
In the GCC, Gender Confirmation Center in San Francisco, we kind of have these like secret missions.
Now that it's on a slide these public secret missions which are one of them is that we try to we try to live with our values 30 to 40 years in the future.
So and that puts us in a mindset of extreme affirmation because affirmation at that time is a foregone conclusion.
This is a time in the future when Gender is just a thing.
Nobody makes a big deal out of it.
People are being screened as children and adolescents for their gender journey and appropriate steps are taken to get them involved in a multidisciplinary process to get them where they need to go.
That's the future.
I do not have a minimum age of any sort in my practice.
There's no chronological age that says you don't get surgery.
Now having said that, I don't think I've ever done a consult on a 12-year-old yet, but we would if one came our way.
We just haven't had reason to.
And then we've done a number of 13-year-olds who we did consults on.
I think I've done one or two 13-year-old surgeries.
For the most part, it's 14 and up, that by the time everything comes together, plus insurance approval, plus everything, that surgery actually gets completed.
We do not require any particular identity.
We only require that somebody has gender dysphoria and uses a multidisciplinary process for us to assess.
Do you have a question?
Please, yes.
They say, what was the youngest age a transmasculine kid could consider this surgery?
So there is no youngest age at all.
Yes, he is drawn to things that are deeply impactful, he says.
Now, if this man was not a bloodthirsty butcher, we might be able to linger a bit more on that statement and reflect on what a pretentious, pompous, nothing-of-a-person you have to be to make it.
But there are more important issues here.
Mosser, the butcher of San Francisco, says that he would happily chop the breasts off of a 12-year-old child.
A kid in 7th grade.
In fact, he would go even younger than that.
He says that there's no minimum age.
No minimum age at all.
Though, sadly for him, he's never had the opportunity to get to a child that young.
He has had the chance to surgically mutilate a few 13-year-olds and many more kids who are 14 and up.
Which is what?
About 9th grade?
Remember, an 18-year-old is not old enough to understand his student loan agreement But 14-year-olds are able to knowingly consent to having their bodies permanently disfigured.
On his website, Mosser offers an FAQ section where he addresses the concern about post-surgery regret.
Here's what he says.
Satisfaction with surgical results is closely related to the surgeon's skill, patient safety, and matching the procedure to the patient's expectations.
What is clear is that transgender visibility has risen dramatically in recent years, along with a number of requests for transition surgery.
It is exceptionally rare for patients to regret transitioning genders.
Although rare, regret after surgery is often due to the patient's unrealistic expectations, or due to the very rare complications from surgery, or unfortunately due to a poor result executed by an inexperienced surgeon.
This is why Dr. Mosser specializes in transgender surgery and emphasizes coordination with the patient support teams, including physicians, family members, partners, or close friends assisting in the transition.
Exceptionally rare, he says.
But he well knows that he cannot possibly know how common or rare it actually is.
Because any study that is done about post-op regret among trans people has focused on adults who had surgery as adults.
And even there, the picture is not nearly so rosy as people like Mosser-Klem claim.
Not even close.
Which is why trans people are more suicidal, the most suicidal, after surgery, in fact.
But until recently, Here's the point, these things were not being done to children, certainly not at the rate and volume that they are now.
How many 40-year-olds are walking around out there who had cosmetic mastectomies at 14?
Are there any?
And so, when Masser performs this procedure on a child and assures the child that she almost certainly will not regret it, he is lying to her.
He is giving her assurances that he has no evidentiary basis for, least of all a common sense basis.
But what does he care?
He makes $10,000, rides off into the sunset, leaving the child to deal with the consequences.
The whole thing is so evil and grotesque and indefensible that even its advocates would rather not talk about it.
In fact, they demand, in no uncertain terms, That we not talk about it.
And they will do anything, anything, to stop us from talking about it.
Which is why we need to keep talking about it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
So Joe Biden gave a speech in Pennsylvania near Scranton where he pretends that he grew up.
And of course it involved a fair amount of nonsensical babbling, which you can always expect from Joe Biden.
Like there was this moment where he talks about working as a lifeguard in a predominantly black area where he says for some reason everyone was good at basketball.
If I can just interject for a moment, my deceased son Bo, he was the Attorney General of the state of Delaware.
And what he used to do is go down in the east side, what's called the bucket, highest crime rate in the country.
There's a place where I used to, I was the only white guy that worked as a lifeguard down in that area, in the east side.
And you know where the, you can always tell where the best basketball in the state is, and the best basketball in the city is.
It's where everybody shows up.
Is that where he met Corn Pop?
Isn't that the Corn Pop story when he was a lifeguard, wasn't it?
So this is now the origin story is coming together, that's where Corn Pop was.
And, hey, you know, he's just interjecting.
Hey, if I could just interject this racially stereotypical story very quickly here.
Yeah, I was the only white guy, and if you're the only white guy, that's how you know people are good at basketball.
Alright, but he made headlines, not so much with that moment, but with this moment.
Where he repudiates the defund the police movement.
Listen.
You know, I call it the Safer Americas Plan.
And both your members of Congress voted for it.
It's based on a simple notion.
When it comes to public safety in this nation, the answer is not defund the police.
It's fund the police.
Fund the police.
And give them We expect them to do everything.
We expect them to protect us, to be psychologists, and to be sociologists.
I mean, we expect you to do everything.
I'm not joking.
Everything.
You realize more police officers are killed dealing with domestic violence than anything else?
You realize that?
The point is, we ask so much of you, so much of you.
But I don't know any police officer that feels good about the fact that there may be a lousy cop.
I'm tired of not giving the kind of help they need.
Well, he's right about one thing.
There are lousy presidents.
He certainly has proven that.
It may be the most correct thing he's ever said into a microphone.
But a couple of things here.
First, what does it say about your party that you can even make a headline by saying that we should fund police departments?
Okay, what does it say about your party that this is an applause line, it's a headline?
Biden says we should fund police departments.
Okay, a politician 10 years ago would be greeted with silence and crickets and kind of confused head scratching if he got up there and said, you know what we should do?
We should fund our police departments.
Yeah, of course we should.
Obviously we should fund them.
What else are we going to do?
Defund them?
Who would want to do that?
Who would be that insane?
So, I should tell you something about the people that are in your party.
But the real point here is the effort to rewrite history.
Because I said to introduce the clip that he's repudiating the defund the police movement.
That's not exactly correct, actually.
Because that's not what Biden and the Democrats have been doing over the past year or so.
They haven't been going around and saying, wow, we really screwed up with that defund the police stuff.
That whole thing, I don't know what got into us.
That was crazy.
They're not doing that.
No, they've just decided to pretend that it never happened.
Biden's point here isn't that he's arguing against his own side, holding his own side to account.
His point is that the whole defund the police thing is a silly false narrative, and nobody ever wanted to do that anyway.
If you recall, this was a very sudden, when this is what Democrats can do because they have the whole media mechanism behind them that can support them on it, but they just made this sudden switch.
It was defund the police, defund the police, defund the police.
And then one day, what do you mean?
No one ever wanted to defund the police.
You were just saying it like 30 seconds ago.
No one ever said that.
What are you talking about?
So, that's what this is about.
It's about rewriting.
It's not about correcting, you know, writing the course, correcting, or anything like that.
It's about rewriting history.
And that's the message that they want to send, that nobody ever wanted to defund the police.
And yet, as this video compilation from RNC Research shows, the history is quite clear, and it also shows that this defund the police madness went all the way up to the White House.
Let's watch this.
So we've been talking about defunding the police.
There's some issues that we ask police to do, like mental health issues or policing in schools and all the rest, that perhaps we can shuffle some of that money around.
Suck it up.
Defunding the police has to happen.
We need to defund the police.
Mayor Eric Garcetti saying, take some of the money from policing, about $150 million.
I applaud Eric Garcetti for doing what he's done.
Not only do we need to disinvest foreign police, but we need to completely dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.
So yes, defund your butts.
Defund you.
Yes, I support the reallocation of resources from NYPD.
We will be moving funding from the NYPD to youth initiatives and social services.
They are talking about reducing the allocation of resources to that department.
And I think every single Every city in this country ought to be thinking about the same thing.
Yes, I support the defund movement.
I'm for responsible reallocation of resources.
And defund the police.
I think you do all those other things, you don't need all the money that's going to the police department.
So yeah, I mean, the spirit of it, I do support that.
That's a seven-minute clip.
I think you got it.
I mean, if you remember, if you don't have amnesia, then you can recall how this was, for a brief glimmer in time, it was a mainstream talking point on the left.
Every Democrat with any standing, especially on the national stage, you know, came out in support of it.
Some version of defunding the police.
Yeah, well, reroute funds.
And what made this all the more egregious, aside from just how generally insane it is, is that this is coming from Democrats, who in every other area, when it comes to any other government function, they want more funds to go in.
And not only that, but they're quite clear in every other area that the only way to fix a problem when it comes to the government is to give it more funds.
The school system.
Any problem in the school system that they're willing to acknowledge, how do you fix it?
More funds.
Give more money.
And then law enforcement is the one area where they say, well, if you really want to fix this, stop giving them money at all.
Just get rid of it.
These people don't want to abolish any aspect of government except local police departments.
The only area.
If you doubt they're trying to rewrite history, Here's a report from CBS tweeted out by one of their reporters who captioned this, captioned it, the economy is the top concern, but how to fight crime and gun violence ranks high with likely voters.
And now Biden and Democrats are arguing that they are the tough on crime party.
They're the tough on crime party.
Let's watch a little bit of this report.
On the airwaves in states like Pennsylvania.
John Fetterman wants to release convicted murderers from prison.
Public safety is why I ran for office.
And now, on The Stump.
I'm opposed to defunding the police.
I'm also opposed to defunding the FBI.
How to fight crime and gun violence are taking center stage.
During a stop in Pennsylvania Tuesday, President Biden attacked those Republicans who've called for defunding the FBI in response to its search of former President Donald Trump's home in Florida.
And denounced Republicans who defend rioters at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th.
You can't be pro-law enforcement and pro-insurrection.
You can't be a party of law and order And call the people who attacked the police on January 6th patriots!
The increased focus on law enforcement crime and guns on both sides of the aisle comes as the majority of likely voters see crime and guns as very important issues.
So Democrats, they're actually the tough on crime party.
Now as I've already explained to you, there's a big difference between wanting to defund the FBI or even abolish the FBI and saying that about local police departments.
Because we know what local police departments do, even if there's corruption in local police departments, which obviously sometimes there is.
Even if there's corruption, we know what local police departments do.
We know why they're necessary.
We know what happens when they don't have enough funding.
We know what happens when they aren't doing their job, either because they got their hands tied and they're told that they're not supposed to or whatever.
We know what happens.
Like when the police aren't on the scene, we know what happens because we're seeing it right now.
Well, what happens if there's no FBI?
Well, let's just say, hypothetically, let's say the FBI evaporated tomorrow and it didn't exist anymore.
Does that lead to chaos and anarchy across the country?
Does it?
I don't necessarily see any reason why it would.
Especially when there are so many, there's so much overlap among these federal agencies that are engaged in various alleged forms of law enforcement.
There's so many agencies with people that have guns and badges running around doing this and that.
And so, do we need all of them?
How much redundancy is there?
That's a good question.
There is no question about whether we need local police departments.
That's the difference.
Now, the tough-on-crime party.
Okay, that's interesting.
So here's a thread from Andy Ngo.
Published this yesterday.
He says, after supporting streetcar takeovers in Portland, one of Antifa's friends was killed when a stray bullet aimed at an elderly driver caught on the road hit someone on their own side.
What a tragedy.
Antifa are asking for money for the victim's family.
The victim, right.
Actually, and it might actually be a tragedy, because there is a real victim here, which is the elderly man.
He continues, says, Video of a street takeover near the Portland Expo Center on August 28th shows an elderly driver in a van trying to flee.
The rioter shot up his vehicle and shoot him.
So there is a victim, the elderly man, who was shot.
His condition is unknown.
Bullets by the rioters hit two on their own side, killing one.
Police made no arrests.
Also on August 28th, rioters took over another part of Portland for a streetcar event at the intersection of Northeast 72nd and Sandy.
They used flamethrowers.
Police did not make arrests because of historic low staffing numbers following 2020 Antifa riots.
So Antifa are in the street.
This is not the first time we've seen this.
They've been doing this for years.
They take over a street.
And if you try to drive down the street, they stop you.
And if you don't listen to their orders, they will kill you.
And... Not arrested.
You have people in Antifa shooting people in cars on video, and no arrest is made.
Oh, the Democrats are tough on crime, alright.
And it's the right-wing radicals we have to worry about.
Where are the right-wing radicals across the country, you know, in the middle of the street with guns, stopping cars, and shooting people at will?
Where is that happening?
All right, from Daily Wire, it says, Los Angeles County officials said Tuesday that a guaranteed basic income program has begun to roll out with a thousand residents now receiving a thousand dollars a month until 2025.
Fox LA reports the recipients for the program were chosen randomly out of more than 180,000 applicants.
Supervisor Sheila Kuhl said that given the number of county residents who applied, it's abundantly clear that the time has come for the program.
She says, I'm confident that we will see what other pilots have already shown, that a guaranteed basic income by giving people a bit of financial breathing room allows them to stabilize their lives and that of their families.
It's being reported that this is a universal basic income, but it's actually not universal at all.
So it can't really be considered a pilot program or a test flight for universal basic income where everybody gets money.
That's what universal basic income is.
That's what Andrew Yang was out yammering about, right?
Everybody gets a certain amount of money.
That's not what this actually is.
But whether we're talking about a universal basic income or a guaranteed basic income, which is what they're doing in Los Angeles, it's a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.
And by the way, none of these reasons can be mitigated by the fact that lots of people want it.
Because what we heard from the county supervisor there was that, well, we offered free money and lots of people applied and wanted it, so clearly that shows that we need to have this program.
The fact that lots of people want free money, that doesn't surprise- I know people want free money.
That I understand.
That, in and of itself, does not prove that we should be giving free money to everybody.
That's just like if I, you know, gave out- had cake, pieces of cake, and I said, hey everybody, come get free cake.
And the next thing you know, all the cake is gone.
And I said, well, everybody wanted cake, that obviously proves that cake is good for you.
I mean, why do people want it if it's not?
No, it's actually a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.
First of all, it's prohibitively expensive.
Especially when you try to scale it.
This is why the experiment has failed where it was tried in Finland, for example, Canada, and other places.
It actually, there's no such thing as free money, it turns out.
Money has to come from somewhere, and it's a lot of money, and the money just, it's, the cost is astronomical and it's prohibitive.
So that's one problem.
The other problem, obviously, is inflation.
Now, Andrew Yang, when he went around talking about this, he said, oh, I don't have to worry about inflation.
Just like we didn't have to worry about inflation during COVID, when they were giving out the stimulus checks to everybody.
They said, it's not going to cause inflation.
Next thing you know, we have sky-high inflation.
No, it's just, there are some, and I'm no economist, but I know there are basic economic laws, and when you give money to everyone, then the prices, the laws of supply and demand, the laws of the marketplace, will always lead to prices going up.
There's also no oversight on how the money is spent.
So, this is a problem with many welfare programs, but especially something like this.
I think what they're doing in Los Angeles is that they're giving people a debit card, and just saying, well, here you go.
And maybe some people will spend it responsibly.
Lots of people are going to go, you know, you go buy cigarettes and alcohol and that sort of thing.
It's hard to see how that helps.
But the biggest issue is disincentivizing work.
Okay, and this is another thing that we saw during COVID, when you start giving money to everyone and expanding and extending unemployment, extending it again and again and again, making it more and more comfortable for people to not work, then what happens?
People don't work.
And when you don't have people working, then society starts to break down.
Businesses can't stay open.
Businesses start closing.
Then the things that people need are not available to them anymore.
Because there's no one there to provide them.
In order for them to be provided, you need people to work.
Now, what the left is always trying to do is get around the fact that life requires work.
This is why I always feel I always have to give my dad speech because this is a speech that many people on the left never got because they weren't raised by dad.
They didn't have dads in the home.
It's one of the problems here.
There's a classic dad speech about you have to work.
That's life.
There's no way around it.
And the more comfortable you make people in not working, the worse things are.
And the more strain you put on the few people remaining who do work.
Because again, this is a basic fact of life.
In order for you to survive, there has to be work done to prop up your existence.
And if you are not going to do it, then someone else has to do it.
If nobody at all is doing any kind of work, then everyone just dies.
That's it.
The only way around that is for some people to not work and then forcing other people to work for them.
working for themselves and others as well.
And I don't know.
I think we know historically that systems where you force people to work for you Are highly unethical, let's just say.
All right, moving into this.
Talk about rewriting history.
Here is Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat in Minnesota, talking about the shutdown of schools.
You remember that, don't you?
Just like we remember the Defund the Police movement?
Apparently, it never happened.
Did you know that?
We hallucinated it.
The schools were never actually shut down.
Listen to the governor.
Would you have done the schools any differently?
Because I think that's where a lot of parents are upset about what happened with the schools.
Do you think you could have made any other choice?
Well, I think, just to be clear, over 80% of our students missed less than 10 days of in-class learning.
The vast majority of students were in.
It depended, again, on population density.
Many of these decisions were being made by local folks to be able to do what was necessary to keep them there.
I think, again, in hindsight, If we could have known that we would get vaccinations out as quickly as possible, we prioritized teachers and the staff in schools to get there.
We're doing it differently now, and since May of 2021, almost every one of our students has been in the entire time and been doing that.
So, I think, with hindsight, as 2020, perhaps we could have tailored a little bit closer to that, but the fact of the matter is making the case that we shouldn't have done anything is simply wrong.
Oh man, it's gotta be so good to be a Democrat.
It's just, there's no accountability.
You can say anything at all.
And it's gotta be so nice.
It's the exact opposite situation from being, you know, on the right, where every word you say publicly, people are sifting through it, and every little statement is getting pulled apart and fact-checked and everything.
But you're on the left, you don't have that at all.
You can just say anything at all.
So he could sit there and say, That 80% of students missed fewer than 10 days of in-class learning.
What?
The schools were shut down at a minimum for the remainder of 2020 after COVID hit.
And that's on the lower end of it.
And then if we recall, going into the school season after the summer, It was a big fight about whether schools are going to open.
And in many places, such as in Minnesota, they didn't.
So he said, kids, they missed less than 10 days.
No, they missed like a year.
And he even admits that later on because he says, well, as of May of 2021, kids have been in school.
Yeah, but COVID hit in March of 2020.
There's over a year in between that, Governor.
And whoever's interviewing him lets him get away with that.
I only missed 10 days.
What are you talking about?
That's what it should have been.
That's what we were originally told.
Well, no, we were told 15 days, right, to slow the spread.
Do 15 days and we'll get back to our lives.
It's amazing.
We always thought, like, how are they going to—they told us 15 days to slow the spread.
It became 300 days or whatever.
How are they going to account for that?
Well, they're just gonna pretend that it really was 15 days.
Um, alright, I wanted to mention this to you.
This is the Daily Wire.
It says, Gibson's Bakery, a family-owned bakery that has operated in Oberlin, Ohio since 1885, received a major win in its ongoing feud with Oberlin College, which encouraged and supported students and faculty falsely accusing the bakery of racism in 2016.
So as a jury awarded the bakery $36 million in damages after Oberlin's sustained campaign against the shop and the college fought the verdict with every tool at its disposal.
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear Oberlin's appeal, meaning the school will finally have to pay the bakery that it has nearly put out of business.
Gibson's family attorney told the Daily Wire in a statement, Truth still matters.
David can still overcome Goliath.
We in the Gibson family are gratified that all judges in the Court of Appeals and the majority of the Ohio Supreme Court recognize the rights of individuals rather than the bullying tactics of the big institutions.
In April, an appeals court upheld the multi-million dollar verdict the Daily Wire reported, but the college appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and they lost there as well.
So they're going to have to pay out $36 million in damages for having almost put this business out of business.
Now, what happened here?
That's the end of the story.
That's the happy ending.
We don't get a lot of those, so we should celebrate them when they happen.
But what led to this?
If you don't remember this story, because there are so many fake racism stories, it's hard to keep them all straight.
Why was this bakery being accused of racism?
Well, it's very simple, actually.
You can tell the story in, like, two sentences.
Some non-white Oberlin students went to the business a few years ago, tried to steal alcohol from the business.
They were stealing.
Someone at the bakery in the Gibson family stopped them from stealing.
And that's it.
That's why they're racist.
Because a white person at a business tried to stop some non-white people from stealing from them, and therefore they're racist.
Next thing you know, there are protests, there's everything else, and Oberlin College itself, as an institution, is putting all of its weight behind destroying this business and these people simply because they wouldn't allow black students to steal from them.
Why else would you stop someone from stealing from you, except racism?
Right?
Because the Gibson family, they invite white people to steal from them.
They have a sign on the door saying, white people are allowed to steal.
If they saw a white person walking out the door with something, they'd say, oh, hey, stop, sir.
Oh, wait, you're white.
Never mind.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Do you want more?
You want to grab this over here too?
You can have that as well.
You want some money from the cash register?
I mean, if you're white, you can have it.
That's basically the situation, that's the picture that Oberlin College as an institution wanted to paint.
And now they've got to pay out.
Which is great, but it's also discouraging in another way, if you want to look at the black cloud within the silver lining, as I often tend to do.
It's also kind of discouraging because of what- they were so clearly defamed and victimized.
They're so clearly in the rights, so clearly the victims, and yet it took them years and I don't know how much money to be vindicated.
And most people who are put in this situation don't have the resources to fight like that.
And so they're defamed and their lives are destroyed and then the mob just moves on to the next person.
All right, let's brighten the mood a little bit.
I want you to watch this.
This is something inspiring.
Here's a man entering a girls' basketball tournament.
This is not someone who, as far as I know, identifies as trans.
This is just a dude.
It's just a dude who decided to take advantage of our current mania and have some fun with it, and here's what that looked like.
I'm about to literally make history.
Time to go for third.
Oh, my God, Cudi.
Dynasty on three.
One, two, three.
Dynasty!
Don't break my nail.
Raise the roof!
(ball bouncing)
She's little!
She's little!
You're not doing that again.
That is inspiring.
I'm not worried, I'm not worried.
Okay, I'm gonna hold on to that.
[APPLAUSE]
I'll hold on number one.
[INAUDIBLE]
My God.
You're kidding, my God.
That is inspiring.
I mean, this is a brave and bold young lady.
She is a hero for living her truth.
And I hope she goes on to dominate the WNBA.
That's what I hope.
A true pioneer.
Don't stop here, young lady.
Continue.
Let's get to the comment section.
I have to tell you one thing before I get to the comments, because this is another thing
I'm going through in my life, and I think it'll be important for you to hear.
So two nights ago, it's about 11.30, my wife is in bed, and she's not asleep yet, I don't think.
But even if she was, I had to talk to her about something that was really important.
And I told her that I've been really bothered For a long time now, by the fact that my socks, which are very important to me, always get lost in the wash.
Now, everyone knows this.
It's a classic complaint, of course.
You put a pair of socks in the wash and somehow only one emerges, right?
We all know that.
And for someone like myself, it puts a lot of thought and effort and love into building a sock collection.
This is a very challenging thing for me.
So what I was trying to explain to my wife is I came up with a system.
And I was trying to tell her this at 11.30 at night.
I bought a special sock bag on Amazon, and the system is that I will, as I explained to her, throughout the week, I'll deposit my socks, both pairs of socks after I use them, into the bag, which will remain in my closet until the end of the week, at which point the socks will be, while still in the bag, will be transported to the laundry room.
And now here's where things get tricky, because the bag is porous.
My hope is that they can be washed inside the bag, And then that way we know we're not going to have any problems.
If that doesn't work, then they'll be taken out of the bag, put into the wash, then to the dryer, and then transported back to my sock drawer.
They'll not put them back inside the bag because that's for my dirty socks, right?
The most important point here is that they never go in a hamper, ever, under any circumstance, and they must not be washed with other items, because when you do that, that's when you lose them, and they're just lost.
Okay?
And a pair of socks that I bought, or that I got from my sock subscription service, which I do have, is now gone.
And so this is the system I came up with.
I'm trying to explain all this to her, and she just...
She starts laughing at me and making fun of my, quote, girly sock bag.
And then she said, well, if it's so important to you, just wash the socks yourself.
To which I said, let's not get carried away here, okay?
This is a team effort.
And it just goes to show that sometimes, here's the point, this is why I'm telling you this.
Sometimes in a marriage, your priorities don't always match up.
And that's where some challenges come.
But we're going to work through this together.
Whether she likes it or not, we're going to keep talking about the sock problem until we have a solution.
That's teamwork in a marriage.
Kayla says, I can't believe people were arguing with Matt about his statement on... Well, you could just stop right there.
I can't believe people are arguing with Matt.
That's enough.
I agree with you.
I can't believe they're arguing about the homeless people.
I work at a mental health agency as a crisis worker and every week homeless people come to us asking for housing after they've already been kicked out of every shelter for either drug use or fighting.
They get mad when we tell them that we can't help them when they've already gone through every community resource.
I would feel so sorry for any hotel owner forced to give them free rooms.
And destroy their business.
Yeah, you could just... This is... To talk to anyone who's worked with homeless people, which is an admirable vocation, of course, an important one, but you talk to anyone who's worked in that environment and there's just no question, no argument about it.
Drug use, mental illness, all these things.
You... As I've been saying, there's a reason people end up homeless and it's not simply Social injustice, and it's very rarely is it a matter of simple misfortune or bad luck.
There's a deeper reason, and you don't have to work with a particular homeless person for very long to figure out what the reason is.
Most of the time it's drugs.
Kathy with a C says, if I ever find myself laying on an operating table, I want the most diverse OR staff hovering over my exposed innards.
Only then will I know that our country has made real progress.
That is, yeah, when you go, just like anything else, right?
You're going into an operation, you want to make sure, that's what you're thinking about.
How diverse is this stuff?
You get onto an airplane.
That's the most important thing to you.
Is we're disadvantaged minorities given an opportunity to fly this plane.
That's all I care about.
Um, let's see.
Back Ghetto Latina.
That's Latinks, first of all.
Back Ghetto Latinks.
Cassville isn't the only school to do this.
My school, a kid's school, has had this in effect since before they started there.
Uh, that's Corporal Punishment referring to.
The oldest is in 7th grade.
The administrators had to use it once, years before my kids started.
The fear kept them in check.
Cassville is a heavy Republican district.
It's a rural area, just like my area.
Even with the permission slip, the administration has to call the parents to make sure it's okay and tell them what their child has done.
There's supposed to be a staff member removed from the situation that uses the paddle with a witness present to make sure it's not overdone.
It's a last resort.
Again, I can understand the inclination, especially among schools, to have a kind of last resort because all the other disciplinary methods don't work.
But like we talked about yesterday, among other things, it requires a trust between parents and the school officials that I certainly wouldn't have if my kids were going to public school.
I just can't trust you to use physical force on my child.
There are so many reasons why I can't trust you.
And also, my other question is, if you as a parent would approve corporal punishment being used against your child by a school official, then that tells me that you have no problem with corporal punishment, so then why wouldn't you just be the one to administer it?
So no matter how you slice it, I don't understand farming it out to the school system.
Many questions.
You know, the time is upon us for another Backstage happening tonight at 6 p.m.
Central, 7 p.m.
Eastern, and it's about time because there's more news than ever to discuss.
If you've never seen Backstage before, it's where I get together with my Daily Wire cohorts, including Ben Shapiro, Matt... Matt Walsh.
Me.
I'm one of the cohorts.
Just keep going.
It doesn't matter.
No, no.
We'll keep going.
Including Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and God King Jeremy Borg.
So who is supposed to be giving this copy?
If I just listed all the cohorts, Who is this copy written for?
Anyway, jokes will be cracked, cigars will be smoked, copy will be butchered, libations will be imbibed.
You definitely don't want to miss this one.
So tune in to join us for Backstage tonight at 6 p.m.
Central, 7 p.m.
Eastern at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, many conservatives, when we are younger, we will inevitably experiment with libertarianism.
We dabble in that particular political ideology, finding that it appeals to our young, underdeveloped brains.
We start answering every difficult social question with the statement, hey man, just get the government out of it.
We buy the book Atlas Shrugged and tell everyone that we read it, even though we never even glanced at the first page.
These are the follies of youth, and most of us as we get older.
We grow out of that phase and we feel embarrassed by it the same way that people who grew up in the 70s feel embarrassed about having owned a pet rock and the way people that grew up in the 80s should feel embarrassed about, well, everything that happened in that decade.
But there are some grown adults who, sadly, never graduate.
They never evolve.
They never grow out of it.
They end up looking as ridiculous and awkward as a 50-year-old man in a backwards hat.
And that's what brings us to Kim Iverson, who's a pundit of some kind with a decent social media following, who seems to have attracted an audience of conservatives who believe that she's on their side largely because she doesn't like the vaccine and she says nice things about Donald Trump.
Those are the two things I've noticed.
Apparently.
Maybe there are other things as well.
But those two things in particular have attracted conservatives to her.
That's why she has some kind of audience.
I don't know how big it is.
And that's all well and good.
But it won't save her now that she has torched her credibility and revealed herself to be an amoral idiot.
And every other kind of idiot, too.
Kim responded to my tweet about Dr. Scott Mosser, the butcher who chops the breasts off of adolescent girls, with this rebuttal.
This is what she said.
It's their body, their choice.
If their parents or anyone is pressuring them, let them live with that and take it up with them later.
It's none of our business how others choose to live their lives.
Yes, her response to doctors removing the body parts of physically healthy children is, their body, their choice.
From here, Kim launched into a series of tweets frantically searching for some way to defend cosmetic double mastectomies on teen girls.
She had thrown down the gauntlet, put down her marker, climbed atop the girls-should-have-their-breasts-removed hill, and decided that she would die on it.
That's what it took.
Reading through the tweets that follow, she wrote, just going through a series of these, 16-year-old girls get nose jobs all the time.
Where's your outrage?
Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Again, personal choice.
I'm all for personal freedom.
Live and let live, even if it leads to regret.
If it's what they want to do, it's what they want to do.
I'm not for controlling others because I personally think it's morally wrong.
You guys, we're talking about boob jobs.
Let's keep things in perspective.
It's literally none of your business if a woman chooses to enlarge them or shrink them.
From there, she became even more incoherent and desperate, accusing me of being a triggered snowflake for opposing the mutilation of children.
Which, by the way, Kim, yes, I am triggered by child abuse.
I admit.
I'm triggered by it.
I find it quite upsetting, even.
I'm even offended by it.
I am offended.
By the brutalization of children.
I am.
I admit it.
And then she started crying that she was the victim of conservative cancel culture because people were criticizing her for her views.
Finally, in one last blow to whatever credibility she may have still been clinging to, she asserted that not only can minors consent to having their breasts removed, but they can also consent to sex.
She posted, quote, Minors actually can consent to sex.
Each state has its own laws on this.
Later that night, she posted a lengthy Twitter thread trying to defend her depraved views in more detail, writing,
quote, "Today proved it. Conservatives are no different than woke
liberals.
They just choose different topics to be outraged over.
And in their minds, just like to woke liberals, this is different, this is immoral and must be stopped.
My stance is clear.
I don't think the government should interfere or be involved in the consensual medical decisions of others.
I don't know what others are going through, and I don't believe that I, nor the government,
should be telling others what's best for them."
Yes, who's to say what's best for anyone?
If a girl's having her breasts chopped off, maybe that's best for her.
If a kid is playing in the street about to get hit by a truck, don't interfere.
After all, it's what he wants to do, and it may be best for him.
Who are we to impose our anti-getting-hit-by-truck views on that child?
That would be rude.
That would be oppressive.
Indeed, if we were to prevent the child from being killed in traffic, we would be no better than woke leftists.
Constantly trying to impose our subjective views on others.
What are you, some kind of snowflake, outraged about kids getting hit by cars?
You snowflake?
Cancel culture!
You're trying to cancel people who hit children with their cars.
Stop canceling them!
Great points, Kim.
You have the moral insight of a lizard, and you should be quite proud.
Now, there's too much nonsense here to handle, but we'll do our best to pick through it.
First of all, to clarify our terms here, top surgery is a double mastectomy.
A double mastectomy is not a boob job.
The breasts are not being enlarged, nor are they being reduced.
They're being removed.
The breast tissue, the mammary glands, all of it is being cut off.
The procedure, unlike breast implants, which I also would oppose for children, because I'm not a disgusting creep, but unlike implants, a mastectomy is not reversible.
A person who has this procedure and regrets it, as many do, and many, many more will, as this current crop of children become adults, they can, for a large fee, try to reconstruct some approximation of something that looks like female breasts, but they will never have female breasts ever again.
They'll never be able to nurse their children.
All of that is gone forever, based on a choice they made when they were adolescents.
But can they make a choice like that as a child?
That's the question.
Kim says they can.
And she cites the fact that the age of consent in some states is 16.
Now, the problem with this approach is that, first of all, children are being subjected to medical and surgical gender transitions much younger than 16.
Dr. Scott Mosser is doing it at 14, at 13, he would do it at 12, he would do it at any age.
Second, the age of consent in California is 18, yet Dr. Scott Mosser is operating in California on girls who allegedly consent to having their breasts removed at 16 or younger.
Third, even if the age of consent is 16 in some states, like in Vermont, I think it's 16 for example, Does that mean that it's actually morally right, automatically?
I mean, the age of consent in Vermont is 16.
So is it okay for a 50-year-old man to have sex with a 16-year-old in that state?
Just because that's what it says on paper?
What would you say about such a man, Kim?
What if you had a 16-year-old daughter?
You'd be okay with her dating a 50-year-old?
Because, oh, she can do what she wants at any age of consent.
Actually, don't answer that question.
Don't tell me how you'd feel about it, because I don't want to know.
Now, this may come as a shock to you, Kim, but did you know?
Did you know this?
Make sure you're sitting down for this part.
This is going to surprise you.
Laws can be wrong.
Did you know that?
There are times when laws allow things that they shouldn't allow.
The law allowed slavery at one time.
The law has allowed many terrible things.
Right now, the law in many states allows, yes it does, doctors to castrate and butcher children.
That's true.
But the law is wrong.
And we know that it's wrong because no matter what any politician wrote onto a piece of paper, certain scientific and moral truths remain.
One of those truths is that a child does not have a fully developed brain.
That's a fact.
She's not capable of making fully informed decisions.
She's not capable of thinking through the consequences of her actions.
She's not capable of it.
She does not have the maturity and competence or brain chemistry required to be entrusted with permanent life-altering decisions.
This is a fact confirmed by neurology and also by the experience of every adult human who has ever lived on Earth, because we've all been 16 at one time, and so we know these things.
What this means is that it's not possible for a child to make a consensual medical decision, as you say.
The statement makes no sense.
They cannot consent to what they do not understand.
Now, there are moral truths, too.
One of those moral truths is that it is wrong to harm a child.
That is wrong to do.
Doesn't matter what the law says.
Doesn't matter what the law allows.
Doesn't even matter what the child says.
It is wrong to harm a child.
Causing permanent, severe physical damage is the worst kind of physical harm possible, short of outright murder.
Now, if you don't think that we can make moral determinations like this, then, I mean, what, do you support, should we repeal all of the child abuse laws in the country?
Maybe you would support that.
The libertarian mind virus seems to be terminal in your case, so there's no telling how far you would go.
Now, you say that conservatives are no different than woke liberals, because we declare, this is different, this is immoral, it must be stopped.
But what you fail to understand, Kim, is that some things are different from other things.
Not all things are the same.
There are things that are one thing and then you have something else that's different from that thing.
Some things actually are immoral and really must be stopped.
Just because woke liberals make moral claims and demand that certain things be stopped, that doesn't mean that all moral claims are automatically wrong and that nothing at all should be stopped.
The problem with the woke liberal is not that he condemns certain behavior.
It's that he is wrong about what he condemns.
He is morally confused.
And so are you.
And in that way, you are like the woke liberal, which is why both of you find yourselves defending the most grotesque form of child abuse the world has ever seen.
You are right about one thing, though.
I do practice my own form of cancel culture.
That's what this segment is all about, and it's why you have found yourself in it.
And it's also why you today are, unfortunately, cancelled.
And that'll leave it there for us for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you there.
