Ep. 1029 - Frantic, Desperate Media Tries To Defend Vanderbilt
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has been forced against its will to report on the Vanderbilt scandal. But their reporting has been less than honest. We have two especially egregious examples today. Also, as a hurricane bears down on Florida, Amy Klobuchar says that it could be stopped by electing Democrats. Even though Democrats are currently in charge and hurricanes are still happening. And an elderly pro-life volunteer is shot while canvassing a neighborhood. This is just a few days after a crazed leftist ran over and killed someone because he was a “Republican extremist.” In our Daily cancellation, Salon is having second thoughts about the gender neutral term “Latinx.”
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join the Jeremy’s Razors Contest For The Car at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/play. See terms and conditions for complete details at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/referralterms.
The Daily Wire is currently looking for exceptional performers to join our team. Go to https://www.DailyWire.com/careers to view open positions and apply today!
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
True Classic Tees offers premium wardrobe essentials at accessible prices. Get 25% OFF with code WALSH at https://trueclassictees.com/
ZipRecruiter makes hiring so much easier because they do the work for you. Sign up for FREE! www.ZipRecruiter.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media has been forced against its will to report on the Vanderbilt scandal, but their reporting has been less than honest, shall we say.
We have two especially egregious examples today.
Also, as a hurricane bears down on Florida, Amy Klobuchar says that it could be stopped by electing Democrats, even though Democrats are currently in charge and hurricanes are still happening.
And an elderly pro-life volunteer is shot while canvassing a neighborhood.
This is just a few days after a crazed leftist ran over and killed someone because he was a, quote, Republican extremist.
In our Daily Cancellation, Salon is having second thoughts about the gender-neutral term latinx.
All of that plus a major announcement you don't want to miss today on The Matt Wall Show.
As you guys know, I've recently updated my style.
New set, new blazer.
Controversial decision, but we did it.
And the best thing about my new style is true classic tees.
True classic makes a man look good and feel good.
No more boxy fit or loose collars.
True classic fits a bit tighter in the chest and sleeves, but leaves room in the torso for that relaxed t-shirt feel.
And my listeners can get 25% off true classic tees with code WOLSH.
at trueclassic.com.
True Classic's tees taper off towards the bottom, but they fit tighter around the chest and shoulders.
All of their styles are super soft and reasonably priced for such high quality.
They're more than just a t-shirt company.
True Classic has all the menswear staples you need.
Polos, workout shirts, boxer briefs.
You can build your entire wardrobe with them.
Plus, they have a pack builder on their website where you can custom bundle their essential products.
And you can save even more on top of that 25% discount in the process.
If you were like me a few months back and in desperate need of a new wardrobe, check out TrueClassic.com.
Use promo code WALSH to get 25% off plus free shipping on purchases over $100.
That's TrueClassic.com.
Promo code WALSH.
True Classic offers a 100% risk-free guarantee with a 30-day return policy.
TrueClassic.com.
Promo code Walsh.
True Classic.
When you look good, you feel good.
Perhaps one of the most significant things about our Vanderbilt expose is that it has gotten a significant amount of media coverage, actually.
Of course, you know, usually the media prefers to simply ignore these sorts of inconvenient things.
It's certainly been the case for anything I've been involved in up until now.
Still to this day, for example, my film What Is A Woman has not been reviewed by a single mainstream media publication.
But the Vanderbilt situation has garnered attention from outlets that normally prefer to use the Journalistic strategy of closing your eyes, covering your ears, and humming loudly to yourself until the scary story goes away.
They haven't quite done that here, and that's not because they've had a change of heart, mind you, okay?
I'm not giving them credit or accusing them of engaging in acts of actual journalism.
It's only because they realize that the backlash against the trans agenda, and especially against the transing of kids, is gaining steam, despite their best efforts at deflection.
And they're soon going to be in a position where they've lost all control over it.
So they have no choice but to engage now.
They're trying to get out in front of it and shape the narrative and the conversation in a way that's convenient for them.
Now, we have, in other words, dragged the media, kicking and screaming, into a conversation that it desperately does not want to have.
Now as far as that goes, there are two articles, both published yesterday, one in a national outlet and one in a local, that I think perfectly capture the leftist media's approach to the Vanderbilt scandal and to this topic overall in general.
And taken together, they show that the left is, they're backed into a corner here.
They're intellectually out of ammo and firing blanks.
It's no wonder they'd rather just ignore all of this if they could.
So, the first article is from a publication called Inside Higher Education.
The headline is, Attack on Vanderbilt Clinic Has Ripple Effects.
It continues, Last Tuesday, Matt Walsh, a conservative pundit and columnist for the right-wing website The Daily Wire, released what he called a, quote, investigation into Vanderbilt's clinic for transgender health to his over one million Twitter followers.
Among other things, he asserted that VUMC established the clinic in 2018 because gender-affirming surgeries were, quote, moneymakers, that the center threatened consequences for staff who declined to provide gender-affirming care, and that it tried to enforce compliance from parents who might be hesitant to consent to care for their minor children.
Snippets of video are presented as evidence for these claims.
Yes, what I called an investigation.
Well, I called it that because we investigated Vanderbilt and we found out certain things and then we presented those things to the public.
I do call that an investigation because that's what the word means.
But the few lines I just read represent The full extent of this article's summary of the findings of my investigation.
From there, it launches into a lengthy editorial disguised as an objective news report, slamming me for, quote, intimidating doctors and, quote, threatening access to life-saving care.
And it, of course, makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that, quote, gender-affirming care for minors is medically necessary.
And as proof for this claim, they cite the leftist activist group The Trevor Project.
Okay, they cite the Trevor Project as evidence, which, I mean, you might as well cite Trevor Noah.
I don't know.
There's no credibility whatsoever.
This is an activist group.
But they're often cited as sources for the claims that the left makes on this subject.
The article never mentions the fact that Vanderbilt performs irreversible gender surgeries on minors, gives irreversible hormone drugs to kids as young as 13, doesn't even mention that.
And here's the most revealing thing, though.
They could not find a single healthcare provider at Vanderbilt who would defend this practice on the record.
I mean, defend it to a publication that's totally on their side.
They were trying to find someone who would just say the things that they want.
They were trying to find a medical professional who would say the things that they want them to say.
And they couldn't do that.
In fact, they had trouble finding any doctors anywhere who would actually publicly defend the practice of irreversibly mutilating and drugging kids.
But they say that, of course, is my fault, too.
Reading again from the article says, Whatever the ultimate goals of the commentators and lawmakers scrutinizing trans health clinics, the immediate impact of their work has been to intimidate professionals in the field into silence.
Of the eight specialists in transgender health contacted by Inside Higher Ed for this article, only two agreed to speak on the record.
All said, they fervently believe in their work, but that the risks of openly defending their practice have become too great to make speaking out to defend it worth the dangers of harassment.
Right.
So, they refuse to defend their own medical practices on the record because they're intimidated.
Which is actually true.
But they're intimidated in the same way that cockroaches are intimidated when you turn on the light.
They are intimidated because they prefer to operate in darkness when no one is looking.
They are intimidated by the truth.
Not by me.
Not by threats.
They're intimidated by the truth.
They know they're being exposed.
Now, they did find one person who would speak on the record, though.
Well, two, they say.
And one is none other than Michelle Forcier, who's the pediatrician who appeared in What is a Woman?
and who famously, if you watched that film, you know she was the one who would not affirm that only female chickens lay eggs.
She wouldn't affirm that.
She also threatened to walk out of the room when I asked her about the chemical castration drugs that she prescribes to children.
Now, Forcier's defense of Vanderbilt's greed and profit-driven medical care Is that, essentially, everyone does it.
She says, "Anybody who works in a hospital setting knows that there are budgets, there are looks at
costs and expenditures, and more resources go to programs that bring in more money.
That's the economics of health care. Any cardiovascular center, for instance,
looks at their surgical income versus outpatient, and surgery is always going
to make more money than outpatient services. None of that should be shocking news."
More resources go to programs that bring in more money.
Thank you.
These people just keep exposing themselves.
And you can tell why most of them prefer to hide and stay silent.
Because every time they open their mouth, they accidentally say things that proves exactly the point we're trying to prove.
And then the article has this.
This is my favorite part.
It says, Forcier is personally familiar with Walsh's brand of misinformation and targeted harassment.
A few years back, she agreed to be interviewed for his documentary, What is a Woman?, whose central thesis is that transgender identity is a harmful and unscientific fad.
Forcier said she agreed to the interview because she's passionate about the issue and committed advocate for transgender youth health care, but that she was greeted with obstinacy and bad faith questions.
She's been wary of doing any media interviews, including with Inside Higher Ed, ever since.
Quote, when you're targeted in terms of hate crimes and victimization, you're careful where you go, she said.
You're careful who you talk to.
Now, anyone can watch the film and see that all of the obstinacy and bad faith was coming from the other side of the issue, but I am interested to find out that she apparently considers the interview that we did to be a hate crime.
The interview was a hate crime, is apparently what she's saying.
And we've gotten many... We haven't gotten many critic reviews of the film, but I think that's probably the only review you need.
Maybe we put that on the movie poster.
Meanwhile, on the local side, a leftist rag called The Nashville Scene published an article from a woman named Betsy Phillips.
We'll have more on Betsy Phillips in just a moment.
The article is titled, We are lucky as a community to have a pediatric transgender clinic.
We have a place where kids who are dealing with huge decisions with far-reaching implications can speak with medical professionals.
That's how it starts.
And it only gets dumber from there.
Phillips claims that kids who are dealing with huge decisions should consult with the very people who have an enormous financial stake in making sure that they transition as early as possible.
This is exactly why the profitability point is so important.
Because you don't have to be the most observant person in the world to notice that there's a conflict of interest here.
Okay, you just need to have a moderately functioning brain, which is a bar too high for Betsy Phillips to get over, apparently.
She continues, "I want to write about the rights attack on transgender kids and the people who provide them medical
assistance.
But I have to be honest with you, I'm depressed about it.
It feels like for a vast swath of us, words have no meaning.
So, it doesn't matter which words I arrange or how."
It's not going to matter.
Doctors and therapists who are trying to help trans kids are still going to be called groomers and mutilators.
Parents who live every day with their distressed kids and who are trying to find some way for them to be in the world and thrive are called abusers.
It's not true.
And we all could take the time to refute it, but the whole point of them doing this kind of thing is to cause us to waste our time doing so.
Well, not the whole point.
I'm sure right-wing activists and media personalities like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson, their intention is to put people in danger.
So, to be clear, the side that considers it a hate crime when you ask them to define words is now accusing us of treating words like they have no meaning.
And the side that pushes millions of kids into brutal surgeries that will destroy their bodies forever is accusing us of putting people in danger.
Continuing, there are some gems like this.
It says, it's okay to initially be confused by the idea of transgender people.
On the one hand, once you know to look for transgender people, you see them throughout history.
Actually, there is no historical precedent at all for men who claim actually, literally to be women and vice versa.
There has never been a society in history that believes men can give birth.
That's never existed until now.
But it's not surprising to hear Betsy make a historically illiterate claim like this when you consider that this is also the person who wrote the following in the same article.
Now, in response to our objections to performing irreversible surgeries on kids, Betsy says this.
This should go without saying.
But we let kids make permanent, life-altering decisions that hurt them all the time.
It's called football.
If you have top surgery and later regret it, that's a hell of a lot easier to repair than a brain riddled with CTE.
We see what happens to people with CTE, the memory loss, the suicides, the violence against family members.
And we all know it's caused by bashing your head, and how many of us spend our weekends watching kids bash their heads.
Well, what else do you need to know about these people?
She's saying bodily mutilation is akin to football.
Ignoring the fact that, well you have to ignore a lot of facts to make this argument, but one of them that she's ignoring is that traumatic injury in football is not the point of the sport.
Okay?
That's what happens when the sport goes wrong.
Whereas traumatic permanent injury to a child through, quote, gender-affirming drugs and surgery is the whole point, and it's the only possible outcome.
So, the more accurate analogy is not to football, where injuries are a byproduct, a side effect.
Really, the analogy would be simply to just walking up to a kid and whacking him in the head with a baseball bat, and then defending yourself by claiming that he wanted you to do it.
And aside from all that, here's the even bigger point.
People like Betsy, pretty clear from what she said there, they don't want kids to play football for exactly this reason.
That it might result in permanent injury.
In fact, there are a lot of people these days who say, I don't want my kid involved in football.
Why?
Because it's going to hurt them, and also because they are taking risks that they don't fully understand at this age.
That seems to be Betsy's position.
And yet she passionately advocates for intentional permanent injuries to be inflicted on kids in the name of gender affirmation.
These people cannot offer any argument that doesn't defeat their own point, which is why they usually prefer to stay silent.
Betsy, though, did not stay silent, and there's a reason for that.
It isn't disclosed anywhere in the article, but through a little bit of research, investigation, you might say, I discovered that Betsy works in marketing for Vanderbilt's publishing in print.
So, this is what the leftist media is reduced to.
Printing PR releases written by Vanderbilt marketing execs, and pretending that it's an editorial from a third party.
But what else are they going to do?
I mean, they would publish full, compelling, evidence-based defenses from actual medical professionals, but they can't because those people are all in hiding because they're scared of me.
And I believe that, partially.
I mean, I believe that they're scared.
But they're scared not because we're jeopardizing their physical safety.
We aren't.
But because we're coming for their bottom line.
Their profits.
And that we are.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Which is, of course, way too many.
But the good news is that there's also this podcast.
And it takes a team of people to bring you this show, which is why this show is better than a lot of those other podcasts.
Needless to say, You know, we know this here at The Daily Wire.
Hiring the right person is important, and ZipRecruiter makes it easy.
Try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com.
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 has a complete suite of tools that make it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
You can't argue with results like that.
If you're a fan of the show and you want to try ZipRecruiter for free, you need to remember my special URL.
Here it is.
It is ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter.
The smartest way to hire.
So speaking of that hate crime I committed, what is a woman, now seems like a great time to announce that I will be touring college campuses across the country this fall and screening the film.
So I'm not just going to college campuses to give speeches, I will be screening the actual film in its entirety on college campuses around the nation, then we'll be doing a Q&A afterwards.
And we can now announce the first six dates.
We've got three dates that we'll be announcing in the coming weeks.
We'll put these up on the screen for you, and if you live anywhere around these areas, then you are invited to come to this screening.
So, on October 4th, we'll be at Catholic University.
We're starting at Catholic University, right in the heart of D.C.
And, you know, if you don't know anything about Catholic University, you might think that, oh, that's a friendly place to start.
You know, starting a little bit easy on Catholic University.
They'll be very welcoming to this message.
That's unfortunately probably not the case.
October 6th, University of Illinois.
October 11th, University of Central Florida.
October 13th, University of Houston.
October 24th will be University of Wisconsin-Madison, and then October 27th, University of Alabama.
As I said, those are the first six dates.
We've got three more.
This is a nine-campus tour, and the three others we'll be announcing soon.
So, I've been telling you that we are waging an all-out war on gender ideology, and this is the next step.
So we released the film in June, and it had the kind of immediate Major impact that even exceeded my own expectations, to be honest with you.
And now, as you know, we are moving to ban gender mutilation in Tennessee.
And today we're announcing that this fight will be taken right into the breeding ground for gender ideology, which is the university system.
We do not anticipate that the film will be necessarily welcomed on any of these campuses, especially not the campuses we're going to announce soon.
We've got some good ones coming up, but those are also good.
But this is also where the film needs to be shown, which is why I will go there personally and show it to you.
So the next step here is that if you, again, if you live anywhere around these campuses, or if you go to one of these schools, we need you to show up in droves.
We know the left is going to be there.
I mean, we've anticipated all of it.
They're going to try to shut these things down.
They're going to have all kinds of dirty tricks they're probably going to pull to try to stop us from showing this movie.
They don't want anyone to see it.
But if we have our supporters there, then I'm not worried about it.
Okay, I want to start with this, because there's a lot that we can learn from this story, though the real lessons are not the lessons that the Washington Post wants us to take from it.
But this is a story from the Washington Post.
It's a long story, I'll read a little bit of it.
It says, the day after Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the state's Department of Family and Protective Services to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of families with transgender children, The first case came up and Morgan Davis' name was on it.
Davis was one of four investigators on a Travis County unit tasked with reviewing claims of child abuse.
Usually, he and his colleagues took cases on a rotation.
Davis was next in line.
That evening, a Wednesday in late February, his supervisor called and relayed the basic facts.
A mandated reporter, by law, any licensed professional who works directly with children, had turned in a family outside of Austin because they'd allowed their teenager to live as a girl.
Under the governor's order, someone had to investigate the family for child abuse.
And that is correct.
You may remember that when Texas wasn't a law that was passed, it was an order which came down from Governor Greg Abbott.
Saying that children who are being transed, children who are being indoctrinated by the trans agenda, this is child abuse and should be investigated as such.
And when that policy came down, of course, I supported it.
And I still do, because this obviously is child abuse.
But there are some problems with that approach.
Because if we're saying, well, let's investigate, let's just investigate.
We're not going to pass a law, but investigate this as child abuse.
Well, now it falls to Child Protective Services, the bureaucrats and CPS.
And now you're relying on them.
You're hoping that they will do the right thing.
You're hoping that either they will agree with you or that they can put their own opinions to the side and do as they're told.
But that's not what happened in Texas, as we hear in this story.
Davis' supervisor told him that she knew working the case might be difficult.
Nine months earlier, Davis had come out as a transgender man.
He was 52, born in a generation when calling yourself tomboy felt daring enough.
But after five decades, he decided he was finally ready to live as himself.
Living as himself means living in an identity that is the opposite of who she really is.
On the phone, the supervisor said she was prepared to offer Davis something she never had before.
If you want to recuse yourself, she said, you can.
Davis had taken the investigator job because he hoped to advocate for children in a way he felt no one had advocated for him when he was young.
Usually, he believed in the department's mission of removing children from abusive situations.
There's an asterisk every time I say he.
That's just, that's what they have written here, but that's not actually accurate.
This is a she.
Usually he believed in the department's mission of removing children from abusive situations.
But if he took this case, he thought, he'd be carrying out what many in his department
had been calling a political stunt.
Across the country, Republican lawmakers are pushing anti-trans legislation, yada, yada.
Um...
And it continues, Davis pulled in a deep breath, exhaled, then told his boss he'd do it.
If it's gotta be someone, he said, I want it to be me.
Davis already had 25 cases of abuse and neglect on his docket, a load that current and former CPS employees described to the Washington Post as unmanageable.
And then it goes on, it's, like I said, a very lengthy article.
So this is an actual, this is someone who identifies as trans, Only very recently, like a few months ago, decided that she was trans.
Working in Child Protective Services.
Obviously, in every sense, opposed to Greg Abbott, is ideologically and personally invested in affirming the trans agenda.
And now this person has been tasked with going and investigating these cases as child abuse.
And we're told in the article that she did that and she went and she looked into it and just gave them the sign-off and said, oh, there's no abuse here.
And now has gotten out of it and is not investigating these cases anymore.
See, this is exactly the problem.
You are, you know, you're relying on a bureaucracy that is against you.
It's the same thing we encounter in all these cities.
Governors can pass laws, they can criminalize something, but then what happens?
Now you need the actual district attorney to enforce the law.
What if they don't do that?
It's the problem that people on the right, the Republicans in elected office face everywhere.
It's a major problem.
It's not totally unmanageable.
I mean, there are ways around it.
But this is what you're up against.
Because even if it seems like Republicans are in control of the government in your state, or even if there is a red wave and the next thing you know, a Republican is elected president, and it seems like they control the federal government, well, they don't really, because there's an entire bureaucracy.
There is this behemoth, blob-like monstrosity of a bureaucracy underneath all of that.
And the people within that bureaucracy are not on the same page.
So this is the challenge.
This is one of the challenges that we're dealing with here in Tennessee.
If you want to stop the mutilation of kids, how can you do it?
You can pass a law.
But then how do you do it in a certain way where you're not beholden to bureaucrats and other people who are, you know, who can just choose not to enforce it?
So that's a challenge.
There are ways to do it, but it's the challenge.
Okay, a hurricane is poised to hit Florida.
Amy Klobuchar says that there's a solution for that as the hurricane bears down.
She says, well, just vote Democrat.
We wouldn't have these problems.
Leaders in Congress, like Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, as well as the Republicans that want to work with them, where we have been able to step by step by step push these bills through.
And so I think so many times people counted us out, but we want to make clear we've got the backs of the American people.
And while we have clear disagreements, we don't want, if the Republicans take charge,
a number of them have been talking about an abortion ban.
You guys know that.
You featured on the show.
That's why we've got to win this midterm.
We just did something about climate change for the first time in decades.
That's why we've got to win this as that hurricane bears down on Florida.
We've got to win in the midterms.
We understand that.
But none of that has stopped us from deciding we're going to put our differences aside and get some things done.
That is what that vote is today in the Rules Committee, where you're going to see a strong bipartisan support, a very good hearing for changes to the Electoral Count Act.
Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you for being on this morning.
Great to see you.
Yeah, there's not a lot we can do for someone if they hear something like that from Amy Klobuchar and they buy it.
If you buy that, then I'm not sure there's much we can do.
You're like a hopeless case.
At least right now.
I hope not permanently.
But there's a lot of work you need to do within yourself.
If you hear that and you think, oh yeah, we'll just vote Democrat and there'll be no hurricanes.
First of all, just to state the obvious, well, there are a few obvious things we have to state.
One of them is that we have Democrats who control Congress.
We have a Democrat in the White House right now.
And there are still hurricanes.
So, turns out that voting Democrat doesn't stop hurricanes from happening.
Is that their fault?
I mean, maybe this is what we need to start doing.
We can't, because then we're adopting the left's premise and we're agreeing with it, so we can't really, but it does seem sort of tempting to just, to play their game and say, okay, well, hurricanes are political events now, and they're the result of bad policy.
So, if there's, you know, a hurricane hits Florida, and God forbid, lots of people die, there's a lot of damage, it's Democrats' fault.
You should have stopped that, you didn't.
This is all on you.
But even that we can't really say, of course, because the other obvious thing we need to state is that hurricanes have been happening on this planet basically since the planet was formed.
Or at least since it's had an atmosphere.
Certainly way before there were any political parties in this country, or there was a country at all.
Before the continent even existed in its current shape.
There were hurricanes.
Did you know there are actually, there are hurricanes on other planets that happen?
There's been a massive hurricane happening on, we have a little bit more on Jupiter, a little bit later in the five headlines, but there's been a hurricane on Jupiter for like hundreds of years.
Massive hurricane.
A hurricane so big that you could fit multiple Earths inside of it.
I guess it's because they don't have, you know, they don't have Amy Klobuchar on Jupiter to pass legislation to put a stop to that.
This is from Yahoo.
It says, an elderly pro-life volunteer in Michigan was shot in the shoulder while canvassing a neighborhood to discuss an abortion ballot proposal according to Right to Life of Michigan.
The victim said that she was shot in the back slash shoulder while leaving a residence during a heated conversation that the man who shot her was not a part of her conversation.
This is according to the Pro-Life Group, which wrote in a press release on Saturday.
The unidentified woman is 83 years old, according to the police, though the Right to Life Michigan identifier is 80-40 years old.
Either way, she's in her 80s, she's an elderly woman, pro-lifer, she's canvassing the neighborhood, and then she was shot.
The woman was canvassing a neighborhood in Lake Odessa to discuss the state's vote on Proposal 3, which would protect abortion access in the state.
The state will vote on the proposal on November 8th on the general election ballot.
Okay, so...
Let's just review here what we've seen.
So we've got a elderly pro-life woman who was shot in the back while canvassing a neighborhood.
There was also the case just a few days ago of a Republican who was run over and killed by a guy who admits he did it because he thought that the kid was a Republican extremist were his words.
And in the midst of all, sandwiched in between those two events, we had the FBI rolling up with 15 cars and 30 agents, dragging a pro-life activist out of his house at gunpoint, despite the fact that he committed no crimes whatsoever.
This is a... They're waging an all-out war on us at this point, is what's happening.
Just a matter of, like, when do we decide to pay attention and acknowledge that.
And while this is happening, they accuse us, right?
They're sending 30 FBI agents to a pro-lifer's home.
Again, did not commit any crime.
The case was dropped in court because no crime was committed.
And Biden's DOJ picks up the case and says, yeah, just send some agents to his house just to scare him.
And we have to assume that was the reason.
There's no crime.
You can't charge him with anything.
So it's just an intimidation tactic.
So, sending 30 agents to a pro-lifer's home, and they're doing that while accusing the right of being fascist, and meanwhile you have pro-lifers and Republicans getting mowed down and shot while they're walking down the street, and they accuse us of being violent extremists.
Well, the Atlanta Braves visited the White House yesterday, prompting this question from the media.
Let's listen to this.
-The President hosting the Atlanta Braves today.
Wondering if you or the President has any thoughts about some of the controversial --
about the team name, the Braves name, the so-called Tomahawk shop.
Any thoughts on that?
-So, we believe that it's important to have this conversation.
And Native American and Indigenous voices, they should be at the center of this conversation.
That is something that the President believes.
That is something that this administration believes.
And he has consistently emphasized that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
You hear that often from this President.
The same is true here.
And we should listen to Native American and Indigenous people who are the most impacted by this.
Yeah, it's actually not important at all to be having this conversation.
Can I just clarify?
In fact, if I were to make a list of all of the conversations that it's important for us to have, I think a conversation about the Atlanta Braves and whether the name is offensive, that's going to, I don't know, maybe make it into the top 20 million, very close to the bottom.
Although I would be interested to hear her elaborate, It's not an important conversation.
It's not one that certainly the White House needs to be having.
But if we're going to have it, please elaborate.
Please explain how it is offensive, exactly, to have a team named after an Indian tribe.
I mean, this is the sort of thing that's just like, it's taken as self-evident.
It doesn't even need to be explained.
Well, a team's named after an Indian tribe.
Of course it's offensive.
Why is it offensive?
That's the thing I've never understood.
Why is it not honoring?
That's what you do with a team name.
You don't choose a team name based on... You don't name your team after something or after a group of people, after anything that you find to be pathetic or shameful or embarrassing.
That's not what you do.
You choose the team name because you think it's formidable.
Courageous.
Right?
Tough.
Strong.
I mean, these are all, especially for a foot, for a, well, this is not a football team, it's a baseball team, but I guess it doesn't really quite, it doesn't quite apply to baseball players as it does to football.
But either way, that's why you choose a team name.
Because that's the association you're trying to make.
So explain to me exactly how that's insulting.
That's what I don't understand.
But we've just accepted that it is, and then the result is now we're taking, and it's not just with team names either, What we've been told is that you gotta take, especially Native American references, wherever you can find them, whether it's a baseball team, or it's a Native American woman on a box of butter, and take those things away.
Remove all of these references to Native American culture, all these acknowledgments of Native American culture, remove them, and then what?
That's progress?
The more we erase Native American culture from American culture, that's now a sign of progress.
Not sure I quite understand that.
Ben Shapiro was trending two nights ago because of this, as Yahoo reports, right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro was the subject of much mockery this weekend after he claimed the U.S.
military is suffering because the country has abandoned traditional masculinity.
In a clip posted on Twitter by Ron Filipkowski, the Daily Wire founder suggested that wars are best fought by what he described as typically very patriotic, very male people.
According to Shapiro, who has never served in the military, men are supposed to protect, defend, and be strong.
Shocking statement.
Many people didn't agree with Shapiro at all, including people who had actually had a military background, such as Tom Nichols, a retired professor at the U.S.
Naval War College and staff writer for The Atlantic.
Nichols not only said Shapiro didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but also pointed out that Russia is having a hard time against Ukraine, despite being the opposite of what Ted Cruz referred to as America's woke, emasculated military.
Others piled on Shapiro, including Representative Adam Kinzinger, a former Air Force Second Lieutenant.
Well, if anyone is an expert on masculinity, it's Adam Kinzinger.
Of course.
Let's actually, let's watch the offensive clip from Ben.
Let's hear it.
Guess who tends to fight wars?
The people who tend to fight wars are typically very patriotic, very male people.
I mean, I'm sorry to break it to you, but this has been the truth about military warfare for literally all of human history.
And the institution of traditional masculinity has been core to that idea.
But we're a society that doesn't believe in traditional masculinity.
Traditional masculinity is an opponent because traditional masculinity requires roles.
It says that men are supposed to protect, men are supposed to defend, men are supposed to be strong, men are supposed to be fathers and husbands.
These are apparently very bad things now.
You're not supposed to say these things.
Hilarious.
I mean, what an idiot Ben is for saying this obviously true thing.
And he was trending, from what I could see, he was trending on Twitter for, I'd say, two days because of what you just heard there.
A statement that, now it's one thing, Twitter finds it shocking, the media finds it shocking, the left finds it shocking, but you take that clip, you know, on your phone, and you walk up to just any normal person on the street, And you show them that and get their reaction?
What you're gonna get from 90% of them is like, yeah, of course.
You want the military to be masculine and tough and strong and that's what you want the military to be.
As opposed to what?
What else would you want the military to be?
Emasculated?
Do you want a feminine military?
Is that what you want?
Yet again, a completely obvious self-evident statement that is treated as shocking by the left.
And here's another important point about this.
Because this is something that Ben is pointing to here in what he just said.
That, yeah, we want, for our sake, for the country's sake, we want our military to be masculine, tough, strong.
We want them to just be badass dudes who are good at killing bad guys.
Like, that's what you want.
And that used to be not just the emphasis in the military, but the only point.
You're recruiting people, you're recruiting badass dudes who want to kill bad guys and are going to be good at doing it.
That's it.
There are some other qualifications, but that's the central point.
That's what you need.
So, we want that for our own sake, so that we can be safe as a country, and we have a military like that defending us.
But then also, we want that for the men in this country, especially the young men.
Because, no matter how we try to condition them, you know, young men have this kind of masculine energy.
They have aggression.
Right?
Young men are much more physically aggressive than young women.
And we can do one of two things with that.
We can scold young men and tell them it's very bad to be like that.
You shouldn't be like that.
It's toxic.
It's very bad.
Try to get them to suppress it.
So you can try to do that.
And we see how well that works.
It doesn't work at all.
I mean, the more that we scold and yell at and try to emasculate men, has it actually succeeded in curbing violence or anything else?
No.
So instead of that strategy, what you can do is try to harness it.
And you could say to young men, okay, you've got all this aggression, you've got all this physical energy.
Here's a way to use it.
Okay, you can use it in a noble way.
For example, by serving in the military.
We could say to young men, like, the military is made for you.
You guys are made for each other.
So you could try to suppress it as a society.
Masculine energy and aggression, you can try to suppress it or you can try to harness it.
You could tell men where to target it, what to do with it.
It's not just the military, like not every man needs to join the military, but this is also where sports have come into play.
This is why football is good for young men too, even with the risk of injury.
It's still a good thing.
Because it gives them an outlet for that energy, for that aggression.
All right.
Before I get to the...
Comment section, I wanted to also mention this.
This is from the Washington Post.
Starting this weekend, sky gazers will see a rare view of Jupiter as it appears its biggest and brightest in decades.
Jupiter will be one of the most brilliant natural objects, if not the most, in the night sky.
On Sunday, Jupiter will reach its closest distance to Earth in 59 years at around 367 million miles.
On Monday, the gas giant will reach opposition, meaning it will appear opposite the sun to those on Earth.
Jupiter will rise in the east while the sun sets in the west.
This was last night if you, if unfortunately you already missed it.
So this will be, last night was the brightest that Jupiter will appear or has appeared in 59 years.
And it won't appear that bright in the sky again until about the year 2139.
We went out a couple of times last night to check out Jupiter, which was just spectacular.
I mean, this is the largest planet in the solar system, twice the size.
It's twice the size of every other planet in the solar system combined.
It's the most ancient, too.
In fact, our planet was probably formed From the pieces of planets that Jupiter destroyed as it was hurtling through the early solar system.
It's got that big red spot I already mentioned, which is a hurricane.
It's been raging for like 400 years.
It's so big you could fit two Earths inside it.
Amy Klobuchar could pass legislation to stop it and she hasn't yet.
And then it's got 67 moons.
One of which is Europa, which is the likeliest candidate for extraterrestrial life in the solar system.
This is fascinating stuff.
So if you haven't gotten outside to see Jupiter, you need to do it.
My sweet babies, I beseech you.
you.
Your answer for both should be no.
Yes, it is a very similar thing.
The only problem with that argument, Karina, is that I'm not sure that the average parent who takes their child to a drag show wouldn't also take them to a strip club.
You know, if as a parent it's not immediately obvious to you why a drag show is inappropriate for your child, then I'm not sure it would be obvious why a strip club is inappropriate.
Govno says, Matt, children, especially younger children, recognize evil out of the box.
That little girl and any of the other children who were trying to hide or avoid those badly wired pseudo-male creatures recognized the evil that was driving them and simply wanted to be away from it.
The parents need to be prosecuted and, in my never-be-it-so-humble opinion, sterilized.
It's as simple as that.
I don't know if we're ever going to get legislation through requiring sterilization for parents who bring their kids to drag shows, but I certainly agree with prosecution.
This should be a crime.
I mean, it already is a crime.
And we shouldn't need to stipulate.
Like, there are already crimes against child abuse, child endangerment, child sexual abuse, emotional psychological abuse.
I mean, all of these things are already crimes.
So, in fact, in any state in the union, if you bring your kid to a drag show, you have violated probably six or seven state laws already.
It's just that those laws don't stipulate, oh, by the way, this includes bringing your kid to a drag show.
So now that needs to be stipulated.
I agree.
Sean says, Matt, as a structural engineer, I was initially offended by your comment that engineers are weird, but then I remembered how I got excited about making a concrete boat.
Nothing wrong with being weird.
Well, depends on, like, weird in what way?
If you're weird like a drag performer at an all-ages drag show, that's a bad kind of weird.
Engineers are weird, though.
So if you're an engineer yourself, been around a lot of engineers, I don't think you would deny that.
But not—maybe we're eccentric.
Maybe is the word I should have gone with.
Nothing wrong with being eccentric.
Rogo says—Rogo?
Rojo?
Matt, at what point are you just going to bite the bullet and finally start your own TikTok account?
Funny story about that.
We actually did apparently start a TikTok account for me.
I think it was like last week.
So the social media team started a TikTok.
I didn't even know they were doing it until it was already done.
And they started a TikTok account, and I think we made it... I'm not saying this is a record.
I'm not going to claim the record, but it might be close to one.
We made it, I think, five days before we got a one-week suspension.
And TikTok never specified what the reason was.
They said we violated Their terms of service never stipulated what rule we violated exactly.
They just suspended us for a week, and so we'll be back up and running, I think, on Friday until we get banned permanently.
And I'm sure we just got suspended because TikTok looked at it and said, no, there's no way.
We're not letting this guy on.
This is not going to happen.
So we'll see.
We'll see how long we make it before we get the permanent ban.
The Daily Wire is hiring a senior front-end web developer to join our streaming platform and e-commerce team.
You need at least three years of real-world software experience, but you do not need a college degree.
Just big league coding chops.
You just gotta be able to do the job.
Who cares about the degree?
In Big Bang Theory speak, you gotta be adept in HTML... Wait, HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, React Native.
Is that two different things or one thing?
React?
React Native is one thing.
React Native and RESTful APIs.
Are those even things?
I don't know.
I've heard of JavaScript, at least.
If front-end web development is your love language, apply to join us in Nashville, where you'll upgrade the user experience and beauty not just of our streaming platform, but more importantly, of my specific sections of the website.
So go to dailywire.com slash careers to apply today.
The Daily Wire is hiring a Senior Vice President of Marketing Analytics, Data, and Operations.
I'm told that this is a high-profile executive role with paid relocation to Nashville.
This innovator will design, hire, and oversee a world-class marketing data and analytics team that is built atop the marketing data stack from CRM platforms to build multi-touch attribution tools to propensity marketing Targeting models.
Why are they giving me a copy like this?
Anyway, if any of that even remotely makes sense to you, then you should apply.
This leader will, for example, study which Daily Wire shows and films most interest the fans, and also which Daily Wire host is most annoying, because we've got to know that too.
So, if you understand what a full marketing data and analytics stack is, head over to dailywire.com slash careers to apply.
Thank God we sort of got through that.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, almost exactly five years ago, Salon got on the Latinx train.
In an article titled, Forget About Latino, Why I'm All For Latinx, and You Should Be Too, writer Yesenia Funes hailed the term Latinx as a needed response to the male-dominant Spanish language.
Now, most of us probably hadn't realized that an entire language needs a response, but Salon realized.
And they explained that latinx is a superior word devised by, quote, feminist and queer Spanish speakers.
It is, in fact, they said, revolutionary because it's inclusive of those who live outside the gender binary.
The article continued, quote, That includes people like Aragany Da Silva, a Venezuelan race and sexuality educator.
They are 29 and have used they-them pronouns for little less than a decade.
But they always knew that's how they felt.
Da Silva just didn't know genderqueer was a possible identity.
Now they can add latinx as an identity, too.
I can understand some hesitance to the term latinx.
After all, X isn't a letter widely used in the Spanish language, so it might not feel organic rolling off the tongue.
De Silva understands that, too, but it is what it is.
It is what it is.
How could you argue with that?
Case settled.
Especially now that a race and sexuality educator has ruled on the subject, then, you know, it just is what it is.
Salon followed orders and they published many articles in the past five years which adopted the latinx term.
Articles with headlines like, Hollywood's latinx representation is dismal.
Why don't movies look more like America?
And also, Hollywood is still overlooking La Tink's filmmakers.
My story matters.
My pain matters.
There was even an article published last month about the magic of Miami's modern daiquiri, and it tells us that daiquiris are, quote, a tangible representation of the relationship between Cuba, La Tink's culture, and Miami.
But it seems that sacred bond has now been broken, at least as far as Salon is concerned.
This article was published by the outlet yesterday.
It says, stop using latinx if you really want to be inclusive.
The writer Melissa Ochoa explains that though when she first heard latinx in 2017 she thought it was progressive and inclusive, she has now realized that there's a dark underbelly to this particular form of gibberish.
Damning it with the harshest term available to a leftist, she has declared the term problematic.
Ochoa explains that, first of all, nobody in the actual Latino community uses the term.
She says that the term was invented and is being pushed by American-born academics mostly.
The marginalized communities it's meant to represent don't like it, don't want it.
She says that this makes the entire thing kind of elitist and patronizing.
She even points out that latinx erases sex distinctions in situations where she would prefer to keep them in place.
So, for example, she says, like, when you use the word latinx to describe Hispanic women in fields where they are, quote, underrepresented, we're only further obscuring their contributions.
Finally, she observes that the X affixed to the word is not pronounceable in the Spanish language.
And she also wonders how far this will go.
To refer to someone from Mexico or Argentina, do we have to now call them Mexicanics and Argentinics?
It's a slippery slope, she says.
This is what Ochoa is arguing.
And it sounds exactly like everything I've been saying about this issue for the past five years, and everything that all of us on the right have been saying.
We have been making all of these exact arguments ever since we first heard about this nonsense.
But it will not shock you to learn that Salon is not going to credit us with enlightening them on this topic or winning the argument.
They're not going to acknowledge us at all.
No, they're going to pretend that they arrived at this conclusion on their own.
And worse, they're going to find a way somehow to double down even while backing down.
This is a move that you only find on the left, and they're very good at it.
To back down while also doubling down.
The writer continues, Many academics might feel compelled to continue to use Latinx because they fought hard to have it recognized by their institutions, or they've already published a term in an academic journal.
But there's a much better gender-inclusive alternative, one that's been largely overlooked by the U.S.
academic community and is already being used in Spanish-speaking parts of Latin America, especially among young social activists in those countries.
It's Latinx.
So that's L-A-T-I-N-E, Latina.
Not Latina, Latina.
And it's far more adaptable, she says, to the Spanish language.
It can be implemented as articles, les instead of los or los, the words for the.
When it comes to pronouns, el can become a singular form of they and used in place of the masculine el or feminine ella, which translate to he and she.
It can also be readily applied to most nationalities, such as Mexicana or Argentina.
I believe Latina accomplishes what Latinx originally meant to and more.
Similarly, it eliminates the gender binary in its singular and plural form.
However, Latina is not confined to an elite English-speaking population within the U.S.
It is inclusive.
Language matters.
Latina embodies that inclusivity across socioeconomic status, citizenship, education, gender identity, age groups, and nations, while honoring the Spanish language in the process.
Well, this is the most you can really ever expect from the left these days.
Every once in a while, a stray like Ochoa here will wander dangerously close to the precipice of rationality, and then right before taking the final plunge, tumble back in the same direction she came from.
Indeed, all of the very true and valid criticisms of latinx that she made, or rather we made and then she claimed credit for, are abandoned and ultimately contradicted by her proposed solution.
She is still proposing manipulating a language to suit the needs and desires of an academic elite.
She is still advocating something that nobody in the Latino community uses or will use.
She is still erasing sex distinctions.
So Latiné has all of the same problems of Latinx, except that it arguably maybe sounds slightly less stupid.
Slightly.
She seemed for a moment tempted, but ultimately could not bring herself to simply say, because this is all that needs to be said, Simply say to the so-called non-binary people, get over yourselves.
We aren't going to change an entire language to suit you.
Just deal with it, you pretentious egomaniacs.
But she cannot say that.
And so she will inevitably be stuck always catering to the whims of the most narcissistic and self-involved people on her side of the ideological divide.
And she will do this even at her own expense.
At the expense of her culture and her language.
What she cannot see, what nobody on the left can see, because if they could see it, they'd no longer be on the left, is that universal inclusiveness is not a virtue.
It's also not coherent or possible.
You cannot include everything in anything, because if you try, you'll only end up turning the thing into nothing, or else you'll end up including a group while excluding another.
See, the most that inclusion can ever hope to be, at least this kind of leftist version of inclusion, is a lateral move.
It's a trade-off.
You swap one excluded group for another.
Only the group excluded in the name of inclusion is usually the group that by all rights should be the most included.
And the group included is the one that by all rights should not be included at all.
So the manipulation of the Spanish language is the perfect example of this.
As it includes these pompous LGBT-obsessed academics while excluding the everyday average Spanish-speaking people who've been using this language for centuries without a problem.
They don't see a problem here.
This is a problem created by academic elites on the left.
Here's a general rule.
And this you could just, like, take to the bank, okay?
If everyone is doing something without an issue, And then you come along and you're the only one having a problem?
That's probably because you are the problem.
But usually, inclusion simply means destroying that which everyone is being included in.
Because when everyone is included in the definition of the word woman, the word ceases to have all meaning.
When the borders are erased and everyone is included as a citizen, citizenship ceases to have all meaning.
When every shape is included in the word square, squares cease to have all meaning.
I am not an advocate for inclusiveness because I would prefer for everything to be known and seen for what it is and treated accordingly.
You know, not everything can be everything.
In fact, nothing can be everything.
Or else everything will be nothing.
Now I've kind of confused myself.
Which I think is sort of the point.
And the real point for us is that salon The spike coming precariously close to a logical viewpoint still landed a million miles away, and thus is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for us for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you there.
