Ep. 1061 - We’re Criminalizing The Drag Queen Groomers In Tennessee
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we are still playing offense here in Tennessee. Not only are we banning child mutilation, but now we’re also going to criminalize child drag shows. Also, a detransitioner sues the “medical professionals” who butchered her. An obese man wins a miss American pageant. The rather one-sided Trump vs DeSantis war heats up. And somebody allegedly finds a noose at the construction site for Obama’s Presidential Center. These stories are literally always hoaxes. Is this one any different? Almost certainly not, but we’ll talk about it.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Charity Mobile - Mention code 'WALSH' when you call 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at https://charitymobile.com/
Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/
- - -
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, we are still playing offense here in Tennessee.
Not only are we banning child mutilation, but we're also going to criminalize child drag shows.
Also, a detransitioner sues the medical professionals, quote-unquote, who butchered her, an obese man wins a Miss America pageant, the rather one-sided Trump vs. DeSantis war heats up, and somebody allegedly finds a noose at the construction site for Obama's presidential center.
These stories are literally always hoaxes.
Is this one any different?
Almost certainly not, but we'll talk about it.
and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is a huge, albeit long overdue, step in the right direction,
but there's still a long way to go to rid our country of abortion.
Many companies are bowing to the woke mob by donating to pro-choice causes and candidates or reimbursing their employees' travel expenses so that if they live and work in a pro-life state, they can travel to a pro-abortion state, get an abortion, and be back at work on Monday.
Well, what if I told you that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you might be supporting these companies and their pro-abortion agendas with your monthly phone bill, whether you want to or not.
Don't let abortionists use your money to fund policies you don't believe in.
Switch to Charity Mobile instead.
Charity Mobile is a pro-life, pro-family cell phone company that sends 5% of your monthly plan price
to the pro-life charity of your choice.
You don't have to compromise on values or good phone service.
Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones, no device or service contracts, great nationwide coverage,
a live customer service also based right here in the US.
The fight for the right to life continues and pro-life causes need your support.
You can help us simply switching to Charity Mobile.
Call 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
Mention offer code Walsh to redeem a free cell phone.
Well, this is a time when many conservatives are licking their wounds, sulking, whining.
Even worse, they're sniping at each other.
And this is all, of course, a massive mistake.
Now, I may not be the greatest bastion of optimism and positivity in the world.
I realize that.
I'm not the guy you turn to for a pep talk, usually.
I also am not one for pouting.
It's unbecoming of a grown man to pout or sulk.
And besides, I prefer to stay on offense, even after a loss.
In fact, especially after a loss.
And that's why we're still playing offense here in Tennessee.
I've already told you about the bill filed this week, the very first piece of legislation in this session, Bill 1, which will ban so-called gender affirmation quote-unquote procedures on minors.
And the media has lamented that our bill is among the strictest in the nation, and I will proudly admit that we are guiltiest charge as far as that goes.
Our legislation not only bans the medical abuse of gender-confused minors, but it also empowers the victims to sue those who are responsible for it.
And what I believe, I believe this is an unprecedented step, the victims of this butchery will even be given the right to sue their parents.
After all, parents who bring their children to doctors to be sterilized and castrated and butchered are the primary villains here, even more than the doctors, I would say.
I mean, the doctor is a mercenary fraud hurting children for profit, betraying his oath to do no harm.
It's hard to get lower than that, but the parents somehow succeed as they are bound by an oath before God to love and protect their children.
Whether they have said such an oath out loud or not, they are bound by it from the moment that their children are conceived.
And those parents who fail to live up to it, We'll pay the price, as well they should.
But child abuse comes in many and diverse and deranged forms these days, and our goal must be to root it out, expose it, punish it in every form.
And that brings us to Bill 3 of the legislative session, just filed by Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, also one of the principal architects of our anti-mutilation bill.
Bill 3 will ban and criminalize any drag performance involving children.
The Hill reports, quote, Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Republican,
has introduced legislation to prohibit drag entertainers from performing on public property
or at private functions where their performance may be viewed by a minor.
Johnson's bill would amend a state law preventing adult-oriented businesses like strip clubs from
operating within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, or places of worship to include adult
cabaret performances, including those of exotic dancers and male or female impersonators.
Johnson told WKRN-TV in Nashville this week that the bill is designed to prevent drag shows that are sexual in nature from being performed in places where children may be present.
Should the bill advance through Tennessee's Republican-controlled legislature and receive the approval of Governor Bill Lee, both of which things I think certainly will happen, first-time offenders would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor punishable by jail time of up to a year and a fine of $2,500.
Repeat offenders would be charged with a Class E felony, which carries a prison sentence of up to six years and fines totaling up to $3,000.
So we have the anti-mutilation bill.
This now is the anti-groomer bill.
And predictably, the groomers are not happy about it.
Our local News Channel 5 interviewed some in the latter group, the groomers who are upset, to get their reaction.
And let's see some of that.
This bill would also ban drag shows where children may be present.
It's extremely hurtful.
Mack puts on pageants for male impersonators and divas.
And she's the Nashville Pride President.
It would devastate our pride parade, our pride festival.
According to State Senator Jack Johnson, there were inappropriate performances in public which sparked the bill.
It is illegal to take your child to a strip club.
And yet, we're going to allow a drag show that has blatantly explicit sexual activity taking place in a public park where kids are present.
No, we're going to stop that.
We also talked to Chris Sanders at the Tennessee Equality Project.
He says it's frustrating that the first two bills introduced for this legislative season target them.
Merely dressing in the clothing of a different gender is not something that should be regulated, ever.
Not in our American tradition, not according to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not according to common sense.
If drag kings and queens perform in public, they could be charged with a misdemeanor.
And the second offense is a felony.
It's just not right.
It's not our American tradition to stifle expression.
Rebecca Phil's freedom of speech and expression should be protected.
The wording is very violent to trans people, and it's dangerous, and it's homophobic, and I think that there's a very slippery slope.
A slippery slope.
Yes.
Watch out for that slippery slope, folks.
First, you tell adults they can't perform in burlesque for children.
And the next thing you know, chaos has ensued.
And by chaos, we mean that children are given the basic protections they need and deserve.
This is what counts as chaos in the minds of the groomers.
Indeed, it is homophobic, she says, because apparently in her mind, sexual performances for children are a fundamental and inextricable part of gay culture.
That is her claim, evidently.
That's what she is saying.
There's a reason why these people panic over the possibility that they may not be able to sexualize children anymore.
For one thing, they get a thrill out of doing so.
They derive sick satisfaction from it.
And they're upset that this favorite pastime of theirs will now be taken away.
But they also realize that their ideological project, their cultural agenda, depends on destroying childhood innocence as quickly and efficiently as possible.
And they're going to find it more difficult to recruit children into their cult if they can't first corrupt them.
And that's why they're upset.
That's why this law is necessary.
And similar laws should be adopted in every red state in the country.
And if you live in a red state that doesn't have a law like this, you need to be reaching out to your local legislators and asking them why you don't.
But there are other... Basically, this all boils down to...
The benefits of a law like this.
First, the most obvious benefit is, again, it protects kids.
In this country, there are special laws and policies put in place to protect all kinds of different special groups and victim classes.
And usually the laws are unnecessary, and the special group neither needs nor deserves nor has any legal right to the extra protections that they're being given.
But children are, in fact, a special group and they are, in fact, morally and legally entitled to extra protections.
The law is meant to treat them differently, with special care and concern for their well-being.
Largely because we recognize that they can't fully watch out for and care for themselves.
And so then a functional and decent society recognizes that and offers them extra protections.
You can tell everything you need to know about a society based on how it treats its children and based on what its laws say about children.
And that's how you know that we are a depraved and dying society, because children are not only deprived of special protections, even as special protections are awarded to groups of infantilized adults, but worse, the law often specifically denies children even the most basic and fundamental rights and protections that everybody else has, such as the right to life.
This is all backwards, and we're going to set it right.
Second, politically, this is a winner because not only do decent Americans want kids to be protected, but also it puts the other side in the position that you heard in that news clip, of having to explicitly defend and affirmatively argue for the sexual exploitation of children.
We already know that they're in favor of such things, but if you don't wage a legal assault on it, they'll never have to openly own this horrific position.
It's good for the public to hear.
When they make the case.
It's good for the public to hear them make the case.
So the public can see who they are.
Third, finally, you know, politics may be downstream from culture.
But also sometimes culture is downstream from politics.
It's not quite as simple as we sometimes make it out to be.
And what I mean is that when the law is permissive of something, the public is more likely to see that thing as morally acceptable.
When the law forbids something, the public is more likely to see it as morally unacceptable.
This is just a fact.
The law is not simply a reflection of public opinion.
Sometimes it doesn't reflect public opinion at all.
But at other times, it also shapes public opinion.
This is why the left fights so hard to change the law to accommodate and affirm their wickedness and their various perversions.
They do it not just so that they have permission to act as they want, but also so that the public will see their actions as acceptable, even admirable.
This is why we have to fight in the culture, but also in the statehouse.
And that's what we're trying to do here.
We aren't dissuaded.
I'm certainly not.
In fact, I've never felt more motivated.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, if you're listening to this show, odds are that you put a lot of stock into how you
raise your kids.
You understand that your children look to you to define your values and their perspectives of the world.
That's why it's extremely important that you have a will in place.
A will also determines how your financial assets are dispersed, as well as your personal property.
It lays out your healthcare power of attorney to ensure that your end-of-life decisions are carried out.
If you're just starting out and you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on an attorney, but you want to make sure your savings, your belongings, and your family are all protected, You have to create your will at epicwill.com today.
Epic Will's early estate plans started just $119 and you can save 10% when you use promo code Walsh.
Go to epicwill.com, use code Walsh to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
That's epicwill.com, promo code Walsh.
Okay, so speaking of pouting and sniping, that brings us, unfortunately, to President Trump.
This is from the Daily Wire.
I don't even want to talk about this stuff.
As I said at the top, although, and as I've been saying since Tuesday, although the red wave didn't come to pass and all that kind of stuff and it was a disappointment, I don't see it as the unmitigated catastrophe, the disaster that lots of other people see it as.
I see opportunities here.
And so I'd rather focus on that.
But we talk about the news on this show as well, especially in the five headlines.
And, well, this, unfortunately, is the biggest headline in politics right now.
So, this is from The Daily Wire.
It says, Former President Trump followed up an unprovoked attack on Florida's Ron DeSantis with a strange swipe Friday morning at another popular Republican governor.
Glenn Youngkin of Virginia.
In both cases, the former president, who is expected again to seek the White House in 2024, claimed credit for the success of his targets.
While the attack on DeSantis was withering, the comments about Youngkin included a bizarre observation about his name and a backhanded vote of confidence.
So he wrote on Truth Social, Youngkin.
Now that's an interesting take.
Sounds Chinese, doesn't it?
What?
In Virginia, couldn't have won without me.
I endorsed him, did a very big pro-Trump rally for him telephonically, got MAGA to vote for him, or he couldn't have come close to winning.
But he knows that and admits it.
Besides, having a hard time with the Dems in Virginia.
But he'll get it done.
Okay, first of all, I'm sorry, that's just not true at all.
The red wave in Virginia, DeSantis, or rather, Yunkin winning in Virginia.
I mean, Trump might have attached himself to that late in the game, but that was like work on the ground.
That was work that we were doing, okay?
That's where that came from.
Those were people mobilized for issues, like on the issues.
It wasn't people mobilized because they love Trump, although many of the Yunkins voters might like Trump.
But I think it's, like, insulting to them to say that's what it was all about.
Oh, they just came out to vote because they like Trump.
That was a lot more substantive than that.
It wasn't even just that they came out because they personally love Junkin.
What made Virginia so significant is that they were really—and I was there, I know.
I lived there, as you know.
That's my home state.
And they were motivated by the issues, and they were especially motivated to protect their kids.
That's why they showed up, and that's why they voted Junkin in, is because these were parents protecting their children.
That was it.
As far as his attack on DeSantis, and by the way, with the Chinese name thing, I don't even know what that is, except more evidence that Trump, unfortunately, is losing his touch when it comes to nicknames.
And I know for that, you're going to hear some people say, well, that's not an attack.
That's not an insult.
It's just funny.
It's funny.
First of all, it's not funny.
Come on.
That's not clever.
But this is also what they said about when he said the sanctimonious and apologists Last week, we're saying, well, just a clever little funny dig at him, you know, just as friends do.
And then what do you know?
A day later, he launches into this full-on attack.
So yeah, he starts with the nickname and then he goes into the full attack.
And so we can expect that's going to happen with Jankin as well.
But here's what he said.
He put out a statement yesterday about DeSantis.
And here's what it says.
News Corp, which is Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and the no longer great New York Post, is all in for Governor Ron DeSanctimonious, an average Republican governor with great public relations who didn't have to close up his state but did, unlike other Republican governors whose overall numbers for Republican were just average, middle of the pack, including COVID, and who has the advantage of sunshine where people from badly run states up north would go no matter who the governor was, just like I did.
That's all one sentence, by the way.
Ron came to me in desperate shape in 2017.
He was politically dead, losing in a landslide to a very good agricultural commissioner, Adam Putnam, who was loaded up with cash and great poll numbers.
Ron had low approval, bad polls, and no money, but he said that if I would endorse him, he could win.
I didn't know Adam, so I said, let's give it a shot, Ron.
When I endorsed him, it was as though, to use a bad term, a nuclear weapon went off.
Years later, there were the exact words that Adam Putnam used in describing Ron's endorsement.
He said, "I went from having it made with no competition to immediately getting absolutely
clobbered after your endorsement.
I then got Ron by the star of the Democrat Party, Andrew Gillum, by having two massive
rallies with tens of thousands of people at each one.
I also fixed his campaign, which had completely fallen apart.
I was all in for Ron, and he beat Gillum.
But after the race, when votes were being stolen by the corrupt election process in Broward County, and Ron was going down 10,000 votes a day, along with now-Senator Rick Scott, I sent in the FBI and the U.S.
attorneys, and the ballot theft immediately ended just prior to them running out of the votes necessary to win.
I stopped his election from being stolen, and now Ron DeSanctimonious is playing games.
The fake news Asks if he's going to run if President Trump runs and he says I'm only focused on the governor's race.
Well in terms of loyalty and class, that's really not the right answer.
This is just 2015 and 2016, a media assault when Fox News fought me to the end until I won and they couldn't have been nicer and more supportive.
The Wall Street Journal loved low-energy Jeb Bush and a succession of other people as they rapidly disappeared from sight, finally falling in line with me after I easily knocked them out one by one.
We're in exactly the same position now.
They will keep coming after us, MAGA, but ultimately we will win.
Put America first and make America great again.
Me, me, me, me, me.
I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, going after DeSantis on COVID is just suicidal.
Are you kidding me?
I mean, now it's true that I don't think that any public official in the United States is
entirely 100% innocent when it comes to the lockdowns.
As far as I know, correct me on that, but I think every state in the country for at least a period of time locked down to some brief extent.
Uh, so that's true, you know, and, and, and so we could just like throw everybody out and just dismiss everybody based on that.
Or we can allow for the fact that, uh, in the very, very, very early going, uh, it was just people didn't know exactly what was going on and, uh, some decisions were made and not all of them were good in the very, very, very, very beginning.
Okay.
But then quickly the dust started to settle, or it should have, and people started to see very clearly, or at least some people did, and that's when, you know, very quickly Ron DeSantis became an anti-lockdown governor, and that's why the media labeled him, remember, Death Santas.
And once he settled on that, he stuck to it.
You know, and there were different waves and different this and that, and they, you know, they had the Omicron variant came along and all the different variants, and they said this is the super mega ultra, you know, bad variant that's going to kill, and he stuck to it then.
Same for Kristi Noem, same for some other Republican governors.
But for Trump to try to hit him on COVID, again, it's politically suicidal, it's insane, because Donald Trump handed the country over to Fauci for a year.
He just did.
And, like, we remember that, and there's nothing that you can do to make us not remember it.
It happened.
Okay, he could have fired Fauci, and he didn't, and when asked to explain it after the fact, he said the reason he didn't do it is because if he did, the media would have attacked him.
So he handed the country over to Fauci, and the reason he did it is because he didn't want the media to be mad at him.
And that's after three years, when you think of what he would have learned, the media's going to be mad at him no matter what he does.
And he put Fauci on TV every freaking day.
We had these marathon, remember, if you recall, press conferences with Fauci.
Trump could have put a stop to that and he didn't.
And also, when Ron DeSantis opened the state back up, Trump criticized him for doing it and said that it was reckless and he should do it.
He also did the same thing with Kemp in Georgia.
Kemp opened the state up in Georgia and Trump criticized it and said they need to stay locked down.
Now you can say all you want, let's not harp on that.
But he's bringing it up.
He's trying to make them into the advocates for lockdowns.
15 days to slow the spread that became two weeks and a month, that was Trump.
Remember?
We'll be open by Easter.
Easter comes and goes, and yeah, we'll never mind about that.
And that's why we should be clear about what the problem is here.
It's not that he's criticizing a potential rival.
Okay?
That's bound to happen.
Like, that's politics.
It's gonna happen.
It'll get nasty.
It'll get heated.
People try to destroy each other.
Like, that's politics.
Everyone understands that.
But the issue, though, is number one, the timing.
Okay?
It's the timing.
It's like, the GOP underperformed in most states.
But you take the one state where they did well, and you start going after that guy.
And then you go after Junkin, which is another.
If you were to look at the greatest GOP victories of the last four years, the greatest GOP victory since 2016 happened in Florida and Virginia, thanks to DeSantis and Junkin.
And those are the two guys you go after?
Right now?
But beyond that, it's also the manner of the criticism.
It's not just the crit... Like this is not... Like I said yesterday...
You will not hear me criticize Trump or anyone else for being just an a-hole and being kind of a jerk and being vicious, you know, because I'm, I am in no spot to criticize anyone for that.
And I also think that there is a time and place to be that way.
And especially in politics, you need to be that way.
That's not the problem here.
The problem is it just comes off as whiny and petulant and pitiful.
It's just embarrassing.
It's not, you don't read that and go, well, that was mean.
You read that and go, this is, I'm cringing.
This is embarrassing.
You're just complaining.
The whole statement is just one long statement.
I want credit for this!
Give me credit!
That's all it is.
And if you're trying to make a political play to get credit for something, then be smart about it at least.
Again, that I understand is politics.
Trump wants to run in 2024.
He wants to, you know, he's getting criticized for What happened in the midterms?
He wants to change that narrative.
I get that.
That's fair.
But you've got to be smart about the way you do it.
You don't do it by putting out these lengthy, rambling statements that go on for five pages but only have two periods, and where you just repeatedly demand, give me credit for this!
That's not the way to do it.
Part of being a fighter is to be smart.
Like I've been saying for days now, it's not running around and flailing around and just slapping everything in sight.
It's being targeted and smart and thinking about the timing and thinking about the manner that you go about it.
That is a smart fighter.
You don't need to just be a fighter.
You have to be smart and intelligent about the way that you do it.
And then there's also the question of what are you fighting for exactly?
Okay, what I want, what I respect, are fighters who are fighting to win, not just for themselves, but for the country, for our civilization.
Like, we're trying to save our civilization here.
We're trying to save our culture.
That's what you should be fighting for.
This comes off from Trump as totally ego-driven.
It's all about him.
And that has always been his greatest weakness.
It has always been his greatest weakness, is that he's driven by ego.
And you know the biggest problem with that?
It's not just that it compels him to do things like this, attacking people who, right now at least, he should be supporting, but also it makes him easily, you know, he can be easily manipulated.
Because being ego-driven means that, okay, if someone criticizes him or takes the spotlight away from him, he's going to attack them.
But on the other side of it, if they flatter him and they compliment him, then he'll love them, no matter who they are.
Which is why we heard all this stuff about draining the swamp.
The swamp was never drained from 2016 to 2020.
It just wasn't.
In fact, a lot of these establishment figures ended up in the White House.
They got hired to be in the White House.
The presidency was handed over, essentially, to Jared Kushner, John Bolton.
You can't think of a more establishment figure than that.
And so many other examples.
And the reason that that happens is because they're able to cozy up to him and flatter him.
And when they do that, He'll give them whatever they want.
So, what I wish that we could do now is move past this.
There's going to be a primary, and there's going to be a time for all of these kinds of conversations, and there's going to be arguments, and we're going to get mad at each other, you know, as we get into the primaries.
Some of you are going to be mad at me when we get into the primaries, if you're not already.
That's going to happen.
That's part of the primary process.
And right now I think we're looking at a wide open primary.
And it's going to be like 2016.
There's going to be 90 people in the race.
And so it's going to get a little, it's going to get, not a little, it's going to get very contentious.
And there's going to be a lot of fracturing and all that.
But that is part of the political process.
You just have to learn to embrace it and love it.
And that's what it's going to be.
But we're not even close to there yet.
We're two years away.
I mean, what we cannot have—it's one thing to have a primary season where there's a lot of infighting.
Okay.
A two-year primary season?
Two years of this?
That is just self-immolation.
That is just, that is, that's not gonna help Trump.
I don't think it's gonna help DeSantis.
I mean right now it's helping DeSantis.
It makes him look better because he's just ignoring it.
So he looks like the bigger man.
He looks like the more serious person.
But I think eventually he'll end up getting dragged down into mud too, and it's not gonna help anybody.
It certainly will not help conservatives.
It won't help the culture.
It won't help the country if we have two years of this.
So I really hope it doesn't Come to that, but a lot of this, it's up to Trump.
If he continues to do this for two years, then it's going to continue to be in the headlines, continue to be in the spotlight.
The media loves it.
They love this.
They could not be happier about it.
And anything Trump says, attacking DeSantis or any other Republican, the media will take that and they will amplify that.
They will put it on billboards.
They want everyone to see it because they love this.
So it's not entirely up to Trump, but it's largely up to him whether or not this is going to continue for four years or two years, and everyone hurts.
Everyone goes down in flames because of it.
Or can he move past his wounded ego at the moment?
Yeah, he's getting blamed, he thinks unfairly for some of this stuff.
Okay, just like that happens when you're in a position of leadership, you get blamed.
Okay, if you want credit, you're going to get the blame too.
It's how it goes.
But let's focus on the country right now.
All right.
This is from Daily Wire.
Chloe Cole is a detransitioned 18-year-old woman who was, of course, at our rally a few weeks ago, our end-child mutilation rally.
A detransitioned 18-year-old woman announced her intent on Thursday to sue the hospital and affiliated medical group that facilitated her medical transition as a minor.
According to the press release, Cole, represented by the Dillon Law Group and LaMandri and Gianna LLP, In conjunction with the Center for Menarche and Liberty sent a letter of intent to sue the Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals who perform supervised and or advised transgender hormone therapy and surgical interventions for Chloe Cole when she was between 13 and 17 years old.
They'll also be seeking punitive damages based on the evidence of malice, oppression, and fraud.
Cole said, "My teenage life has been the culmination of excruciating pain, regret,
and most importantly, injustice. I have been emotionally and physically damaged and stunted
by so-called medical professionals in my most important developmental period. I was butchered
by an institution that we trust more than anything else in our lives." The letter of
intent to Sue outlines the experimental nature and off-label use of the puberty blockers,
cross-sex hormones, and double mastectomy surgery offered to Cole, which lack long-term
studies to support their use in gender medicine, and alleges that the treatments amount to medical
experimentation.
And she's obviously exactly correct about this.
You know, I told you this when we had Chloe Cole speak at her rally.
She's an extremely impressive young woman.
To be just at that environment in the rally, she's getting up there and sharing her story, which is an unbelievably traumatic and horrific story.
And while she's sharing it, you know, on stage in front of thousands of people, she's got these, you know, these left-wing vultures in the crowd screaming at her and cussing at her.
And she was able to—and that is not an easy environment even for a trained public speaker, which she isn't, you know, because she just became sort of a public figure only recently.
But she was able to persevere through that, and I found that very impressive, and this even more so.
And it takes a lot of courage.
I mean, I know the kind of blowback that I get from the trans activists, and for me it is constant, and it is intense, and it involves Everything you could possibly imagine, including things that I still can't even talk about for security reasons.
But it's just, they throw everything they can at you.
They are utterly soulless demons who, if you oppose them, they want to destroy you, they want to kill you, they want you dead.
And I give that.
How much worse must it be for her?
Because on top of opposing them, There's also the element in their twisted minds of betrayal, like she's betrayed them.
She's an apostate, basically, in their minds.
And on top of that, she has first-hand experience.
She is revealing secrets that they don't want out.
A lot of stuff that she talks about, about what happened with her and the effects of these drugs and these procedures, they all know that.
They know it from experience.
You know, they know how grim and grotesque and horrible a lot of this stuff is.
They themselves are also living through it.
But they don't want us to know.
And she's revealing those secrets, and now she's going after, you know, now she's going after the top dogs here.
I mean, Kaiser Permanente, she's going after, you know, the butchers themselves, the pharmaceutical industry, and this is exactly what needs to happen.
All right, speaking of the butchers, Libs of TikTok has this video of the director of the gender health program at the Children's Hospital of Minnesota.
Let's watch a little bit of this.
So let's start with how kids understand gender identity.
Well, from the age of about two, kids can understand gender differences.
Now, this is mostly based on physical characteristics and anatomy, as they sort and put people into categories.
Boys and girls, mommies and daddies.
Kids at two are actually very good at putting things into categories, and they're very concrete and binary thinkers.
So this is a fun and easy task for them.
As they move into age three and four, they then begin to figure out where they fit.
They've seen the categories and they're turning the lens inward to discover where they fit in the categories that have been explained to them, most of which are boy and girl.
Now, they often develop more sophisticated understanding of physical characteristics and anatomy around this time, and they're often not shy about sharing their discoveries with us.
They may exclaim, I'm a girl and I have a vagina!
And that may happen in the pediatrician's office or in the checkout line at the grocery store.
They have figured out their place in the world, and they are claiming it.
It shouldn't surprise you, then, that some transgender kids are also claiming their identities as young as three and four years old.
They know the categories, they know how they should feel inside based on their anatomy, and they also know that the way that they see themselves doesn't line up with other people's expectations.
From as young as some kids can talk, they're explaining to their parents the truth about their identities.
And I have three boys, or rather, I have three kids, six, six, and four, who were assigned male at birth and continue to identify as boys.
And when our kids were growing up, we tried to expand their gender categories just a little bit.
So, instead of saying to them, these are boy parts, and these are girl parts.
I've heard enough of that.
God help those boys.
We taught them that.
This person has three sons.
God help them.
I mean really, God help them because she's not going to.
You know, my daughter, my now three-year-old daughter, had her birthday a month ago and on Her birthday, I did what all adults do when little kids have birthdays, you quiz them on their own age.
How old are you turning today?
And I asked her this a couple of times, and variously throughout the day, she was turning 20, she was turning 100, she was turning 1, she was turning 7.
Every time you ask her, you get a different answer.
And so when she declares, you ask her, how old are you turning? 20!
Is that her figuring out her place in the world?
That's a statement she's making about herself.
I asked her about herself, her own identity.
She says she's 20 years old.
I guess she's 20 years old.
Time to move out of the house, get a job.
Right?
No.
When kids make declarations about themselves at this age, at this young age, whether it's they're talking about their age, talking about their sex, talking about really anything about themselves, When they make declarations, there are a couple of things happening here.
One of them is that they're very often just repeating what they've been told.
Okay, and they may not repeat it perfectly, because we did tell my daughter that she's turning three, and she just couldn't quite grasp it.
But very often, if you tell your kids something about themselves, if you affirm a certain idea, then they'll just go around repeating it.
So there's repetition.
You know, there's regurgitation of what they've been told.
There's also just mindless kid babble.
Anyone who's been around young kids knows this, or should know it, that little kids, they simply babble.
They walk around saying words, and the words don't make any sense.
They're making declarations that have no reflection, don't reflect reality whatsoever.
They're just saying things.
The thing about a kid is that a child has no capacity for an internal monologue.
And there are some people who grow up and they still never develop.
And these people are the bane of my existence.
They have no capacity to think inside their own heads.
So everything that pops in their head, they just say.
And for an adult, you know, I could say, well, I would expect you to have developed some capacity to keep your mouth shut at this point.
But for a kid, that's just how it goes.
So there's a lot of babbling going on.
But then, you know what else they're doing?
There's the babbling, there's the regurgitation of information they've been told.
And there's also, oftentimes they can say something about themselves, and it's really a question.
It's like they don't know if this is true, they're just sort of saying it, and they're looking to get the reaction from the adult to tell them, yes, that's true, or no, it isn't.
That's why, going back to my daughter and her age, when I asked her how old she's turning, she didn't really say it like that, it was more like a question. 20?
Sure, exactly.
So she's just throwing something out.
She's throwing a word out there and a number, and she's looking for the reaction from me so I can tell her whether that's true or not.
Because I know more about who my three-year-old daughter is than she does.
I know a lot more about who she is than she does.
I understand a lot more about the world, and I understand a lot more about her.
And so she is coming to me and to my wife To figure out not just what's going on in the world, but also what's going on with her, who she is.
And so, that explains a young boy who says, I'm a girl.
Either he's babbling incoherently, or he's repeating what he's been told by his abusive parent, or he's asking a question.
He's not sure.
It's a question.
You know, you could put an am I in front of it.
Am I?
I'm a girl.
Am I?
And it's up to us as adults with our, what is supposed to be, superior grasp on reality, to guide them in the right direction.
To answer the question.
Based on what we understand about reality.
But most children, or many children these days, don't get that.
Alright, this is from WPDE.com.
A teenager in New Hampshire has become the first transgender contestant to win a local Miss America organization beauty pageant.
Brian Gwynn, Didn't even change his name, he's still Brian.
19, won Sunday night's pageant to become Miss Greater Dairy 2023, which awards the winner a crown, a title, and a scholarship.
I think we have the footage of this young man winning the beauty pageant.
Yeah, we do.
Let's watch that.
Can we skip to the good part?
[MUSIC]
[MUSIC]
So as you can see, that's the offensive lineman with the Detroit Lions that just won the Miss America pageant
there.
It's like an obese man was awarded the beauty pageant winner.
Gwen announced on Instagram, in the 100 year history of Miss America, I have officially become the first transgender title holder within the Miss America organization.
No words can describe the feeling of having the opportunity to serve my community and represent my community for the very first time at Miss New Hampshire.
I am so honored to be crowned your new Miss Greater Dairy 2023, and I am thrilled to show you all what I have up my sleeves.
Really don't want to see.
This will be an amazing year.
There's a few things going on here.
One of them, it goes back to something I talked about with Joe Rogan on Monday that he brought up.
That, you know, this gender ideology stuff, it affords people, there's of course a lot of narcissism involved in it, and that's certainly the case here, but it also affords people the opportunity to, like, earn something or have an achievement despite having achieved nothing.
Like, you don't have to work for it, you don't have to do anything, you don't have to accomplish anything, and suddenly you have achieved something.
That's a lot of this.
So this guy has a first in a hundred years.
I'm a trailblazer.
He didn't do anything.
He put on a dress.
He just showed up at this beauty pageant.
And he won as soon as he walked in the door, because for the people deciding who the winner is, he presented to them an opportunity to virtue signal, and they took it.
You know?
This is the Northeast, this is New Hampshire, they're gonna take that opportunity as soon as he presents it to them.
So he did nothing, and yet he gets to claim this title for himself.
I'm the first in a hundred years to... What an achievement.
So there's a lot of that, but also consider that You know, I know with the body positivity stuff that we're entering a world where very often an obese woman maybe could win a title like that.
But I think, what's more likely?
I mean, look at all the others.
You see him, and then compare him to all of the actual women on stage, and you notice a difference?
Well, there's a number of differences.
But one of them is that he is morbidly obese and none of the other women are.
None of the actual women are, I should say.
The point is that if he looked exactly like that, but was actually a woman, not only would he not have won Miss America, he would not have been allowed on the stage.
It's kind of interesting, too, because I've pointed out before that when it comes to this body positivity stuff, the one thing missing are men, usually.
Because usually when you see, you know, when some brand puts out an advertisement celebrating body positivity with an obese model, you know, it's almost always women.
You very rarely see a guy with a big, fat beer gut, you know, appearing in a Dove ad or something like that as a champion of Body positivity.
The plus-size models.
Very rarely men.
So body positivity, celebrating obesity, almost always applies to women, not men.
Except in this case, if the man is pretending to be a woman.
That's how twisted things are.
Okay, I also want to mention one other thing.
Let's put this up.
So Eric Swalwell, yesterday, tweeted this.
Eric Fartsmell, as I call him, because you know what?
I can come up with some mature and clever nicknames, like Fartsmell.
Maybe Donald Trump should take some hints from me.
So Eric Swalwell is responding to a quote from Senator Tim Scott.
And Senator Tim Scott says, we're putting parents back in charge of their kids' education.
Swalwell responds, please tell me what I'm missing here.
What are we going to do next?
Putting patients in charge of their own surgeries?
Clients in charge of their own trials?
When did we stop trusting experts?
This is so stupid.
You're right, Fartsmell.
That is in fact so stupid.
In fact, I don't even know where to begin.
We'll start with this.
First of all, public school teachers are not subject matter experts, okay?
Like, almost certainly, the person, your child's 7th grade math teacher is not an expert mathematician.
They're not bringing actual scientists in to teach science.
So they, in fact, are not experts in the subject that they're teaching.
Now, you could say, well, but they're experts in teaching.
Are they, though?
I mean, generally speaking, and there are some very good public school teachers out there, certainly.
But generally speaking, is there a lot of evidence that all or even most public school teachers are experts in teaching?
Do we see the evidence?
Where's the proofs in the pudding?
So let's look at the pudding here and what we find are test scores declining, literacy declining, everything's declining.
I mean a bunch of kids graduating who end up in these dumb guy on the street interviews being asked about, you know, what century was the Civil War fought in and like, you know, they say the 12th century or something like that.
So, that's what the public school is producing.
There's just not a lot of evidence that the people in charge of the public schools, people doing the teaching, are, generally speaking, experts.
But then also, he says, oh, we're going to put clients in charge of defending themselves at trial?
Well, yeah.
In fact, you have the constitutional right to defend yourself at trial.
You don't have to, but you have the right to do it.
Are patients going to be in charge of their surgeries?
In a sense, yes.
You have to decide that you want the surgery and consent to it.
They can't force you to get it.
You have rights as a patient, don't you?
So as a defendant in a trial, you have basic rights.
As a patient, you have basic rights.
So this to me, these are analogies that I would use if I wanted to defend the rights of parents to have a say over their child's education.
So he's making exactly the opposite point.
And also keep in mind what he's responding to.
Like the claim from Tim Scott is not that, Tim Scott is not saying, let's abolish the public school system.
I'm saying that, but that's not with Tim Scott.
Tim Scott's not the kind of Republican who's gonna say that.
I don't think there's any Republican right now who will, unfortunately.
So what he's actually responding to is not, let's tear down the public school system and get rid of it, as great as that would be in my opinion.
It's rather just, parents should have a say.
Like, your kids are going into this building for six hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for 12, 13 years.
You should have a say over what happens there.
You should have a role in that.
And Swalwell's saying, no, you should have no role at all.
No role, no rights.
And to make his point, he cites examples where people do have a crucial role and they do have rights in those examples.
More brilliance from Eric Swalwell.
Let's get to the comment section.
I didn't go to college, I worked my tail off to support my four-year-old son, and I couldn't even take him to an aquarium on my vacation for a day because I couldn't afford it, thanks to the inflation of Brandon and the Democrats.
Yet these spoiled brats who waste more on soy lattes in a month than people like me spend on anything frivolous in a year feel entitled to reach into my pocket to help pay for their vacations or dining out.
Screw them.
Amen.
Could not agree more.
And this is the kind of righteous indignation, this is the kind of moral outrage that we should have about these issues.
And honestly, I don't see enough of it.
off of their positions and their corruption.
Amen, could not agree more.
And this is the kind of righteous indignation, this is the kind of moral outrage
that we should have about these issues.
And honestly, I don't see enough of it.
And what we hear from, you know, the media and what we hear from the milk toast squishes
is that it's too much outrage.
People are too angry.
Let's turn down the dial a little bit.
Let's turn down the volume.
I could not disagree more.
I think the exact opposite is the case.
There's not nearly enough outrage.
Just about the student loan thing, that on its own.
You know, there should be an eruption of moral outrage over this, because what happened here is morally outrageous.
Stealing money from hard-working people, not just to pay off someone else's financial obligations, but as we found out, and as surprised as nobody with two brain cells in their head, that money isn't even being used for that purpose, but it's being used so that these people can go out to eat and have vacations and the rest of it.
Sean says, I think that blind man video, or possibly a similar situation, was discussed by Anthony Cumia and Gavin McGinnis a while back.
They made an accurate observation that many, not all certainly, but many female officers are overly aggressive and combative in these situations because they feel the need to overcompensate for perceived power imbalance.
Many feel they have to constantly prove their worth by being more aggressive than need be.
But that only ends up escalating situations that didn't require overall female officers tend to be a liability to the force Well, they must not have been talking about this exact video if it was a while back because this you know The thing we talked about the daily cancellation yesterday Just happened a few days ago but I do think that it's not popular to say of course no true thing is I do think there's a lot to be said for that point of view.
And it's the problem that you run into if you're a female police officer and you're out on the job.
You're dealing with a lot of people who you have no physical control over.
And if they decide that they want to resist you or they want to attack you, you're not going to have any way to do that aside from resorting to deadly force, basically.
But there is.
There is a physical power imbalance.
And that's the situation when you have a female police officer.
Almost every suspect they deal with will be able to easily overpower them.
And you know that going in.
And then you might have a problem of overcompensation, which, yeah, I do think seems like that's what happened here.
And then there are other cases.
There was a case, and I was looking for it.
There's a video of it I was looking for.
I couldn't find it.
But there was a case recently of an officer, a female officer, got in trouble because she was on the scene when there was a fight.
There was a guy getting assaulted.
And she just was kind of like standing there and didn't do anything about it.
So it's the opposite of overcompensating.
In that case, she didn't do anything.
But also, like, First of all, what can she do, aside from using deadly force?
But if she did that, then everybody would complain that this was police brutality.
So it's like being thrust into these no-win situations.
And police officers are very often in no-win situations, but I think if you're a female police officer, there are many more no-win situations.
I mean, almost every situation is a no-win situation.
All right, let's see.
Thisguyisthelimit says, to put it simply, when deciding which of your personal choices and freedoms are correct, a helpful metric to use is, if everybody made this choice, would civilization flourish or would it decay?
It's a decent response to Rogan's libertarian position on marriage.
Yes, people have the choice to not have children and to travel and read books, as he put it, but what if everybody did that?
Goodbye, future generations.
I think that's a good way to put it.
It's a good argument.
Of course, there are always the responses, cheap responses, like, well, if everybody was an engineer, you know, then society would collapse.
If everybody was a firefighter, society would collapse, because we need people to do other things aside from those jobs.
But you mean it on a more fundamental level like that.
You're talking about not like a job, but just a lifestyle, how you're living your life.
And look, this is one thing I try to communicate to Joe Rogan, but if we decide as a society that marriage is meaningless, and if everybody adopts that viewpoint as increasingly that's the direction we're heading in, then you have, you're correct, the collapse of civilization.
Which I would consider a negative, personally.
Recessions aren't recessions.
Inflation is good.
Men are women.
If you're more confused than usual, lately it's by design.
The left thinks they have a monopoly on the definition of words and they can silence you, but they can't.
And if you simply push back, the house of cards collapses.
Just look at What Is A Woman, my film which caused a rift in the space-time continuum just because I asked a question.
The month that came out, The Daily Wire had more members sign up than at any other time in its history, more than 5,000 audience ratings of Rotten Tomatoes later, and the film still has people talking, which is great because the more we bring these conversations out into the open and the more we confront the madness, the sooner it will hopefully end.
If you haven't seen it yet, go to dailywire.com slash Walsh to become a member and watch the film today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, we head to the future site of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.
The center began construction in 2021 and is supposed to open in 2026.
In fact, it was supposed to begin construction years before 2021, but various delays got in the way.
Now that it's finally started, it will take half a decade to complete.
Now keep in mind, the Empire State Building was constructed in one year, nearly a century ago.
But these days, things that we should be able to do in half the time, that it would have taken a hundred years ago, instead take us five or ten times as long.
For another example of this phenomenon, of course we could just see vote counting procedures as another example.
As for construction, we should note that not only does it take longer to build stuff, but that the stuff we're building is of a much lower quality compared to what we built a hundred years ago.
So a hundred years ago, they would build it faster and better than we do now.
The bad news, then, is that it takes us forever to build.
But the good news is that once it's built, it will be cheap and flimsy and may not even last as long as it took to get the permits to construct it.
And it will also be ugly.
Almost everything we build is hideously ugly.
The Obama Presidential Center will certainly be no exception.
As you can see here, we put the picture up on the screen.
It's a monstrosity.
It is a pockmarked, misshapen, asymmetrical hunk of building material plopped right into the middle of the city.
It looks like something that a group of third graders could build in an afternoon.
Only it will take them five years to create this gargantuan eyesore.
It's no surprise that Obama's center would be so horrifically ugly and ridiculous.
He is a leftist, after all, and leftism celebrates ugliness.
It chooses ugly over beautiful intentionally, on principle.
In this case, Obama has chosen a design that looks something like a colossal Wi-Fi modem after it's been kicked down a flight of stairs or something.
And why will this abomination take so long to construct?
Why does everything take so long to construct?
Well, for the same reason that everything else is inefficient these days.
Bureaucracy, lawsuits, incompetence, red tape, etc.
Almost anything can slow the work down or bring it to a grinding halt.
Anything, including a rope.
This is from the New York Post.
Here's the latest.
Construction at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago has been temporarily halted after a noose was discovered at the worksite Thursday morning.
Lakeside Alliance, the construction company building the $830 million center, said it immediately notified police after the noose was reported on the premises, located in Jackson Park.
The company told The Post in a statement that it suspended all operations on site in order to provide its employees with an additional series of anti-bias training, citing a zero-tolerance policy for any form of bias or hate on a work site.
The company additionally said it was offering a $100,000 reward to find the culprit.
Quote, We are horrified that this would occur on our site and we are offering a $100,000 reward to help find the individual or individuals responsible for this shameful act.
Lakeside Alliance remains committed to providing a work environment where everyone can feel safe, be their best self, and is treated with dignity and respect, according to the statement.
It will not surprise you to learn that there is no picture of the noose.
We haven't seen a picture of it.
Hate crime nooses are a bit like Bigfoot.
Lots of people see them, but we never seem to get a good picture of one.
Which makes sense, of course.
It's not like everyone carries a camera around in their pockets these days.
Be that as it may, there were many denunciations of the unseen noose.
The Post continues, quote, the Obama Foundation denounced the incident as a shameless act of cowardice and hate designed to get attention and divide us.
Our priority is protecting the health and safety of our workforce, the Foundation said in a statement to The Post.
We have notified authorities who are investigating the incident.
Illinois Governor J.B.
Pritzker also condemned the act.
Hate has no place in Illinois, he said.
The noose is more than a symbol of racism.
It is a heart-stopping reminder of the violence and terror inflicted on black Americans for centuries.
Now, we should note that nooses are an epidemic on construction sites.
I don't know if you knew this.
Recently, eight nooses were found on an Amazon construction site.
They kept shutting down the building on the site because they kept finding all these nooses.
A noose was also found at the site of a new Facebook building.
In fact, as the Washington Post reported last year, dozens of nooses have shown up on construction sites all over the country.
They reported at the time, quote, Black workers, who make up only 6% of the sector, have found many of the 55 nooses reported at 40 work sites since 2015.
Indeed, the noose problem is so pervasive that, as the Washington Post reports, some of the nooses are invisible.
Quote, the Reverend Larry Bullock, President and Chief Executive of the U.S.
Minority Contractors Association, said he spends his days worrying about invisible nooses in the construction industry.
Bullock, who is black, says too many companies circumvent diversity and inclusion requirements by either skirting statutes or budgeting for fines for failing to meet them.
He also lists the lack of expertise, lack of capital, and struggles with labor-management relations as some of the greatest obstacles for minority-owned firms in construction.
The migration of apprentice programs outside of urban areas has dampened diversity efforts, he said, as has the elimination of school curriculums that gave black youths an earlier introduction into the trades.
All this makes it difficult to hire youth that look like us, he said.
It's a vicious, vicious cycle of trying to address the systemic racism in construction.
This man is seeing invisible nooses everywhere.
It is surely a sign of systemic racism.
Or else it's a symptom of his own mental illness.
I don't know.
Now, let me Let me make a few points here and state the obvious.
First of all, there are two possible explanations for why people keep finding ropes on construction sites.
One is that the construction industry, one of the most racially diverse industries in the country with at least a third of all workers being Hispanic, is also infested somehow with white supremacists White supremacists who sign up to work with racial minorities all day.
That's one possible reason why there are ropes on construction sites.
The other possible reason why there are ropes on construction sites is that a construction site is a construction site.
Perhaps you find ropes there for the same reason you find hammers and nails and lumber.
A rope is a tool used in construction.
Often these ropes are tied into knots that might look something like a noose.
It's very common.
You take ropes and you tie them into knots so you can do things with them.
You can make pulleys and you can, you know, carry things.
You can do things with them.
It's very common.
Indeed, walk through any construction site and you are guaranteed to stumble across all manner of ropes, cords, cables, which will be tied into various sorts of knots and configurations.
If you're going to immediately assume that a rope on a construction site is meant to send a racist message, you may as well immediately assume that a bucket of black paint is intended to be used for blackface or something.
You have jumped to the most extreme and bizarre conclusion, and in the process you have leapt right over simpler and more banal and more obvious and more innocent ones.
Second point.
It's true that not every alleged noose necessarily has an innocent explanation.
Some of them, indeed, could be put there intentionally and for nefarious purposes.
That's possible.
But if they were, the most logical assumption, based on recent historical precedent, is that they're put there as a hoax.
Like, if they're put there intentionally for nefarious purposes, it's almost certainly a hoax.
Because it always is.
Far be it from me to suggest a race hoax in Chicago, certainly not a place known for such things, but given that nearly every noose story, I mean nearly every single one, either turns out to be an innocuous rope misinterpreted or an intentional hoax, what else are we supposed to think?
Of course, the left exists in an alternate reality, which is why neither the media nor the Obama Foundation nor the governor's office are even taking into consideration the possibility that the noose is innocuous or a hoax.
Never mind how these stories play out nearly 100% of the time.
The boy cried wolf a thousand times and was lying a thousand times.
But each time, with each new cry, they assume that it must be real.
And don't even take into consideration the possibility that it isn't.
I would call it insanity, except that it's all intentional.
They are not being deceived.
They are rather, of course, a part of the deception.
And that's why everyone involved in this story, including the Obama Center itself, actually, for being so ugly, everyone and everything is cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
