Ep. 1098 - The White House Revises The Declaration Of Independence
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the White House makes revisions to the Declaration of Independence in support of "abortion rights." A major mass shooting falls rapidly out of the headlines when the Left's assumptions about the killer's motives prove to be unfounded. Tony Dungy, one of the least offensive people on the planet, is condemned as a rabid extremist when he reveals himself to be a conservative Christian. The state of Arkansas bans the word "Latinx" from its official documents. And a woman films and publicly shames a man who she claims harassed and traumatized her at the gym. The footage shows something else entirely.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
RexMD - Get 90% off RexMD with my exclusive link -> https://rexmd.com/walsh #rexmdpod
- - -
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 White House makes revisions to the Declaration of Independence in support of abortion rights, quote-unquote.
A major mass shooting falls rapidly out of the headlines when the left's assumptions about the killer's motives prove to be unfounded.
Tony Dungy, one of the least offensive people on the planet, is condemned as a rabid extremist when he reveals himself to be a conservative Christian.
The state of Arkansas bans the word latinx from its official documents.
And a woman films and publicly shames a man who she says harassed and traumatized her at the gym.
But the footage shows something else entirely.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Wall Show.
But at Grand Canyon University, they specialize in helping you fit your bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree into your busy day.
From scholarships to customized scheduling, your graduation team, led by your own GCU counselor, provides you with the personal support you need to succeed.
Achieve your goals with your personalized plan and your team fully behind you.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
This weekend marked the 50th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision, and for the past half-century, of course, Roe anniversaries have been solemn occasions, times for sorrow and grief and for a renewed resolve to bring an end to this holocaust of the unborn.
But of course, this year, it was a little different.
Roe was overturned, the decision has been tossed onto history's proverbial ash heap, and so the occasion took on a more celebratory and triumphant tone.
That is celebratory and triumphant for everyone except for the genocidal butchers and their supporters who instead spent the weekend deeply mourning the fact that more babies are being born and fewer are being killed.
Very upset about that.
This was the theme of Vice President Kamala Harris' speech to mark the event in Tallahassee on Sunday.
And her speech was notable for one thing, for being basically coherent.
A standard that she rarely meets in any public address.
It would seem that her thirst for the blood of the unborn has the effect of focusing her mind and allowing her to string together multiple sentences in a row that, while vapid and stupid, at least resemble human language.
So, she's able to do that much at least.
Yet the most revealing thing in Camila's speech isn't what she said, but what she omitted.
Listen.
I am honored to be with members of the United States Congress who are here, state and local elected officials.
We're glad to be with you.
and all of the coalition partners who are represented here.
So we are here together because we collectively believe and know
America is a promise.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
America is a promise.
It is a promise of freedom and liberty, not for some, but for all.
[applause]
A promise we made in the Declaration of Independence.
That we are each endowed with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Be clear.
These rights were not bestowed upon us.
They belong to us as Americans.
Yeah, so I don't mean to be a stickler for details, but there seems to be something missing here.
A couple things, in fact.
The Vice President, in these prepared remarks composed by White House speechwriters, mentions two of the three fundamental human rights outlined by the Declaration of Independence, but leaves out the first one that the Declaration lists.
The White House specifically decided not to mention that we have the right to life, which precedes our right to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.
After all, we cannot have liberty, and we certainly can't have happiness, or even pursue it, if we don't first, you know, exist.
The value and dignity of human life must come before any other right or liberty.
Those other rights or liberties must in fact be grounded in the inherent value and dignity of human life, or else they're grounded in nothing and can be swept away like, you know, crumbs on the floor.
Not incidentally, this is exactly what the administration intends to do with our rights, and has been doing.
You notice that Harris also chose to skip over the source of these rights.
So she says that we are endowed with them, but doesn't mention who has endowed them.
The Declaration mentions that.
Now, endow means to provide or to give.
This necessitates a provider, a giver.
In the next sentence, she says that, she says, to be clear, these rights were not bestowed on us, but rather belong to us.
Except that endow means to bestow.
That's what it means.
They're synonyms.
Saying the rights were endowed, not bestowed, it's like saying, well, I drove a car to work, not a vehicle.
It's a distinction without a difference.
We can only assume then, from the context, that Kamela means that the rights were not bestowed on us by the government or any man-made entity.
They are not rights that can be fundamentally created by political act or by vote.
She would have to believe this in order to complain about rights being taken away by government authorities.
If rights are given to us by the government, then it makes no sense to complain when that same authority removes them.
We could advocate for the restoration of those rights that we want, but we couldn't act injured or offended or like something that belongs to us has been taken away.
If rights are entirely created by the government, Then the government has the absolute authority to abolish them whenever it so chooses.
And we have no logical or moral basis upon which to complain about it.
That's all true, and Kamala Harris recognizes it.
She sees the problem with a conception of human rights that relies entirely on governmental authorities, but she also rejects the only coherent solution to this problem.
The solution that our founding fathers came up with.
They didn't come up with it, rather, but this is what they believed.
If the rights are endowed, and if because of this endowment they now belong to us in such a way that even our political leaders don't have the moral authority to take them away, then that would mean a higher authority has given them to us.
That would be the creator that the Declaration mentions.
But Harris skips over the creator part because she knows that any recognition of a creator leads inevitably to the conclusion that we are created beings, which would mean that every life in the womb is a product of this same divine creation, which would mean that abortion destroys that which is divinely created.
It would also mean that the mother who chooses the abortion is not destroying something that belongs to her, but rather something that belongs to God.
And that's a very important distinction that Kamala Harris doesn't want to recognize.
You cannot acknowledge the Creator without acknowledging, first, a higher moral order, one that would probably frown upon the mass slaughter of infants, and second, the inherent value of human life, which is precisely the thing that her speech is supposed to militate against.
Now, this whole thing, you know, with the speech, is sort of being treated as just another patented Kamala Harris flub or gaffe, but it's actually much more than that.
Nearly everything you need to know about modern leftism is contained in these few sentences in this one speech.
Really contained in the sentences and the words that she left out of it.
This is an ideological movement whose adherents cannot even quote the Declaration of Independence without making revisions to it for fear that they might accidentally contradict themselves.
And what this really shows is that the leftist project is totally incompatible with the American project.
Not merely incompatible, the former seeks to destroy the latter.
That is its project.
This country is indeed founded on the belief in fundamental human rights and the sacred dignity of the human person, who is created by a divine being, by God.
None of this works without that belief.
It just doesn't work.
It's the underlying assumption that the whole tower is built on.
Without it, the entire thing comes crashing down.
The really significant and probably insurmountable problem that we have in this country is that we live in a nation where half of the people, if not more, don't share that assumption.
And to make matters worse, many of them don't even really realize that they don't share it.
The others, like Kamala Harris, they realize that they don't share the assumption, but they keep up the act anyway, pretending that they do.
And so all of our debates in this country are then grounded in a premise that isn't actually shared by both sides of the argument.
And then we wonder why the arguments never go anywhere.
It's because we're pretending to have a shared premise when we actually don't.
Every debate in this country, I mean it really boils down, every political debate boils down to figuring out what our rights are.
That's what every debate really is.
It's what are our rights?
Whose rights are they?
That's what every debate is about.
But this assumes that rights exist and that they matter.
Yet this is an assumption not shared by one side, even if many of them think they do share it.
They don't.
They go around screaming about their rights, but they don't believe in any higher being that bestowed those rights.
They don't believe that the universe has any moral order which gives any weight to those rights.
And they don't believe that rights-bearing individuals have any value in the first place.
In other words, they can make a claim to rights, but they can't explain why any of us should care about the claim.
Which is also why it is so hard for us to explain to them why they should care about our rights claims.
Now, it's not as though there's ever been unanimous agreement when it comes to human rights, but in the past, the disagreement centered around the question of what our rights are, how they manifest themselves, even which rights belong to which people.
But now there is a movement seeking to explode the entire framework, although not all of them fully understand that that's what they're trying to do.
And as always with the left, while they seek to tear the lid off of this concept and empty it of its meaning, they have no new meaning to replace it with.
Harris, like any other leftist, she speaks passionately of rights while removing both God and the value of human life from the discussion, thereby making nonsense of the very idea of human rights.
And then nonsense is all that remains.
They don't give us a new way of thinking about human rights.
They don't have some revolutionary new interpretation of our country's founding creed.
All they know is that they reject what everyone else believed up until this point.
As for what we should believe instead, they have no clue.
They uproot the tree and then just leave it there, standing on top of the soil to slowly die and then fall over and crush whoever happens to be standing near it at the time.
That's the general leftist approach to everything.
And to Western civilization itself.
And that's what Kamala Harris was saying.
Even if she didn't say it.
Now let's get to our headlines.
It's time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases, embarrassing.
RexMD, then, is a trusted leader in men's telehealth.
They make it easy and inexpensive to get generic and branded Viagra or Cialis online.
No waiting room, no embarrassing trips to the doctor, no insurance, no co-pays.
With just a few clicks of a button, you can talk to a medical professional, create a personalized plan, and get the products discreetly shipped straight to your door within two days.
RexMD doesn't just offer ED medication.
They also offer medications that help with hair growth, Pain relief, sleep aid.
Unlike other brands, RexMD is FDA approved, clinically tested, and a U.S.
licensed pharmacy as well.
RexMD has already helped over 300,000 guys gain confidence quickly and conveniently, and they're here to help you too.
Take advantage of their best deal yet at rexmd.com slash Walsh and save up to 90% off by paying only $2 per dosage.
Starter packs of generic Viagra or Cialis are now available to get started.
That's rexmd.com slash Walsh for up to 90% off.
Go to rexmd.com for more details and safety information.
There was a major mass shooting over the weekend, and if you want to read or hear anything about it, now's the time to hear about it because it's about to fall out of the headlines and never to return.
So the shooting happened in Southern California at an event celebrating the Lunar New Year.
So most or all of the victims were Asian, which of course is the fact that the media was very excited about.
And they were excited about it.
I mean, they were.
When I say excited, I use that word intentionally.
They're excited when they hear about a mass shooting.
And then they look into it and they want to know who the victims are.
And if they find out the victims are, you know, people of color, quote unquote, they're very excited about it.
They're happy.
Because then that means that this is something they can potentially use.
And they don't need to wait for, of course, as we know, any of the other details before they use it.
And this is what led many prominent leftists to assume immediately that this was a hate crime against Asians.
Because why else?
There's no other reason why people who happen to be Asian would be murdered.
It's the only possible reason.
Just like with trans people, as we know.
The way they count the numbers.
Every single trans person murdered in a year is the victim of a hate crime.
Because there is no other reason why a trans person would ever be murdered.
And this apparently is the same with Asians.
But no other possible reason.
Must be bigotry.
Must be a hate crime.
And they decided not only that, but it was a hate crime carried out by a white person.
Now, some of the leftists were slightly more subtle in making this connection.
Some were more blatant.
But just a few examples of the tweets and statements that went out as soon as the shooting occurred.
Chuck Schumer says, I'm heartbroken by the news of the shooting in Monterey Park amid Lunar New Year celebrations.
I'm praying for the victims, their families, and first responders.
We must stand up to bigotry and hate wherever they rear their ugly heads, and we must keep working to stop gun violence.
Katie Hobbs, governor of Arizona, said, Devastated by the news of Monterey Park, my heart breaks for the victims, their families and friends, and all those impacted by this gun violence during Lunar New Year celebrations.
These mass shootings can't continue and Arizona stands united with the AAPI community against hate.
Adam Schiff said, 10 dead in Monterey Park.
I am sickened.
A horrific example of needless gun violence with bigotry toward AAPI individuals as a possible motive.
So he just, that was less subtle.
He just came out and said it.
Possible motive.
By the way, at this point, no one involved in the investigation, which had been going on at this point for about 45 seconds, nobody officially involved had said anything about hate crime as a possible motive.
This is something that he came up with on his own.
The families are in my prayers as we seek information by law enforcement.
We'll never quit demanding real action on gun safety.
And then, of course, our friend Cenk over at the Young Turks, not subtle at all.
My wife used to work at Monterey Park where the mass shooting took place.
No one is safe.
Republicans are constantly spreading fear about immigrants, crime, and drag queens.
But the number one thing that makes us and our children unsafe is their favorite thing in the world, guns.
Many more where those came from.
That's just a sample.
Until the truth, as it sometimes does, unhelpfully intruded onto the scene.
They had the scene, you know, this is what the media does.
The police, they tape off the crime scene, then the media comes in with different sort of tape that's meant to keep the truth, reality, away from this scene.
Because they've already set their narrative, we don't want any truth here.
But the truth came anyway.
Here's NBC News with the begrudging update.
The gunman in the deadly shooting at a dance hall in Monterey Park that left 10 people dead and at least 10 other injured as they celebrated the Lunar New Year may have been targeting his ex-wife and may have had a history of domestic violence, the city's mayor said on Monday.
Speaking with NBC News' Kate Snow, Monterey Park Mayor Henry Lowe said he believed the ex-wife had been at the Star Ballroom dance studio when the shooter, identified by authorities as Hu Khan Tran, opened fire at the dance hall.
He said there appeared to be a history of domestic violence and it was possible the suspect had been targeting his ex-wife but did not expand further.
Just so you know, Hu Khanh Tran is not the name of a racist white guy from Alabama or something.
This, of course, is the name of an Asian guy.
An older Asian guy, as it turns out.
The guy's 72 years old.
And he's now dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
This was, it would appear then, Asian-on-Asian crime, although the Asian part had nothing to do with it.
This was a domestic dispute.
Not a dispute, this was domestic violence, apparently.
Now, so a couple things here.
First of all, I personally, I am forgiving of people who, after something happens in the news, they make educated assumptions or guesses, estimations about the event, without, before all the facts are out.
You know, someone who goes, something happens, and somebody goes a little too far, and they say, oh, here's what I think happened.
But their assumption is grounded in their understanding of reality, and they say that it turns out that they were wrong.
Now, you should wait for more information before saying anything about an event like this.
But if you're just discerning something based on an inference from statistics, then I don't think that's too outrageous.
Because most of the time, you'll end up being right.
What makes the racist white guy, you know, shot up a bunch of Asians theory outrageous is that it was, of all explanations, the least likely, the least plausible.
So that's the difference between the assumptions that the left tends to make versus really the assumptions that conservatives will sometimes make.
See, conservatives, anytime there's a crime or a mass shooting, conservatives are going to make assumptions, if they make assumptions at all, they're going to, and I'm not saying that we're innocent of making assumptions, but we're going to make assumptions based on statistical realities.
We're going to say, well, 95% of the time, when something like this happens, here's the cause.
And so probably that was the cause.
Maybe it ends up being the 5% where that's not the case.
But our assumption is not ridiculous, it's not outrageous, it's not even really inappropriate.
The left, on the other hand, they make assumptions that go right to the least plausible explanation, and they assume that one.
They make assumptions that contradict the statistical evidence.
In fact, that's a virtue.
This is a form of virtue signaling on the left, to deny the statistics.
To do the opposite of inferring something based on statistical reality.
To infer the opposite based on statistical reality.
That's the virtue.
And that's what they did here.
You know, anytime there's a murder, first of all, any murder, in almost all cases, it's either going to be domestic, or drug related, or gang or crime related.
So it's going to be in the drug, gang, crime area, or it's going to be something domestic.
That is the vast majority of all murders are explained that way.
There's only a small sliver of murders that fall outside of that.
So it's, you know, that's almost the entire pie chart and then there's a little bit of a piece of the pie that can be explained and then there are other explanations.
So if you're gonna make any assumption at all, The most logical one, especially with this shoot, if you're gonna make any assumption at all, the most logical assumption would have been, well, probably this is someone who knew someone there and, you know, was lashing out.
Turns out that's what happened, most likely.
But, even if it is a hate crime, well, if this was someone motivated by hate for Asians, a white guy was the least plausible culprit.
So the left is going to the least plausible explanation, which is hate crime, and then within the least plausible explanation, finding the least plausible version of the least plausible explanation.
Because if you were going to assume that, if you were just going to assume, well this must have been anti-Asian hate crime, well then you should have assumed it was a black guy who did it.
Because the vast majority of violence against Asians, I mean almost all of it, is committed by black men.
That's the statistical reality.
Almost none of the violence against Asians is committed by white people.
It almost never happens.
So, in any given day, if there's anyone across the entire nation being assaulted or killed because they're Asian, it's almost certainly not a white guy doing it.
Rare number of cases it will be.
So they went to the least plausible version of the least plausible explanation.
That's what they do.
The other thing about this too, though, is that what you notice about situations like this is that this story, as I said, is going to fall out of the news cycle.
Yeah, they still have the gun violence angle, and they'll play that up a little bit, but they don't.
You know, that to them is not as juicy as the hate crime, you know, it's a white person.
They like that explanation more.
They like that narrative a lot more.
We'll get a lot more out of that.
The gun violence thing, they don't get as much out of it.
So this story will probably just go away.
And what you see from that is that the Democrats and the media, the left, they have nothing to say about violence.
They have nothing to say about human evil.
If it can't be tied to bigotry, and not bigotry, but specifically white bigotry.
Any kind of human evil outside of that, they have nothing to say about it.
And this is largely political, right?
We know that.
They prefer the white bigotry narrative for political reasons, for ideological reasons.
We all understand that.
But it's also more than that, because the white bigotry narrative, it's exactly that, it's a narrative, it's like a story.
And so, this is part of the issue with having 24-hour news in the first place, is that they always have to have stories to tell.
There's not enough actual news to report every second of the day, so it's like they've got stories, and every few days there's another story, and they're telling that story.
But they lack any kind of insight Even putting aside the political biases, they lack any insight into the human condition.
They even lack imagination.
So they simply have nothing to say about, they have no narrative they can come up with, no story to tell about human evil outside of the realm of white bigotry.
That's all they've got.
Which is unfortunate because there's...
With the entire story of human evil, white bigotry, again, very, very small part of that pie chart.
There's the entire rest of the picture that we never talk about.
Because they have nothing to say.
Speaking of human evil, the White House commemorated, as we've already mentioned, the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
We know that Kamala Harris was out and she was giving a speech.
They also had this bit of propaganda from a quote-unquote abortion provider that they posted to their White House Twitter page on Sunday.
Watch this.
It's awful having to tell patients, I'm sorry, I have those skills, but I can't use them because you're not dying enough yet for me to take care of you.
My name is Dr. Leila Zahidi-Spung and I'm a high-risk obstetrician and abortion provider.
All of the clinics in the state of Tennessee closed on August 25th when the complete ban went into effect.
And I can tell you When I heard that Roe had been overturned, I was immediately afraid for my patients and I was immediately afraid for myself.
And therefore, I knew that I was going to be put in a situation at some point or was worried about being in a situation where I was going to have to put my own freedom and life at risk in order to take care of someone and make sure that they didn't die.
And that is a terrifying place to be.
And I want to be able to take care of as many patients as possible.
And if I end up being charged with a felony, Like I would have if I performed an abortion in the state of Tennessee.
Then I may not ever be able to practice medicine again.
Not to mention I could go to jail.
I am unable to provide care that is both evidence-based and saves lives.
Oh, what a hero.
But she just wants to save lives.
She wants to save lives by killing them for profit.
Talk about ignoring statistical realities.
The way, if you didn't know any better at all and you listen to her, and the White House of course is hoping that people that listen to this don't know any better, and unfortunately that hope is well-founded for many ignorant Americans.
So if you're in that group, you listen to that, you would think that nearly every abortion is a life-saving procedure.
That's what you would think.
This is what she, the way she tells it.
She's an abortionist.
And she's constantly got people coming to her, they need an abortion to save their lives.
Every single one is life-saving.
When in reality, none of them are.
That doesn't exist.
A life-saving abortion doesn't exist.
Only life-ending abortions.
And as we have tried to clarify in this show many times, we have to continue to clarify it for all the people who are hopelessly ignorant.
Hopefully not hopelessly, so we can do something about the ignorance.
But abortion is directly and intentionally killing unborn human life.
That's what an abortion is.
It's when the purpose of the abortion procedure is to kill the life in the womb.
And there's no other purpose.
It's just directly killing the life.
In the very rare cases where a woman needs some sort of actual medical treatment that is intended to help whatever is wrong with her, but that will perhaps or even nearly certainly result in the death of the child, that is not an abortion.
These are two different things.
You know, it's kind of the difference between the principle of double effect versus ends justify the means.
Ends justify the means is let's just kill the baby because the woman wants us to and it's going to make her life easier.
That's ends justify the means.
Double effect means that you're doing the right thing, you're doing a good thing, you're giving a woman actual medical treatment, even if there's a possibility that will result in some bad thing happening, like the baby tragically dying.
So, for example, a woman has terminal cancer.
You have to treat the cancer that might have devastating effects to the child.
That's not an abortion.
All they ever do is conflate these cases.
They're not the same thing.
And of course she knows that.
But she's a hero.
He's going to continue performing these abortions even if she has to go to jail.
Well, if that's true that she continues to perform them in Tennessee in spite of the fact that she could be charged with a felony and thrown in jail, and I hope that she is charged with a felony.
I hope she's thrown in prison for life.
That would be fantastic.
You know, if they take that woman and they put her in cuffs, drag her out of the clinic, frog march her into prison, I would be standing there.
If they do it, I hope that they let me know so I can stand there laughing in her face.
I would take delight in watching that.
And in the suffering she feels in knowing that she's going to prison, because she deserves it.
She is a mass murderer of children.
What you just saw there, one of the most evil scumbags on the planet.
The lowest form of life.
But if she continues to do it in spite of that possibility, it's only because there's nothing else she can do.
She's not a real doctor.
It's like there's no other, she can't take her abortion skill, her skill of killing babies, and take it to some other field of medicine.
It doesn't translate.
All she knows how to do is kill human life.
But in most other areas of actual medicine, the goal is to treat and heal human life.
So she knows how to do the exact opposite.
There's nothing, so she's got nothing else.
And that's the bind she finds herself in.
One other thing here on a similar topic.
Tony Dungy, former NFL coach, now he's a sports commentator.
He spoke at the March for Life on Friday.
Let's listen to a little bit of this.
Well, those prayers were answered.
DeMar's recovering now.
He's home.
He's been released from the hospital.
But what's the lesson in that?
You know, an unbelievable thing happened that night.
A professional football game with millions of dollars of tickets Money.
And advertising money on the line.
That game was cancelled.
Why?
Because a life was at stake.
And people wanted to see that life saved.
Even people who aren't necessarily religious got together and called on God.
Well, that should be encouraging to us because that's exactly why we're here today.
Because every day in this country, innocent lives are at stake.
And the only difference is, they don't belong to a famous athlete, and they're not seen on national TV.
But those lives are still important to God, and in God's eyes.
Well, as you can imagine, Tony Dungy being a mainstream figure in sports media, now it's been known for a long time that he's a conservative Christian, and, um, For the most part, he's able to get away with that, with being a conservative Christian, because that's a thing you have to get away with these days, because he's talking about sports.
But here he has come out.
Actually spoken out forcefully, and it's not the first time he's done it, spoken out forcefully in public against the murder of babies.
And so the left, they're just done with him, the sports media in particular.
This comes from Fox, it says, Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation, said he is done with Tony Dungy and the way the NFL and NBC coddle his right-wing extremism.
That's what you just heard in that clip.
Extremism.
Zirin says Dungy is someone venerated throughout the NFL world as a man of character, but has spent years as an anti-gay bigot.
Zirin wrote, he said publicly and proudly that he would not want gay football player Michael Sam on his team.
He said over a decade ago that he disagreed with the lifestyle of Jason Collins, the first out, active male gay player in the main four North American sports.
This is a Dungy staple.
Calling being LGBT a lifestyle, even after people have said to him repeatedly how hurtful and outdated such a description is.
He simply doesn't care.
And then Zierin goes on to talk about how terrible he is.
If Dungy wants a show on The Daily Wire, more power to him.
I totally agree.
I mean, I can't, I'm not in charge of these things, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that we would certainly love to hire Tony Dungy if he's interested.
So, it wasn't just Dave Zierin, it was a bunch of other people.
USA Today had this article.
Taking issue with Dungy's what they call selective intolerance.
The article says, what Dungy is not, and where he has far less authority with which to speak, is a woman.
How do you know he's not a woman?
How do you know?
Who must consider an abortion for any number of reasons.
But that did not stop Dungy from invoking Hamlin's name himself at Friday's anti-abortion march for life in Washington, D.C.
Prayer may have helped Hamlin in his recovery, that we do not know.
But Hamlin was also helped to a great extent by the medical professionals and the Bills employee, and those at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
Bills' assistant athletic trainer, Denny Kellington, was specifically lauded by the doctors who worked with Hamlin at UNC after he was transported there.
To Dungy, it seems that the use of Hamlin's name is fair game, but only in a selective sense.
Sadly, Dungy's selective intolerance has been in the news far too often in recent days.
Intolerance.
What is he intolerant of in that speech there?
Intolerant of killing babies, I suppose?
It's just, it's funny when they try to do this to Tony Dungy of all people, because he's the most wholesome and beloved guy.
He's like the Black Mr. Rogers of the NFL.
Everyone loves him.
Anyone who's ever played for him loves him.
No one has a bad word to say about him, which is very rare in any business or industry that you could be in that industry for decades and no one who's actually worked with you or for you has anything bad to say about you.
Um, that's really all you need to know about someone.
Like, if that's the case, then that's a solid person.
That's a very good person.
So this is all he does.
And then on top of that, he just, he comes off like this incredibly inoffensive, kind, sort of gentle person.
I don't even know what it sounds like.
I've seen Tony Dungy on TV for years.
I don't know what it would look like or sound like for him to be angry about something.
And they're trying to take him and turn him into this rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth extremist, which is just pretty funny.
Here's a story from AP News.
One of Sarah Huckabee Sanders' first acts as Arkansas governor was to ban most state agencies from using the gender-neutral term Latinx, tapping into a debate that's divided Hispanics among generational lines.
Sanders called the word culturally insensitive in an order that's prompted complaints from some critics who view it as yet another attack by Republicans on the LGBTQ community.
Yet her move may have limited impact given that the word has not appeared to be widely used in the Arkansas government.
It was among several orders that the 40-year-old former White House press secretary signed within hours of taking office that were chaired by conservatives, including restrictions on teaching critical race theory in public schools and banning TikTok on state devices.
All of these are fantastic rules that should be in place in every state.
The latinx prohibition gives agencies 60 days to revise written materials to comply.
That's the story from Sarah Huckabee Sanders banning state agencies from using the term latinx, which obviously is the correct move.
And the AP is trying to frame this as it's a controversial move, it's latinx is controversial, it's divided Hispanics along generational lines.
No, it has not.
It actually has been a uniting factor for Hispanics because nearly all of them agree that latinx is ridiculous.
There's no generational divide here.
Or if there is one, it is marginal.
I think the last I saw, it was maybe like 3% of Hispanics are strongly in favor of using latinx or do use it themselves.
And yeah, that number is going to be higher.
So, pretty much anyone who's Hispanic and above the age of 30, like, 0% of them have ever used that word.
There might be 5 or 6 of them that have used it under the age of 30, but that's it.
And this qualifies as a generational divide, according to the AP, when it is not.
This is a word that almost none of them use, and again, really can't use, because it doesn't work in the Spanish language.
It doesn't make sense in the Spanish language.
Now, so I appreciate this move from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, although she almost, almost, not to split hairs here, but she almost ruins it with the reasoning that she gives.
And I understand why she's using this reasoning, trying to use the left's logic against them, but it never works to do that.
So, as mentioned in the article, but this is what she, she responded to the AP article with this tweet, said, I ban the use of latinx in government because I will not permit my administration to use culturally insensitive words that greatly offend the vast majority of Hispanics.
No matter what the liberal corporate media says, we will keep the radical left's agenda out of Arkansas.
Now, again, I understand why she's using that argument, trying to use the left's logic against them.
They're the ones that claim they don't believe in cultural insensitivity, and so she's saying, well, this is culturally insensitive because you're trying to force this change of language onto a culture that doesn't want it.
It's cultural colonialism, which it is, and all that is true.
But that's not really the reason, fundamentally, why we oppose this language change.
We oppose it because it's arbitrary, it's ridiculous, it's incoherent.
It represents the left co-opting language for their own ideological benefit.
That's why we oppose it.
And the problem with framing it as, oh, it's culturally insensitive, is that, okay, well, The left, they're going to keep drilling this home.
It's what they always do with changes of language.
They keep drilling it and drilling it until it gets through.
They keep beating you over the head with it until you bow into submission.
And so what if 10 years from now, 15 years from now, their indoctrination campaign on this topic has been successful, and a slim majority of Hispanics say that, yeah, I'm okay with the term.
Does that mean that now we're going to put it?
Into government documents?
The word that was incoherent and that represented the radical left's co-opting of language, does that now become okay in a government document because 56% of Hispanics say they like it?
No, it's just as incoherent and radically leftist as it was before.
So you have a good, solid, objective argument against this, but you frame it subjectively, trying to use the left's own logic against them, and when you do that, you end up shooting yourself in the foot every single time.
You cut yourself off at the kneecaps, really.
It's not even at the foot.
You cut yourself off at the kneecaps.
And it never works.
So we have to understand the left's logic can't be used against them, because part of their logic, part of the leftist logic, is that Is that they get to decide what all these terms mean.
So yeah, they're opposed to cultural insensitivity, but they're the ones who decide what that is.
And they have said that it's not culturally insensitive to try to co-opt the Spanish language and force them to adopt this word.
As far as they're concerned, they've decided it, so that's what it is.
That doesn't qualify as culturally insensitive.
So, that's the problem.
Let's get now to the comment section.
I've tried everything medically possible to conceive a child, but it wasn't possible.
It breaks my heart that medical research is even being done to help men get pregnant when there are real women suffering every day.
That's an important angle of this as well that we were talking on Friday, of course, the show opened with.
The Frankenstein gender surgeons who now want to take the uterus out of a woman and implant it into a man in hopes that he can somehow conceive a child and give birth.
We talked about all the scientific and logistical problems with that, not to mention just how ethically and morally Horrific it is.
But then, yes, it just goes to show that the medical industry, they are right now working on the problem of how to make it so that men can give birth to babies.
Meanwhile, there are lots of women who should be able to give birth to children, but because of various medical complications, they can't.
So how about taking all of that energy and all of the Funding all the time spent on research and spending it making sure that every woman is able to Conceive and bear and give birth to children.
How about that for an idea?
Now I will say that even in the cases of a woman I would be To put it mildly very skeptical of any kind of uterus transplant situation and The primary reason for that is the one we talked about on one of the ones we talked about on Friday Which is that it would start off as being experimental, as any kind of new organ transplant is.
But usually with an organ transplant, even if it's experimental, they haven't done it very often, you're assuming the risk for yourself, right?
If it's some sort of radical new surgery and you say, okay, I'm going to undergo this surgery because I have no choice, I think it's worth the risk.
If it goes the wrong way, then you've taken that calculation, you suffer the consequences for that.
But any kind of uterus transplant, there's going to end up being another life involved in this experiment.
So, what happens to the first child who is conceived inside a transplanted uterus?
Nobody can say whether that's going to be safe for the child.
We just wouldn't know.
And so now we're experimenting with the child's life as well.
So that is a major ethical problem to me, no matter who you're transplanting the uterus into.
Transplanting into a man just makes it the whole thing into a horror show.
Canty Bloke says, Ben passing that Dr. Phil spot to Matt was a cool piece of trivia we got out of this fun drama.
I don't know how fun the drama is, but yeah, I think I've mentioned that before, but that's true.
The people, the Dr. Phil producers, they got ahold of us here at the Daily Wire last year, like late November, early December, and yeah, they wanted Ben to do this show, and he turned it down to pass it to me, not because he couldn't have gone in there and Absolutely nailed that segment as well, because he thought it would be a great opportunity for me.
You know, when I talk about what goes on here at The Daily Wire, I know if you're not in the business, you're not in the industry, you have no frame of reference, but so all you could do is just take it from me, okay?
But I'm telling you that this is the kind of thing that makes me appreciate working at The Daily Wire, and that separates it from, like, any other company in this business.
That you have people here who say, well, this would be a great opportunity for me, but I'll give it to you because I think it'll really work for you.
It just doesn't happen anywhere else.
And that's the kind of The mentality that you find here, and it is rare, is what I'm trying to tell you.
And why is this?
Because people actually care.
I'm not saying this is the only company that employs people who really care about the culture and about winning the culture war.
But that is much more of a clearly motivating factor here than it is, I would say, anywhere else.
And I've been other places.
And I've been around a lot of other places.
Let's see.
Budgie Bird says, I agree with you on cake, Matt.
We had a fall wedding and had an entire table of pies.
My mom gave me grief about serving pie instead of cake, but guests still mentioned 14 years later how awesome it was to eat wedding pie instead of wedding cake.
So this is a movement that we are You and I are starting together.
Get rid of cake, replace it with pie.
And in my perfect version of the world, cake doesn't even exist anymore because there's no reason for it.
It serves no purpose.
Another comment says, What is a woman is locked behind a subscription paywall.
Matt Walsh claims he hates bubbles, but his documentary is quite literally the definition of a bubble.
The only people who watch it are already people who believe in it.
The people who needed to see it the most will never watch it because they'll never buy a DW subscription.
They didn't make the documentary to save the culture.
They made that documentary to grift people into daily wire subscriptions.
Extremely scummy strategy.
You can say, well, it takes money to make a documentary, except you literally can't rent the documentary, just flat out pay for it.
The only way you can watch it is through a DW subscription.
They lock Candace Owens behind a paywall, so how is that helping the culture?
They spew out ads every three minutes on top of having full YouTube ads, and that's still not enough money to make the Candace Owens Show free to watch.
Actually, it is free right now.
They're grifters, bro.
I'm sorry you've been fooled.
So, this is interesting.
I see comments like this, and I just wanted to respond to it, because you notice with people like this.
And there's a lot of these people out there in the world, and not just commenters on YouTube.
But they literally cannot be satisfied.
So you're out there doing things and succeeding.
No matter what you do, it will not be good enough or right.
They do nothing.
They're not doing anything.
You're doing something.
But whatever you're doing, you should be doing something else.
So you see the trap that's laid here, which I think is really interesting.
On one hand, it's a grift and a scam to have a subscription service.
I don't know, does that just apply to us, or is that everybody?
Is every subscription service a scam?
Saying, okay, we have these products that we're making, you can subscribe and have access to them.
That's a scam now.
I wonder if you apply that to everyone, or if it's just us.
Like, we're the ones who aren't allowed to have them.
But at the same time, so you don't like the subscription, but at the same time, you also don't like the ads.
So we can't have subscribers without grifting and scamming.
We can't do ads without grifting and scamming.
How do you want this to work exactly?
You do realize it does require money from somewhere to do any of this.
But there's nothing you can do.
Nothing you can do at all.
And also, they want us to free ourselves from big tech dependence, which we all agree is the ultimate goal.
Anything we do to get in that direction is not right.
Part of getting there is to have your own subscription, your own platform.
That's how you get there.
That's how you become not dependent on big tech, which is a huge goal and strategy, given that these companies own everything.
And they have since the beginning of the internet.
And so to change that is a massive revolutionary act, really, but it requires time.
As I said on Friday, it also requires money and it requires investment from everybody involved.
If you don't want to make the investment, you don't want to give Daily Wire your money to be a subscriber, that's perfectly fine.
You don't have to.
But don't sit there on the sidelines and complain that we're even attempting it.
Or you can, but the complaints don't really mean anything because we're going to forge on ahead.
This month, we're celebrating the anniversary of one of the greatest moments in Daily Wire history after months of us leading the legal battle against the federal government and a national Do Not Comply campaign.
The Supreme Court ruled in our favor and blocked the Biden administration's outrageous vaccine mandate.
This mandate would have set a dangerous precedent, giving the unelected OSHA power over the personal medical decisions of American citizens.
The Supreme Court recognized this gross power grab, and they made the right decision.
We are proud to have led the charge in this fight, but we couldn't have done it without you.
Thousands of you joined The Daily Wire, and over a million Americans signed our petition against the mandates.
To celebrate, we're offering 40% off on all of our annual memberships with the code DONOTCOMPLY.
And like we've been talking about the last couple of days, you know, working for this company, we know we're fighting for the culture.
We also know we can't do it without any of you.
This is an investment that we all make together.
And if you're not part of the team yet, then you can become part of the team and celebrate one of the greatest moments in Daily Wire history with 40% off your annual membership.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the winning team as we continue to crush the left.
Remember, do not comply.
For 40% off, do not comply.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
One thing we all know is that there is no trauma quite like a TikTok trauma.
Those traumas inflicted on and documented by TikTok influencers and used by those same influencers for social media clout are by far the worst traumas known to man.
Nobody in the world has ever known the sort of suffering that this group of poor unfortunates experience every day of their miserable lives.
Case in point, take TikTok vlogger Jessica, who went viral over the past few days after posting a video to her 600,000-plus followers revealing the purported sexual harassment that she encountered at the gym.
She also posted the video to Twitter along with this caption.
This is her caption.
She said, "This guy kept making me extremely uncomfortable at the gym.
This is why I'll end up crying on stream, because I feel so grossed out at times with
the amount of sexualization I experience.
Hopefully this spreads awareness for girls who experience this type of treatment at the
gym."
In the thread below the video, she further explains that this man was staring at her
for "disturbingly long periods" and that this triggered her "fight or flight response"
and conjured up memories of "previous traumas."
She emphasized that she's tired of being sexualized and just wants to work out in peace without anyone watching her.
It sounds like...
Whatever happened exactly, it was pretty terrible.
I mean obviously this guy at the gym, he's a pervert and a creep, he's lurking off in some dimly lit corner staring conspicuously at her.
That must be the case because the only other possibility is that this woman is a narcissistic drama queen and a liar looking for ways to entrap innocent men so that she can slander them on the internet for clicks.
And that just doesn't sound like anything that any woman on TikTok would ever do.
But let's consult the actual video just to find out.
Here it is.
This is how to not approach girls at the gym.
Stupid reason.
I hate this, I hate this, I hate when there's weirdos.
Makes me so uncomfortable.
[ding]
[ding]
Feral, feral, feral, feral, like feral.
[snorting]
There's mirrors everywhere so it's like you can easily catch people.
[snort]
Act.
Oh, this is nothing.
[squeaking]
Okay, we're gonna move on to the 35 now.
I want you to watch very carefully.
Just watch.
This is the 5 as 5 pounds.
And these are the weights.
Excuse me?
You don't have to do that.
It's okay.
No, no, it's okay.
I got it.
it. Thank you, though.
So, he glances over in her direction a few times, for less than, like, half a second at a time, and then finally walks over and tries to help her put the weights on the bar, and she declines his help, and he says, okay, and then he walks away.
The end.
And they all live happily ever after.
Well, I mean, he does, maybe, but she walks away traumatized, crying and shaking, barely able to hold herself together, because a man briefly noticed that she exists.
Now, before we analyze this incident, one thing you should know is that this video is one installment in an ever more popular genre on social media.
There are apparently many videos of men, quote, harassing or, quote, staring at women at the gym.
These incidents are usually captured in the same way.
There's a woman at the gym filming herself working out for whatever reason, and in the process, she catches some man in the background quickly looking in her direction.
She isolates the clip, posts it to the internet, and then shames the offender for his conduct.
Here's just one more recent example that got some attention a couple months ago of this sort of thing.
As I said, there are many others where this came from.
In this one, a TikTok influencer named Adriana claims to have captured footage of a gym employee, quote, being a pervert and gawking at her while she takes her shirt off.
And you may ask, well, what the hell are you doing taking your shirt off in the middle of the gym?
We'll get to that in a second.
But anyway, here's the video.
and up for myself he threatens to call the police and revoke my membership
No.
Do you need something?
Do you need something?
No.
Do you need something?
Do you need something?
No.
Do you need something?
Do you need something?
Okay, I thought so.
[Music]
Keep it pushing.
If you're getting rude, you can leave.
Nobody is looking at you inside the gym.
This is why we need sex segregated gyms.
We just do.
Like, male and female gyms, that's the solution to all this stuff.
Because let me tell you something, no man at the gym, been to many gyms in my life, men are not looking for any kind of drama at all.
They're just there doing their thing.
They're not looking for any of this.
Just like if you're there and you want drama and gossip and you're looking for problems and you want to leave and have something to talk about to your friends, well, guess what happened at the gym?
No man wants to leave the gym with that kind of story.
Guess what happened at the gym?
That's something that some women look for, and so we just need to be in separate ships.
Just do your own thing.
That's what we need.
In this case, once again, he looks in her general direction for what might add up to like one and a half seconds total.
Although she slows down, she puts it in slow motion to make it seem longer.
And this makes him a pervert deserving of public shaming.
He glances over at a woman taking her shirt off, whether or not that's the reason he glanced, she decided to do that, and he's a pervert now because of that.
Now, let me just make a few points here.
First, there are many reasons why a person might look in your direction while you're out in public.
These women, because they're raging narcissists with a severely inflated sense of their own importance and their own physical attractiveness, just assume that any person who looks at them must be admiring their beauty.
But particularly in the first video, I can easily imagine several other possible explanations.
He might have been looking because he was wondering why the woman was filming and muttering to herself like a schizophrenic.
He might have been feeling self-conscious because he knew that he was probably in the background of her shot.
He might have been thinking to himself, she's not filming me, is she?
And turns out she was.
Or he might have been glancing over because he wanted a turn with the equipment that she was using and was waiting for his chance to swoop in as soon as she moved on.
Okay, he may have been frustrated because he's trying to get his workout in and he's got this woman sitting there filming a social media video with the damn equipment he wants to use.
You know, that is something that happens.
I had this experience at the gym over the past weekend.
I was using one of the benches over at the dumbbell station while there was a guy that was kind of lingering in the background staring over at me.
It wasn't just me, there were other people using the benches.
And he was like staring over and continuously sort of, you know, looking and then he'd look back.
And I didn't assume That he was looking at me because of my striking good looks.
I didn't even assume that he was looking at me and thinking, hey, isn't that the what is a woman guy?
The latter possibility was much more likely than the former.
But instead, I assumed that he wanted to use the bench that I was using.
And then I got up and he staked his claim to it as soon as I was done confirming my theory.
So this is all very normal and fine in a gym.
It's what people do.
And nobody has to be publicly shamed over it.
But let's say that in the case of these women, The offending men really were looking over, at least in part, because they found the women physically attractive.
So what?
That still would not constitute harassment, much less would it make them perverts.
It would just make them normal men whose only sin is merely noticing a woman.
This doesn't make them harassers, it doesn't make them perverts, it just makes them men with functioning eyes is all it does.
Second thing, here's a tip.
If you're a woman and you don't want to be noticed by men, if indeed even the brief glance of a man offends you and causes trauma, then you might consider wearing clothing when you go out in public.
Now, I'm not saying you need to cover yourself in a burlap sack or hit the gym in a parka and snow pants, but I am saying that you probably want to wear more than just your underwear.
So both women are working out in skimpy spandex shorts and a sports bra, a uniform that has become, by the way, quite common at gyms all across the country.
At some point in the past few years, the nation's women decided by majority vote, I guess, that clothes are optional when working out in public.
And yeah, according to the laws in most states apparently, they're free to treat the gym like a nudist resort if they so choose, but they're not free to control everyone else's minds and eyeballs while they perform a striptease at Planet Fitness.
The woman in the second video, she actually strips down to her underwear in the middle of the gym.
They have locker rooms for that purpose.
But she chose to do it in public.
Perhaps next she'll give herself a sponge bath while standing on the treadmill.
I mean, who knows?
The thing is, you don't behave this way and dress like that unless you want attention.
You can claim otherwise, but you're lying.
You dress that way because you want attention.
Period.
There is no other possible motivation for walking around in public in your underwear.
If anyone does that, man or woman, you're looking for attention.
Depending on what you look like and whether you're a man or a woman and all the rest of it, it'll determine what sort of attention you get.
But you're gonna get attention if you walk around in your underwear.
If any men... You know men don't do that?
Do you notice that?
Men aren't rolling up to the gym in their underwear.
Like, when's the last time you saw a man at the gym wearing just boxer shorts and nothing else?
I've never seen it.
But guess what?
If a man did do that, people would be staring.
Women would be staring.
Maybe because they find him attractive, or maybe because they're thinking, what the hell is that guy wearing to the gym?
But here's the thing with these women.
They want the attention, but they want to control exactly what sort of attention they receive, and from whom, and for how long, and in what way.
They want attention, but it must be attention that fits their mood at any given moment.
And that's just not how this works.
Okay, life does not work that way.
No matter how much you want it to, it doesn't.
If you go out in public and say, hey everyone, look at me!
They're going to look, and you're not going to get to control who looks for how long, all the rest of it.
Speaking of trying to control the type of attention, keep in mind that these women are recording their workouts to put on social media.
They're supposedly self-conscious about being watched, yet they're posting the footage to the internet so that thousands of people can watch it?
They don't want to be noticed while they work out, so they work out in their underwear on camera.
There seems to be a logical disconnect here.
But it's a symptom of the disease that we just talked about.
People these days, not just women on TikTok, though especially them perhaps, are desperate for attention.
They're starving for it all the time.
And yet, while going out of their way to solicit the attention of countless strangers, they still think they should be able to control the manner and duration of the attention.
Most of all, they want all the attention to come through a screen.
So they're standing in a room with other human beings, demanding the attention of everyone who isn't in the room, while wishing to be invisible to everybody in the room.
If anything is perverse, it's that attitude.
Finally, ladies, if you're wondering why you aren't meeting any decent men out there, it might have something to do with this.
It might be because they're afraid of being publicly shamed as rapists if they even so much as glance in your direction or, God forbid, try to speak to you.
If a man could potentially be a pervert simply for noticing your presence in a room, If he commits harassment by trying to initiate any kind of conversation or interaction at all, then the game is hopelessly rigged against him, and he loses automatically.
More and more men will decide just not to play the game.
It's not worth the risk.
And that's exactly what's happened.
And that is why... And that's all happening, by the way, thanks to women like Jessica and Adriana.
And that is why they, in particular, are the ones who are today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
Let's move over to the members block.
If you're not a member, you can become a member today.
Use code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
