Ep. 1111 - A Whistleblower Reveals What's Really Going On Inside Gender Transition Clinics
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a whistleblower from inside the child gender transition industry has finally come forward and what she reveals is horrifying. I'll walk you through the whole story today. Also, a congressional Democrat learns that the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" trope is not actually a valid argument against free speech. I have one more clip that you haven't seen yet from that now infamous committee hearing in Tennessee. Plus, reports suggest that Project Veritas is trying to push James O'Keefe out, even though James O'Keefe is Project Veritas. In our Daily Cancellation, Vice holds a panel discussion on race. One guy with common sense made it onto the panel, and proceeded to offend and terrify the rest of them. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 40% off to access the entire content library of movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘WALSH’ at https://jasemedical.com/
Lifelock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month!
Enter promo code: WALSH at http://puretalk.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 Walsh Show, a whistleblower from inside the child gender transition industry has finally come forward, and what she reveals is horrifying.
I'll walk you through the whole story today.
Also, a congressional Democrat learns that the old yelling fire in a crowded theater trope is not actually a valid argument against free speech.
I have one more clip that you haven't seen yet from that now infamous committee hearing in Tennessee that I'll play for you.
Plus, reports suggest that Project Veritas is trying to push James O'Keefe out, even though James O'Keefe is Project Veritas.
In our daily cancellation, Vice holds a panel discussion on race.
One guy with common sense somehow made it onto the panel and proceeds to offend and terrify the rest of them.
It's pretty hilarious.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
My new partners at Jace Medical are here to help.
Jace Medical's mission is to empower you to be better medically prepared, even in the worst case scenarios.
Great way to start preparing is with the JACE case, a pack of five different courses of antibiotics that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses, including UTIs, respiratory infections, skin infections, and much more.
All you have to do is fill out a simple online form, and in some cases, jump on a quick call with one of their board-certified physicians.
From there, you can ask your physician treatment-related questions on an ongoing basis.
And I know that I find this very useful, especially with six kids now.
You never know, even if it's not a pandemic or Earthquake or something.
There are other emergencies that can crop up every day when you have kids, and that's why the Jace case gives me peace of mind knowing that my family will have what we need if the worst happens.
I want you to be prepared for anything, so go to jacemedical.com.
Enter code WALSH to check out for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com.
Promo code WALSH.
In the fight against gender ideology and the abuse and mutilation of children, we have been operating at a disadvantage.
Well, many disadvantages.
You know, the institutions are against us, the elites and corporate interests, and nearly everyone with power is against us.
Most of the platforms that we use to spread our message are hostile to the message and to us.
And the activists on the other side are empowered to act with impunity, defaming us, threatening us.
Without any consequence.
They're also evil to their core and beholden to lies, which means that they not only are allowed to do and say whatever they want, but also are willing to do or say anything.
All of these are disadvantages for Team Sanity, but in spite of these obstacles, our team, Team Sanity, has made enormous headway recently.
Every battle is stacked against us, and yet we have had some tremendous victories, both against the ideology and against the mutilation industry specifically.
Yet, all of these hurdles create another, and especially significant one, is that we haven't been able to get access to anyone on the inside of that industry, the mutilation industry.
We've heard from former patients who've been mutilated and butchered and are now speaking out, they're drugged and abused and are talking about it.
We've heard from doctors who've been around this industry, who have seen how it operates, and are appropriately horrified by it.
Many people in the orbit of this industry or who have fallen victim to it
have taken a stand against it.
But up until this point, the threats, veiled and otherwise,
and the fear of social alienation has been enough to prevent any actual whistleblowers
from inside the child mutilation industry from coming forward, at least publicly.
You know, I personally have heard from medical professionals on the inside
who are sickened by what they've seen, by what they themselves have done,
and by what they themselves continue to do.
But none of them have been willing to speak publicly and put their name on it.
The potential, the certainty really, of their lives as they know them being torn apart is simply too much for them to bear.
They don't have the courage to do the right thing and bear the cost of that decision.
And so the child mutilation industry, the gender industry as a whole, has been able to remain, at least from a public facing perspective, insular and closed off.
It has not had any whistleblowers.
Until now.
Yesterday, a website called The Free Press published an article by a woman named Jamie Reid.
And what you should know about Reid is that she spent four years as a case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St.
Louis Children's Hospital.
She also identifies herself as, quote, queer, and says that she is married to a, quote, trans man.
Point being, this is certainly not a conservative with any sort of political axe to grind.
And she's been on the inside of this gender ideology world in just about every way possible, professionally and personally.
And now she's had enough.
She explains in the article.
Quote, I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there.
By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to do no harm.
Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.
Today, I am speaking out.
I am doing so knowing how toxic the public conversation is around this highly contentious issue and the ways that my testimony might be misused.
I am doing so knowing that I am putting myself at serious personal and professional risk.
Almost everyone in my life has advised me to keep my head down, but I cannot in good conscience do so, because what is happening to scores of children is far more important than my comfort, and what is happening to them is morally and medically appalling.
Now from here, read documents in great detail.
What exactly went on in this clinic?
What she reveals can leave no doubt that not only are these clinics harming children irrevocably and brutally, but that they know they are harming children, and they do it anyway.
I'm going to read some of the passages to you.
I'll be doing a lot more reading than I would normally do in an opening monologue, but it's more important that you hear from Jamie Reid than from me today.
So, we'll go through this and kind of get as much of the whole story as we can.
So, she continues, "Soon after my arrival at the transgender center, I was struck by
the lack of formal protocols for treatment.
The center's physician co-directors were essentially the sole authority.
At first, the patient population was tipped toward what used to be the traditional instance
of a child with gender dysphoria, a boy, often quite young, who wanted to present as, who
wanted to be a girl."
Until 2015 or so, a very small number of these boys comprised the population of pediatric gender dysphoria cases.
Across the Western world, there began to be a dramatic increase in a new population.
Teenage girls, many with no previous history of gender distress, suddenly declared they were transgender and demanded immediate treatment with testosterone.
I certainly saw this at the center.
One of my jobs was to do intake for new patients and their families.
When I started, there were probably 10 such calls a month.
When I left, there were 50.
And about 70% of the new patients were girls.
Sometimes clusters of girls arrived from the same high school.
Now, next she explains how most of their female patients had comorbidities.
Most of them were psychological comorbidities, so they've been diagnosed with anxiety or depression or ADHD.
Many of them have been diagnosed with autism, and there have also been studies that are showing that this is very, very common, this correlation between kids who are diagnosed autistic, and the next thing you know, they're saying they have gender dysphoria.
But lots of them declared, lots of them apparently declared that they had other disorders that were entirely in their heads.
So, she said that they would, that these girls, they would frequently claim to have things like Tourette's Syndrome or Multiple Personality Disorder.
But it was all imaginary, they didn't have that.
Reid says that the doctors at the clinic recognized that many of these disorders the girls had invented, and they were actually symptoms of social contagions.
They'd been convinced by their friends and by the internet that they had Tourette, so they had multiple personalities.
But they didn't.
And yet these same doctors, she says, were not willing to admit or even consider that gender dysphoria is also one of these social contagions.
Just like all the other social contagion disorders that these girls had fallen prey to.
Reid continues, to begin transitioning, the girls needed a letter of support from a therapist, usually one we recommended, but they had to see only once or twice for the green light.
To make it more efficient for the therapist, we offered them a template for how to write a letter of support for transition.
The next stop was a single visit to the endocrinologist for a testosterone prescription, and that's all it took.
When a female takes testosterone, the profound and permanent effects of the hormone can be seen in a matter of months.
Voices drop, beards sprout, body fat is redistributed, sexual interest explodes, aggression increases, and mood can be unpredictable.
Our patients were told about some side effects, including sterility, but after working at the center, I came to believe that teenagers are simply not capable of fully grasping what it means to make the decision to become infertile while still minors.
Well, of course they can't grasp that.
As I've said many times, you know, it's obviously minors, obviously kids, can't grasp the consequence of, you know, choosing to be infertile or choosing to be sterile.
They're giving up the possibility of having kids at a time when they couldn't know what that means.
And there are many people even in their early 20s, I was one of these people, even in my early 20s, I couldn't really imagine what it would be like to have kids.
You know, it wasn't something that I thought about.
A few years later, I had kids.
So, as for what all this means, Reed explains, quote, "Many encounters with patients emphasized to me how little
these young people understood the profound impact changing gender would have on their
bodies and minds.
But the center downplayed the negative consequences and emphasized the need for transition.
As the center's website said, quote, 'Left untreated, gender dysphoria has any number of
consequences, from self-harm to suicide.' But when you take away the gender dysphoria by allowing a child to be who he or she is, we're noticing that goes away.
The studies we have show these kids often wind up functioning psychosocially as well as or better than their peers.
But there are no reliable studies showing this, Reid writes.
Indeed, the experiences of many of the Center's patients prove how false these assertions are.
Here's an example.
On Friday, May 1, 2020, a colleague emailed me about a 15-year-old male patient.
Email said quote. Oh dear. I'm concerned that the patient does not understand what?
Michael Michael you to might I think does
It's the medicine.
I responded, "I don't think we start anything honestly right now.
Biclimutilide is a medication used to treat metastatic prostate cancer, and one of its
side effects is that it feminizes the bodies of men who take it, including the appearance
of breasts.
The center prescribed this cancer drug as a puberty blocker and a feminizing agent for
boys.
As with most cancer drugs, this drug has a long list of side effects, and the patient
experienced one of them, this patient did, which is liver toxicity."
He was sent to another unit of the hospital for evaluation and immediately taken off the drug.
Afterwards, his mother sent an electronic message to the transgender center saying that we were lucky her family was not the type to sue.
Reid also documents a case of a 17-year-old girl on testosterone who experienced bleeding from the vagina that became so heavy that she had to be rushed to the emergency room.
It turns out that the girl Though transitioning to become a boy was still having vaginal intercourse.
But that activity, combined with the testosterone, led to severe vaginal lacerations.
And Reed says that this girl was not the only case of this kind that she saw.
More from Reid, she writes, Other girls were disturbed by the effects of testosterone on their clitoris, which enlarges and grows into what looks like a micro phallus or a tiny penis.
I counseled one patient whose enlarged clitoris now extended below her vulva and it chafed and rubbed painfully in her jeans.
I advised her to get the kind of compression undergarments worn by biological men who dress to pass as female.
At the end of the call, I thought to myself, wow, we hurt this kid.
There are rare conditions in babies, with babies that are born with atypical genitalia, cases that call for sophisticated care and compassion.
But clinics like the one where I worked are creating a whole cohort of kids with atypical genitals.
And most of these kids haven't even had sex yet.
They had no idea who they were going to be as adults, yet all it took for them to permanently transform themselves was one or two short conversations with a therapist.
Reid says that sometimes the parents Would only come to understand what they'd consented to on behalf of their children after the fact.
So she shares one email from a distraught parent, and the email says, Please be advised that I'm revoking my consent for this course of medical treatment.
Grades have dropped, there's been an inpatient behavioral health visit, and now he's on five different medications.
Lexapro, Trazodone, Buspar, whatever that is, etc.
He's a shell of his former self, riddled with anxiety, Who knows if it's because of the blockers or other medications.
I revoke my consent.
I want the hormone blocker removed.
Thank you.
Reid also reveals that the transgender clinic at St.
Louis Children's Hospital would keep itself stocked with new patients through referrals from the psychiatric ward at the same hospital.
So kids who are diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were funneled through the transgender clinic and then given diagnoses of gender dysphoria as well, and then put on these experimental transition treatments.
She mentions one especially disturbing case.
Quote, for example, One teenager came to us in the summer of 2022 when he was 17 years old and living in a lockdown facility because he had been sexually abusing dogs.
He'd had an awful childhood.
His mother was a drug addict.
His father was imprisoned.
Then he grew up in foster care.
Whatever treatment he may have been getting, it wasn't working.
During our intake, I learned from another caseworker that when he got out, he planned to re-offend because he believed the dogs had willingly submitted.
Somewhere along the line, he expressed a desire to become female.
So he ended up being seen at our center.
From there, he went to a psychologist at the hospital who was known to approve virtually everyone seeking transition.
Then our doctor recommended feminizing hormones at the time.
I wondered if this was being done as a form of chemical castration.
Well, it's always a form of chemical castration, so the answer to that is yes.
And then there's the issue of parental consent.
Reid explains how the clinic would undermine or manipulate the parents because, you know, in theory, the parents have to consent to this.
Which obviously, even if they do consent to it, it doesn't remotely make any of this okay.
But what you find out is that even parental consent, many times, is not really consent, because they themselves are being manipulated.
This was especially easy, as she explains, to do in cases where the parents disagreed about the transition.
And the clinic, of course, would always side with whichever parents wanted to transition the child.
And history would seem to indicate that the parent who wants to transition the child is, like, almost always the mother.
So she recounts one case, quote, My concerns about this approach to dissenting parents grew in 2019 when one of our doctors actually testified in a custody hearing against a father who opposed a mother's wish to start their 11-year-old daughter on puberty blockers.
I had done the original intake call, and I found the mother quite disturbing.
She and the father were getting divorced, and the mother described the daughter as kind of a tomboy.
So now the mother was convinced her child was trans.
But when I asked if her daughter had adopted a boy's name, if she was distressed about her body, if she was saying she felt like a boy, the mother said no.
I explained the girl just didn't meet the criteria for an evaluation.
Then a month later, the mother called back and said her daughter now used a boy's name and was in distress over her body and wanted to transition.
This time the mom and daughter were given an appointment.
Our providers decided the girl was trans and prescribed a puberty blocker to prevent her normal development.
Of course he did.
It's not at all hard to interpret what happened here.
coming from the mother and a custody battle ensued. After the hearing where
our doctor testified in favor of transition, the judge sided with the
mother. Of course he did. It's not all at all hard to interpret what happened here.
Obviously the girl was an innocent normal child, maybe a bit of a tomboy, okay?
And the mother decided that she wanted the girl to be trans.
This is what she wanted, perhaps partially fueled by her resentment against the husband that she was divorcing.
Like you see, this is very, very common, as I said, two parents that disagree, and it's almost always the mother.
I'm not, I'm not going to say this has never happened, but I'm not aware of a single case Where parents disagree on transition and it's the father insisting on it and the mother saying no.
Again, maybe that happens.
Every case I've ever heard, it's always the mom.
And so the mother then learned, you know, she called the clinic and she learned what she needs to say to get drugs for her daughter.
And then called the clinic back, reading from that script.
And now this abusive Munchausen mommy, who is poisoning her daughter, has custody of the child because the judge decided that the daughter is safest with the parent who wants to poison her.
This is the world we live in.
But, it's a world that I believe can change.
And that we can change.
And we are changing.
We can put a stop to this kind of child abuse.
We can defeat the child mutilators completely and bring down the entire industry nationwide.
I believe that.
We are winning this fight.
And now with whistleblowers finally coming forward, I have hope that some sort of dam is breaking.
Because what they're doing to kids is so straightforwardly evil, so unthinkably brutal and deranged and barbaric, So thoroughly indefensible that it cannot be sustained.
The edifice is weak and vulnerable, and we can tear it all down, and we will.
I truly believe that.
But the job isn't even close to finish yet.
There's a lot more to do, and we can't stop until it's done.
Now let's get to our headlines.
Some tactics include scams targeting specific ethnic groups and those with limited English proficiency.
Payment app scams will likely continue to increase as their popularity increase.
That's why it's so important to understand how cyber crime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Your personal information gets exposed so often that it's dangerously easy for a cyber criminal to steal your identity.
But protecting your identity can be easy with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats that you may not be able to spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name.
If you do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist will work to help you fix it.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock.
Identity theft protection starts here.
Join now and save 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
This is from CNN, the GOP-led House Select Subcommittee on so-called weaponization of the federal government.
They added a little editorialization in there, of course, with the phrase so-called, you know, the so-called weaponization of the federal government.
Well, it's not so-called.
I mean, we call it that, yes, but that's because that's exactly what's happening with the federal government.
Anyway, it's drawing upon a prominent ex-Democrat, two of their Republican Senate colleagues, and a former FBI agent in their first public hearing to discuss how they believe the government has been weaponized against conservatives.
Multiple sources familiar with the plans tell CNN.
And so this panel, or this committee hearing, there's been a lot of committee hearings, a lot of news about committee hearings this week.
And usually committee hearings are pretty boring, but there have been some interesting moments, including at this one.
So this was again, a committee hearing about the weaponization of the federal government.
And there was one exchange that I thought was interesting.
This is between Jonathan Turley and Democratic Representative Daniel Goldman.
Goldman wanted to explain why, he wanted to make the case for why the federal government needs to suppress speech sometimes.
And so he brought up the old, you know, the old, the old cliche about fire in a crowded theater.
And here's how that exchange went.
Does the First Amendment protect someone from yelling fire in a movie theater?
Well, unfortunately, that one is not yes or no, because that's become a mantra for people.
It's the Holmes-Schenk line.
Holmes himself walked back on that.
We don't need a law class here.
But you do agree, though, don't you, that the First Amendment does not protect all speech?
No, there are limits to speech.
All constitutional rights have limits.
That's got shades of the we-ask-the-questions here that I got at the committee hearing I was testifying in front of.
It's, oh, we don't need a law class.
You asked him a legal question, and he got a good legal answer, but it wasn't the answer he liked.
So, whoa, we don't need a law class here, you nerd.
We weren't asking for all that.
By the way, fire in a crowded theater, this was, as Jonathan Turley was indicating, this was a phrase used by a Supreme Court justice in a case like 100 years ago, and in that case, which found that anti-war activists don't have the right to protest.
It actually found that anti-war protest is not protected speech.
But that case was then partially overturned in 1969.
So it's essentially a legal rationale that was always absurd and has long since been made moot.
Because, as it turns out, you can yell fire in a crowded theater.
Right?
You can do that.
Now, if you want to even begin to try to penalize someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater, then there would have to be a bunch of conditions met.
Like, was, first of all, was somebody harmed by the fact that someone directly yelled fire in a crowded theater, and there was a big mob, people running out, and then someone was hurt?
Did that happen?
Like, that would need to happen, first of all.
You didn't need to prove that it was done maliciously.
So even in the literal case of someone yelling fire in a crowded theater, There are a whole bunch of conditions that would need to be met before there's any chance of any kind of criminal charges or misdemeanor charges being filed.
But here's the big thing.
Here's why this analogy doesn't work also.
This is the main thing.
Obviously, everyone would agree that there's certainly nothing wrong, legally or morally, With yelling fire in a crowded theater, if there actually is a fire.
Right?
So the first thing, it can only begin to be wrong to yell it if there is no fire, and then we've got to go through all the other things.
Right?
Like, what did you do?
You yelled fire.
Did you know that there wasn't a fire?
Were you doing it maliciously?
Did it actually cause direct physical harm?
All those things.
But if there is a fire, Then not only can you yell fire in a crowded theater, but you'd be very wrong if you didn't.
If you saw the fire, and no one else notices it, and you see it starting in the corner of the room, and you just get up and pack your stuff and walk out of the theater and leave everyone to burn to death, well then you might have some liability in that case because you didn't say anything.
Or at least you should.
So when you bring this over into the realm of metaphor, Because when they bring up fire to crowded theater, we're not actually talking about people literally yelling fire to crowded theater.
They're drawing an analogy.
They're comparing it to something.
Yet, you would need to prove that the metaphorical fire isn't there.
So, you know, here's a time when they often use this.
A personal example, when they use it against me or against people that are, you know, anti-child mutilation.
When we, when we describe what's, what we just heard, you know, what we just heard from the whistleblower, what's happened to kids, when we describe that as child abuse or child mutilation, well, the other side, they say, well, this is, you're yelling fire at a crowded theater.
You know, and if, if one of these child mutilators, which they would, if one of these gender affirming doctors gets hurt, well, then it's your fault.
Well yeah, that's because you're claiming that the fire isn't there, but it is.
See, the fire is actually there in this case.
We're calling them child mutilators, but they are.
And so, very clearly, we are allowed to point that out, because it is actually happening.
So this is a case where they want us to ignore the fire.
They can't deny that the fire is there, because it is.
But what they're telling us is that we have to keep our mouths shut and just let everyone burn to death.
Only in this case, it's not the people in the theater burning to death, it's kids.
We have to keep our mouths shut and let the children be incinerated.
So as not to yell fire.
No.
We could put all the complicated legal discussions to the side and simply establish that if there is actually a fire, not only can you yell it, but you damn well better.
There was one other moment from the committee hearing that I attended on Wednesday that I wanted to share with you.
And this one isn't quite as explosive as the one, and it doesn't involve me.
But it was also interesting.
Keep in mind, the right after they asked me questions first and then they weren't really questions,
but they were just using it as an opportunity to try to assassinate my character and all that.
And they were done with that because they were tired of me answering them
and they couldn't trap me.
And then they brought an actual doctor up and started questioning him.
And this is a doctor who is anti-child mutilation.
He's on the pro-sanity side of it.
And they tried the same credentialism thing on him.
In fact, the exact same guy, the exact same legislator tried it on him, the same thing that he did to me.
Listen to how this went.
What was your, are you a pediatric?
What was your specialty?
Dr. Hummel, I'm not a.
I am board certified in, I can't even talk, obstetrics and gynecology as well as family medicine with a focus on sports medicine as well.
No endocrinology or pediatrics?
Pediatrics is part of family medicine, family medicine, and then also with regards to endocrinology, that's a big portion of what we do in obstetrics and gynecology.
And what's your formal training in that?
Four years of medical school and residency with oral and written boards and continued maintenance of certification.
Do you do any residency in endocrinology?
No.
Thank you.
Thank you.
By the way, that doctor is Omar Hamada.
He gave me his card.
Well, you know because this is this that's this is one of the good ones This is one of the good guys in the medical field, but it's just it's great because it's the same Again, the same guy that tried that with me.
Now he brings a doctor up, and what he's trying to do, he's doing the credentialism thing, and he's trying to prove that Dr. Hamada's views don't count because he doesn't check the right credential boxes.
But every box he presents, Dr. Hamada does check it, so he has to keep getting more and more specific.
Well, you don't do pediatrics, do you?
Well, actually, that's part of family medicine.
What's your experience in endocrinology?
Oh yeah, we work with that all the time.
But did you do a residency in endocrinology?
Well, no, I didn't do that.
Thank you, no more questions.
He kept getting more and more specific, because no matter what he brought up, he'd check the box.
And then, you notice at the end of that, there was no follow-up question.
It wasn't leading anywhere.
It's like, let me just find the one slight, you've been working in medicine, you've been working in the field for years and years and years.
You are definitely an expert in this subject.
But let me find the one little gap, the one supposed gap that I can find, and I'll call attention to that, and that'll be the end of it.
Because as it turns out, they do the credentialism thing.
But it doesn't actually matter, obviously.
Because I can get up there, and I didn't even go to college, and so they can say, well it doesn't count, your opinion doesn't count, you didn't even go to college.
And then a guy who's been in the medical field for decades can get up there, and he's got all kinds of relevant experience, but it doesn't count for him either.
Because whether you have the credentials or not, The only credential that actually matters to these people is whether you agree with them.
That is the only thing they care about.
Which is also why you notice they never do the credentialism thing with someone on their side.
There were other people at the hearing who spoke up in favor of child mutilation and were not doctors, okay?
And yet, for some reason, they weren't called up and asked about their credentials.
Nobody called them up and said, well, what's your expertise?
Because as long as you agree with the party line, that is the one single credential that matters.
That's it.
Another quick update on that, by the way, Representative Caleb Hemmer, who we talked about yesterday, he was the guy that tried the Media Matters hit piece on me and then I asked him one simple question and he, you know, he recoiled in horror and fell silent and totally humiliated himself.
And, you know, yesterday on the show we played the clip and I did encourage the Sweet Baby Gang to provide feedback to this elected official because I assumed, and this is the truth, I just honestly assumed that he's an elected official and he would really want to hear feedback from his constituents and even people who aren't his constituents, just from Americans and taxpayers.
I figured he'd really want to hear that.
I was really trying to do him a favor.
But it turns out that he didn't want to hear anyone's feedback because as of this morning, Representative Caleb Hemmer had removed all the contact information from his website.
He took it all down.
I'm not sure if that's even legal.
I don't have the credentials as a lawyer.
I need to get a lawyer in here.
But as an elected representative, can you just take down your contact information?
Can you remove it so that your constituents can't contact you?
Obviously this went a certain way, it's not how Caleb Hemmer had planned.
You know, he thought, here's what he planned, here's what he thought.
I don't think he thought this through all the way, but what he was planning was that I would get up there and he would have his hit piece and he'd present it to me and then I guess he assumed that I would say, oh you're right, well you know what, I'm really sorry.
About, I'm just very sorry and I will back away now and I will, I guess that's what he expected.
He expected me to apologize and bow my head solemnly and then walk away.
And then he would have that moment, and he could brag about it, he could post it, and it'd be beautiful.
Didn't go that way.
Instead, he humiliated himself.
And then he had a whole bunch of people trying to contact him to give feedback that was probably quite negative.
And then I went on Tucker Carlson last night, and Tucker played that clip and had some very critical things to say about Representative Caleb Hemmer by name.
And so now his whole world is, like, falling down on top of him.
Not how he thought it would go.
But here's the thing, if you try to defame me, if you try to use lazy hit pieces on me, if you try to lay a trap for me, and you do it all in an effort to protect child butchers, then this is going to be the response.
Okay, it's going to be a consequence for that.
So go ahead and take your shot.
Give it your best effort.
And then it's going to be my turn.
And so you're learning that, Caleb.
I don't think you quite understand what time it is here and what kind of conservatives and what version of the right you're dealing with.
I know maybe you're used to the version of the right, the old right, where you kind of go along and you control the opposition and you play your part.
That's not the case here.
We don't go along with the game and bow down dismissively.
We're playing for keeps.
So, get your head in the game next time, buddy.
Speaking of trans issues, here's someone trying to work out how to feel about being misgendered.
I thought this was kind of interesting.
So I was just picking up my vehicle from an oil change and the person came out of the garage and said, what can I do for you young lady?
And I know that this was intended to be a greeting of respect and kindness or politeness maybe, but I had this immediate like, okay, young, maybe comparatively, I'll take it.
But I was like, lady, what do I do with that?
It's so complicated because I know this person only intended kindness.
There was a smile on their face.
Like I know that they weren't trying to like patronize me or gender me but I felt so gendered and so inappropriately gendered and I don't know what to do with that.
Like what do you do with that when someone like has the best of intentions and I don't really want to spend all of my spoons trying to educate someone at the Costco car center?
What do you do with that?
What you do with that is you live your life.
You move on, and you live your life, and you leave Costco, and that's it.
That's what you do with that.
These people, they fall into this state of paralysis after just normal, polite interactions.
They feel like they have to analyze all of that.
Every interaction that they have, every interaction they have with anyone is loaded.
Every interaction, it's a loaded interaction.
Nothing can just...
There's no such thing.
In the world of this kind of person, there's no such thing as just a polite, normal interaction.
You and I, as normal, sane people, we have those, that's most of the interactions we have in life.
We're just with like, people, acquaintances, you pass them on the street, you say hello to someone, and that's it.
That's most of the people you meet.
There's no reason to even think about it.
That doesn't exist for these people that are...
You know, but that's also the consequence of believing that you are the center of the universe and everything that happens is extremely significant and everyone who talks to you has to talk to you a certain way and approach you a certain way and if they don't then it's this traumatic moment in your life.
This is the consequence.
Alright, one other thing I wanted to mention.
A very odd and I think troubling story, and I don't know, I can't make heads or tails of it, I don't know exactly what to make of it, but this is from Newsweek.
James O'Keefe, the founder of the controversial right-wing video organization Project Veritas, has taken paid leave from the company with his future currently in doubt.
According to an internal message to Project Veritas' employees sent by the organization's executive director, Daniel Strack, seen by the New York Magazine's Intelligencer website, O'Keefe is taking a few weeks off of well-deserved paid time off.
The message did not expand upon while the founder of the undercover artist group is on leave from the company.
In a further statement, Strack said, Like all newsrooms at this stage, the Project Veritas Board of Directors and Management are constantly evaluating what the best path forward is for the organization.
That was initially what they said.
They said, we're just taking leave.
We don't know exactly what's going on.
And then a leaked memo came out, which reveals that Project Veritas employees have raised concerns about his behavior to the board.
The memo obtained by the Daily Beast alleged that workers were troubled and frustrated by O'Keefe's management style, that he was outright cruel to staff members.
Project Veritas employees said that O'Keefe engages in berating and public crucifixions of staff members.
O'Keefe is also alleged to have forced workers to take lie detector tests to prove they weren't leaking information about the company.
Spat at them, allegedly.
Then it goes on.
I read the whole letter.
It's really bizarre, to be honest with you, because there's nothing terribly salacious or extraordinary.
There's even, someone mentions in the letter, there's a thing about how he took a pregnant woman's sandwich, allegedly.
That's mentioned too.
Just a bunch of weird and mostly kind of petty complaints, and all amounting to an accusation that James O'Keefe is a jerk, basically.
And that's what the accusations come down to.
And enough to try to expel him from his own organization.
I do think the timing is extremely suspicious.
Because O'Keefe just had this major bombshell exposing Pfizer.
One of the most significant scoops in recent memory.
And then that's when they try to take him out?
So that means that either this is being coordinated by Pfizer, somehow, or it's being coordinated by people who are too dumb to at least hold off for a bit so that it doesn't look like it's being coordinated by Pfizer.
Either the timing is directly connected, or it's not, and if it's not, then why would you do it at a time when it's going to appear to be connected?
But like I said, I don't know exactly what's going on.
I also don't know... I don't know...
Which of O'Keefe's alleged rude behaviors are true, if any?
But I will say this.
What he's being accused of is, at worst, being a jerk, right?
That's what he's being accused of.
And I'm not saying I believe it.
I don't know James O'Keefe.
I've met him a couple times.
We've texted back and forth a few times.
Seems like a nice guy to me.
I've never heard anything to the contrary.
But my point is, I'm actually perfectly willing to believe That he could be a jerk sometimes.
And not because I get that vibe from him.
No, that's not the point.
But because he's doing great things.
And he's a high achiever.
And high achievers who do great things, historically, you know, can be jerks sometimes in certain situations.
Like great men, the people who get things done.
Visionaries, which James O'Keefe is, I believe.
These people have quirks sometimes.
They can often be difficult to get along with on a personal level.
There's nothing unprecedented about that.
Again, I don't know if that's the case with James.
I have no idea.
But it could be.
Simply because he's one of the get stuff done kind of guys.
And if that is true, so what?
That's the price of having a person like that leading your organization, and it's the only reason why your organization exists or has achieved all the great things that it has.
It's a price well worth paying.
Like, you're not going to get a great person who does great things and is a visionary and achieves, a high achiever, and who also gets along with everyone all the time and everything is perfect and he has no weird quirks about his behavior and he never, you know, has a bad temper.
Like, that doesn't exist.
You're not going to find that.
So you could find someone who's a little bit more gentle in their behavior and a little bit easier to get along with, but they're not going to have that greatness, high achiever factor to them.
So, I support James O'Keefe 100%.
That's all that to say.
All that boils down to, I support him 100%.
And you can't have Project Veritas without him.
He is Project Veritas.
And so, I really hope that whatever's going on, they can work it out.
Let's get to the comment section.
Who's bringing shopping carts back to their rightful place?
We're becoming saints, here in the Sweet Baby Gang.
[MUSIC]
Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
It's proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team, and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks.
Not to mention, Pure Talk's service is fantastic.
They're one of the largest networks in the country, and you can get blazing fast data, talk, and text for as low as $30 a month.
Probably half of what you're paying for Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
Pure Talk, the no-contract wireless company, is the only wireless company to offer a 100% money-back guarantee on your first month.
Don't get locked into a multi-year contract with huge penalties.
Switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
Your first month is guaranteed risk-free, so try it, and if you're not completely happy with the service, you'll get your money back.
This year, make it a goal to support companies who support you.
Go to puretalk.com, enter promo code WALSH to save 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com, promo code Walsh.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Jerry S. says, Matt, covertly sending the SBG after Caleb Hemmer is just too good.
Was it covert?
Was it actually covert?
I think it was sort of overt.
But sending after, you know, that's not the way that I would phrase it.
Again, just people, if there were any concerned citizens that had feedback or questions, I was simply providing them the opportunity.
To deliver that feedback and answer those questions.
I had no idea that Caleb Hemmer would not be welcoming to that.
I had no idea.
I thought that he would want that.
Really.
Ray Parker says, I just called Hemmer's office and they hung up on me after I asked the question.
So brave.
And the question, by the way, so there's a new question now.
What is a woman?
That's a great question to ask.
That's still a question, still the question in a lot of ways.
But I think there's a new the question, especially when it comes particularly to this issue of how it affects kids.
Can a 16-year-old girl meaningfully consent to having her body parts removed?
And that is the question, right?
And anytime you get an opportunity in front of a Democrat, lawmaker, or even anybody on the left who's supporting this, ask them that question.
And I would phrase it exactly like that.
Can a 16-year-old girl meaningfully consent to having her body parts removed?
Can she?
Because I will submit to you that nobody on that side, especially anyone with any kind of prominence, and especially if they're on camera or if it's being documented, they cannot answer it.
They know they can't.
So, that should be the question that we ask.
Ryder says, "I started taking steroids at 22 after learning about the potential sterility that can occur from using
them.
My 22-year-old brain decided it wasn't a big deal because I was sure that I would never want kids.
Four years later, I became Catholic, stopped taking steroids, and started taking recovery drugs like HCG
in a desperate attempt to undo the potential damage I had done to myself from years of testosterone injections.
My view of wanting children did a complete 180.
Thanks be to God my wife is currently pregnant with our first."
Hopefully of many, I can only imagine how painful it will be for these kids in 10 years when they snap out of the delusion and realize that it really is too late for them and the damage is done.
Well, congratulations to you and I'm glad that you were able to reverse the damages that were done and the fact that you... Yeah, look, I didn't take steroids when I was 22, but It's the kind of thing, like, if I had gotten really,
really into sort of gym culture and the gym bro thing at the age of 22, I may have done that as a 22 year old.
You're only 22. Yeah, you're an adult, but you do a lot of really stupid and impulsive things.
And you're not thinking about the future.
And especially if you're a man at 22 and you're not in a serious relationship, then you're probably not thinking
much about having kids.
And just like I, when I was 22, I couldn't even imagine, I can remember being 22 and thinking about the possibility of having kids sometime in the future.
And I just, I couldn't wrap my head around it.
Like, what?
Have a kid?
Myself as a dad?
That's like, it's absurd.
And so if there was some, I can't even imagine, I don't know what it would be in an analogy, but if there was some thing that I really wanted, and the deal was, someone said to me, well you can have this thing, but then the deal is with this genie that I'm talking to, that you have to give up the ability to have kids in the future.
At 22, I probably would have said, oh yeah, I'll take that deal.
At 16, I definitely would have taken it.
And then by 25, I had kids.
Things change radically and drastically as you get older.
That's just the reality.
Go Chasing Waterfalls says, I love your approach, Matt.
I've taken to using your method of asking a very simple question have leftists explained their abhorrent views and never are they able to do anything other than back away like cowards or pivot to something totally unrelated.
Yeah, well the questioning sort of approach is, I certainly didn't, I wouldn't call it my approach.
Like, I didn't invent this.
I didn't invent the idea of asking your opposition questions, trying to get them to clarify their own position.
But it is...
I think far and away the most effective method, especially these days dealing with the modern left, where they truly can't define any of the words that they use.
That's the truth.
Everything is malleable.
Everything has to be, because this is the consequence of being a relativist.
And so when you demand that they, when you take kind of the what is approach, what is that?
What is that?
You use this word, what does that mean?
They'll try to treat it like semantics, they'll treat it like it doesn't matter, but of course that's absurd.
The meaning of the words that you're using to convey your position, that can't be semantics.
We can't have a conversation until I understand what you're trying to convey.
So yeah, as I said, I think that this is a method that I would love to see people use more and more.
Crane and Company will be hosting a live Super Bowl watch party this Sunday for Super Bowl 57.
You can join the live stream at 6 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Central on YouTube at DailyWirePlus to get in-depth analysis and live betting tips without all the woke commentating.
Head on over to Crane and Company's YouTube page, like and subscribe, and be sure to tune in This Sunday.
Also, to celebrate President's Day this year, The Daily Wire is launching our Presidents for Sale sale with 40% off new annual memberships.
The big guy got 10%.
Well, we're going to give you 40%.
Get access to the world of Daily Wire Plus with fearless documentaries, gripping movies, Dennis Prager's The Masters program, and the entire library of Dr. Jordan Peterson's work, including his new productions like Exodus and Logos of Literacy, all available to watch right now.
Coming down the pipeline to a TV or laptop near you, there's new episodes of Ben Shapiro's The Search, Exodus Part 2, and then our much-anticipated DW Kids content, and then Pendragon later this year.
To sweeten the deal, we're also giving you up to 40% off select items in The Daily Wire shop.
All of that, if you take advantage of our Presidents for Sale sale today, just go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A few weeks ago, Vice held a panel discussion with young Asian Americans, and here's how they described the point and theme of the conversation.
What does it mean to be Asian in America?
From hate crimes to the model minority myth to affirmative action, a politically divisive panel hashes out the most controversial issues facing the AAPI community today.
Now this is the kind of discussion, especially when hosted by an outlet like Vice, that is nearly certain to be excruciatingly boring and annoying.
It's already guaranteed that the panel will be stacked with leftists, and leftists are ideologically required to never say anything remotely interesting, especially when the subject has anything to do with race or ethnicity.
But fortunately for the viewers, there was at least one young man who managed to make it onto the panel despite having a mind of his own.
A Twitter user named Kalem posted a couple of videos featuring this man, Vince is his name, and his contributions to the conversation are quite interesting.
The clips are revealing and instructive and also kind of hilarious, not because of what Vince says.
I mean, what he says is good and is correct.
But there's nothing hilarious about saying something that's true.
What makes it funny is because of how the other people on the panel react to him saying those things.
So, watch this.
Assimilation.
Is it a good thing?
Is it a bad thing?
Is it a burden?
Is it an opportunity?
I think assimilation is not just a great thing, it's a necessary thing.
Huh.
No society can hold together where people have nothing in common, they don't speak the same language, they don't practice the same things.
And, you know, you may look at something like just food habits or what you eat and think that's fairly frivolous, but the truth of the matter is that on a broader level, when we're talking about more big picture things, differences in race, culture, religion, all these things, people have fought wars Violent wars killed each other over these things for thousands of years.
If America is to hold together, assimilation, not just good or bad, necessary.
I don't think it's going to be possible for America to survive as a stable, functioning society if people don't, to some degree, say, well, here's what we're going to commonly agree upon.
But who gets to choose it?
The majority culture, I suppose.
And what's majority culture?
The people with power.
And who's people with power?
The people with power.
White people?
I don't know if that's necessarily so true.
I don't think a particularly white quote-unquote interest controls things like pop culture.
Do you believe white supremacy exists?
I think there are people who believe in it.
I think there's people who all believe that their race is superior.
So you don't believe in white supremacy?
Do you believe America is a white supremacist state?
No.
Not at all.
No white supremacist state would even, like, allow us to be doing this.
It's a white supremacist, there's just KKK people walking— Actually, I go around New York City, I notice that, like, I guess Brooklyn a little bit different.
Most of the people here are not white, and they're doing their thing, so I don't— What does doing their thing mean to you?
Going to work.
Are they making the same amount of money?
I gotta say, I like this Vince guy.
I mean, I like him for all the reasons that everyone else on the panel is shocked and horrified by him.
First of all, his point about assimilation is obviously correct.
A nation must be bound together, united, by more than just the simple fact that all of its people exist inside the same geographical boundary.
That's even more the case today when the geographical boundary is so porous and apparently, according to this administration, negotiable.
So we have to have something else holding us together.
To be a people, not just people, but to be a people, we must have a shared culture, shared values, shared traditions, a shared language.
Without those things, you end up with fracturing and division, and that leads to violence, and that leads to chaos and dysfunction.
All of which we're experiencing today.
Of course, everyone else in the room is offended by this notion, mostly because they're conditioned
to be offended by it.
These are automatons operating based on their programming.
It's also why the obnoxious girl in the front row has purple hair.
She can't help but become a parody of herself.
Why do these obnoxious liberal women, why even do the purple hair anymore?
You are willingly making yourself into a stereotype.
Into one of the most mocked stereotypes in existence right now.
You are saying, I'm going to be that person.
But it's all programming.
And she is aghast that Vince would suggest assimilating with the majority culture because she claims the majority culture is white.
And she sees white as automatically bad, and she holds this view, even while telling herself that she is not the racist one.
She, along with her leftist cohorts, are also scandalized that Vince will not label America a white supremacist state.
But as he points out, if America was run by violent white supremacists who control everything, the first thing they'd probably do is stop you from pointing this out.
Okay?
Like, this is a pretty good indication.
If you want to know, do I live in a white supremacist, violent state?
Well, can you stand anywhere, can you go anywhere and just say, this is a violent white supremacist state and nothing happens to you?
No, no, sorry.
It's not nothing happens to you.
You can go anywhere and say that and you'll be applauded.
Well, if that's the case, then you don't live in a white supremacist state.
Because non-white people can say and do whatever they want, and they can condemn white people all they want, without any repercussions whatsoever, unless, as repercussions, you count, again, applause.
It's not exactly what you'd expect a white supremacist dystopia to operate.
That's not how you expect it to operate.
Like, if you didn't know anything about this country, if you're crawling out of a cave and someone told you, Oh, you know, I got some bad news for you.
You crawled out of a cave into a white supremacist state.
Just so you know, you live in a systemically racist white supremacist state.
When you hear that, And you don't know anything.
Immediately your mind is going to conjure all kinds of images and you're going to make all kinds of assumptions about what sort of country this is.
And then you're going to get out into the world and you're going to find that, wow, it's not anything like that at all.
In fact, wow, there's non-white people all over the place running around talking about how much they hate white people.
And then there are other groups of people, there are white people following behind them applauding.
Well, that's not the kind of white supremacist state I was expecting.
But I do have to admit, the guy at the end was on to something.
He asked whether non-whites make the same amount of money as whites, and the answer is no, they don't.
That's true.
Because most of the people in that room, in fact, belong to ethnicities that make more money than white people on average.
Many Asian immigrants come to this country and quickly find themselves in a higher income bracket than the average white family.
The median household income for Asians in general is $100,000.
For white households, it's $77,000.
This remains perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all inconvenient truths for the race hustlers.
Because if America is a systemically racist country, systemically racist against non-whites, how could it possibly be the case that many non-white communities fare better than whites?
In fact, Vince, always on the ball, makes this very point later in the discussion.
Statistically, it is true that Asians, right, on average, make more money, in terms of medium, make more money, better test scores, get into better colleges, all that stuff.
I think the question is, why is that?
And I don't know, model minority, whatever that label wants to mean.
That's actually a myth, because we cannot be... Well, no, listen, let me finish my point.
We need to observe what makes people successful and unsuccessful.
And I think when you look at trends that are generally true in the Asian community, not of everyone, but are generally true, usually you have families that are sticking together, you have, you know, people are taught to work hard in school, not get into trouble.
I think that translates to why Asians en masse are successful.
And I don't think you have to be Asian or white, for that matter, to not have kids out of wedlock, not, you know, commit crime, not cause trouble, whatever it is.
What is happening?
It's just a matter of like, well, common sense.
That's what makes people successful.
And if that's so-called assimilation, having a nuclear family, buying a house, going to school, whatever it is, then yeah, okay, call me a pro-assimilation then.
I think there's a difference between assimilation and erasure.
Yes.
Now, needless to say, Vince is once again completely and irrefutably right.
Asian Americans do very well in this country.
They also tend to have intact families.
This is not a coincidence.
In fact, if you look at a ranking of median household income by race, and then you look at a ranking of divorce rate by race, and out-of-wedlock birth by race, the lists are identical.
Okay?
The groups that are less likely to get divorced, less likely to have out-of-wedlock births, are also less likely to be poor.
As the rates of broken homes increase, the rates of poverty increase between whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
The black community is the poorest.
It's also the community with the most out-of-wedlock births and broken homes.
The statistics here, again, are irrefutable.
The only crime that Vince committed was noticing it.
And as we've seen time and time again, one of the great moral crimes in our culture today, one of the only moral crimes, is the crime of noticing.
Like, we all know that black people as a group generally fare the worst by every societal measure, pretty much.
We also know that, as a group, they have the highest rates of single-parent households and kids raised without stable and reliable parental guidance.
We all know all of that, but these are facts we're supposed to keep on the peripheral.
You're not allowed to turn your head slightly to the side and look directly at them.
And if you do look at them, you certainly are not permitted to draw any connections or form any conclusions.
And if you do look at the facts and you form conclusions, they certainly better not be conclusions that would, even to the slightest extent, put the onus on the black community to improve its own situation.
You better not be implying or suggesting or, God forbid, outright saying that the black community can do certain things itself to improve its own position like, for example, have kids, get married before you have kids, and then stay married.
Like, you're not allowed to ever say that, though I just did.
That's the greatest heresy of all.
Of course, the other people in the room reacted as you would expect those in a religious cult to react to heresy.
If you're only listening to the audio, you're not going to be able to fully appreciate the scene, because as Vince calmly explains, the benefits of having intact families and discipline and encouraging education.
The other panelists, they were left slack-jawed.
They stared in horror, their mouths agape.
They shook their heads.
They could not believe what they were hearing.
They were in close proximity with common sense, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and they found that the experience was terrifying.
That, to me, as always, is the most disturbing thing.
Yes, obviously, Vince is right about everything he said.
Obviously, the other panelists are wrong.
But it's not just that they're wrong, okay?
You can be wrong about stuff.
It's not just that they don't agree with Vince's common-sense, data-backed analysis of the situation.
It's really that they were shocked by the analysis.
It's one thing to be wrong, to misinterpret it, to misread it, but you're shocked by it.
It's that they apparently had never heard anything like it before.
It's one thing to disagree with an obvious truth, it's another to be stunned by it.
And that speaks to the suffocating, stifling bubble that these people have been living in.
They clearly believe what they believe merely because it's the only belief that was ever presented to them and they lack the intellectual curiosity to survey the other options.
They have nearly totally insulated themselves from everything that might challenge their worldview.
So, when it does happen, And they finally, and by accident, encounter such a challenge.
They practically faint like damsels in distress.
And that's what we saw there.
And it's why Vince is not cancelled today.
In fact, I just found out as I was preparing this segment that Vince has his own YouTube channel, which you can find if you search Vince Dao, D-A-O, on YouTube, and you should look him up.
He's obviously a brilliant guy.
The same cannot be said for the others in the room, and that is why they are today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today as we move over to the members block.
You can become a member and use code WALSH to check out for two months free on all annual plans.
