Ep. 1132 - Conservatives Worry About Niceness While Dems Throw Their Political Opponents In Jail
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, another NHL player sparks outrage from LGBT activists by refusing to wear their religious symbolism on his uniform. Meanwhile, the New York Times publishes a patently insane op-ed claiming that ancient Judaism recognized at least four different genders. Also, is Trump about to be arrested, handcuffed, and perp walked? And if he is, how should we respond? Plus, leftists in Portland hold a funeral for public health after Oregon lifts its mask mandate, because apparently Oregon still had a mask mandate. And a group of drag queens discuss the dangers of "appropriation," while being apparently totally oblivious to the irony. In our Daily Cancellation, a guy running for district attorney in San Francisco says that crime is just a basic life experience and you shouldn't complain too much about it.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://getrefunds.com/.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, another NHL player sparks outrage from LGBT activists by refusing to wear their religious symbolism on his uniform.
Meanwhile, the New York Times publishes a patently insane op-ed claiming that ancient Judaism recognized at least four different genders, supposedly.
Also, is Trump about to be arrested, handcuffed, and perp-walked?
And if he is, How should we respond?
Plus, leftists in Portland hold a funeral for public health after Oregon lifts its mask mandate because apparently that state still had a mask mandate.
And a group of drag queens discuss the dangers of appropriation while being apparently totally oblivious to the irony.
In our Daily Cancellation, a guy running for district attorney in San Francisco says that crime is just a, quote, basic life experience and you shouldn't complain too much about it.
All that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Biden's plans to help struggling business owners in the wake of COVID
lockdowns were to prioritize black, Latino, Native American, and
women owned businesses.
It goes without saying that if the roles were reversed, if Biden had said his plans were to prioritize white, male-owned businesses, there would be outrage.
And outrage is a massive understatement here.
If you own a business, you can't rely on the government to bail you out, no matter your race or sex.
Doesn't matter.
Can't rely on them.
You need to take matters into your own hands, and Innovation Refunds can help you do just that.
If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee through the Employee Retention Credit.
But you gotta go to GetRefunds.com to get it.
Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC, and they may be able to help your business also.
This is not a loan.
There's no payback.
It is a refund of your tax.
As simple as that.
There's no upfront charge either.
They don't get paid until your business gets its refund.
Don't let this opportunity pass you by.
See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance in just eight minutes.
Go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, and answer a few questions.
This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time.
Don't miss out.
Go to GetRefunds.com.
GetRefunds.com.
Well, the NHL continued its woke evolution, or devolution, over the weekend.
Yet another team, this time the San Jose Sharks, held a so-called Pride Night, where the players were expected to don rainbow uniforms in a display of fealty to the national flag of the United States of Gay.
But one player, James Reimer, followed in the footsteps of Philadelphia Flyers' Ivan Pravorov and declined to participate.
That means that there are now two professional hockey players with moral courage and, you know, dignity.
Not more than two, apparently, but at least there are the two, so that's good at least.
Reimer said in a statement, quote, For all 13 years of my NHL career, I have been a Christian, not just in title, but in how I choose to live my life daily.
I have a personal faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for my sins, and in response, asks me to love everyone and follow Him.
I have no hate in my heart for anyone, and I have always strived to treat everyone that I encounter with respect and kindness.
Prevorov also cited, if you remember, we talked about this a couple months ago when it happened, that he cited his Christian faith as well when explaining why he refused to participate in his team's Pride Night festivities.
And it is indeed a very good reason.
Because a faithful Christian cannot possibly wear or carry that flag.
You can't do that while also remaining true to your faith.
It is a one or the other sort of situation.
When someone, when your employer says to you, oh, put this pride flag on, it's, it is, these are mutually exclusive things.
You can either stay true to your faith, your Christian faith, or you can, you know, participate in this sign of loyalty to this, to this other religion.
You can't have both.
But I will also say that as a Christian myself, I still tend to think that, you know, you shouldn't need to give your Christian faith as a reason.
There's nothing wrong with giving your Christian faith as a reason, and it is also an opportunity to display your faith and talk about your faith, so that's reason enough, I suppose, to issue a statement like that.
But really, you shouldn't need to give any reason at all, because it's not up to James Reimer to explain why he doesn't want to skate around in a gay pride flag.
He shouldn't even have to go that far to explain it.
He never should have been put in the position where he had to decline such an instruction in the first place.
He's a hockey player.
I mean, why in the world should that job involve displaying pride in the sexual lifestyle choices of LGBT people?
Why should those two things go together?
Why should he wear it?
Why should there be a Pride Night in the first place?
It's up to them to explain that to him.
It's not up to him to explain anything to them.
Now, be that as it may, he deserves credit for doing the right thing.
This is the only way forward, really, to absolutely refuse to go along with any of this woke virtue signaling, to refuse to participate, oppose it at every turn, no matter the backlash.
And in Reimer's case, the backlash is coming, of course, from all the expected sources.
The media, the left, are going after him for this, but also from other figures within the NHL.
An executive for the Pittsburgh Penguins, Brian Burke, for some reason felt the need to issue his own statement condemning James Reimer for failing to show his allegiance to the gay flag, even though, again, Reimer doesn't play for the team that Burke is an executive for.
But Burke said, quote, I repeat that I am extremely disappointed.
I wish players would understand that the Pride sweaters are about inclusion and welcoming everybody.
A player wearing Pride colors or tape isn't endorsing a set of values or enlisting in a cause.
He's saying, you're welcome here.
And you are in every single NHL building.
Yeah, Reimer, be welcoming and tolerant or get the hell out.
There's no irony or contradiction in that message at all, of course.
But Burt claims that by wearing the Pride colors, he wouldn't be endorsing any set of values or, you know, participating in any cause.
Well, if that's the case, then why is it so critically important that he wear them at all?
I mean, if there are no values and there's no cause attached to this display, then what's the point of the display?
And why would it matter if someone didn't participate?
If the pride flag doesn't represent any particular set of values, then refusing to wear the flag also doesn't represent or display any particular set of values.
See, people like Burke want to have it both ways.
On the one hand, they want to react with righteous indignation at those who fail to display reverence and deference to the flag.
On the other hand, they also want to act as though the flag is entirely neutral.
Just wear the flag, bigot.
Doesn't mean anything anyway.
But it does mean something and they know it, which is why they care so much.
As I've argued recently, the pride flag is a symbol that represents the left's ideological agenda.
That's what it represents.
And it has always been that.
It has always represented that.
It was literally designed to represent that.
And by forcing the flag on people, I mean literally forcing it on them in some cases, they're forcing ideological conformity.
That's the whole point.
And they're doing it all in bad faith.
Speaking of bad faith, as part of the team's Pride Night activities, the San Jose Sharks' Twitter account spent the evening tweeting alleged facts about the LGBT community.
Now, there was an actual hockey match happening with the San Jose Sharks, but they ignored all the action on the ice in favor of tweeting things like this, quote, Worldwide, gender diversity is seen far differently than that in the Western world, or as you may know it.
Most of us are familiar with the male, female, and transgender labels, but in other cultures the existence of the third gender, or even fourth and fifth gender, is common.
The Muxe gender is a respected third gender in Zapotec cultures in Mexico that has existed for centuries.
Guna are those who were born as men, but who identify as women and are attracted to men.
The Gui are those who were born as men and are attracted to other men.
They also tweeted this familiar claim we've heard before.
In some Native American cultures, the umbrella term to describe a third gender is two-spirit.
In South Asia, it's hydras.
In Thailand, it's kathuis.
In Ethiopia, it's ashtime.
In Polynesia, it's fa-fanin.
And many more.
And I mispronounced all of those, of course.
But it's also all complete nonsense.
I mean, never mind the fact that this is a hockey team.
It's not just a hockey team tweeting this stuff out.
They're tweeting it during the match.
I mean, there's something, there's an actual hockey game going on, and this is what they're talking about instead.
But it's more bad faith, more disingenuous sophistry from people who don't know how to argue in any other way.
As I've explained many times, Two-Spirit is a designation invented by gay activists in the 90s, okay?
It's not some ancient, you know, traditional thing that existed in Native American tribes, not at all.
It was invented by gay activists recently.
And the rest that they mention there are at best examples of men cross-dressing, or in some cases women cross-dressing.
But a cross-dressing man is not a third gender.
If men cross-dress in other cultures, and they do, no one ever said otherwise, It's not because they believe themselves to actually be women.
In fact, that's the whole point.
They're cross-dressing, and so they're dressing as something they aren't.
The recognition that they aren't that thing is part of the whole point of the display.
Now, whether this is supposed to be some sort of spiritual practice, or it's a sexual fetish, or both, that can differ depending on the case that we're talking about.
But everyone understands that the man dressing as a woman is a man dressing as a woman, not an actual woman.
This distinction is obvious, but they're hoping that you're too stupid to notice it.
And yet somehow this wasn't even the most egregious example of this kind of argument just over the weekend.
On the same day, the New York Times published a column which was written by someone named Elliot Kukla with this outrageous headline.
Here's the headline.
It said, Ancient Judaism recognized a range of genders.
It's time we did too.
Now, I want you to listen to how Kukla supports the claim made in the title.
And there's, you know, the article begins and there's about 57 paragraphs of irrelevant nonsense before we finally get to the part that is supposed to be the evidence to support the claim that got you to click on the article in the first place.
And this is what it says.
There are four genders beyond male or female that appear in the ancient Jewish holy text hundreds of times.
When a child was born in the ancient Jewish world, it could be designated as a boy, a girl, a tumtum, who is neither clearly male nor female, or as an androgynous, who has both male and female characteristics based on physical features.
There are two more gender designations that form later in life.
The ilonit, who is considered female at birth, but develops in an atypical direction, and the serice is designated male at birth, but later becomes a eunuch.
There is not an exact equivalence between these ancient categories and modern gender identities.
Some of these designations are based on biology, some on a person's role in society, but they show us that people who are more than binary have always been recognized by my religion.
We are not a fad.
Now, first of all, note how the writer labels male and female as genders.
Yet again showing how the sex versus gender distinction has been discarded by the people who invented it because it's outlived its usefulness to them.
And as for the rest of this argument, well, again, they hope you are too stupid to understand the most basic distinctions.
What is described here, these are cases where physical deformity makes it harder to ascertain the physical sex of the individual.
We call this now intersex.
And it's a genetic condition.
It is not its own gender.
A person who's born with eight fingers is not a completely new type of human being.
He's not a new species or subspecies.
He doesn't call into question the idea that humans have ten fingers.
He's simply the victim of a deformity.
Deformities existed in the ancient world, and they had words for it, different words than we have now because they spoke a different language, and ancient people had ways of dealing with and understanding these cases.
But they didn't think that a person with deformed genitals belonged to an entirely separate category outside of the male-female binary.
That is a mistake that no ancient culture was stupid enough to make.
Actually, only the most advanced civilization in human history could be that dumb.
That's the kind of stupidity that you could only find in modern Western culture.
In fact, if you want to know exactly how ancient Judaism felt about so-called gender roles, here's what the Book of Deuteronomy had to say about it.
Quote, a woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing.
For anyone who does such is an abomination to the Lord your God.
I mean, the New York Times brought it up, so that's what it actually says.
And also some advice there that we would do well to heed today.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And this was coming, as far as I could tell, primarily from Trump himself, who said that this was the result of leaks, that he found out that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday.
And then some more information comes out, and it seems that maybe that declaration was premature.
So, it's still not exactly clear what's going on, but I'll read the latest.
This is from Daily Wire, it's the headline, the article from today.
A lawyer who previously advised ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, this is a lawyer who advised Trump's lawyer, former lawyer Michael Cohen, is expected to testify this week in the Manhattan grand jury investigation into former President Donald Trump's alleged $130,000 hush payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.
Attorney Robert Costello is reportedly prepared to attack the credibility of Cohen, who allegedly made the payment to Daily News on Trump's behalf and was later improperly reimbursed for the expense.
The Associated Press reported that Costello claims to have information that contradicts some of Cohen's current statements and that could be exculpatory for Trump.
The report said that the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office last week subpoenaed Costello's law firm for records and invited him to provide testimony on Monday afternoon.
And now he is going to provide testimony.
This is what Trump said on social media, quote, the most important witness to go before the New York City Grand Jury, a highly respected lawyer who once represented convicted felon Jailbird and serial fake storyteller and liar Michael Cohen will be doing so tomorrow afternoon.
This information that he will present will supposedly be conclusive and irrefutable.
That's Trump saying that.
Trump ignited a firestorm over the weekend after he claimed on social media on Saturday that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday.
A spokesperson for Trump later said that Trump has been given no notification, quote-unquote, that there will be an arrest next week.
Trump's remarks came after a report from NBC News said federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies were analyzing security assessments and making plans to prepare for the possibility that Trump could be indicted next week, but no date was given in the report.
So I guess that's where it starts with mainstream media reports that they're preparing for the possibility of protests and quote-unquote unrest in New York if Trump is indicted, but he hasn't been indicted yet.
And then Trump indicated that this was going to happen on Tuesday, and now we find out that, you know, there's this big witness that they're going to hear from today at some point.
And Trump says that, you know, it should be—it should—the testimony should—what's the word he used?
Irrefutable and conclusive.
So still not clear exactly what's going to happen, if the arrest is going to be made or not.
But here's what Trump was saying, let's back it up a little bit, this is the most recent update.
Let's go back to this weekend, and back when the story was that he was gonna be arrested on Tuesday.
This is what Trump posted on social media.
He said, and we say social media, his website, Truth Social.
It's time, he said, we are a nation in steep decline being led into World War III by a crooked politician who doesn't even know he's alive.
True.
But who is surrounded by evil and sinister people who, based on their actions on defunding the police, destroying our military, open borders, no voter ID, inflation, raising taxes, and much more, can only hate our now-failing USA.
We just can't allow this anymore.
They're killing our nation as we sit back and watch.
We must save America.
Protest, protest, protest.
And then in a separate post, he again called for people to protest and take our nation back.
Alright.
So here's a few things here.
Uh, whatever happens, this whole thing is a farce and an absolute disgrace.
Alvin Bragg, I mean, from this DA in particular, this is one of these Soros DAs, Alvin Bragg, he lets violent criminals roam the streets.
Okay, right now there are known violent criminals, criminals that are known to the system because they've been through the system, and they're let out on parole even though they're known to be dangerous to the community, or they're never put in prison to begin with.
They're given these slap-on-the-wrist sentences, probation or whatever else, and they're allowed to roam the streets until they commit a crime so heinous that even Alvin Bragg has to put them in prison for at least longer than like a couple of days.
So that's what's happening in New York, just like in so many other cities across the country.
And yet, while allowing that to happen, Alvin Bragg is spending all this time, and really it's years and millions of dollars, trying to nail Trump on some frivolous, ridiculous misdemeanor charge.
And maybe they'll try to turn it into a felony, but really it's like, at best, what they're going for is a misdemeanor charge.
Which is also something that, by the way, if paying hush money to a mistress, if that warrants all of this, the grand juries and everything else, then there should be grand juries convening for, like, 90% of the politicians in Washington, D.C.
It doesn't make it right.
Like, you shouldn't be having affairs in the first place.
You shouldn't put yourself in a position where you have to pay hush money.
But everybody understands that this kind of thing goes on all the time, very frequent.
And if they're not paying hush money to a mistress, it's to someone or whatever.
NDAs, I mean, all this kind of stuff is very, very common.
And yet, in Trump's case, they want to pretend like it's some sort of unprecedented infraction.
So there's a theme that emerges.
Well, it's not just emerging now.
It's been present all along.
But it's just the same situation with the classified documents.
Find out that Trump has some classified documents in his house, and they pretend that, oh, this is unheard of.
How could he possibly do this?
And then we come to find out, well, Biden has classified documents.
They all do this.
So the entire thing, again, is a farce.
It's a disgrace.
It's, you know, and even to call it a farce probably understates it.
Because what they're actually doing here, obviously, is they're trying to throw their political opponents in jail.
And they're doing this at a time when, you know, I have to continue to harp on this because it's an important point, but you've got conservatives who are sitting around debating amongst themselves whether we're being too mean.
Okay, there's conservatives who are worried that the words we're using And that's all it is.
They're worried that the words we are using about the opposition might be too mean and rude.
And so while we have to spend weeks at a time debating the types of words that we use, Democrats are simply in the process of trying to throw their political opponents in jail.
And not just any political opponent, but the number one guy.
The former president, and right now the assumed frontrunner for the GOP nomination, they want to put him in jail.
So they're doing that, while we're saying, are we being a little too rude to these people?
If this is not a wake-up call, then I don't think you'll ever be.
If this doesn't wake you up, then I guess you might as well just stay asleep.
It's incredibly obvious, and it's been incredibly obvious for a long time, that we have to fight fire with fire.
We really have no choice.
Okay?
So we can be gentle, and we can be nice, and we can respect the unwritten rules and all the norms.
We always hear about these norms from the Democrats.
They're violating the norms!
So we can allow ourselves to be manipulated into respecting all that stuff and being nice and being gentle and everything else and being relatively polite and moderate and open to compromise and all that.
We can do that.
But it's not going to stop the other side from ratcheting things up further and further, which is all they ever do.
They're not going to look at our niceness and say, wow, you know, these people really, they're not so bad, actually.
Maybe we should lay off a little bit.
You know what?
Maybe throwing Donald Trump in jail is a little bit too far.
I mean, look how nice they're being.
That's not ever going to happen.
Fire with fire is, it's not, look, this is the point.
It doesn't even matter at this point if you're comfortable with it or not.
You have no choice.
There's no choice.
They don't leave us any other choice.
And in a case like this, what does fighting fire with fire mean?
Well, it means, you know, potentially various things, but here's one thing it certainly means.
Is that the Democrats, who are getting away with their own crimes, they need to be thrown in prison.
So, when you've got Democrats trying to throw President Trump in prison, the response should be, A DA who's actually on our side, and there are some of them out there, they don't run major cities, but you need somebody like that to launch an investigation into the rampant criminal activity of a high-profile Democrat and try to throw them in jail.
It's all legal.
Like, actually investigate the real crimes committed by these people and throw them in jail.
That's not going to be us taking things to a new level or anything like that.
This has already happened.
And so we can lay down and get steamrolled or you can fight back.
Those are the only two options.
I mean, just think about, there's so many examples of this, but like January 6th, we talk about this all the time, but perfect illustration.
January 6th happens.
And the Democrats spend the next two years and counting trying to hunt these people down like dogs and throw them in prison for years at a time.
Meanwhile, just months before that, you had BLM and Antifa rioters plaguing cities all across the country, and the Republicans were ready to just let that go.
They were ready to move on from it.
And they did.
They still have.
There was never any serious effort to actually track these people down and throw them in jail.
Some people went to jail for a little bit, but nothing like what we saw with January 6th.
And even more importantly, there was never any serious investigation.
We heard talk about investigation, but there was never any serious investigation into the people who were funding and organizing the BLM riots.
Okay, when you have these rioters show up in vans and everything and all this coordination, people showing up, it's like pallets of bricks, but no one ever looked into, where is this all coming from?
How is it so well organized?
Fire with fire would mean actually finding the people responsible for that and throwing them in prison.
The other question you have to ask is, what exactly is the political play here with Trump?
They're going after Trump.
Yeah, they would love to put him in jail for 15 years, but that's not going to happen on a charge like this.
And he's probably not going to spend a day in jail.
Although, from the reports that we were hearing on Saturday, they at least wanted to perp walk him.
I mean, they wanted to put him in handcuffs and perp walk him, and they wanted to do that.
And let's say they do it.
You have to wonder, what exactly is the political play?
Because I think most people, even on the left, understand that if you do that, it's a horrible thing for the country.
But ultimately, it will probably help Donald Trump politically.
Certainly in the primary, it's going to help him, as well it should.
You know, you are turning him into a martyr and you're putting handcuffs on him, marching around.
I don't see how it helps in the general.
I think when it comes to Trump in the general, there's nothing that can help or hurt.
Everything is baked in.
And you feel how you feel about Trump, and I don't think anything is going to change that.
Let's say they actually did arrest Trump and throw him in jail, get to a general election.
I don't see anyone who hated Trump saying, you know what, I feel bad for him because I'm going to vote for him.
And I certainly don't see anyone who likes Trump or at least opposes the Democrats saying, you know what, I'm going to vote for the Democrat now because they put him.
That's not going to happen.
So a general election is not going to move the needle one way or another.
I don't think anything can at this point because it's all baked in.
In the primary, I think it does help Trump.
Potentially in a big way.
I mean, you could make the argument that if they actually do this, And they put him in handcuffs and march him into a jail cell, that if they do it on Tuesday, he wins the primary on Tuesday.
And then, and maybe this is where you get too conspiratorial, but then you have to wonder, is that part of the reason why they're doing it?
Because they want him, they want to run against him.
They want him to win the GOP primary.
You know, I tweeted that over the weekend and there were people saying that it's a crazy conspiracy theory, it doesn't make any sense.
Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, the Democrats, in assuming that they can engage in this kind of strategic thinking.
And you could certainly make an argument, and some people have made this argument to me and I do find it persuasive, that even if it has the effect of essentially winning the primary for him, which I think there's a good chance it will, that's not what they're up to.
They're just motivated by their just insatiable hatred for Trump, and they're going to do whatever they can to go after him, and they're not even thinking that far ahead.
I think there's a lot to be said for that theory as well.
All right.
This is a pretty amazing clip from some podcast.
I'm not sure what podcast it is, but it doesn't matter.
This is featuring a group of black drag queens talking about the dangers of cultural appropriation.
Yes, these people are very worried about appropriation.
Listen.
I just feel like there's such a long rooted history in appropriation from black culture.
Like, for instance, like when I go to the Metropolitan Museum and I see things that they've taken from Africa, I see things that they've taken from Nubia, and then you go and you...
Yes, and then you go and you look at these pillars and then there's this white man, Samuel something something 1800 going and saying, I'm putting my ownership on something that was never mine to begin with.
Oh, yeah, I discovered it, so then it gives me this ownership, like, I can take it and it can be mine, and I feel like it's that entitlement that is one thing that we really need to discuss.
Like, there is a way, I feel, to very much so appreciate somebody's culture, but so many times, like Bob says, there are times where, you know, they cite the source, but they don't.
Yes, these people are worried about appropriation.
This is like irony overload.
And what the hell is this?
Are those little baby heads on this man's dress there?
Do my eyes deceive me?
Yeah, that's what he's wearing.
That's not satanic at all.
So you've got these people, I can't even say dressed as a woman because I've never known a woman to take the severed heads of baby dolls and fasten them to her dress.
That's not something a woman would do.
But they are attempting anyway to appropriate womanhood and at the same time they're warning about the dangers of cultural appropriation.
And what's the example they give for cultural appropriation?
The first thing he says is a museum.
So taking artifacts, cultural artifacts, and putting them on display in a museum is appropriation now?
Isn't that... What exactly is the difference?
Can these people articulate anymore a distinction between paying homage to a culture or, you know, paying tribute to a culture, showing respect to a culture, and appropriating it?
Is there even any difference anymore in their minds?
Of course there isn't.
I mean, there was a time not that long ago, like, I don't know, 15 seconds ago, where for cultures, for museums to have multicultural displays, that was the politically correct thing to do.
It also made sense for a museum, because if you want to, if you're going to a museum, you want to learn about world history, it's going to show you artifacts of world history.
But now you can't even do that without being accused of appropriation.
And yet these men who are Wearing womanhood as a costume are somehow not guilty of it themselves.
All right, here's an interesting story from the Postmillennial.
It says, on Saturday, a far-left radical group called MaskBlockPDX announced via Twitter that it would be hosting a funeral to mourn the death of public health following news that Oregon would be ending its mask mandate for healthcare settings on April 3rd.
This is, what year is this?
It is 2023.
And they're just getting around to ending the mask mandate now.
But that's, for normal people, it's way too late in the game.
It should not have taken this long.
But for these leftist activists, it's too early.
We're still in the middle of the pandemic, they say.
The ceremony is scheduled for Monday, March 20, and will take place at Pioneer Courthouse Square, a busy downtown Portland gathering place.
Those who choose to attend are required to wear N95 masks or similar.
So this is what they're talking about doing today, actually.
It's going to be a memorial service to mourn the end of public health because Oregon is lifting a mask mandate in the year 2023.
You know, I saw this story and it made me think about something I've been thinking about a lot, actually, because as we've been traveling around the country and we've been to a lot of liberal areas and, you know, we've been to We've been to all of them, basically.
East Coast to West Coast.
And you still see people wearing masks.
It always, even though I'm ready for it and I know intellectually that they're out there, the mask wearers, it still blows my mind a little bit each time I see it.
Someone still wearing a mask, even at this point.
Wearing them outside, too.
So you still see that even in, you know, really only in these liberal bastions.
But not Not that much masking.
Still, even in the most liberal areas, in my experience, the people who mask are in a minority.
And of course, in most places in the country, the sane places anyway, there's basically no masking at all.
Which is very interesting, because I will admit, this is something that I was wrong about.
You know, I thought, if you go back I don't know, two years ago, when the mask mandates were still in place everywhere, and everybody was wearing masks.
I thought, and I probably predicted publicly, that masking was basically here to stay, even after the mandates were lifted.
I knew eventually they'd lift the mandates.
But it seemed to me that people's brains had been so broken that probably half of the country, maybe a little bit less, but close to half, would continue wearing masks indefinitely.
And there was reason to think that, because for a couple of years at least, most places that you went, it was like 100% mask compliance.
You had the outliers who wouldn't wear it, and maybe they'd get yelled at, maybe they didn't.
And then you got to a point where, and I know this from experience, You could walk around in most places, including airports, and not wear a mask, even though it was mandated, and nobody would say anything to you.
I know this because I went into dozens of airports during the mask mandate years, and I didn't wear a mask in the airport.
Now, on the plane, you couldn't get away with it.
They'd force you to wear it.
But in the airport, anyway, you really didn't need to wear it.
They wouldn't say anything.
And yet, most people wore them.
And I assumed, again, that was because people's brains had been broken, they'd been so conditioned that they were wearing it because they were terrified, and that's why you saw this near 100% mask compliance in most places.
But then they lift the mandates, and also, you know, and it's not just the mandates, but also the public pressure goes away, and almost all the masks go away.
To the point where now, even in the most liberal areas, like you go to Seattle or Portland, you'll see masks, but they're still in the minority.
And that is kind of fascinating to me.
I don't know if it's a good or bad sign.
Because what that means is that you had so many people wearing masks all that time, not because their brains were broken.
I mean, I guess I'm glad their brains weren't broken.
But then it means that For so many of these people, they knew it was ridiculous, and yet they did it anyway out of sheer obedience.
I'm not sure what is better.
What would I prefer to think?
What's more encouraging?
To think that people really were just scared out of their minds and they thought they had to wear them so that they didn't get sick?
That's what I sort of assumed.
Reality appears to be, given the fact that as soon as they said, you don't have to wear masks anymore, almost everyone took them off, Then it would seem to indicate that most of the people wearing the masks knew that it was absurd, knew that there's no reason to do it, did it anyway out of just pure obedience.
And in the end, maybe it's because I'm a pessimist, but in the end that to me seems even more disturbing in some ways.
Because what it tells us is that You know, the powers that be, they don't even need to necessarily brainwash everyone.
People are willing to comply, willing to be obedient, if you just tell them to do it.
All right, one other quick thing.
This is from Breitbart.
It says, after eight seasons, four sex change surgeries, quote-unquote, and countless hormone treatments, TLC's I Am Jazz star Jazz Jennings still doesn't feel right.
I don't feel like me ever, Jennings revealed in a recent episode.
Jazz Jennings, who was born a boy and declared himself transgender at the age of five, confessed feelings of dissatisfaction to his mother, Jeanette.
I just want to feel like myself.
All I want to be is happy and feel like me.
I don't feel like me ever.
Jazz said in an emotional exchange caught on camera.
So this reality show is still ongoing and Jazz Jennings has been quote-unquote living as a girl now for years but isn't happy.
I think we have the clip of that.
Let's watch it.
So are you feeling like you wanted to start talking about... Are you okay?
I'm okay.
Don't look like you're going to cry.
You know I can't get out of my head.
I know.
No, listen.
It just doesn't stop.
It's okay.
Give me a hug.
It's okay.
I know what you're going through.
We've been there before.
No, it still doesn't stop now, and I'm already going back to negative.
The more you're talking about yourself, it gets harder.
You're digging in, and it's making you put a magnifying glass on what's already difficult as it is.
So this is hard for you, I know, and we don't want to push you anymore.
I know.
I'm the one doing it.
I know.
You're your own worst enemy.
I feel kind of all over the place and, like, my mind is very cluttered and not clear.
And I really want to have that clarity.
I really want to understand myself and be able to read my own soul and what I want.
And it's just very challenging.
And I think I'm kind of breaking down a little bit and spiraling into negativity.
I just want to feel like myself.
Like, that's it.
I don't care.
All I want is to be happy and feel like me, and I don't feel like me ever.
Okay, so that's...
Actually, in a really depressing and terrible way, it's a powerful clip because of the words that he uses.
I don't feel like myself ever.
I don't feel like myself.
Now, you hear from the abuse of this mother, I mean, obviously, all these parents that force this on the kids, they're all evil, but this woman in particular.
It's different for her because we've seen this documented.
She has documented herself psychologically abusing and brainwashing and conditioning her son to believe himself to be a girl.
We've seen this over the years.
And so you can see just how evil this woman is.
She says, I've been through it.
I know it.
No, you haven't.
Really?
You've been through that?
Your son is mutilated beyond recognition.
And he's gone through with the whole quote-unquote sex change quote-unquote gender affirmation medical, you know, the whole catalog he's gotten.
So you know what that's like, do you?
Lady?
No, you don't.
You have no idea.
No, because you were able to go through childhood and then early adulthood as yourself.
Okay, you didn't have this false identity Imposed on you.
So you have no idea what that's like.
And you never will know.
I don't feel like myself.
You know, that is, uh... That is as direct as we're gonna hear.
Certainly as direct as a TLC reality show will allow us to hear.
Of a trans-identified person saying, this is a mistake.
All of this was about, all this identifying as a girl, getting the surgeries and drugs, it was all about supposedly him living as his quote-unquote true self, and even after all of that he says, I don't feel like myself.
Because your self has been robbed from, has been taken from you.
And also keep in mind when you look at that clip, you know, we hear this discussion about regret after surgery, regret after transition, we hear stories of the detransitioners, And we know that this is much more common than what the powers that be will tell us.
But also remember that the people, the Trans-Atlantic people who are not in the, who do not officially count in the regret category, or the detransitioner category, many of them, and I would say a vast majority of them, are in this kind of category.
Well, they're not going to come out and say, I regret it, it was a mistake.
But it's very clear.
They're still unhappy.
It's why suicidality is, you know, highest after transition.
Still very unhappy, still in deep despair.
But what they also have, they have an intense psychological motivation themselves to not fully admit to themselves that it was a mistake, because there's no turning back.
And so if you admit that it was a mistake, then where do you go from there?
But they also have, you know, Jazz Jennings.
Has his mom, who's there, and won't allow him to consider the possibility that it was maybe a mistake.
Because if it was a mistake for him, it wasn't really his mistake, it was her mistake.
It's not that Jazz Jennings didn't make a mistake because this happened to him when he was a kid, before he could consent to it.
This is a mistake, and I say mistake in the sense that it was the wrong thing to do, not like it was done accidentally, but this was a mistake made by the mother.
The mother brainwashed this kid into doing this, and now she's going to keep that brainwashing going.
So he may never fully come to terms with what happened to him, at least as long as his disgusting wretch of a mother is still alive.
So, something to always keep in mind.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Joseph says, I'm sitting at my kitchen table with a beer, tying a batch of Adams flies.
The kids are all put to bed and my wife is sleeping soundly, listening to podcasts and almost interested in wondering why other men aren't after the same things out of life.
It is simple joys, and in fact I think, I'm glad to know it's not just me, I think that this is for many men.
The time when both wife and children are in bed, these are a sacred time for a man, for a father.
I often use that time to watch boring documentaries that no one in my family would want to watch with me.
I use it to do different things.
That also shows that even after you have kids, you have a family, you still have time to yourself.
You don't sacrifice all that, as people like to claim.
Amanda says, he ate pudding with his fingers?
If that's the worst thing that they can find, he's literally the most decent and honest politician in America.
Well, not only that, but as I tried to argue, I think you could argue that eating pudding with your fingers is a sign, it's a display of Of leadership.
You know what it is?
It is leadership in a time of crisis.
Where you have the pudding, you don't have the spoon.
Crisis.
What do you do?
How do you navigate this situation?
Do you give up?
Do you turn back and say, oh, I don't have a spoon.
I guess I can't consume this pudding.
That's what a lesser man may say.
But not Ron DeSantis.
At least that would be my spin if I was his, if he made the mistake of making me his spokesman.
Thomas says, the real culprit in the pudding scandal is a snack pack for not providing a small plastic spoon taped to the side.
And that's something I, that's also a very important point.
And if I was spokesman, I think I'd make that point too.
We're also deflecting the blame at the same time.
And you're right.
Why doesn't it come with a small spoon?
Andrea says I got to say I've eaten pudding with my fingers not as a normal thing, but I did it once
I like DeSantis a lot, and these bombshells don't alter that.
Yeah, I've never done that with pudding, but I have, I've been, in fact, recently, I'll admit that I was in a situation, we were traveling, I was in a hotel room, and I ordered Uber Eats, you know, some takeout food.
And I asked, you know, you can ask for the utensils when you order the takeaway, but they didn't bring the utensils and I didn't notice that until I got up to the room and I looked around the room and, you know, most hotel rooms don't come with utensils.
This one didn't.
So I didn't have any utensils and I didn't use my hands, but I ended up just like peeling off a piece of the styrofoam carton and kind of using that as a makeshift spoon.
And I could have gone downstairs because there was a bar there where they would have given me utensils, but I didn't feel like walking all that way, so I had to... My laziness meant that I had to innovate.
We've all been in situations like this.
Let's see, Soren says, Matt and Michael should have a debate over the existence of aliens.
He doesn't want that.
He doesn't want none of this smoke, as the kids would say, when it comes to the aliens conversation.
Laura says, I don't judge women who stay home to raise the kids, but I don't like the idea that domestic labor is predominantly the wife's responsibility.
A healthy marriage is a 50-50 split.
Well, that's completely false.
This is so common, but I always have to assume that the people who say this are not married themselves.
Certainly not in a happy marriage, if you actually think that.
No matter how you split up the domestic labor, I don't care.
But the 50-50 split thing is not how a healthy marriage operates.
Think about what you're saying.
That's a business partnership.
So, anytime someone says that, they say, healthy marriage is 50-50 split, I already know for one thing, this is the kind of person who refers to their spouse as partner.
Oh, my partner and I went out for dinner last night.
Where when they're describing their spouse, you can't even, as far as you know, they're talking about an actual business partner.
And so, yeah, 50-50 split in a business arrangement makes sense.
Uh, although even there it can cause problems.
But in a marriage it's not, because what does 50-50 mean?
It means that whatever the task is, right, you're going to do exactly 50% of it, and then you wait for your spouse to do the other 50%.
This is like, this is how my kids operate.
It's a very, it's actually a very childish and certainly self-centered, selfish way to go about it.
This is what my kids will do.
If I tell them, if I tell both, in fact just yesterday I said to both boys, go upstairs and clean the, clean the living room, upstairs, because you left your toys in the living room.
And I heard them, Up there, negotiating how much each of them would clean.
And so they started actually counting the number of things on the floor, as in, you clean that, and I'll clean this.
Because nobody wanted to clean 1% over 50%.
And so I had to tell them, stop negotiating, just get it done.
I don't care if one of you does 80%, the other does 20, just get it done.
That's what I care about.
So it's one thing for kids to operate this way, obsessed with this idea that everything has to be equal, everything has to be 50-50, but that is poison to a marriage.
What you actually do is you give 100% of yourself, and it's not going to be exactly equal because you are not equal.
Equal means the same.
When two things are equal, they are the same.
And you are not the same as your spouse.
You are two different people.
And if you're both giving 100% of yourself, then you're going to end up doing that in different ways.
And if you take one isolated part of the marriage, like, for example, who does the dishes, and you look at that on its own, isolated from everything else, then you could say that, well, this is unequal, because I do it more often than he does.
But if you look at the entirety of the marriage, And all the things that are necessary to keep the wheels moving, as long as both are giving 100%, that's when you see that things, if you want, if you want to use this phrase, things, quote, equal out.
You know, the victim mentality has become so pervasive that any and all behavior is excused.
Not only is it not your fault, you're alright just the way you are.
The reality is no one has ever gotten anywhere in life through complacency.
No success has ever been achieved through complacency.
No meaningful growth has ever occurred.
But if you just put forth some effort, it can literally make a whole world of difference.
I'm sorry, I used literally.
They forced me.
They put it in the... That's not the correct use of the word, literally.
Jordan Peterson expounds upon this in his new five-part series, Vision and Destiny, on Daily Wire+.
Here's a clip.
You're not all you could be.
And there's pain in that, and there's the necessity for a certain amount of judgment about that, and even a certain amount of exclusion, because what you are that is insufficient, in some sense, should not be allowed to propagate further.
But if it's conjoined with encouragement, it's like, yeah, you're in a rough situation there, kiddo, but, you know, here's some things about you that are virtuous and good, and they're pretty powerful, actually, and if you just...
Made those more manifest, you could dispense with a lot of this immaturity and misery, and you could expand yourself out into life, physically and psychologically, and you could start walking this pathway that makes things better, and the thing is that as soon as you start walking the pathway that makes things better, then things immediately become better.
Because your whole orientation changes, and you know, if you're in a bad place but you're escaping, that's pretty positive.
Even if it's a bad place, and you might think, well, it's still bad, but it's better.
It's like, well, that's a lot better than a bad place that's getting worse.
That's for sure, because that's hell.
Hell is a bad place that's getting worse.
Well, the fifth and final episode of Vision and Destiny is out now.
It is literally tremendous, exclusively for Daily Wire Plus members.
You gotta join now at dailywire.com/subscribe to watch Vision and Destiny.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A businessman by the name of Snehal Antani took to Twitter on Friday to recount the story
of a colleague who went to San Francisco, had the full San Francisco experience, we might say,
and didn't much enjoy it.
He tweeted, quote, A teammate visiting San Francisco for an off-site called me frantically last night.
After dinner at Fisherman's Wharf, they came back to a smashed car window and two stolen backpacks.
$10,000 in gear lost, passports gone, etc.
So a classic San Francisco welcome they received.
Though Antoni reports that this was something a little bit more sophisticated than your average smash and grab by a homeless vagrant.
He continues, quote, laptop bags were in the trunk, nothing visible from the street, a typical description of a smash and grab, yet thieves were able to find the specific car and knew to pull the rear seat down and reach into the trunk.
How?
I explained.
These aren't homeless randomly smashing windows.
These are professionals using Bluetooth scanners to find laptop bags.
And idle iPad, Bose headphones, etc.
all emit Bluetooth.
My teammate said his companion was on the phone with the police, to which I said, they don't care.
Maybe they'll show up in a few hours.
They'll likely make you go to the station.
But this happens thousands of times per week.
So now I need to include a pre-visit security brief to people traveling to San Francisco.
This is a big reason I'm hesitant to open an office in the city versus keeping a remote team and occasionally meeting up at a location to whiteboard.
And my teammates will be scarred forever.
Being robbed hits you at your core, especially when it's thousands of dollars lost.
There is no downtown recovery without an aggressive push for safety.
That's what he tweeted.
Now, scarred for life.
Maybe a slight overstatement, or maybe not.
Because for those who live in safe areas where people act like human beings and treat each other decently, and you can leave a backpack in your car without worrying about it being stolen, where in fact, and I've lived in places like this, you could leave a backpack in your car with your car unlocked and still running without anything being stolen.
Like you could run into the gas station with your car running and the windows rolled down and key in the ignition and nothing will happen.
So if you live in a place like that, the first real encounter with the culture in an urban area can be quite jarring.
So property crime can leave a scar in this sense.
It will certainly leave you, you know, more cynical than you were before.
It alters your outlook on humanity to whatever slight or not so slight degree.
And I think this can be especially difficult of an adjustment for a liberal.
You know, someone who always assumed that the hand-wringing over crime in the city was driven by racism, only to experience the crime himself and discover firsthand that not only is the problem real, but that it's reasonable and justified to be angry about it.
Property crime is extremely unpleasant for anyone, and I know this from experience, but I think this sort of person is most scarred by it.
The sort of person who shouts, hey bigots, stop assuming that just because you're in the city, you're automatically going to be the victim of crime.
And then turns around and finds that their windows have been smashed.
Now, I have no idea if the people in this case are liberal or not, but if they were, then it was a rude awakening.
And whatever their ideological persuasion, they are justified in being furious about it.
You had something stolen from you.
But not everyone agrees on that last point.
A guy named John Hamasaki, who's a San Francisco resident, responded to this tweet thread with a rather dismissive message.
He wrote, quote, Interesting.
Would getting your car window broken and some stuff stolen leave you scarred forever?
Is this what the suburbs do to you?
Shelter you from basic city life experiences so that when they happen, you're broken to the core?
I've had my window broken two times when I was living paycheck to paycheck.
It sucked financially, but it had zero impact on my sense of public safety.
I can't even imagine the world one must live in where this would be the most traumatizing incident in their life.
Again, not to say it doesn't suck, but maybe city life just isn't for you.
It's not the suburbs.
There is crime.
I'm grateful most of it is property crime instead of violent crime.
But I've always felt safe in San Francisco, even after being on the wrong side of violent crime.
Note one thing to begin with here.
He scoffs at the notion that being the victim of actual crime might be scarring for some people, yet I can guarantee that if this was a tweet thread about someone's traumatic experience with being, you know, misgendered, he would not be nearly so dismissive.
These people will only give the, hey, that's life, deal with it treatment to crime victims, right?
Crime victims are the only ones who get this kind of tough love.
They would never say it to those who are victimized by words or by pronouns they don't like.
And note another thing too, perhaps more important than that, which is that this man, who calls burglary a basic life experience, is a lawyer.
And not only is he a lawyer, but he is running for District Attorney of San Francisco.
And given his exceedingly permissive, even accepting attitude towards crime, I'd say his chances of winning the job are extremely high.
If history is any indication, at least.
Because as we've learned, the most important qualification for a DA in the city, like a city like San Francisco, is a commitment to doing absolutely nothing about crime.
And in that way, Hamasaki is well-suited for the job, I suppose.
And he's also not alone in this attitude, of course.
In fact, this story may remind you of a similar exchange involving a former actor turned full-time pothead Seth Rogen.
Last year, YouTuber Casey Neistat tweeted his experience with crime, but this was in Los Angeles.
He said, So our cars got robbed this morning because Los Angeles is a crime-riddled third-world s*** of a city, but tremendous appreciation and gratitude to the hard-working officers at the LAPD, who not only arrested the mother-effer, but they also got all of our stolen goods back.
Seth Rogen responded to that, Dude, I've lived here for over 20 years.
You're nuts.
Haha.
It's lovely here.
Don't leave anything valuable in it.
It's called living in a big city.
He continued later, quote, You could be mad, but I guess I don't personally view my car as an extension of myself, and I've never really felt violated any of the 15 or so times my car was broken into.
Once a guy accidentally left a cool knife in my car, so if it keeps happening, you might get a little treat.
So you notice a theme here.
Being a victim of crime is simply part of living life in the city.
You know, just as life in the country means fresh air, lots of space, trees, nature, friendly people who would rather help you than rob you, life in the city means stepping over hypodermic needles, smelling the stench of human feces and urine and weed everywhere, having to factor car window replacements into your monthly budget.
It seems that even the advocates of city life agree on this point, and will say so.
Like, even they will—if you associate living in the city with crime and all this kind of stuff, apparently even the people who live in the city, who advocate living in the city, will say, yeah, that's what city life is all about.
Fifteen times he's had his car broken into.
You know how many times I've had my car broken into at the age of 36?
Zero times.
But I've also never lived directly in the city.
And most of the time I've lived far outside the city.
But the only difference is that they think that the city dwellers, or even people who are just visiting, should be okay with all this.
So they'll agree that all this stuff comes with living in the city, but they think that we should just be okay with it.
It's a worthwhile trade-off, they say.
Though it's not clear what exactly you get in exchange.
You know?
Because a trade-off means you get something in exchange.
So what do you get in exchange for the filth and the crime?
Where's the upside?
Crowds?
High prices?
Traffic?
I'm seeing lots of cost in this cost-benefit analysis.
I don't really see the benefit, though.
Hamasaki would say that, you know, perhaps this means that city life isn't for me.
And on that score, at least, I completely agree.
See, we see here why the crime problem exists in the first place.
It exists because the people in charge don't see the crime problem as a problem.
It's actually very simple.
It's not even that they're too incompetent to do anything about it, though they are also incompetent, of course.
But more to the point, even if they had the competence to address the issue, they don't want to.
They don't care enough.
They have no empathy for the victims, for the prey, because they've reserved all of their pity for the predators.
This is what you have to understand if you decide to move to a big city.
You will be moving into a place that is run by people who truly do not care if you are robbed, raped, or killed.
They don't care.
In fact, they don't think you have any right to expect anything less.
You have no right to even park your car and expect that your windows will remain intact.
They don't see the safety of your person or your property as a priority, nor do they see the violation of your person or property as a problem.
And of course, you know, a DA who doesn't see crime as a problem is a bit like an oncologist who doesn't see cancer as a problem.
In fact, it's like an oncologist who sympathizes more with the cancer than with the patient.
And these are the sorts of people we've put in charge of fighting crime in our cities.
People afflicted with a cancer of their own, really, a cancer of the mind, called leftism.
And that is why all of these people, but especially today, John Hamasaki, 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 yet, you can become a member and use code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
