Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a university in Michigan holds segregated graduation ceremonies. This has become a popular trend in academia. Meanwhile, Robin DiAngelo openly advocates for segregation using the same language that Scott Adams used. Yet DiAngelo has suffered no repercussions, while Adams had his life destroyed. We'll talk about all of this. Plus, DeSantis speaks out against the possible politically motivated arrest of Donald Trump, but Trump and his supporters aren't happy with the way that he spoke out. Also, we finally have more information revealing why those cops in Uvalde sat outside the classroom while children were executed. The new revelations are even more damning. And the cast of Ted Lasso visits the White House. Why? Well we're still trying to figure that out.
- - -
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘WALSH’ at https://jasemedical.com/
PragerU - Have your tax-deductible donation TRIPLED today!
Visit http://www.PragerU.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, a university in Michigan holds segregated graduation ceremonies.
This has become a popular trend in academia.
Meanwhile, Robin DiAngelo openly advocates for segregation using the same language that Scott Adams used, yet DiAngelo has suffered no repercussions while Adams had his life destroyed.
We'll talk about all this today.
Plus, DeSantis speaks out against the possible politically motivated arrest of Donald Trump, but Trump and his supporters aren't happy with the way that DeSantis spoke out.
We finally have more information revealing why those cops in Uvalde sat outside the classroom while children were being executed.
And the new revelations are somehow even more damning.
And the cast of Ted Lasso visits the White House.
Why, exactly, were they at the White House?
Well, we're still trying to figure that out.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
As the Feds raise interest rates to combat out-of-control government spending, long-term bonds have diminished in value, crippling banks.
Depositors are holding their breath and investors are bailing on bank stocks.
Diversification has never been more important.
The recent surge in gold prices is directly tied to the extreme market volatility right now.
That's why gold has historically been a great hedge against stock market and inflation.
You can trust Birchgold Group to help you diversify into gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold.
Birchgold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k that's tied to a volatile market into an IRA and physical precious metals like gold and silver.
The best part is it's tax sheltered.
So just text WALSH to 989898 to get your free info kit on gold and to claim eligibility for your free save.
Then talk to one of their precious metals specialists.
That's WALSH to 989898 today.
Last night, somebody sent me an email that had recently gone out to students at Grand Valley State University in Michigan.
The email was meant to inform them about the five upcoming graduation celebrations, which would be held as a complement to the commencement ceremony.
Five celebrations might seem a little bit excessive.
If you've ever been to a graduation, then you know that one is already a little bit too much as it is.
But there's a reason why this school has decided to have five.
As they explained in their email, reading out says, Dear Laker graduates, Grand Valley hosts five unique graduation celebrations annually designed to honor our diverse graduates.
These programs complement the university commencement ceremonies and are an opportunity to come together and acknowledge Laker accomplishments in the spirit and traditions of our diverse identities and cultures.
And here are the five events.
It says, Asian graduation celebration, April 19th.
Black graduation celebration, April 28th.
Latino slash A slash X graduation celebration, April 28th.
Side note, no Hispanic person actually wants to be called Latinx, but rather than simply abandon that silliness entirely, this is apparently what they've settled on.
Now Latino people are Latino slash A slash X. So they've improved on Latinx, which sounded clunky and ridiculous, by coming up with an alternative that is even clunkier and more ridiculous.
Okay, back to the segregated graduations.
It says, Lavender graduation celebrating LGBTQIA plus graduates, April 20th.
Native graduation celebration, April 27th.
Side note again, there is a typo here actually, because it actually says lavender gradation.
Gradation as in a series of successive changes made by degrees or in phases over time, much like you would find on, say, a slippery slope.
So, this typo is the most insightful thing this university has produced in its entire existence, probably, even if it was by accident.
So these are the graduation celebrations, or gradation celebrations, however you want to put it, broken up by identity group.
Now, needless to say, there will be no special event for straight white people.
They will have to make do with the commencement ceremony that everybody else gets.
They're not going to get their own special event.
But Grand Valley is far from alone with their segregation policies when it comes to graduations.
This has become an increasingly common practice.
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was controversy over a segregated black graduation ceremony at the University of Chicago.
The Daily Mail had that report.
It said, quote, a leaked email obtained by University of Chicago law student Benjamin Ogilvie unmasked the previously under wraps event, with Ogilvie penning a piece for the college fix to share the email's contents.
Quote, Black Action and Public Policy Studies is hosting a graduation ceremony for all University of Chicago Black graduate students on June 1st, the email stated, according to Ogilvie.
Leaked on Tuesday, the email reportedly touted the event as the culmination of the Black student experience at the Illinois School and is already sparking heated discourse as to whether or not the event serves as segregation.
Now, a spokesperson for the school was quoted later in the article, and they did respond to a request for comment, arguing that the black graduation, though it is a ceremony being held for black people and is advertised as such, is not explicitly black only.
So that's how they get around any legal challenges.
Anyone can come if they want to, technically.
And the fact that whites won't be chased away at gunpoint, not as an official policy anyway, is supposed to make this all okay.
And yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that the University of Chicago would not allow a white graduation ceremony, even if blacks were technically allowed to attend.
The logic, as always, only goes one way.
The same applies at Harvard, where Harvard's Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging helps to organize graduation ceremonies for, quote, first-generation BGLTQ Black and Latinx students.
They've also added a special ceremony this year for Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Desi American graduates.
Columbia University, meanwhile, adds another category, That school has special ceremonies for Black, LGBTQ, Native, Latinx, and Asian graduates, just like we saw with Grand Valley.
They've also added a sixth category for low-income individuals.
Because it is, of course, important to have proper representation for all of those impoverished people who are graduating from an Ivy League school.
The low-income celebration will be very interesting because there won't be anyone there except the catering staff, I guess.
So, this is the country we live in now.
Segregation has long since made a comeback.
These policies can be put in place, they can be advocated for, and most of the time without even the slightest pushback.
That is, as long as you advocate for them from a socially acceptable angle.
So take this recent clip of white fragility author Robin DiAngelo claiming that black people need to, quote, get away from white people.
Listen.
And then I'm a big believer in affinity space and affinity work.
And I think people of color need to get away from white people and have some community with each other.
And I'll let that go and maybe see if anyone else wants to pick it up.
Yes, get away, she says.
Get away.
One racial group needs to get away from the other.
Now, if this sentiment sounds familiar, it's probably because Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, said exactly the same thing, almost verbatim, with one slight difference.
Let's listen to that again.
I would say, you know, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people.
Just get the f*** away.
Wherever you have to go, just get away.
Because there's no fixing this.
This can't be fixed.
Right?
This can't be fixed.
You just have to escape.
So it is, as I said, exactly the same idea, using almost identical language.
The difference is that Scott Adams lost everything.
His career, his reputation, distribution of his comic strip.
He had his life destroyed for saying what you just heard there.
Meanwhile, Robin DiAngelo has suffered no repercussions at all.
It's not that DiAngelo has experienced a less intense backlash or less severe professional consequences.
It's that there has been no backlash, no consequence.
And that's all because, though they both were advocating for the same thing, DiAngelo said that blacks need to get away from whites, while Adams said that whites need to get away from blacks.
This is the crucial distinction that's supposed to change everything.
According to the new rules, you can divide the races, you can segregate and separate, you can certainly call for one group to get away from another, and you can phrase it just like that.
You can pretty much say whatever you want about race relations and advocate for any sort of solution that you want, provided that you keep white people situated in their assigned place as the bad guys, the antagonists.
Here's the crucial mistake that Scott Adams made.
He implied That there may be some troubling trends within the black community that would give white people reason to be wary.
But this interferes with the hero versus villain storyline that the left has invented.
It can only ever be blacks escaping the hatred and violence of whites, never the other way around.
The idea that there may be hatred and violence against whites that they might want to escape is anathema.
Which is not to say that it's inaccurate.
But here's the important point, and this is what I think people need to understand.
This is not just a racial double standard intended to villainize white people.
I mean, it is that.
But at a deeper level, the point is that white people are not allowed to advocate for themselves as a group.
That's what this is, okay?
That's what people miss about the reaction to Scott Adams.
It's assumed that he was cancelled because he said something that paints black people in a negative light, but that's not really it.
Because the reaction would have been just as intense, or nearly as intense, if he had said that white people need to say, you know, have pride and self-esteem, or white people need to make sure they get educated, white people need to work hard and succeed.
Doesn't matter.
If he had said anything to advocate for the well-being of white people as a group, even if it had nothing to do with segregation, nothing to do with anything like that, he would still be condemned.
And if you don't believe me, then just go out in public sometime and say that white people should have larger families and reproduce more.
Now, you aren't calling for segregation.
You aren't saying anything negative about any other race.
Yet it is guaranteed to be treated just as harshly as the comments Scott Adams made, because this is what the race hustlers on the left are trying to guard against.
They want other racial groups to have a sense of community, a sense of identity and belonging within the group.
They want those groups to advocate for themselves.
They want those groups to be concerned with the flourishing of their groups.
But they stridently oppose any similar move for whites to do that as well.
Because they do not want whites to see themselves as a group.
At bottom, they don't want whites to have a racial identity.
And they will tell you this directly if you ask them.
If you ask, for example, why Black pride and brown pride are okay.
More than okay, they're actively good.
But white pride is horrendously racist?
They will inform you that whites have no real racial identity.
The category is too broad and vague.
Thus, they argue white pride must really be an expression of hatred towards non-whites.
I mean, you can't have white pride.
It doesn't make any sense, they say.
It's a group that doesn't really, it doesn't mean anything.
They will simply expect you not to notice that black and brown are categories just as broad, just as vague as white.
Doesn't matter.
Black and brown can and should have a sense of racial identity.
White must not.
I mean, that's the rule.
And it's why segregation can be promoted and instated as policy, but only to give non-whites their special spaces.
Never to do the same for whites, because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group and to give that group permission to care about its own well-being.
Now, this principle doesn't just apply to race, of course.
They do the same thing with sex, the same thing with sexual orientation.
LGBT people can have their own spaces.
They can advocate for themselves as a group.
Heterosexuals cannot.
Women can have their own spaces.
Well, they used to, anyway.
And they can advocate for themselves as a group.
Men cannot.
Ultimately, you know, the straight white male is left as the one category of person on Earth who has no category, no identity group that he's allowed to belong to or advocate for.
He must be subsumed into one of these other groups by identifying as a woman or as gay, or else he'll be left with no group.
And that's the real goal.
Of course, the goal can never be finally achieved.
That goal can't, anyway.
And in pursuing that goal, all of the nightmare scenarios you're allegedly trying to guard against are only now guaranteed to happen.
Because pendulums always swing back.
And by singling out one group as the antagonist, and insisting that all other groups are allowed to do and say things that this group is not, you are ensuring that when that group does start to coalesce, it will do so largely around a shared feeling of resentment and exclusion.
And a not baseless feeling of resentment and exclusion.
And nothing good comes from that.
Unless, of course, your goal is the destabilization of society as we know it, in which case this is a very efficient way to achieve it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
They're warning that critical antibiotics are still in extremely short supply.
We all had a good laugh when there were toilet paper shortages at the start of the pandemic.
I mean, some people laughed about it, I guess.
Then, when there was a baby formula shortage, things were not so funny anymore.
What about when there's a shortage of emergency medications?
You need to be prepared for anything, and our partners at Jace Medical are here to help with that.
A great way to start preparing is with the Jace Case, which is 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.
Your information will be reviewed by a board-certified physician, and your medication will be dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost.
The Jace case gives me peace of mind knowing that my family will have what we need if the worst happens.
And you can also find the same peace of mind by going to jacemedical.com, enter promo code WALSH to check out for a discount on your order.
That's jacemedical.com, promo code WALSH.
Okay, report from the Daily Wire.
Republican, Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis responded on Monday to reports that former President Donald Trump could be indicted this week, calling the situation a manufactured circus by a prosecutor trying to virtue signal for his base.
DeSantis' remarks come after Trump claimed over the weekend that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday.
In connection with the prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office involving an alleged hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016.
A spokesperson for Trump later said that Trump has been given no notification that there will be an arrest next week.
And in fact, we can say now that there almost certainly will not be an arrest today.
So, this was the claim that was made, there's gonna be an arrest on Tuesday, and it seems certain that that's not going to happen.
Whether there will be an arrest in the future, If at all still remains to be seen.
But Rhonda Sanders did comment on this as he was asked in a press conference and let's just watch the whole clip of what he said.
So I've seen rumors swirl, I have not seen any facts yet, and so I don't know what's going to happen.
But I do know this, the Manhattan District Attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor.
And so he, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda on society at the expense of the rule of law and public safety.
He has downgraded over 50% of the felonies to misdemeanors.
He says he doesn't want to even have jail time for the vast, vast majority of crimes.
And what we've seen in Manhattan is we've seen the crime rate go up, and we've seen citizens become less safe.
And so, you're talking about this situation with, and look, I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.
I just, I can't speak to that.
I also said that we're not involved in this.
We won't be involved in this.
I have no interest in getting involved in some type of manufactured circus by Soros, some Soros DA.
He's trying to do a political spectacle.
He's trying to virtue-signal first base.
So that was his answer.
Now, Trump did not like that answer, and especially among Trump supporters, just looking at least on Twitter anyway, it was roundly panned by not just Trump supporters, but Trump supporters in particular were very upset with what Ron Sands said, especially that bit at the end there, the little dig about not knowing, you know, he doesn't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star, which, by the way, I don't either.
I mean, I think that's a valid thing to point out.
It's like, we don't know all the particulars and what goes into that.
Trump didn't like the answer.
He thought it wasn't sufficiently passionate, I guess, and he responded.
We're reading from the Daily Wire now.
Trump said, Ron DeSanctimonious will probably find out about false accusations and fake stories sometime in the future as he gets older, wiser, and better known when he's unfairly and illegally attacked by a woman, even classmates that are underage, or possibly a man.
I'm sure he'll want to fight these misfits just like I do.
And then Trump provided in that tweet.
It wasn't a tweet, actually.
It was on his Truth Social page.
What do they call it?
A truth?
I think they refer to it as a truth.
I'm sending a truth.
Which, this is neither here nor there, but I cannot think of a worse word to turn into a verb, you know, in social media.
I'm truthing!
As if everything you happen to say on social media is automatically true.
But anyway, he accompanied that post with a picture that he has posted before of Ron DeSantis when apparently he was a teacher standing with some, at some kind of party with former students.
And there's nothing inappropriate happening in the picture.
They're literally just standing there, taking a picture.
But Trump in the past has insinuated that somehow DeSantis was involved in grooming, and then he was amplifying that charge yet again in that response.
So, I'll say a few things about this.
From what I've seen, again, on social media, which, in fairness, social media is not exactly known for a place where you get a lot of well-regulated emotions and all the rest of it.
So, I've seen people who are passionate supporters of Ron DeSantis say that this was a brilliant response, it was the best response he could possibly offer.
And then we've got passionate supporters of Donald Trump saying it's an absolute disaster, it's the worst thing you ever could have said, it destroys everything, you can't support him anymore because of it.
So I've seen both of these extreme reactions, and this is one case where I'm going to go somewhere in the middle.
Now, I will say that my first reaction to Ron DeSantis' statement was I didn't love it.
I didn't love the statement.
And I still don't.
And even though, as you know, I'm a supporter of Ron DeSantis, I'm not going to I'm a supporter, I'm not a fan.
I will never be a fan of a politician.
And the difference between a supporter and a fan, when you're a supporter, it's you have your eyes open and you support them because of the things they do or say.
If they do or say something you don't like, then you're going to speak up.
A fan is just blind and follows along with a cult of personality.
I don't do that.
And so I will say I didn't like the statement because it didn't, I think he needed to communicate It needed to be a more firm statement and he needed to take a stronger stance.
Now, in my opinion, what he said there was true.
Everything he said is true.
And the bit about this being a Soros prosecutor and this is a political stunt and all the rest of it, all that is 100% true and that's a good thing for him to point out.
But I think what a lot of people were looking for is just a stronger stance.
When you didn't get that, he said, well, I'm not going to get involved, and then throwing the little dig in about the, about, I don't know what goes into, you know, paying off a porn star.
Again, true, it's a true statement, but it was a little dig that he threw at Trump.
Which is interesting, too, because up to this point, Ron DeSantis has Essentially not directly responded to any of Trump's many, many attacks.
He has stayed entirely above the fray.
This is the one time, and it wasn't direct, it wasn't vicious, but it was the one time we saw him kind of needling Trump a little bit.
And I think it was the wrong time for that.
And usually DeSantis has good political instincts.
This was an example of not having good political instincts.
I think you just have to take a strong stand.
Now listen, I can understand Why DeSantis would not feel particularly motivated to speak up in very firm and strong words in defense of Trump.
I can understand why he wouldn't.
After all, Trump has been ruthlessly attacking him, unprovoked, for months, including implying that he's a groomer and all, throwing everything they can at this guy.
Amplifying baseless rumors, all the rest of it.
Now you've got a Trump super PAC that's going to the Florida Election Commission, like a tattletaling to the government on DeSantis, saying that he's running a shadow presidential campaign.
And yes, that's a Trump super PAC, it's not Trump himself.
But Trump also has not, he certainly hasn't spoken up against it and said, I don't agree with this.
And so while Trump's people are going to the government to try to get DeSantis in trouble, they are insisting that DeSantis speak up in defense of Trump.
So I can understand if you're from DeSantis' perspective, you see all that, and you say, screw this guy.
But from a personal perspective, I can understand that.
I can understand that feeling.
But this is one of those occasions where you have to put your personal feelings aside, as difficult as it might be.
I'm not saying I would be.
I'm not always an expert when it comes to that sort of thing, putting my personal feelings aside.
But this is one of those times when you have to do that, because there's more at stake here.
Even if they don't go through with the arrest, the fact that they're even thinking about this, the fact that they're going down this road at all, the fact that they have spent all this time and money on investigations and grand juries and everything to potentially try to put a political rival in jail, and the fact that we know they're only doing it because it's Donald Trump, if Donald Trump's name was, you know, Steve Williams or something.
If his name was just, if he had some, any other name, a random name you never heard of.
Alvin Bragg and, you know, the Attorney General's office, or rather the DA in New York, they're not doing any of this.
We know that.
And I don't think anyone would deny that.
So they're specifically doing it because it's Trump.
And because he is, they perceive, their number one political enemy.
If they are able to go through with this, and they're able to do it especially without serious backlash and opposition, then we have entered a new era in American politics, and it's not a good one.
It's very troubling to say the absolute least.
And so this is one of those times where you put all the personal feelings aside, you stand up forcefully.
Because it's the right thing to do.
And also, it's politically smart, right?
On top of being the right thing to do, to speak up very forcefully against this and put all the personal jabs and everything aside for this, not only is it the right thing to do for the country, but it's also one of those times when the right thing to do also happens to be the politically smart thing to do.
And that's not always the case.
This is one of those times when it is.
It's politically smart, you know?
For Trump, really, it's like a power move, actually, for DeSantis to speak up in defense of Trump.
Even after Trump has been going after him, to continue to ignore those attacks and say, I'm just doing the right thing in my position that I have, I think it's also kind of a power move, where Trump now has to turn to DeSantis for help, or at least for advocacy on his behalf.
I don't think it's, it's not the end of the world for DeSantis by any means, as some people are painting it.
I think that's ridiculous, but I do think that going forward, The right thing and also the smart thing politically, both of those things together, is to forcefully oppose this in whatever manner you can legally, and to not allow any personal squabbles to make it into this.
Would Trump return the favor if the situation was reversed?
The situation was exactly reversed.
Would Trump speak up for DeSantis and try to help him in any way?
I tend very much to doubt it.
But again, that's something you have to put aside.
And that's also leadership.
Being able to put your personal feelings aside is an important element of good leadership.
All right.
Let's see.
This is from Texas Tribune.
A very important update.
I'm just going to read some of this here.
Once they saw a torrent of bullets tear through a classroom wall and metal door, the first police officers in the hallway of Robb Elementary School concluded they were outgunned and that they could die.
The gunmen had an AR-15, a rifle design used by U.S.
soldiers in every conflict since Vietnam.
Its bullets flew towards the officers at three times the speed of sound and could have pierced their body armor like a hole punched through paper.
They grazed two officers in the head and the group retreated.
Uvalde Police Department Sergeant Daniel Coronado stepped outside breathing heavily and got on his radio to warn the
others I have a male subject with an AR
Coronado said the dispatch crackled on the radio of another officer on the opposite side of the building
F word that officer said AR, another exclaimed, alerting others nearby.
Almost a year after Texas's deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there's still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders, and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly.
People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary.
But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason.
They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door.
Uvalde Police Department Sergeant Donald Page says, You know that it was definitely an AR.
There was no way of going in.
We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to it.
A Texas Tribune investigation based on police body cameras, emergency communications, and interviews with investigators that have not been made public found officers had concluded that immediately Confronting the gunman would be too dangerous.
Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team with more protective body armor, stronger shields, and more tactical training, even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away.
And then it continues, that hesitation to confront the gun allowed the gunman to terrorize students and teachers in two classrooms for more than an hour without interference from police.
It delayed medical care for more than two dozen gunshot victims, including three who were still alive when the Border Patrol team finally ended the shooting, but who later died.
So this is the update we're finally getting a year later.
As it says in the article, there was always this question of, how is it that you had all of these police officers who were on the scene, and yet this shooting was allowed to continue for an hour?
And an hour for a mass shooting is, I mean, it may as well be a decade.
It's an unfathomably long time for this to be allowed to continue, especially when there
are, it's not like this was happening out in the wilderness somewhere, it took them
this long to get there.
They were right there within moments, and yet they allowed this to continue.
And why is that?
And what we were originally told, if you recall, is that they couldn't get through the door.
In fact, there was a story originally about how there was a reinforced steel door or something and they couldn't figure out how to get through and they were waiting for a key and all this kind of stuff.
And to me and to so many other people when we originally heard that, even without having all the facts, that just didn't ring true.
It's like, are you telling me that...
You got all these police officers there, and you don't know how to get through a door?
You don't have the ability to get through a door somehow?
Are there actually doors in this school that even the police can't get through?
That seems like really bad planning.
All that stuff about the door, apparently, was total nonsense.
Because the Uvalde Police Department, immediately after this all happened, and people started asking questions about how it was allowed to happen for an hour, they started lying to the public.
And they came up with one excuse after another, and it's not until right now that we're told that, oh, well, they were afraid of the type of gun that was being used.
And it could pierce their body armor, and they were afraid for their own safety.
That's what this was.
Now, the left is seizing on this to blame the gun, you know, the AR, and basically let the cops off the hook.
You're never going to hear these people trying to let the cops off the hook in any other circumstance, including in many circumstances where they're trying to put the cops on the hook, sometimes perhaps literally, and when the cop didn't do anything wrong.
In this case, you have an absolute inexcusable failure by police and a just Unimaginable amount of cowardice.
And what the left wants to say is, well, you see, it was the AR.
We've got to get the ARs off the street.
But this, no, this information only indicts the cops further.
Because they lied about not being able to get through the door.
That was BS.
And what we know now is that they were simply scared.
They were scared for their own safety.
And so they made the business decision that they were going to allow children to die so that, you know, they were not put in harm's way themselves.
Now, these cops were worried about, well, our body armor may not withstand.
What about the kids in the room?
You despicable, disgusting cowards.
Did they have body armor that would withstand the bullets?
No, no, the kids in the room, they didn't have body armor.
They also didn't have ARs themselves to shoot back like you did.
They were not trained law enforcement officers.
They were just sitting there as victims waiting to be executed, which so many of them were.
But you're more worried about yourself and your own safety.
And this is, there's no excuse for it.
This is shameful, disgraceful, cowardice.
Every single one of these cops should be sitting in prison, but none of them will.
Because as it turns out, you know, the way the laws are written, they don't have any actual legal obligation to do anything, and that needs to change also.
Is it easy for me to say, sitting here in the safety of this studio, you know, when I don't have to run in to gunfire, I don't have to run in and face a crazed psychopath shooting an AR in my direction?
Yeah, it's easy for me to say.
Doesn't make it wrong, though.
Doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.
I also didn't sign up for that job.
See, it's a thing.
You sign up for the job if you're not willing... I get it.
It could be a very scary job.
I can only imagine.
Running into a school shooting situation, a mass shooting situation, anywhere.
It's got to be very scary.
But you realize that these things happen.
You're becoming a law enforcement officer.
If you're not willing to do it, if you're not willing to put yourself in harm's way, and if you're not willing to risk your own life, then don't take the job.
And the fact that they weren't willing to do it makes you ask questions about, well, what are you in the job for?
You can't claim that you're doing the job because you just have this unabiding desire to help people and you're some kind of hero.
That's clearly not the case.
So what the hell are you doing the job for?
This is not one of those, well, you're putting your life on the line to serve the community.
You clearly are not interested in doing that.
So why do you have the job?
Now in their case, we have to suspect that they have the job, what, because they want the benefits and maybe because for them it is power.
You know, they're more interested in having power over people than they are in serving people.
I don't think that's the case by any means for all police officers.
I mean, to make any blanket statement about why an entire group of people take on a certain job would be absurd.
And I do think that there are police officers, certainly plenty of them, who take on the job because they want to serve their communities and they want to help people.
But for these cops, when the rubber hit the road, they were not there to protect and serve.
They were more worried about themselves.
As a police officer, it doesn't work if we're saying to police officers, That their own physical safety can be their top priority.
And what we find in that, in Uvalde, is that for them, as they were in that school, their own physical safety was the top priority.
But that doesn't work.
It can't be.
If your own physical safety is your top priority, don't take that job.
Let someone else do it.
There are plenty of jobs and plenty of things you can do in life where you can prioritize your own safety above anything and, you know, it won't cause a problem.
With a cop, it just can't be that way.
All right, so from the Daily Wire, the White House press briefing room erupted on Monday after a reporter from an Africa-focused outlet accused Press Secretary Karine, I'm sorry, Karen Jean Pear, I can't believe I almost said it correctly, of making a mockery of the First Amendment.
Jean Pear stepped to the briefing room podium, followed by the cast of the Apple TV series Ted Lasso, who was visiting the White House to meet with President Joe Biden about mental health awareness.
Soon after taking the stage, Jean Pear was pelted with accusations of discrimination from Today News Africa correspondent Simon Atiba.
Jean-Pierre tried to hush the reporter saying, we're not doing this.
She told him repeatedly, but he kept pressing.
I think we have that footage.
Let's watch that.
Yeah, right, right.
You're here for me.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That's not, we're not doing this.
We're not doing this.
You've been discriminating against me and discriminating against some people in the briefing room.
And I'm saying that this is the U.S., this is not China, this is not Russia.
This is not Russia.
What you are doing, you are making a monkey of the President.
It's been seven months, you've not called on me.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
--fun times.
Welcome, guys.
Welcome.
Welcome to the press briefing room.
OK.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Sir, let it go.
Are we gonna behave?
While many folks... Alright, so he's apparently... I guess he's upset that he hasn't been... I don't know all the details behind his particular gripe, but apparently, from what I could tell, he's upset that he hasn't been called on in seven months, which seems fair to me.
I mean, you've been sitting there for seven months and they won't ask you a question.
So, I'm on his side.
Well, I'm automatically on his side because he's annoying Karen Jean Perry.
So, automatically, I sympathize with him, no matter what his gripe is.
And I especially sympathize because this White House is a total joke and a farce and an embarrassment to us all, which is evidenced by that image of the White House press briefing and the cast of Ted Lasso is standing in the background, with everything going on in the world.
Even this White House, I mean, they tell us all the time that we're facing a crisis from all these different directions.
The world's about to end because of climate change.
Russia is on the verge of taking over the world.
I mean, this is what they tell us.
And you have time to bring in the cast of Ted Lasso at the White House?
And they're there to advocate for mental health?
Why are they experts on mental health?
What, because they make a feel-good TV show?
And so that makes them experts on mental health?
I mean, these are the people that are all about credentialism, usually.
There it is, the image.
So usually, all we ever hear is credentialism from the left or from Democrats.
Well, what are your credentials?
Where did you go to school to become an expert in this?
And then they turn to the cast of Ted Lasso.
To be mental health experts at the White House.
I'll tell you something to these guys.
If you want, for one thing, if you want to help everyone's mental health, then make a better TV show.
How about that?
Okay, your TV show is... So that hurts my mental health.
I tried to watch Ted Lasso and it deeply damaged my mental health because the show was terrible.
And it was made even worse because it made me lose faith in humanity just a little bit more.
Because all of these people were saying, you gotta watch Ted Lasso.
It's a great, it's amazing, incredible show.
It wasn't just like, oh, it's mildly amusing.
People said it was a great show.
And so I sat down with my wife and I said, it's everyone saying it's a great show, including people that I used to trust and respect.
We sat down to watch it, and it was kind of charming for maybe a total of about 47 minutes of runtime.
And then from then on out, it was terrible.
And I'm watching it, and we actually watched I didn't watch every episode, but I saw enough because I'm sitting there like almost like in slack-jawed amazement.
It's like, this is, everyone likes this show?
This is awful.
It's just, it's trite, it's syrupy, corny, like over the top, and then also you get into the character motivations don't make any sense.
It's one of those shows where they, here's what happened with the show, they had an idea for a skit, like a kind of amusing skit.
It would have been a good skit for four and a half minutes, but now they're trying to stretch it into multiple seasons of a series, and they ran out of material very quickly.
And that's how you end up with one of these shows where the...
You know, some of the characters, their personalities change out of nowhere.
It's not even character development where there are gradual changes, but just like out of nowhere, they become the opposite of what they were in the last episode.
Because the writers just need the characters to do whatever is needed in this particular moment to get through the episode.
And they need the characters to assume whatever motivation works for this particular plot line.
It's not necessarily cohesive with the whole.
So it's one of those shows.
Just really a bad show and it hurt my own, my mental health suffered because of it.
And so if I was in that White House press briefing room, I would want to hold them accountable for that.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
Well, the good news is that there's something you can do to help get the country back on track.
PragerU is an educational nonprofit that is fighting with us to save the future of America.
Five million times a day, the videos are watched.
PragerU videos spread messages of liberty, economic freedom, and Judeo-Christian values to the next generation.
There truly is hope for America, but only if we reach more young people.
And PragerU is doing that every day, but they need your help to really achieve their goals.
Go to PragerU.com, make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give right now will be matched and have triple the impact.
So donate $10, it triples to $30.
Give $50, it becomes $150.
This is the kind of math I can do.
You get the idea.
Go to PragerU.com, make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give will be tripled today.
Quick update for you in the never-ending battle with my wife over the giant stuffed walrus.
We reached an impasse yet again.
Last night, I'm afraid to say, she threatened physical violence against Johnny, threatening to cut it into pieces and throw it in the garbage while I'm at work.
And that's what she said, and I don't know what else to do.
I've already compromised.
I brought the giant life-size Walrus home.
I thought it'd be a source of joy for everybody.
We put it initially in the living room as a conversation piece.
I think it makes for good conversation anyway.
But for some reason, she didn't like it there.
And so I actually compromised.
You have to compromise in a marriage.
And so I compromised and I moved it.
Which, by the way, moving this damn thing is not easy.
That's a Herculean feat all on its own.
I moved this thing into the boys' bedroom, the two older boys, and I did this to keep it safe.
Because, frankly, I don't trust my stuffed walrus around my wife, and that is a difficult thing for me to even say out loud.
Like, what do you do when you get to a point in your marriage where you don't trust your stuffed walrus around your spouse anymore?
And so, I said, well, I gotta protect Johnny.
And I thought this would also be a wake-up call for my wife, that she would realize that I felt so unsafe with this walrus around her that, you know, I had to move it into a different room.
But instead, it's not good enough because now she says, well, it's taking up half of the boys' room and they don't even have room for a dresser in their room because of the walrus.
And so now their clothes are all over the floor because there's no room for anything else.
They can't even open the closet because the walrus is there.
Which is true, but my point is that even if they had a dresser and they had access to their closet, they still wouldn't use it.
Okay?
These are young boys.
I was one at one time.
Clothes are going all over the floor anyway, so just forget about it.
Forget your dreams about, well, they can't open their closet to hang their clothes up.
You think a nine and six-year-old boy are gonna hang their clothes up?
No, it's going all over the floor anyway, so they might as well have the walrus in there.
This is my point.
And uh, but then it just it came to an impasse and she's she's like trying to set Ultimatums for the Walrus, and I don't know where to go from here.
I will say, this is my one note on this, is that I will admit that she has offered a third solution, which is to bring the Walrus all the way down to my office that we just finished remodeling and building out recently.
And there is room in my office for the Walrus, but I have said no to that because there's a certain aesthetic I'm going for in the office, in my office, and the Walrus doesn't work for that aesthetic.
So it's gotta be somewhere else, in someone else's room or in the main family room.
And I'm realizing now that I shouldn't have admitted that out loud because I think all the sympathy that I've built up is probably now going to evaporate when you realize that there is an area of the house where she would want the walrus, but I'm saying no to that.
But you have to, you know, forget I said that.
The point is, I'm doing everything I can to protect Johnny.
All right, let's see.
Kat says, I hate the 50-50 split mentality.
If a wife is at home all day and the man is away at work, then why shouldn't she take care of 80-90% of the housework?
Does her husband expect her to take care of 50% of his job?
Well, exactly right.
And she should also take care of 80-90% of the stuffed walrus maintenance as well.
Another point that I've made.
Schizo says, I think people wore the masks out of fear of psychopaths freaking out on them in public.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of motivations.
Part of it was that, the social shame.
Some of it was just pure obedience to authority.
Some of it was paranoia over the germs and all the rest of it.
So there was a lot that went into it.
But as I said yesterday, you know, I almost would prefer to think that the The near 100% obedience that I observed in many circumstances for masking was driven by paranoia over germs instead of just people sort of blindly obeying authority, which I think is what a lot of it was.
Sean says, never has the establishment been terrified by someone more than Donald Trump, which is exactly why he needs to win in 2024.
Yeah, I would love to hear you explain why you think that.
I'm not exactly sure that that is the case, that the establishment is afraid of Donald Trump.
It seems to, all evidence seems to suggest that they very much want Donald Trump to be
in the conversation.
They want him to be the nominee because they think they can beat him in the general election.
Now, if you disagree that they can beat him in general election, that's one thing, but
they obviously think they can beat him.
And this is not all speculation on my end, by the way.
This is actually true that in the 22 midterms, Democrats were funding and supporting some
of Trump's preferred candidates in the primaries because they wanted to run against them in
the general election.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Because they thought they could beat them.
And in many of those cases, they did beat them.
So, that is also something to take into account here.
Alex says, Matt, since it's the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, I'm curious where you stand on the war and where you stood when it started.
Well, where I stand on it now is that it was an unmitigated disaster, which we launched on false pretenses and which did absolutely nothing to make us safer and had the opposite effect.
So I stand where most people stand now.
I mean, you very rarely hear anyone.
I'm not sure I've heard anyone, period, in years defend the Iraq invasion.
Where did I stand on it at the time?
Well, I will admit I was in favor of it at the time, but I was also 16 years old, like as a junior or sophomore in high school when it happened.
And so I can remember, I can remember being being duped and fooled by the rhetoric and the reasoning that was being given to us by the establishment for the Iraq war.
But again, 16 years old, so I think that that Can perhaps be excused.
And finally, OBN says, wow, actually not trolling here, good marriage advice.
50-50 poisons marriages.
Exactly at the end of the day, it's that it works and you're both happy.
Not some, I did this so you have to crap.
It's both of your lives, better each other.
Yeah, the other problem with a 50-50, well not really the other problem, but just to flesh out this idea.
It's the same problem we've been talking about.
When you have the 50-50 strategy, in order to make it exactly 50-50, it requires scorekeeping.
It requires this, maybe not actual, literal scorekeeping on a scoreboard somewhere in the house, You know, most marriages don't get to that point.
Maybe some do, though.
But it becomes a mental score-keeping thing where both of you are scoring yourselves because you have this image of, like, I have to do half and she does half.
And one of the problems there is that you're going to score yourself differently than your spouse scores you.
So, you're going to give yourself a certain number of points to get to that 50, but it's almost guaranteed that your spouse is not going to assign you the same number of points as you have assigned yourself.
And so, that becomes the battle of, well, I did 50%, you did 50%, you know, but each spouse is going to claim, well, I actually have done 75%.
You're struggling to do 25%.
It's just constant scorekeeping.
It's competition.
Competitiveness has no place in a marriage.
As I've said, if there's any place for it, if you need an outlet for competition in a marriage, that's what board games are for.
And board games can get very intense, and that's okay.
I know they do with my wife.
But when it comes to day-to-day living in your marriage, there should be no place for competition.
You know, some recent and very alarming statistics show that more than a third of millennials approve of communism.
It's either because they don't know actual history or they believe that it wasn't communism because real communism hasn't been tried, as they say, but it has been tried.
And if you watch the first two episodes of the new Daily Wire Plus series called What We Saw Cold War, you'll see just how horrific it really was when it was tried, in fact.
Here's a clip from Cold War.
Check it out.
Russia was cluttered with dots marking each of these places, which looked like ants scurrying across the map of the world's largest country.
423 of these dots would eventually be built, and here's what they would be called.
In Wikipedia, the Russian is gulag.
It means main administration camps.
It's an acronym.
That acronym for the series of what were called Main Administration Camps, the Gulag, was strung out like an island chain in what one of their residents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, would refer to as the Gulag Archipelago.
One of these dots, just one, was located in Kolyma.
Nobody knows how many people actually died in the gold mines of Colima.
All agree that in wintertime, the temperature in and around the camp was the only place where, by coincidence, both Fahrenheit and Celsius scales happened to converge, and that is at 40 degrees below zero for each of them.
Initial estimates of 3 million people killed at Colima alone were no doubt too high.
The lowest well-researched figure is about 500,000.
And the actual total, most likely, was around 800,000 human souls.
Now that means that Colima is almost certainly tied for second place with Treblinka at 800,000 dead on the leaderboard from hell.
It's unlikely, but it's entirely possible.
That the total death in this worst single island of the 423 islands in the Gulag Archipelago exceeded the 1.1 to 1.6 million people killed at Auschwitz.
No one's ever heard of Kolyma, because unlike with Auschwitz and Treblinka and Belzec and Sobibor, there are no pictures that survive from these death camps.
In Cold War, storyteller and writer Bill Whittle will take you back to the beginning, just after World War II, when the struggle between communism and freedom began.
It's actual history where verifiable facts come to life.
Cold War comes out today, and we're making the first episode available for everyone to see, so go to dailywire.com slash coldwar now to watch it.
If you want to keep watching, you'll have to become a member, so go to dailywire.com slash coldwar today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, the last time I brought up this subject, it resulted in a two-week news cycle about translucent mermaids, so we'll try to beat that record this time around.
Halle Bailey, who I have to keep being reminded is a person completely distinct from Halle Berry, has been doing the media rounds in preparation for the release of the live-action Little Mermaid, which I think comes out soon, in which Bailey plays the race-swapped version of the titular character.
But there will be other adjustments and edits made this time around, we're being told, as Uproxx reports, quote, Halle Bailey has a monster year in store.
Her leading turn as Ariel in Disney's The Little Mermaid live remake is out in May, but her Ariel doll is already in demand.
Bailey is also set to star as Nettie in The Color Purple in December, and she talked about the weight of both roles as the cover star of edition modern luxuries.
Edition Modern Luxury.
That's the whole magazine.
Anyway.
Edition Modern Luxury's March issue.
In the accompanying cover story, Bailey explained how 2023's The Little Mermaid left behind the original version's shades of sexism.
Quote, I'm really excited for my version of the film because we've definitely changed that perspective of just her wanting to leave the ocean for a boy.
It's way bigger than that.
It's about herself, her purpose, her freedom, her life, and what she wants.
As women, we are amazing.
We are independent.
We are modern.
We are everything and above.
And I'm glad that Disney is updating some of these themes.
Bailey has transparently talked about the horrifically racist backlash she's been subjected to since her casting in 2019.
She did so again with addition, "Seeing the world's reaction to it was definitely a shock,
but seeing all the babies' reaction, all the brown and black young girls, really tore me up
emotionally. It's honestly been such a crazy ride, and I genuinely feel shocked and honored and
grateful to be in this position. A lot of times I have to pinch myself and be like, 'Is this real
life?'" Now, you should know that the claim of horrifically racist backlash is supported
with a link to an article from the same website a few years ago, also claiming that there was
racist backlash, but neither the original article nor this new one ever specifically
cite any example of racist backlash.
This is a trend that holds true for almost any article or media report about racist backlash against this film or racist backlash against any other film.
You'll hear about the backlash.
You can read stories about the backlash.
The actors in the film will speak out bravely against the backlash.
People will denounce the backlash.
But nobody will ever show you the backlash.
You never actually see where this backlash is happening.
Because it's mostly fictional.
The racist backlash against the Black Mermaid is as fictional as the mermaid herself.
In truth, very few people have actually complained that the mermaid is black, and the few who have mentioned the race, like myself for example, I've mentioned it, have made points that can't be reasonably construed as racist by any thinking person, which is why they won't provide any examples of what we're actually saying.
So, in my case, just to review, I am opposed, in general, to these DEI race swaps of classic characters for two reasons.
One, back to the theme of double standards, if it went the other way, every single one of these media outlets would be condemning it as racial appropriation.
All of them.
And we all know they would.
Okay, I happen to believe in holding these people to their own standard, which means that since they would complain about black characters being made white, we should call them out for making white characters black.
This is not our standard, but theirs.
If so-called whitewashing is a problem, then so is blackwashing.
You don't get to make up different rules, or at least if you do, we're going to call you out on it.
That's it.
Two, there is an obvious point behind the race swaps.
It's not a matter of them simply hiring the actor who happens to have the best audition.
To return to an example I've used before, Morgan Freeman's character in Shawshank Redemption was written to be a white Irish guy, hence the name Red.
But nobody ever complained that they made him black.
Most don't even know that the character was supposed to be white because they didn't make him black for the sake of him being black.
They made him black because Morgan Freeman was made for that role and it's impossible to imagine anyone else playing it.
That's the kind of race swapping that no one has a problem with or should have a problem with.
But it's different these days, because now they specifically look for a non-white actor to take these traditionally white roles.
This is an actual targeted and intentional campaign to minimize the number of white characters on screen.
There's no question that they're doing this.
They'll tell you that they're doing it.
And given those intentions, I object.
I think it's a bad thing to intentionally erase white people from films by erasing white characters.
I don't think you should do that.
And it gets worse the more they do it.
The latest now is the new Peter Pan film, where both Peter Pan and Tinkerbell have been made non-white, and then a few of the Lost Boys have been made into girls as well.
Again, none of this is happenstance as a result of casting the best actors for the roles.
If it was, then who cares?
It was a decision made ahead of time.
To find someone who is not white to portray these traditionally white characters.
Now, of course, they celebrate the race swaps.
They speak tearfully about what it means for, quote, black and brown children to be, quote, represented by yet another white character turned black.
But if you dare suggest that white children will feel less represented, you'll be mocked and screamed at and accused of making a big deal out of the thing that they themselves are insisting is a big deal.
I mean, they're crying about how great it is.
And then if you say, you know, I'm not sure that I really agree.
Why are you making such a big deal about this?
That's the game here.
They erase the white characters.
They applaud themselves loudly for doing it.
But if you notice what they're doing and you say even one word about it, you're petty and ridiculous and also, of course, racist.
No matter what you say.
Indeed, this very segment is guaranteed to end up reported by left-wing media outlets with a headline like, Matt Walsh goes on crazed racist rant about Little Mermaid.
There's no way of discussing the very open, very clear, very intentional agenda of minimizing white representation on screen without automatically being accused of petty bigotry.
This is how they rig things.
The ultimate crime, according to the left, is the crime of noticing.
They do things, they do these things loudly and proudly, but you cannot notice that they are doing the things.
To simply notice it is to commit a grave sin of some kind.
But of course, with these woke remakes, it's not just about adjusting the racial makeup of the characters, it's also about updating the themes, as Bailey says.
In this case, they're going to correct some of the sexism, quote-unquote, of the original by ensuring that the mermaid leaves the ocean not to chase some dude, but to pursue her own personal fulfillment.
After all, Bailey clarifies, women are all amazing, and they're independent, and they're modern.
And she's right about that last point, at least.
I mean, all women living today are modern in the sense that they are living today, Not much of an achievement, though.
I mean, being born at this point in the chronology of human events is not in itself a virtue.
Nor does it automatically make you right, or does it vindicate your value systems just because it happens to be the thing that's happening right now.
Now, this is a fact that comes as news to progressives, as chronological snobbery is a characteristic inherent to progressivism.
I mean, it's right there in the name of the ideology.
Recently, we've discussed the growing scourge In the publishing world called sensitivity readers.
And these are the woke hall monitors who are paid to read old books, sometimes new books too, and make updates to the author's language and themes so that they reflect leftist values.
And often these updates are made without the author's consent because often the author is dead and cannot consent.
And this is essentially what Disney is doing with its own catalog right now.
I wouldn't be very surprised if they actually hired sensitivity viewers to watch the old cartoons and make suggestions about how best to bring them into conformity with current left-wing sensibilities.
But whatever the process they follow, this is what they're doing.
And just as the sensitivity readers are hamstrung by their inability to understand the text that they're butchering, the same goes for the woke updaters at Disney.
I mean, it's bad enough that they're cannibalizing their own intellectual property.
Worse, they don't even understand their own intellectual property.
I mean, I last watched The Little Mermaid all the way through like 30 years ago, I guess.
And even I remember that in the original version, The Little Mermaid was already motivated to leave the ocean before she met the guy.
She sang a whole song about it, didn't she?
So the girl power, I want to break free from my patriarchal father, politically correct motif, was already firmly in place in the original.
Their brilliant idea for modernizing the story, then, is just to do more of that at the expense of further minimizing the classical romance elements.
This is how they add nuance.
You know, when you always hear them talk about nuance.
Oh, we're making it more nuanced.
Well, they add nuance by removing nuance so that the characters are motivated entirely by boring self-actualization mumbo-jumbo rather than just partially being motivated by boring self-actualization mumbo-jumbo.
In fact, this is how the Left updates everything from movies to books, even buildings.
Right, for anything at all that they're updating.
It means remove the romantic elements, remove the fanciful elements, remove anything that's like beautiful, creative, unique, like take all that out and replace it with a blander, more banal, uglier version of what it already was.
This is what they're doing with our entire culture.
Which is why this Disney stuff is important, because it is just one manifestation of this larger, far-reaching campaign.
And that is why the whole campaign, not just the new Little Mermaid, is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Members Block, hope to see you there.
And if you want to join us there, you can become a member by using code WALLSHITCHECKOUT for two months free on all annual plans.
