Ep. 1135 - The Leftist Rage Mob Turns On One Of Its Own
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a leftist media personality says that she wants to be referred to as a woman, not a "person with a uterus." Now she finds herself the target of the same leftist rage mob she has often been apart of. Also, the White House condemns Uganda for its law banning homosexuality. Billy Porter and the View come up with the dumbest defense of child drag shows. CNN's chief climate alarmist issues a dire warning to the planet. And Gisele Bundcheon explains why her pursuit of "authenticity" meant she had to divorce Tom Brady.
- - -
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:
PureTalk - Get an iPhone 12 for just $12/month PLUS 50% off your first month with promo code WALSH: https://www.puretalkusa.com/landing/WALSH
Restrictions apply. See site for details.
Epic Will - Save 10% off your complete will package: https://www.epicwill.com/walsh
- - -
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 leftist media personality says that she wants to be referred to as a woman, not a person with a uterus.
Now she finds herself the target of the same leftist rage mob that she has so often been a part of herself.
A tale as old as time.
Also, the White House condemns Uganda for its law banning homosexuality.
Billy Porter and The View come up with the dumbest defense of child drag shows, though they're all dumb, of course.
CNN's chief climate alarmist issues a dire warning for the planet, and Gisele Bündchen explains why her pursuit of authenticity meant that she had to divorce Tom Brady.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
According to a recent poll, almost two-thirds of Americans do not have a will.
Death is not something anyone likes to think about, but it's important to plan for the future and ensure that your loved ones are taken care of after you pass away.
Whether you're a first-time parent, early in your career, or an empty nester, it is never too early or too late to write your will.
And with Epic Will, you can get it done in as little as five minutes for just $119.
Have you ever considered who will care for your kids when you pass away?
How about you?
Who will speak on your behalf should you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unable to make health-related decisions for yourself?
Who do you trust to handle your financial obligations if you can't?
All these questions can be some of the hardest questions we face in life, and Epic Will is here to help you through every step of the process.
Epic Will's team of estate planning attorneys has done all the legal legwork so that you don't have to.
All you have to do is fill out their step-by-step form, and they'll help you create your last will and testament.
Living will, health care, and financial power of attorney.
All that can be done.
Don't put it off any longer.
Two-thirds of Americans do not have a will.
Choose to be in the smarter third of Americans who do.
Go to epicwill.com slash Walsh to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
That's epicwill.com slash Walsh.
Well, we have grown accustomed to the sight of deranged pitchfork mobs descending upon someone and ripping them to shreds for, you know, engaging in the crime of wrong-think.
But this feeding frenzy, this orgy of outrage, always takes on added intensity.
When the target is a member of the mob itself.
As we've learned, there is no fury like a pitchfork mob scorned by one of its own.
And we learned this lesson yet again yesterday when leftist internet personality Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks had a very brief moment of sanity.
And there is nothing the left punishes quicker or more severely than sanity.
So Kasparian tweeted this yesterday afternoon.
She said, I'm a woman.
Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, a birthing person, or a person who menstruates.
How do people not realize how degrading this is?
You can support the transgender community without doing this s***.
Now, every once in a while, Anna will engage in these flirtations with common sense.
The relationship never goes anywhere.
There's no commitment ever made.
They never have a first date, even.
But she'll bat her eyes at common sense from across the room and maybe wave in its general direction.
And sometimes her own side will let her get away with it.
They'll forgive and look the other way and forget about these, you know, dalliances.
But not on this issue.
Because if there is one absolutely unbending, unyielding rule on the left is that you may never say anything, even vaguely sensible, on the subject of gender.
I mean, really, you can't say anything vaguely sensible on any subject, but in particular on this subject.
And so it was inevitable that Anna would wind up trending on Twitter, which she did, because thousands of leftist hyenas were pouncing on her, which they did.
Here's just a very quick survey of the responses she received.
So I'll read through just a few of them.
Oh, not you too.
I had real hopes for this one.
What a shame you've fallen for the faux outrage.
Another one says, I prefer my feminism to include everyone.
My womanhood isn't threatened by the existence of non-binary or trans people.
Why is yours?
Another says, actually, I actually thought you were one of the good ones, but clearly I was wrong.
Buying into the transphobic hysteria and spreading more ignorance and hate to a minority going through absolute hell right now.
Shameful.
Another says, as a person without a uterus, I am so offended by this.
Be grateful you have one, Anna, or give it to someone else.
Another says, Anna, that might be one of the most TERF things you could ever say.
Just saying.
Another, this is a crazy thing to tweet right now.
Person with a uterus is a term used to include trans men who are not women in conversations about things like menstruation and pregnancy.
I can't imagine what compelled you to tweet this, but you need to take it down.
Another says, unblocking you to tell you you're a piece of shit for joining this transphobic mass hysteria while being silent about anti-trans legislation.
How does a very small niche of people using terms like birthing person to include trans men and non-binary people invalidate you?
Get a grip!
Another says, it's degrading to refer to me as a person is a silly take and using the necessary language to include and support trans men in legislation and medicine is in fact necessary to supporting the trans community.
Another says, I'm a person who menstruates, who has a uterus, and who has had to flee my state to have an abortion.
I'm not a woman, and excluding trans people like me from the conversation further marginalizes us.
It hurts no one to be inclusive.
And then, I'm so f***ing sick of cis people.
I can count the ones I trust on one hand.
How do cis people keep making our genocide about their feelings?
And yes, I am subtweeting Anna Kasparian and her heel-turned h***.
And then finally, oh f**k off with this stupid made up s**t. Trans folks are having their existence criminalized in state after state and you want to whine about this s**t?
In other words, the left wasn't happy.
Not that they're ever happy about anything, really.
And in a certain way, you can sort of understand why they felt betrayed.
After all, this is Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks, star of such YouTube videos as Hill Hosts Obliterates Transphobic Co-hosts on Deadnaming Trans People.
And insane Republican monsters are trying to destroy the trans community.
And then J.K.
Rowling is being transphobic again In fact, just for fun, let's take a brief listen to that last clip about JK Rowling.
Here it is.
JK Rowling is in the hot seat yet again for weighing in on transgender issues.
This time in the context of rape and how some countries have decided to honor the gender
identity of people who are transgender.
Now, she tweeted this, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
The penis individual who raped you is a woman.
The paranoia is in fact stemming from a recent law in Scotland, which allows trans people to self-identify as male or female in the Scottish census, even if it differs from their gender at birth.
Now police have been criticized for saying they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker identifies as a female, even if they have not legally changed their gender.
So apparently this is what has gotten her very upset.
And I just, I just, I don't get it.
She doesn't get it.
She just doesn't get it.
She doesn't get why J.K.
Rowling wouldn't want male rapists to be housed in female prisons.
She doesn't get it.
She doesn't get why J.K.
Rowling believes that male rapists are men and should be housed with men no matter how they self-identify.
She doesn't get it.
But she doesn't get it, but she's sure that J.K.
Rowling is being transphobic.
Whatever's going on, it's definitely that.
Indeed, everyone on the right, or rather to the right of her, because J.K.
Rowling is not on the right, everyone to the right of her on this issue is transphobic.
She has made that very clear many times.
Calling people transphobic is one of her favorite pastimes.
And now the transphobic shoe is on the other foot.
So let me see if I can break this down a little bit and help Anna understand what's happening to her.
Let me see if I can mansplain this a little bit.
And I know she watches a lot of my content, so I'm sure that she'll see this and perhaps respond by calling me a transphobe, as is her custom.
So, here's the issue, Anna.
I'm going to completely skip past the fact that you have yourself for years contributed to this rabid mob mentality which treats any deviation from gender ideology doctrine as a genocidal transphobia.
The people attacking you today are responding exactly as you have responded to so many others and exactly as you have encouraged people to respond.
Yes, it is annoying, isn't it, when a completely reasonable statement is met with these kinds of histrionics?
It's frustrating when people label your argument, you know, call it bigoted, call it transphobic, and believe that simply labeling it can be a substitute for actually engaging with it.
I know it's frustrating.
Happens to me all the time.
Happens to me by you, in fact.
So, yes, this is a dose of your own medicine, and it's a bitter medicine indeed.
But we aren't going to harp on that.
Instead, I want to make a point that will be more useful to you and to everyone listening to this.
You say that we can support the transgender community, quote-unquote, without engaging in the silly word games that you're, you know, rightly objecting to.
But you're wrong about that, Anna.
We cannot support the transgender community without doing those things.
We can't.
Okay?
You cannot reject a label like a person with a uterus while still supporting the trans community.
You can't.
And I'll tell you why.
Two reasons.
First, trans activists have set the terms for what qualifies as support.
Those terms are quite clear, and I know you're well aware of them.
Support for the trans community means affirmation.
And affirmation means literally to state as a fact, to assert strongly and publicly, to uphold and defend.
And this is just about the only word that these people ever use according to its dictionary definition.
In the case of this one single word, affirmation, they do mean it exactly as the dictionary defines it.
To support them means to affirm them, and to affirm them means to loudly and publicly uphold whatever assertions they make about themselves and about the world.
And it also means asserting their self-perception as fact.
There is no other version of support that they will accept.
And so it's incoherent, even oxymoronic, for you to say, I disagree with trans activists on this point, but I support them.
Because you can't support them and disagree with them at the same time.
They won't allow it.
They won't allow it.
They demand total and absolute conformity.
That is the rule.
And it is a rule that, again, you yourself have enforced many times.
Second, you do support The reality of transgenderism, meaning that you believe that transgender is a legitimate category of being and that it really is possible for a person to be trans, that is, a person can exist beyond the binary of male and female.
You believe this.
You support that idea.
And that's what you mean when you say that you support the trans community.
But if you believe that, Anna, then you have already reduced yourself to a mere person with a uterus.
The whole point of these terms is that according to gender ideology, you are simply an assemblage of body parts.
And that assemblage has no special meaning or significance, and does not point to any identity in particular.
You are a woman who just so happens to have female reproductive parts.
Okay?
And there are many other women who are just as womanly as you, and whose womanhood is just as valid as yours, but who do not have any of those parts.
A man who started identifying as a woman yesterday afternoon is just as much a woman as you.
The only difference is your uterus and your other anatomical features, which are totally meaningless.
This is the doctrine of gender ideology.
You either accept it or you don't.
But you cannot accept it.
You cannot affirm this theory of reality and then try to quibble around the edges about the terminology, especially because the terminology makes sense.
It is entirely valid if gender ideology's central claims are true.
Okay?
If gender ideology's central claims are true, then everything else they say really follows from that premise.
And you believe that those central claims are true.
Or at least you say you believe it.
See, there's no middle ground here, Anna.
I know you want to find one, but it doesn't exist.
If you want to be a woman, and if you want that word to mean something, then Rachel Levine cannot be a woman, and Dylan Mulvaney cannot be a woman, and Leah Thomas cannot be a woman, and Caitlyn Jenner cannot be a woman.
Okay?
Womanhood ain't big enough for both of you.
It's one or the other.
If they are women and you are a woman, then the word doesn't mean anything.
And the identity doesn't mean anything.
In which case, we probably should stop using it and just start calling you a vagina haver.
Because that's all you would be.
That and nothing more.
Now if you don't like that, if you don't want that, Then you must free yourself and free your mind from the mental slavery of gender ideology.
You must reject it totally in every facet.
It does not leave you any other choice.
It doesn't intend to leave you any other choice.
So, renounce that madness and come to this side.
Join the transphobes, as you have called us so many times.
We will accept your apology and welcome you as a prodigal son, or daughter in your case, because we actually know the difference.
Or you can flee back into the arms of maniacs who believe in pregnant men and think that child castration is a valid medical practice.
Those are your two options.
There are no others.
The choice is yours.
And I think I know which one you'll make.
But hope springs eternal, and the truth beckons to us all.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Don't fall for all those free phone deals from Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile.
It's just another trick to lock you into a long-term contract that could cost you a fortune every month.
Instead, get a brand new iPhone 12 from PureTalk for just $12 a month.
With PureTalk, there is no contract, no interest.
You can cancel or leave at any time.
PureTalk uses the same nationwide networks as major carriers, so you'll get the same reliable coverage you're used to.
With a range of affordable plans to choose from, you can find the perfect option for your needs.
Get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data for just $30 a month.
Switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
Their U.S.-based customer service team makes the switch really easy.
Pure Talk is so sure you're going to love your service.
They're backing it up with a 100% money-back guarantee.
Go to puretalk.com and enter promo code WALSH to save 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com, promo code WALSH.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Yes.
Okay, headline from CNN, and this is a headline that's been repeated by many other mainstream outlets, and phrased, framed almost exactly this way.
Uganda Parliament Passes Bill Criminalizing Identifying as LGBTQ Imposes Death Penalty for Some Offenses.
The article says, Ugandan lawmakers on Tuesday approved some of the world's harshest anti-gay laws, making some crimes punishable by death and imposing up to 20 years in prison for people identifying as LGBTQ.
Sorry, LGBTQ+.
The new legislation constitutes a further crackdown on LGBTQ+ people in a country where
same-sex relations were already illegal, punishable by life imprisonment.
It targets an array of activities and includes a ban on promoting and abetting homosexuality,
as well as conspiracy to engage in homosexuality, Reuters reported.
According to the bill, the death penalty may be invoked for cases involving aggravated
homosexuality, a broad term used in legislation to describe sex acts committed without consent
or under duress against children, people with mental or physical disabilities, by a serial
offender or involving incest.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
In other words, rape, okay?
Sex acts committed without consent, otherwise known as rape.
And so when you hear in the headlines that they're imposing the death penalty for homosexual acts, that's true, but what they don't often mention in the headlines, and they make you read down several paragraphs before they get to it, is that specifically it's the death penalty for rape.
Okay, for rape, for child molestation, For raping a disabled person.
That's what they're imposing the death penalty for.
All right, continues.
A person who commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality and is liable on conviction to suffer death reads the amendments which were presented by the chairperson for legal and parliamentary affairs, Robina Rwakuju.
I think I actually probably pronounced that correctly.
Rwakuju.
It's always a problem for me when a country like Uganda is in the news, because now I'm reading articles with lots of Ugandan names and it doesn't always work out well for me.
Opposition lawmaker Yusaman Baslerwa introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2023 to Parliament, saying it aims to protect our church culture, the legal, religious, and traditional family values of Ugandans from the acts that are likely to promote sexual promiscuity in this country.
This is what this lawmaker said on Tuesday.
So that's the bill.
a comprehensive and enhanced legislation to protect traditional family values, our diverse
culture, our faiths, by prohibiting any form of sexual relations between persons of the
same sex and the promotion or recognition of sexual relations between persons of the
same sex.
This is what this lawmaker said on Tuesday.
So that's the bill.
That's what they're doing in Uganda.
And you might ask yourself, well, what business is it of ours?
What laws they're passing in Uganda?
Well, the cultural colonialists in this country, who are the Democrats, are not happy about it, and they believe that it's very much our business what laws they pass in Uganda.
We already heard from the Pentagon yesterday about how LGBT rights are a core part of our foreign policy, and now here is a Karen Jean pair at the White House fleshing that out a little bit and condemning Uganda for this anti-gay law, she says.
Continue.
We have grave concerns with the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, AHA, by the Parliament of Uganda yesterday, and increasing violence targeting LGBTQI plus persons.
If the AHA is signed into law and enacted, it would impinge upon universal human rights, jeopardize progress in the fight against HIV AIDS, deter terrorism, and invest in Uganda and damage Uganda's international reputation.
The bill is one of the most extreme anti-LGBTQI plus laws in the world.
Human rights are universal.
No one should be attacked, imprisoned, or killed simply because of who they are or whom they love.
Yes, I'm sure this is a threat that means a lot to Uganda.
If you pass this bill, it will damage your international reputation.
I'm sure Uganda is very concerned about that.
And there's been a lot of talk like this from the Democrats in the White House.
And again, this is not just about Uganda.
They've made it clear.
This is why they, you know, hang pride flags from all the embassies and everything else.
That this is a, that's spreading LGBT rights.
Um, just as they used to be concerned with spreading democracy, and they still are allegedly concerned about that, but now we're adding, you know, it's what does that mean?
So it's like we're spreading, we're spreading a way of life, we're spreading democracy.
Well, what does that mean?
Well, that's the meaning of that concept and that agenda has changed slightly over the years.
Not that it was ever a good idea to go around trying to spread a way of life in countries that aren't interested in it, but now that a central part of that is LGBT rights.
Because as far as the powers that be are concerned, this is like the most important part of being a country and a democracy is protecting so-called LGBT rights.
So this is just something to keep in mind.
Whenever you hear anyone on the left condemn colonialism and talk about the dangers of colonialism and how dare, you know, white Western countries go into other countries and try to tell them how to live.
There still is colonialism happening in our world today.
But it's almost entirely, at least when it comes to Western countries, it's almost entirely by the left.
Okay?
Because everything that they say in condemning colonialism and being anti-colonialist, all of that is total nonsense.
Because they in fact believe that every country in the world should conform to their value system.
And they don't think that Uganda has any particular right to govern itself and have its own culture and its own way of life.
So that's what you're seeing there.
Also something to keep in mind whenever you hear them talk about multiculturalism and how they really believe in multiculturalism and it's so important to accept other cultures and celebrate other cultures.
I mean, that could not be more false coming from them.
Celebrate other cultures?
That's the last thing they'd ever want to do.
No, what they mean is that they want people from other cultures and they want people who look different.
They want a lot of people of different skin colors and shades and different ethnic backgrounds.
They want to bring all of them together under the umbrella of leftism.
That's what they mean by multiculturalism.
As I always say, for them, diversity and multiculturalism, their ultimate vision of diversity and multiculturalism is a whole bunch of people who look different speaking in unison and saying the same things.
That's what they mean.
Because if you're really going to celebrate other cultures, well, that's what this is.
In fact, Uganda is not an outlier.
Many cultures outside of the Western world are not at all accepting of our ideas of sexual morality and all the rest of it.
Our ideas of it.
They have very different ideas about that.
And it is, in fact, it's not just one aspect of their culture, it is a core part of their culture.
And if you can't accept that, then you're not interested in accepting other cultures.
You are a colonialist who believes that we in the West know the right way to live, and we have the correct value systems, and everyone else should adopt it.
That's what you believe.
And if that is what you believe, then at least admit it.
Just come out and say it.
And then we can start from an honest, you know, playing field.
We'd start on honest footing, at least, where everybody is saying what they actually believe.
All right, The Daily Mail has this.
Nebraska's politicians started debating a bill on Tuesday to ban surgery for transgender children and young adults after an opponent of the bill spent three weeks blocking a vote with a filibuster.
McKellar Kavanaugh, a Democrat representing an Omaha district in the state Senate, launched her obstruction after Kathleen Kauth, a Republican, I think we have a clip of her ranting about genocide.
Here it is.
The bill was introduced on January 17th and would forbid gender affirming care,
such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for those under 19.
Kavanaugh and her supporters said that the bill was harmful to transgender teenagers,
calling it genocide and vowing to slow legislation to halt in protest.
I think we have a clip of her ranting about genocide.
Here it is.
I want us to have the debate on these bills And I want us to take a vote on these bills.
And I want a record for the history of this genocide, for those who stood by it, for those who had an opportunity to change the course of history, the direction in which we are moving as a state and as a country.
I want a record.
I want the bloody hands recorded.
This is a genocide.
This is an assault on a population of people because they are different from you.
I totally agree.
With at least the first part of that.
I very much disagree with the second part about how this is a genocide, okay?
To believe that refraining from castrating children is a genocide, to believe that, if you actually believe that, then you are in fact psychotic.
You are a psychotic person who, you should be in an asylum somewhere if you really believe that.
You are not fit.
If you actually believe that it is genocidal to not castrate and sterilize a child, then you should be in a straitjacket, locked in a padded room somewhere.
You are not fit to live in human society.
You are not fit to live outside of an insane asylum.
I wouldn't want to live next to him.
I wouldn't trust you.
I wouldn't want to live in the same neighborhood as you.
I wouldn't trust my children around you.
You are a dangerous lunatic if you actually believe that.
Now, I don't think that most of these people actually believe that.
I think that they know that it's crazy, but they say it anyway because it's a talking point, which doesn't make it much better.
It doesn't make it much better.
In fact, if anything, it makes it worse.
So I don't agree with that part, because I am not a psychotic lunatic.
But the first part, she says, I want a record.
There should be a record of where people stand on this.
I totally agree.
I want it on the record, too.
I want it on the record.
Every single person who Endorsed this idea that we should sterilize and castrate children who endorsed the idea that men can get pregnant That women have penises and all the rest of it.
I want I want a record of all of that So that historians in the future can look back and And they can know who the culprits were and who was the who was responsible for introducing this madness into society and promoting it and Because historians are going to spend centuries trying to unravel this mystery about how exactly this madness gripped a hold of American society in the early 2000s.
How did it happen?
And what was the agenda behind it?
Did they really believe that stuff?
How many people believed it?
Historians are going to spend centuries.
It's going to be a mystery.
So you have to understand, we are living through right now what will later be considered a historical mystery.
That's the category this is going to belong to.
This is going to be like Roanoke, you know, when all the villagers disappear and no one knows where they are.
And for centuries afterwards, people try to figure out what happened.
Well, it's a similar sort of thing, except it's that common sense and sanity just disappeared from society.
At least from a historical perspective, that's what it's going to seem like.
It's going to seem like out of nowhere, it just evaporated.
And there was this incident of mass hysteria and lunacy.
And so, the culprits and the people responsible for that, I want them on the record.
And I want them known.
Because all of you people are going to be... Your names are going to be anathema for all of time.
I mean, you are going to be disgraced by the history books for all of time.
Speaking of people who are a disgrace is the view had Billy Porter on and Billy Porter I've never we'd never quite speak and this is also maybe a historic mystery that will have to be unraveled but How did this guy ever become a thing?
It's not exactly clear, other than the fact that he's black and flamboyantly homosexual.
And so I guess that explains it, but that's all he's really got going for him.
And he was on The View talking about drag queens and offering his defense of it.
Let's watch.
When you were here in July of 2022, we talked about how Florida Governor DeSantis had just filed a complaint against a bar called The R House that holds drag shows.
Eight months later, things have only escalated.
As we talk about it, you know, it's constant aggravation with this.
What do you make of the fact that we're still talking about this and that it's happening in other states too, not just Florida?
There's this war against trans people.
And LGBTQ plus people and people who are othered.
And cabaret people.
It's a circle of life.
Why are they doing it?
For power.
Yeah.
Everything is about power, and you could always trace it back to the money.
You say that all the time.
Yeah.
Follow the money.
You know, it's follow the money, follow the power, power at any cost.
It's very hypocritical.
You know, the leading cause of death in children are guns!
Yeah, yeah.
They're guns!
I know it's the morning and I'm not supposed to be screaming, but they're guns!
Yeah.
Not drag queen.
Not drag queen.
No.
Leave us alone.
Yes.
You know, and it just, it's a distraction.
It's a distraction on purpose.
We don't know what to pay, we don't know what to pay attention to.
You know, our justice system is convoluted.
It's hard to understand on purpose.
Let's be clear about that.
It's on purpose.
You know, it was like when we were talking, when we were talking about Roe v. Wade, that
the word codified came up.
I was like, "What is that?"
And y'all didn't do it for 50 years?
What's happening?
You know, subpoenas.
If any one of us is subpoenaed and we don't go, we end up in jail, right?
What's happening?
That's the question we all have when we look at this guy.
So a couple of things here.
First of all, I like how cabaret people, that's been added into the list.
That's been added into the list of, there's a war on cabaret people.
Is that now a category of identity that we're, we would put that in the LGBT alphabet soup?
Cabaret people.
He says the leading cause of death among children are guns, and that's not even close to true.
Not even close.
Okay?
Guns don't even, They are a fraction of what is the actual leading cause of death among children, and that would be abortion.
Okay?
That's hundreds of thousands of children killed every year through abortion.
So, not even close.
Guns are a distant, distant second place.
I mean, the whole thing is obviously a ridiculous straw man, red herring.
I mean, no one is being killed by drag queens.
No one ever said that they are.
Okay?
So is that the standard?
Anything's okay for children as long as it doesn't directly kill them?
So whatever it is, as long as they aren't killed by it on the spot, it's okay?
Well, these people, they cannot defend any of their positions because their positions are horrifying, insane nonsense, and they know, and they can't defend it.
And so, the straw man's all they have.
They have to constantly argue against points that no one is making.
Jon Stewart did the same thing.
It was a big gotcha moment.
He was interviewing someone a couple weeks ago.
Hey, drag queens aren't killing anyone!
Yeah?
Who said they are?
That's not the point, you moron.
That's not what we're saying.
We are proposing this radical idea that there can be things that are bad for kids even if they aren't killed by it.
Okay, there's things that are good for children, and then there are things that kill children, but there's a lot of room in between those two things.
It's not as though, well, as long as it's not here and killing them, then it's automatically good.
Do we really need to explain this to you, clowns?
Do you need this explained to you?
We always come back to the same question of, are you as stupid and crazy as you are pretending to be?
You just always assume that you're not, but maybe my assumption was wrong.
And then we hear that it's about the money and power.
This is all about money and power.
What money is there in telling drag queens that they can't strip for little kids?
Okay, when we tell you that you're not allowed to cross-dress and perform sexually for children, you think we make money on that?
We make money on you not sexually, you know, sexually harassing children?
Which is what You know, which is what dancing and drag for child, that's what it is.
So you think, you think we, how do we monetize that?
How do we monetize you not doing that?
Power?
Like, what additional power?
Yeah, I mean, if we stop you from sexualizing children, and we're able to successfully stop you, then that is exerting power, I suppose.
But this is not... This is power that we would never want to have to exert, because it shouldn't come up in the first place.
But no, there's no money in it.
The money, as always, is on that side.
And that's the case for all these things.
If you notice that, the financial incentive is on the other side.
There is millions and millions and millions of dollars at stake in the gender transition industry.
That is a multi-multi-multi-million dollar industry.
And you've got pharmaceutical companies wrapped up into it, medical industry, hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, therapists, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, all these people, okay?
And that's not even to mention the professional activists and the advocacy groups and all these people.
Not even mentioning that, but if you bring all that together, you've got tons of money that they're making on this.
And if this stuff is outlawed, and if we're outlawing the transing of kids, it's not like the money goes to us now.
It's not like those millions of dollars go to us.
It's just they're not getting spent.
They go away.
No one makes them.
There is not, in fact, a multi-million dollar industry of stopping kids from being castrated.
That industry doesn't exist.
Same thing with abortion, as he mentioned.
Where's all the big money there?
Abortion is a billion-dollar industry.
Okay?
A billion-dollar industry is abortion.
Because they charge money.
Woman goes in, pays someone, oftentimes a man.
This is female empowerment.
I'm going to pay a man to kill my child.
Because I'm an empowered woman.
Lots of money in that.
It's also self-serving.
People defend the right to an abortion for their own convenience and for their own lifestyle, and they'll tell you that.
They're open about it.
Pro-lifers, on the other hand, we don't make any money off of this.
Okay?
We don't make money off of you not getting an abortion.
And we also don't benefit from it, directly.
We don't directly benefit from you not killing your child.
We're speaking up for the child.
We don't benefit from that.
I mean, the most you get, yeah, there are crisis pregnancy centers out there, pregnancy resource centers.
I'll tell you something, the people that are in that business, they are not wealthy, okay?
They're not making anywhere close to what the abortionists are making.
But even that, if that's the big financial incentive, get in that really profitable business of working at a pregnancy resource center, you know?
Real profitable.
Lot of money to be made there.
I mean, we're talking hundreds of dollars.
But even that little pittance, I mean, as we fight against abortion, and as we succeed in mitigating abortions, Then, I mean, it's kind of like the goal of a pro-lifer is to make yourself and to make this movement unnecessary.
To make it irrelevant.
That's our goal.
While on the other side, they are clinging to relevance and profit margins and all the rest of it.
And that's the, again, that's the case down the line on nearly all these issues.
All right, a couple other quick clips to play.
Here's CNN's chief climate alarmist, here to tell us that climate alarmism doesn't actually exist.
Just into CNN, a dire warning about the state of the planet.
A new UN report warns the climate time bomb is ticking and the world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe.
So that assessment comes from the world's most authoritative body on climate change, which says the Earth is going to pass this critical warning threshold now much earlier than expected.
I mean, we're staring it down.
They're talking about the early 2030s.
CNN Chief Climate Correspondent Bill Weir is here.
So please tell me we can stop this, Bill.
Oh, I'd love to tell you that.
We have to believe that, and we can.
And that's really the takeaway, is that the tools are in our hands.
There are no miracles needed when it comes to technology.
It's all right here.
It's all about political will.
But let me explain the context here.
Every year, thousands of peer-reviewed papers around the world look at the ice, or the clouds, or the penguins, or every little aspect of our changing planet.
The IPCC, these are scientists from 195 countries, have to synthesize all that information, their governments have to approve the language, and then they put this report together and give it to lawmakers in time for this next cop that's coming up in the United Arab Emirates.
And it is the most unequivocal.
There's no such thing as climate alarmism anymore.
The time bomb is ticking, but we have the guide on how to defuse the bomb right in our hands right here.
The time bomb, we've been hearing about this ticking time bomb for a long time and but you know most and you imagine the Maybe the old-fashioned cartoon time bomb with the long wick that's going down and it's going to explode.
Or maybe you imagine the actual digital timer on it.
You know, we have to find a way to diffuse it.
You have to cut like the old 90s action flicks.
Someone's got to cut the red wire and the blue wire.
But they keep extending the time.
That's the interesting thing.
They keep extending.
It's about to go off.
It's always just about to go off.
And then we're all going to be dead.
I will say, you know, I think, if you're CNN, they've got their chief climate reporter, and he says, climate alarmism doesn't exist.
Because no matter what you say about the climate, whatever alarming statements you make, it's true.
And so it's not alarmism.
That's the point that he's trying to make.
We really are on the verge of an apocalypse.
Nothing alarmist about it, he claims.
Well, I think, if that's the case, really the most powerful statement And the most worthwhile thing that CNN could do is to just shut down entirely.
Think about all the carbon emissions.
Think about all the energy that is used just to keep a cable news channel on the air 24-7.
Think about the carbon footprint.
And if we're on the verge of planetary destruction because of this, then I think you have no choice morally but to shut down operations entirely.
And that would be a statement.
To the rest of the world.
I mean, if you want to say something that's meaningful, that would do it.
You say, we're going to shut down completely because we can no longer contribute.
To the coming apocalypse.
I want to hear from Don Lemon and all the rest.
We're shutting down.
We're going to go live in the woods, in caves.
And we're going to subsist on berries and locusts like John the Baptist in the wilderness.
And that's how we're going to live our lives because we cannot contribute any more to the coming planetary extinction level event.
That would be a statement.
Or maybe it really wouldn't be a statement at all, because nobody would notice, even if they did that.
This is CNN that we're talking about.
Finally, sad news from the New York Post.
Rainbow-haired rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine was brutally beaten by a group of men inside the bathroom of a Florida gym on Tuesday.
The 26-year-old musician and ex-con was rushed to the hospital after he was reportedly attacked inside the restroom of an L.A.
fitness in southern Florida.
There is a video of this of him just being brutally, as it says, brutally beaten and stomped on.
It's not clear what the motivation is, but then it does note in the article he was sentenced
to two years in prison in 2019 for his role in the Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods gang, facing
decades in prison on racketeering and other charges, but took a plea deal that lowered
his time in exchange for helping the feds take down his former Bloods associates.
And so he is a snitch, and so it's assumed that that's why he was beat up, because he's
a snitch.
But, you know, I think that that's not fair, and I know that I'm biased, because as you
know, this is my guy, Tekashi 6ix9ine, one of the most brilliant musical artists, certainly
of this century, easily, but really I think, you know, in Western history.
So I'm biased, but also, are we really still doing this no snitching thing?
Like this honor code among criminals?
It only works if the criminals have some sense of honor, but they don't.
This isn't the mafia in the 1940s or whatever, okay?
These are not gentleman criminals who wear tuxedos.
That's not what this is.
These are savage animals.
So why not snitch in that case?
I mean, that's the argument I would be making if I was Tekashi69.
If I was in his shoes, that's the argument I'd be making.
I'd be saying, look, guys, come on.
I mean, we're all criminals here.
We don't have any sense of honor.
We're in it for ourselves.
So come on, of course I'm going to snitch.
What am I going to go to prison on principle?
What principle?
I'm a criminal just like you.
That's the argument I would make.
Right before they stab me to death.
My argument would boil down to, come on, guys.
Come on, guys.
Come on.
And then they would cut my throat.
But at least, you know, it's worth a try.
Let's get to the comment section.
Yes, told through a love story, but the whole point of it is about sacrificing oneself for the one you love.
Twisting it into the idea of self-love, above all, is truly inverted.
Yeah, that's often one of the central themes of these old fairy tales.
But really, this shift into making it self-focused and making it all about, you know, really the moral at the end of the story is like a self-help maxim kind of thing.
A shift that has been happening over the... It didn't just start now with Disney doing these live-action remakes.
It's actually been happening for decades.
I mean, like I said before, you go back and you watch those cartoons in the 90s.
A whole lot better than what Disney puts out now, but even then, you know, a lot of these politically correct themes and they were already kind of neutering some of these deeper, you know, more meaningful aspects of these stories.
All right.
Native Irish says, my daughter told me she was trans and that I didn't give birth to a girl.
I gave birth to a boy and her name is dead.
She talks to me like trash and this is nothing new.
She is and has always done what she wants no matter what I say.
She's now pregnant with my grandson and has told me that I'm not allowed to see him.
This has done irreversible damage to my own mental health but has never mattered to her because everything has always been about her and no one's feelings have ever mattered to her.
Well, that's a terrible story.
I'm sorry you're going through that.
You know, she says that she's not a, you didn't give birth to a girl, she's not a woman, she's a boy, and yet she's pregnant.
You know, this is the kind of incoherence, obviously, that you see there.
But it also doesn't, and this is the same story that we hear from parents who've gone through this, that it's this intense selfishness on the part of the child who's Doing the gender, especially when it's an older, you know, let's say child, like an adult who's going through this transition, quote-unquote transition.
There's just this intense selfishness, but that's part of the ideology.
That is the whole ideology.
That's the point.
It's only about them.
It's only about affirming them and your feelings.
You know, you exist to affirm her.
That's your whole purpose in life.
That's what they believe and that's what they've been taught.
And it's just a terrible thing.
Laura says, I feel all that this man writes times two.
I completely blame the therapist.
I haven't been blocked out of one of my son's lives for almost two years now.
It's so much worse than what this man says.
He's being so very restrained.
It's like losing my sons only in a Groundhog Day nightmare that never ends.
It's felt over and over again.
Yeah, and that's why I got in.
People on the left were very upset.
I mean, they're upset about anything I say, but they were upset recently when I said that, for one thing, I would rather, it is a fate worse than death for a parent to have their child sucked into this cult.
And I feel quite confident in saying that, not only because I can imagine what I would feel like if it happened to me, but I also hear from the testimonies of people like yourself.
That it's like going through the death of a child.
And almost any parent would agree that, you know, you would rather die than have your child die.
Any loving parent would agree.
And that's what this feels like in a very real way.
And it's made even worse because if your child actually dies, then it's a terrible tragedy that you never fully get over, of course, but society recognizes it as a tragedy.
Where in this case, much of society does not see it as a tragedy.
In fact, it's the other way around.
They tell you that you're supposed to celebrate this.
And that there's something wrong with you if you won't.
So on top of the grief and the mourning, it's also the guilt that they try to put on you.
It's a really terrible thing.
Let's see, Harrison says, LOL this ensuing war between Knowles and Walsh is amazing.
Matt's desperate attempt to validate a theory he clearly doesn't actually believe in because he boxed himself into this with a series of sarcastic jokes that now force him into this contrived devil's advocate position is hilarious.
It does show how intelligent he is though, as he on the spot defends it very eloquently.
Well, you're wrong if you think that I don't actually believe this.
Yeah.
I do totally unironically believe that.
I mean, it's one thing to talk about the UFOs and have aliens visited here before, but if we're talking about do they exist anywhere in the universe, then I absolutely do believe it.
Patrick says, I'm with Michael.
After all that, Matt's argument is still just, the universe is so big, he doesn't even grapple with Fermi's paradox.
If the universe is teeming with life, why haven't we seen any evidence of it yet?
Well, Fermi's paradox to me is absurd.
I don't see it as a paradox at all.
The idea is that if the universe has other life in it, then why haven't we encountered it yet?
Why haven't we received a signal, or a visitation, or an alien probe has come by?
Why hasn't that happened?
And because it hasn't happened yet, and yet supposedly there's so much life in the universe, it creates a paradox.
That's the idea.
But this is first of all built on the assumption that there hasn't been a signal, or a visitation of some kind, or a probe, or anything.
And we don't actually know if that's true or not, but assuming that we haven't had any kind of contact, There's no paradox here, because the universe is, in fact, very, very big.
And I explained yesterday why the size of the universe is significant and how that factors into this discussion.
You can't debunk that argument by simply scoffing at it.
And the fact that you would scoff at it only tells me you haven't really considered just how vast the universe is or what that means.
That's one thing I'm learning from this conversation and from the reaction from the people.
It seems like, it's like everyone knows the universe is really big, right?
Anyone will tell you that, but I think there are some people who have never really thought about what that means.
They've never tried, and no one can fully wrap their head around it, because the distances are so large that you can't even talk about them in a way that's coherent.
I think there's a lot of people that have never really spent any time thinking about that.
I'm weird, so I spend lots of time.
I think about that every day.
A day doesn't go by when I don't ponder the vastness of the universe.
It's just something in my mind that always goes back.
I get, and it's strange to me to think that there are people who don't spend any time thinking about that, but I guess they don't.
Because if you do think about it, you realize, I mean, think of it this way.
If the universe is a country, okay, if you think of the universe like a country, then each solar system is a neighborhood, and each galaxy is a state, you know, by analogy, right?
Okay?
Well, the neighborhood closest to ours, the neighborhood that's like one block over, Closest solar system is 20 trillion miles away.
I mean, the next closest house in our neighborhood, right next door, is 100 million miles away, and we've never been there, and we're years away from making it there, and when we do go there, it'll take years to get there.
That's just the house next door.
We've been to our mailbox, which is like the moon, when we last went there 50 years ago, and we're not even sure if we can make it back to the mailbox.
For the next neighborhood, 20 trillion miles is how far away it is.
It would take tens of thousands of years to get there.
Even if we were traveling at the speed of light, it would take four years to get there, and we'd all die of radiation poisoning on the way.
And we can't travel the speed of light anyway, or even come close to it.
So consider, like, the Voyager 1 space probe, okay?
It launched 45 years ago.
It's still not anywhere close.
Traveled 45 years.
It's going like a million miles a day.
Not anywhere close to making it out of our solar system.
There's this thing called the Oort Cloud, which is this ring of ice and dust surrounding our solar system.
And it's somewhat hypothetical, because we don't exactly know what it is or if it's even there.
But the idea is it's this ring of ice particles.
Surrounding our solar system.
Voyager space probe has been going for 45 years.
It is still 300 years away from making it to the inner edge of the Oort cloud.
You know how long it'll take to cross the Oort cloud?
30,000 years.
And then when it makes it to the other end of the Oort cloud, it still has another 40,000 years before it makes it to the next star.
That's how big everything is.
Um, which just goes to show, like, if you don't understand why that makes it so absurd to rule out the possibility of other life, or to assume that we must have been visited by now, if you don't understand that, I don't know how else to explain it.
It's very likely that the distances are so vast that it's impossible to traverse them.
It just can't happen and no one ever will.
We could advance as a civilization for a million years without destroying ourselves, which probably wouldn't happen because we would destroy ourselves, but we could advance for a million years and we still wouldn't have a way of making it out of the solar system because maybe it's just not possible to do.
And even if it is possible, still.
I don't know how else to explain it.
I've used so many different analogies.
We'll settle on that one for right now.
Despite the lackluster economy, The Daily Wire is thriving.
And not only that, we are hiring.
We're currently looking for a video editor to join our fast-growing post-production team.
This person will get the opportunity to work on a variety of content, including our daily
podcasts, long form videos, interviews and videos, YouTube videos, as well as shows like
Ben Shapiro's debunked documentaries from Jordan Peterson and much more.
Four plus years of professional video editing experience and familiarity and working at
a very fast pace in a fast paced environment with high turnaround times is required.
Bonus points for experience working on viral YouTube content as well.
This is the perfect role for someone who can expertly follow standardized video editing formats while also processing a strong creative skill set.
A link to your wheel is required for consideration.
The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
If you want more information you can visit dailywire.com slash careers.
That's dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Gisele Bundchen, a supermodel and ex-wife of Tom Brady, is now speaking out publicly about her divorce from the former NFL star.
You might say, with some truth, that it's kind of cheap to use this story as fodder for this segment.
After all, any time a celebrity speaks publicly about a divorce, they're guaranteed to say things worthy of cancellation.
Celebrities are very often shallow, self-absorbed, and stupid, and never does that become more apparent than when they are trying to publicly rationalize their failed marriages.
Be that as it may, Cheap or not, Gisele has earned her spot here today.
Fox News has the story, quote, Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen is breaking her silence about
their divorce from former NFL superstar Tom Brady.
After 13 years of marriage, Bundchen spoke her truth in a tell-all interview and put
a stop to the rumors for good.
Okay, on second thought, we have to make a late addition to the cancellation.
Whoever wrote this article for Fox is also cancelled.
Because I understand that this article about a Gisele Bundchen interview is not meant to be a classic of American writing.
I realize it's just content, it's just fodder intended to be vaguely consumed and then forgotten about five seconds later.
But...
As someone who is also in the business of creating internet content, can we have at least a little bit of self-respect and pride in our craft?
I mean, you packed three clichés into the first two sentences.
Breaking her silence.
Spoke her truth.
Put a stop to the rumors for good.
All I'm asking is that you take an additional 45 seconds to think of a slightly different way of wording it.
You don't have to reach immediately for the cliché clearance bin.
And this is important for everyone in the internet content creation space to understand because they've already created AI that can write articles better than this.
So if you want to have any chance of surviving, you need to be at least slightly more creative and interesting and human than a chatbot.
But anyway, that's neither here nor there.
Back to the article.
It says, The 42-year-old model said the split was the death of my dream as she lost who was meant to be her partner for life.
She lost him.
Oh, she lost him, did she?
Did she let go of his hand at the mall?
Did he wander off in the middle of the night?
Lost him?
No, she didn't lose him, like you lose a pair of shoes.
She chose to leave him.
It was an active decision.
I'm not sure to what extent it was a mutual decision, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's certain at least that she was an active participant in the divorce.
She didn't lose anything, she gave up.
They gave up.
But don't tell her that.
She likes to tell herself that this all happened on its own, through forces outside of her control.
Quote, It's tough because you imagine your life was going to be a certain way, and you did everything you could, you know?
Bündchen emotionally told Vanity Fair as she wiped away tears,
"I believed in fairy tales when I was a kid. I think it's beautiful to believe in that. I'm so
grateful I did." Bündchen candidly addressed the reason the former power couple decided to split
after over a decade together. "Sometimes you grow together, sometimes you grow apart," she noted.
When I was 26 years old and he was 29 years old, we met, we wanted a family, we wanted things together.
As time goes by, we realize that we just wanted different things and now we have to make a choice.
That doesn't mean you don't love this person.
It just means that in order for you to be authentic and truly live that life that you want to live, you have to have someone who can meet you in the middle, right?
It's a dance.
It's a balance.
When you love someone, you set them free to be who they are.
And if you want to fly in the same direction, then that's amazing.
Okay.
Let's clear up two things.
First, if you leave your spouse, It absolutely does mean that you don't love him.
The word love has no meaning if it can apply to a broken vow just as much as it applies to an honored vow.
The way that Giselle defines love, the way that our culture defines it generally, is essentially like this.
A loving action is whatever action I happen to be taking at this moment.
To love someone is to do whatever I want to do.
And this is what she means when she says the word love.
It's quite a convenient definition of the term, but it's also meaningless.
It's a meaningless definition.
Love is not merely a feeling.
And even if it was merely a feeling, you clearly don't feel too great about somebody if you want to divorce them.
But it's more than that.
Love is a choice.
It's an act.
It's a sacrifice.
Love is an activity, you know?
To love your spouse is to be faithful.
It is to be loyal.
It is to be reliable.
It is to look out for their physical and spiritual well-being and so on.
Divorce is the severing of all of that, which is to say that it is the death of marital love.
I mean, that's the whole point of getting divorced.
The most important point is that a faithful marriage and a divorce are both choices.
They are options actively chosen.
Giselle talks about marriage using passive language.
We grow apart, time goes by, sometimes you end up going in different directions.
It's like Tom and Giselle were two pieces of litter, you know, a couple of empty plastic bottles floating in a puddle, randomly bumping into each other and then drifting off in opposite directions.
She talks about it like she has no control over it.
Now, in any other situation, she is certain to speak highly and confidently of her own agency, her strength as a fierce and independent woman.
But when it comes to making excuses for a failed marriage, suddenly she's a helpless flower being swept along by the forces of fate.
Second, Giselle claims that her divorce was a necessary step in the pursuit of authenticity.
She says that in order to be authentic and to live the life you want to live, sometimes you have to break your marriage vows and destroy your family.
And this is the part that really grates me the most, and why we're talking about it, because we hear a lot about authenticity these days.
And it's always in this context.
To be authentic is to be selfish.
The authentic path is the most convenient path.
It is authentic to the self, in the sense that it serves the interests of the self, or at least what you perceive your interests to be.
But this is not authenticity.
Not in any meaningful way.
If it is authentic, it's only because you are authentically following your most cowardly and self-serving and shallowest impulses.
But there is a higher authenticity, right?
There is an authenticity that we should actually strive towards.
And that is the authenticity of a virtuous life.
The authenticity of faithfulness and love and sacrifice.
The authenticity of promises kept and vows upheld.
True authenticity can be found in the pursuit of something greater than yourself.
Which is what marriage is all about.
Or what it's supposed to be.
And that's what Gisele has abandoned.
And that's why she is today, finally, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Member's Block, you become a member today.
Use code WALSH to check out for two months free on all annual plans.
