Ep. 1153 - From Bud Light to Disney, The War On Woke Corporations Must Continue
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Ron DeSantis has gone to war with woke corporations, especially Disney. But some Republicans have come to Disney's defense, arguing that it's more important to save corporations than to save the culture. And this attitude is exactly why Republicans so often lose. Also, Biden's DOJ is suing to stop Tennessee's law banning child gender mutilation. Plus, Lia Thomas scolds the women who object to his presence in their locker rooms and on their sports teams. Mattel puts out an inclusive Barbie, but this is one inclusivity campaign that I actually sport. In our Daily Cancellation, a 'wellness advocate' attempts to explain why losing weight is fatphobic.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
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:
RexMD - Get 90% off RexMD and only pay $2 per dosage with our exclusive link -> https://rexmd.com/walsh #rexmdpod
Cynch - Download the Cynch app and get your first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH. Visit http://cynch.com/offer for details.
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://getrefunds.com/.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Ron DeSantis has gone to war with woke corporations, especially Disney.
But some Republicans have come to Disney's defense, arguing that it's more important to save corporations than to save the culture.
And this attitude is exactly why Republicans so often lose.
Also, Biden's DOJ is suing to stop Tennessee's law banning child gender mutilation.
Plus, Leah Thomas scolds the women who object to his presence in their locker rooms and on the sports teams.
Mattel puts out an inclusive Barbie, but this is one inclusivity campaign that I actually support and I'll explain why.
In our daily cancellation, a wellness advocate attempts to explain why losing weight is fat phobic.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
It goes without saying that if the roles were reversed and Biden had said his plans were to prioritize white, male-owned businesses, well, there would have been outrage.
So if you own a business, you can't rely on the government to bail you out.
You need to take matters into your own hands, and innovation refunds can help you do just that.
If your business has five or more employees and it managed to survive COVID,
you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee
through the employee retention credit.
Just go to getrefunds.com.
Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC,
and they may be able to help your business too.
This is not a loan.
There's no payback.
It's a refund of your taxes.
There's no upfront charge either.
They don't get paid until your business gets its refund.
Don't let this opportunity pass you by.
See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance in just eight minutes.
Go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, and answer a few questions.
This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time, so don't miss out.
Go to GetRefunds.com.
GetRefunds.com.
Well, Disney has of course been pushing leftist propaganda for a very long time.
Unfortunately, their propaganda is especially effective because it's embedded into ostensibly non-political entertainment.
The bias on CNN or in the New York Times is bad and can be quite harmful to the country and is harmful, but the harm will be Mitigated by the fact that it's being disseminated on cable news and in newspapers.
Even the most oblivious people recognize that the news media is a political business no matter what it claims about itself.
You turn to CNN or the New York Times because you want to be exposed to a left-wing bias.
You go to them because they're on your team.
And besides, most people don't spend very much time watching cable news or especially reading newspapers anyway.
But Americans do spend hours and hours every day mentally ingesting entertainment content.
Worst of all, most viewers don't think that entertainment is political or ideological.
They're not looking for the messages.
They're absorbing the messages, but not looking for them.
And they absorb the messages at extremely high volumes for hours at a time.
A person might sit and binge a Disney show for five hours in a row, being swayed and influenced and preached to Without ever being consciously aware of it.
Entertainment propaganda is much more effective and therefore a much bigger problem than any other kind of propaganda, especially in Disney's case, as they produce entertainment for children.
This is why Ron DeSantis' fight against the Disney Corporation is so important.
As you recall, the fight began after Disney came out to lobby against the bill in Florida that banned the sexualization of elementary school Students, the legislation that leftists erroneously and absurdly dubbed the Don't Say Gay Bill, Disney came out
...forcefully in favor of child sexualization, insisting that it's very important for five-year-olds to be taught about sexuality and gender fluidity.
But the bill passed anyway, and Ron DeSantis responded to Disney's child sexualization advocacy by revoking the special legal privileges that the company had enjoyed for, you know, decades and benefited from.
Disney had essentially been granted the power to run its own government, a privilege unique to Disney, Not enjoyed by any other corporation in the state.
And so the move made sense by Ron DeSantis.
Disney has no inherent right to operate its own fiefdom.
This was a deal worked out decades ago between Florida and Disney, back when it seemed to be beneficial to the people of the state.
Circumstances have changed.
For one thing, many more companies have moved to the state and operated under state law, not their own law.
Reason enough to expect Disney to do the same.
But now that Disney has decided to use its power and influence to work against the people and work for the harm and corruption of children, it was certainly time to make this change.
Not surprisingly, this has led to an intense battle between DeSantis and Disney, one that DeSantis right now appears to be winning.
That's why Disney is running to federal court to try to recoup their special benefits.
Here's CNN with the latest quote. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on Wednesday sued Florida
Governor Ron Santus and his handpicked oversight board accusing the Republican 2024 presidential
prospect of weaponizing his political power to punish the company for exercising its free speech
The lawsuit was filed in federal court minutes after the board appointed by DeSantis to oversee Disney's special taxing district sought to claw back its power from the entertainment giant, voting to invalidate an agreement struck between Disney and the previous board in February, just before that board's dissolution.
Wednesday's moves are the latest escalation in the fight between DeSantis and Disney as DeSantis moves towards a 2024 presidential bid.
Disney responded by suing DeSantis, the board, and Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Acting Secretary Meredith Ivey, seeking to block the board's moves.
The lawsuit characterizes Wednesday's vote as the latest strike in a targeted campaign of government retaliation orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as a punishment for Disney's protected speech.
It says that DeSantis' retaliation now threatens Disney's business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.
Well, no, it doesn't.
Again, Disney has no constitutional right to be exempt from the laws of the state, the laws that everyone else is expected to abide by.
That was a privilege.
Privileges can be revoked, and Disney very much deserved to have its privileges revoked.
Not all Republicans agree, however.
In fact, there has been a noticeable move recently by some prominent Republicans to circle the wagons around Disney.
Start rooting for Disney against Ron DeSantis.
The latest was Nikki Haley, long-shot presidential candidate who appeared on Fox News yesterday and said this.
I want to ask you about what could be another Republican candidate in the field, and that is Ron DeSantis.
We just learned a few moments ago that Disney is now suing the Florida governor for an alleging political effort to hurt their business.
We've all been watching this back and forth for quite some time.
Obviously, dramatically escalating the feud between Disney and Ron DeSantis.
They're alleging that the Republican governor has waged a, quote, relentless campaign to weaponize government power over the company.
What is your reaction to that, as we still have yet to see him jump officially into the race?
You know, as governor, I took a double-digit unemployment state and I turned it into an economic powerhouse.
Businesses were my partners, because if you take care of your businesses, you take care of your economy, your economy takes care of the people, and everyone wins.
And so that's the way we dealt with it.
South Carolina was a very anti-woke state.
It still is.
And if Disney would like to move their hundreds of thousands of jobs to South Carolina and bring the billions of dollars with them, I'll let them know.
I'll be happy to meet them in South Carolina and introduce them to the governor and the legislature that would welcome it.
And that, in a nutshell, is why Nikki Haley is a tremendous Republican presidential candidate in 2008.
This is 2008-era establishment Republican corporatism, which unfortunately has not died away.
Now, in the electorate, it basically has.
There's hardly any market for it in the electorate.
Outside of Sean Hannity viewers and David French readers, the voters aren't interested in this.
The market for what Haley is selling is extremely small, but when it comes to the Republicans who have their hands on the levers of power, or are trying to get their hands on the levers of power, this is still the predominant view.
The Republican establishment has not evolved since 2008.
Mostly because the exact same people are controlling it now, as were controlling it in 2008, and in 1998, and in 1988.
We saw the same sort of thing with the Bud Light boycott.
High-ranking Republicans, to include some on the Trump team, came swooping in to defend Anheuser-Busch, warning us that we must not upset the company because they donate heavily to Republicans.
The donor money!
Think of the donor money, they cried.
We ignored them, and Bud Light's sales fell through the floor, and their marketing executives started getting fired one by one, and we should ignore them on the Disney issue too.
We should totally disregard any Republican who is not on board with the fight against woke corporations like Disney and Bud Light.
You know, Haley says that we should defend Disney because they create jobs.
Yeah, well, so does Planned Parenthood, okay?
So does the porn industry.
Is she gonna solicit Pornhub to relocate to South Carolina, too?
We're an anti-woke state in South Carolina, so come here and make anti-woke porn.
Better yet, why don't you encourage the child gender transition industry to make your state into its headquarters?
Disney advocates for that practice, and you apparently have no issue with it, so why not cut right to the chase?
Here's the thing, Nikki.
Jobs are good.
You know, we want people to have jobs.
But it takes more than a job to live a good and fulfilled life.
It takes more than jobs to have a thriving country.
And your job is cold comfort if you're working your job in a dying and decaying society.
We are in the midst of a collective march into degenerate madness, and the destination will be ruinous for all of us and for our children, even if we all have jobs when we get there, which, by the way, we won't.
Economic collapse always accompanies cultural collapse.
The culture goes down and brings everything with it.
But you cannot save the culture by only focusing on the economy.
Am I really suggesting that the Disney Corporation is helping to usher in the cultural collapse?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
It is a company with nearly unfettered access to the minds of millions of children.
If it decides to promote confusion and dysfunction, and it has, it will have and does have the unique ability to spread that virus to our children quickly and efficiently.
That's why we desperately need our leaders to use the power they have, the power they've been granted by the voters, to push back against these corporations and push back in ways that will actually hurt.
Ways that will actually mean something.
Okay, not simply promising hearings and investigations that don't go anywhere, or sending out tweets or writing statements, but actually hurting them.
That's what Ron DeSantis is doing.
But we really don't have time to be explaining this anymore.
We just don't.
There's no time.
At this point, okay, where we are in the culture, where we are in this fight, it's too late to have to explain this to people.
So if you're a conservative, whether you're a Republican politician or anyone else, if you're a conservative and you still need this kind of stuff explained to you, if you still need basic realities like, you know, the culture matters and we can't just focus on the economy and then hope that that's going to be enough, if you still need that explained to you, then we don't need you anymore.
Any Republican who doesn't intuitively understand why these fights are so important should be, as I said, discarded.
Dump them on the side of the road, leave them in the dust, leave them in 2008 finally.
They are weak.
They care only about money and power.
Not because they want to use the money and power to advance the conservative cultural agenda.
No, that's the last thing they'll use it for because that might jeopardize the money and power.
So we give them the power and then they say, well, I can't use this because then we won't have power anymore because they'll be mad at us if we do that.
No, they want it for its own sake.
They want it for themselves.
For their own advancement.
Not the advancement of the cause.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
It's barbecue season.
I don't want to brag, but I make a pretty mean burger.
The last thing I'm going to be doing when I'm getting ready to host a barbecue is driving around worrying about where to refill my propane grill tank.
That's why I'm a huge fan of Cinch.
Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.
They deliver your propane tanks right to your door.
Cinch delivers on your schedule.
Doesn't require any long-term commitment or subscription.
Plus, delivery is completely contactless.
You don't have to wait around at home.
You don't have to make awkward small talk with anyone.
They just come and they drop it off and that's it.
You can track the order on the Cinch app from anywhere.
Whether you're grilling for the Sweet Baby Gang, camping with your family, or lighting up your fire pit on a cold summer night, Cinch's propane delivery service ensures you have the fuel you need to make the most of every moment.
So go online to cinch.com or download their app now to order.
New customers get their first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code Walsh.
Go to cinch.com or download the Cinch app and use promo code Walsh to get your first tank exchange for just $10.
That's c-y-n-c-h dot com promo code Walsh.
This is a limited time offer.
You must live within a Cinch service area to redeem it.
Visit cinch.com slash offer for details.
This is from the Daily Wire.
The Department of Justice sued Tennessee on Wednesday over a state law prohibiting transgender hormone treatments and surgeries for minors.
That's the law that we got passed here recently.
Tennessee's ban on sex change treatments for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause, the DOJ said in a statement.
The law discriminates against transgender youth, quote-unquote, diagnosed with gender dysphoria, blocking sex change treatments for them while allowing non-transgender minors access to the same or similar procedures.
No person should be denied access to necessary medical care just because of their transgender status, said the Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clark.
The right to consider your health and medically approved treatment options with your family and doctors is a right that everyone should have, including transgender children who are especially vulnerable to serious risks of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Lee hit back at President Joe Biden's DOJ in a statement to
The Daily Wire saying, "Tennessee is committed to protecting children from permanent life-altering
decisions. This is a federal overreach at its worst, and we will work with the Attorney General
to push back in court and stand up for the children." So this was, this doesn't take
anyone by surprise. This is exactly what was expected.
I think the Tennessee legislature expected this to happen, not because it should happen, obviously.
This is, you know, on top of the fact that this is obviously the right thing to do to protect children from being mutilated and butchered, it's also firmly in the realm of states' rights.
So this is the federal government trying to come in and saying, you're not allowed to pass that law because we personally don't like it.
You know, we have political disagreements with what you guys are doing here, so we want to stop you from doing it.
That's what the federal government is saying.
And the basis of their argument is total nonsense, right?
It's also telling, too, because they know that they can't really argue that this is medically necessary.
They can't argue on the merits of these procedures and the drugs that are given to kids.
They can't argue for that.
They know they don't have the data on their side.
They don't have anything on their side.
They don't have common sense.
They don't have science.
So instead they make this equal protection claim, saying, well, similar things.
It still allows similar procedures and similar drugs to be given to non-transgender kids.
Except that there's major differences here.
So what are we talking about?
For example, the law bans gender-affirming mastectomies for minors.
So you're not allowed to mutilate a young girl, perform a cosmetic double mastectomy in hopes of turning her into a boy.
But does that mean that double mastectomies are 100% disallowed?
Well, no.
It's very rare for someone that young to have breast cancer, but in a hypothetical scenario like that, when there's an actual disease that needs to be treated, Well, then of course it would be allowed.
And the same thing goes for, you know, for example, precocious puberty is an actual illness.
It's an affliction.
You know, it's a disorder, a disease.
And so there's actual treatment for that.
But there's a difference between diagnosed precocious puberty, which again is an illness, it's a disorder, versus normal puberty that everybody goes through.
So, on one hand, we are treating an illness, and on the other hand, these are cosmetic things that are being done, treating no illness at all, in order to make the child resemble, supposedly, the other sex.
I think it should be obvious to everyone what the distinctions are between those two things.
Normal puberty is not a disease.
The normal development, the normal healthy development of a child is not a disease.
That's not an illness that needs to be treated.
If there is an illness, we treat it.
But when you're giving drugs to someone, and there's no illness to treat, That's always going to be bad.
Anytime doctors are giving drugs to someone, in spite of the fact that there's no illness there, that's always going to be a bad thing, which it is here.
And this is why we have all these state laws being passed, which is great, but we also need action on the federal level.
We really want to make sure that these kids are protected.
We need action on the federal level.
And that has to be, and I know that Donald Trump has come out and said that he believes that these procedures should be banned on the federal level.
We need every Republican candidate to come out in favor of that, banning these procedures, protecting kids across the country from this.
We need them all to line up behind that.
And that needs to be, you know, not just something that's mentioned one time and then you move on from it.
But one of the central parts of their campaign is protecting kids from this madness.
All right.
Interesting contrast here.
This is also from the Daily Wire.
Four members of the Senate introduced legislation on Wednesday that would ban minors under the age of 13 from using social media and mandate parental consent for those younger than 18.
The bill, called the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, would also prohibit the use of algorithmic content recommendations for all minors in order to reduce the addictive elements of social media.
The bill is sponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans, so it's a bipartisan bill.
One of the Democrats, Brian Schatz, This is an actual last name.
It says, the growing evidence is clear.
Social media is making kids more depressed and wreaking havoc on their mental health.
While kids are suffering, social media companies are profiting.
This needs to stop.
Our bill will help us stop the growing social media health crisis among kids by setting a minimum age and preventing companies from using algorithms to automatically feed them addictive content based on their personal information.
No, I'd have to read, I haven't read the actual bill, I'd have to read more into it, but just on surface level, based on the quick description of it, I'm in favor of it.
I think it's a very good idea.
But there's also, as I said, an interesting contrast here, because you have at least some Democrats who are willing to say that, you know, kids under a certain age shouldn't be exposed to this at all.
Like, kids under 13 shouldn't be on social media at all, they should be banned from being on it, is what the bill says.
I agree.
There's no good reason for an 11-year-old child to be on social media.
No good can come from it.
It cannot help them.
It's like there's zero chance of it helping them in any way.
And there's a great chance that it hurts them.
So, when you're putting a child on social media, giving a child access to social media, you are doing something that, for that child, it's all downside and there is zero upside.
The only upside, really, and this is why parents do it, is that it gets them out of your hair and it occupies them so that you don't have to deal with them.
But that's not really upside.
That's not upside for them, right?
That's an upside for you in your laziness, but it's not an upside for them.
It's not going to benefit them.
So, I totally agree.
No kid under 13 should be on social media.
I don't think any kid should be on social media, period, at any age.
Because the same rule applies.
16-year-olds, how do they benefit from being on social media?
I know why they want to be on it.
Understand that.
But do they benefit?
Does it make them a better person?
Will it make them healthier, happier?
Will it do any of that?
Is there any chance?
Is there any chance that your kid will make it into adulthood and then look back on their childhood without social media and lament and say, I wish I was using social media all that time.
You think you're ever going to be at a point as a parent Years down the line, when you say to yourself, I wish my kid had spent more time on social media.
If only.
No, that would never happen.
But there are going to be a lot of kids as they get older who deeply lament how much time they spent on it.
And many parents who regret allowing it.
I agree with all that, but obviously the hypocrisy here is that at least you have some Democrats who can see that kids under a certain age shouldn't be on social media, and yet It seems almost certain that those same Democrats, and I don't know, I could look it up, these particular Democrats, what's their position on this, but almost every Democrat is fully on board with kids taking gender transition drugs, puberty blockers, chemical castration.
And so if a bill like this passes, we're going to be in a situation where, you know, on a federal level, nationwide, we have declared that 12-year-old children are not old enough to use Twitter.
They are not old enough to use TikTok.
But they are old enough to take castration drugs.
They are old enough for hormone therapy that sterilizes them.
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense, but considering this bill on its own, you know, in a vacuum, it does make sense to me.
And look, I understand the argument, and I've heard this even from plenty of people on the right, that this is a parental rights thing and parents should be able to make the decision.
I don't see it as parental rights any more than setting an age limit for alcohol, setting an age limit for tobacco, setting an age limit even for R-rated movies.
I don't see it as parental rights any more than those things are.
And most people, now if you take a really purist libertarian stance on this, if you're an absolutist libertarian type, then you probably say, well yeah, there shouldn't be any age limit for those things either.
Let parents make up their own mind.
But most people aren't really troubled by the fact that there's a drinking age.
We could argue about how effective the drinking age is and all the rest of it, but most people, there's not a real, there's not much of a movement to lower the drinking age to 16 or 14 or to get rid of it entirely.
Most people are okay with that.
Because they understand that it's just, yeah, even if you set an age for it, that's not actually going to stop, right?
If a kid really wants to drink, they're still going to be able to do it.
But at a minimum, we're at least making a statement as a society that this is not something that kids should be doing.
And there's no benefit to throwing open the doors of the liquor store and say, yeah, 13-year-olds, come on in.
And so that's why the laws are in place the way they are.
And I think it's the same thing with social media.
In fact, I think you could make a very good argument that kids, you know, that open, kind of unfettered access and exposure to social media is even more damaging for kids than alcohol.
I think you could make that argument because it damages them at an even deeper level.
Like, it's affecting the kind of person that you are and that you'll become.
It's affecting your mind.
Of course, alcohol does that too, obviously, but I think at an even deeper level.
All right, are you ready for the saddest video you'll ever see?
Howard Stern responded to Tucker Carlson's firing.
He says that Tucker should have understood that he's a nobody, he's a worker bee over at Fox, and should have just obeyed his masters, obeyed them like Howard Stern does.
So listen to him talk about this.
Like, if you work for Rupert Murdoch, you know that mother f***er's got so many billions that as important as Tucker Carlson might be to the Fox network, He will fire your a** if you're a pain in the a**, because at the end of the day, you are a fly on his a**.
You're nothing, because he's still gonna have billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and own a giant corporation.
And, you know, you cannot f***.
You can only push them so far.
Now I'm a guy who's pushed my, like when I was at NBC, I pushed management pretty far, but I didn't care.
I was like, you know what, f**k them.
Let them fire me.
Which was probably arrogant and stupid.
Not probably, very arrogant and stupid.
But one thing I know, like I know who owns Sirius XM.
I know who the guy is on top.
And that guy owns like, I think he owns entire States in the United States.
He doesn't need me.
I'm here at his, Uh, what do they call that, Robin?
I'm here at his... Oh, God, what is the term?
Service.
Service.
Pleasure.
Pleasure.
Thank you, Gary.
Yeah.
I'm here at his pleasure.
I'm here at his behest.
You know, I know at the end of the day, my man is my master.
And I like working at SiriusXM.
So, you know, I could bust balls, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But at the end of the day, I'm worthless.
That is, I mean, this is, you know, if you're a younger kid, if you didn't grow up in the 90s, it may surprise you to learn, but this is not the Howard Stern in the 90s.
That was the Howard Stern that was constantly going, as he says there.
Now he apparently regrets it and is apologizing for it, but he was constantly fighting against the management and all the rest of it and trying to do his own thing.
And now, talking about his bosses as his master and lord and savior.
He'll do whatever he needs to to keep his job.
Meanwhile, this guy's got hundreds of millions of dollars and he's like 70 years old.
Clinging onto this.
We have more money than he'll ever, ever be able to even come close to spending in the amount of time he has left in his life.
Clinging onto it.
Debasing himself.
Now, there's an element, like there's a core of something true and useful that he's saying, which is that we're all replaceable in our jobs, even if we think that we aren't.
Now, there's no indication that Tucker Carlson didn't realize that, that he got too big for his britches or whatever.
There's no indication of that.
But just as a general statement, that's true.
We're all replaceable.
We can all be replaced, no matter how important you think you are in your job, which is an argument.
It's not an argument for kowtowing to the bosses all the time.
It's not an argument for giving up your integrity, as Howard Stern has long ago done.
It's an argument for not placing your career and your job as the highest thing in your life, as the highest priority in your life.
It's a priority.
But the reason why it's such a big priority for most of us is that we have families to take care of.
But our families is where we find our true identity and our fulfillment.
It's where we cannot just be replaced like that.
If you have a family, if you're a man with a wife and you have kids, and then you're gone, either because you left or because you died, That's something that will deeply impact everyone in your family forever.
And you'll never really be able to replace you and who you were.
It's not like that at a job.
So, that's true.
That's not really the point he was making.
He was advocating for doing whatever you're told, hang on to the job, hang on to the money no matter what, it's all that matters.
Calling his boss my man, oh my God.
I'm telling you, if you didn't, you know, if you were born sometime after the year 2000, it'll shock you to learn, but this is not the Howard Stern that existed back in the 90s.
And it's, if only he had retired 20 years ago with all of his money and retained his dignity.
Now, some would argue he never really had any dignity to begin with, which is probably true, but retained some semblance of it anyway.
Really sad to see.
I want to talk about this too.
This is from AP News.
Toy company Mattel revealed its first Barbie doll representing a person with Down syndrome
on Tuesday.
Mattel collaborated with the National Down Syndrome Society to create the Barbie and
ensure the doll accurately represents a person with Down syndrome.
The company said design features of the new Barbie were made under guidance from NDSS.
Mattel said, in addition to portraying some physical characteristics of a person with Down syndrome, the Barbie's clothing and accessories carry special meaning.
The blue and yellow on the doll's dress, accompanied by butterflies, represent symbols and colors associated with Down syndrome awareness.
The Barbie also has ankle-foot orthotics, which some Down syndrome children use.
Good Morning America had a segment on this.
You could see the Barbie.
Let's check that out.
I'm here for the first ever Barbie with Nelson Jones and it's like me.
and it's beautiful and I love it to pieces.
I love it!
What do you think?
Nice, yeah.
What do you like about it?
The hair and the clothes.
We brought the doll with Down Syndrome to life in close partnership with the National Down Syndrome Society.
Through this collaboration, we were able to ensure the doll and all the design elements
and details were an accurate representation of a person with Down syndrome.
[MUSIC]
Okay, so here's what I wanna say about this because I've seen some
conservatives making fun of this and calling it woke.
It's another woke-inclusive PC thing is what some are saying.
And I'll admit that in the first moment, After I saw this headline, I almost had that reaction because I saw the term inclusive Barbie doll, and my first instinctive reaction is to roll my eyes because 99.9% of the time, it's going to be something stupid.
If there's an inclusive whatever, it's something stupid, or it's going to be something actively objectionable, or both.
Whatever, a non-binary Barbie doll or something.
If they don't already have that, I'm sure they're going to soon enough.
But then there's the 0.1% of the time when it's actually something good.
And this is the 0.1%.
We don't want to be like dogs, you know, barking whenever we hear a car in the driveway, no matter who's driving it.
We want to have discernment.
Right?
And we should have it here.
Down syndrome people Really do need to be included.
We do need inclusivity campaigns for them, because Down syndrome people, especially children, are being excluded from society in the most violent and bloody ways.
They're being exterminated by the abortion industry.
That's a big reason why they run tests for Down syndrome in utero, because they run the tests and then they give the parents the option to kill The child, if they don't want to have a child with Down syndrome.
And, tragically, many parents do.
So, if we're doing anything as a society, I would say to include Down syndrome children, to humanize them, represent them.
That's a good thing.
It's pro-life, actually.
It is pro-life.
The correct and also strategically intelligent reaction for conservatives from something like this is to say, wow, Mattel is pro-life.
They're putting out something pro-life.
This is great.
Now, does Mattel mean it that way?
The Mattel Corporation, and they're in their marketing department, their toy development department, whatever, and they're sitting around.
Did they say, hey, what can we do to advance the pro-life cause?
Well, obviously not.
And they would be horrified, probably, if we took it that way.
If conservatives started coming out and saying, this is pro-life, this is amazing, this is great, Mattel would not be happy about that.
But we should do it anyway.
Like, take the wins where they come, even if they're unintentional.
Even if we're seizing on to something that was meant a certain way, and we're saying, nope, this is what it means.
It might not have meant it this way, but this is what it means.
And this is a perfect example of that.
Whether you intend for it to be pro-life or not, whether that's a conscious intention, it is.
Because to include and humanize and represent, again, I know these words have connotations now, and every time we hear them, we have that instinctive reaction to it, but there are contexts where these words really do mean something, even if they're misused most of the time.
And in this case, yeah, representing and including Down syndrome children, a very good thing.
And also, look, it's true that if you're a parent, With a child who has Down Syndrome, the shows that your child watches, the movies, the toys that he plays with, he's not going to often see people like him in those contexts.
Partly because, again, Down Syndrome people are being eradicated in an actual eugenics campaign that's happening in this country and across the Western world.
So I can imagine that if I had a daughter with Down Syndrome, I'd be going out and buying this doll for her.
And it would be extremely unfair and annoying, to say the least, if I heard conservatives accusing me of participating in something woke because of it.
It's not.
And we need to be smarter than that, I think.
All right, here's the Daily Mail.
It says, transgender athlete Leah Thomas has defended her triumphs over her biologically female competitors as she hit out at what she deemed to be fake feminists who want to police women's bodies.
Once again, air quotes around her and she in this paragraph.
I'm just reading what the Daily Mail actually says.
As the Daily Mail is misgendering Leah Thomas by By using the preferred pronoun.
That is actually misgendering because it's not accurate.
Anyway, the former University of Pennsylvania athlete joined the first NCAA transgender swimmer, Shuler Bylar, on his podcast, Dear Shuler, to discuss the controversy about allowing trans female athletes to compete on women's sports teams.
So this is a podcast.
We have a clip of that, I think.
Let's play it.
Oh, we respect Leah as a woman, as a trans woman, whatever.
We respect her identity.
We just don't think it's fair.
You can't really have that sort of half support where you're like, oh, I respect her as a woman here, but not here.
They're using the guise of feminism to sort of They think about how twisted feminism, quote-unquote feminism, has become.
And I think a lot of people in that camp sort of carry an implicit bias against trans people,
but don't want to, I guess, fully manifest or speak that out.
And so they try to just play it off as this sort of half support.
They think about how twisted feminism, quote unquote, feminism has become.
Their arguments, you know, in order to exclude anybody in the trans category, you have to
reduce women to reproductive capacity, which is, in my opinion, extremely anti-feminist.
I don't want to put those women down either.
And I know you don't want to either, because I see pain.
I see pain, and the pain is coming from somewhere.
It's not you, though.
It's the patriarchy.
And how can we get people to see that?
I would never unironically use the term mansplaining.
But it's...
If I was to ever do that, it would apply to that scenario right there.
You've got two men sitting around talking about how women should feel about men invading their locker rooms in sports.
And then at the end we get the patronizing, I feel sorry for them.
You know, those silly girls who don't want men disrobing in front of them in the locker room.
Those silly, silly girls who don't want to see a penis in the locker room while they're trying to get changed.
I feel sorry for them.
There's pain.
There's pain behind that.
Well, yeah, there is pain.
I imagine that there is pain.
It is a painful thing to have to witness that, have to deal with that.
That's the pain.
But you know what also?
It'll probably surprise you to hear me say this, but I agree with Leah Thomas in the first part of what he said.
I agree very much with the first part.
Because he says you can't have it both ways.
He points out that there are plenty of people who say, I respect your identity, I respect you as a woman, I'll use the preferred pronouns, she, her, whatever, but I don't want you competing in the women's sports.
And Leo Thomas says, that doesn't make any sense.
If you respect me as a woman, then I should be able to compete in the sports.
He's exactly right about that.
Correct.
It doesn't make any sense.
That's a halfway position that doesn't make sense.
Which is why the only correct position, the only coherent position, is to say, no, Leo Thomas, I don't respect your self-identity.
I don't respect you as a woman.
I don't respect your claim that you are a woman.
And I don't respect you, given what you're doing and how you're trying to invade these spaces and you're totally disregarding all the actual women and how they feel about it and their own rights and privacy.
I don't respect you as a person.
I just don't respect anything about you.
You are owed no respect.
You are a terrible person.
So I don't respect your self-identity, I don't respect the claims you make about yourself, and I don't respect you.
Also, get the hell out of the pool.
There are women in there.
Get the hell out of the locker room.
Okay?
So I can say that.
That's a consistent position.
It is totally inconsistent what you get from the theme of today, these milquetoast, squeamish Republicans, so many of them.
So I respect your identity, but I just don't, you know, I have no problem.
I have no problem with the transgenderism.
I have no problem with trans ideology, but let's leave women's sports alone and leave the kids alone.
Other than that, I totally affirm it.
Makes no sense.
Okay, there were conservatives who consider Caitlyn Jenner to be a good advocate.
Oh no, we need Caitlyn Jenner.
Caitlyn Jenner's anti-woke.
That's right.
A man dressed like a woman awarded Woman of the Year honors in 2015.
Anti-woke, right?
That's who we need.
No, Jenner's position is completely incoherent.
It makes no sense.
Either Leah Thomas is a woman or not.
One or the other.
And if Leah Thomas is a woman, then yes, he belongs in the women's locker room, he belongs in the women's sports teams.
If he's a woman.
There's no argument against it.
You can't, you cannot say, yeah, you're a woman, but you shouldn't go there.
Then you are singling him out.
That doesn't make sense.
He's a woman.
You can't just point to some woman and say, you, you can't, you don't have access to this.
Right?
Just like we couldn't say to a, if there's a woman who That happens to appear somewhat masculine and, you know, we can't say, well, because you look like that, you don't get to go into the women's locker room.
Doesn't make sense.
The only argument against Leah Thomas in the locker rooms and in the sports teams is that he's not a woman.
That's the only argument.
And if that's not, if we're giving that up, if we are surrendering that ground, then there's nothing left.
So it's the only argument, and it's the only argument you need.
It's a very powerful argument.
Fundamentally, that is our entire argument about all of this stuff.
That's it.
Our argument is, this isn't true.
That's the whole argument.
Everything else is peripheral.
So, it's time to choose a lane, right?
This stuff of, I don't want to criticize adult transgender, I don't want to criticize the ideology, I don't want to, I want to respect the identities, but I don't want this happening to kids, I don't want, that doesn't make any sense.
You're trying to straddle a line that doesn't exist, you're threading a needle, but there's no thread there.
Like, you know, you have to choose.
You're either on their side or you're on ours.
It really is that simple.
There is no in-between ground.
Okay?
Like, the question of whether Leah Thomas is a woman or a man, there's no middle ground.
There's no in-between.
There's no compromised position you can find.
There is a compromised position, an intellectually compromised position, which is the one that many conservatives have.
have selected. And so on that note, at least on that part of the discussion,
Lee Thomas is correct, but he's wrong about literally everything else that he says and is.
Let's get to the comment section.
You know, men hate going to the doctor.
I know I do.
You have to make your appointments, spend half your day sitting around in the waiting room, and often endure uncomfortable conversations about your body with another man you hardly know.
RexMD understands that no one likes to go into the doctor's office.
That's why they've created a safe online platform for men to discreetly Consult with licensed physicians and get personalized treatment plans.
RexMD makes it easy and inexpensive to get generic and branded Viagra and Cialis online.
No waiting rooms, no embarrassing trips to the doctors, no insurance, no co-pays.
Did you know Viagra can cost $90 a pill?
Well, RexMD has generic Viagra for just as low as $2 a pill.
Quite a savings there.
Just fill out their online medical questionnaire.
A doctor will review your situation and, if appropriate, prescribe you medication as well.
Your medication will ship right to your door with free two-day shipping.
It's fast, simple, and cheap.
Plus, you can access your U.S.
licensed RexMD physician anytime you need.
RexMD has already helped over 300,000 guys gain confidence quickly and conveniently.
They're here to help you, too.
You can take advantage of their best deal yet at rexmd.com slash Walsh and save up to 90% off by paying only $2 per dosage.
That's rexmd.com slash Walsh for up to 90% off.
Go to rexmd.com for more details and safety information.
William says...
My thoughts, Jazz is so far along in his transition, any concept of reversing course will be impossible for him, aside from God, of course.
His identity has been this for so long, and his family and friends are so involved that an existential crisis for him would be unbearable.
If he ever comes to see the truth, he'll either be suicidal or the strongest voice of the detrans movement.
Likely, he knows this, and the fear of that alone could prevent him from even considering it.
I don't intend to sound pessimistic, but we are not a society of emotionally well people, and those involved in the trans ideology are worse off in this regard.
Yeah, you're exactly right, William, and this is a comment I read from many other people talking about Jazz Jennings yesterday and my urging Jazz to accept the truth, to accept the reality.
And I did hear from some people that said, well, it's...
There's no going back.
It's too late for that.
He can't fully embrace his maleness and his male identity because these surgeries have been done that are irreversible.
And that is true in that these surgeries are irreversible and there are things that happen in life sometimes where you can't go back from them.
And this is one of those things.
And it does show that there's no... When we start transitioning kids, You put them in a, as they become adults, you put them in a situation where there's no win, there's no good option.
That's the ultimate tragedy, when someone's in a position in their life where there is no good option.
And you can't pretend there is.
It doesn't exist.
Because either you keep living this lie with your broken body, or you accept finally the truth, but you're still stuck with the broken body.
A body that can never recapture what it once had.
Both options are really terrible.
That's true.
And you're kind of stuck in this limbo zone.
But of two bad options, the best one is always going to be the one that is true.
OK?
It's not good either way, and unfortunately for Jazz Jennings, He has despair and depression and deep, deep struggles that he's already experiencing now and that are in front of him for probably the rest of his life.
Either way.
But still, the best option is the truth.
And his best chance.
And it's not like his life is worthless.
It's not like it's not worth living.
Everyone's life is worth living.
And you can still find a purpose.
I think you pointed out to one of them, William.
I mean, he could be one of the greatest and most effective advocates.
Given that he's this public figure that went through this, was taken through this process against his will because he was a kid, he couldn't consent to it.
And for him to come out and be a detrans advocate would be incredibly powerful.
I mean, he could save So many people, and that is a vocation that he could have, and you could find a lot of fulfillment and joy in that.
So it's the right thing to do to live in the truth and to live with the recognition of the truth.
It's also going to be your best chance to live a fulfilling life and to find happiness in your life, which he can still have all of that, along with the suffering, and the suffering is going to be unavoidable.
All right, David says, Matt's defense of hostile work environments makes me suspicious of Daily Wire's work environment.
Well, it should be.
I've been talking about this publicly the last few days, but The Daily Wire is a hostile work environment.
I mean, there's so many stories I could tell.
I'd said just one yesterday, I had to put the Daily Wire on blast publicly
because it was, I don't know if you knew this, but it was National Pretzel Day yesterday.
And so they had pretzels in the break room for everybody.
Well, not for everybody 'cause I didn't get one.
And I got into the break room and all the pretzels were gone.
This always happens.
And the thing is, this time, like nobody tells me when it's National whatever food day.
Every day, it's National Pizza Day, it's National Popcorn Day,
it's National Ice Cream Day.
No one ever tells me this.
No one ever says it.
This time I happened to see the sign that it was National Pretzel Day.
And I said, there's gonna be pretzels here today.
I know it.
And so I kept checking back in the break room every 30 minutes just to see if the pretzels had been set out yet.
And in between, like, checking, the pretzels were set out and consumed by the Dan Piranhas around here who just, like, descend on this stuff, and it's gone instantly.
And no one said to themselves, oh, I wonder if Matt got a pretzel.
No one said that.
And I come out, really excited for my pretzel, and all I find, they leave the dishes out, they leave the signs saying National Pretzel Day, just some crumbs.
Just a few crumbs there, that's all they have left for me.
Same thing happened on National Popcorn Day.
I'll tell you this right now, if it happens on National Donut Day, which is June 2nd this year, there's going to be problems.
There's going to be serious problems.
So yeah, it's a hostile work environment around here for that alone.
Let's see, talking about the Abby Grossberg, the employee that's suing Tucker Carlson and Fox News, John says, literally within one second I'm seeing the clip of that ex-employee.
The only thought that came to mind was who looked at her and hired her.
The only thing she's missing are those bright, giant rimmed glasses.
That's a liberal plant if there ever was one.
Yeah, you should have been able to see that just by looking at her.
It's true.
The hairstyle.
She didn't have the glasses.
That was the only thing I was missing.
But even hairstyle and general aura, right?
You put me in a room with that woman for 30 seconds and I'm going to be able to tell you that about her.
Like, don't hire her.
You work for a supposedly conservative company.
No, she's not one you want.
The good news is that we don't blame Tucker Carlson for that.
It turns out, I just, I mentioned that I'd seen reports indicating this yesterday, but then I read some more about it, and it seems pretty certain that Tucker Carlson never met this woman.
Okay, this woman never met Tucker Carlson.
They were never in the same room together, and yet she's suing and claiming a hostile work environment for Tucker Carlson, who was not there.
She was in, I guess she was in D.C., and he's not there, and so they're never even in the same room together.
This was someone who was hired elsewhere at Fox, and had been at Fox for a while, working out as a booking producer on some other show, and then she was shifted over to Tucker's team.
And I'm betting he wasn't the one who orchestrated that.
But she is not the only, you say liberal plant at Fox News, she's not the only one there.
In fact, it would very much appear that there are liberal plants running the place.
Crane & Company is hosting a 2023 NFL Draft livestream this Thursday, April 27th, which is today, right?
Isn't that today?
Yeah?
It is today.
Today, they're hosting this livestream.
They'll be taking bets, providing in-depth analysis on draft picks and the upcoming season, as well as some special guests that will appear there as well.
Tune in at 7.45 Eastern Time.
Don't miss what they'll do if they hit 100,000 subscribers during the stream.
Also, in stores all across America, prices are going up for the things you love, but not at the Daily Wire store.
Right now, you can get a huge discount on some amazing Daily Wire shirts, hats, accessories, and more during our biggest clearance sale ever.
You can save on great items like the Candice dad hat, which I just bought six of.
No, I'm not going to claim that I'm buying other people's.
I only buy my own merchandise.
That is not true.
The other stuff is fine, but I only buy Matt Walsh merchandise.
That's what I put all my kids in it.
That's what my wife wears.
We wear it around the house.
There's the Let Go Brandon gear to show support for all the Brandons in your life.
And of course, some terrific anti-panda merchandise.
The pro-panda lobby does not want you to have these great items, but we will not be swayed by their bully tactics.
I don't know why we're advertising the panda stuff.
The panda stuff is real niche.
I don't think it does really well in the shop.
But there's other stuff that does a lot better.
Anyway, you should still buy it.
I'm terrible at selling things.
Proudly show your defiance to woke culture and pandas by shopping the Daily Wire store mega sale because it ends tomorrow.
So go right now to dailywire.com slash shop.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation, we turn to recovery coach and weight-neutral trainer Ashantis Jones.
Now, these two meaningless job titles fall under the umbrella of an even more meaningless job title.
On her website, Jones refers to herself as a wellness advocate and offers paid wellness consultations.
She promises that she never judges, just supports.
This is what a person most often means these days when they say that they're a wellness advocate, or life coach, or counselor, or even therapist.
What they mean is that they will cheer you on and offer vague support for whatever life choices you've already made.
What they most certainly won't do, and wouldn't know how to do anyway, is guide you towards better life choices and a better life.
That would require judgment.
You know, you can't help someone better themselves without exercising judgment, but judgment is bad, we're told, which means that these counselors and coaches will not actually do any counseling or coaching.
Wellness, in this context, doesn't mean physical health, and it certainly doesn't mean mental or emotional health.
It means something more like mental comfort.
So they exist to make you feel comfortable with your own dysfunction.
They will not cure the dysfunction or help you navigate past it.
Rather, they will convince you to accept and embrace your dysfunction as an identity.
That's what Ashantis Jones is all about, and I gleaned all of that just by looking at her website for a few seconds.
But there is a caveat to this non-judgmental affirmative model.
Because when you dig just a little bit deeper, it doesn't take long before you discover that the non-judgmental types are, in fact, extremely judgmental.
They will judge you up and down and six ways from Sunday.
They will judge both your behavior and your motivations.
They'll claim the power to peer inside your very soul and pass judgment on it.
It's just that they will judge wrongly.
So this is what you can know about every single person who brags about their own lack of judgment.
In every case, every time, these will be the most judgmental people you ever come across in your life.
They don't practice no judgment, they practice bad judgment.
Everybody judges.
It's not possible to be a sentient being in the world without engaging in acts of judgment nearly every waking moment of the day.
Every waking moment, you're making judgment calls, you're making decisions.
The anti-judgment movement is really a movement away from good judgment and towards bad judgment, foolish judgment, destructive judgment.
These are people who judge without wisdom.
Which leads us to this recent TikTok video from wellness coach Ashantis Jones where she non-judgmentally explains that anyone who tries to lose weight is a fat phobic bigot.
Listen.
Another great question.
This person is asking if there is any time in which intentional weight loss is not fatphobic.
I'm going to say 99.9% of the times if you are intentionally losing weight, it is fatphobic.
I'm leaving that point little 0.01% in case I am truly, truly wrong.
But I don't think I am.
And here's the reason why.
I'm not saying if you exercise and happen to lose weight that that is fatphobic.
I'm not saying if you start a medication and you happen to lose weight that is fatphobic.
I am not saying that if you're going through any type of, you know, illness and that is altering your body in some way, that that is fatphobic.
I'm saying when you are intentionally exercising to lose weight, altering your diet to lose weight, doing any activity intentionally to lose weight, is fatphobic.
And the reason why is because you are intentionally attempting to make your body smaller to fit into what narrative?
The narrative that smaller is healthier, even though we've already discussed why that's not true.
Oh, well, thank God.
That's a relief.
Don't worry, folks.
Ashantis Jones has given you permission to lose weight if you have an illness.
So if a terminal disease is ravaging your body and you're withering away and you happen to lose weight, Ashantis will give you a Get Out of Fatphobia Free card.
She'll even come to the hospital and deliver last rites absolving you of fatphobia so you won't be condemned eternally in the afterlife.
She is a merciful master.
Indeed, in her generosity, she has even allowed us to lose weight as a result of exercise, so long as losing weight wasn't the goal.
So if you're going for a run around the neighborhood because you want to work off your beer gut, you are fatphobic scum and you should die.
But if you're sprinting through an airport terminal because you want to get to the Dairy Queen at the food court before the flight boards in 15 minutes, that will be acceptable.
In one case, you're exercising for the sake of losing weight.
In the other case, you're exercising with the intent of stuffing your fat face with ice cream.
These are the sorts of nuances that we need Ashantis Jones to help us navigate.
This is why she's the professional.
Now, I'm not going to waste a lot of time explaining, once again, why the concept of fat phobia is nonsensical.
Phobias are irrational fears, by definition.
A fear of becoming fat is not irrational, given that fatness comes with heart disease, cancer, dozens of other negative health outcomes.
And yes, fatness also looks displeasing.
Fatness is not attractive, because it is unhealthy.
We are wired to be attracted to health and vitality, not disease and decay.
Now, it's not that everyone who's even slightly overweight is automatically ugly, but that nobody is attractive because they are overweight.
This is why a slogan like, fat is beautiful, is not only morally problematic as it encourages people to engage in self-destructive behavior, but also factually wrong.
Fatness itself is not beautiful.
Fatness is excessive lard on the body.
Okay, that's what fat is.
It's a lard you're carrying around on your body.
There's nothing inherently appealing about that.
If an overweight person is beautiful, it is in spite of being fat, not because of it.
But aside from the aesthetic concerns, the main point is that, again, fatness will disable you.
Fatness will kill you.
And that provides very rational reasons to fear it.
It is not fat phobia.
It is fat realism.
But it's not a misunderstanding about obesity that drives the fat acceptance movement.
Even Ashantis Jones understands that, you know, objectively, by every measure, it is better to be physically fit than physically fat.
Yet she, along with all the other fat advocates, admonishes you for dieting and exercise and tries to, you know, if you try to improve yourself simply because your self-improvement makes her feel worse about herself.
That's what this is.
Okay, we all need to understand that this is so much of what drives the wokeism on the individual level.
It is an ideology of envy.
People who are unhappy with their lives, dissatisfied with their own choices, but yet lack the discipline and courage to make the necessary changes.
People who have no self-control, no ability to moderate, no capacity for delayed gratification.
People who are not healthy, not well-adjusted, therefore don't want you to be either.
And this is the case whether we're talking about fat acceptance or gender identity, really anything else.
Everything you hear from that side is motivated, at least on some level, by the fact that they are unhappy and your happiness makes them feel even less happy by comparison.
The attack on the nuclear family is most especially fueled by this mentality.
Lots of people who came from broken families and then grew up and created more broken families absolutely despise those of us who have happy, intact families.
They're like the five-year-old bully at the beach who can't figure out how to make a good sandcastle, so he knocks down other kids' sandcastles instead.
So much of the madness that grips hold of our culture right now is driven by motivations not any more complicated than that.
They don't want you to be happy because they're not happy.
They don't want you to be healthy because they aren't healthy.
And they're not going to put the work in.
And the fat acceptance advocate who advocates fat acceptance purely because she's too lazy to go for a jog is really the perfect example of this, which is why our friend Shontys Jones is today cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to Members Block, you can become a member today by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
