Ep. 1279 - Racial Segregation Is Making A Big Comeback, Thanks To The Left
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the mayor of Boston refuses to apologize about her tax-funded racially segregated holiday party that excludes white people. This is just the latest example of racial segregation making a big comeback, thanks to the Left. Also, a concerned citizen takes matters into his own hands and dismantles the satanic temple set up inside the Iowa state house. Some conservatives are uncomfortable with his actions. I, for one, wholeheartedly approve. Plus, Ron DeSantis shows what "law and order" looks like when you put it into practice. And the so-called "two spirit" community in Montana is challenging a state law that defines sex as male and female.
Ep.1279
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3lfVtwK
Watch Lady Ballers, the #1 Streaming Movie in America here: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
ProVia - New Customers Save over 50% Starter Package + Free Shipping + Free Gifts! https://proviahair.com/Walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 855-225-1040 or visit http://www.TNUSA.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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the mayor of Boston refuses to apologize about her tax-funded, racially segregated holiday party that excludes white people.
This is just the latest example of racial segregation making a big comeback, thanks to the left.
Also, a concerned citizen takes matters into his own hands and dismantles the satanic temple set up inside the Iowa Statehouse.
Some conservatives are uncomfortable with his actions, but I for one wholeheartedly approve.
Plus, Ron DeSantis shows what law and order looks like when you put it into practice, and the so-called two-spirit community in Montana is challenging a state law that defines sex as male and female.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
It's the season of giving, but you've already given enough to your internet service provider
if you haven't been using ExpressVPN when you go online.
And I'm not just talking about the enormous internet bill that you pay every month.
Every time you go online without ExpressVPN, your internet service provider can see and log every single website you visit.
And yes, that includes all the sites you visit in incognito mode.
In addition to overcharging you, your ISP is legally allowed to sell all your browsing activity to third-party advertisers for massive profits.
Well, I'm done giving to my internet service provider.
I always go online with ExpressVPN.
The app encrypts and reroutes 100% of my network data through their secure server, so my provider can't see anything.
The app couldn't be easier to use.
Simply fire up ExpressVPN on any of your devices, phone, laptop, whatever it is.
Tap one button to connect, and that's it.
You're in.
Unlike your internet service provider, ExpressVPN is committed to your privacy.
Their privacy policy has even been audited by third parties, so you can rest assured that your data is not being logged by anyone.
You've given enough to your internet service provider this year, so take back your internet privacy today with the VPN rated number one by TechRadar and Mashable.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh and get three extra months of ExpressVPN for free.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Walsh.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to learn more.
The other day I briefly talked about a racially segregated holiday party that was thrown by the mayor of Boston, Michelle Wu.
And in case you missed it, the basic idea here is that the mayor's office only wanted to invite the non-white members of the Boston City Council to the event.
They wanted to exclude all the white people.
And to that end, the mayor's staff sent out a bunch of emails addressed to, quote, electeds of color, which is yet another example of the fact that leftists are simply incapable of speaking actual English.
They're on their way to creating their own language at this point.
There was a problem with the party.
By mistake, the mayor's office sent out invitations to all of Boston City's council members, including the white devils.
It wasn't just electeds of color who got an invite, and seven white people got one, too.
And in an administration that cared about the Constitution or basic morality, this would be a highly embarrassing episode.
The mayor would apologize for discriminating on the basis of race, and then she would resign.
But that's not what happened in this case.
Instead, Michelle Wu, yesterday after we talked about this, she did apologize.
But not for the discrimination.
Instead, she apologized only for accidentally sending the invitation to white people.
She says that that was the only error she made, was in just sending the invitation to everybody.
The crackers weren't supposed to get one.
That's basically her apology.
Watch.
Tonight, Boston's Mayor Michelle Wu admits that a mistake was made in an invitation to a holiday party.
Members of the Boston City Council received an email invitation to what's called a gathering of electeds of color.
Not all members of the council fit that description.
I think we've had individual conversations with everyone so people understand that it was truly just an honest mistake that went out in typing the email field and I look forward to celebrating with everyone at the holiday parties that we will have besides this one as well.
So it is my intention that we can again be a city that lives our values and creates space for all kinds of communities to come together.
The mayor apologizing for any confusion that the original email created.
Apologizing for the confusion, but not for the fact that she is racially segregating her holiday parties.
The mayor also clarified that this electeds of color party has been going on for several years, and it's only now been discovered because of a mistake that her staff made.
So rest easy, the racial discrimination is nothing new.
She's been doing this forever.
That's the position of the mayor's office as of tonight, or last night, rather.
Whatever you make of that, there are a few legal experts who have suggested that it might, as you would expect, violate Massachusetts law, which does not allow government officials to use city resources to enforce racial segregation.
The Massachusetts Public Accommodations Act bars officials from, quote, making any distinction, discrimination, or restriction in admission to or treatment in a place of public accommodation based on race.
This event was held at the Parkman House, which is owned by the city, although it's not open to the public.
So, maybe that's the out here?
I don't know.
That seems pretty spurious at best.
Maybe the mayor can say that it's legal to discriminate on the basis of race as long as it's in a city building that is not a public accommodation.
Although it's a city building, it's not open to the public, so it's not a public accommodation.
Maybe that's the legal argument.
I don't think it's a very convincing one.
That still doesn't address the question of why Michelle Wu was so intent on keeping white people away from this event to begin with.
And it's especially strange given that Michelle Wu has a white husband.
So you might be tempted to think that maybe she just wanted to attend a holiday party without her husband around, and that's why she came up with this whole idea.
Maybe that's what's going on here.
I don't know.
She also has two half-white children, so are they allowed to come to the party?
Maybe they can be at the party for half the time?
I don't know.
Is that how it works?
This is not a completely satisfying explanation, mainly because it does seem that the mayor has a deep-seated disdain for white people in general.
For one thing, just a year ago, Wu cracked a joke about how many white problems she's had to deal with in the city.
You might remember this, watch.
In just over 100 days, we have connected unhoused residents at massing casts to housing, treatment, and services.
We've launched three free bus lines.
We've taken some big, bold actions, but I won't lie, this past winter was pretty intense.
Trial by snow, trial by fire, Fighters Union.
I'm getting used to dealing with problems that are expensive, disruptive, and white.
I'm talking about snowflakes.
Snowflakes!
I mean snowstorm snowflakes.
Oh yeah, and I forgot that was at the St.
Patrick's Day breakfast.
So this is, you know, supposed to be a breakfast celebrating Irish-Americans, and that's when she makes the anti-white joke.
You know, it's like, but I mean, I'm sure that would definitely happen in the reverse.
You know, you can imagine a politician going to a Kwanzaa breakfast and then complaining about all the black problems she has to deal with.
That would totally happen.
And this is the point where you have to wonder how someone like Michelle Wu became the mayor of a city like Boston, given that she clearly hates most of the city's residents based on their skin color.
In fact, even though the white population in Boston is declining like it is in every major city, it's still one of the whitest major cities in the country.
And yet it has, arguably, the most anti-white mayor in the country, which is a pretty high bar to get over.
How does that happen?
Well, not a lot of people are asking that question right now, even in Boston.
As I mentioned yesterday, even white members of the city council, the very people that Wu excluded from the holiday party because of their skin color, are mostly shrugging this whole episode off.
They're suggesting it's an isolated incident, as if that somehow would make racial segregation
acceptable. And even though we know it's not isolated, she said herself that she's been
doing it a lot. We also know it's not an isolated incident for a lot of other reasons.
You don't hear a lot about it, but explicit anti-white discrimination is, well, no longer
unusual in this country at all. And I'm not talking about just racial bias or affirmative
We've talked plenty about that.
Racial preferences in hiring and promotions.
Everyone knows that that's been going on.
I'm talking about policies in government and universities and school systems that overtly ban white people from participating.
This is a real thing that is happening all the time.
And it's not just happening at the mayor's holiday party in Boston.
Racial segregation has made a comeback in this country in a big way.
You just don't hear very much about it.
And the people who are advocating for it won't call it that.
Like, they would never call it a racially segregated holiday party, but that, of course, is exactly what it is.
Right now, for example, a school district in Illinois is segregating its English and math classes by race.
At Evanstown Township High School, black and Latino students go into one classroom when it's time to learn English and calculus and algebra, and then whites and Asians go into a different classroom.
This is the kind of program that legal experts say is clearly unconstitutional.
If anyone sued, it would be struck down immediately.
But people are not suing.
People are just letting it go on.
So the program continues.
They even have a name for this whole system of racial discrimination in the school system.
The school board calls it AXL.
And that means Advancing Excellence, Lifting Everyone.
Lifting everyone by dividing them.
As shocking as it sounds, it's nothing new for Chicago.
A couple years ago, Chicago's mayor at the time, Lori Lightfoot, announced that for one day, she would not talk to white reporters.
She just straight up said that she would not deal with any white reporters.
Again, there was mostly a collective shrug from reporters in the city when this happened.
Watch.
Today is Chicago Mayor Lightfoot's two-year anniversary in office.
To mark that occasion, Lightfoot announced she would only grant one-on-one interviews to black and brown journalists.
WGN political reporter Tamon Bradley sat down with her to learn more about that decision.
Your office says that you invited black and brown journalists to this round of interview.
Why?
I'm happy to vouch for Craig Wall, for Heather Cherone and others.
Well look, I think in this one day, when we are looking at the two year anniversary of my inauguration, as a woman of color, as a lesbian, it's important to me that diversity is put front and center.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot defending her most unusual decision to only invite black and brown journalists to her office for one-on-one interviews.
The move infuriated the mostly white City Hall Press Corps.
Yes, let's make it more diverse by making it less diverse.
Of course, that makes a lot of sense.
And Lori Lightfoot never apologized for that.
Why should she?
She understands that in Chicago, the third biggest city in the United States, open anti-white race hate isn't just tolerated, it's popular.
It's fine.
I mean, they claim there that the press corps was infuriated.
No, they weren't really.
They weren't really.
They certainly did not express any real fury.
And of course, there are many more examples.
In the wake of George Floyd's overdose, Rice University students demanded the construction of a literal black house on campus, along with segregated housing.
And last year, the New York Post reported that an off-campus housing co-op at UC Berkeley had banned white people from the common areas.
This is a five-story building called the Person of Color Theme House.
And here's an excerpt from the House Rules, quote, Many POC moved here to be able to avoid white violence and presence.
So, respect their decision of avoidance if you bring white guests.
White guests are not allowed in common spaces.
In fact, some white guests weren't allowed at all in the entire building.
As one student reported, quote, I was not allowed to let my dad enter the house because he's white.
Now, if you're wondering where Berkeley's administration stood on all this, the answer is that they supported, of course.
Anti-white hatred is endemic at the university.
Three years ago, in the summer of George Floyd, a third-year student named Seth Smith was shot in the back of the head, execution style, while he was out for a walk.
And Smith's killer was a black career criminal who mocked Smith for being white when he was arrested, after he just executed him.
How did Berkeley administrators respond to that incident?
Well, the chancellor released this statement, quote, many of you may have had a close relationship with Seth
and are feeling a sense of loss and disbelief.
Others, like many of us, are experiencing stress, grief, and anxiety related to the coronavirus pandemic
and the recent murders of George Floyd, Ryan Milton, and other black Americans.
In other words, sorry about the white kid who just got murdered, but isn't the death of George Floyd,
a felon with no connection whatsoever to Berkeley, also really upsetting?
That's what they said.
You know, imagine being one of Seth Smith's friends or family members and seeing that email.
You'd understand the message immediately.
Which is that, you know, he doesn't really matter because he's too white.
This is a message that Berkeley has communicated a lot recently and in various ways.
For example, the university recently held a blacks-only graduation ceremony.
They've been doing this every year for a while now, but earlier this year, one clip from this graduation ceremony went viral.
won't watch.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Receiving a Bachelor of Arts in disciplinary studies field, political economy, legal studies, and African American studies.
He said, disbursement and allocation, reparations for African Americans.
So that is state-funded segregation.
There are many more examples of it outside the Bay Area.
As of 2019, more than 75 universities in this country offer black-only graduation ceremonies.
The actual number by now is probably much higher than that.
Harvard still hosts affinity celebrations for graduates, which are subdivided by skin color.
White people, of course, are the only racial group that don't get one, but everyone else gets a specific one depending on what you look like, what your skin color is.
What's important to keep in mind is that none of these incidents are national scandals.
They obviously should be, but they haven't been.
And in many cases, the people being discriminated against don't seem to mind that much.
I mean, those impacted by these policies could file lawsuits, and even in our court system, they could easily win many of these lawsuits.
Because a lot of this stuff just is not remotely legal.
You can't do this kind of thing, especially your government institution, public institution, but nobody challenges it.
Nobody sues.
Nobody even objects most of the time.
And because of that ambivalence, racial equity is rapidly becoming what it was always destined to become, which is the return of racial segregation.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Keeping your windshields clean is always a pain, especially in the winter.
Dirt and salt pile up and washer fluid just can't get the job done.
That's where my friends at Windshield WOW come in to save the day.
Windshield WOW is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses two magnetic cleaning paddles, one on the outside and one on the inside of your car.
To clean both sides of your windshield, all from the outside.
All you do is push around the outside paddle and the inside follows automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
We get a lot of rain here in Nashville which leaves you with a hazy and dirty windshield.
Throw one of these in the back of your car so you can always have a clean windshield.
I personally own a windshield.
Wow, this is one of the best products for my car windshield.
Being able to clean both the front and the inside At the same time as a game changer.
I wish I had one of these years ago.
The Windshield WOW applies firm cleaning pressure.
It's super thin to get into those tight dashboard areas.
So what are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com.
Use code WALSH at checkout for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com and use code WALSH.
So this week we talked about the satanic altar that had been set up inside the Iowa Capitol building and it was put there by the satanic temple as a response to the manger scene that is also inside the Capitol building.
The temple claims that it has the religious liberty to set up satanic altars in government buildings if it wants to.
And the Iowa State Government didn't even attempt to fight them on it.
The only thing the Iowa State Government fought them on was that you can't have an actual severed goat's head, which is what they originally wanted.
But other than that, go ahead, Satanists, set up your altar in the State House.
And so they relented right away, and they let this depraved mockery occur.
Well, yesterday, a man named Michael Cassidy Decided Iowa residents, a veteran.
decided to do something about it, and here's what he did.
This is the Postmillennial reporting.
A satanic altar erected in the Iowa Capitol building has been torn down and beheaded by a Christian and former military officer.
According to the Sentinel, Michael Cassidy pushed over and decapitated the statue, which was placed in the building by members of the Satanic Temple of Iowa after receiving permission, and discarded the head of the statue into the trash.
Cassidy told the outlet that he destroyed the altar on Thursday to awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government.
Cassidy said, quote, The world may tell Christians to submissively accept the legitimization of Satan, but none of the founders would have considered government sanction of satanic altars inside Capitol buildings as protected by the First Amendment.
Anti-Christian values have steadily been mainstreamed more and more in recent decades, and Christians have largely acted like proverbial frogs in the boiling pots of water.
Cassidy turned himself in to officers who were present in the building, who confirmed the Satanic Temple of Iowa seeks to press charges.
Cassidy was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief.
Cassidy said, quote, I saw this blast from a statue and was outraged.
My conscience is held captive to the Word of God, not to bureaucratic decree, and so I acted.
Just, I mean, awesome.
Great response.
And great to see it.
And by the way, what he said is, everything he said is obviously completely correct, including the point about our Founding Fathers would not have considered us protected by the First Amendment.
And everybody knows that.
Don't even try.
Like, do you really think the Founding Fathers would have accepted satanic altars inside, you know, the statehouse of any state?
Which founding father do you think would have endorsed that?
Of course they wouldn't.
We all know that.
Now the update here is that there was a legal defense fund set up for Cassidy by the Sentinel, which is the outlet that initially reported on this, and I was happy to chip in to his legal defense.
TPSA pledged $10,000, I think.
They were only looking to raise $20,000, and they raised it in like three hours, and then they paused the campaign.
So I'd say this is a win so far, overall.
Somebody took down the display.
They took matters into their own hands.
They took the initiative.
A bunch of people rallied to support that person.
And it's a win.
I mean, it's a big win.
Now, there have been some on the right, well, of course, you know, on the left.
In fact, I just saw someone tweet it out saying this was a bigoted, this was a bigoted act.
Okay, bigoted against who?
The devil?
Like, this is devil phobia?
Satan phobia?
Is that, sure.
Yeah, you're right.
So you had that on the left as expected, but even some on the right, as you would also expect, have expressed concerns.
They're concerned.
I don't know, I'm concerned, but this concerns me.
It's concerning.
I'm a little concerned.
And so they've accused us, those who support Michael Cassidy, they've accused us of supporting and cheering on what legally qualifies as vandalism.
That's what they've accused us of.
And yes, that's exactly right.
That is what we're cheering on.
They also say that the Satanic Temple has the First Amendment right to set up its satanic altar inside a government building.
We may not like it, but, you know, if they want to set up a satanic altar in every state house in the country, there's nothing we can do about it.
We can't do anything.
We just have to sit back.
Every state house can be turned into a platform for worshipping the devil.
And there's nothing we can do.
We just can't do it for the sake of freedom.
This is freedom.
This is what freedom is.
You know, they say that if we think that it's okay to have a manger scene, then we also have to think it's okay to have a satanic altar.
That's the claim.
Right?
That's the equivalent.
If we're opposed to BLM rioters torching a CVS, we have to also be opposed to a guy decapitating a satanic altar.
And if we support a manger scene, then we also have to support a satanic altar.
We have to treat everything equally, these conservatives claim.
Because everything is the same!
We're not allowed to notice any difference between things.
They're all the same.
That's what it means to be free.
That's what freedom is.
But no.
That's not correct.
Everything is not the same.
You know that everything is not the same.
Everyone knows it.
We all know that.
Okay?
You know these things are not the same.
We don't have to pretend to believe otherwise.
Here's my basic position on this, and I do think, as I've argued, that there is a legal argument here that the satanic altar is not valid religious expression under the First Amendment.
As I've been saying all along, according to the Satanists themselves, the whole Satanism thing is essentially a parody, a mockery.
They don't even pretend to have a theological belief in the reality of Satan, so I don't think that even by pure legal standards this qualifies as First Amendment expression.
But, let's forget that for a second, because that's not my fundamental point.
My fundamental point is this, and this is going to blow your mind.
Good things are good.
Bad things are bad.
That's it.
That's what I believe.
So, I support good things, and I don't support bad things.
I think that good things should happen, and I think that bad things shouldn't happen.
And so when a good thing happens, I say, that's good.
And when a bad thing happens, I said, that's bad.
That's how I approach life.
It's revolutionary.
Maybe to you, if you're a sane person, this is not revolutionary.
But to a lot of conservatives, this is a revolutionary concept.
The idea that, oh, you can notice when something is good and treat it as good, and when something is bad, you can treat it as bad?
Really?
No, that's not what the founders would have wanted.
That's not what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted.
Honestly, I don't care if that's what he wanted.
If that's what he wanted or didn't want, I don't care anyway, but you're incorrect on what the founders would have wanted.
So, the idea that I'm bound by the principle of liberty and human rights to draw no distinction between good and bad is insane.
And that is an idea that the guys who came up with the doctrine of human rights, which lies at the foundation of our country, did not believe.
So they themselves did not share this modern notion that in order to respect everyone's rights, we have to pretend that everything is the same and be just as welcoming of bad things as we are of good.
That is, again, insane.
It's ridiculous.
I want a good society that is ordered towards the good, and where goodness is encouraged and welcomed, and I want a society where, therefore, badness is discouraged and unwelcomed.
This is basic stuff.
So, putting this in practice, if a guy spray paints, you know, graffiti on a cop car, you know, he sprays ACAB on a cop car or whatever during a BLM riot, And then, you know, you've got that kind of vandals, and then over here you've got a guy dismantling a satanic altar.
Are those the same?
Well, no, because the guy with the spray paint is doing something that's obviously bad, and the guy who's getting rid of the satanic altar is doing something that is good.
And so, I see them as different, for that reason alone.
Is a manger the same thing as a satanic altar?
Are we bound to that?
Well, you support the manger.
You're stuck with the satanic altar.
It's just the way it is.
You're impotent.
You are impotent in the face of the satan.
No.
Because the manger is good.
And the satanic altar is bad.
I can make that distinction.
So can you.
So can everybody.
And then you're left, well, who's to say what's good?
Who's to say what's bad?
If you find yourself saying that about Satan, well, who's to say that Satan is bad?
It's, like, literally the definition of bad.
So... Now, who's to say what's good and bad?
I don't know.
All of us.
Like, we all know.
This is natural law.
You know, these are basic moral insights that everyone has access to.
How do we know that a satanic altar in the state capitol is bad?
Or, you know, who's to say that?
We all know that.
Every single one of us knows it.
The only difference is that some people pretend they don't know it.
Alright.
Speaking of things that are bad, This is from New York Post.
One-third of U.S.
teenagers say that they almost constantly use at least one of the top five social media sites, such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center.
YouTube remained the clear-cut favorite for the second year in a row, with 93% of users aged 13 to 17 logging into the Google Home site, according to the survey of nearly 1,500 teens published on Monday.
TikTok was next to 63%.
And that's how it all breaks down.
And then, let's see, TikTok users are even more hooked with 17% saying that they almost constantly scroll through the app each day, despite it being the first choice of 58%.
So, you know, every few weeks we get another one of these studies.
And the basic headline of this study, which probably has not shocked anyone, is that you have Millions of young people and teenagers who, according to their own responses, apparently, to the survey, they are almost constantly scrolling.
They're almost constantly on their phone.
And I know you guys probably get tired of hearing me drone on about this, but I really, really wish that we would all stop and think about what it means.
Like, what this actually means.
What does it mean to have kids who are scrolling on social media, quote-unquote, almost constantly?
Because almost constantly means basically non-stop.
It means you are rarely doing anything else with your time.
And of course, nobody denies that plenty of kids and adults are indeed on their phones almost constantly.
But I think we don't stop to think about what that means.
Because if we did stop to think about what that means, it wouldn't be happening.
If we really thought about what that means, every parent would go home and they would take their kid's phone and they would never give it back to them.
Most parents aren't doing that, which means that they really don't get it.
They don't understand.
In fact, You know, I think that most people tend to think that the young generation being obsessed with new technology is kind of normal and par for the course.
They're not very alarmed by it.
And maybe it is, but the obsession is different here because, like when I was a kid, The big concern then, in the 90s, was about TV.
People spending way too much.
And we'd get all these studies, you know, every year or something, there'd be another study about the amount of time that Americans spend and young people spend and kids spend watching TV.
And it was a problem.
People spent way too much time watching television.
But at least your television is at home.
And you have to be at home, or at someone's home, to watch it.
It's like a stationary object, and you have to go to it to watch it.
And even if we had 100 cable channels or whatever it was, there was still a finite amount of content on TV that you wanted to watch.
So there were just these built-in parameters.
There were these rules for engagement.
There were these limiting principles, even to that technology, that certainly did dominate people's lives more than it should, and still does.
But the phone is different because it goes with you everywhere.
You never escape it.
And the content is infinite.
It never ends.
It's not self-limiting in any way.
So it grabs hold of you and it grabs this stranglehold on you in a way that is simply unprecedented in human history.
There's been plenty of technology that has reshaped humanity.
Like when cars came along and humanity at that point verged off in a different direction.
It looks very different now than it would if cars were never invented.
But there's never been one single device that has become nearly the sole focal point of existence.
That is what is unique here.
And that's why we're a new territory.
And I really wish that people could see that.
And I know they can't because, like I said, if they did see it and understand what we're dealing with, they would take drastic action to protect their kids from what is currently happening to them.
And I'm not exempt from this as a parent.
You know, as you know, my kids don't have phones.
They don't really have any tech outside of the one TV that we own and share as a family.
And because I just refuse to let phones take over my kids' lives.
And you know what?
There are people who say, well, if you don't give the phone to your kid, then they'll be alienated from their friends.
And that's not entirely wrong.
I mean, my kids have friends, and they are a little bit alienated from them.
And as my kids get a little bit older, you feel this more and more.
You see this more and more, that they don't have that shared kind of frame of reference.
Like, for most kids, their whole frame of reference for life is the phone.
And so then my kids come in and they don't have, they're totally... They have no access to any of that.
And so they don't have that frame of reference.
And so it is a little bit alienating.
Which I don't like.
I wish it wasn't like that.
But it's a sacrifice that is worth it right now.
My kids might not see that it's worth it.
They don't see that.
But I'm the adult.
So I'm supposed to be able to see farther than they can.
And I just...
In absolutely dead set in my conviction, and my wife's conviction, that they are going to have a childhood.
Whether they like it or not, they're going to have a real childhood that is not consumed by the phone.
The point is, we've introduced a little bit of this stuff very sparingly.
So we do have tablets for the kids, with just games and books on them.
There's no internet access.
And the rule is that on long car trips, They can use the tablets.
Not the whole time, but it's a resource we can use.
We take a lot of long car trips.
We're talking 18-hour car trips.
When I say long, that's what I mean.
And so in those kinds of contexts, they have the tablet for limited times.
That's what we've mostly regulated it to.
Recently, though, we started to get a little bit more, slightly more relaxed about it.
Slightly.
And so we would let the kids, for very limited times, use the tablets in the house.
And this is always, you know, it's like, no one is exempt from it.
As a parent, you're always like, okay, this is, okay, we're not doing this.
And then you're like, okay, we'll do it.
Okay, we'll do it, but only in this context, and then quit.
And this is how it always works with the tech stuff.
So, but it's, you know, so every once in a while, so maybe total in like an hour a week total of when they're on the tablets in the house, but not on the internet.
And then a few days ago, my youngest son was using the tablet very briefly in the house.
And we told him the tablet time was over and he had a little bit of a meltdown.
Then we took the tablet away.
And I've never seen this with my kids before.
This was like this, this drug addict withdrawal response from tech.
Never seen it with my kids.
First time.
I've seen it with other kids all the time.
This is very common.
You know, this is how other kids respond.
Take away the video game, take away the phone, and they just lose it.
First time I've seen it with one of my kids, and it was after just a little bit of exposure, and it was a very, you know, it was a, it's one of those, I thought I was already awake to the, it's kind of an awakening moment, although I thought I was already pretty aware of the problem.
So, I took the tablet and threw it in the trash.
And that was it.
And I've been thinking ever since, like, man, if my kids can become that attached to the tech from having such limited access to it, what's going on with so many of these other kids?
I mean, it's scary.
Like, just a little bit.
It just has this pull.
And if you're not careful, that's how it consumes your kid's life.
I will say my wife was a little bit annoyed that I threw the tablet away, though, admittedly.
She's like, you could have just put it in a drawer.
You didn't have to throw it in the trash.
Well, you gotta be a little bit more definitive and dramatic sometimes as a parent.
And also, this is a dad tradition that I'm carrying on.
Anyway.
All right, let's go to one of the things I wanted to mention, which is Ron DeSantis You know that I support Ron DeSantis, and you know all the reasons that I do.
This is the kind of thing that... I don't care.
You support Trump, you support anybody else.
That's fine.
But if you don't at least give DeSantis credit for this, which we're going to talk about in a second, if you don't at least give him credit for this, then you're just a fraud.
I don't know what to tell you.
And if you follow anybody in conservative media, and they're not at least giving him some credit for this thing right here, then you're following a fraud.
Because even if you don't want Ron Santos to be president, you should be able to recognize this and say, okay, he's doing something important here.
And here it is.
This is from TampaBay.com.
In what may be the first case of its kind in the state, Central Florida prosecutors said Thursday they will seek the death penalty against a man accused of sexually abusing a child, making use of a new law that expanded capital punishment to sex crimes against children.
The Office of State Attorney William Gladson, who prosecutes cases in five counties northwest of Orlando, filed a notice of intent to seek a death sentence for Joseph Andrew Giampa, who faces charges of sexual battery on a person younger than 12.
In a statement, Gladson's office noted the severity of the crime and its impact on the community.
Statement read quote the decision to pursue the highest penalty reflects the gravity of the charges in the state
attorney's office dedication To holding criminals accountable for their actions case
appears to be the first in modern times In which Florida prosecutors have sought capital punishment
for a charge other than murder. It's also case likely to post
Constitutional challenges as US Supreme Court precedent forbids the death penalty for the crime of rape
Giampa's 36 was arrested in November An arrest affidavit in his case states that Lake County Sheriff's deputies questioned him at his home during the conversation.
Guillampas led the deputies to a camper and allowed them to look at a video on a laptop computer.
The affidavit describes the video as depicting a man sexually abusing a child while recording the act.
And if you want more details of the case and what a absolute monster, scumbag this guy is, you can of course go look that up.
Suffice it to say, this is a man who desperately deserves to be killed for his actions.
And that might happen to him now, and I say might because while the prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, and they have to get it, but then also, it's correct, this will probably end up in the Supreme Court.
Because right now, as the article says, the precedent is that it's a constitutional violation to give the death penalty to anyone who's not a murderer, which we need to revisit that, because that is ridiculous.
Like, the idea that the only thing you can ever do that warrants a death penalty is to kill someone is absurd.
Because there are obviously crimes that are at least just as bad as the kind of murders we put people to death for.
And I think... I certainly would... I think and I would certainly hope that almost everyone can agree that one of the crimes that's as bad, if not worse, than the sort of murders we put people to death for is the rape of a child.
You know, that's...
Like, when you get to that level, you are in the realm of, you have now reached, like, the basement of human evil.
Which, it doesn't get worse than that.
I mean, it can get, you can have child rapists who are also murderers, you can have, you know, then you have some of these people have more victims than others.
So now you get like quantity-wise there are more crimes being committed.
And then you can have some criminals who are quote-unquote worse than others in that sense.
But when it comes to the actual crime itself, that is the depth.
You have now made it into the darkest depths of human evil.
And it seems clear to me that if we're going to have the death penalty at all, which we should, That obviously you should be eligible for it if you have made it all the way into the deepest depths of human evil.
And this is something that's made possible because Ron Santis signed legislation which makes these scumbags eligible to be executed.
So, this is law and order.
This is what law and order looks like.
And it's not just saying things.
Okay, and I think Ron DeSantis is often judged, and this is not just Ron DeSantis, but this is how we so often judge politicians.
It's based on what they say and how well they say it.
And I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to that latter point, how well it is expressed, Ron DeSantis isn't always the best in that area.
Like, he's not the most charismatic politician I've ever seen.
He's not the least by a long shot.
I put him like, you know, when it comes to charisma and being articulate and all that sort of thing, I put him, you know, I put him square.
I gave him like a, I don't know, a C plus in that, you know, for that.
I think he's sort of right in the middle.
Probably a little bit above average.
But when you think of Ron DeSantis, you don't think to yourself, oh, that's a guy who's just exuding charisma.
Nobody thinks that.
But who cares?
That doesn't matter.
You could be charismatic and be a terrible leader.
You can lack charisma and be a great leader.
And it's, you know, in modern society, when we got 24-hour cable news, and we have social media, and we're just like constantly, you know, we are seeing and hearing from these people all the time, it becomes even more of an issue where we associate charisma with leadership.
It may shock you to learn that, you know, if you were to make a list, historically, of who you would consider to be the greatest leaders of all time, Some of them were quite eloquent and charismatic, but not all of them.
There are plenty of great leaders of history that, you know, if you could go back in a time machine and listen to them give a speech or something, you would say, oh, you know, I was expecting a little bit more than that.
Because all of that, that doesn't really matter in the end.
What actually matters as a leader, and especially as an executive, it's like what you do.
What are you doing?
That is what I care about.
I only care, that's what I care, what are you doing?
I don't need to be your friend.
I don't need you to impress me with your rhetoric.
I don't need you— I certainly don't need to be entertained by you and the things you say.
That's not what I need from you.
I need you to do things.
I need you to do the right things, and do them well, and do them competently, and do them effectively.
And here, this is doing the right thing.
That, to this point, No other Republican leader, executive, governor has been willing to do this.
He's the only one.
And if you won't give him credit for that, then your priorities are not in the right place, to say the least.
Let's get to the comment section.
Maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in the family.
There's a real solution that delivers on its promise without the harsh side effects, unwanted chemicals, or a need for a prescription.
Provia uses a safe, natural ingredient called Procapil to effectively target the three main causes
of premature hair thinning and loss.
Provia delivers nutrients to support healthy scalp circulation and stronger hair follicles.
Provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower or on your comb.
Effective for men and women of any age, Provia is safe on colored, treated, and styled hair.
Right now, new customers save over 50% plus free shipping on Provia's introductory package at proviahair.com/walsh.
Every package includes a full 60-day supply of Provia serum for daily use, plus the Provia Super Concentrate for faster, more noticeable results.
Every order includes your choice of a free gift right now.
Provia works, guaranteed, or 100% of your money back.
Don't wait.
Order now and save an extra 10% off just in time for the holidays at ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
That's ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
All right, we talked a couple days ago about fat phobia and how they are now actually passing laws.
And if you didn't watch that show or hear that monologue, you should go back and listen to it because this is, I'm telling you right now that this is, you know, of course the fat acceptance thing has been, we've been hearing about that for a while, but this is the next great frontier after the trans stuff.
Not that the trans stuff is going away.
It's not that they're abandoning it.
But by the next great frontier for the left and with the victimhood, with their victimhood ideology, is fat acceptance.
And so now there are actual laws being passed against so-called fat phobia.
So, a few comments about that.
Blake says it absolutely sucks being morbidly obese.
I've lost 60 pounds this year and though I still have a long way to go, I'm feeling a huge difference.
That said, I suggest Fat Pride March is at least five days a week, 45 to 60 minutes.
You know, you actually raise a good point that this is the one, you know, we hear about fat pride and fat acceptance, but it is interesting.
And, you know, you as a, I guess what you're saying, as a formerly obese man, you've brought this up yourself.
I didn't want to say it, but it is interesting that that's, This is like the one identity group that doesn't want to go on marches on the left.
So all the other identity groups are constantly organizing marches.
It's interesting that the morbidly obese are not organizing marches to express their fat pride.
But you also prove what really shouldn't need to be proven, which is that obesity is a choice.
Which means, I know people don't like to hear that, Because it sounds like we're putting the onus, you know, if someone's obese and you hear obesity is a choice, they don't like to hear that obesity is a choice because it sounds like we're blaming them.
And we're putting the onus on them.
We're putting the responsibility on them.
And the answer is yes, it's exactly what we're doing.
Yeah, I am blaming you.
If you are massively overweight, I am blaming you for that.
You have all the blame for that.
That is your fault.
So I am victim blaming 100% for that.
But the good news is that that means that you have the power to do something about it.
Which I would think is good news.
See, that's the way that I am wired.
Like, if there's some problem that I'm having, or if there's some issue with me, I want to believe that it's my fault.
Because I want to believe I have control over it.
I want to believe that I can change it.
You know, if I'm having some issue, the worst thing you could ever tell me is, oh, it's not your fault, you can't do anything about it.
I wouldn't see that as a relief.
Now you're telling me I'm stuck, I can't do anything.
I have no power.
That's like, and yet somehow that is, we pretend that that is the empowering message, is to tell people they have no power.
It doesn't make any sense.
Another comment says, how much do you think fat acceptance is related to gender ideology and LGBT?
It seems like they all get lumped in with each other.
Yeah, they all do get lumped in with each other.
Well, part of it is the victim, they're all part of the victim pyramid.
Which we put out a video over the weekend where I explain in great detail how the victim pyramid works, and you should go and check that out on YouTube.
It's very complicated.
Well, it seems like a complicated equation, but that's why I break it down.
Because once you break it down, you see it's simpler than you think.
So they're all related in that sense.
These are all victim groups.
Emily says, I had a six-hour flight and I was sitting next to an obese man who took up half of my seat.
He was pressed up against me the whole time.
And when he got up after the six hours, my entire right side was soggy from him sweating on me.
Obese people need to buy an extra seat.
Good Lord.
You say that obese people need to buy an extra seat, but maybe you've heard the latest, which is the latest innovation, and Southwest Airlines is getting out ahead of the curve on this one, because they are now granting, and I think this is a very new thing that they just started doing, I don't know, in the last few weeks, but they are now giving free seats to obese people.
All you have to do is go up to the gate agent and say that you're an obese American or whatever, an American with obesity.
However, it's supposed to be phrased, and they will give you an extra seat.
Which, I don't know how that works.
I don't know how that can work.
Especially given that, like, every flight you get on these days is full.
It's pretty rare to be on a flight that isn't full.
So how in the world do they have extra seats?
Are they actually taking a seat away from a normal-sized person?
When the obese person comes up and says, hey, I'm real fat.
I need an extra seat.
And they say, oh, well, we will make sure you get one.
Does that mean that the next move is they have to call somebody else up who's sitting at the gate and say, you know, bad news.
We had to bump your flight.
There's a really fat person.
There's not room enough for both of you.
I don't know.
I guess it wouldn't surprise me.
And look, generally speaking, I'll say that anyone who flies a lot has had this experience of flying next to someone who's severely overweight, and you're pressed up against them.
And look, I'm not someone who is normally... I wouldn't be accused of being too sympathetic of a person, or too empathetic, rather.
But even in those cases, I'll admit, I do feel sorry, actually, for the obese person on the plane.
Like, in the sense that I wouldn't want that to be me.
And you're sitting there, and it's like, you know that everyone who comes by you doesn't want to sit next to you.
You know as soon as you get on the plane that everyone's kind of looking at you and groaning, and like, that's humiliating.
Of course, they lose my sympathy the moment they demand a free seat.
And you start to lose my sympathy if you don't take It's like, yeah, if you have that moment on the plane and it's humiliating, well, you've got to take that as fuel to change your life.
And if you don't, then at a certain point, it's hard to be sympathetic.
Are you struggling with the back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents.
In these challenging times, your best defense is to use Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, Tax Network USA has saved their clients over a billion dollars in back taxes.
No matter your tax issue size, the experts at Tax Network USA can help you.
They specialize in negotiating with the IRS and aim to reduce your debt significantly.
Tax Network USA doesn't just negotiate, they protect your assets from IRS seizures and manage your yearly returns for ongoing compliance.
Importantly, they are licensed to help with all state tax issues, regardless of where you live in the US.
Seize control of your financial future now and don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief Also, The Daily Wire is excited to announce the search for our newest position, Head of Studios at The Daily Wire.
This role offers an incredible opportunity to shape the future of our company's rapidly growing entertainment division.
At The Daily Wire, we create unforgettable content for our advertisers through film, television, podcasts, merchandise, and more.
And you can be part of it.
Your leadership will be front and center as you drive the company's creative vision through expert content development, strategic partnerships, audience expansion, and widespread product distribution.
Don't miss out on this extraordinary opportunity to do brilliant work that matters every single day.
If you're interested in joining our team, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
That's dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
The Republican governor of the state signed a bill clarifying that there are only two human sexes, male or female, which of course is, I mean, it's like signing a bill clarifying that we live on planet Earth or that gravity exists or that the Tooth Fairy isn't real, but, um, and maybe there will come a time when those pieces of legislation will need to be written as well, but for now, For reasons that will be obvious to most people in the audience, it was in fact necessary to make this stipulation about the biological realities of the human species.
Now, needless to say, leftists in the state and across the country have not been happy about this law.
There is, after all, nothing they hate more than biological reality, or really any sort of reality.
It was inevitable that there would be lawsuits.
The only question is, or was, who would step up to the plate to actually legally challenge the male-female binary?
Who would be the first to make a move?
And now we have our answer.
CNN reports quote as they fight to reclaim their history some in Montana's two-spirit community are
Challenging a state law that defines sex as binary because it infringes on their spiritual and cultural beliefs in
October attorneys Representing the two-spirit nonprofit Montana two-spirit
society along with a group of transgender intersex and non-binary Montana residents filed a lawsuit
challenging the law they They argue the state's definition of sex improperly categorizes many Montanans, excludes others from legal recognition entirely, and deprives them of the benefits and protections of myriad state laws.
The complaint also argues that the law violates Montana's individual dignity, equal protection, privacy, and freedom of speech laws.
Now, of course, the idea that it violates freedom of speech is totally absurd.
I mean, not any more absurd than the rest of it, but still worth noting.
The law does not prevent anyone from saying or believing that there are more than two sexes.
It doesn't forbid any individual from claiming that he's some made-up sex other than male or female.
You can say or believe what you want because you have a right to your own opinion.
You do not, however, have a right to your own reality.
Reality is what it is, no matter what you may say about it.
And the law deals with reality, not with what you say or what you perceive.
That's an important detail, but reading a little bit more, David Herrera, co-founder and executive director of the Montana Two-Spirit Society, said it was important for the group to join the lawsuit because limiting gender goes against indigenous traditions and cultures.
Quote, we don't ascribe to just simple biological definitions.
We acknowledge that there are different genders, and our cultures have always known that there are many more than two genders.
In some of the indigenous cultures, there may be as many as four to six different genders.
According to Herrera, a 61-year-old who is two-spirit and adopted black feet.
Now, there's that sleight-of-hand trick again, and if you've listened to the show for any length of time, you're pretty well trained to look out for it.
And you know that it's coming whenever the trans ideologues start talking.
So this is a law that deals with sex, male or female.
It does not deal with gender, which the left insists is different from sex, yet the left objects to the law on the grounds that gender is fluid.
But even if we agreed with that claim, what does it have to do with sex, which you say is something entirely distinct?
Well, the answer is that words have no objective meaning to these people.
Words mean whatever they need them to mean at the moment.
And speaking of made-up words, what about this idea of two-spirit?
Supposedly, two-spirit is the Native American version of being trans.
A two-spirit person has the soul of both a male and a female, and this is the belief, allegedly.
And of course, we've talked about this two-spirit concept before, but it's still interesting to listen to the left try to explain what it is.
Interesting mainly because of how thoroughly the two-spirit thing undermines their own premise about gender.
So to show you what I mean, here's an interview with David Herrera, who was mentioned in the article, the head of the Montana Two-Spirit Society, posted on the organization's website.
And in this interview, he's supposed to be talking about what Two-Spirit is.
So listen to what he says about the origin and meaning of the term.
What's Two-Spirit?
For me, it's a cultural term more than anything else, as it relates to Native and Indigenous tribes and people.
The term Two-Spirit came out in 1990.
I believe it was about 1988 or 89.
Back then, you know, during the 80s and stuff, HIV was already hitting, so it was already mobilizing a lot of LGB communities around that.
So there was talk about wanting to bring together and start, like, this Native national organization.
For the most part, a lot of the Native folks did not identify with the gay, LGB, you know, T community at all.
They were more identified with their tribe.
You know, it's like, well, It's like, I'm not a gay, you know, man.
I'm, you know, Cherokee or I am, you know, Blackfeet.
It was a very foreign concept to create an identity based on your sexual expression.
Because every tribe had their own word for what it meant to be kind of like two-spirit or, you know, gay or lesbian and stuff.
And so we knew, like, okay, you know, we can't use, you know, Nadle, you know, the national Nadle, because that was really only referred to Navajo or, you know, Winkta, which would be more of the, you know, the Sioux Lakota.
And so I was trying to come up with a word that would be an umbrella that everybody would know that this is what we're talking about.
So one of the first gatherings that happened was in Minneapolis back in the late 80s, and it was at that gathering that The folks came up with the term two-spirit.
With that work, was that something that we could all agree on, that we could identify with and use, that put that out there, that when we say two-spirit, we are talking about Native, Indigenous, you know, individuals who, you know, are identified, or maybe, you know, gay, lesbian, what we would, you know, know as gay, lesbian, or trans.
Okay, so even by his own admission, two-spirit is not some ancient Native American custom.
It doesn't signify a traditional indigenous belief in transgenderism as a concept.
It doesn't indicate that transgenderism existed even in ancient cultures, as the left likes to pretend.
According to the head of the Two-Spirit Society, this idea was, as you've heard me say before, invented by gay activists in the late 1980s.
I thought it was 1990s.
He's claiming it's the late 1980s.
Whatever.
The point is, if you took a time machine back to the 18th century and landed on the Great Plains, and then you went and talked to some member of the Comanche tribe or the Arapaho or Lakota, and you asked them about their two-spirit community, they wouldn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.
That's because two-spirit is not an ancient Indian idea.
It's a modern gay leftist idea.
Which is yet more evidence that transgenderism itself is a uniquely modern, uniquely Western invention.
It has no precedent in traditional societies.
But it gets better, because we hear from our friend from the Two-Spirit Society that although Two-Spirits didn't exist in any Indian tribe, they did have similar identity groups that they recognized.
He mentioned the Winkta of the Lakota tribe, for example.
But Winkta comes from the Lakota word, which I will botch, which is Winyon-Kateka.
However it's pronounced, what it means literally is, wants to be like a woman.
That's what the Lakota word means.
Okay?
It's analogous to the modern, is that analogous to the modern conception of trans?
Well, no, not remotely.
Because the left claims that trans people literally are the sex that they identify as.
A quote-unquote trans woman is Not a man who wants to be like a woman.
He is actually a woman.
But Winkda doesn't mean that.
It means that a man, who is in every sense actually a man, wants to be like a woman.
So in other words, this is an effeminate man.
This is a homosexual.
And that's what the word refers to.
It indicates that a man is gay.
That's what it means.
Not that he's a woman, but that he's a gay effeminate man.
Natalie, who as he also mentioned, the other term he mentioned, means something similar.
So these are men who are acting like women.
Adopting some of the behaviors traditionally associated with women.
But they are not actually women.
Now this is the best these people can do to prove that transgenderism has some kind of historical precedent.
But all they've really proven, if they've proven anything at all, is that there were effeminate homosexuals in ancient societies.
Which is a fact that nobody denies.
And which doesn't even come close to legitimizing transgenderism, a category that the left themselves would claim has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Unless, of course, the left is finally admitting that trans women are just effeminate homosexuals.
Is that what they're saying?
But they aren't admitting that.
At least not on purpose.
Now, of course, Even if it was true that Indian tribes had a belief in two spirits, that would still undermine modern leftist trans ideology because two spirit is clearly a spiritual belief.
I mean, it's right there in the name.
It's not a belief in the literal reality of a trans woman's womanhood.
It's a religious, faith-based concept.
And not only that, but it's a religious faith-based concept that still affirms the male-female binary.
Notice that it's two spirits and not three or four or five.
And that's because even when you try to get away from the binary, you still can't help but affirm it.
So, to recap, two-spirit is a vague spiritual notion invented recently by leftists as an umbrella term for effeminate homosexuals in Native American tribes.
And on this basis, they seek to challenge the very existence of males and females as categories.
Well, all I can say to that is good luck.
And also, you're cancelled.
And that'll do it for the show today and also this week.
