Ep. 1310 - The Government Accidentally Confirms That It Has Absolutely No Evidence To Support So-Called 'Gender Affirming Care' For Minors
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Department of Health and Human services has assured us that the "evidence" supports castrating and sterilizing children. But they never produced any of this evidence until a freedom of information act request forced their hand. Now we can take a look at the evidence, and it is even more underwhelming and ridiculous than we expected. Also, the mother of a school shooter has been convicted of manslaughter. We'll take a look at the potentially troubling implications of this unprecedented move. Donald Trump says we should end the Bud Light boycott. And in our Daily Cancellation, we'll deal with the hit recording artist Ice Spice, a woman who has all of the intelligence and artistic merit of a loud fart. Which also happens to be the subject of her latest hit song.
Ep.1310
- - -
DailyWire+:
Tune in on 2.13.24 at 7 PM ET for another Daily Wire Backstage exclusively on DailyWire+
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Renewal by Andersen - Shop Renewal by Andersen’s New Year’s Sales Event by Texting WALSH to 200-300
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
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 Department of Health and Human Services has assured us that the evidence supports castrating and sterilizing children, but they never produced any of this evidence until a Freedom of Information Act request forced their hand.
Now we can take a look at the evidence, and it's even more underwhelming and ridiculous than we expected.
Also, the mother of a school shooter has been convicted of manslaughter.
We'll take a look at the potentially troubling implications of this unprecedented move.
Donald Trump says that we should end the Bud Light boycott.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll deal with the hit recording artist Ice Spice, a woman who has all the intelligence and artistic merit of a loud fart, which also happens to be the subject of her latest song.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show
If you're like me, there's not a day that goes by that you don't call or text someone you care about.
I'm constantly chatting on the phone myself, and my friends at Pure Talk are making it easier and more affordable to connect with the most important people in your life.
Pure Talk gives you the phenomenal coverage that you want on America's most dependable 5G network.
It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys.
With unlimited plans starting at just $20 a month, the average family saves almost $1,000 a year.
A veteran-owned company, Pure Talk raised $10 million towards veteran debt last year alone.
What's more?
Pure Talk's customer service team is located right here in the U.S.
and can help you make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
I challenge you to stand with a company that champions your values today.
So go to puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Right now, you can save an additional 50% on your first month there.
But you got to go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to save on wireless with a company you can be proud to spend your money with.
Again, puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
When he was nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for Health three years ago, Richard Levine, who in his 50s began using the name Rachel Levine, was asked a series of questions by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
And Paul wanted to know why Levine, as a medical professional, wouldn't reject the idea of mutilating the genitals of minors in the name of gender-affirming care, quote-unquote.
And here's how that conversation went.
Watch.
What I'm alarmed at is that you're not willing to say absolutely minors shouldn't be making decisions to amputate their breast or to amputate their genitalia.
For most of our history we believe that minors don't have full rights and the parents need to be involved.
So I'm alarmed that you won't say with certainty that minors should not have the ability to make the decision to take hormones that will affect them for the rest of their life.
Will you make a more firm decision on whether or not minors should be involved in these decisions?
Senator, transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field, and if confirmed to the position of Assistant Secretary of Health, I would certainly be pleased to come to your office and talk with you and your staff about the standards of care and the complexity of this field.
Let it go into the record that the witness refused to answer the question.
Before I turn it over to Senator Murphy, I do want to say, Dr. Levine, I wanted to say I appreciated your thoughtful and medically informed response to Senator Paul's questions earlier in the hearing.
It is really critical to me that our nominees be treated with respect.
And that our questions focus on their qualifications and the work ahead of us, rather than on ideological and harmful misrepresentations like those we heard from Senator Paul earlier.
And I will focus on that as chair of this committee.
So thank you again for your response.
These people are, they're just so evil.
They're so cartoonishly evil.
And that's just a portion of the whole exchange.
In the full clip, Levine evades the question multiple times.
It's not an ideological question.
It's like, medically, is this an okay thing to do?
A very, very simple medical question.
And he just repeats the same rehearsed answer, really, which is a non-answer.
He says that he's more than happy to stop by Paul's office at some later date to explain the complex science behind mutilating children.
And they go back and forth until Paul finally has to give up.
And then at the end, of course, as you saw, Democratic Senator Patty Murray congratulates Levine on his, quote, thoughtful and medically informed answers to Rand Paul.
The medically informed answer was, I'm not going to answer that.
We can talk about this in private.
Because I don't want to talk about this subject of the surgeries that I support.
I don't want to talk about it in front of people.
I'd rather talk to you privately about it.
But what does that tell you?
Now, 10 years ago, this would have been a scene from a dark comedy sketch about a dystopia that's just too far-fetched to imagine in real life.
And this should have been the moment that Levine was disqualified from ever holding public office again, much less becoming a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services, for God's sake.
But Democrats and even some Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, didn't see a problem with Levine's answer.
They voted to confirm Levine after hearing all of this.
And these are sitting U.S.
senators who evidently have no problem with the fact that Levine supports the physical castration of children, even though he could present no evidence that it's medically appropriate.
Given the opportunity to present evidence, he could not do it.
To be clear, Rand Paul was not misrepresenting Levine's position in any way, of course.
This was not a gotcha question.
Emails unearthed by Megan Brock show that in 2017, when he was the Secretary of Health in Pennsylvania, Levine went looking for data to justify so-called gender-affirming care for minors.
Levine wrote to Nadia Dowshin, the co-founder of the Gender Clinic at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, that he was seeking information concerning, quote, the possibility of gender confirmation surgery for young people under 18 years of age, which, by the way, is the thing they tell us never happens.
Remember?
They tell us this never happens.
They don't do surgeries on kids, we're told.
Levine added that, quote, this could include top surgery for trans young men and top and bottom surgery for trans young women.
Is there a literature to support this protocol?
Please let me know if you have any references.
In response, Dowchin wrote, quote, Hi, Rachel.
I'm not aware of existing literature, but it is certainly happening.
I think we've had more than 10 patients who have had chest surgery under 18, as young as 15, and one bottom surgery.
Let's just pause there for a moment.
This was in 2017.
They were already doing surgeries, including quote-unquote bottom surgery, which is general mutilation, on minors, which is something the left will still claim never happens, right?
And not only that, but the hospital that is performing these surgeries is not aware of any literature that supports doing the surgeries.
Now needless to say, after reading that response, Levine did not put an end to these surgeries in Pennsylvania.
Even when he was told there was no medical evidence to justify them.
Instead, Levine continued to hide behind the consensus of various self-appointed medical experts, including the several medical associations that have endorsed this butchery.
That's what Levine did at the hearing with Rand Paul.
And it's what he's done ever since he assumed office.
A little over a year ago, for example, Levine commented on a viral clip featuring Jon Stewart and the Attorney General of Arkansas.
And I'll play a little bit of that for you.
And I think we played this on the show last year when it happened.
But just to refresh our memories and provide some context for what Levine said, here it is.
Watch.
Why would the state of Arkansas step in to override parents, physicians, psychiatrists, endocrinologists who have developed guidelines?
Why would you override those guidelines?
Well, I think it's important that all of those physicians, all of those experts, for every single one of them, there's an expert that says we don't need to allow children to be able to take those medications.
That there are many instances where... Right.
But you know that's not true.
You know it's not for everyone there's one.
There's, these are the established Well, I don't know that that's not true.
Then why would you pass a law then if you don't know that that's true?
Well, I know that there are doctors and that we had plenty of people come and testify before our legislature who said that, you know, we have 98% of the young people who have gender dysphoria, that they are able to move past that.
So you can see in that clip why the appeal to experts is so effective.
It shouldn't be as effective as it is, but it is.
Because even people who are on the right side of this issue, like the Arkansas Attorney General, don't know how to respond to it.
And the best she could do is say, well, my experts disagree with your experts.
But of course, that's the wrong response.
The right response is that you don't need to be an expert, quote unquote, in anything to know that mutilating the genitals of children is wrong.
And if anyone claims to be an expert and they defend that sort of butchery, then they lose their expert status immediately by default.
And it's that simple.
But for some reason, many on the right can't bring themselves to say that, even as the quote-unquote experts lied to them about pretty much everything from COVID to foreign affairs to climate change and even the mutilation of children.
In any event, Levine saw that clip and decided that it was yet another opportunity to promote these all-knowing medical associations and experts, and here's what Levine wrote on Twitter, quote, Accredited medical professional groups agree that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, safe, and effective for trans and non-binary youth.
States should translate this knowledge Into more compassionate policies that protect rather than undermine youth mental health.
So, this is a bluff that Levine has made over and over again throughout his career.
He repeatedly states that there's a vast body of knowledge that justifies these surgeries and procedures, but this time after that tweet, you know, and yet he says that, but then cannot provide any of that evidence, and we know that when he went looking for that evidence, he was told there isn't any, and yet he gets away with it.
But this time after that tweet, someone decided to actually call Levine out on it, kind of call his bluff.
A non-profit watchdog group called Protect the Public's Trust, or PPT, filed a Freedom of Information Act request in response to Levine's tweet.
And the request sought records of scientific evidence, studies, and or data to support the Assistant Secretary's claim that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, safe, and effective for trans and non-binary youth, as well as, quote, records of surveys of medical professionals regarding the value and importance of gender-affirming care for minor children.
And I want you to stop and think about the fact that they needed to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to get this information.
This is the kind of information that should be readily provided.
Anybody should be able to contact HHS and say, hey, you said there's a lot of evidence to support doing these things to kids.
Where is it?
Can you just?
They won't give it to you until they're forced by law to provide it.
So this week, more than a year after Levine's tweet, the results are in.
We finally have access to this data that Levine promised to show Rand Paul in his office, but never did, and which he talks about constantly.
In response to the Freedom of Information Act request, HHS produced a grand total of one document.
And it's not a long, well-researched study that proves convincingly why we need to mutilate children.
It's not a whole stack of papers like they make it seem.
Oh yeah, here we go, just reams and reams of papers and folders full of documented evidence that shows that this is... Not that at all.
It is instead a two-page brochure called Gender Affirming Care and Young People.
That's all they needed to summarize all of the evidence, all of the enormous amount of evidence that supposedly exists, was contained in two pages.
And this is all they could produce a year after it was initially requested.
And the brochure itself, as you probably guessed, is not exactly the most compelling document.
The brochure states, as a matter of fact, that puberty blockers are always reversible.
Okay?
That's one of the things that it says.
But that's not true.
We know that's not true.
Even the New York Times reported recently, quote, a transgender adolescent in Sweden who took the drugs from age 11 to 14 with no bone scans until the last year of treatment developed osteoporosis and sustained a compression fracture in his spine.
An x-ray showed in 2021 the patient now suffers from continued back pain.
Medical records note describing a permanent disability caused by the blockers.
And that's not even getting into potential issues with fertility.
I mean, there are documented cases in medical literature of these drugs having permanent effects.
Right?
And they've only been in use in this way for a few years.
And we already have documented cases of kids being irreparably harmed by them.
So the claim in the brochure, which has no citation, is just false.
Just makes an assertion that it's totally false.
As more and more children are put on these puberty blockers, and as time passes, that's going to become more and more obvious.
But the brochure provided by the Biden administration doesn't stop there.
It also claims that, quote, research demonstrates that gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender-diverse children.
As evidence of that claim, the brochure cites one study in a footnote.
And this single study, the Daily Wire's Luke Rosiak reported yesterday, supposedly, quote, showed that transgender-identifying young people were slightly less suicidal when receiving treatment.
Specifically, the researchers say that they found in a survey group that 51% of trans-identifying young people who were receiving cross-sex hormones were suicidal, compared to 62% who weren't receiving hormones but wanted them.
But even the authors of the study admit that it doesn't prove anything about causation.
They write, "Causation cannot be inferred due to the study's cross-sectional design.
It's possible that those who historically have higher rates of depression, suicidal thoughts and behaviors are also
less able to seek or obtain cross-sex hormones."
This also says absolutely nothing about the long-term psychological effects of this treatment, which is the thing
that people are really interested in, and that's really the big
That's the big problem.
Long-term, what is this doing to kids?
Well, they offer no evidence, no research on that question.
None at all.
Nothing.
This is the sum total of the evidence that the Biden administration was able to present to justify the castration of children.
It's a two-page pamphlet that links to a study from three years ago in which the author admits that their study doesn't even really mean anything.
The authors admit that they have not proved any sort of causation.
So this is definitive proof, as if we needed it.
The Biden administration and the medical establishment, along with the entire American left, jumped on board the gender-affirming racket without any solid evidentiary basis for doing so.
And this is a major problem, obviously, because they're harming children in horrific, unthinkable ways, but also because the burden of proof for the people in favor of child castration is extremely high.
Like I've explained many times, the burden of proof is on the people Who are making the claim.
That's the way it always works.
You're making the claim.
You have to prove it.
So if you are claiming that we can turn boys into girls and vice versa, burden of proof is on you.
And if you are making an extraordinary claim that contradicts what everybody in the history of the world has always known to be true, then you need extraordinary evidence to support that position.
Instead, they have no evidence.
They have nothing.
Yet they were believed automatically, while the sane side was required to produce evidence refuting them.
Like, suddenly, the burden of proof was on us to prove that you shouldn't mutilate and castrate children.
Of course, we can prove our case a million times over, and we have, but that's in spite of the fact that the game was rigged against us from the start.
The pro-child castrators wanted documented research showing the actual real-world harm of these kinds of procedures on kids, but obviously we couldn't immediately provide very much of that because we didn't yet have real-world data showing the harms these drugs do to kids for the simple reason that nobody had ever done this to kids before.
So they came along and was like, let's start doing this new horrible thing to kids.
And we said, no, don't do that.
It's a horrible thing.
Look, can you prove where's the data showing that this harms kids?
Well, it hasn't been done yet.
We're telling you not to do it.
That's the point.
What, you want us to just do it and then find out if it harmed them after the fact?
Well, yeah, that's exactly what they wanted.
So we turned a whole generation of kids into lab rats so that the kids themselves would become the data.
Now the only way to explain how anyone fell for this scam is that trans activists are good at only one thing, which is emotional manipulation.
It's the only thing these people are capable of doing.
They've perfected the art of emotional blackmail to the point that weak people have allowed this to go on for the better part of a decade.
But the good news is that the ruse is not working nearly as well now as it used to.
Now people are asking actually to see the evidence.
And there isn't any.
All trans activists can do is screech as loudly as they can about genocide, even though nobody's really buying it anymore.
And we saw this phenomenon play out to a comical degree this week in Florida, which is preparing to pass a bill that would prevent people from changing their gender on their driver's license.
And, um, which is a very common sense thing.
So in other words, the Florida law would just make it so that driver's licenses Are the way that driver's licenses have always been since there have been driver's licenses, which is that it says male if you're a male and female for female.
So it's not really a change, it's just like maintaining the status quo.
But I want you to watch how the completely calm and rational local trans activists and concerned citizens respond to this legislation.
Watch this.
Like I'm in a playground and bullies are just beating me upside the head.
You're not wanted.
You're not worth it.
You're no good.
I feel like I live in a state that if I'm not in mainstream, I should go away altogether.
The only thing that this period of Florida history will be remembered for is the trail of body bags left behind as they've left working class and regular Floridians poor.
And without any assistance for the real issues that we are facing.
I had to look my 13-year-old in the face the other day when they looked at me and asked, why does Florida hate me?
Please protect my child.
Their blood could be on your hands.
These bills are not just a threat to the rights and dignity of transgender Floridians, but they're also a feared base attack that perpetuates discrimination and violence.
There's a lot in there, but maybe the most telling thing is the first clip.
I feel.
Just that emphasis.
I feel.
I feel.
This is how I feel.
No evidence.
Nothing.
No argument.
Nothing like that.
Just feeling.
Raw.
Here are my feelings.
This is all they have.
No matter what the proposal is, whether it's mutilating the genitals of children or changing genders on their driver's licenses, the response is always the same.
They claim you're leaving a trail of dead bodies if you dare to disagree with their delusions.
If you don't let them change their gender on their driver's license, you're leaving a trail of dead bodies.
You know, you go into Florida, right, and there's just going to be dead bodies strewn all over the place, everywhere, littering the ground.
And you'll go, what?
What happened?
This is hard.
Oh, they couldn't make a change in their driver's license.
And this is what happened.
They just dropped over dead.
Trans activists, they wield their emotional fragility like a bludgeon.
We see it constantly, which leads to the conclusion that really one of two things is possible.
When you watch a video like this, either it's all an act, and they are really just manipulative liars, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously, or they actually are this insanely unstable and weak and immature, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.
Whichever is the case, or if it's a combination of the two, the conclusion is the same.
We cannot take these people seriously.
And we never should have, to begin with.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
If your house is feeling chilly right now, you may need to consider window replacement.
I get it.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've ever done before, and it may be a bit of a daunting task.
Luckily, there's a company that will do the work for you.
Renewal by Anderson is your one-stop shop for window design, manufacture, and installation.
Windows play a crucial role in regulating indoor temperatures.
If you notice a spike in your heating or cooling bills, it may be due to inefficient windows, so don't put it off any longer.
Renewal by Anderson offers limited, fully transferable, and best-in-the-nation warranty coverage.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home consultation on quality, energy-efficient, affordable windows or patio doors with special financing options.
Text WALSH to 200-300 for a free consultation to save $375 off every window and $775 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting Walsh to 200-300.
That's Walsh to 200-300.
Texting privacy policy in terms of conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurred automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates may apply.
Reply stop.
To opt out, go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
So I want to start with this story.
Very interesting story, and one of the things that makes it interesting is that it's one of the few current events with huge implications where the political sides are not exactly clear.
Like, this one is not really, the political teams aren't clear, you know.
And that doesn't happen very often.
So here it is.
ABC News has a report.
A jury has found Jennifer Crumbly, the mother of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbly, guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting deaths of four students at Oxford High School in November of 2021.
Crumbly was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting.
One for each victim, Madison Baldwin, Tate Meyer, Justin Schilling, and Hannah St.
Juliana.
The jury deliberated for roughly 11 hours.
Jennifer and James Crumbly are a rare case of parents being charged in connection with a shooting carried out by their son.
James Crumbly, who also faces four counts of involuntary manslaughter, will have a separate trial in March.
And so they're going to jail for the fact that their son committed a school shooting.
Now, so this is a very important case.
And I think that it's obviously getting some attention.
I think it's actually getting more attention than it is.
And I'm not sure if everybody quite grasps just how vast the implications are.
Because this is really an unprecedented moment in the history of the American legal system.
The article said that this is a rare case where the parent of a school shooter is charged.
I'm pretty sure it's the first case.
So a new precedent is being set.
There's a new precedent being set here.
And I think the precedent is troubling.
I think it's quite troubling.
Now, listen, Jennifer Crumbly and her husband, by all accounts, based on everything we heard in the trial, based on everything we've seen, not to mention, obviously, just based on the fact of what their son did.
So, based on all that, we can establish beyond any reasonable doubt that these are bad parents.
You know, of course, they failed in spectacular fashion in their basic parenting duties.
They were not To call them bad parents would be an understatement, and there's no denying that.
No disputing it.
I certainly don't dispute it.
And that's why, on a visceral, emotional level, I understand the people that are cheering this verdict.
And from what I've seen anecdotally, I don't know what the surveys would say, what I've seen anecdotally just on social media, it seems like most of the people who've reacted to the story and the verdict yesterday are in favor of it.
That's what it seems.
Certainly there's a lot of people who are happy about the verdict.
And if I'm being guided purely by my feelings of disgust towards parents who apparently didn't even attempt to do their job as parents, Then, and I'm being guided by that, then I would say, hell yeah, go rot in prison.
You deserve it.
And if I was, God forbid, you know, I was a parent who lost a child in a circumstance like this, even more I would probably be, want the parents to suffer for their failures as parents.
So I get all that.
And I have no interest in defending the parenting job that these two people did.
There's no defending it.
And I would also say that it seems clear to me that it is at least partially their fault that their son went off and murdered innocent people.
So if you're blaming them, at least partially, for what happened, I think that makes sense.
Yeah, I think they are at least partially to blame.
All of that is true.
However, with all of that said, I just have extreme reservations about it.
And I'll give you two things to think about here.
First of all, the prosecutor's case, even though it was ultimately successful, he prevailed.
But really, the case that the state was making here, it makes no logical sense.
And there are a few reasons for that, but the main one, the big one in my mind, is that they charged Ethan Crumbly, the shooter, as an adult.
Right?
Now, why is that significant?
Well, because in charging him as an adult, and he committed the crime when he was, I think, 15.
But they charged him as an adult, and I agree with that.
I agree with charging as an adult for a crime like this.
Now, 15 is not an adult, but for a crime like this, I think you have to.
What else are you going to do?
Send him to juvenile detention and let him out in five years?
You can't do that.
So, I agree with the move.
I think it's the right move in this case.
And if you have someone, even at 15, who commits a crime of this sort, well, they just have to go away forever.
There's no way that you could ever... We cannot contemplate a future where someone who murdered, who's committed mass murder, is walking free.
But, in charging him as an adult, the state is saying that he is fully culpable, fully competent, and fully responsible for his own actions.
That's what it means to charge him as an adult.
That's the argument the state is making.
And they made it successfully.
He got life in prison.
But then, when they turn around and charge his parents, Blaming them in part for their child's actions.
They are also then arguing by extension at the exact same time that Ethan Crumbly was not fully culpable and not fully responsible for his actions.
Because to blame the parents to any degree at all is to say that they had some sort of control over this situation.
Which would mean that the child is not responsible for his actions, at least not completely.
So how can they argue both?
How can both be true?
How can he be fully culpable but not fully culpable at the exact same time?
How can Ethan be an adult responsible for his own actions while at the same time being a child whose actions are partially the fault of his parents?
There's parents who, by the way, even if they were negligent in the extreme, and they were, they still didn't know that he was going to commit the crime.
Now, like, obviously, if the parents have direct knowledge that a crime is going to be committed, and they don't try to prevent it, or they facilitate the commission of the crime, well, clearly, there's no controversy there.
But that's not exactly the claim here.
The claim here is, like, they should have seen it coming, they saw warning signs, they knew that he was troubled, they knew that he had written things on about killing people, but that's not the same as saying, like, he told mom and dad, I'm gonna go commit this shooting, and they said, okay, see you later.
Like, that didn't happen.
So, The claim again is that they were really bad parents, basically, and they needed to take better care of their child, which is all, again, true.
But I just don't see how you can argue that and at the same time argue that the child is an adult.
It seems like it's got to be one or the other in order for the charges to make sense logically.
And yet, they didn't make sense, and they contradicted, but they got the conviction on both counts.
So, I want you to think about the implications here, because this is really the biggest issue, is what is the limiting principle?
We all agree that the Cromwells were bad parents.
And I think we all agree that if they were better parents, probably, this crime never would have been committed.
We can't say that for sure, because people are, even a kid is like, their own human being with their own mind, and you know, it's plausible that you could be a perfect parent, basically, and still end up with a kid who does something horrible.
It's like, it's unlikely, but it could happen.
So, but probably, if they had been better parents, this wouldn't have happened.
But, that same argument, Applies just as well to many thousands of parents who are still walking free today I mean it stands to reason that a large majority of the violent criminals in prison right now Have parents who were at least at least as negligent and incompetent and disinterested as the crumblies were So put it out of the way as as a percentage as a percentage How many mass murderers serial killers and gangbangers?
Do you think?
Had good, attentive parents.
Like, does anyone think that it's more than 10%?
I mean, 10% is an extremely generous estimate.
It's pretty obvious that, like, the armed robber who is walking into a gas station in some city as we speak right now, stealing everything from the register, and then maybe shooting the cashier just for the sake of it on the way out the door.
It's pretty obvious that that person almost certainly has parents who, at best, were negligent.
Most likely the father is completely absent, so that's total 100% negligence, and the mother is just not interested in doing anything that could be described as actually mothering her child.
So my question is, are we charging all of those parents, too?
Are we going to round up hundreds of thousands of parents, potentially, and charge them for their failures?
Their failure to do anything at all to prevent their children from becoming violent criminals?
I mean, just imagine a lot of these violent criminals in the inner city.
Like, imagine what their home life is like.
Imagine what kind of parenting is being done here.
Some people don't have to imagine it because they've seen this kind of thing firsthand.
And, you know, it's the kind of parents, it's like very easy.
You could see the way the child's parent did it and you get, well, yeah, of course that kid's gonna end up being a criminal.
And yet we never go back to the parents and charge them when the inevitable occurs.
Even though, crumblies, yeah, it's partially their fault.
I agree.
90% of violent criminals in prison right now?
It's also partially the fault of the parents.
So I don't see how we justify only charging these parents and not all of the others who are at least just as culpable.
But on the other hand, do I actually want to see all those parents charged?
Probably not, because now we've really opened a can of worms that I don't know how you close it again.
And again, I don't know where the limiting principle is.
Once you start charging parents criminally for the terrible things their kids do, it just... Eventually, 90% of the parents in the country are in jail.
That's where it leads.
And I don't think that this has all been thought.
I just, I don't think anyone's really thinking.
Some people have thought this through, but I don't think that we've quite faced the implications here enough.
All right, Politico has this report.
Former President Donald Trump offered an olive branch to Anheuser-Busch on Tuesday, issuing a post on a social media platform calling on conservatives to drop their opposition to the besieged beer company.
Trump wrote, The Bud Light ad was a mistake of epic proportions, and for that, a very big price was paid.
But Anheuser-Busch is not a woke company.
Anheuser-Busch is a great American brand that perhaps deserves a second chance.
What do you think?
Perhaps instead we should be going after those companies that are looking to destroy America.
Trump's post on Truth Social represents a major attempt at de-escalation and a long-simmering feud between the political movement the former president leads and the mega-corporation since April 2023.
Trump's message also comes as a top Republican lobbyist for the company is set to host a fundraiser for the former president next month, with some tickets going at $10,000 each.
Jeff Miller, a close confidant of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who built his Washington business during the Trump years, announced on ex-formerly Twitter on Tuesday that he would be hosting the fundraiser.
All right.
Let me be among the many here to say no.
Hell no.
Definitely not.
The Bud Light boycott is not ending.
There is no strategic reason to end it.
And Trump never even gave any strategic argument for ending it.
Like, how does this help strategically?
His argument is just, they've had enough, let's be nice to him.
Let's be nice to this international corporate brand.
And by the way, they are not an American brand.
Anheuser-Busch is a foreign-owned company.
It is not an American company.
So, this is a foreign-owned company that went woke and decided to push transgenderism.
And in response, conservatives organized, for the first time ever in history, to launch a successful boycott that actually worked.
And now the argument is that we should back off of it?
Just to be nice?
Just to be nice to this international mega-corporation?
Because we feel bad for them?
That's the argument, and no.
Now, does that mean that the boycott never ends?
Well, sort of yes and no.
I think that a lot of what we're dealing with, as I've said all along, it's not just a boycott.
For Bud Light, their problem is that the boycott has metastasized to an extent that it's like a terminal illness now, and they can never really get rid of it, because the brand itself is just seen as lame.
Right?
People see it as, it's the gay beer.
That's how it's seen.
And no amount of rebranding, it doesn't matter who tries to rebrand it.
Even Donald Trump himself can't make it not lame anymore.
Like, most guys, if you see your friend drinking a Bud Light, you're going to make fun of them now.
And that's never, you're going to make jokes about it.
You're never going to not make a joke about it.
It's always going to be that way.
And so that can't be stopped.
They did that to themselves, unfortunately for them.
But the official sort of boycott, could that end?
Yeah, it could.
But you need to get an explicit concession.
That's the way a boycott works.
It's what the left does.
It's what every successful boycott campaign in history has done.
You get an explicit concession.
And in this case, that could only be, and would only need to be, an apology.
That's it.
It's like, we shouldn't have done that, we apologize.
Like literally, two sentences would be enough.
And I think most people would say, yeah, it's still a gay beer, I'm not interested in it, but yeah, okay, the boy cuts up, fine, you apologized.
We'll move on.
They have not apologized.
They have not apologized.
It's all they have to do, and they haven't.
And until they do, the boycott needs to remain.
If we back off, take our foot off their throats without getting the apology, then we will have rescued defeat from the jaws of victory.
It'll be one of the greatest conservative cultural victories in recent times.
We'll turn into one of our greatest self-owns in recent time.
And there have been a lot of self-owns, unfortunately.
A lot more self-owns than victories.
Where you're winning, you've done something, you're successful, and then you just stop.
The left, have you noticed the left never does that?
They never do that.
Like, they don't, they actually don't get bored of winning.
And when they single somebody out and they say, this person, this entity, is the enemy, And they don't back off.
They don't back off for years.
At least until they get an apology, and even sometimes when they get an apology, they still don't stop.
So to me, this is very simple.
Bud Light is a crappy product, first of all.
It's a foreign-owned company.
They did something.
They're reaping the consequences of their own choices.
And there's only one simple thing they need to do to have those consequences be, you know, in order for it to stop.
And they haven't done that thing.
They haven't given the apology.
And but this goes beyond, you know, what we're seeing now is it's not just ending some people
calling for the end of the boycott.
It's like an actual attempt to rehab Bud Light's brand for them.
And that I'm definitely never going to do.
Even if I said, okay, the boycott, we should probably end the boycott because they apologized.
I'm not going to try to help them recover their own brand.
That's on you.
You got to pick up the pieces.
I'm not going to help you with that.
Why should we do that?
Is that how you win?
Is that being a fighter now?
Take your foot off the throat without a concession and then help them recover from the consequences of their own actions.
No.
No, no, hell no.
Not gonna happen.
And that's it.
Alright.
Let's see.
Well, maybe I'll mention this briefly.
Catholic Vote says this.
A newly released video by Planned Parenthood features a sex education instructor teaching young people that virginity is a completely made-up concept, a term that was created simply to control and shame people, mainly women.
This is a video that can be found currently on Planned Parenthood's website.
It's in their Four Teens section.
So you go to the section of the website that is for teens, for kids, and this is what they have.
And let's play a little bit of this video for you.
What is it?
And what's the big deal about losing it?
Let me cut to the chase.
Virginity is a completely made-up concept.
It's a term that was created simply to control and shame people, mainly women.
A virgin is someone who's never had sex.
But it's not as simple as it seems.
For one thing, medically, virginity isn't a real thing.
In some cultures, people place a lot of importance on the hymen, a thin, fleshy tissue located at the opening of your vagina, as a marker of virginity.
But the status of your hymen doesn't actually mean anything.
That's because having penis and vagina sex is not the only way a hymen can stretch open.
It can happen by putting something in your vagina like a tampon or a finger, riding a bike or doing sports.
So you can't tell if someone's had sex by the way their hymen looks or feels.
Another reason the idea of virginity is complete nonsense is that sex means different things to different people.
Generally speaking, society tends to define sex in a very narrow way.
Penetration.
Penis into vagina.
I mean, I have no doubt that this woman probably knows a thing or two about virginity.
And it's always, like, before I even played this video for you, you already knew.
You probably had the image of this woman in your mind.
The only thing you didn't know is whether she's black or white.
So that could go either way.
That's the thing.
They kind of switched that up.
But the kinds of women who make these videos encouraging kids to have sex, these creepy women who do this, they all look... It's like they're all assembled in the same factory.
And they all have the short hair, and they all have that... And they all come... They're all made from the same rather large mold.
And...
You know, there are two things to realize about this kind of thing.
I mean, obviously, it's completely disgusting.
And in a just world, you'd go to jail for this kind of thing.
Like, as an adult, making videos, encouraging kids to be sexually active.
It's just... We should not accept it.
And instead, not only do we accept it, but we put it in schools.
We make it part of the curriculum.
And that's what we have to realize is that this is, every time you see one of these videos and you're horrified by it, you should realize that this is what sex ed is.
This is what it has actually always been.
There are many ways in which our culture has gotten worse and the degradation and decay of our culture has increased, become more rapid.
But when it comes to sex ed, It's actually pretty much always been this bad.
That's right.
I don't know if people quite realize that, but sex ed 25 years ago was like pretty much this.
Which is not to say that it's not a problem.
It's always been this.
It has always, from the very beginning, been this.
It has always been an explicit attempt to sexualize children and to encourage them to engage in sexual behavior and to normalize sexual behavior.
As we've talked about many times, Alfred Kinsey is the godfather of modern comprehensive sex ed and that was quite clearly what he wanted.
And it's always been that.
And then the second point is that this is Planned Parenthood, and there's a reason why Planned Parenthood is so interested in encouraging people at younger ages, younger and younger ages, to become sexually active, because they are recruiting.
It's evil, it's disgusting, it's horrible, but in their business of baby murder, it's also smart business.
This is, there's a reason why they've made billions of dollars.
And partially it's this, they're recruiting more customers.
They're ensuring a larger and larger customer base through these kinds of videos.
So that's what's going on.
Let's get to Waswell Strong.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
So we've got some comments here on the Bud Light question, even though that's too soon for them to respond to what we talked about on the show, but we talked about it on Twitter last night.
So just a few comments.
Jessica says, meh, getting old to be honest.
Who cares?
I won't be drinking that.
Meh, who cares?
Boring.
Winning?
Winning a cultural battle?
That's boring.
Lame.
Who wants to win?
I'm bored with it.
Let's just move on.
Yawn.
Let's forget about that.
Let's forget about the serious actual work of making cultural impact.
I don't care about that.
Let's find another PSYOP that we can complain about for a week and a half and then move on to the next one.
That's how you win, right?
That's how you win in the culture.
That's how you achieve a cultural victory.
I disagree.
Someone says, companies market to all kinds of sectors internationally.
Not everyone gets along with or agrees with every other sector, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't market to them.
This is a tiny campaign that was supposed to fly under the radar.
Someone got a hold of it and blasted it all over social media.
Can one person here say that they saw one of those cans in their local grocery?
It was a marketing campaign, so it's a marketing campaign that no one was supposed to see?
Is that your argument?
It is a major corporation's marketing campaign and your argument, and marketing it to somebody who was, at the time, one of the most visible people in the culture, but it was supposed to be under the radar.
You see how that doesn't make any sense at all?
Like, even if it was true, it wouldn't change anything for me, but it's obviously not true.
And, um, this is not, you know, marketing to another sector.
I have no problem with that.
There's all kinds of different sectors and demographics and markets out there and you want to market them.
That's fine.
But in this case, the marketing is specifically helping to push an extremist Ideological agenda.
Probably the most extreme and corrosive ideological agenda that we've seen in American history, which is the trans agenda.
And that is the quote-unquote sector that they were marketing to.
And that is just unacceptable.
Many companies have done it.
They should all pay a price for it.
Unfortunately, we can't make all of them pay a price for it.
We can't even make most of them pay a price for it.
We could make this one pay a price.
And we did.
I don't think they're going to apologize, and I'm not convinced that they're going to stay down forever.
Maybe it would be better to recognize a W than move on to more relevant boycotts.
Not sure, but I do know I'm going to continue not buying that in a can because it tastes bad.
I'm with you on the last point.
And I think that, yes, this is a win.
But if you back off of it before getting the concession, then in the long term, it's not a win anymore.
Then it becomes a blip on the radar screen.
Which, remember, in the early goings of the Bud Light boycott, that's what a lot of people said, especially including people on the right.
They said, it's going to be a blip on the radar, it's going to last a month.
They were very skeptical of it.
And then we managed to make it stick in a way that nobody thought would happen.
And it did.
But you back off of it now, then in the long term it does become a blip.
You know, it becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, yes, we're winning on that issue, but it's not a win.
You know, it doesn't become a win that you can look at and say, well, there it is.
It's like this self-contained thing.
That was a W. That doesn't happen until you get the concession.
Which again, in this case, is just an apology.
That's it.
And yeah, it's an apology, and then also them not doing it again, but we already, like, that part we know, and I'll be the first to say, I'm quite confident that Bud Light will never do this again.
I'm confident in that, sure.
But they haven't done the apology, and that is what the concession has to be.
Once you get that, then you claim a W. And so if you're somebody with a lot of influence on the right, Like Trump, for example.
Nobody has more influence than him on the right.
But what you could say, rather than just telling all of us, let's back off and, you know, they've had enough.
You could say publicly to Bud Light, hey guys, we, you know, we think you've had enough.
We would love to end this, but you guys got to apologize.
So why don't you do that?
So rather than putting the onus on us and saying to us, why don't you guys back off?
You could go to them and say, hey guys, why don't you apologize?
And then we can move on.
Put the pressure on them publicly to put an end to this.
Say, hey, we want to put an end to this.
Here's how we do it.
Here's what we need from you.
And so just give it to us.
And then and then it'll be over.
Seems to me that's, you know, if you want to be a negotiator, that's really good negotiation.
That's using leverage.
You have leverage.
We have a ton of leverage.
Use it to get the concession that you want.
But that is not what happened here.
And so it is not a win.
All right, I've got a major announcement to make.
Mark your calendars for the epic return of Backstage.
After almost a year away filming the Pendragon Cycle, the God-King Jeremy Boring is back and joined by Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Candice Owens, Andrew Klavin, and also myself.
Watch the show live exclusively on DailyWirePlus Tuesday night at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central.
You don't want to miss this.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
So I want you to know that I did try to avoid doing this daily cancellation.
I tried my best to resist the low-hanging fruit.
I mean, there are so many other worthy cancellees, so many others who are just as deserving of the honor.
So why subject all of us to this?
Why force the audience to listen to the thing that I'm about to force you to listen to?
Must we do this?
Must we spend our time on this?
Well, yes, we must.
I'm sorry, but we must.
The rapper Ice Spice has a new song out titled, Think You the Sh**, Fart.
And the fart is in parentheses, by the way.
This is a parenthetical fart.
It's important that I mention that so that you can fully appreciate all of the artistic subtleties of this song.
And, well, that is the only artistic subtlety, to be clear, but still kind of impressive for a musical artist who, I'm willing to bet $10,000, cannot spell the word subtleties in the first place.
But in any case, this new Ice Spice song came out just a few days ago.
It's already a hit.
The music video has nearly 9 million views on YouTube.
It's been streamed over 15 million times on Spotify, which is the real test of a song's popularity these days.
Overall, Ice Spice, who emerged on the music scene just two years ago or so, has garnered hundreds of millions of streams, hundreds of millions more views on YouTube.
She's achieved widespread popularity, especially on TikTok.
She's been featured in songs with Taylor Swift.
She's been on the Barbie movie soundtrack.
So she is, by every quantifiable measure, A bonafide musical superstar.
But is she any good?
Well, you might assume from the title of her latest song that the answer to that question is no.
You might want to dismiss her talents altogether without even giving her a chance.
Based on what you know about rappers these days and about the music industry and about the sorts of musical artists who put words like s*** and fart in the titles of their songs, let alone both words in one title, you might arrogantly and presumptuously disregard her from the outset.
And I want you to know that if that's your attitude, then it is absolutely correct.
Her music is indeed as hideous and mind-numbing as you imagine.
This 45-second clip of her performing her latest track at the Spotify Best New Artist event should be enough to prove the point.
Here it is.
I make me some jams.
I'm like that, I dance.
I said 400 bands.
Just to do my little dance.
I'm a brand.
I'm a baddie, I get what I want.
All in Valencia, I look like a punk.
I got the jatty, he just wanna hump.
Walk through and start shaking my hips.
I'm a dip when I stack on my chips.
Slipper dummy, I want the whole fit.
I got a fresh, sending me tips.
You know, we've talked before about the incredible prophetic accuracy of the movie Idiocracy, which came out in 2006.
It imagines a dystopian future where average IQ scores have plummeted well below room temperature, and American culture has become so crass and stupid that, for example, the biggest hit reality show in this universe is called Owl My Balls, and it features a guy getting hit in the balls by various objects.
The only thing that Idiocracy got wrong is that it predicted things would get that dumb in 500 years.
But instead it took less than 20.
In fact, a song called Think You the Sh** Fart sounds like it's taken directly out of the Idiocracy screenplay.
We have reached our futuristic idiot dystopia and we didn't even need a time machine to get there.
Now it goes without saying that the lyrics of this new Ice Spice song are so juvenile and witless that simply listening to them causes brain damage.
Popular music has gotten so dumb that exposure to it causes actual concussion symptoms.
We all now probably have CTE just from watching that clip.
And I don't mean to belabor the point, but just to make it clear, here are some of the lyrics to this song in case you couldn't understand what she was babbling about.
I said 400 bands.
I said 400 bands.
Just to do my little dance.
Bitch, I'm a brand.
Bitch, I'm a baddie.
I get what I want.
All in Balenci.
I look like a bum.
I got the jaddy.
The jaddy?
Is that a mispronunciation?
Jaddy?
He just want a hump.
Walk through and start shaking my hips.
I'm a dip when I stack all my chips.
Strip a dummy.
I want the whole fit.
I got a French N-word sending me tips.
Think you the s**t, you not even the fart.
I be going hard, I'm breaking they hearts.
S**t be quick, but I'm quicker.
S**t be thick, but I'm thicker.
She should be rich, but I'm richer.
Sure.
Based on these lyrics, you would assume that English is her second language, and she doesn't have a first language.
Ice Spice has the intelligence and artistic sensibility of an earthworm.
This song is the musical equivalent of an overflowing port-a-potty that's been baking in the sun for three weeks.
The, uh, think-you-the-s**t-you-not-even-the-fart is the sort of metaphorical play on words that wouldn't even count as clever if this woman was in third grade.
Like, even an eight-year-old would hear that and think that it lacks sophistication.
The whole thing is so vapid and stupid and meaningless that you can't listen to it for very long before plunging into despair.
I mean, listening to this kind of music is like staring into the abyss.
It's like some kind of great void where beauty and meaning and intelligence are consumed and obliterated.
In a just world, you would go to prison for making music this bad.
I don't even mean because it's profane or whatever.
The music itself is so bad, you should go to jail for it.
There should be jail sentences for this.
So in that sense, it's really no different from most pop music these days.
And indeed, it's essentially on that basis that many people dismiss concerns about the absolutely god-awful, soul-crushing ugliness and idiocy of modern pop culture.
They will insist that this kind of stuff really isn't that much worse than the pop music that was being churned out 20 or 30 years ago.
And, you know, people were complaining about that stuff back then and saying that it was the death of art and, you know, they were getting upset about it.
And it turned out fine.
That's what people say.
But the problem with that argument is twofold.
Number one, it obviously didn't turn out fine.
The people who were making those kinds of critiques of music and pop culture 30 years ago have obviously been absolutely vindicated.
They were worried that American culture was headed over a cliff.
They saw the signs.
Everybody ignored them when they talked about this.
And they were proven correct on every point.
The so-called church ladies of the 80s and 90s.
That we're so upset about pop culture back then, they have been, again, vindicated, perhaps more than any group in history has ever been vindicated.
In fact, if you were to go back in time to 1987 and find a church lady complaining about pop culture at that time, and you were to play a clip of this Ice Spice song performing, you know, the fart song, for the church lady, she would say, yes, see, exactly, that's exactly where I thought this was leading.
That, yes.
Now, and if that church lady had gone out to the world and told them that in a little over 30 years there would be semi-literate women who can barely speak English rapping about farts while they present their asses to the camera like dogs in heat, everybody at the time would accuse them of exaggerating.
Like, they would call her crazy.
They would have said, oh, come on.
It's not gonna get that bad.
Don't be ridiculous.
Yet, here we are.
And second, lyrically, this song, like many other songs produced today, is, yeah, it's only a few degrees dumber than the dumb songs of the past.
I'll give you that.
It's true.
We long ago got to a point where it's hard for the content to get any dumber.
Once you arrive at a juncture where hit recording artists are making songs where they simply ramble incoherently in a way that only vaguely resembles any sort of human language, you've gotten about as dumb as you can get.
You can't get more nonsensical than nonsense.
But the overall product can still get worse.
And it is.
Like, music 20 years ago was dumb.
But at least it was exuberant.
You know, there was some life, some feeling to it.
It was dumb, but it had character.
It had feeling.
There are many examples from my childhood of dumb music that had character and feeling.
That's basically all of the 90s.
If I had to summarize the 90s, I'd say it was kind of dumb, but it had feeling.
It was something.
Maybe one of the best examples is the band Counting Crows.
They put out several albums back in the 90s full of songs that were lyrically gibberish for the most part, but they captured somehow A certain feeling, a certain, like, spirit.
The classic Counting Crows hit is a song called Mr. Jones, which I still love, as a 90s, as a, you know, as someone who grew up in the 90s.
And there's a line in that song that says, So come dance this silence down to the morning.
Now, in the 90s, again, full of songs that have lines like that.
I don't know what that means.
Like, I think it doesn't really mean anything.
But it's kind of poetic, and again, it has feeling, it has character.
A lot of music was like that back then.
You didn't know what the artist was trying to say exactly, if he was trying to say anything.
But you kind of knew how you were supposed to feel when you listened to it.
It had soul, if not meaning.
But this stuff now, I mean, it has none of the above.
You can see it even in the performance that I just played.
On top of the general crappiness of the song, it's also, like, lazy and lackadaisical and weirdly half-hearted.
She's just sort of wandering around on stage, mumbling with no effort or inflection.
Take out the musical track and ignore the substance of what she's saying, if you can call it substance.
And based on the tone, it sounds like she's answering the phones at a Verizon call center.
It sounds like she's giving someone directions on how to get to Rite Aid.
It sounds like this totally perfunctory thing.
So it's crass and it's vulgar, but it's also just blah.
How are we even supposed to feel when we listen to this stuff?
I made this point with some other dumb pop star recently, and Lil Nas X. It's like, what feeling even is there here?
What did you feel?
The 45 writers that wrote that song, what feeling did they have when they wrote it?
There's no feeling at all.
Even the sexuality of these songs is empty and bland.
The songs are explicitly sexual to a degree never seen before in popular music.
And the women spend the whole time gyrating their butts to the camera like some kind of mating ritual.
And yet, there's no sex appeal to any of it.
It's off-putting and boring and so gross that the songs almost have a stench to them.
There's nothing alive here.
You could replace Ice Spice with A.I.
and you wouldn't lose any humanity because there is no humanity in it.
There's a lot of flesh, but not flesh and blood.
And that's the worst thing about it.
You know, not that it's stupid and vulgar and crass and profane, although all of that is bad and all that is true, but the worst thing is that it has no heart.
