Ep. 1342 - Prominent Women's Basketball Coaches Are Too Cowardly To Defend The Existence Of Women's Sports
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, one of the most prominent women's basketball coaches in the country was asked over the weekend whether she thinks males should be able to compete against females in women's sports. Her answer was about as cowardly as it gets. Also, protesters in Michigan shout "death to America," which should be a one way ticket to deportation. Plus, Huffington Post puts out another hit piece on me. We'll see what scandalous thing I've done this time. And a gay news site tries to prove the validity of transgenderism by using slugs and snails as examples.
Ep.1342
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/3VPYOTo
Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Secure your price shield until 2026 and get an extra 10% off with promo code WALSH at https://www.goodranchers.com
BetOnline - Use code "Walsh" to receive a 50% instant deposit bonus of up to $1,000 at http://www.betonline.ag
- - -
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 Walsh Show, one of the most prominent women's basketball coaches in the country was asked over the weekend whether she thinks males should be able to compete against females in women's sports.
Her answer was about as cowardly as it gets.
Also, protesters in Michigan shout, death to America, which should be a one-way ticket to deportation.
Plus, Huffington Post puts out another hit piece on me.
We'll see what scandalous thing I've done this time.
And a gay news site tries to prove the validity of transgenderism by using slugs and snails as examples.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Are you tired of your favorite cut of beef or chicken costing more and weighing less
every time you buy it from the store?
Well, Good Ranchers has a sizzling solution for you with their Price Lock Guarantee.
During their April Price Shield campaign, Good Ranchers is not just offering a temporary fix, but a long-term solution.
They're locking in your price until 2026 when you subscribe to one of their boxes.
GoodRanchers.com is where I get the most tender meat that is full of flavor every time.
With options like beef, chicken, pork, and wild-caught seafood, they have something for even the pickiest of eaters.
Now, there's no reason to order takeout when you can make something far better at home.
If your excuse is that you can't cook, well, Good Ranchers has a list of recipes to turn you into an incredible chef overnight.
So, with meat prices continuing to go up and quality at the store going down, Good Ranchers Price Shield will not only save you hundreds, but give you the best 100% American quality meat that that you'll ever eat.
Right now, when you go to goodranchers.com and use promo code Walsh,
you get their exclusive price shield and an additional 10% off your order.
This offer ends at the end of the month.
So if you want to secure your best price on meat until 2026, go to goodranchers.com, use my code Walsh.
That's goodranchers.com, promo code Walsh today.
Welcome to Eclipse Day 2024, everybody.
By the time you watch or listen to this, the eclipse will likely have already happened, which means, presumably, that a large portion of my audience will have been raptured.
Because, from what I understand, based on my research on Twitter, the rapture is scheduled for today as well, to coincide with the eclipse, for whatever reason.
So, if you're hearing this, it means that you, like me, have been left behind to walk the Earth and await your eternal destruction.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that you'll still get to watch the premiere of my new show, Judge, tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Now, you may not be in the mood for judgment-related entertainment, given the circumstances, but you might as well watch it anyway, because what else do you have to do?
Now that we have that out of the way, let's get on with the show, because what else can we do?
We're all doomed.
Don Staley is the head coach of the NCAA champion South Carolina Gamecocks, a gold medal Olympian several times over, a Hall of Famer who's widely considered one of the best players in the history of the WNBA, as low as that bar might be.
And this is a resume that sports journalists describe as historic.
She's supposedly a basketball icon, a role model.
One of the greatest coaches alive, they say.
What's often left unsaid, even though everybody knows it's true, is that Dawn Staley's resume would have looked a lot different if she had been forced to compete against men at any point in her career.
If it weren't for Title IX and the creation of exclusive sports that barred men from competing, Dawn Staley would probably be selling insurance right now, or conducting tedious DEI workshops somewhere.
Instead, she's a multi-millionaire, and you're instructed to think that she's a very impressive person.
All this is to say, if anybody should be an evangelist for women's-only sports leagues, Dawn Staley fits the bill.
Because without these leagues, Staley would have precisely zero professional accomplishments to speak of.
But leftism is an ideology that necessarily involves a lot of ladder pulling.
Once they get to the top, it's vital for leftists to deny that they received any kind of special help based on their identity along the way.
We see this all the time, from Elizabeth Warren to Kamala Harris.
And the other day, in a comical press conference ahead of the NCAA National Championship, we saw it again from Don Staley.
Now, a reporter from OutKick asked Staley a simple question.
He wanted to know What she thought about the idea of men competing against women in sports, especially in college basketball.
And as a prominent coach in college basketball, you'd think that she would have an opinion about this.
You'd think it'd be something that she's thought a lot about, and she would have something to say about, but here's how she responded.
Watch.
Dan Zakrzewski, OutKick coach.
You just talked about, you know, what a massive weekend this is obviously for women's basketball, women's sports in general.
One of the major issues facing women's sports right now is the debate, discussion topic about the inclusion of transgender athletes, biological males, in women's sports.
I was wondering if you would tell me your position on that issue.
Damn, you got deep on me, didn't you?
I'm on the opinion of if you're a woman, you should play.
If you consider yourself a woman and you want to play sports or vice versa, you should be able to play.
That's my opinion.
You want me to go deeper?
Do you think transgender women should be able to participate in college basketball?
That's the question you want me to ask.
I mean, you want to ask, so I'll give you that yes.
Yes.
So now the barnstorm of people are going to flood my timeline and be a distraction to me on one of the biggest days of our game.
And I'm okay with that.
I really am.
Now, the first thing you notice about that reply is how nervous Dawn Staley is.
You know, she takes a big gulp of water, drawing laughter from some of the reporters.
And then she says, damn, you got deep on me, even though it's really not a deep question at all.
Should men be able to compete against women in women's sports?
It's not a deep question.
In fact, it's a very simple question, a very easy question.
And she stutters for a few more seconds until she finally delivers maybe the least grammatical sentence she possibly could have.
She says, quote, I'm under the opinion of if you're a woman, you should play.
If you consider yourself a woman and you want to play sports or vice versa, you should be able to play.
Now I don't want to get into semantics here.
I'm not sure what vice versa refers to in that sentence.
If you're a woman and you want to play sports, or vice versa?
So if you're a woman and you want to play sports, or if you're a sport and you want to play women, is that what she's saying?
Anyway, incoherence aside, if Don Staley actually believed What she was saying, then there would be no nervousness whatsoever.
She would confidently tell the reporter that yes, she has no problem with men competing against her all-women's team.
She would demand that the Olympics and the NCAA change their current policy on trans-identifying athletes, which sets some arbitrary testosterone threshold that prevents many men from competing.
There would be no need for any of the stalling or stammering.
But Staley did stall, and she did stammer, because she doesn't believe a word of what she just said.
I mean, that's pretty clear.
That's why her answer makes no sense.
She lumps women and people who consider themselves women into the same category, but in doing so, she's acknowledging that they are indeed different categories.
Actual women don't consider themselves women.
They just are women.
You would never refer to an actual woman and say, well, there's someone who considers themselves a woman.
That's just a woman.
So if you feel the need to add the qualifier, consider themselves, Then you obviously recognize that they are not women.
When you're talking about two different groups of people, women and those who consider themselves women, well, you have already acknowledged that those are two different groups of people.
There's something very different about them.
Something that we recognized for all of recorded human history until about 15 seconds ago, which is why Staley had the career that she did, because up until this point, we've always recognized the difference.
But Staley doesn't want to admit that anymore, and at the end of her answer, She suggests that she's being brave because she's going to, you know, anger all the right-wing barnstormers on social media, whoever they are.
But it's not hard to see what she's actually worried about.
Staley knows that the NCAA has already said that it "firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender
student-athletes to compete in college sports."
She knows the NCAA has already bent the knee to activist groups like GLAAD.
And she's aware that the NCAA is now being sued for Title IX violations by female athletes like Riley Gaines for allowing men to compete against them.
And on top of that, the University of South Carolina has trans pride flags all over its website.
So, if she affirmed that biology is real, there's a good chance she'd be fired.
Or at least she would lose her status as America's favorite female coach.
She knows exactly where she's supposed to stand on this issue.
And indeed, with her answer, Staley predictably received a bunch of fawning headlines from left-wing activists.
GLAAD posted a thank-you note and declared that Staley is the best in the business.
Pink News declared that Staley's response was legendary.
It was a legendary response, what you just heard there.
And The Advocate called her transformative.
By contrast, here's how supposedly conservative media outlets responded.
Fox News ran this headline, South Carolina's Dawn Staley draws strong reactions over remarks about trans participation in women's sports.
At this rate, Staley could announce a roster of five men next year and Fox News would probably applaud her.
Maybe that's the plan.
In any event, this is the dynamic that weak people like Staley respond to.
She knows she'll be applauded for saying the opposite of what she knows is true.
And she would be condemned, or worse, if she said what was actually true.
In that respect, she wasn't alone.
Iowa's coach, Lisa Bluter, took a similar approach.
Here was her response to the same question from the same reporter.
Coach Bluter, this morning I asked Coach Staley about the issue of allowing transgender women, biological males, to play women's sports.
I wanted to give you an opportunity to give your opinion on that topic as well.
Well, thank you for the question.
You know, I understand it's a topic that people are interested in, but today my focus is on the game tomorrow, my players.
It's an important game we have tomorrow and that's what I want to be here to talk about, but I know it's an important issue for another time.
Well, yeah, we don't have time to talk about that now.
I mean, you know, you have... See, one of the problems with them using that excuse is, well, now is not the time.
You've had all the time before now.
I mean, you've had... There have been several off-seasons when this issue was still a live issue, and you could have talked about it.
You could have talked about it at any point up to now.
And you stayed quiet because you're a coward.
And really, this is an answer that's worse in some ways than Staley's.
At least Staley said something, as insane as it was.
Lisa Bluter is too afraid to even do that.
She says she's focused on the big game.
But if men can compete against women in college basketball, there would be no big game, at least not for her.
All women's sports would cease to exist.
Both of these coaches know that.
If they had to compete against any of the top-ranked men's teams, or any of the men's teams at all, they'd be destroyed.
If they had to compete against a respectable high school team, they would be destroyed.
But some of that doesn't concern Staley or Bluter.
They can't bring themselves to say the obvious, so the nonsense continues.
There's a lot of that going around lately, as you may have noticed.
A few days ago, the reporter Jonathan Cho broke the story that in Seattle, A mentally imbalanced man with comically enhanced breasts has been working as a public defender for several years.
And if you remember the Canadian woodshop teacher with the size Z prosthetic chest, you remember that?
Well, it's a bit like that, except in a courtroom setting instead of a high school.
And also, this guy is 70 years old.
Watch.
Do I need to sign anything?
No.
My comment about my client?
Yeah.
I just met her.
She's really nice.
She's really smart.
She sounds like she's got the right idea about things.
I really support what she's up to and I think it's fabulous.
How about that?
She's accused of, what is it, criminal trespass?
In the first degree.
Yes.
Is she innocent or guilty?
She's innocent, of course.
She's innocent, okay.
She's caught on video being arrested and protesting and allegedly protesting.
So I'm trying to get all sides.
My client is plead not guilty.
My name is Stephanie Mueller.
I'm in the directory for the Washington State Bar Association.
You can look me up.
Stephanie, thank you for your time.
At this point, your client is being arraigned, though.
It's all just happened.
Her hearing is over.
Got it.
It's done.
All right.
Do you know when her next court date is?
I do.
I'd like to maybe just keep tabs if there are... Uh-huh.
I think that's a great idea.
Could you tell me when that is?
No.
Take care.
Thank you, Stephanie.
So, just because the guy's eight and a half feet tall and has a voice deeper than James Earl Jones, apparently that hasn't stopped him from trying to be a woman.
Now just imagine this for a moment.
Imagine you show up to court to meet your public defender.
And naturally you're going to have kind of low expectations.
Get what you pay for and all that.
And then this guy shows up.
Like a character out of Portlandia.
How would you respond?
How would the judge respond?
Well apparently in this case, everybody just acted like this was normal.
The defendants didn't have an issue with it, and that's not entirely surprising since apparently the defendants are left-wing activists in Seattle accused of interrupting a city council meeting to yell something.
They probably requested the trans lawyer, which might not be a bad strategy in a Seattle court.
I mean, after all, if you have to win your case, you kind of have to win your case if a trans lawyer is representing you, otherwise it would be transphobic.
And needless to say, then the judge had no issue with this either.
A man shows up with skin-tight leather pants, boots, and fake eyelashes.
The ridiculous fake lips and everything, not exactly courtroom appropriate attire.
And the judge doesn't say a word about it.
Of course, ironically, if he had actually been a woman who looked exactly like that, there would have been an issue.
Even in Seattle, you know, courtrooms aren't burlesque shows, at least not yet.
It would be frowned upon for a woman to come dressed like some sort of cartoonish hooker to court.
But because this guy says he's transgender, it's magically acceptable.
Now, a few times on this show, I've mentioned the rebel news reporter David Menzies.
A few months ago, he was the only journalist in all of Canada to report on the fact that a 50-year-old man was allowed to compete against teenage girls in various competitions throughout the country.
And for reporting on that and other reports like that, Menzies has been arrested multiple times by the Canadian government.
Just this weekend, he was assaulted and arrested again by police for covering pro-Hamas protests in Toronto.
It's all on video, but Menzies persists anyway.
It's quite a contrast with what we've seen this week in this country, which is a story after story of cowardice.
I mean, think about it.
If there was ever a weekend for women's sports to have its moment, it was this one.
If there was ever a weekend for people to speak up in defense of it, well, now was the time.
Instead, the coaches of the top two teams declared at a press conference that They apparently don't even know what women are.
They also made it very clear from their ambivalence that they don't really care if women's sports sticks around anymore.
Now they'll probably change their mind about that when the money dries up.
When they lose their jobs and are made irrelevant.
But you know, it requires some foresight to see that.
And courage to speak up about it.
And sadly, those two things are in short supply.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Sports betting with BetOnline can be intriguing, even if you're not a diehard sports fan.
Beyond traditional sports, BetOnline gives you the option to bet on political events.
Whether it's predicting the outcome of the presidential election, if Hunter Biden will serve jail time before 2025, or who will be the next Republican speaker, political betting allows you to wager on real-world events outside the realm of sports.
If you're a diehard sports fan, BetOnline makes sports betting more accessible and convenient than ever before.
With just a few clicks, you can place bets on your favorite team or events from the comfort of your home.
BetOnline prides themselves on their higher-than-average betting limits of up to $25,000.
You can increase your wagering amounts by contacting their player services desk by phone or email.
So, while you're watching your favorite team or the news on upcoming elections, why not spice things up with a friendly wager with BetOnline?
Go to BetOnline.ag to place your bets today.
Use promo code WALSH for a 50% instant deposit bonus of up to $1,000.
That's BetOnline.ag and use promo code WALSH.
BetOnline.
The options are endless.
Daily Mail has this report.
Chants of death to America and death to Israel rang out during a protest in a Michigan city that is recently dubbed the Jihad capital of the United States by Wall Street Journal columnist Demonstrators gathered in the city in commemoration of Al-Quds Day, an international day to express support for Palestine and oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The protest came less than a week after seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen were killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza, drawing global outrage and condemnation.
Video shared by the Middle East Media Research Institute shows Tarek Bazzi, a local activist, delivering remarks at a podium as chants of Death to America sound in the background.
Let's watch a little bit of that video.
We've been asked in the past, why are our protests on the International Day of Quds, why are they so anti-America?
Why don't we just focus more on Israel and not talk so much about America?
Gaza has shown the entire world why these protests are so anti-America.
Because it's the United States government that provides the funds for all of the atrocities that we just heard about.
And this is why Imam Khomeini, who declared the International Day of Quds,
this is why he would say to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts upon the head of America.
Malcolm X said.
And I quote...
We live in one of the rottenest countries that has ever existed on this earth.
It's not Genocide Joe that has to go.
It's the entire system that has to go.
Any system that would allow such atrocities and such devilry to happen and would support it, such a system does not deserve to exist on God's earth.
And so when these fools ask us if Israel has the right to exist, the chant death to Israel has become the most So, the chant, and if you're just listening to the audio podcast, you may not have picked up on that, but the chant that you heard from the crowd, that was them chanting, Death to America, while the speaker talks about, very explicitly, why he is anti-American and why our system does not deserve to exist on God's Earth.
I'm going to try to give these people the thoughtful, well-considered, polite response that they deserve, and as you would expect me to give, which is why I will say to them, shut up, you ungrateful, disgusting brats, and get the hell out of our country.
You don't deserve to be here.
Get the hell out.
We don't want you here.
You don't deserve to be here.
You don't deserve to live here.
Any foreigner who comes here And then calls for the destruction of our country.
Foreigners who come here and declare themselves to be explicitly anti-American should be deported immediately, no questions asked.
That should be automatic, like the buses should be rolling up at that protest, put everybody on the bus, you're gone, and that's it.
We won't even stop so you can pick up your stuff from your house.
Well, we'll ship it to you at some point.
Or just throw it away, probably more likely.
You don't deserve to be here.
We don't want you.
You apparently don't want to be here.
So, we have mutual interests now, right?
Our opinions align on this point.
So, you despise America, we despise you, as a foreigner who despises America.
A foreigner who comes here and despises America, I despise you for that.
And you despise me, so leave!
Pretty simple.
Which, by the way, is exactly what any non-Western country would do.
It's how any non-Western country would handle this.
Basically, any of the countries where these people originate, that's how they would handle it.
Like, what happens, let's consider, what happens if I move to the Middle East, to an Arab country, and then I get up at a podium and call for the death of that country?
What happens if I stand up and I say I am anti that country, I'm calling for the death of that country?
How long do I last?
That's not deportation, okay?
They're not gonna just send me back to America.
I would be thrilled if that was the response, right?
I would be lucky, I would be so lucky if that's all they did.
Rather, I think I would not be deported from the country, I would be deported from Earth.
Via a hole in the ground, which is not even marked by a tombstone.
So, when I say that these people should be deported, that's me being very nice.
That's me calling for leniency, in fact.
That is generosity and compassion.
Because you could certainly make an argument that calling for death to America is, you know, you could make an argument for treating anyone who says that as a traitor.
And giving them the punishment prescribed for that crime.
You can make that argument.
That is a declaration of war against the country, after all.
It's a call for violence.
You know, and if that had been a white... Just think about if he had said that more specifically.
Like, if this had been a white speaker chanting, let's say, death to Muslims, it would be treated as a hate crime.
You would not be legally allowed to do that.
Because they would say it's a hate crime.
They would say it's an incitement to violence.
Which, by the way, it would be.
So, when you say it about the entire country, that is you declaring war on the country.
That is a call for violence against the country.
And we all know that.
And listen, I criticize this country all the time.
I would never say, death to America, or call myself anti-American.
I love America.
I'm America first.
But sure, I criticize the country.
But this is my home.
You know, I was born here.
My kids were born here.
My parents and grandparents were born here.
So when I criticize America, or when you do, that's one thing.
Again, saying death to America is not acceptable for anybody to say.
Criticisms is one thing, but when some foreigner comes here and starts immediately complaining And **** about our country, that's an entirely different story.
It's like, you know, you might have a family member who you don't really get along with, and there's some tension there, and you get into arguments, and maybe you even get into some rather passionate arguments.
You've said some unkind things to each other, whatever it is, the relationship is strained.
But when some stranger who's not in your family comes along and insults that family member, Well, you don't allow that.
Even if it's a family member you have a strained relationship with.
You don't allow that, or you shouldn't.
Because your response to that is, hey, it's one thing for me to say that, but who the hell do you think you are?
You're not in the family.
No, no, no, you don't get to say that.
You don't get to treat my family that way.
And that's the attitude you should have about your family, and that's the attitude we should have about our country.
You don't get to be a foreigner coming here saying these things.
Although in this case, obviously, again, this isn't just criticism.
Here they're saying something that would be outrageous and disgusting no matter who was saying it.
My only point is that, in general, I'm just sick to death of foreigners coming here and then insulting our country.
You would not tolerate it in your own country, and you know you wouldn't.
You know you wouldn't.
And yet you think we should tolerate it here?
You would dare to get, like, offended when you say things like this and people respond in an angry way?
And you would dare to get defensive about it?
When you know for damn certain that if the shoe's on the other foot and I go to the country you're from and I say the same thing, you would not tolerate it for a second?
I'm just tired of it.
Just get the hell out.
Nobody asked you to come.
That guy, like, who asked you to come here?
We didn't ask you to come.
We don't need you.
Did anyone extend you an invitation?
Did anyone say, oh, please, please come here?
No, no one said that.
You could never come here.
We'd be fine.
We'd be fine without, in fact, we'd be better off without you.
So just leave.
I mean, anyway, what kind of hypocrite are you?
What kind of disgusting hypocrite are you that you think America, you know, is the greatest evil in the world, that it's responsible for all the terrible things happening in the world, and yet you come here and live here?
And you live off of the privileges that this country affords you?
What kind of disgusting... You're a traitor on multiple levels now!
Like, at least have the courage of your convictions!
You weak, pathetic coward!
You hate this country this much, but you have no problem living here?
And basking in the luxury that it affords you?
I mean, you're the worst of all worlds!
Like, it's one thing for you to actually live somewhere else, And go around screaming about how America should die?
Yeah, that's one thing.
That still pisses me off to hear anyone saying that, no matter where they live.
But you don't live here, you live somewhere else, and that's how you feel?
Okay, whatever.
What are you doing still living here?
You know, because you want to go back to your air-conditioned home, don't you?
You want to go back to your air-conditioned home, and you want to have all the privileges, all the luxuries.
You know, you go back into your home and you sit down and you watch your Netflix and you have your smartphone and all that.
A lot of these people are probably on government assistance as well.
So, not only that, but a lot of these people are living off of the system that they say should not exist on the planet.
That's why, you know, if we were a country run by serious people, we would have a very stringent selection system for deciding who gets to come here.
I, you know, I think there should be a moratorium on all immigration for a period of time, but whenever it opens up again, we should be very, very selective about who we allow in.
And one of the selection criteria should be a demonstrable love for America and for its traditions and its people.
You know, you should love America above all else.
You should love it more than where you're coming from.
That's what I think.
Because if you don't, then don't come.
I'm not saying that everyone in the world should love America more than their own country.
Of course not.
If you live in another country, you should love your country the most.
But if you come here, if you want to come and live here, then you should have an America First attitude.
You should be willing to say that.
That should be part of this election criteria.
You should be willing to say, I put America before any country, including whatever my country, whatever the country they come from.
They should explicitly have to say, I put my country before this one.
If you can't say that, then don't.
It's fine if you can't say that.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone, that all eight billion people on the globe should have to get up and say that they cherish America above all else.
But just don't come here then.
No one's forcing you to.
And that should be part of the selection criteria.
And then we should have the understanding that if you manage to sneak through, even though you hate us, let's say you're willing to go through the sort of pageantry of pretending to have a love for America and its traditions, and you manage to sneak through, well, the moment you reveal your true nature, the moment you reveal that you actually hate America, one strike and you're out.
Your immigration status is immediately revoked.
I don't care how long you've lived here.
I don't care if you've lived here for 25 years.
The moment you get up and you start saying, death to America, anti-American, okay, you're gone.
See you later.
You're never coming back.
We don't need you.
You got the whole rest of the world you can live in.
Or maybe, you know, a lot of those countries won't accept you either.
They actually have standards for who they accept.
But that's your problem.
And nothing, you know, everything I'm saying here, it's like, nothing I'm saying should be remotely controversial.
It shouldn't even matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
It certainly shouldn't matter where you fall, how you feel about the conflict in Israel right now.
That should make no difference to anything that I'm saying.
This is just a very simple thing.
If you hate America, don't come here.
And if you want to see America destroyed, then you do not deserve to live here.
Not only do you not deserve to live here, but we cannot afford, like, for the sake of our self-preservation as a nation, we cannot afford to allow people like that to live in this country.
Because I have kids who are going to live here and inherit this country.
Okay, so when you're saying death to America, you're saying death to my children, you disgusting scumbag.
That's what you're saying.
All right.
Anyway, okay, it's a report from CNBC.
Headline says, costs at some colleges nearing $100,000 per year, but many families pay a lot less.
So they put the little positive spin on it.
The price tag for a college education has never been higher, and it's only going up.
The cost of attendance at some schools, including New York University, Tufts, Brown, Yale, and Washington University in St.
Louis, is now nearing six figures a year after factoring in tuition, fees, room and board, books, transportation, other expenses.
Among the schools on the Princeton Review's The Best 389 Colleges list that have already set their costs for the 2024-25 academic year, eight institutions have a sticker price of more than $90,000 per year so far, according to data provided to CNBC.
Considering the tuition adjustments average roughly 4% a year, those tuitions and others could cross the $100,000 a year threshold as soon as 2026.
According to an estimate by Brian Alexander, a senior scholar at Georgetown University.
So this is, every few months you see a headline like this, just giving us an update and letting us know that, lest we forget that our long national psychosis is continuing, we continue to tolerate the university system charging, many universities in the system anyway, charging basically Double the average national income per year.
So the average national income I believe is, I think it's at around, it's a little less than $60,000 a year at this point.
And so a lot of these universities are charging a little bit less or in some cases a little bit more than double that per year.
And keep in mind that the average Tuition is nearly double the average national income, even though most college kids are not even earning the average national income.
That's the average national income when you factor in everybody together.
It's not the average income of somebody aged 19 or 18.
I don't know what the average income is there, but I can tell you, for a lot of them, it's zero.
A lot of these kids are making no money at all.
Every time we see a story like this, we just have to reflect on the fact that despite all this, still somehow the university system itself mostly escapes scrutiny.
They're the ones who are charging insane amounts of money.
Money that makes a college education not worth it for almost every college student.
for almost every college student.
Not every, but almost every.
So it's a very small percent of college students who you could say, "Oh, yeah, it's worth it for you to pay a
hundred grand a year."
[BLANK_AUDIO]
You have no money, but you're gonna pay a hundred grand a year and go into debt for maybe the rest of your life because of this.
It's a very small percent of these kids.
Is that really worth it?
And In spite of that, again, the actual university system itself, for the most part, is not blamed for this.
And we hear all the complaints about greedy corporations and greedy rich people and all that kind of stuff.
And there are plenty of corporations out there that are greedy and that are destructive and deserve a lot of criticism, plenty that deserve more criticism than they get.
But here you have this system, With these extremely well-funded institutions.
They've got millions and millions of dollars to spare.
And staffed by wealthy people.
At least at the, a lot of them at the administrative level, the amount of money these people are paid.
And they're just bilking these college kids And for some reason we never turn our gaze back to that system itself and say, why are you charging all this money?
You're the ones doing it.
You don't have to do that, but you are.
It's an interesting thing because most people will admit at this point that the whole system is a scam.
So you'll find, maybe not unanimous, but close to unanimous agreement that The kids are getting scammed by the system.
There's a huge amount of agreement on that point.
So we'll call it a scam, but the question is, who are the scam artists?
Who are the people actually running this scam?
And yeah, there are various different culprits that we could point to.
But the system itself escapes scrutiny, which I find very bizarre.
Huffington Post was very upset about a monologue I did on my show last week.
Maybe you remember this monologue.
Here's the headline from Huffington Post.
Matt Walsh defends white nationalist organization on Daily Wire podcast.
The podcast host went to bat for a group that once advocated creating a white ethnostate in America, calling VDare's ideas inconvenient.
This is the article says Matt Walsh, one of the most listened to podcast hosts in America, defended a well-known white nationalist organization on his Daily Wire show this week.
On Tuesday's episode of his eponymous podcast, Walsh argued that VDARE, a racist nonprofit listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, was being targeted by a government investigation solely because of its inconvenient and unpopular beliefs.
Walsh was referring to James' ongoing investigation into Letitia James, that is, New York Attorney General, into whether Videar's 2020 purchase of a $1.4 million castle in West Virginia may have violated its New York non-profit status.
He also alluded to the fact that earlier this year, James won a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump
for falsely inflating his net worth, meaning that the former president could be on the hook
for $454 million if he loses on the appeal.
For Walsh to claim that VDAIR merely has unfashionable, inconvenient, and unpopular views obscures
just how extreme the organization is.
As noted by Angry White Men, a website that documents white supremacist rhetoric
and was the first to report on Walsh's comments, VDAIR has, quote, "Defended the racist manifesto
"of the El Paso shooter who killed 23 people "during a 2019 anti-Hispanic shooting at a Walmart in Texas."
And a video that VDAIR published on YouTube called for a secessionist movement
that would result in the creation of a white ethnostate.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So we have, they're quoting, this Huffington Post quoting something called A website called Angry White Men and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a radical left-wing activist group.
And that's what they're using for this hit piece against me.
Now, first of all, I have no idea whether Huffington Post's summary of the opinions expressed on VDARE is actually correct.
Now, I suspect, I strongly suspect, that it's at least not entirely correct, only because these people tend to lie about everything.
So, for instance, When I read this hit piece, and they said that VDARE defended the manifesto of the El Paso shooter, I had no idea what they were talking about.
I think most people have no idea what they're talking about.
But Huffington Post, they linked to a Media Matters, so in order to support that claim, that VDARE defended the manifesto.
And even that, it's like, I'm not sure, what do you mean defended the manifesto?
What does that mean exactly?
Well, they don't explain what that means.
So they link to a Media Matters hit piece about VDARE.
And that hit piece mentions in one line that a VDARE host, at some point in the last few years, called the manifesto's use of the term invasion to describe illegal immigration as a, quote, apt term.
So that's what they're calling a defense of the manifesto.
But if you follow the next link, so you gotta keep following links, you know, going down the crazy left-wing rabbit hole, You follow the next link, it brings you to a video clip pulled by Media Matters, which I assume is what this is all referring to.
And it's a clip where this VDare host condemns left-wing terrorism and points out that the media gives left-wing terrorists, especially non-white ones, a pass, and even celebrates them in some cases.
And he then says that invasion is an apt term to describe what's happening.
But while he's saying that, he's not at that moment referring to the manifesto.
Actually, there's a screenshot of an Ann Coulter article on the screen while he's saying that.
So it appears to me that if he's quoting anything, when he says apt term, he's quoting an Ann Coulter article.
That's what it seems anyway.
And he proceeds to make the point that the media will now claim, due to the El Paso shooter,
that anyone who speaks this way, which is in an honest way about immigration,
will be lumped in unfairly with the El Paso shooter.
So, that seems to be the argument.
I don't think that they're, in other words, they're going to use this killer as a way to smear everybody else, normal people who are not killers and are saying normal things about immigration.
So that seems to be the point they're making, which is a point that like we all make when these things happen because it's exactly what the media does.
I don't think there's any honest way to read that as a defense of the shooter or the manifesto.
Rather, it's a criticism of the media, and wouldn't you know it, Huffington Post proceeds to do exactly what the guy said they would.
But all that is beside the point.
It's beside the point.
Because none of that really matters in this case.
When I heard about how the New York Attorney General is targeting VDARE and doing so transparently on political grounds, I didn't go check to make sure that everything they've published on their site is something I agree with.
I didn't do that because it's not relevant.
It doesn't matter.
My whole point is that they have the right to express their views, and they should not be targeted by political partisans who are blatantly trying to shut down speech and intimidate their political opponents.
Okay?
I mean, we all know, as the point I made last week, that the New York Attorney General would never target, say, BLM in this way.
Despite, we can all run through the list of the things that Black Lives Matter not only did, but also said.
Explicitly calling for, encouraging violence, and many, many examples of that.
And many examples of that in general, on the left, as we know.
And they are not going to be targeted.
Why is VDARE being targeted?
Well, it's because The New York Attorney General doesn't like their politics.
And you notice that even in Huffington Post's hit piece, they don't even really try to spend much time disputing the idea that this is a politically motivated prosecution.
Instead, they spend most of their time... Basically, their argument is that, well, yeah, it might be politically motivated, but these guys are really bad.
I mean, listen to the stuff they're saying.
It's real bad stuff.
Not even disputing the fact.
And the fact is that this is, again, politically motivated and should be condemned on that ground alone.
Okay, one other quick thing here.
Here's an NBC story about a case that's gotten some attention over the past few days.
Very important controversy having to do with a cruise line.
Let's watch a little bit of this.
Matt Dash for passengers to catch their cruise ship triggering a seven-day ordeal.
We've flown, it's actually seven countries we've been in in 48 hours.
Jay and Jill Campbell and six other Norwegian cruise passengers were on a 21-day voyage up the coast of Africa.
But last Wednesday, it all went wrong for the group, after they left the ship for a private excursion to the African island country of Sao Tome and Príncipe, but didn't make it back by the 3 p.m.
deadline.
And the ship left without them, their passports handed to the local port agents.
Even though, the couple says, the private tour operator notified the captain they were going to be late, and despite the Coast Guard's attempt to get them on the ship, which was still docked.
We truly believe that, you know, although there's a set of rules or policies that the ship may have followed, they follow those rules too rigidly.
The passengers arranged to board again in Banjul, Gambia, traveling there on their own expense.
But the cruise line says the ship couldn't dock due to weather.
In a statement, Norwegian Cruise told NBC News, noting the group was an hour late when the ship initially left without them.
them and the local port a obtaining the necessary v
at the next available por an hour late when the shi
them still. So they're an come back to the ship and
Unfortunately, this story is not nearly as entertaining as I'd hoped, because when I originally saw the headline, the original headline said something like that I saw floating around on social media.
Was that passengers got left behind on an African island or something by a cruise ship.
And so I immediately imagining, you know, Robinson Crusoe, Castaway, Tom Hanks, like something like that.
They've been left there for years.
They were just spotted by another, you know, Disney cruise that was coming by and they found them.
They were all bedraggled and long beards and everything.
That's not what happened at all.
They just were.
It was an inconvenience, basically.
It was a relatively mild inconvenience that they went through.
Because they were an hour late to get back from their excursion.
The ship just left them.
Should the cruise line have left these people there?
You know, were they wrong for leaving them behind?
No, they were not wrong.
Yes, they should have been left.
No, they were not wrong.
You're an hour late.
This is just classic entitled attitude.
You want the whole ship to wait there for you?
Not gonna happen.
But first of all, So you deserve to get left behind for that.
But you deserve to get left behind in the first place because you're going on a cruise to begin with.
So that's your first mistake.
Your first sin is to go on the cruise.
I've been on one cruise in my life.
I cannot imagine ever spending the money to go on another one.
And a cruise, if you've never been on one before, it's something that You know, it brings out this very weird kind of despair that it's almost hard to describe.
David Foster Wallace wrote about it in his famous essay in the 90s after he went on a cruise.
But it's this weird experience of being on this giant boat.
Where you have people catering to you constantly, and everything is very structured, but there's a schedule, there's a dinner schedule, there's this, there's that, there's entertainment.
They're kind of like ferrying you along from one thing to the next.
It's very structured, but it's also very opulent, and everyone is eating and drinking, and everybody is fat and old.
You don't expect that before you go on a cruise.
You don't know that until you get on the cruise.
Everyone here is really fat.
And much fatter than I thought everybody would be.
You're worried about the buoyancy of the ship even when you see the size of the passengers.
People are a lot older than you think.
And you're just floating along for no real reason.
You're not really going anywhere in particular and then you look out at the vastness of the ocean and the indescribable depths of this giant terrifying sea and there's something about that juxtaposed with like a breakfast buffet filled with morbidly obese people that really causes you to contemplate the fragility and futility of life.
Or at least it did for me and David Foster Wallace.
So there's two of us at least and I was on my honeymoon too.
So, you know not exactly the time for such ruminations But that's the effect it had on me and I emphasize the food
and the fatness because if you've never been on a cruise You don't realize at least I didn't that eating is the main
thing. That's That's the main activity that you do.
You just eat and eat and eat.
And then you dock in Jamaica or wherever and you waddle out there and you've been eating and you're gross.
And it's humid, and a bunch of Jamaicans try to sell you weed, and you waddle over to a spot on the beach, and you go in the water, you get stung by a jellyfish, and then you go to an excursion to some zipline place, and more Jamaicans try to sell you weed, and trinkets, lots of trinkets they try to sell you, and you end up buying one of them for way too much money because they've pressured you into it, and you get back on the ship, and you eat some more, and you contemplate your mortality some more, and then you get back to port, and they give you the bill for the drinks, And it's like all the money that you were given as a gifts for your wedding, you just spent on cocktails.
So that's what happens.
That's what happens to everyone.
I'm not being specific.
This is not me specifically talking about myself.
It's what happens to everybody.
I'm quite sure.
And anyway, so yeah, they deserve to get left behind.
That's where that's headed.
It's been two years of fighting the left and building the future with great products and we're only getting better.
Jeremy's second generation razors are here.
Same mission, new razors.
You'll notice a redesigned ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades.
For those of you who craft your masculine look with precision, we have Jeremy's new and improved Precision 5 razor.
Precision trimmer allows you to tailor your shave.
It provides an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
If shaving is more of a chore you just want to get it done and over with, the brand new Sprint 3 is for you.
Open blade geometry allows for quick, clean shave so you can get back to your manly activities as quickly as possible.
Razors made right.
Progress that isn't progressive.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to your new second generation razor today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
For our first Daily Cancellation of the week, we turn to a man named Peter Tatchell,
a prominent gay activist in the UK.
Over the weekend, Tatchell put forward a very bad argument to defend the concept of transgenderism.
Now, I know what you're thinking.
Every argument defending the concept is bad.
And you're right.
Indeed, this specific argument is one that we've dealt with before, actually.
But this iteration of the argument, this latest attempt to package this particular box of turd so that it looks like something other than a box of turd, Is so egregiously dumb and fallacious that I feel I have no choice but to give it a featured spot on the Daily Cancellation.
So here was the tweet from Peter Tatchell.
He says, 18 animals you didn't know are biologically trans.
Gender diversity in the tranimal kingdom blurs the lines of biological sex.
These animals quote-unquote biological sex.
These animals show that gender is not a simplistic binary, male and female.
Trans and intersex are real.
Get used to it.
So that's the caption to an article that he links to from a publication called The Gay Times.
Now, you'll be shocked and heartbroken to discover that Gay Times apparently publishes some rather shoddy journalism.
If you're expecting Pulitzer-quality reporting from Gay Times, well...
Then you just might get your wish, actually, because this does seem like exactly the sort of drivel that would win a Pulitzer these days.
But anyway, the article begins this way.
"Transphobes love to cite 'biology' in their exclusionary views.
Lesbian separatists, right-wing lobbyists, the Pope, she who must not be named."
She, J.K. Rowling, is who they're referring to.
"This shrinking class of gender imperialists use biological sex as a pseudo-intellectual trump card
to suggest that the gender binary is inalienable due to this perceived fact.
Yet, these relentless displays of willful obtuseness ignore many facts in order to prove their point,
such as the fact of intersex bodies, such as the fact of overwhelming support from medical institutions
and experts advocating for the prosperity of trans people, Take the Endocrine Society, the largest and oldest medical organization dedicated to researching hormones, calling out the terms biological sex, biological male, and biological female as imprecise and should be avoided.
Now, Just a few problems here right from the start.
First, if you find that you feel the need to put the word biology in scare quotes, you should step back and conduct a very honest self-assessment.
Okay?
Something has gone wrong here for you.
Because biology is a thing.
It's not a right-wing myth.
And yes, we do love to cite it.
We generally enjoy citing biology during conversations related to biology.
And scoffing at that, it's like scoffing at someone who brings up mathematics during a conversation about numbers.
It's like putting physics in scare quotes while discussing gravity.
Also, as we've established many times, intersex people suffer from a physical condition, a deformity.
They do not disprove the sex binary.
And as for those prestigious medical institutions, an argument from authority while not offering any evidence as to why they should be considered authorities, in this case, gets you nowhere.
Especially when you're claiming that medical institutions show, quote, overwhelming support for the prosperity of trans people.
Okay.
So?
I mean, I support the prosperity of trans-identified people, too.
I want everyone to prosper.
And for a trans-identified person, really prospering means, to begin with, understanding reality and learning to accept it as it is, and themselves as they are.
Which is to say, accept themselves as they biologically are.
So, we aren't off to a great start, but let's keep going.
Article continues, anyway, enough about humans, let's learn more about these tranimals.
Uh, hang on a second.
What do you mean, enough about humans?
Isn't that the topic here?
I mean, aren't you trying to make some kind of point about human trans people by bringing up these animals?
That seems to be the point.
Which is why this article was published in Gay Times in the first place.
Yet apparently, we'll be left to our own devices to figure out how exactly any of the rest of this article connects to human beings, or what precisely it's supposed to say about transgenderism in humans.
The author obviously believes that it proves something, but he can't for the life of him explain what that is and doesn't try.
Instead, we're off to this list of 18 animals who are supposedly trans.
And instead of reading this whole thing to you, I'll just tell you that the 18 animals are clownfish, a bird called the sandpiper ruff, a few other birds, the spotted hyena, seahorses, the swallowtail butterfly, the banana slug, a few different types of lizards, starfish, jellyfish, and oysters.
Now, it goes without saying, None of these animals are trans or anything remotely close to what we call transgenderism among human beings.
Because trans is a so-called gender identity.
Jellyfish don't have any concept of gender identity.
They probably don't have any concepts of anything at all.
And most of these animals on this list are hermaphrodites.
Not in the sense of having genital deformities, which is what it means to be intersex as a human.
These animals actually possess, some of them anyway, the functional reproductive capabilities of both sexes.
They can reproduce as either male or female.
Okay?
Well, that does not exist among humans.
There has never been a case of a human being who can both get pregnant and also do the impregnating.
That has never existed.
So, banana slugs, though, by their nature, are both male and female at the same time.
They have the reproductive capacities of males and females.
And this is a relatively common phenomenon among many of the lesser species.
That said, plenty of the animals on this list aren't even actually hermaphroditic.
Hyenas, for example, aren't hermaphrodites.
Females just have sex organs that look similar to males, but actually are not the same.
The butterfly on the list also doesn't appear to be hermaphrodite from what I can tell.
It apparently just has a much more glamorous wing color, which we usually associate with the males of that species.
And the article calls this, in all seriousness, calls this trans-feminine code-switching.
That's how they describe this butterfly.
And that is how desperate trans activists are for affirmation.
They're even looking for allies in the insect community.
But this is all beside the point.
The author of this article He doesn't understand the biology of the creatures that he puts on the list, but that doesn't even matter.
The existence of different reproductive capabilities among other species does not, even the slightest bit, vindicate the claim that human trans people make about themselves as humans.
So, here's the argument the article is making.
Just to summarize, the argument is this.
A trans-identified male is really a female because banana slugs are hermaphrodites.
It is the most bizarre kind of non-sequitur you'll ever hear.
I mean, you might as well argue that the planet Jupiter doesn't exist because cheddar cheese is yellow.
Or maybe you'll claim that Japan is in South America because Tom Hanks was born in 1956.
I mean, the possibilities are endless when you've decided that a totally nonsensical claim can be proven by facts that are completely irrelevant to the claim you're making.
Or perhaps the best analogy is this.
Imagine an article that tried to prove that humans can fly by listing 18 birds that can fly.
That's what's happening here.
Oh, you're saying humans can't fly?
Oh, yeah?
Well, what about the bald eagle, huh?
Checkmate.
But it's not just that the article gets many of the basic facts wrong in service to an argument that, even if accurately presented, wouldn't prove the point it tries to prove.
In fact, it's worse than that.
Because actually, if the article does anything, it only makes left-wing gender theory seem more asinine and made-up than it already did.
After all, you'll notice that even in these hermaphrodite species, even among slugs and jellyfish and oyster and, you know, all these species that are not humans, There are still only males and females.
Now, males might become females, or vice versa, or they might be both at the same time.
You know, in slugs that is possible.
It's not impossible in humans, but in slugs it is.
But even then, there's really no third sex.
They're still working with the same basic menu of options, male or female, or some combination.
The sex binary still provides the basic parameters, even for species that actually do have more fluidity to move between the two options.
We don't have that fluidity as humans.
Some of these species do.
But even then, there are still just the two options.
Now, this wouldn't be my go-to argument for disproving transgenderism.
To do that, I don't need to look outside the human species, given that this is an argument about the human species.
But the point is that if non-human species help anyone's argument, they help ours, over on Team Sanity.
They do nothing to rescue the lunatics who don't believe in biology anyway.
And that is why gay times, and anybody who cites them, and even those damned hermaphrodite banana slugs, they're getting it too.
