Ep. 1345 - The Media Nominates Their New George Floyd
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left desperately wants to find their new George Floyd before the election. They think they have a good candidate in a man named Dexter Reed who was killed by police during a traffic stop. But the basic facts of this case make it extremely clear that this man is no victim. Also, after a Supreme Court decision, Arizona's ban on abortion will go into effect, over the protests of both Democrats and Republicans. Why are Republicans objecting to a pro-life law? And board games are going woke now, as Scrabble unveils a new "inclusive" version of the classic game.
Ep.1345
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/3VPYOTo
Watch my new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Constitution Wealth - If you have 250k or more of stock and bond investments and would like to reduce your exposure to woke companies, go to http://www.ConstitutionWealth.com/Matt
The Ballad of Davy Crockett - Watch The Ballad of Davy Crockett today!
https://vmiworldwide.biz/3Tux2dM
- - -
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 left desperately wants to find their new George Floyd before the election.
They think they have a good candidate, a man named Dexter Reed, who was killed by police during a traffic stop.
But the basic facts of this case make it extremely clear that this man is no victim.
Also, after a Supreme Court decision, Arizona's ban on abortion will go into effect over the protests of both Democrats and Republicans.
Why are Republicans objecting to a pro-life law?
And board games are going woke now as Scrabble unveils a new inclusive version of the classic game.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
The cost of living has already increased 17% this year and continues to rise despite interest rate controls.
As our national debt skyrockets, you need to be confident in the financial services companies you work with, especially regarding your money and your future.
Birchgold is a proven industry leader that you want on your side.
They'll show you how precious metal investments can fortify your lifestyle and retirement, even in turbulent economic times.
Navigating financial decisions can be scary if you're considering converting an existing retirement account into a precious metals IRA.
Birchgold's dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Birchgold values your questions and your concerns.
Their team is always available to provide answers and clarity.
Whether it's about fees, taxes on rollovers, or timing of the process, they are here to ensure that you feel heard and informed.
Text Walsh to 989898 to talk to one of Birch Gold's experts and claim your free info kit on gold.
You'll learn how to convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
The best part is, it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Just text Walsh to 989898.
That's Walsh to 989898.
Last year, a man in his mid-20s named Dexter Reed was charged with three counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and one count of possession of a firearm with a revoked firearms owner's identification card, which is required in the state of Illinois before you can possess a weapon or ammunition.
And because nobody really spends time in jail in Illinois anymore, Reed was free on pre-trial release for these felony charges as recently as this past March.
Now, it goes without saying that at that point, any functioning member of society who somehow found himself charged with these crimes would try to lay low for a little bit.
Maybe they'd keep their illegal guns at home, for example.
But Dexter Reed did not choose that approach because he's not a functioning member of society.
Instead, in March, Reed went for a drive in an SUV wearing a ski mask and carrying a firearm.
That's when police say that they noticed that Reed was breaking yet another law.
He wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
Instead of cooperating with the traffic stop, this is what happened.
And I'm going to show you two angles of this incident from police body cams.
The second body cam is from an officer who was shot as this unfolded.
Watch.
Roll the windows down.
Roll the window down.
What are you doing?
Roll that one down too.
Hey, don't roll the window up.
Don't roll the window up.
Do not roll the window up.
Unlock the doors now.
Open the door now.
[GUNFIRE]
[INAUDIBLE]
David, shots fired.
Shots fired.
[GUNFIRE]
[INAUDIBLE]
David, shots fired.
Shots fired.
[GUNFIRE]
[INAUDIBLE]
[inaudible]
Put your window down, man.
And hold this one down, too.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So it's clear from the footage that Dexter Reed is wearing a ski mask and
he's not cooperating with the officers.
They tell him to unlock the door, stop rolling up the windows, and he refuses for quite some time.
You know, they have their guns drawn at one point and they're telling him stop rolling the windows up.
Unlock the door.
He refuses.
Then the officer sees something that clearly puts them in fear of their life, and they back up, and shots begin to ring out.
One officer is hit in the wrist, and he survives.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, quote, Alderman Brian Hopkins, chairman of the City Council's Public Safety Committee, said he's been told that 26-year-old Reed fired 11 shots through his car window in what Hopkins called an attempt to kill police officers.
An empty gun was recovered at the scene, Hopkins said.
He fired 11 rounds at these police officers before he was eventually killed.
As of now, police are still investigating the shooting, but Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability has determined that the evidence appears to confirm, quote-unquote, that Reed fired the first shot, and the video by itself shows that pretty clearly.
One social media user on Twitter, the account exposed them.
Synced up footage from two of the body cams that Chicago police have released.
The top body cam is the one that I just showed of the police officer who got hit.
The other body cam is from a third officer on the scene, and you can see that the first officer gets hit, Before the other officers return fire.
Watch.
Unlock the doors now!
Open the doors now!
Open the doors now!
Hey!
Open the door now! Open the door now! Open the door now!
I'm a police officer. I'm a police officer. I'm a police officer. I'm a police officer.
Hey! Hey! Say what was good!
Shot fired.
Shot fired.
Hey! Shot fired. Pick it up.
Come on, get up!
Hey! Hey!
Hey!
Where's St.
Louis?
Are you hit?
Are you hit?
Okay, so the footage is, on its own, pretty clear evidence that the officers defended themselves.
I mean, you could see the one officer get shot, and that should end the discussion entirely.
Like, that's it.
He shot at the cops and he got killed.
End of discussion.
But it's not the end of the discussion, because even before these body cams were released, professional agitators engaged in a concerted effort to turn Dexter Reed into a martyr, of course.
A former Chicago mayoral candidate and BLM activist named Jamal Green began posting on social media this weekend that the footage would show a, quote, execution.
He also warned about possible riots, which of course is exactly what Jamal Green wants to happen.
And Green's strategy appears to be working, at least so far.
This week, crowds turned up outside a police station to heckle officers and make some of the most strained arguments imaginable.
Watch.
Complete chaos outside CPD's 11th district.
demonstrators blocking streets and clashing with police.
[crowd shouting]
Close to 100 activists and concerned Chicago residents standing in solidarity,
demanding justice following the death of Dexter Reed.
We don't need armed police officers to tell somebody to put their seatbelt on!
Dexter's vehicle had tinted windows, so the argument that they were looking for a seatbelt issue doesn't make sense.
So they're saying the cops couldn't have possibly known whether he was breaking the seatbelt because he was driving with heavily tinted windows, which is also against the law, by the way.
Apparently in BLM circles, this is seen as some sort of checkmate, even though they've just provided an additional reason why police would have wanted to pull this guy over.
And on top of that, if you're wondering, well, why can't you have tinted windows?
This is why.
Because of guys like this.
Because this is why they have tinted windows.
And then they argue that there's no need for armed officers to enforce seatbelt laws.
Well, apparently there is!
Because if they were not armed, they'd be dead.
Especially in a city like Chicago, because you never know when someone who's not wearing a seatbelt might be out of jail on a felony gun charge, still packing heat and wearing a ski mask, and ready to shoot at you for no reason.
And all of that is irrelevant anyway.
Because even if they had no reason to pull him over, which they did have a reason, it still obviously doesn't justify him shooting at the cops.
He shot at them.
You don't get to shoot at the cops if you disagree with their reason for stopping you.
I've been pulled over for seatbelt violations before.
It's annoying.
I find it annoying.
I don't think seatbelt laws should exist.
I don't think cops should be in the business of enforcing that.
If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, then I shouldn't have to wear one.
That's my personal opinion.
But obviously, when I've been pulled over for a seatbelt violation, it never occurred to me that maybe I should murder the cops because of it.
But the push to portray Dexter Reed as a victim continues anyway, because none of this is really about the facts.
Alleged academics are getting involved, too.
An English professor at Amherst named Frank Leon Roberts wrote on social media, quote, his name was Dexter Reed, murdered in broad daylight by the Chicago Police Department, 96 shots in 41 seconds, 26 years old, his crime, not having his seatbelt on.
This is America.
Defund and abolish the police.
No, his crime was shooting at the cops, you moron!
This is another thing that BLM people always do.
They fixate on some little detail that has nothing to do with anything.
So in this case, it's going to be 96 shots were fired.
So?
Yeah, they're trying to put him down because he's shooting at them.
So they're going to fire as many shots as they need.
If it takes 500 shots, then that's what it takes.
There was 96 shots.
What?
So, what, if there was 30 shots, you'd be okay with it?
How many shots is too many?
When someone's shooting 11 shots at you as a police officer, how many shots are you allowed to return?
Is it like 11 for 11?
Are they supposed to be counting their bullets?
1, 2, 3, 4.
That's it.
That's as many as he returns.
Everyone stop, stop, stop.
Wait for him to fire again and we can shoot one more.
A few hours after the professor wrote that tweet, he deleted it and erased his entire Twitter account, maybe because it was a little too ridiculous, even by the standards of Amherst.
But it wasn't too absurd for the corporate press.
They have also done everything they can to portray the police as the aggressors here.
Here's how the Washington Post covered Dexter Reed's traffic stop, for example.
The headline is, quote, police fired 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing a black man during a traffic stop.
So, there's nothing in there about what Dexter Reed did during the traffic stop.
There's no mention of the fact that he opened fire on the cops.
In fact, if you read the story, you don't find any mention of Dexter Reed shooting his handgun until the eighth paragraph of the story.
That's not an exaggeration.
They ignore it until eight paragraphs in.
Instead, here's what the Washington Post talks about.
This is what they talk about first.
This is from the beginning of their article.
It's as emotional and over-the-top as they possibly can make it.
Quote, By the way, this is the footage they're referencing.
the last time she saw her son alive.
He was just riding around in his car, Dexter's mother, Nicole Banks said,
as she broke down in tears, they killed him.
By the way, this is the footage they're referencing.
Here it is.
He just bought his new car three days before that.
And he was just riding around in his car.
He said, Mom, go for a ride.
And they killed him!
They killed him!
Just riding around in his car with a ski mask and an illegal handgun, shooting at the cops.
That's all.
Hey, Mom, I'm gonna go shoot at some cops.
Okay, be back by dinner.
What, my son is dead now after that?
I never would have seen that coming.
So Reid's mother is out at the press conference crying and fainting on camera.
Now, I'm sure she is legitimately distraught given that her child was killed.
But as always, there's no self-analysis.
There's no moment of honest reflection where she wonders how she raised a child who would throw his life away for no reason during a traffic stop.
You know, if that was my child, I wouldn't be out in front of cameras.
In that way, I'd be ashamed.
I would be distraught, ashamed of myself.
I would say I raised this suicidal son who just threw his life away in an attempt to kill police officers.
I would be reflecting on that as a parent.
Instead, she blames the cops.
And the lawsuit, I'm sure, will be close behind.
And the Washington Post decides to lead with that, instead of an accurate description of what happened during the traffic stop.
It's hard to think of a more deliberately dishonest way to frame the actions of an attempted cop killer.
And just for good measure, the Post puts a giant photo of Dexter Reed at some graduation ceremony from five years ago at the top of the article.
They leave his mugshot from his felony of firearms arrest off of it.
You know, they don't go with that.
This is the way it always goes with BLM martyrs.
You know, Maybe you noticed, you never see graduation photos of anyone who makes the news for any reason unless it's a black guy who killed by the cops.
It's the only time you ever see, think about it, literally anyone else who makes the news for any good, bad, you don't see their graduation photos used in news articles.
On Twitter, a writer named Daniel Friedman pointed out the history of this tactic.
It began after Michael Brown was shot 10 years ago after fighting with a cop and trying to take his gun.
Media outlets went on Brown's Facebook and then they used unflattering photos of Brown flashing gang signs in their coverage.
As Freeman writes, quote, Black Twitter reacted angrily.
They said that the media was using images of Brown that stereotyped him.
There was a trending hashtag, a hashtag, if they gunned me down, of college students or professionals posting pictures of themselves looking like thugs in solidarity with Brown.
So the media relented, and they swapped out the thug photos for graduation photos, and that's what they've been doing ever since.
Now, in this case, The Washington Post wasn't alone in whitewashing Reid's actions.
CNN ran a similar headline that made no mention of Reid shooting at officers, quote, 96 shots fired in a fatal traffic stop.
Here's what the body cam footage shows.
The AP reported, quote, deadly Chicago traffic stop where police fired 96 shots raises serious questions about use of force.
Now, it's almost comical when you picture the editor carefully trying to construct these headlines so that they don't mention the elephant in the room.
It's like imagining someone trying to describe the maiden voyage of the Titanic without saying anything about, you know, the whole iceberg incident.
But I'd be remiss if I mocked the media's coverage of this episode without mentioning the Daily Mail.
Because they chose to portray Dexter Reed as a, quote, aspiring broadcaster.
So he's not a felon or an attempted cop killer.
He was the next Tom Brokaw, apparently.
Quote, on Tuesday, Chicago police released footage of the March 21st encounter, which
showed them firing 96 shots at Reed, even as he lay motionless on the ground outside
his vehicle.
The aspiring broadcaster's death has reignited conversations around excessive police force
against black people, though officers maintain Reed opened fire first.
And that's another thing, again, only if it's a black guy killed by the cops do they add
in those kind...
Even if he was an aspiring broadcaster, that has nothing to do with anything.
And to just drop that into the middle of the description of the crime is so bizarre.
But this is what they do now, this is the routine.
At least they get around to suggesting that the officers were defending themselves, so there's that.
And it's easy to laugh at how absurd this is, but there's a point to it.
BLM and their allies in the media are desperate to find a new George Floyd before the election.
We knew they would look for it.
They're looking for it.
They know Democrats stand a very real chance of losing power in November, so they're using the same tactic they did four years ago.
George Floyd, we were told, wasn't a home invader or a thief or a drug addict.
They told us that he was a gentle giant trying to get his life back on track.
And now we're expected to believe that Dexter Reed is also some misunderstood pillar of the local community instead of the degenerate that he clearly was.
And the plan is to cause riots, to terrify everybody into voting the way they want, and force a national reckoning on race to promote more of their mediocre allies into positions of power.
And they had planned to accomplish all this by lying about a dead thug who shot at the cops.
This is a strategy that we're seeing more and more as we head into the election.
Last October, for example, the media tried to incite riots over the shooting death of Leonard Cure.
This is a man who tried to kill a police officer on camera during a traffic stop, and there's no dispute about that.
I mean, it's on tape.
Watch.
Either put your hands behind your back or you're getting tased.
I'm telling you that right now.
Why am I getting tased?
Because you are under arrest for speeding and reckless driving.
I'm not driving.
Nobody was hurt.
How was I speeding?
You passed me doing 100 miles an hour.
Okay, so that's a speeding ticket, right?
Sir, tickets in the state of Georgia are criminal offenses.
I don't have a ticket in Georgia.
You do now.
Why?
You passed me doing 100 miles an hour.
Am I going to jail?
Hands behind your back.
Yes, you are going to jail.
Hands behind your back!
Put your hands behind your back!
Yeah, b****.
Yep.
Sit down. Sit down.
Sit down.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Gabe, the shot's fired!
Okay, so the guy went out of his way to get himself killed.
The officer went out of his way to avoid killing him.
He tried to use everything in his arsenal before he finally pulled the gun.
He could have pulled it much sooner.
In fact, he should have.
But then again, the cops are in the position now where as someone is trying to kill them, they are consciously aware that if there's a line they have to walk, and if they end up on the wrong side of that line, they'll end up in prison forever.
So that's the situation that cops are in now.
And the other excuse that we often hear for the guys, the quote-unquote victims in these videos, is we'll hear, well, you know, black men are, they're afraid.
They're afraid of the cops.
And that's why they react the way they do in those videos.
Wait, so you're afraid of the cop?
And so you're doing everything you possibly can to provoke a violent response from the cops?
That's what you do if you're afraid of them?
What?
This is the exact opposite of fear.
This is a total indifference to your own life, to the cop's life, to the laws, to the basic structure of civilized society.
After seeing that footage, here was the Washington Post headline, quote, Deputy fatally shoots man who served 16 years for wrongful conviction.
The article begins, Leonard Cure, who was exonerated in 2020, was killed by a Georgia Sheriff's deputy during a traffic stop.
The deputy used a taser and a baton before shooting Cure.
The Post didn't get around to mentioning that Cure tried to murder the deputy until 14 paragraphs into the story.
And even then, they described it as carefully as they possibly could.
They say that Cure was forcefully grappling with the deputy and pushing the deputy's head back with his hand.
Forcefully grappling.
That's their way of describing, you know, a guy trying to choke the officer to death.
And of course, Ben Crump came out and declared that Cure had been shot simply for being black.
Because, you know, if Cure was white, then the officer would have said, all right, if you want to choke me to death, go ahead.
I mean, you're white after all.
Maybe other cops show up and, you know, they run in for backup and he would wave them off.
He'd say, no, no, he's white.
It's okay.
No, he's white.
He's fine.
He can go ahead and kill me.
Just go ahead.
Get it over with.
You're white.
That effort didn't catch on in quite the same way the media and BLM activists had hoped, so now they're trying again.
And they'll continue to try until one of two things happen.
Either they get the riots they want and they terrorize millions of people into voting for Democrats out of fear, or, for once, normal, sane people stand up and say what's obvious.
And that's the fact that Dexter Reed and Leonard Cure and all these BLM heroes are the dregs of society.
They are not role models, and they are not victims.
They are, in fact, the cause of many serious problems that cities like Chicago are experiencing right now.
That's the only message that can put an end to these riots before they start and avert a repeat of the pillaging we saw in 2020.
It happens to also be a message that most Americans believe, even if they're afraid to say it.
But as unpleasant as it may be, it's time we start saying it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, it's 2024 and if you're still spending your money with woke companies,
There are a lot of great companies out there that aren't shoving diversity and inclusion initiatives down the throats of their employees or their customers.
Maybe you're already doing business with some of these.
That's great.
Maybe you're boycotting companies who have made headlines by acquiring the latest trans influencer as their spokesperson or whatever.
Even better.
Have you given much thought to where your money is currently invested?
A lot of big wealth management companies make billions of dollars investing your money however they want, wherever they want, even if that means investing in businesses who don't care about your values.
Align your portfolio with your principles today with my friends at Constitution Wealth.
is the Patriots' choice in wealth management.
They'll help you build a solid investment plan while reducing your investments in the ESGs and DEIs, companies that care more about global warming and diversity ratios than they do about your return on your investment.
And with Constitution Wealth, you can start using your shareholder votes to support conservative action.
Fight the culture war with your most valuable weapon, your investments.
Help build a parallel economy by working with an investment firm composed of professionals who are Patriots like you.
If you have $250,000 or more of stock, And bond investments and would like to reduce your exposure to woke companies, go to constitutionwealth.com slash Matt.
That's constitutionwealth.com slash Matt.
The article from the AP says the Arizona legislature devolved into shouts of shame on Wednesday as Republican lawmakers quickly shut down discussions on a proposed repeal of the state's newly revived 1864 law that criminalizes abortion throughout pregnancy unless a woman's life is at risk.
The state Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for enforcement of the pre-statehood law.
Arizona abortion providers vowed yesterday to continue service until they are forced to stop, possibly within weeks.
State legislators convened as pressure mounted from Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, for them to intervene.
House Democrats and at least one Republican tried to open discussion on repeal of the 1864 abortion ban, which holds no exceptions for rape or incest.
GOP leaders who commanded the majority cut it off twice and quickly adjourned for the week.
I think we have some footage of the commotion.
Let's watch that.
I move that we recess to the sound of the bill immediately.
You've heard the secondary motion.
I heard a second.
All in favor of that motion vote aye.
All opposed vote no.
Ayes have it, so ordered.
Shame on you!
I'm you!
Hold the vote!
Hold the vote!
We know that the Alright, so they're very upset and these are people who, just to be clear of course about what they're upset about, they're upset that fewer babies are going to be killed in the state of Arizona.
They're very, very upset.
They're very distraught when they lie awake at night, tossing and turning, thinking about all of the babies who will live instead of being dismembered.
That's what they're upset about.
So these are evil, evil people.
You know, one of the arguments, I mean, you heard in the article I just read, the fact that this was an 1864 law was mentioned, like, four times.
You know, that's supposed to be relevant, the fact that the law dates back that far.
So?
It's a law.
Like, it doesn't matter how old it is.
So the claim is that, well, yeah, but people who are alive today didn't vote on that law.
Is that the way the law works now?
That every law that predates our own existence has to come back up for a vote?
Is that the way that we think a democracy is going to work now?
That any law that existed before us doesn't count?
And we have to, so with every new generation, we have to vote again on every law to make sure that every new generation is okay with every law that's been passed in the past.
It's crazy.
It's just, it's insane.
But this is the argument.
And unfortunately, it's an argument being made not just by Democrats, but by Republicans.
Carrie Lake, who's running for Senate, says that she opposes the Supreme Court decision banning abortion in her state.
And Trump told reporters yesterday that he thinks that the law, quote, went too far.
Watch.
Mr. President, did Arizona go too far?
Did Arizona go too far?
Yeah, they did.
And that'll be straightened out.
And as you know, it's all about states' rights.
That'll be straightened out.
And I'm sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason.
And that'll be taken care of, I think, very quickly.
What do you think about Florida?
Florida's probably maybe going to change also.
See, it's all about the will of the people.
This is what I've been saying.
It's a perfect system.
So, for 52 years, people have wanted to end Roe v. Wade to get it back to the states.
We did that.
It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement.
We did that.
And now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want.
It's the will of the people.
So, Florida's probably going to change.
Arizona's going to definitely change.
Everybody wants that to happen.
And you're getting the will of the people.
It's been pretty amazing, wouldn't you think?
Okay, so that's Trump.
He says that, you know, everybody's happy that Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Obviously, everyone is not happy.
He says everybody wants the Arizona law to be changed.
Everyone does not want that.
Now, look, I've already said that I understand the prudential political judgment to not call for a federal ban on abortion when you're running for national political office.
Now, I personally would like to see a federal ban.
I think it should be banned federally.
But I also don't believe in committing political Harry Carey in a way that won't achieve anything except making it a lot harder for you to win an election, thereby ensuring that a radically pro-abortion lunatic in Joe Biden who imprisons pro-lifers will get elected.
So, I get all that.
But if your argument is that it's states' rights and the state should make the choice, And then you come out and oppose a state law banning abortion.
Well, now you're not making a states' rights case anymore, so that Trump's response there doesn't really make any sense.
He says, yeah, the law went too far.
It's states' rights.
But it is a state.
This is not a federal law.
This is about Arizona.
So now you're just making a case against pro-life laws.
This is not states' rights anymore.
You're in principle making a case against the pro-life law itself.
And that we can't do.
We can't do that.
Both because it's just wrong.
It's the wrong view.
And it's wrong to throw the whole pro-life movement under the bus.
And also because politically it's not a smart tactic.
Okay, let me put it this way.
No matter what you do or say, as a Republican, you are going to be painted as the anti-choice extremist, quote-unquote.
Okay?
That happens no matter what.
There's nothing Trump can do or say that's going to make the left go, oh, you know what?
Yeah, he's cool on this.
He's cool, guys.
Hey, he's cool.
He's not against your reproductive rights, women.
He's not going to try to turn this into a handmaid's tale.
He would never do that.
They are not going to say that.
It doesn't matter.
Trump could come out tomorrow and announce that he's calling for legalized abortion nationwide through every trimester of pregnancy.
He could say that, and it wouldn't matter.
They still would brand him a radical pro-life militant.
It's not very different from what they do with race.
Okay, you can come out and say, I'm for prison reform.
I'm for criminal justice reform.
I think there are a lot of racist cops.
I think systemic racism.
You can say all that, and they still are going to brand you as a Jim Crow racist.
You want to bring it back to Jim Crow.
You want to go all the way back to slavery.
That's still going to be the narrative, no matter what you say.
And that matters.
That matters, obviously, politically.
It also sort of, in a way, takes the pressure off.
There's no reason to compromise on your basic principle.
I mean, you shouldn't anyway, but there's also no political reason to do it because it doesn't matter if you do.
Their narrative about you is going to be the same no matter what you say.
And so don't worry about that.
Don't worry about their narrative.
You can't change it.
So look, there are two ways to go, given that reality, given the reality that no matter what you do, you are a quote-unquote anti-choice, you know.
So there are two ways to go with that tactically.
Okay, and that's what we're talking about right now about tactics.
One is to continually insist That it isn't true, because actually your views are much more moderate than the real pro-life militants.
You could try that.
You could say, oh yeah, well, there's a pro-life extremist over there.
I'm not with them.
I'm not one of them.
Yuck.
I don't want them.
You could do that.
And this is what Republicans have done historically.
This has been the historic Republican strategy for as long as I've been alive.
You know, pro-lifers have been treated as sort of the red-headed stepchildren of the conservative movement by most mainstream national Republicans forever.
And so that's what you can do.
I think there's little evidence that it pays off.
And again, I'm putting aside the fact that it's just wrong.
It's just the wrong thing to do.
But politically, there's little evidence that that pays off.
The other strategy The other strategy is not to just jump on the grenade and take a politically unpopular position and live with it.
That's not what I'm saying.
I guess that's a third option.
So maybe there's three options.
That's the third.
I say don't do that either.
There's a second option, though, which is to flip the script.
To stop having the argument on their terms.
To stop accepting their framing.
To put them on defense.
And that isn't very difficult to do because, fortunately, the pro-life argument is very strong.
But you have to make it.
Think about this.
There are many Republican politicians who've decided that being pro-life is a political loser, even though they have never, not once, never, not ever, actually articulated the pro-life case with any force or effectiveness.
Now, yes, every Republican pretty much has at some point or another called themselves pro-life.
Maybe they've, you know, maybe they've said something about we should protect the unborn, you know, that sort of thing.
So, like, in a sentence or two, they have very vaguely, very broadly articulated that they are pro-life.
But how many elected Republicans can you think of who have actually made the argument In an effective way, just explain, like, look, I'm pro-life, here's why.
And then explained it.
And the case, again, is very solid.
Because this is the case, in the form of a kind of a syllogism, this is the pro-life case.
Number one, it is always wrong to intentionally and directly kill innocent, defenseless human beings.
Number one.
Number two, unborn babies are human beings.
They cannot possibly be anything else, because if they were something else, that would mean they were another species, and obviously they are not another species, so they are human.
Number three, therefore, abortion intentionally and directly kills innocent and defenseless human beings.
Number four, therefore, abortion is wrong.
That's how you walk through.
Just four points.
Very clear.
Doesn't take long to say.
It's not complicated.
It's very simple.
You could say this on a debate stage.
It's not extremist.
It's not radical.
It's a clear, powerful case.
It's the reason I'm pro-life.
It's because I find that convincing.
Doesn't mean everybody will, but it's a...
You can make that argument and actually convince people.
I've done it.
Don't tell me it can't be done.
Because that's the other thing you hear also all the time.
People will say that, well, you can't convince anyone to be pro-life.
The people saying that have never even tried to convince anyone.
They have no clue what they're talking about.
So that's the pro-life position.
And I ask you, when is the last time you heard a Republican, any Republican, In any elected office or running for office, spell the argument out that way.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but I can't even think of one example off the top of my head.
Maybe some people in the comments will say, well, here's someone, but maybe there have been a few.
It wouldn't surprise me if there's been a few, but it is very, very rare.
And that's pretty amazing, isn't it?
Because this is the argument, and yet you can hardly think of one example in the last 30 years of a Republican actually making what the argument is, explaining what it is.
It almost never happens.
So I keep hearing that Republicans lose if they make the pro-life argument, yet I've never heard any of them make it.
So how can we say that?
How in the hell can you say that they lose if they do something they've never actually done?
Here's the beauty of this syllogism.
There is a way to argue against what I just said.
Against the four points.
You could do it.
It's not like there's no argument against it.
I mean, there's an argument against anything.
Might not be a good argument, but might not be a true argument.
There's an argument against anything.
So there is an argument.
But the only thing you can really dispute is point one.
That's the only one you can really take issue with.
So, you know, Point two, that, quote-unquote, fetuses are human, that's scientifically indisputable.
You cannot dispute that.
It's like disputing that an eagle is a bird.
It just doesn't make any sense.
You can't dispute it.
So, there's no way around it.
You can dispute point one.
You could say that, well, actually, it's not always wrong to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being.
You could say that, yeah, fetuses, quote-unquote, are human, and yes, you're killing them through abortion, but it's not always wrong to do that.
That is the argument.
That is the only argument against the pro-life syllogism.
I think it's the wrong argument, morally, but that is the argument you're making if you support abortion.
You're saying that actually, in fact, sometimes killing innocent human life directly and intentionally is okay.
Okay, let the left make that argument.
Force them to make that argument.
Force the debate to be around that point.
Not any other point.
Is it okay, under some circumstances, to intentionally, directly kill innocent human beings?
That is the fundamental question.
And if you support abortion, your answer to that question is yes.
All right, if that's your answer.
But you can see why nobody really wants to say that.
Nobody wants to frame it that way.
That is not the argument anyone wants to have.
No politician wants to stand up on the stage and say, all right, let me explain why sometimes killing innocent people is okay.
Nobody wants to say that.
But that is what, that's what they're saying.
They're saying it, but they don't want to say it.
So they'd rather access the abortion conversation.
They'd rather stay on the peripheral.
Stay on the boundaries.
They don't want to talk about the actual issue.
They want to talk about rape and incest, life of the mother, you know, this and that.
Do we imprison women after they get abortions?
They want to stay all out here.
But the thing right there in the middle, the core of the issue?
They don't want to talk about it.
And yet conservatives allow them, allow them to stay on the perimeter rather than saying, no, no, no, no, no.
We're not even talking about that.
I'm not even talking about that.
How are we going to talk about that way before we've even talked about what the actual issue is itself?
And this strategy of reframing the argument Discipline on the message, not allowing them to change the subject, not allowing them to get hung up on hard cases, all that, that strategy can work.
We've seen it work.
It's what we did successfully and are doing successfully on the gender issue.
Okay, it's why we have seen, this is not some accident, okay, the fact that we've seen this massive A change in the tide, especially when it comes to children being castrated and mutilated.
Where we are now culturally on that issue is night and day from where we were three, four years ago.
And that was not an accident.
There's a strategy behind it.
It was intentional.
Those of us in that movement said, here's how we're going to go about this.
And we framed the argument.
We said, this is what the subject is.
We're not going to let you talk about anything else on this.
This is what we're talking about.
Do you support castrating and mutilating kids or not?
That's what it is.
And we hammered on that.
And we're winning.
And the same thing can happen here.
All right.
Daily Wire has this.
A Canadian man had two healthy fingers amputated to treat his body integrity dysphoria, a case report about his procedure reveals.
The 20-year-old ambidextrous man experienced profound distress over his left hand's fourth and fifth fingers and decided to have them amputated, according to the case report, which was published on March 27.
Body integrity disorder is the rare phenomenon of individuals wanting to amputate parts of their body, usually limbs, often because they feel the body part does not belong to them.
The young man opted for amputation after non-invasive treatments proved unsuccessful, the report says.
The man described having intrusive thoughts about his left hand's fourth and fifth fingers since childhood and felt they should not belong to his body.
He described often hiding his fingers, causing pain, and said he had not told his family about his distress due to embarrassment.
The man also said he suffered from nightmares in which his fingers were burning or rotting.
He considered removing the fingers himself.
Now, you may recall in a certain film, a certain person asked a sex change surgeon about this exact thing.
And that would be me, of course, in What Is A Woman, talking to Marcy Bowers.
And I asked about someone who comes in asking for a limb to be removed.
Body integrity disorder.
And Bowers said, if you recall, that that would be kooky, and it's also totally unrelated to the gender question.
And yet here we are.
Now doctors are doing exactly that.
Because of course it's related.
Of course it's related.
It's the exact same sort of thing.
Actually, I'll say this.
I think there is a better argument for removing a healthy arm or finger or whatever from a mentally ill person than there is for gender transitions.
I think what they did to this guy by cutting his finger off is more justifiable than any quote-unquote gender transition surgery that's ever been performed.
It's not justifiable.
It's crazy to do it.
Don't get me wrong.
But there's a better argument for that than there is for this other thing.
And I'll tell you why.
And by the way, again, I don't think doctors should do this, obviously.
But I think there's a better case, and the reason is simply because removing the fingers was very clearly and explicitly done in order to stop the guy from doing it to himself.
And the end result is he had fewer fingers.
Obviously.
That's the result he wanted.
And that's what he got.
Like, he went in and said, I don't want these fingers anymore.
It's crazy you don't want your fingers, but that's what he said.
And so they cut his fingers off.
The reason for wanting that procedure was insane, but that's what he wanted, that's what he got.
Now, in the case of gender transition, the patient doesn't want to simply lose their real sex.
Okay, they don't go in saying, I don't want my penis anymore.
They're not saying that.
No, what they want is they want to gain a new sex.
They want to become something else.
And they're told that they can become that thing, but they can't.
So the procedure is the same as what happens to the guy losing his fingers.
It's the same kind of thing, but it's being sold not as an amputation, but as a transformation.
So the gender transition surgery is barbaric and bizarre, like cutting the guy's fingers off, and it's also totally dishonest.
You're selling them something.
At least the guy gets his fingers cut off.
He knows that the end result is he's going to be a guy that has two fewer fingers.
But the person who goes in for the gender transition thinks and is told that at the end of that procedure, they are going to have become, they will have actually gained something, not lost anything.
And that's the difference.
And on top of that, of course, also, losing your genitals is quite a bit more severe, I think most people would agree, than losing a couple of fingers.
Like, you can lose a couple of fingers and go on to live a normal, fine life.
You lose your Your genitals, and it destroys your life.
You're not going to be a functioning person.
You can't reproduce, all the rest of it.
So the point is that gender transition is actually the most extreme, most bizarre, most barbaric form of this sort of thing.
Cutting off fingers is the less extreme version.
So once again, we say that we're on a slippery slope.
And a lot of people will say that, OK, well, this is the next stop in the slippery slope is now we're cutting off fingers and arms.
It's actually not the next stop.
Like, if we're on the slope, the slope is going down like this and the gender transition stuff is down here.
Cutting fingers off is like somewhere up here on the slope.
That's on the way.
That's like a midpoint.
OK, that's that's if we were if we were following that process in a logical way, we would have started with cutting fingers and arms off.
And then you get to chopping genitals off because that's the most extreme version of that.
The only thing that would be more extreme is if we get to a point where somebody goes to the doctor and says, I want to have my head removed, and they decide to go along with that.
If there's anything more extreme than the genital surgeries, it's that.
So, as always, if it is a slippery slope, it's more that we plunge to the bottom of the slope and then we circle back and we cover the bases that we skipped.
That's kind of the way it works.
Finally, one more thing.
Daily Wire has this classic board game dumbed down to be more inclusive and less intimidating to young people.
One of the world's most popular board games is being altered to be less competitive and more inclusive to appeal to young people.
Scrabble's parent company, Mattel, announced the move on Tuesday.
The first major change in 75 years, the new version of Scrabble will involve a second side to the board that is collaborative and faster-paced to make gameplay more accessible for anybody who finds word games intimidating.
The classic word game will debut a new way to play the game called Scrabble Together, On the flip side of the board, and it'll be for less competitive people, and the new version will have goal cards rather than scoring.
It will also have helper cards with prompts and clues as well as an option to play on teams.
It will also be a shorter game overall.
So, they're making inclusive board games now.
You know, I have to say that, you know, I find this personally offensive on a very deep level as a board game nerd myself.
I take board games very seriously, way too seriously.
I take them so seriously, in fact, that most members of my family refuse to play board games with me anymore.
I have been banned from board games by most members of my family.
I have some members of my family that have put me on a board game moratorium that has lasted for like a decade, and I'm not even making that up.
In fact, in my family, we had one particularly intense game of Scattergories, which is a great game by the way, and we had a very intense game of Scattergories ten years ago.
And it's still brought up and used against me anytime I recommend or I suggest playing a board game.
So that's how intense it was, and I take it seriously.
Okay, so is that so wrong?
As I mentioned before, the game Settlers of Catan, I love Scrabble too.
Settlers of Catan is the most important game to me.
I am, not to brag, extremely good at that game.
Probably one of the top players in the world, I would assume, anyway.
And there are only three people in my life willing to play me in that game.
And one is my wife, and the other two are my brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
And we've basically been in a Catan tournament that lasted, you know, it's lasted about, I don't know, it's lasted many years at this point.
And if we've played 50 times, I probably won 47 of those games.
That's the kind of streak I'm on.
And they would dispute that record, but they're not here right now.
And of course, there are always snitches in the audience that will, like, tweet at my wife and say, well, Matt said this on the show.
Is it true?
Just cut it out.
You don't need to do that in this case.
She doesn't keep track anyway.
She doesn't know.
Anyway, the point is, I take board games very seriously as one of the top board game competitors in the world and probably in history.
And I see stuff like this and I find it's deeply unsettling because it's an insult.
It is an attack on the board game community.
The whole point is to be competitive.
It is to win.
It is to destroy your enemies by any means necessary.
That's the point.
That's why even when I play board games with my kids, I don't let them win.
None of my kids have ever beat me in any game, because you have to earn that.
And so I'm on, certainly against them, I'm on a win streak of every single game I've played against them, because you gotta earn it.
You gotta earn beating me.
I'm not gonna give it to you.
I don't care.
Doesn't matter to me.
I was playing Chutes and Ladders with my kids recently, and...
My seven-year-old was winning.
He was about to get to the end, and he landed on the space with a really big slide, you know, that's like, you're almost at the end, and the slide takes you all the way back down to the beginning.
And he landed on that, and he was pretty upset.
And my other kids were like, oh, Dad, can't he just skip that?
He's about to win.
And I said, no.
Sorry, bud.
Back down the slide you go, OK?
Sorry about your luck.
I'm five spaces away from winning this thing.
You think I'm going to just let you have it?
It'd be tainted anyway.
I can't let you have a tainted victory.
And so, that's the way I look at these things.
And so this is just a disgrace and an insult.
As you know, we here at The Daily Wire are big fans of entertainment content that isn't trying to push a woke agenda into your living room.
And that's why you gotta go check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett, a pro-America, pro-family, pro-God, PG-13 action-adventure that fathers and sons can watch together.
An historical fiction from the imagination of writer and director Derek Eslin Purvis, The film explores some of the many myths that helped to create the legend of Davy Crockett.
The story begins in 1815 when Crockett's wife falls deathly ill, leaving his young children to survive on their own.
The American legend must fight his way back to them across the many perils found in the savage lands of the wild frontier.
This film examines the complex 200-year history of European settlers and Native Americans living side-by-side as neighbors, long before Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act.
It stands in direct opposition to the genocidal colonization story that Hollywood loves to tell.
Instead, it exposes the truth that these two groups traded with each other, intermarried, and yes, sometimes fought, as humans do.
The Ballad of Davy Crockett is in select theaters now.
It's available to buy or rent everywhere that you buy movies.
If you want to support films that are decent, family-friendly, and they push back against Hollywood's anti-American agenda, please support this small, independent film.
Click the link in the description and go check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett.
Well, it's been two years of fighting the left and building the future with great products.
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.
The precision trimmer allows you to tailor your shave and provides an exceptionally smooth and close shave.
Now, 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 a 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 your new, second-generation razor today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
As ESPN reported this week, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics,
which oversees many of the smaller colleges in the country, has just passed a policy banning males from female sports.
Although, of course, that's not how ESPN phrased it.
Here's their report.
Quote, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, the governing body for most small colleges, announced a policy Monday that will all but ban transgender athletes from competing in women's sports.
The NAIA policy of council presidents approved the policy in a 20 to 0 vote.
The NAIA, which oversees some 83,000 athletes at schools across the country, is believed to be the first college organization to take such a step.
According to the Transgender Participation Policy, all athletes may participate in NAIA-sponsored male sports, but only athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth is female and who have not begun hormone therapy will be allowed to participate in women's sports.
Now, um, There are multiple falsehoods here.
Sex is not assigned at birth, for one.
Of course, it's observed at birth, or before birth even, it's not assigned.
Second, the policy does not ban transgender athletes from competing in women's sports.
In fact, a woman who identifies as trans is free to play women's sports all she wants, as long as she's not taking testosterone.
The whole point is that you can self-identify however you want to, but you still have to play with your biological category, like everybody else.
But these are the standard falsehoods that we expect from ESPN when they're pretending to report on an issue like this.
And we heard more of them when non-binary quote-unquote ESPN writer Katie Barnes appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper to discuss this policy this week.
Watch.
Joining us now to discuss is journalist and author of Fair Play, How Sports Shape the Gender Debate, Katie Barnes.
Katie, thank you for joining us.
What do you make of the NAIA's new transgender participation policy?
Well, I think it is reflective of the times that we are in in terms of for the last three or four years, we have seen most policy updates when it comes to transgender athletes be reflective of restriction and in favor of more restrictive policy.
And this seems to fall right in line with that.
I'm not going to get hung up on this like I usually do, but I just have to point out that she used the term reflective twice, and it was not a natural word choice in either case.
She says, we have seen most policy updates be reflective of restriction.
Now what she means is that they are restrictive policies.
Reflective of restriction is an incredibly awkward and wordy way of communicating that idea.
And this may seem like semantics, and mostly it is, I admit, but this is also a natural reflex for liberal journalists in general, and in particular the ones who are also trans activists.
They cannot answer any question directly.
Every answer must be made passive and vague and weirdly unclear and non-committal.
Now this is partly reflective of intellectual insecurity on their part, and partly it's a strategy to make their insane ideas less coherent, and therefore less objectionable to the average listener because they have no idea what they're saying.
Anyway, let's get to the crux of the issue.
Here it is.
There is a narrative that transgender female athletes have an advantage, that they always win, that the reason that men and women generally compete in separate gender categories is because It's not particularly competitive for men to compete against women.
Do studies support that?
Before we get to her answer, I have to jump in again here.
That's not the narrative.
The narrative is not that transgender women quote-unquote always win.
Of course they don't always win.
After all, these are always mediocre or poor male athletes who make this kind of switch.
Men who can dominate in men's competitions never seem to discover a female identity, which is a very curious coincidence, isn't it?
Given that these are poor to mediocre athletes, it's quite possible that the most excellent female athletes on the other side might have a chance to beat them.
Depending on the sport.
But even if they're beaten, they still had an unfair advantage.
Whether that advantage wins them the game, or the gold medal, or whatever, is not the point.
Often it does, sometimes it doesn't, but the unfair advantage remains.
Just as it would be unfair for me to show up to a foot race in rollerblades, okay?
Now, I might still lose, because I haven't used rollerblades since I was like 10, but that doesn't make it suddenly fair for me to use them in the first place.
Let's hear how Katie Barnes handles this.
Do studies support that?
Well, I think it depends on what you mean by support that.
Well, he means support that.
By support that, he means support that.
What do you mean, it depends on what you mean by support that?
How else can you phrase it?
I don't know what else, how can I explain what that means to you?
Once again, the trans activist simply cannot answer any question directly.
These people are allergic to clarity.
They have to make every answer as unnecessarily vague as they possibly can.
So let's continue.
You know, from my reporting and having really reported this out for many years, the reality is that from a scientific perspective, we know that there are differences in sexes and we know that the differences do tend to lead to athletic performance differences as well.
However, When we look at broad-based restriction at all levels of sport, it's very challenging to say that scientifically that is supported in all cases, meaning that something that might be appropriate for swimming does not necessarily apply to basketball when it comes to individual sports versus team sports, as well as level of competition.
And so the idea, I think, that transgender women have an advantage in all sports at all times regardless of any kind of medical transition.
I don't think that the scientific literature supports that at this time.
So once again we have the dishonest strawman reframing of the question.
She says that the research doesn't support the idea that quote-unquote trans women have an advantage in all sports at all times.
But no one is saying that.
There are probably sports where trans women, i.e.
men, don't have an advantage over women.
I mean, figure skating, if you count that as a sport, I think probably women have an advantage, if anything, in that.
There are other sports.
I mean, there's also a sport I discovered recently called extreme ironing, which is real.
And that's where people iron clothes in remote locations.
I don't know.
But anyway, I mean, that's one where women would excel.
And I'm sure there are other examples also.
But and as for at all times, it's an interesting qualifier.
Well, they don't have an advantage at all times.
I don't know what that means exactly.
I assume that would mean that All men are better than all women at all sports, which again, is not what anyone is claiming.
So, she's dancing around and trying to argue against positions that are not actually positions anyone is taking, and let's continue on to see if she eventually gets around to making some kind of coherent point.
Let's listen.
Would there be a way to come up with a rule that was more individual-specific or sports-specific that might not be... I mean, it sounds as though you're suggesting, and if I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize.
It sounds like you're suggesting this policy is not necessarily fair, given how blanket it is.
Is there a way to do something like this that would be more fair and more reflective of what is factually known about gender differences in different sports, etc.? ?
You know, I don't know if it's, I don't know if it's right for me to say whether or not this particular policy is fair.
I think that right now where we are as a society is really grappling with what does fair and appropriate policy look like?
And in general, most Athletic organizations in many states across the country are embracing a blanket restriction.
And I think there are a lot of people raising questions about whether or not that is fair and appropriate policy in all cases.
So we have our third time that the word reflective is used in this five-minute conversation, by the way.
More importantly, what you're hearing in this conversation is defeat.
That's what you're hearing.
They'll never admit it.
Katie Barnes, with they-them pronouns from ESPN, isn't going to go on CNN and say, yeah, you know what?
Never mind.
This is silly.
I mean, obviously men and women are different.
Forget the whole thing.
Not going to happen.
She's never going to say that.
If that exact conversation we just saw there had been on CNN three years ago, and of course conversations like that were on CNN three years ago, the tenor would be very different.
We would have heard how trans women quote-unquote are obviously exactly the same as biological women and anyone who says otherwise is a transphobe.
And now what we hear is this kind of evasive, weak, obscure nonsense about how the jury is out and studies must be done and we can't know for sure.
Now, it's nonsense, of course.
The jury is not out.
The jury never even had to deliberate on this.
I mean, the verdict was clear from the start.
Men and women are different.
Men don't belong in women's sports.
Men do have a biological advantage, but that is secondary to the simple fact that men are not women and therefore should not be treated as women.
No matter what sort of advantage they have or don't have.
If there's anything that exists that's supposed to be for women, if it's a women's sport, if it's a women's club, if it's a women's whatever, a women's restroom, okay?
Men don't belong there because they're not that.
But they do have an advantage for certain.
And all that is true.
So what Katie Barnes is saying here is totally ludicrous and without factual merit, but it is notable.
That she's so non-committal and so equivocal in her responses.
She knows that people are awake now.
You cannot claim that sex differences don't exist, or that so-called trans women are no different from regular women.
You can't make that definitive claim without being immediately dismissed by almost everybody.
And she knows that.
So instead, these people, they retreat behind the supposed uncertainty around the question.
Uncertainty that they have invented entirely, but uncertainty about the differences between men and women, is not the same as certainty that there are no differences.
The former position represents a retreat.
And they are retreating.
And now we just have to keep pushing them back.
Until sanity fully reigns again in our culture, which is still a long way off.
And in the meantime, Katie Barnes, they-them, is today cancelled.
