Ep. 1374 - Violent Criminal Offenders Are Now 'Justice-Impacted Individuals'
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the language police have come up with a new term to describe dangerous criminal offenders. If you really want to prove how enlightened you are, just call them "justice-impacted individuals." Also, a Democrat congresswoman, for some reason, starts listing her professional achievements during a House hearing about DEI. In the process, she inadvertently demonstrated why we should get rid of DEI. The coach of the Kansas City Chiefs has a great response to a reporter who tried to get him to condemn Harrison Butker. And the movie Goodfellas is the latest film to get a cultural sensitivity warning label.
Ep.1374
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the 2nd Greatest Commercial Ever: https://bit.ly/4bvFmQO
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Get 25% 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.
Envita Health - Learn more about their treatment options at http://www.EnvitaHealth.com or http://www.Envita.com
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Wall Show, the language police have come up with a new term to describe dangerous criminal offenders.
If you really want to prove how enlightened you are, just call them justice-impacted individuals.
Also, a Democrat congresswoman for some reason starts listing her professional achievements during a House hearing about DEI.
In the process, she inadvertently demonstrated why we should get rid of DEI.
The coach of the Kansas City Chiefs has a great response to a reporter who tried to get him to condemn Harrison Butker.
And the movie Goodfellas is the latest film to get a cultural sensitivity warning label.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
In your savings, weather another economic storm.
Think about what you've put away for the future.
Inflation can render cash worthless, and real estate can crash as it did in 2008.
During times of economic uncertainty or market volatility, investors tend to flock to gold as a safe haven asset.
Its value tends to increase during turbulent times, providing a buffer against market downturns.
And that's why people are flocking to gold now, and it's why Birchgold is busier now
more than ever.
Birchgold understands that navigating financial decisions can be daunting.
That's why their dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Birchgold is committed to addressing your questions and concerns promptly.
Their team is always ready to provide answers and clarity, whether it's about fees, taxes
and rollovers, or the timing of the process.
They're here to ensure that you feel valued and well-informed and to guide you every step
of the way and help you secure your financial future.
Text Walsh to 989898 to talk to one of Birch Gold's experts and claim your free info get 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.
A couple of months ago in March, a 37-year-old man named Corsetti Brand was released on parole in the state of Illinois.
He had been locked up on a charge of home invasion and sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
But the state's Prisoner Review Board decided to let him out early with electronic monitoring.
And what happened after that was predictable.
Just a day after he got out of prison, Chicago police say that Crosetti attacked a pregnant woman and her 11-year-old boy, killing the child and critically injuring his mother.
According to court documents, the last time he was on parole, Crosetti had threatened the same woman by text and showed up at her home.
But somehow none of Crosetti's criminal history, including his alleged threats, were enough to keep him in prison.
And now authorities say that a child is dead as a result.
Now, this is obviously clearly a massive failure of the judicial system in Illinois, which, particularly post-BLM, has focused more on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
It's the kind of episode that you'd hope would spur lawmakers in Illinois to pass new laws to rein in their approach of restorative justice, quote-unquote, which we have talked about recently.
But the Illinois government has opted for a very different response.
Instead of doing something to prevent violent criminals from getting out of prison, State lawmakers have decided on a course of action that's ripped straight from a Babylon Bee article.
A new bill that was just passed by both houses of the Illinois legislature, which is expected to be signed by the governor, would modify state law so that the term offender becomes replaced by the term justice-impacted individual.
Justice-impacted individual.
The Department of Corrections and a bunch of other government agencies will be required to use that term from now on.
So the plan is not to do anything about the criminals who are getting out of prison.
It's to use a nicer word to describe these criminals.
Don't call them offenders.
Call them justice-impacted individuals.
I had to check several times to make sure this wasn't satire because it is quite literally beyond parody.
Actually, if the Babylon Bee had come up with this idea, I wouldn't even find it funny because it would be too on-the-nose.
But this is reality now in Illinois.
This is their cutting-edge approach to criminal justice.
Watch.
Lawmakers have passed a bill that if signed into law by Governor Pritzker will change the term offender in state law to justice impacted individual.
WDN's Jewel Hillary here to explain.
Jewel.
Hi Micah and Ray.
So this legislation has passed both the State House and Senate and to be very clear the potential language change would only apply to about 1,800 offenders across the state.
On Tuesday, Bill 4409 passed in the State Senate 34-20.
The question is, shall House Bill 4409 pass?
All those in favor vote aye.
Opposed nay.
The voting is open.
The proposed legislation would remove the term offender and replace it with justice-impacted individual for individuals in the state's Adult Redeploy Illinois Program, commonly referred to as ARI.
According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, ARI is an initiative that diverts offenders from prison to programs to help rehabilitate them to success.
Republicans say the language change portrays a lack of empathy for victims and lack of concern for public safety.
Change this, change that.
The only thing that you don't want to change is the behavior of criminals.
Now, before the fact-checkers jump down my throat, I'll emphasize one thing, which is that this rebrand doesn't apply to everyone who commits crimes in the state of Illinois.
Instead, this new term applies to men and women in the state's Adult Redeploy Illinois program, or ARI, as you heard.
According to the government of McLean County, Illinois, the ARI program provides for comprehensive daily supervision of dozens of, quote, high-risk adult felons as an alternative to costly penitentiary commitment.
So they're not rebranding every criminal as a justice-impacted individual.
They're only rebranding some of the high-risk adult felons who otherwise would be in prison.
So if you're living in Chicago, hopefully you can rest easy tonight with that distinction in mind.
Now the point of the word game here is the same as always.
First, it removes agency from the individual by making terminology as passive as possible.
An offender is not an offender anymore because offending is something that a person actively does, right?
It puts the onus on the individual.
You have gone out and offended.
You've committed an offense.
And instead, they're saying, well, they're justice impacted.
They were impacted by justice.
It's not their fault.
You know, justice came along and impacted them.
I mean, they're the victims here, if anything.
And second, on top of making everything passive and removing agency, it also helps to identify the people that are in your club.
Because they're the ones who know about these lingo changes and follow the rules.
So it's not much different from a child who sets up a pillow fort and won't let you inside the fort unless you know the password, which changes randomly and on a whim.
It's like that kind of idea.
Now, if you go looking online for the term justice-impacted individual, you'll find that it's popular among Harvard podcasters, billionaire left-wing activists, giant Silicon Valley corporations like Google.
These are the people and organizations that, conveniently enough, have distanced themselves as much as possible from communities where crime is high.
So they don't want anything to do with the justice-impacted individuals, but they want you to have to live near them and treat them with respect and even refer to them in a way that You know, will not be alienating or otherizing for them.
Of course, nobody in the real world uses terms like justice-impacted individuals, which is precisely the point.
If you go around saying the word justice-impacted individual, then you're instantly communicating where you stand on the political spectrum.
And perhaps more importantly, people who don't use these new terms are instantly identifiable as outcasts, as racists, and terrible people.
Every so often, wealthy elites and academics come up with new ways to provide these kinds of signals, and then they inevitably filter down to activists and government bureaucrats, which is what's happening right now in Illinois.
Which is also why, by the way, this may be the first time you're hearing of a justice-impacted individual.
Give it like a year or six months, and you'll be hearing it everywhere.
That's the way this always goes.
Now, there was an episode during the Canadian Trucker Convoy a couple of years ago that illustrates how this strategy works in practice.
The truckers who gathered in the Canadian capital city of Ottawa were exactly the kind of blue-collar workers that liberals pretend to care about, but in this case, the blue-collar workers were protesting for, you know, freedom.
So, they had to be crushed.
It was vitally important for liberals to smear these truckers as racist, and one of the ways the liberals did that was by criticizing the truckers for using the wrong lingo.
This is a clip from a Fox interview that leftists mocked relentlessly during the convoy, and listen to it and see if you can spot what they considered the problem to be.
Listen.
It was only one guy, so we are not racist.
I have all type of friends, color friends, Spanish, Chinese, you know.
They are great people.
There is no racism here.
So they're actually, you know, this is a Romanian trucker who clearly speaks English as a second language, and he's explaining on primetime television that he's not racist because he has a bunch of colored friends.
Now, Logically, there's no difference whatsoever between saying, I have colored friends and I have friends who are people of color.
It's just a slight grammatical difference that means absolutely nothing.
It's all semantics.
If anything, the latter sentence is unnecessarily wordy.
Otherwise, they're the same.
If a person can be of color, then it's accurate to say that the person is colored.
A person of color is a colored person.
But your intellectual superiors have decided, for reasons that cannot be explained, they've just decided that people of color is the only phrase you're allowed to use.
If you say colored people, unless you're the NAACP, you're a bigot.
So they vilify this trucker all over social media.
Both here and in Canada.
And on top of that too, not only did he use the lingo, or did he use the wrong lingo, but he also tried to disprove accusations of racism by saying that he has black friends.
And we're also told by our bettors that that doesn't prove anything.
But of course, it absolutely does.
Like, if you have friends of a particular race, it's a pretty good indication that you're not racist against that race.
But this is one of the main reasons that cutting-edge PC lingo exists.
It's why you're supposed to say, you know, people experiencing homelessness instead of homeless drug addict.
It's why you're supposed to say minor attracted person instead of pedophile.
And it's why, if at all possible, you're supposed to employ clever euphemisms to describe criminals who happen to be really any race but white.
The New York Post is particularly adept at this last trick, to the point that it's becoming a running joke online.
And presumably in the Post newsroom.
Among the euphemisms that New York Post has come up with to describe black suspects are cold-hearted teens, knife-wielding sicko, misogynistic maniac, and my personal favorite, lunchtime rowdies.
Now, just in case there was any doubt that the Post is doing this deliberately, here's a passage from that article on the lunchtime rowdies.
See if you can count all the euphemisms.
Here it is.
And this is totally real.
A band of foul-mouthed, toy-gun waving, pot-puffing high school hooligans are keeping residents of West 13th off 6th Avenue hostage in their own Tony homes.
For at least a year, while school is in session, the roughnecks roam from stoop to stoop, every day at lunchtime, rolling blunts, getting high, acting out, and taunting anyone who gets in their way.
Now, with terms like hooligans, roughnecks, Lunchtime rowdies.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is like an article from a small town newspaper somewhere out in Wyoming in the year 1873.
My only hope is that in the next post article they can work in the terms ruffian and scoundrel.
But in any case...
You read the whole article and you won't find any mention in the text about the ethnicity of these lunchtime rowdies and pot-puffing hooligans.
But if a white person is causing problems, the Post will generally put the race in the headline.
For example, one recent headline in the Post read, "Video shows black NYC partiers scatter for cover
as white neighbor douses them with garden hose."
Now, there was no euphemism for the white guy.
He wasn't a hose-toting scoundrel or anything like that.
He's just a white neighbor.
And for what it's worth, not all the people he hit with the water were black.
The Post went out of its way to mention the race of the white guy, even when it was misleading to do so.
Of course.
And this isn't specific to the New York Post.
It's the approach of most major media outlets.
As the account Data Hazard found, the race of white murderers is made clear in more than 90% of news articles.
But with black murderers, race is only mentioned in 30% of the articles.
And when it does appear, it's usually much lower down in the text of the article.
So this is obviously a very intentional thing that they're doing.
And journalists do this in part to signal that they're true believers in principles of restorative justice.
And in the process, they're denying the agency of black offenders by holding them to a completely different standard.
These criminals get additional protections in the media, even when they commit heinous crimes solely on the basis of their skin color.
And now, the state of Illinois is doing the same thing.
It's almost as if they hired the New York Post euphemism guy to write their legislation.
Now, to give the left some credit, they understand the role of language in shaping policy and shaping opinions and the views of the public.
In order to normalize crime and pedophilia, they first need to change the way people refer to crime and pedophilia.
And that effort is now underway in Illinois, which means that many more justice-impacted individuals will soon be out on the streets.
It also means that many more innocent people, including children and pregnant women, will be impacted by these justice-impacted individuals.
Because one euphemism at a time, in Democrat-run cities all over the country, It's pretty clear that that's the point.
point.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Are you or someone you know fighting the battle against cancer?
For the last 25 years, Envita Medical Centers have been pioneering personalized, cutting-edge treatment programs for patients all over the world.
Envita has been the leader for patients looking for advanced immunotherapy and genetically targeted therapies, all while focusing on fewer side effects and better patient outcomes.
As a global leader in oncology care, Invita is committed to healthcare freedom for all.
They've spearheaded a revolution in employer health insurance options, empowering companies to provide their employees with access to not only top doctors, hospitals, and technologies, but also first-of-its-kind nationwide personalized medicine coverage.
Invita is doing all of this plus offering significant tax and cost savings, full transparency, and liberation from the grip of commercial insurance carriers.
Whether you're a patient in need or a company looking to break free of monopolized healthcare insurance, Invita could have the solution for you.
To learn more about their treatment options, visit envita.com or visit envitahealth.com to learn more about their company insurance programs.
That's envita spelled E-N-V-I-T-A dot com for treatment options or envitahealth.com to learn more about their company insurance programs.
So let's begin with someone who's quickly becoming my favorite.
Maybe my favorite crazy, woke congresswoman.
She may have supplanted AOC at this point.
And I don't even know if... So this is Jasmine Crockett, and I'm not sure, is she even in the squad?
That's an interesting question.
Is squad membership closed?
Or is it an ever-expanding group?
I'm not exactly sure.
So I don't know if Jasmine Crockett is in the squad, but she's back in the news.
And, of course, Jasmine Crockett was last seen in a Waffle House-style fight with Marjorie Taylor Greene during a House committee hearing, an altercation which we should say, you know, women on both sides of the aisle embarrass themselves in equal measure.
And now she's back.
Here's the story from the left-wing rag Raw story.
It says Representative Jasmine Crockett confronted a Republican plan to diminish diverse hiring practices if a GOP presidential candidate wins in 2024.
During a Wednesday House oversight hearing on federal employment, Crockett noted that some of her Republican colleagues appeared to be echoing Project 2025, which aims to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in the federal government.
Crockett said that Republican arguments against Diversity Workplace made her very frustrated because of her own personal qualifications.
And then she then proceeded to list off her qualifications.
This is a House Oversight Committee hearing.
They're running on taxpayer money.
And Crockett decided to take up time during this hearing, for whatever reason, to let everybody know about her resume.
And she's very proud of it.
Here it is.
All I could think about was the fact that I currently hold an honorary doctorate, I also hold a jurist doctorate, I also hold a bachelor's, I also technically hold the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol, and I actually practiced law for almost two decades, in addition to serving on various boards, in addition to being a prior state lawmaker.
And there are those that would make some people believe that because I happen to be black and or a woman, that somehow, even though I can rattle off all the qualifications in the world, my blackness makes me unqualified.
Well, no, it's not your blackness, Jasmine.
Your blackness does not make you unqualified.
Your qualifications make you unqualified.
Qualifications that you claim amount to all the qualifications in the world.
She has all of them.
She has all the qualifications that could exist.
She has them all.
And what are they?
Well, let's review.
She has a bachelor's degree.
Which literally anyone can achieve if they feel like going into debt for the sake of it.
I mean, any person who can get a bachelor's degree, if you want to go into it, if you're willing to take on the debt, you can get a bachelor's degree.
She has an honorary doctorate, which means absolutely nothing.
She has a JD from a mediocre mid-tier law school.
She technically, technically she qualifies, has the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol.
Which is a truly hilarious thing to brag about, and that's about it.
She has accrued various pieces of paper that indicate that she attended various schools.
None of the schools are even prestigious or difficult to get into.
And even the prestigious schools these days aren't actually prestigious, so that's where we are now.
She hasn't achieved anything that could not be achieved by an unskilled, unimpressive person of mediocre intelligence.
You know, there isn't one thing on the list where you hear that and you go, oh, wow, you did that?
Wow.
Well, I didn't know.
That's impressive.
Like, no one's going to respond and go, oh, wow, you got a bachelor's?
Did you just say you got a bachelor's?
This woman got a bachelor's?
She's a bachelor's!
Hey, everyone, everyone, shut up, shut up.
Listen to her.
She's got a bachelor's.
Did I mention she's in the Civil Air Patrol?
Now, I'm not trying to be mean here either, but when you completely unsolicited start bragging about your accomplishments, you better actually have accomplishments.
She didn't have to bring it up.
She decided to.
Like, going to school is not an accomplishment.
I know this is news to a lot of people.
Going to school is not an accomplishment.
The fact that you went to school is not an accomplishment.
It's not an achievement.
I'm sorry.
So if the only thing you've done in your life is go to school, you haven't really achieved anything.
You have zero achievements so far.
At best, going to school sets you up, maybe, and will help you in your pursuit of achievements.
But being there in and of itself is not an achievement.
It's just not.
Being in the Civil Air Patrol is fine.
You know, but it's not an accomplishment.
And none of this necessarily makes you qualified for anything in particular.
And more importantly, all of this is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
What is the subject?
Well, Republicans want to get rid of DEI.
Allegedly, they want to get rid of it.
I hope they actually do.
They want to get rid of it in federal government, and they don't want to hire people based on, you know, DEI policies.
And Crockett's response to that Is to insist that she's a black woman and deeply qualified for whatever job she wants.
Now, let's leave aside the fact that she's not really qualified for anything in particular.
Let's pretend that she is as impressive as she finds herself to be.
And she finds herself to be so impressive that it's the only thing she could think about.
Notice she says that at the start of her little spiel.
Because they have this whole hearing going on.
And she says, yeah, I'm listening to you guys and all I could think about Was myself and my own resume.
Well, like, what does that tell you?
Really, that's the only thing you can think about?
I believe you.
I believe you, Jasmine.
That's the only thing you can think about.
But, um, so let's pretend for a moment that she is that impressive.
Well, okay then.
Then you don't need DEI to get hired.
If you truly are that accomplished and impressive, you would easily be able to set yourself apart on a level playing field where race is not taken into account.
That's all that getting rid of DEI means in this context.
It simply means that people will be hired and promoted based on their actual merits and their actual skills and accomplishments, and not based on skin color.
So if you're a black person who's very skilled and very qualified, not only should you not fear the ending of DEI, but you should cheer its ending.
You know, because you don't need that helping hand.
You don't need that kind of patronizing sort of And having it there, it only succeeds in diminishing your actual achievement.
So you, you of all people, should be opposed to it.
It's like, if you know how to ride a bike, do you want to ride down the street with a bike with training wheels?
Now it might be true that you don't need these training wheels, and maybe you insist to people as you're riding along, I don't really need these, I know how to ride the bike.
Maybe you do, but like, you're riding with training wheels, and so we have to at least suspect that you're a grown adult who doesn't know how to ride a bike.
And this is what happens if you're in one of the favored groups with DEI.
It's like, it's quite possible that you would have gotten that job anyway.
You might be the best person, the most skilled person in the whole company or the whole organization.
But because that is there, we have to at least suspect That you might have only gotten it because of DEI.
Which again means that if you're the kind of person who can get the job anyway and climb the ladder anyway without that, then you should hate it the most.
But, of course, Crockett is doing the thing that people in the internet age love to do.
She's trying to argue against a general point by offering some kind of hyper-specific and totally irrelevant personal anecdote.
So, and this is something that I will say, I think you find this on the internet all the time.
It's not only women who do this.
It does appear that women tend to this sort of thing more often.
Responding to a general point with an anecdote that doesn't really advance the conversation at all.
So Republicans are saying, we should get rid of DEI because it's unfair and unconstitutional.
And Crockett responds, oh yeah, but I'm extremely qualified.
Okay?
What does that have to do with anything?
What does that have to do with anything?
Who cares?
Good for you.
Cool story.
This is how it always goes.
Like, you know, you could go on Twitter and say, "Bananas are healthy."
And somebody will respond, oh yeah, but I don't like bananas.
I like apples, and apples are healthy too.
Oh, you're talking about bananas are healthy?
What, you're saying apples aren't healthy?
I eat apples all the time.
I had an apple for breakfast this morning.
Okay, good for you.
It's got nothing to do, that doesn't negate the statement about bananas.
So, just a failure across the board there by Jasmine Crockett, who's always providing good content, though, so I appreciate her for that, at least.
Andy Reid, coach of the Kansas City Chiefs, was asked about the Harrison Butker speech by a reporter yesterday, and here's what he said.
With so many women just on staff here and in the building, I mean, his comments kind of touched on wanting to work for us.
I mean, what do you tell them if they come to you with a concern about players speaking ill of, you know, women in general?
Yeah, that hasn't happened.
I don't think he was speaking ill to women, but he has his opinions and we all respect that.
I let you guys in this room and you have a lot of opinions that I don't like.
So that's a good response, and Patrick Mahomes was also asked about it, and he gave a pretty good response too.
It was a decent response.
This has been the response of the team, which is why all the people speculating that Harrison Buckner would be fired over this, that's why I said all along, if you know anything about football, That ain't happening.
It's not happening.
They're not going to cut one of the best kickers in the league who helped him win a Super Bowl because he said offensive things that are allegedly offensive or were offensive anyway to morons.
The fact that he said offensive things to morons is not going to be enough to get him cut from the team.
And that's one of the things about, well, I wish this was true of professional sports in general, but certainly football, it's still true that when it comes down to it on the field, It is still a meritocracy.
All the woke stuff can be happening around the peripheral and sort of on the sideline a little bit, too, because they've got the Rooney Rule and all the rules with, you know, you've got to hire a certain number of black coaches or at least interview them and all that stuff is happening, but on the field, that is still a place where the guy who's there, it's because he's the best at the job.
And that's it.
And all the wokeness, all the different politically correctness, all the controversies, that really doesn't make its way on the field.
Because it still is about winning.
And that's all, and when it comes down to it, that's all that anyone really cares about.
At least all, when it comes to the people on the field and the coaches on the sideline, the only thing they really care about is winning the game.
Which means, as long as that is the case, and it is still the case, 100%, as long as that's the case, then football will remain a meritocracy.
And as long as it's a meritocracy, that's an antidote to wokeness.
It's insulation.
It's a defense against wokeness, and a pretty good one.
So, well done on Andy Reid's part.
But I would like to focus on the question from this reporter for a moment.
He asks what would he say to any woman on the staff who comes to him concerned that Butker, quote, spoke ill of women in general.
And Reid was firm but polite in his response, which was probably the right tone to take.
You know, but if that was me, I would not have been so polite.
He spoke ill of women?
What the hell are you talking about?
No, I mean, really.
Let's stop.
If I'm up there at the podium, let's stop everything.
He spoke ill of women in general.
Okay, what did he say that spoke ill of women?
Don't paraphrase, don't paraphrase, give me the quote.
Give me one thing this guy said that would count as speaking ill of women.
Now, of course, no such thing was said, and if you were to comb through the text of that speech, looking desperately for anything that could even Sort of count as an insult to women.
You're not going to find it.
You just won't find it.
It's not there.
Because this whole controversy was it's one of the dumbest.
I feel like I keep saying this about every new controversy that comes along.
I declare it the dumbest one yet.
And well, because it's true.
It just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
And that one was, I mean, there will be a dumber one coming up soon, but for right now, that's the dumbest controversy yet.
When it comes to, you know, things that have provoked that level of outrage, I can't think of anything dumber than this.
But of course, this guy, like, he probably didn't even, not probably, well, he certainly didn't read or listen to the whole speech.
He probably didn't even listen to the clip.
Like, there's a two-minute clip.
Where he talks about women.
It's only in that two minutes where he talks about women, and I bet this guy never even heard it.
He doesn't even know what he says in the clip.
All he knows is that people are mad, and he knows that his tribe is mad at Harrison Butker, and so they must have a good reason in his mind.
All right.
I want to mention this briefly.
This is a report from Mary Margaret Olihan and she's a reporter at The Daily Signal.
The tweet says, The Catholic Diocese of Lexington issues a statement using male pronouns referring to a woman who identifies as a transgender monk.
Says Bishop Stowe has accepted his profession and is grateful to this woman for her witness of discipleship, integrity, and contemplative prayer.
That's the transgender monk who's not actually a monk.
Is a hermit.
Not a monk.
That's a female.
Let me read the whole statement from the Diocese of Lexington.
On Pentecost Sunday, Brother Christian Mattson, a professed hermit in the Diocese of Lexington, has made it public that he's a transgender person.
Brother Christian has long sought to consecrate his life to Christ and Church by living the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
He has consistently been accompanied by a competent spiritual director and has undergone formation in the Benedictine tradition.
He does not seek ordination, but has professed a rule of life that allows him to support himself financially by continuing his work in the arts and to live a life of contemplation in a private hermitage.
Bishop John Stowe accepted his profession and is grateful to Brother Christian for his witness of discipleship, integrity, and contemplative prayer for the Church.
A couple of things to note here.
First, when you look at the picture of this woman, you see again this interesting phenomenon that I think we've remarked on in the past.
And again, this is just an observation.
Just an observation.
But it is true that it seems like the only people who are trans-identified, who truly, quote-unquote, pass, who, in other words, you might actually mistake for the gender they're pretending to be, the only ones who pull that off are those who are morbidly obese.
They're the only ones.
And the reason is that morbid obesity has this kind of effect because it when you're covering your body and all of
your features and traits in a layer of Rather large layer of lard and so it's already it kind of
has this You know effect of making people seem already sort of
ambiguous and then from that sort of template a person can
Successfully sometimes pull off looking like a morbidly obese member of the opposite sex
Just an observation.
More importantly though, we should say that this woman should be excommunicated.
And whoever is responsible for this statement in the diocese should be excommunicated as well.
That's what, it will not happen.
It'll never happen in a million years.
But it should happen.
Because this is an insidious lie.
And it's a scandal.
And it's not Catholic.
This is a rejection of... This is a full rejection of the Catholic faith.
Now, it's also a rejection of reality.
It's a rejection of truth.
Because, of course, I'd be the first to say, as a Catholic, that these things are not distinct from one another.
Reality, truth, and the Catholic faith.
But it is a rejection of science.
It's a rejection of scientific realities, and it's a rejection of Catholicism.
You cannot be a faithful, what are the words here, committed disciple of the Catholic Church while supporting trans ideology, or while being a woman claiming to be a man.
It's impossible.
This is in direct contradiction of the Catholic faith.
So you can either be a disciple of trans ideology, which is its own religion, or you could be a Catholic.
You cannot be both.
It's not possible.
You might as well have someone who's claiming to be, you know, a Muslim Catholic or something like that.
It is a completely different faith entirely.
And you can't be both.
And there are a lot of reasons for that.
One is that, again, this just contradicts Catholic teaching.
Clear Catholic teaching, Catholic teaching that has been in place for 2,000 years.
Trans ideology totally contradicts and rejects it.
So, there's that.
But it also, this is one of the reasons why it contradicts Catholic teaching, is that in order for trans ideology to be correct, we have to posit either that there is no God, which obviously you can't reject the existence of God and also be a Catholic in any meaningful sense, or in any sense whatsoever, or it posits a God who makes rather significant mistakes, It posits a sort of bumbling, incompetent god, a foolish god, who can accidentally, somewhere on the, I don't know, celestial assembly line, can accidentally take a male soul, the essence of a male, and put it into a female body.
And then the person is born and God says, man, screw that one up.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, we got to correct that.
No, see, you're supposed to be, you're a woman, but you're supposed to be a man.
And you weren't born how you were supposed to be born.
And if you weren't born, how were you supposed to be born?
Well, there's only one person, there's only one being, rather, in the universe and beyond it who could be responsible for the mistake, and that is God Himself.
So you are rejecting God's omnipotence, His omniscience, His wisdom.
You're rejecting everything.
You're rejecting that He's all-powerful.
And then you are, I suppose, correcting God's mistake by taking a bunch of hormone pills and identifying as something other than you are.
So it's a rejection of truth, it's a rejection of Catholic teaching, it's a rejection of God's omnipotence, power, wisdom, love, knowledge.
And anyone who does that, anyone who stands up publicly and declares that, should be excommunicated from the faith.
And that should be obvious.
Alright.
Daily Wire has this.
AMC's being mocked for placing a cultural stereotypes warning on the classic 1990 Martin Scorsese mobster drama Goodfellas.
Anyone tuning into the film on the streaming service AMC Plus sees the following message before the movie begins.
This film includes language and or cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today's standards of inclusion and tolerance and may offend some viewers.
AMC provided the New York Post with a statement about the warning.
The company said that they started adding this content warning four years ago.
Several individuals weighed in on the warning.
advisories in front of certain films that include racial or cultural references that
some viewers might find offensive.
Several individuals weighed in on the warning.
Michael Franzese, a former captain of the Colombo crime family, told the outlet he didn't
agree with adding the warning.
We don't need anyone protecting mob guys.
It's crazy, he said.
Former NYPD officer Bo Deedle, who played a police officer in Goodfellas, also disagreed with the messaging.
The effing political correctness is effing taking everything away.
This is how life was back then.
It was not a clean, beautiful thing.
You can't cleanse history.
If you want to tell true history, you got to tell it the way it is.
So they've added this warning in now.
Was there a single person, at any point, Who complained to AMC prior to this warning being put in, who complained that it was culturally insensitive?
Was there a single viewer of Goodfellas who, after viewing it, or maybe viewed only a few minutes of it and turned it off in disgust, and then complained to AMC saying this is cultural?
Did that happen one single time?
I think we could probably assume no.
Now, even if it did happen one single time, or two times, or five times, that doesn't justify adding the warning in.
The point here is that they're doing this to address a problem that doesn't even exist anywhere.
And the most important point here, of course, is that Goodfellas is based on a true story.
So if there are cultural stereotypes, it's because these historical figures really did behave in a way consistent with those stereotypes.
Which isn't surprising, because that's how the stereotypes exist.
That's why every stereotype has at least some truth to it.
And most of them have a lot of truth.
Which is why it makes no sense to declare stereotypes unsayable and horribly offensive.
But that's why they do it.
Like, the fact the stereotypes are usually at least somewhat true, that's why our cultural elites have called them, have declared them unsayable, because the stereotypes are true.
And you're not allowed to notice true things.
We know that noticing true things is the greatest sin of all.
So let me ask you this.
Have you ever heard in your life a stereotype where, you know, you heard the stereotype and you said to yourself, what?
Where did that come from?
Nobody in that group acts like that.
No, of course not.
Every stereotype you've ever heard, whether you said it out loud or not, you knew in your head, like, okay, yeah.
Yeah, that makes sense.
You're not going to hear a stereotype that comes totally out of the blue.
It makes no sense.
You've never heard a stereotype where it's like, Native American men always wear blue jeans on Thursdays.
Like some kind of non-sequitur stereotype.
Where did that come from?
What in the world does that mean?
No, because stereotypes like that have no resonance and therefore won't be stereotypes.
So, stereotypes are an observation made collectively by society about a certain group or type of person.
Doesn't mean they're always true.
Doesn't mean they're true of everybody.
Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.
It just means that, like, it's kind of, broadly speaking, this is sort of how it is.
So how did Italian people develop the stereotype of acting the way they do in Goodfellas?
Well, because lots of Italian people acted that way.
That's why it resonates.
And this is one of the reasons why, by the way, when they do remakes of old movies and they do the race swap thing, One of the many reasons why that doesn't work is because of this.
It wouldn't surprise me if at some point they actually tried to do a Goodfellas remake where the gangsters are all black or something, but it would make no sense.
I mean, there are plenty of black gangsters, but the good fellow gangsters act the way they do because they're white Italian guys.
And so they act a certain way, and the whole story and all the, you know, the characterizations and everything, it makes sense for that type of person.
But you make it a different type of person, it just doesn't make any sense anymore.
I will say one other thing.
That this is what happens when the PC rules are applied to protect the feelings of white people, too.
And it's actually not an improvement.
Because often you'll hear people on the right, when they talk about these sorts of PC things and trigger warnings and everything else, you'll hear conservatives on the right say, well, you never do this for white people.
One of the big ones, and I've used this example plenty of times, but They want to get rid of all the Native American mascots.
And so you always hear, well, what about the Fighting Irish?
What about the Leprechaun?
What about the Notre Dame?
Well, then you find out that, yeah, they might eventually get around to that.
Maybe eventually they'll come along and say, oh yeah, that's insulting to Irish people.
We don't want that anymore.
But that's not an improvement.
That's actually not the solution that we want.
It's like we bring that up to point out a double standard.
It's probably not the best argument, because actually it turns out that the woke people have no problems.
Like, oh yeah, sure.
You want more over-sensitivity?
You want more trigger warnings?
You want more of that sort of thing?
Yeah.
Like, you want to take our idea and expand it?
Sure, we'll do that.
Absolutely.
Okay, yeah, so we'll be fair.
We put a sensitivity warning on Aladdin because it's supposed to be offensive to Arab people.
Well, fine, we'll take the sensitivity warnings and we'll put them on movies of Italian mobsters.
Problem solved.
Now everybody's feelings are protected.
Yeah, but actually the problem hasn't been solved.
We don't want more of the thing.
We want less of it.
You know, I'm quite happy that they have not gotten rid of the Notre Dame mascot.
I don't want them to.
So, we should be careful about the arguments that we make, I think, in that context.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is the reason why we say do not miss Backstage, because yesterday was the world premiere of Jeremy's Razors, the second greatest commercial ever.
If you missed it, take a look now.
Oh hey, I'm Jeremy Boring, CEO of Daily Wire and founder of Jeremy's Razors.
Woke razor companies love to take your money while trampling on your values.
Me?
I just love your money.
Cut!
What the hell is this?
(upbeat music)
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.
Nobody calls cut on my set but me.
What, do you run Hollywood now?
Two on the nose.
What is this?
We're filming the commercial for the brand new second-generation Jeremy's razor.
Yeah, I get it.
We moved our manufacturing out of China.
Plus, with the new Sprint 3 and Precision 5 blades, you can shave like a man, not a manifesto.
But who's he?
I'm Black Jeremy, huge fan.
Do you mind if we get a selfie?
Oh yeah, come on.
Look, we talked about this.
Customers want diversity.
Customers want inclusion.
Customers want... Black Jeremy.
And for the commercials to be less macho.
Can we please lose the flamethrower and the car?
It's overcompensating and we need... Who are you?
I'm Deska.
I've been following you around half-naked for two years.
Oh, but that makes you some kind of expert on advertising.
Besides, don't you think it's a little insulting to black people?
Oh, we prefer people of color.
Don't you think it's a little insulting to black people of color that instead of giving them their own roles to play, you just recast them as a beloved white character?
Hell yeah it is!
We don't do it for people of color.
We do it for liberal white women.
I'll spell it out for you.
Liberal white women make most of the purchasing decisions for the family, so happy commercials with people of color smiling at each other make them feel hella virtuous.
Bitches love to feel virtuous.
They do!
That's why there's no white people in commercials anymore?
Exactly.
But that's so... Gay?
Sorry, I'm the body positivity hire.
You are so brave.
What is even happening right now?
Think of all the razors you'll sell.
And don't forget Jeremy's shampoo and conditioner.
They are excellent products.
Hey, what if I play your character a little less bitchy?
Unbelievable.
Jeremy's Razors isn't for liberal white women.
It's for men.
Conservative men.
So stop giving your money to woke corporations who hate you.
Give it to me instead.
(triumphant music)
Hey, liberal white ladies.
You know what's up.
Go to jeremysrazors.com now and buy the new radically redesigned 2nd Gen razors featuring sharper, longer lasting blades and superior durability.
Now in more inclusive 3 and 5 blade models.
We work with the best engineers to bring you a truly top quality razor that is not made in China.
Today we're proud to announce that not only have we brought you a new radically redesigned razor and the second greatest commercial ever, but Gen 2 is now available for sale on Amazon.
Means reaching even more people who want to shave like a man, not a manifesto.
Within hours of the second greatest commercial ever being released, Jeremy's Precision 5 razor became the number two selling men's razor on Amazon.
Every win is one more step in winning back the culture from the left.
We can't do it without your support.
Business is hard.
Getting our products into retail happens in several steps, and this is just the first one.
In order to become Prime eligible on Amazon, we have to show Amazon that demand exists for our product, and that's where you come in.
We need you to head on over to Amazon right now.
Make the Jeremy's Razor 2nd Gen Razor the number one men's razor on Amazon.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
To open the show on Wednesday, we discussed, like we have plenty of times in the past, the modern dating scene.
And during that conversation, I listed what I think are the main challenges that young, single people face today.
And now I want to add one other challenge to the list that I neglected to include.
And it comes from this, that in response to the segment, I heard, as I always do, Anytime we talk about this.
From several people who insisted that I am neither qualified nor equipped to give dating advice because I'm too old and I've been out of the game for too long.
This is one of the most common rebuttals that I hear whenever this subject comes up.
A similar objection is raised whenever I try to offer advice to younger people who are struggling to, or more likely refusing to, move out of their parents' house and build an independent, successful adult life.
In that case, I'm often informed that I'm old, I have money, and therefore I can't possibly understand what younger people are experiencing, or how difficult it is to be in their shoes, and so I should just shut up, because what do I know about any of this?
Now, I'm not the only one who encounters this attitude, of course, and this is what happens any time someone my age or older, who has reached a certain level of professional and personal success, tries to offer a few morsels of wisdom on these subjects.
There's always going to be someone, usually a whole crowd of people, rushing into the scene to let us know that we're out of touch, we're old, we're spoiled, we're elitist somehow, we have it easy, and therefore we have nothing relevant to say, we should just shut up.
This is, as I said, one of the other great challenges that many young single people face today.
It is a self-inflicted challenge.
They're trying to do something, in this case find a wife or a husband.
But, in many cases, they're unwilling to listen to advice from people who've actually succeeded in doing the thing that they want to do.
So they find themselves in the middle of the forest, off the trail and without a map, not because there is no trail or no map, but because they've chosen to discard those things and wander through the thicket aimlessly instead.
Now, It is true that I am ancient and decrepit at the advanced age of 37.
It's a wonder that I'm even able to walk without assistance at this age, but that doesn't mean that my relationship advice is obsolete.
In fact, there are many people even older than me, if you can believe it, whose advice is not obsolete either, who have even better advice than I do.
And that's because, in part, the fundamental challenges that you face as a young single person looking for love in the world are the same fundamental challenges faced by anyone who has sought romance and companionship anywhere in the world at any point in history ever.
Now, it's true that you face some unique obstacles.
Some of those obstacles are quite daunting, quite significant.
No doubt about that.
But human nature is the same as it has always been, and therefore the basic roadmap to a successful relationship and a happy marriage is basically the same as it has always been.
Now, there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here that I've noticed, which is that we declare that everything is different now, and the wisdom of the past no longer applies.
And the more we insist on that, the more screwed up things get, and therefore the more different and less applicable that wisdom actually becomes.
So, for example, just to illustrate this.
One piece of advice that I give, and that many people much wiser than me give, so that you can just listen to them if you want and not me, is to embrace what we now call gender roles.
And what in the past they didn't call gender roles because they didn't have a word for it, because it just was what you did.
It was so obvious and innate that you didn't need a term to describe what it was.
But now we call it gender roles.
One of the things that makes it difficult for single people to match up with each other and form functional relationships and eventually marriages is that they have no idea what the point of a relationship is, and what the man is supposed to do within that relationship, and what the woman is supposed to do.
Those of us who advocate for a restoration of those roles, or simply a recognition of them because they're innate, We will be told that our advice is antiquated because we don't do gender roles in our society anymore.
In other words, the people who reject these roles are making a mistake by rejecting them and then using that mistake as justification for continuing to make the same mistake.
Now, it's true that we live in a society where many people have rejected the timeless wisdom of the ages when it comes to how relationships are supposed to function.
This has created many unique difficulties.
But the solution, therefore, is to stop rejecting that timeless wisdom.
It's not to continue rejecting it on the basis that it's already been rejected.
You know, another piece of timeless wisdom, again, this is not some brilliant, innovative idea that I came up with on my own, is exactly what we're talking about right here.
Whatever it is that you're trying to do in life, you should seek out people who have actually done it, and done it successfully.
And use them as an orientation point.
And if you will not listen to them, if you disqualify all of them on the basis that their situation is not precisely exactly like yours down to the last minute detail, then you have doomed yourself to a life of dysfunction and confusion.
Now, of course, the situation is actually often worse than what I'm describing here.
Because often younger people will listen to relationship advice offered by voices actually outside of their own heads.
There are plenty of social media personalities and YouTubers and people in media who have garnered large followings in part by talking about these kinds of issues.
The problem is that many of them have never done the thing successfully either.
They aren't married.
They have not formed, maintained, and provided for a functional nuclear family.
Or they were married and now they're divorced.
You know, their lives are like total disasters.
They have not demonstrated that they have any real insight into the subject at all.
In fact, if anything, they demonstrated a profound lack of insight and a tendency towards failure and dysfunction in the very arena that they're pontificating about.
And this is one of the reasons why many young people are lost in the dating world.
They either don't listen to anyone's advice, or they seek advice from people who are just as lost as they are, if not more lost.
And this is reflected not just in the dating world, across our culture on nearly every subject.
Experience, wisdom, and success are counted as negative somehow, as hits against your credibility, as essentially disqualifying factors.
Now it's true, and could be rightly pointed out here, that plenty of people claim to be experienced and wise and actually aren't.
And part of the context here is the trust the experts thing.
And the problem, though, with trust the experts when it's so often used is that the people that are being put forward as experts actually aren't.
And so it's all a big lie.
And skepticism in that context is not only warranted but highly recommended.
But there are some basic truths that can be learned and put into practice even by someone like me who is not especially wise but has at least some common sense.
At least the kind of sense common to those of us who have been married and had families and learned what it takes and put it into practice.
And that is why those who say that we are somehow less qualified to give advice at all are today the ones who are cancelled.
