Ep. 1394 - The Fight Against Child Mutilation Makes It To The Supreme Court
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Supreme Court will officially hear a challenge to Tennessee's ban on "gender affirming care" for minors. This will be a huge case that could deliver a devastating blow to the trans agenda. Also, CNN kicks a Trump spokesperson off the air for questioning CNN's objectivity ahead of the presidential debate on Thursday. Taylor Swift makes a brave stand against the patriarchy at her most recent concert. And, British academics are researching milk to discover its ties to racism and colonialism.
Ep.1394
- - -
DailyWire+:
SWEET BABY GANG IS BACK. Buy the shirt: https://bit.ly/3zfUbZE
Get 10% off your tickets to Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot at http://angel.com/MATT
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection 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.
Helix Sleep - Get 30% off your order + 2 dream pillows. https://helixsleep.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the Supreme Court will officially hear a challenge to Tennessee's ban on so-called, quote-unquote, gender-affirming care for minors.
This will be a huge case that could deliver a devastating blow to the trans agenda.
Also, CNN kicks a Trump spokesperson off the air for questioning CNN's objectivity ahead of the presidential debate on Thursday.
Taylor Swift makes a brave stand against the patriarchy at her most recent concert.
And British academics are researching milk to discover its ties to racism and colonialism.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Saudi Arabia recently ended its 50 year petrodollar deal with the US,
which has the potential to weaken the US.
dollar.
Since 1974, Saudi Arabia has sold oil solely in U.S.
dollars, which was huge for our global economic dominance.
Now, they want other options if there's less demand for the U.S.
dollar than what happens to its value.
It's for reasons like this that I feel it's important to diversify some of my savings into gold, and you can do that as well.
With the help of Birch Gold.
For over 20 years, Birch Gold Group has helped tens of thousands of Americans to protect their savings by converting an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold.
To learn more, text WALSH to 989898 and claim your free no-obligation info kit on gold.
Birch Gold has earned my trust with their education-first approach, as well as the trust of thousands of happy customers.
They understand that navigating financial decisions can be quite scary.
That's why their dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Protect your savings with gold.
Text Walsh to 989898 to talk to one of Birch Gold's experts and claim your free info kit today.
Text Walsh to 989898.
That's Walsh to 989898.
Maybe you've heard the saying, the purpose of a system is what it does.
It's a phrase that was coined by a professor named Stafford Beard as a way of helping people understand complex systems.
It was originally about cybernetics, but it's increasingly being used in the context of American politics.
And that's because you often hear very convoluted explanations to justify various policies Well, all you really have to do is look at the end result that those policies are producing.
The benefit of Beer's approach is that, at the risk of maybe oversimplifying some things, it short-circuits all of the rationalization and BS that we're all so used to hearing all the time.
And if there's one skill that politicians and academics have, the one that they've perfected over the decades, whether they're talking about immigration or criminal justice reform or anything else, It's drowning us in obfuscation and doublespeak and lingo so that we don't look at the obviously evil and destructive results of their policies.
Sometimes things just really aren't that complicated.
Sometimes you don't need experts and studies to decide on a course of action.
It's just obvious.
It's in front of your face.
It's especially true in the case of so-called transgender medical care for children.
Which really means injecting children with sterilizing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers that can cause early-onset osteoporosis, among many other terrible effects.
In some cases, it also means amputating body parts from children.
So-called top surgery, quote-unquote, for minors is legal in many states, used to be legal in many more.
No other civilization throughout human history has done anything like this, for good reason.
There's no need to analyze the intent of people who promote a practice like this.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
The end result of their policy is that children are being mutilated.
No further discussion is really necessary.
Of course, that's not how our courts work.
They generally take their time when it comes to ruling on major policy issues, if they ever decide to weigh in at all.
But eventually, on the most important issues, things come to a head.
The various appellate courts disagree, creating a circuit split.
And ultimately, the Supreme Court feels compelled to step in.
And that's happening now in the area of so-called trans medicine.
And it brings us to what could very well be the most significant Supreme Court case since
Dobbs.
This could be a long overdue decision, and it's worth a close look, especially since
the ruling could come down in a matter of months.
So we learned that this decision was coming just yesterday when the Supreme Court agreed
to hear the Biden administration's appeal of a Sixth Circuit's ruling from late last
That Sixth Circuit ruling, which I covered at the time, upheld Tennessee's ban on the mutilation of minors in the name of so-called gender-affirming care.
It was a devastating ruling for the trans agenda, and now Biden's DOJ has appealed it, and that appeal is going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Watch.
Well, this is a case from Tennessee which banned those kind of sex transition treatments for minors and young people under 18, whether it's surgeries, puberty blockers, hormone treatments.
And the Biden administration stepped in and challenged those bans.
A federal appeals court based in the Sixth Circuit said that the bans were OK.
And that is going to be the issue now that's under review by the Supreme Court, whether states can ban those kind of transition care treatments for
transgender youth.
I mean, it's obviously a highly contentious issue.
More than or about two dozen states now have similar bans.
Another 14 or so have laws specifically protecting those treatments.
So the Supreme Court now is walking into this issue that's really deeply divided this country
and divided the international community as well.
So it's not overstating things to say that when this case is decided, it'll be one of
the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of all time.
It will have ramifications for children all over the country.
The question in the case is whether voters have the legal ability to prevent the sterilization and chemical castration of children, or whether bans on so-called gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, violate the U.S.
Constitution.
The Biden-DOJ's argument, which is outlined in their appeal to the Supreme Court, comes down to a few main points, and they're all completely ridiculous, as you would expect.
The first claim from the Biden administration is that trans-identifying individuals constitute a protected class of people.
This means that any law affecting trans-identified individuals must be subjected to, quote, heightened scrutiny by the courts, essentially meaning that the courts won't defer to the voters' judgment because these are protected people.
Now, if the Supreme Court buys this argument, it would mean creating a new protected class for the first time in more than four decades.
Laws regulating so-called trans healthcare would face similar scrutiny to laws that affect, you know, people based on immutable characteristics like their skin color.
Obviously, this would reshape the law to create a vast new layer of protection for trans-identifying individuals, and it would make, really, in effect, actually, the protections are for the doctors and medical industry that want to do these things and profit off of them.
Because, in fact, the laws that ban these procedures, those are the laws that are actually protecting trans-identifying individuals.
But in any case, the end result is that it would make future bans on child mutilation much more difficult, if not impossible, to pass.
So that's what's at stake.
In order to make this argument, the Biden DOJ has to demonstrate that, quote, transgender persons share obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
This is a necessary bar to clear before a court will make transgenderism a protected characteristic, as the Biden administration admits in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
And in their petition to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration acts like it's obvious that transgender persons share, quote, obvious, immutable, and distinguishing characteristics.
But right away, this is laughable.
I mean, their case falls apart immediately.
It's already in shambles.
Because there is perhaps no single characteristic that is less immutable and more mutable Then trans identity.
Trans activists claim as a core plank of their ideology that people can change their gender at will.
They can become men or women, non-binary, nothing, anything in between at any time.
That's the whole idea that underlies the ideology.
And that's the exact opposite of an immutable characteristic.
I mean, they are the ones who say that gender is fluid.
That is their argument.
How in the hell can a thing be fluid and immutable at the same time?
I mean, it's like saying that a man being a bachelor does not preclude him from also being married.
It's a self-contradiction.
It's the definition of nonsense.
Now, along the same lines, trans activists claim that someone can be transgender without changing their appearance in any way.
Basically, if you think you're a woman, then you're a woman.
So, there's no argument to be made that transgender status is inherently an immutable or obvious or distinguishing characteristic.
It's none of those things.
Like, it needs to be all of those things in order for trans people to qualify as a protected class.
Even though there should really be no protected classes at all, that's a whole other topic.
But it needs to be all of those things, right?
And it's none of them.
In fact, it's the opposite of all of those.
And the trans activists themselves will say that, except when they're petitioning the Supreme Court.
At the Sixth Circuit, this argument was rejected by the majority.
The Sixth Circuit found that, quote, the stories of detransitioners indicate that trans identity is not immutable.
And that seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to make.
But, I mean, we have lots of evidence of people who identified as trans and now they don't.
So that means it's not immutable.
Period.
But the Biden administration is now disputing that.
In general, you know, I think this is a general statement we can make.
That, because it goes beyond even trans self-identity.
Self-perception, in general, is not immutable.
It is, in fact, the most mutable thing in the world.
Immutable means unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
While a person's self-perception, whether or not it corresponds with reality, whether or not they're trans-identified or not, But your self-perception can change constantly.
Self-perception changes in small ways every day.
I mean, it can change from moment to moment.
The way that you perceive yourself, the way you perceive your own characteristics and your own everything.
There is no person who has one single sort of perception of themselves and then it just remains that way forever and doesn't change.
Now hopefully your perception of your biological sex does not change.
Hopefully that corresponds with reality and doesn't change at all.
But everything else that makes up self-perception, all of that, it can change.
And transgenderism is a matter of self-perception.
The phrase I identify as is a phrase that indicates self-perception.
So the Biden administration is claiming that self-perception is immutable.
And that makes no sense.
As part of the same argument, the Biden DOJ is also claiming that trans-identifying individuals are a protected class because they lack political power.
The DOJ writes that, quote, the recent wave of legislation targeting transgender individuals decisively refutes any suggestion that they have no need for the protection of the courts.
In other words, because people all over the country are voting overwhelmingly to ban these life-altering procedures from being performed on children, we're supposed to conclude that transgender individuals, quote-unquote, lack political power in this country.
But that's a hard case to make, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out, because pretty much every single power center in the United States, from the media to the government and everything in between, is aligned with trans ideology.
Quoting from the Sixth Circuit's opinion, the President of the United States and the Department of Justice support the plaintiffs.
A national anti-discrimination law, Title VII, protects transgender individuals in the employment setting.
Fourteen states have passed laws specifically allowing some of the treatments sought here.
Twenty states have joined an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.
The major medical organizations support the plaintiffs.
And the only large law firms to make an appearance in the case all entered the controversy in support of the plaintiffs.
These are not the hallmarks of a skewed or unfair political process.
And we should just emphasize again that it's the president of the United States, the presidential administration, they're taking the side of the trans activists, and then also claiming that the trans activists don't have political power.
How can that be the case?
If there's like one person in the country who cannot claim that someone else doesn't have political power, it's the president.
Because the moment you take their side, they obviously have political power.
So in that one paragraph, the Sixth Circuit rejected an argument that we hear constantly from trans activists, which is that everyone's out to get them.
Sure, they have about a million days on the calendar to celebrate themselves.
The entire federal government and Fortune 500 goes out of its way to promote their agenda at every opportunity, along with Big Pharma and the education system.
But they always claim to be oppressed, and now the Biden administration is trying to make that claim at the Supreme Court.
And with this case, the Supreme Court has a chance to end this line of argument once and for all.
Now, maybe just as importantly, the court could also reject the argument that bans on so-called gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, violate the 14th Amendment.
The basic idea which the Biden-DOJ is advancing in its appeal is that Tennessee's ban discriminates against people on the basis of their sex within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but that's also not true, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out.
The Tennessee ban doesn't prevent people from receiving sterilizing hormones or castration on the basis of their sex.
Instead, the ban prohibits people from receiving that stuff on the basis of their age.
And also because the long-term effects of these procedures is unknown.
Puberty blockers, the court pointed out, are administered in much the same way for both boys and girls, so the sex discrimination claim makes even less sense.
But it's the point about the unknown long-term effects of these procedures that's maybe the most important.
And since this litigation began, that last point has only been further underscored.
Of course, there was the release of the internal WPATH files, which demonstrated that the so-called experts in this field are unethical and incompetent.
At best, even by their own admission.
They openly talked about how children can't possibly consent to these procedures, even as they acknowledged that in some cases children were apparently being harmed by the procedures.
Then there was the Comprehensive Caste Review in the UK, which found that there's no good evidence, that's a quote, justifying any common interventions concerning gender identity.
And then there was this declaration from the American College of Pediatricians.
If you didn't see this at the time, here it is, watch.
And we have serious concerns about the physical and mental health effects of the current protocols promoted for the care of children and adolescents in the United States who express discomfort with their biological sex.
This declaration was authored by the American College of Pediatricians, but really it was developed from the expertise of hundreds of doctors, researchers, and other health care workers and leaders who for years have been sounding the alarm on the harmful
protocols that continue to be promoted by the medical organizations in the United
States.
Despite recent revelations from the leaked WPATH files and the recent release of the
final report from the CAST review, these medical organizations have not changed course.
So we are calling on these medical organizations of the United States, including the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American
Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European colleagues and immediately
stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and
surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological
sex.
In our declaration, we affirm that sex is a dimorphic, innate trait defined in relation to an organism's biological role in reproduction, male and female.
So when the Biden administration told the Supreme Court that, quote, all of the major national medical and mental health organizations recognize the WPATH guidelines as reflecting the consensus of the medical communities on the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, they were lying.
That's just simply not true.
Major medical associations here and abroad, people who have looked at the data and are experts in the field, disagree that it's a good idea to affirm children by permanently sterilizing them and cutting up their bodies.
Of course, again, it really doesn't matter what medical organizations say on this point.
Medical organizations can be wrong.
And if every medical organization in the country and in the world really did say that it's a good idea to treat kids this way, it still would not be a good idea.
But just as a factual matter, the Biden DOJ is lying to the Supreme Court.
Everything that they say in their argument is false and deceptive on its face.
And then when you look under, you start going deeper, you look at the different layers, you find that it's false, you know, in all of those layers as well.
The truth is that these supposedly sacrosanct WPATH standards aren't just fraudulent, as the WPATH files reveal, they're also the result of political pressure.
Late last night, the journalist Jesse Singel reported on his substack that quote, when the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care version 8 was released in September 2022, a very strange thing happened.
WPATH removed references to minimum age requirements for various medical interventions.
Thanks to a rather remarkable document just unsealed as part of Boe vs. Marshall, one of the many American lawsuits over youth gender medicine, we now have a potential explanation for why the age guidelines were removed.
Direct pressure from Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services, Admiral Rachel Levine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Single reports that a Canadian researcher wrote that, quote, Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine strongly pressured WPATH leadership to rush the development and issuance of Standards of Care 8 in order to assist the administration's political strategy.
Now, of course, Rachel Levine, quote unquote, identifies as a transgender woman.
So if this reporting is accurate, as it appears to be, It's yet more evidence that the alleged standards of care are really political documents written by activists.
Now, of course, despite all this, it's true that many major medical organizations are still promoting this.
They're completely ignoring the findings of the Cass Report, the revelations in the WPATH files, the statements from the American College of Pediatricians, their own common sense, the testimony of their own souls which should tell them what is good and what is evil.
But in this country, we are not slaves to what a handful of medical organizations tell us to think.
Especially when they have a vested interest in medicalizing every social problem.
Like, these are the people profiting off of this stuff.
So, the rest of us are allowed to come to our own conclusions about the wisdom of disfiguring the bodies of children.
And doing so is not sex discrimination by any definition, it's a moral obligation.
So by agreeing to hear the Biden administration's appeal, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to deal a fatal blow to those who wish to mutilate and indoctrinate even more minors.
In fact, the Supreme Court should find that not only are the bans on these procedures clearly constitutional, but in fact, the laws allowing these procedures are the ones that are unconstitutional.
Because it is a violation of a child's basic human rights to inflict these treatments On him.
The Supreme Court could and should come to a decision that actually results in a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, for minors.
I don't expect that to happen as much as I'd like it to.
But even if they come back with a much more limited decision, this is still a decisive moment in the fight to protect children.
It's also yet another reminder that elections matter.
Joe Biden publicly claimed that eight-year-olds can change their gender a little under four years ago, just prior to taking office.
And once he took office, his administration made the same argument in court, as well as through the HHS.
So this has been a very long battle.
And now, several years later, thanks to the state of Tennessee and everyone else who's fought on the side of sanity and the side of children, there's a very real chance of a final and total victory.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
I can't keep up with my day if I don't get a good night's sleep, which is why I appreciate my Helix mattress.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress, because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
Helix knows there's no better way to test out a new mattress than by sleeping on it in your own home.
That's why they offer a 100-night trial and a 10- to 15-year warranty.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
You will.
Helix's financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 30% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer yet, and it won't last long.
That's helixsleep.com/walsh.
allowing him to go free.
The article says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange plans to plead guilty to a conspiracy charge this week as part of a plea deal with the U.S.
with the Justice Department specifically that will allow him to go free after having spent five years in a British prison.
According to court documents, Assange was charged by criminal information, which typically signifies a plea deal, with conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information A letter from Justice Department official Matthew McKenzie to U.S.
District Judge Ramona Mangalona of the Northern Mariana Islands District, so that Assange would appear in court at 9 a.m.
local time on Wednesday to plead guilty, and that the Justice Department expects Assange will return to Australia, his country of citizenship, after the proceedings.
So, huge news, obviously.
I don't trust Biden's motives for doing this.
I'll say that.
I mean, it's partly a campaign stunt.
Partly.
And then partly, I don't know what else, exactly.
But motives aside, it's the right decision.
I wish that he didn't have to take a plea deal.
He should be pardoned.
He should have been pardoned already.
But if he can go free, then it's worth cheering.
You know, I don't personally think that Julian Assange did anything wrong.
I think he engaged in journalism, real journalism.
He didn't deserve 15 years in jail for that, 15 seconds even.
But another point worth making is that whether you agree with his methods or not, One thing that I think can't be denied is that the man acted heroically.
The fact that he was willing to put his life and freedom on the line to expose corruption and shed light in places where he thought it needed to be shed, you know, that's a level of commitment and courage that very few people possess.
And that's what I always think when his name comes up.
Okay, we're now two days away from the first presidential debate of 2024.
Maybe the only one.
My money is on it being the only one.
Trump has now officially called on Biden to take a drug test before the debate, saying that he'll take one also.
And it's smart to call for that.
It's also kind of funny to call for it.
And it's smart.
It's not going to happen.
Because Biden is going to be jacked up on all kinds of performance-enhancing drugs for this thing.
I don't know.
I don't know what exactly.
I don't know if he'll be hitting up his son for some coke before he goes on stage.
But if not that, then whatever stimulants they need to inject in him to get him through a two-hour debate, they will do that.
They really don't have any choice.
Biden is going to come out on stage looking like Justin Timberlake's mugshot.
I mean, it'll be hilarious in a very depressing kind of way.
But Biden, though, even in spite of all this, has a major advantage, which is that the debate is being moderated by, essentially, his own campaign staff, because it's being moderated and hosted by CNN.
And this is a point that a Trump spokeswoman tried to raise on CNN yesterday, but the anchor on CNN shut it down pretty quickly.
Let's watch this.
It's going to take someone five minutes to Google Jake Tapper, Donald Trump, to see that Jake Tapper has- Ma'am, we're going to stop this interview if you're going to keep attacking my colleagues.
Ma'am, I'm going to stop this interview if you continue to attack my colleagues.
I would like to talk about Joe Biden and Donald Trump, who you work for.
Yes.
If you are here to speak on his behalf, I am willing to have this conversation.
I am stating facts that your colleagues have stated in the past.
Now, as for this debate, the expectation for- Okay, I'm sorry guys, we're going to come back out to the panel.
Caroline, thank you very much for your time.
You are welcome to come back at any point.
She is welcome to come back and speak about Donald Trump, and Donald Trump will have equal time to Joe Biden when they both join us now at next, early, later this week in Atlanta for this debate.
Well, I will certainly allay any fears that the debate will be biased against Trump.
If you want to prove that your news organization is objective, then the best way to do that is if someone comes on your air and questions your objectivity, you cut their mic and kick them off the show.
That's the best way to prove that you're objective.
And the anchor there, Casey Hunt, tweeted later the same day, you come on my show, you respect my colleagues, period.
I don't care what side of the aisle you stand on, as my track record clearly shows.
So she's trying to position herself as the protective mama bear here, I guess, when really she just panicked because she didn't know how to respond when these questions were raised.
And that's why she was stuttering and babbling at the end.
She panicked.
She was, like, afraid.
And she didn't know what to do.
All of that said, I do have to confess that I am pretty tired of this whole routine, this outrage cycle on the right that we jump into every four years, right?
It's the same thing every four years.
The debate moderators are biased!
They're biased!
It's rigged!
It's unfair!
They're so biased against us!
Let's go and dig up their old tweets and clips of them in the past, them saying things that clearly reveal that they are liberals who favor Democrats.
And then all those clips get shared all over the place, and people act surprised by it.
Oh, can you believe?
Can you believe this?
Look what they said three years ago.
Of course it's unfair, okay?
Of course it's rigged.
Of course they're biased.
Yeah, we all know that.
It's not an interesting thing to talk about anymore.
The fact that corporate news media is staffed entirely and run entirely by Democrats, and that they are biased against Republicans, especially Donald Trump.
Yes, yes, we all know that.
That is 100% the case.
There's no denying it.
Of course, they'll still deny it, but we all know that it's true.
And it's not even, like, there's nothing even interesting to say about it anymore.
I mean, how many times are we going to say the same thing?
They're so biased.
They're so biased.
They don't like us.
Like, yes, okay.
Of course, yes.
Agreed.
Agreed.
We all agree.
We're on the same page.
So now what?
Okay, what now?
What are we gonna do about that, is my question.
There's really only one solution to that problem.
And complaining about it incessantly is not a solution.
And doing the same routine every four years, where you sign up for the debate on the corporate media channel, and then we complain about how biased they are, and then the debate happens, and we complain about how biased the moderators were, what do you know?
Like, that's not a solution.
There's only one solution.
There is only one.
And that is to refuse to participate in debates that are hosted by apparatchiks of the Democrat Party.
That is the one single solution.
There is no other solution that exists in this universe or any other hypothetical universe.
This is the only one.
So you could just refuse to do it.
You could say, I am not going to participate in any debate hosted by someone who's obviously liberal and hates Republicans, and hates me in particular, if you're Donald Trump, you would say that.
So, that's the solution.
If you don't like that solution, for whatever reason, Then, okay, well then you are signing up for a rigged thing.
You are willingly signing.
They are inviting you.
They're saying, hey, come to this rigged thing over here where it's going to be totally rigged against you.
What do you say?
If you sign up for it and say, sure, I'll jump right in.
Sounds good.
It doesn't make any sense to spend the whole time whining about it.
And then just repeating that same strategy over and over and over again, election after election after election.
I'm exhausted by it.
I'm bored by it.
Either take action to change the situation or stop **** about it.
Those are the workable options.
They're both workable.
You could refuse to participate or you could participate and just say, all right, well, okay, I'm going to just deal with the fact that I'm walking into an environment where it's all stacked against me.
And listen, I'm not saying that there isn't a plausible argument for doing these rigged debates.
Maybe it's worth it.
Maybe the good outweighs the bad.
I could buy that.
And especially in this circumstance, when you've got Biden, who is a vegetable.
And so, you know, there's a plausible strategic argument you could make for, if you say to yourself, well, look, I want to have a shot at him.
And he's definitely not going to walk into any forum where it's not rigged in his favor.
And so the only way that I can get the shot at him is if I walk into the rigged place.
So then I'll do it.
It's worth the risk.
You could say that.
But then if that's what you do, then you know what you're doing.
And complaining about it the whole time is exhausting.
So, and either way, if you really want to do something about it, if you want to change it, you take action.
And taking action is to refuse to take part.
And this is really like, of course, this routine has been going on forever.
This is the only time in recent history where I can say, Strategically, you could make an argument for walking into that rigged setting because you happen to be running against a guy who is completely senile.
And so any chance you have, even if they're going to give you only a minute, they're going to cut the mics off, they're stacking the deck against you in every way they possibly can, he is still a vegetable.
He's still senile.
And so for that reason, maybe, you know, again, strategically, you can make an argument for it.
But in pretty much every case, in every election I can think of before this, when these Republicans have just agreed to go and do debates on CNN and NBC and all the rest of it, there's not even any strategic argument for it.
You don't have to do it.
They don't have a gun to your head.
You can say no, and you can give your reason for saying no.
And most people will, of course the Democrats will claim that you're ducking or whatever, but you can say no and give your reason and most people in America will understand because most normal people in America know that obviously these networks are biased in favor of Democrats.
You know, the other thing is that, let's just be real here, Jake Tapper is clearly a Democrat and a liberal.
Yes.
He's also probably the most objective on-air guy that they have on that network.
It's a very low bar, right?
He's not objective.
He's not reliable.
Don't get me wrong.
But if you're agreeing to do a debate on CNN, is there anyone at CNN who you think would be better?
Who would be better?
Who's the better person?
Because if you agree to do the CNN debate and then you say, well, not Jake Tapper, well, who, I mean, why not suggest someone else?
I don't want him, he's biased.
Give me this person.
Who's the other person?
There's no one else there.
They're all biased hacks.
So if you agree to do CNN, like, why are you talking about Jake Tapper?
Who do you think, who do you think was going to moderate it?
Sean Hannity?
You think they're going to maybe call Bill O'Reilly up to see if he wants to do it?
No, it was always going to be some CNN hack, and that's Jake Tapper.
They get hackier than Jake Tapper over at CNN, right?
I can tell you that.
We all know that.
But the whole thing just doesn't make any sense, and it's futile.
Like, the futile whining is so frustrating at this point.
Especially when there are things that can be done.
There are things that we can do to solve this problem, to make a change, right?
And if you're not going to do it, then just don't complain.
All right.
Here's Breitbart.
Senate Democrats have added a provision to a yearly defense bill that would require women to sign up for the draft, prompting opposition from Republicans.
The yearly bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, authorizes the fiscal year budget for the Pentagon, but it also authorizes policies and programs in the Pentagon.
The House and Senate each pass a version that gets meshed together.
This year, Democrats include a provision in their version that would require women to register for the draft, according to the Hill.
Top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicker, said that he will try to strip it out of the bill.
But Committee Chairman Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, told CNN that he could not understand why the issue is a sore point.
He told CNN, we have had amendments that would have required women to register and we can't
get any real traction on the other side. We're going to try to do it. It makes sense.
The military now is a mixed force. This is always kind of an interesting conversation because
you have some on the right who say, well, sure. Yeah, make women sign up for the draft.
I mean, if you want gender equality, then this is what that means.
Take that, feminists!
And I understand that mentality.
It makes sense, logically speaking.
From a strictly logical perspective, yes, women should be required to sign up for the draft.
We live in a culture that has totally rejected chivalry, rejected masculinity, rejected the idea that men and women are different.
All we ever hear about is female empowerment, how women are just as badass and kick-ass as men, and so on and so forth.
And we already have, as was pointed out, a co-ed military that goes out of its way to recruit and promote women.
So again, because of that, from a logical perspective, if men have to sign up for the draft, why the hell should women be exempt?
I get that.
But not everything in life is a logical calculation.
And more importantly, while I believe that we should hold the left to their own standards and force them to take their own medicine whenever possible, we also can't be purely reactive.
We can't allow the left to determine our positions for us.
The human soul is a real thing.
Human beings have a soul.
In a more metaphorical sense, cultures, societies have souls.
And you forfeit your soul when you send your daughters off to die on the battlefield.
It really is that simple.
There are some things we cannot ever accept or acquiesce to, and this is one of those things.
So, some of the people on the right that say, oh yeah, just sign the women up.
It reminds me of the people on the right who also say things like, well, why should we object to abortion?
It's mostly Democrats aborting their own kids anyway.
You know, they want to wipe themselves out in that way, then we should just let them do it.
Well, I give the same answer to that.
You know, from a purely cold and calculating ends justify the means amoral perspective, sure, I understand the argument.
But that's not the perspective that we should actually adopt, because then, again, we've forfeited our souls.
We can't do that.
And if you agree to the murder of children, then you have forfeited your soul.
If you agree to have girls shipped off forcibly to fight in war, then you've also forfeited your soul.
Now, granted, there is no draft right now.
It seems kind of far-fetched that Well, that we'll have one anytime soon.
But it only seems that way.
And we are a country led by globalist stooges who profit greatly from war, which is why they're always looking to start a new one.
And so who knows what could happen?
But whether it happens or not, we cannot be willing to send our daughters off to die for us, even in theory, even as a hypothetical.
We can't be willing to do that.
I'm not willing to do that.
I mean, if they did force women to sign up, and if there was a draft, you know, these are all ifs, and if either or both of my daughters were military age at that time, we would leave the country.
I mean, I would give up America before I would give up my daughters.
We say America first, but it's worth keeping in mind that it's really God first, then family, then country, in that order.
Family before country.
My children before country.
Now, I also have four sons, and I will say that if the psychopaths running the country got us involved in some unnecessary war that has nothing to do with defending our homeland, I would also leave the country before I allowed any of my sons to be drafted into that.
I'm not sending them off to die for a globalist agenda.
You know, I'm not sending them off to die for some sake of, you know, some dispute that's got nothing to do with us and nothing to do with them or their families.
But they are boys, and they will be men.
So if the cause was right and just, if it was a war that we were actually defending America, then I would be very worried and very wracked with anxiety about it, but I would let them go off and fight.
It's the honorable thing for a man, and I would never try to deprive my sons of their honor.
But men and women are not the same.
We always come back to that.
And they're just simply not.
And that is a truth that we have to stand by, I think, at all times.
All right, let's briefly stay with the gender wars for this next one.
Daily Mail reports, it forms a lyric to one of her best-known songs, but Taylor Swift still managed to divide a largely partisan crowd while issuing the rallying cry to a sold-out Wembley Stadium on Sunday evening.
The pop superstar was performing the last of three consecutive shows in London.
When she started singing a song that includes a line about the patriarchy and she encouraged the audience to
Sing along. Let's let's watch that moment Okay, so there it is.
She had the crowd sing, uh, F the Patriarchy.
So brave, so brave of her.
Wow, Taylor Swift, who by the way has a net worth of 1.3 billion dollars.
That's how you know there's a patriarchy in this country.
You know there's a patriarchy when a woman can become a billionaire while singing F the Patriarchy.
You know, just like a general rule, if there is a patriarchy, Like, there would probably be consequences for running around and saying, F the patriarchy, and the consequence would not be a billion dollars.
No, there is no patriarchy in this country anymore.
Was there?
Did we have a patriarchy in the past?
Well, if by patriarchy you mean a society where men hold most of the leadership positions in most of the major institutions, If that's what you mean by patriarchy, then yes, we did.
Which brings me back to a question that I've asked before, and I always get in trouble for asking, which is why I just continue to ask it.
But none of the people who get upset by the question can answer it.
Okay?
And this is an opportunity just to ask it.
I'm going to throw it out there.
It's a challenge.
Okay?
Maybe I'm sort of known for asking questions.
One side doesn't love to answer.
So this is another one.
If you're one of these smash the patriarchy types, even though there is no patriarchy to smash anymore, but if that's you, answer me this.
Just this.
Can you name an institution in American life that functions better now that it is no longer led mostly by men?
Can you name an institution in American life that is better, that is improved, that is more competent, that is more effective, now that we've added a lot of female leadership to it?
Can you?
Just give me one example.
I just want one.
Because I'm agreeing with the starting point.
I think we all agree on the starting point, which is that not all that long ago, Pretty much every major societal institution was led almost exclusively by men.
That was the case up until modern times.
And then there was an effort, very deliberate effort, to get more and more women involved in leadership positions, and now we're at a point where Where, you know, a lot of, it's not just that women are involved in these institutions, but a lot of the institutions that used to be male-led are, it's been completely flipped, and now they're entirely female-dominated.
So, that process has happened.
I think we all agree.
The only question is, has it improved anything?
Okay.
Is there any, can you point to any success?
Can you point to any institution and say, well, thank God, thank God we got more women leading this one here because it's working a lot better now.
That's the question.
I'd love an answer.
Just, just give me, give me one.
It's not going to change my overall opinion on anything, but, but still, it would be nice to see if anyone can meet that challenge.
My dear Sweet Babies, I know you're all eager to show your undying loyalty to the gang, and let's be honest, you wouldn't want to disappoint.
So in my infinite wisdom, I'm offering you a new way to prove your allegiance, a brand new Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt.
As you know, I'm incredibly humble, so it was only natural to put my face on it.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash shop to get your Sweet Baby Gang tee today.
This Thursday night, we're doing something that might actually make a presidential debate watchable.
If you can believe it, Daily Wire Plus is simulcasting the presidential debate, but we're adding something crucial, sanity.
Watch a special live Daily Wire backstage for commentary from people who haven't lost their minds in the cesspool of modern politics.
Join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boring as we dissect this spectacle in real time.
We're starting at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern Time with a pre-show.
Consider it your inoculation against the nonsense you're about to witness.
During the debate, we'll translate the political doublespeak into actual English.
You're welcome.
And because we're gluttons for punishment, we're doing a post-show recap.
We'll break down what this farce means for America's future.
You can watch all of this on DailyWire+.
It's probably the only way to get through this debate without losing faith in humanity.
Don't just passively absorb the propaganda.
Watch it with people who will call it out for what it is.
Go to dailywire.com and sign up.
Don't make me tell you twice.
Look, if you're going to subject yourself to a presidential debate, at least do it right.
See you Thursday for Daily Wire Backstage at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern on Daily Wire Plus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now as you're probably aware, milk has been a lightning rod for controversy over the last
It wasn't always like this.
You know, back in my day, milk was a much simpler thing.
When I was a kid, we drank milk by the gallon.
Your mom would give you warm milk at night to help you sleep, even though I don't think there's any science behind that.
Maybe there is, I don't know.
Celebrities did advertisements for milk.
Not any particular milk brand, but just like milk in general.
It's like seeing an advertisement for bread.
Not for any brand, but just bread.
But we didn't question it.
We liked it.
We liked our milk and it was fine.
Then things got complicated.
First, the marketplace became flooded with other substances called milk, even though they're not milk.
We were lied to.
Betrayed.
Coconut milk, almond milk, soy milk, oat milk, on and on.
There's no milk in any of it.
These are not dairy products.
It's a scam.
I recently saw an advertisement for, this is a direct quote, Milked cashews.
Milked cashews.
They're claiming that they milked cashews.
I don't even want to know what they're doing to those poor cashews that they call milking.
All I know is that cashews do not have nipples or mammary glands.
So you can't milk them, you pervert.
But this is the complicated world that milk finds itself in now.
Then it got worse.
There was an active effort to problematize milk, to make it seem like something scandalous and evil.
It started, of course, with the vegans, who hate all that is good and beautiful in the world, including and especially dairy products.
And then outlets like the New York Times started running headlines like this, Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk, and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed.
PETA put out a PSA claiming that milk is a white supremacist symbol.
They point to a scene in Inglorious Bastards where a Nazi character drinks milk.
That's one of the reasons why it's a white supremacist symbol.
So now it's milk's fault if a guy who's pretending to be a Nazi drinks it?
I mean, milk just can't catch a break.
Which is why the headline this week from the Daily Mail should come as no surprise, quote, Now you probably aren't wondering what kind of connections there could possibly be between colonialism and milk, but I'm going to read this to you anyway.
Here's the Daily Mail, quote, A taxpayer-funded project is set to research connections between milk and colonialism.
It was revealed yesterday academics at an Oxford museum will research the political nature of milk and its colonial legacies.
One of the experts involved has previously argued that milk is a Northern European obsession that has been imposed on other parts of the world.
Dr. Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharpe said the assumption that milk was a key part of the human diet may be understood as a white supremacist one, as many populations outside Europe and North America have high levels of lactose intolerance in adulthood.
The new project, Milking It!
Colonialism, Heritage, and Everyday Engagement with Dairy, has won funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Well, they are certainly milking it, that's true.
We have to concede that much, I suppose.
The article, though, continues, The milk project will be based at the History of Science Museum in Oxford, which announced it had received funding.
The museum said, "By focusing on communities intersecting industry, aid and government
regulation, the project aims to center on heritage as a vital framework for understanding
how colonial legacies influence contemporary issues and affect people's lives.
Through Milk Diaries, archival research, and participatory podcasting, it will investigate
historical engagement with milk, building networks with consumers and producers in Britain
and Kenya."
The project will question both the imagined and real aspects of milk, revealing the intimate and political nature of this everyday substance.
Participatory podcasting.
Okay.
But another important stipulation that we just heard there, we have to separate the real from the imagined aspects of milk.
We must distinguish between literal milk and metaphorical milk, physical milk and metaphysical milk.
Metaphysical milk will be a great name for an experimental indie rock band, by the way.
One other important detail from this article, quote, Dr. Zetestrom Sharpe took part in a talk titled Milk and Whiteness during a Welcome Trust exhibition on milk in 2022.
In the panel discussion, she said a northern European obsession with milk has led to the assumption that it's a vital part of human diet.
And we already read that part, okay.
Now, of course, the idea that milk has a colonial legacy is almost certainly nonsense.
But it doesn't matter, because there's nothing wrong with colonialism.
If dairy spread through the world by way of colonialism, that would just be one more reason among many to be grateful for colonialism.
When responding to nonsense like this, we shouldn't make the mistake of implicitly affirming the left's use of colonial as a pejorative.
This is one of the great strategic mistakes that conservatives have made, and we make a lot of strategic mistakes.
This is one of them, is that we're willing to defend something against the charge of being colonialist when we should be defending colonialism itself.
We should be saying, oh, you think that's colonialist?
Well, great.
Thank you.
Thank you for the compliment.
European colonialism has been one of the greatest forces for good that the world has ever seen.
Billions of people today are living better lives than they would have lived had Europeans not colonized the globe.
The colonizers spread civilization, they spread the gospel, they spread innovation, they spread important ideas, such as the idea that you shouldn't murder your children to appease the sun god, that you shouldn't eat your enemies to absorb their life force.
Did the colonizers also spread dairy products?
I don't know.
But I'm happy to add that to the list of triumphs.
But this is all mostly beside the point.
Because the main takeaway from stories like this is that academia has been an aggressively useless institution for a long time.
Now, it wasn't always this way.
There was a time when academics worked on important societal problems.
They pondered the deepest and most important questions of life.
Seems hard to believe now, but there used to be actual insight and wisdom and useful revelations coming out of academia.
But those days are long in the past now.
Today, academics sit around with their heads up their own in each other's asses, inhaling their own fumes, trying to conjure up new examples of oppression and racism.
They say stuff like this.
By focusing on communities intersecting industry, aid, and government regulation, the project aims to center on heritage as a vital framework for understanding how colonial legacies influence contemporary issues and affect people's lives.
I mean, that one sentence is academia in a nutshell.
They find the most complicated way to say the dumbest things.
They no longer ponder the deepest mysteries of life.
Instead, they ponder why milk is racist.
And so many other things that are just as pointless, if not more.
And that is why they, but not milk, are today cancelled.
