Ep. 1403 - The Deafening Silence Of Academia And Corporate America After The Trump Assassination Attempt
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, many of the corporations and universities that are usually eager to speak up about current events and condemn violence have said nothing at all about the attempted assassination of the leading presidential candidate. Their silence speaks volumes. Also, California passes a law empowering schools to conceal a child's "gender identity" from their parents. Joe Biden speaks to the NAACP and it doesn't go well, of course. Supreme Court term limits could be on the horizon; I'll explain why that's a terrible idea. And, the head of the largest teachers union in the country gives a speech that is equal parts unhinged and meaningless.
Ep.1403
- - -
DailyWire+:
We are giving you a presidential discount. Get 47% off annual memberships now with code FIGHT: http://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get 10% off your tickets to “Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot” at http://angel.com/MATT
SWEET BABY GANG IS BACK. Buy the shirt: https://bit.ly/3zfUbZE
- - -
Today’s Sponsor:
Birch Gold - Make a qualifying purchase by July 31st and get a GOLDEN Truth Bomb! Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/WALSH
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN at http://www.ExpressVPN.com/WALSH
Responsible Man - Get 30% off, plus additional savings, at http://www.Responsibleman.com
- - -
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, many of the corporations and universities that are usually eager to speak up about current events and condemn violence have said nothing at all about the attempted assassination of the leading presidential candidate.
Their silence speaks volumes.
Also, California passes a law empowering schools to conceal a child's quote-unquote gender identity from their parents.
Joe Biden speaks to the NAACP and it doesn't go well, of course.
Supreme Court term limits could be on the horizon.
I'll explain why that's a terrible idea.
And the head of the largest teachers union in the country gives a speech equal parts unhinged and meaningless.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Saudi Arabia recently ended its 50-year petrodollar deal with the U.S., which has the potential
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, what happens to its value?
It's for reasons like this that I feel it's important to diversify some of your savings into gold, and you can do that with the help of Birch Gold.
Right now, qualifying purchases by July 31st are eligible to get a one-of-a-kind limited edition Golden Truth Bomb.
The only way to claim your eligibility is by texting WALSH to 989898.
Protect your savings by diversifying away from the U.S.
dollar with gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 and Birch Gold will help you convert Old IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
Right now qualifying purchases will get a limited edition golden truth bomb.
Text Walsh to 989898.
That's Walsh to 989898 today.
When authorities arrested the man who shot and nearly killed Ronald Reagan in March of 1981, he asked them a question.
He wanted to know whether the Academy Awards, which were scheduled to take place that same evening, would be delayed.
And ultimately, the answer was yes.
The Academy Awards were postponed for 24 hours.
Gregory Peck said the assassination attempt brought to mind the murders of the Kennedys John Lennon and Martin Luther King.
The producer of the awards called the shooting a tragedy.
Meanwhile, at the NCAA championship basketball game, 18,000 fans in Philadelphia held a moment of silence.
And when Reagan joked to his doctors, I hope you're all Republicans, his doctor, a liberal, famously responded, today we are all Republicans.
43 years after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump was nearly killed on live television.
And in the aftermath, as you've probably noticed, there has not really been any similar moment of national unity.
Entertainment venues aren't canceling events or holding moments of silence.
Doing the opposite, in fact.
A member of the gimmick rock band Tenacious D just told a crowd that he wished the assassin had killed the former president.
You've probably seen that video.
We played it yesterday.
The New York Times published a full-page spread claiming that Trump had betrayed America.
CNN and ABC criticized Donald Trump for using the word fight just moments after he was shot.
Kara Swisher made jokes about the assassination attempts on their podcast.
Listen.
There's ridiculous theories on both sides.
The worst on the right.
But I don't know if you heard, but right before Melania gave her public statement, she was heard yelling into a phone, you had one job!
Too soon?
Too soon?
I like a joke.
My favorite joke was from someone where they said, let's hope it's not a time traveler from the future who can't shoot.
It was something like that.
Anyway.
Oh, no.
The truth is, I mean, probably the most likely conspiracy theory is the Democratic You don't have this reaction to the presidential frontrunner nearly dying on national television just three days earlier, unless you're fine with it happening.
There's no other explanation for it.
Any normal, well-adjusted person who doesn't wish death on their political enemies, anyone who cares about the democratic system of government, is still shaken by what happened on Saturday.
But not Kara Swisher.
And they're not alone.
While a handful of tech CEOs from Apple to Amazon to Google did post condemnations of political violence, for the most part, from left-wing corners of society, there's been an outpouring of ambivalence.
Or outright disdain, not sympathy for the former president in the wake of the assassination attempt.
And there are a few different ways you can explain this disparity, this major shift from the 1980s to today.
How do we go from a country that came together across the political spectrum to mourn this kind of violence, regardless of politics, to a country where in some corners they don't really care about it or even endorse it?
That's an important question.
And a simple explanation, the one you'll often hear, is to say that we're living in a much more polarized political climate these days.
We're supposed to accept the idea that violence has simply become normalized because it's so polarized.
That's kind of the stock explanation you hear all the time, but it's not especially compelling because it overlooks the extent to which leftists, more than conservatives, accept and embrace political violence, even while pretending to condemn it categorically.
Consider who's been committing most acts of political violence over the past few years.
It's not conservatives.
It was BLM that torched cities and used car lots and churches and pharmacies, attacked Secret Service agents in the summer of 2020.
When Trump was inaugurated, leftists vandalized cars and businesses in the area.
A Bernie Sanders supporter shot up a congressional baseball game practice, nearly killing Steve Scalise.
It was a leftist who attacked the Family Research Council, supposedly because it was falsely classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The one major recent example we always hear of supposed right-wing violence is the protests on January 6th, which can only be understood in the context of the eight months of nationwide rioting perpetrated by leftists and endorsed by the Democrats that preceded it.
And of course, the only person killed on that day, January 6th, as you know, was a right-winger.
Additionally, on social media right now, you'll find many examples of leftists openly celebrating the attempted assassination on Trump.
It's kind of striking how comfortable many of these people are talking so nonchalantly about the attempted murder of a former president.
It's a window into what leftist discourse in places like San Francisco or Portland must be like.
Hatred for conservatives is so normalized, so commonplace, that they don't think twice about saying something that any normal person would consider objectively insane.
Something that would have obvious professional ramifications in most of the country, especially if a conservative said it.
It doesn't seem like we can just wave our hands and say polarization is the issue.
What we're seeing is something closer to dehumanization.
Many Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that their political opponents aren't human, basically, and don't deserve to live.
The other explanation you might hear is that Donald Trump is supposedly a uniquely bad guy.
He's going to end democracy with Project 2025 and so forth.
But this is not a satisfying explanation, either, for a couple of reasons.
Obviously, the premise is hysterical nonsense.
It's completely false.
Project 2025 is the Russian collusion of the 2024 election.
But even if you accept, for the sake of argument, the false premise that Donald Trump is this horrible dude, the logic still wouldn't make any sense.
Four years ago, pretty much every Fortune 500 company and government agency and university in this country mourned the death of a horrible human being by the name of George Floyd.
Pretty much every single LLC and nonprofit in the universe came out of the woodwork, to make that very clear.
Even the National Association of the Deaf recorded a video for BLM in sign language, lamenting, quote, black deaths at the hands of police officers.
Now, we play the footage, but there's no sound for obvious reasons.
In the non-deaf world, companies like Nike and Ben & Jerry's got involved also.
The National Funeral, as you remember, went on for months and cost billions of dollars.
Watch.
In Nike's new ad, the shoemaker is using its Just Do It brand to say what not to do.
Don't turn your back on racism.
Don't accept innocent lives being taken from us.
Today, country music band Lady Annabellum changed its name to Lady A, saying it recognizes the dark history behind the name and didn't take into account its connection to slavery.
They're examples of a cultural shift and racial sensitivities after more than two weeks of mass protests.
From Ben & Jerry's to Band-Aid, so far companies have pledged more than $1.7 billion to advance racial justice.
Now these same companies have not pledged a billion dollars towards ending political violence after Donald Trump was almost assassinated.
In fact, most of them have not issued any statements of any kind.
They haven't changed their Instagram profile pictures.
They haven't put out any PSAs.
They haven't said anything.
And it's not like these companies are in the habit of ignoring current events.
Usually, as we've seen, they are quite vocal about it.
Now we have one of the most historic current events that any of us will live through in our lives.
And we get silence in response.
Same goes for the major universities in this country.
As Chris Ruffo pointed out yesterday, quote, And that's true.
Elite universities publish an endless number of statements on Black Lives Matter, climate change,
Me Too, Stop Asian Hate, Ukraine, Hamas, but couldn't be bothered about the attempted assassination
of American president.
And that's true.
Universities that have become de facto political action committees are suddenly silent
when the most serious political assassination attempt of the century takes place on live television.
Now, for example, here was Harvard's statement in June of 2020, just for comparison.
Quote, "The Harvard community is deeply distressed "by the killing of George Floyd,
"or the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, "Tony McDade, and many more black Americans
"at the hands of those who have promised "to protect communities and uphold the rule of law.
"Black Lives Matter, we must use this moment "to confront and remedy racial injustice."
Now, to be clear, these are deaths that had absolutely nothing to do with Harvard's campus.
None of these people died anywhere near the school.
And Tony McDade apparently stabbed a guy to death and pointed a gun at a cop before getting shot.
It's all on body camera, but Harvard decided that Tony McDade was a martyr because Tony McDade identified as a transgender man.
And apparently, some news reports accurately describe McDade's gender, which bothered the faculty at Harvard even more.
So Harvard's more distressed by the so-called misgendering of a murderer than they are about the attempted murder of the leading presidential candidate and a former president.
Not to be outdone, back in 2020, Yale's Women and Gender Studies Department declared that they stand in solidarity with the protests against the murder of George Floyd and against state-sanctioned racism and racist police and civilian violence.
They warned that police violence against people of color, and especially black people, is a systemic foundational condition of the United States.
Foundational, but non-essential.
Now the Yale Women and Gender Studies Department, it will not surprise you to learn, has not put out a similar statement post-Trump assassination attempt.
Berkeley is also apparently unbothered by the Trump shooting.
That's a little conspicuous since Berkeley put out multiple statements about George Floyd.
In fact, in his statement announcing the murder of a Berkeley student named Seth Smith, Berkeley's chancellor still ended up talking about George Floyd even in that context.
That's how large George Floyd loomed on campus at the time.
He was bigger than the deaths of actual students at Berkeley.
Many of you may have had a close relationship with Seth and are feeling a sense of loss and disbelief.
Others, like many of us, are experiencing stress, grief, and anxiety related to the coronavirus pandemic and the recent murders of George Floyd, Rhea Milton, and other Black Americans.
The Chancellor actually wrote that as part of an email announcing a student's death to the campus.
So, Berkeley clearly sees enormous societal significance in the death of a drug addict 2,000 miles away, but they're not so concerned about the attempted murder of the leading presidential frontrunner and, again, former president.
Now I could go on listing pretty much every university and Fortune 500 company on the planet, but honestly we don't have time for that.
You get the point.
And the point is that all of these institutions either don't care about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump or they endorse it.
And it would be a mistake to conclude that federal government agencies like the Secret Service are immune from this trend.
If the Secret Service is ambivalent at best about Donald Trump's safety, then that would explain why they didn't have that rooftop covered less than 150 yards away.
That would explain why no one's resigned or been fired.
It explains why the Secret Service director made up some ridiculous excuse about how the roof was too slanted for snipers to sit on or whatever.
It would also explain why in the latest breaking news that I just saw from the Daily Mail, by the way, they're now saying that this guy was on the radar, this guy was on Secret Service radar, the shooter was, three hours, three hours before the shooting happened.
And yet, with three hours to act, they did not act.
And if Donald Trump was nearly killed, they're promoting the same unhinged rhetoric that they were before on the left.
Here, for example, was Joe Biden yesterday in a speech to the NAACP, stammering through a claim that Donald Trump wanted to send the National Guard after peaceful BLM protesters.
This, again, is yesterday, post-assassination attempt.
This is what he's saying.
Of course, ignoring all the violence and rioting and arson that was going on at the time.
Watch.
The pandemic was especially devastating to black communities.
Oh, I know.
In other countries, other communities of color.
That economic crisis drove up black unemployment, decimated small black businesses, and you peacefully protested George Floyd's murder.
Donald Trump called for the National Guard to go after you.
What the hell's the matter with this man?
No, I'm serious.
Go figure.
I'm a guy who spread the birthism lie against Barack Obama, saying he wasn't born in America and he wasn't a U.S.
citizen.
So this is what's changed since the 1980s.
There's now a large influential segment of the population that endorses political violence against their political opposition.
But for the most part, they won't admit it outright.
Instead, they're going to pretend that it's peaceful protest, as Joe Biden just did.
They're going to refuse to even mention what happened to Donald Trump, even as they mourn their fallen foot soldiers.
This is now the norm in the country that once mourned Reagan across party lines, across the whole country.
Now the left might not acknowledge that that's what they're doing, but that's all the more reason that we should call it out and prepare accordingly.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Going online without ExpressVPN, it's like leaving your kids with
the nearest stranger while you go to the restroom.
They're probably not a kidnapper or serial killer, but why would you ever take that risk?
Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, airports, etc., your online data is not secure.
Any hacker on the same network can gain access and steal your personal data, passwords, bank logins, credit card details, etc.
It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack somebody.
All you need is some cheap hardware.
A smart 12-year-old could do it.
Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal information on the dark web.
ExpressVPN stops hackers from stealing your data by creating a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.
It would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption.
Sounds complicated, but ExpressVPN is actually really easy to use.
I love ExpressVPN because all I gotta do is connect by firing up the app and clicking one button, and that's it.
Plus, it works on all my devices, including my phone, laptop, and tablet, so I can stay secure when I'm on the go.
Secure your online data today by visiting ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh, and you can get three months free.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
So I want to talk about this.
Probably won't spend a long time on it because I want to go into much greater detail about it in a monologue probably tomorrow, but it's worth mentioning ahead of time anyway.
KCRA reports, quote, California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a bill that prohibits school districts from having policies that require parents to be notified if their child identifies as transgender.
The passage of Assembly Bill 1955 comes after several school districts across the state put parental notification policies in place.
Some of those policies have been challenged in court.
The law prevents districts from requiring staff to disclose a student's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student's consent.
It sparked heated debate at the Capitol this year.
Assemblymember Chris Ward, Democrat, said, politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, non-binary, and other LGBTQ plus youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California.
That's just nonsense, by the way.
That's simply not true.
That's just made up.
Politically motivated attacks on... Well, I'll put it this way.
That's meant to imply that there's violence happening.
Politically motivated attacks.
And if you read it that way, which is how they want you to read it, it's completely false.
There has been no rise in physical attacks motivated by hate or politics.
On, quote-unquote, the LGBTQ community, quote-unquote.
But, you know, they leave it vague enough that they say, well, a politically motivated attack is just what I'm saying right now, they would call a politically motivated attack.
Just words, a point of view expressed is a politically motivated attack.
So that's how they get away with making claims like that.
Anyway, he says, while some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family.
As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.
Okay, but even if I agree that loving my child for who they are means affirming whatever their so-called gender identity is, which I don't agree, But if I did, how can I love them in that way if I don't know who they are according to you?
I mean, according to your logic, if your child, right, if your daughter identifies as a boy, then you have to love them by accepting that your daughter is a boy.
Well, again, adopting your logic for just a second, How can that happen if the parent doesn't even know about that identification?
So how can you simultaneously tell parents to accept that their children are trans while also preventing them from knowing that their children identify as trans?
So this contradiction is by far not the most important problem with this law, but I do think it's worth mentioning.
Here's more from CBS in Sacramento.
Listen to this.
This has been a hot topic.
As we know, we've been reporting on it for months.
It's not just here, but across the state.
Rockland Unified, we know one of those local districts facing legal action over their notification policy.
But those I talked to today say despite the governor's signature, this fight is far from over.
It's a first in the nation law.
The governor bans policies that require teachers to tell parents if their child asks to change their gender identification.
For months, LGBTQ rights advocates rallied outside board meetings, much like this one in Rocklin, against the policy.
Well, I think with the governor signing AB 1955, it's actually going to just cause more confusion.
Confusion led to chaos at times between politicians.
I will do her out of order.
You're out of order, you're disparaging the House.
Sparking this heated exchange between parties debating the bill last month, Republican Assemblymember Bill Esteli's microphone cut mid-sentence.
Okay, so we are here today because the proponents have said that school districts have passed dangerous parental notification policies.
Rockland Unified is one of at least six other districts in the state that tried passing similar policies.
Many met with legal challenges.
And while it's being praised as a way to protect LGBTQ students from so-called forced outings... If parents aren't supportive of their children, then the children shouldn't have to tell the parents.
Now, we can just stop it there because that is insane.
I mean, I hope you all appreciate how insane that is.
I'm sure you do.
I'm sure you appreciate it.
Any parent certainly appreciates how insane that is.
Think about what that woman just said, right?
If the parents won't support a decision, then children shouldn't have to tell the parents about the decision.
That's what she said.
Nothing dangerous about that mentality, is there?
Hey, kids, if your parents don't approve of you doing something, just don't tell them.
Hey, kids, if your parents won't approve of what you're doing or saying, then that means you shouldn't tell them at all.
No, it doesn't mean don't do it.
It doesn't mean, you know, talk to your parents and figure out why they feel that way.
No, just keep it a secret in that case.
I mean, if you wanted to come up with a message that is the most likely to do the most harm to the most children, I can't think of any message more effective towards that end.
So what's the point of this law?
It's obviously first and foremost designed to protect the indoctrinators in the school system, protect the teachers from accountability, because now they can indoctrinate children into gender ideology without having to worry that the parents will find out about it.
It's also yet another way to erect a boundary between the parent and the child.
Weaken and ultimately sever the bond between the child and parent.
You know, because when there are secrets that the child keeps from the parent, secrets that are shared with other kids and even other adults, but not the parent, that has the effect, the very much intended effect, of essentially making the parent obsolete in the eyes of the child.
Right?
Because then the child says to himself that, you know, basically he goes to school and lives a whole different life.
I mean, a whole different identity that the parents don't even know about.
And so the parents are, they're not even relevant.
They're not relevant to what he considers his real life to be.
And worse than obsolete, the parent in that case is an outsider, a threat, someone to hide from and guard yourself against.
I mean, think about... Every part of this thing is so insidious.
But let's just start with the name.
The name of this law.
Safety Act.
Okay, when you hear, and there's been plenty of laws, federal, state, that have the word safety in them, right?
Whether they have anything to do with safety or not, it's just one of those things.
You hear that and you think, well, safety is good.
We want safety.
But think about what they're applying it to in this case.
Safety.
So we're doing this for the safety of the child.
Well, so who is threatening the child's safety in this case?
The parent.
We're telling the kids, for your own safety, don't tell your parents.
Your parents are a threat to you.
That is the message coming straight down from the governor's office now to these kids.
It is pure evil.
And it's the kind of thing that we have to keep it ever present in our mind that this is what we're dealing with, right?
This is, you know, we talk about the sides.
I mean, the other side.
This is what they support.
Pure, unbridled evil.
There's one other point about this.
Like I said, we'll be talking about this in more detail later this week.
So, kind of an overview.
You know, the other really important point, which I've made before but I don't think is brought up nearly enough, is this.
That both the left and right agree on one thing when it comes to this topic.
Right?
We agree that trans-identified kids are at a much higher risk of suicide than kids who are not trans-identified.
I think we both agree on that.
Now, the left sometimes trots out statistics that I think are rather inflated, and it's the kind of thing that it's hard to quantify statistically, but every study that we've seen, any attempt to tabulate these sorts of statistics, they've all come to the same conclusion, that trans-identified kids are a high-risk group for suicide.
They are higher than Kids who are not trans-identified.
And so again, I think we all agree on that point.
And so that means that California has just empowered schools to hide a child's high-risk status from his own parents.
If a child is at a high risk of suicide, the parents, the first line of defense against a child committing any kind of self-harm, because they're the ones who live with the child, They're at home with the child, but with this law, the parents won't know about it.
So leave everything else aside for a moment.
Right?
No matter what you think about gender ideology, transgenderism, it doesn't matter.
This is reason enough to not just inform parents, but to require that they be informed.
This is reason enough.
Whatever else you might think, the fact remains that parents need to know if their child is in a category that puts them at a high risk for self-harm.
Parents need to know that for the child's safety.
They call it the Safety Act.
For the child's safety.
Parents need to know that.
So what happens when you have the first child who identifies as trans, Starts having suicidal ideation.
You know, maybe there's a teacher, there's some counselor at the school that would like to inform the parent, feels morally obligated to, but doesn't because they're legally barred from it.
And then that child goes on to tragically hurt himself.
Like, what happens then?
Well, we know the answer.
Nothing happens.
Politically, anyway.
These people aren't going to accept any responsibility, no matter what happens.
And we know in particular when it comes to the sky-high rates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide among trans-identified people, kids in particular, that no matter what, those tragic cases are always going to be used against conservatives.
That's always going to be our fault, no matter what.
Even though we're the ones saying, To a child who is struggling with these thoughts, the first thing I would say to the child is, you have to talk to your parents.
That's the first thing.
Anyone who goes to a kid and says, oh, don't tell your parents about this.
You and I can talk about it, but don't tell your parents.
This is a secret between you and me.
Anyone who does that, any adult who does that, cannot be trusted.
That's not just a red flag.
That's a parade of red flags.
Okay, as mentioned earlier, Biden spoke to the NAACP yesterday.
It feels kind of pointless to even make any real note of this at this point, but still, I can't help but note that the speech was a disaster.
So here's a quick highlight reel that was posted by the account AGHamilton29 on Twitter.
I don't know if they made the video or not.
That's where I found it.
And here it is.
Watch.
I know.
I thought you'd say, Joe, you may not have a Congress.
Well, guess what?
Y'all told me I couldn't pass the Inflation Reduction Act.
Y'all told me I couldn't face it.
Anyway, we did it.
We're going to bring rents down.
As I said, we're going to build 2 million affordable homes and cap rent increases of 5% a year.
So corporate landlords can't God.
Anyway, I don't want to get going.
I'm going to get very upset, but there's gouging America, by the way, not only saves lives, it will save taxpayers.
Just what I did on the first round on dealing with Medicare, it saves the taxpayer one If you're keeping track at home, that is three times in one speech when he stopped mid-sentence because he forgot what he was in the middle of saying.
The Republicans are destroying democracy.
Here's the evidence.
Number one.
Anyway.
I'm not going to go there.
What do you mean you're not going to go there?
You're giving a speech about it.
I don't even understand what's happening here.
I mean, neither does Biden, obviously, but what I don't get is he's on prompter, isn't he?
Are they sending him out there to give memorized speeches?
Is this some sort of brain exercise they're trying to get?
The wheel's turning again?
Is that what's happening?
I assume not.
I assume he's on prompter, so how can you forget what you're saying when it's right in front of you and you're reading it?
But this is senility, so it's no mystery, and Democrats are stuck with it.
There's no getting out of it now.
Like I said a couple of days ago, the effort to replace Biden is done, and I think we've seen that pan out over the last few days.
You haven't really heard anything about it.
There will be no more calls for Biden to step down.
And who could they even replace him with at this point?
They're not going to find anyone that would want to step in in the middle of this.
No way.
All right, here's a joy read at the RNC last night.
Listen.
Universal kind of reaction that I'm getting, whether it's civilians or, you know, professionals, is really a deep concern and lack of confidence in not us at this table or us at MSNBC, but us as the media writ large.
And a fear that what's going to happen now is that the Republican Party will do what they do.
They're in the middle of a campaign.
The convention started today.
But the media will acquiesce.
To trying to convince people that the things they've been experiencing for the last, you know, five, six years didn't happen.
That the greatest purveyor and promoter of political violence really, you know, since anyone can remember, since George Wallace, I think, you know, that we just haven't experienced that kind of open, you know, sort of inciting or sort of incitement of violence or sort of luxuriating
in the idea of violence.
It's just not something we're used to anymore in American politics.
And then we had to get used to that being a thing.
And people are concerned and expressing concern that we won't be the guardians of memory and
that we will allow Donald Trump, as he is, you know, bathed in the glory and grandeur
of his party, to rewrite himself as both a hero and a victim, that people who are the
most vulnerable to not just the things he's done, but the things he's promising to do.
And that that will then happen without a guardian saying, wait, stop.
And then the media will acquiesce to this rewrite.
So that's actually very interesting, and not for the reasons that she intends, but it is very interesting.
How does she describe the media?
She says the media must be the guardians of memory.
Now, leave aside the flowery, absurdly self-inflated, overly dramatic view that she has of herself and her profession and her colleagues, the way that she wildly overestimates her own importance.
We're used to that from the media.
They are the guardians, she declares.
Because she imagines herself in, like, a superhero cape, hands on her hip, you know, standing on the rooftop, overlooking the city like Batman, right?
Cape blowing in the wind.
The guardian.
That's how she imagines herself.
But listen to what she sees herself as the guardian of.
Memory.
The guardian of memory.
And this is why I like someone like Joy Rita.
Well, I'm not going to say like, that's a strong term, but this is why at times she is useful, because she's attempting her best, she's doing her best, doing the best she can to be a propagandist, to be a good little propagandist.
She wants to avoid saying anything that resembles the truth, and usually she's able to navigate that.
But every once in a while, while trying to propagandize and avoid the truth, she accidentally says something that is quite revealing, and this is one of them, that in the media they see themselves as the guardians of memory.
They are the ones who decide what we remember and how we remember it.
Which, I know I don't have to tell you, that is not actually the media's job.
If you're a journalist, your job is just to tell us what's happening, which we know most journalists do a terrible job at that.
Well, most journalists aren't even trying to really do that in the first place.
But in theory, that's your job, is to tell us what's happening in the world.
Because we can't be everywhere all at once, and so we're depending on you to be our eyes and ears.
That's the theory anyway.
But preserving a memory?
That's not...
That's not the media's job.
Telling us how to remember something, what we should remember of the things that have occurred?
No.
And that's one of the many reasons why they are quite panicked right now and quite distressed.
Because not only do you have Biden already falling apart, but he has fallen apart completely.
He's just a jumbled mess of a... He's barely glued together at this point.
What happened on Saturday is a moment that will be remembered.
And it will be remembered primarily, especially in history, in the years to come, it'll be remembered primarily through that one now iconic photograph.
And that's what people will remember.
That's not what the Joy Reads of the world want us to remember about Donald Trump.
That they want us to forget.
Don't ever think about that again.
They've worked very hard over the years to, like, you know, they've got Donald Trump, he's doing and saying stuff all the time, and they pick and choose certain things and say, well, no, this is the stuff about Trump you're supposed to remember and think about.
And some of it is totally invented, some of it isn't, but this is what we want you to remember about him.
And then Saturday happens, and this is something that everyone's going to remember, and they're quite panicked about it.
All right, moving on to this.
We might actually do five headlines today on the five headlines.
This might be the first time.
This is historic.
This might be the first time in the history of the show when five headlines will include five.
We're at three now, I think, so let's see if we can get through the next two.
I don't know.
I don't want to call it ahead of time.
We'll see what happens.
Washington Post reports, President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits For the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He's also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional office holders.
All right.
I just want to focus on this term limits thing for a second.
This is what he's going to call for, allegedly, is term limits for the Supreme Court.
This is a truly awful idea.
I mean, it's a terrible idea.
And it's the kind of idea that sounds good if you don't think about it for more than five seconds.
But if you do, you'll realize that it will make all of the things we don't like about the Supreme Court worse.
So whatever problem you see on the Supreme Court, if it's a real problem, this will not solve it.
This will just make that problem worse.
And what is the big problem on the Supreme Court?
Well, the big problem is when the justices make political decisions.
When they decide a case not based on the constitutional merits of the arguments, but on the politics of the situation.
Not every justice does that.
Not every decision is politically motivated.
In fact, there have been decisions that were made in total defiance of the politics.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is the number one example of that.
Definitely not a political decision.
It was made simply because it's the right choice.
And when you're assessing this case on the constitutional merits, Roe is a disaster, and it's a farce, and it needs to be overturned, and so they did.
But when bad things happen on the court, it's because they're acting as political entities, as political actors, not as justices.
So, the question, does a term limit mitigate that problem?
Well, no, of course not.
It makes it significantly worse, because now the Supreme Court is not the end point of your career, it's a step towards something else.
The justices will, you know, in a term limit world, they're going to soon be out in the world again, looking for their next gig.
That will make them more political in their action.
It will ensure that they take politics even more into account.
I mean, think about this.
You're going to have Supreme Court justices, if there's term limits, whose ultimate plan is to run for president.
What then?
What happens when you have Supreme Court justices with aspirations to run for political office in five years or ten years or whatever?
Would you be able to trust anything they do, any decision they make, with that as their ultimate goal?
Of course not.
But this is obviously a feature, not a bug for the left.
You know, I am describing this maybe somewhat naively as the big problem with doing term limits for the Supreme Court.
But for them, that's the point.
I mean, they hear this and they think, well, yeah, exactly.
That's exactly why we want term limits.
Because then these people are much easier to control.
Then our threats mean a lot more.
Then we don't even have to send angry mobs to their houses and put their lives in jeopardy.
Because now they're going to be out in a few years, and hey, if you want to have any career outside of this, you know, you better stay within the boundaries that we set up for you.
That's what it's all about.
That's why they want term limits, is to make, it is not to make the court less political, but to make it much more political than it already is.
Okay, we are gonna do it.
We're gonna get to headline number five.
And it's a very important one.
The singer Ingrid Andress performed the anthem at the Home Run Derby the other night.
And it was so bad that she checked herself into rehab the next day.
So the next day she sent out a message saying that she was drunk while performing the anthem, and that's why it was so bad.
And, you know, there was a lot of, like, people that were upset.
And so she said that she's going to check herself into rehab, which, if she has a problem, it's obviously a good thing that she's getting help for it.
I'm not looking to pile on or anything here.
Actually, I have a point that I want to make about this, but in order to make the point, we need to listen to the performance.
And here it is.
Oh, say can you see By the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed By the twilight's last gleaming
Whose broad stripes and bright stars Through the perilous fight
Oh Look, it's better than I could have done.
It's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night.
Look, it's better than I could have done.
I'll say that.
In fact, I will say that it's not even the worst anthem performance we've heard.
It's really middle of the pack, because we've heard much worse.
And that's because the anthem is actually very hard to sing.
It's a very hard song.
You're singing acapella, usually.
It's not a pop song, right?
Like, this song wasn't written to be catchy, necessarily.
It's not written to be performed on karaoke night at the bar.
It's a tough song.
I think.
I'm totally tone-deaf, but it seems like it'd be a tough song to sing.
And so I always feel bad for the people who bombed during the National Anthem, and I'm always shocked that anyone accepts that gig in the first place, because it's so... I mean, your chances of failure are so high.
Your chances of living on in infamy as one of the worst National Anthem performers is, like, rather high.
Um, which is why I'd like to propose this.
Because we've seen far too many cases of people butchering the anthem, often through no fault of their own.
They try their best, but it's just terrible.
Now, this woman was drunk, she says, and, you know, so that's part of it.
I think that's probably only a partial excuse.
Let's be real about that.
Whitney Houston, in her prime, she could have chugged three liters of red wine and nailed the anthem anyway.
Because if you're a great singer, I think booze probably won't stop you.
You know, most people are not great singers.
Even most professional singers aren't great singers.
Most of them are decent, pretty good.
Most of them are not great.
Then there's somebody like me who has the singing voice of like a dying grizzly bear.
So most people are just not cut out for this racket, I would say, which is why I would suggest, I would propose that we appoint, let's say, and I'm serious about this, I think we should really consider it.
We should appoint, let's say, And I'm just pulling this number out of thin air, but let's say five official anthem singers.
And there will be term limits on this office.
This is not a lifetime appointment.
Let's, I'll call, and I'm just, again, spitballing here, but let's say a 10-year appointment.
We appoint five singers, and this is the, whatever, the National Anthem Squad.
We'll think of a better name, but, you know.
And they handle all the anthem duties during their tenure.
If the anthem needs to be performed, and I know you might say, well, there's no way if you have five singers, they can't be at every place where the anthem is being performed.
Any nationally televised event that begins with the anthem, as they all should, by the way, will be handled by one of these official anthem singers.
You know, I started thinking about this idea kind of as a joke, but then as I thought more about it, I thought, well, that's, we should really do that.
And the National Anthem is, it's sacred to us.
It is our national anthem as Americans, and it should be treated as such.
And so we can have a voting process, it's like a, you know, a giant, it's like American Idol, basically, but much more important.
And we select our five, and they're appointed, and we vote, and those are the people.
They can do it.
If you do have a bad performance, if something like this happens, you go out there drunk and you completely bomb, we have impeachment proceedings that we can resort to if we need to.
Just an idea.
Something for us all to think about.
248 years ago, on July 4th, 1776, 56 men signed their names to a promise of a better future.
This month, Responsible Man Vitamins is honoring these brave men with their first-ever $17.76 sale.
For a limited time, try the Responsible Man Multivitamins for just $17.76.
That's over 30% off, plus an additional $10 savings for July only, while supplies last Listen, most men's health products suck.
They're either too woke or made for your grandpa.
What you need is the new Emerson Multivitamin from Responsible Man.
Take charge of your life and your responsibilities.
Become, as Teddy Roosevelt said, the man in the arena who strives valiantly.
Now more than ever, our country needs strong and good men, and that starts with a simple daily discipline added to your morning routine, the Emerson multivitamin.
The multivitamin is robust and made with 33 key ingredients that help to support your immune system, sharpen brain cognition, and support heart and muscle health.
It's made in America and even comes in a badass black tin.
This July, let Responsible Man help you live up to the legacy of the courageous men
who have come before us.
Visit responsibleman.com, take advantage of their 1776 sale,
get your first order of multi-items for just 1776.
That's over 30% off, plus an additional $10 savings.
It's the best price they've ever offered.
That's responsibleman.com for their 1776 sale.
The 2024 election is coming, and the left is hell-bent on destroying everything that makes this country great.
At The Daily Wire, we are not just whining about it, though.
We're actually doing something.
And now, we're giving you the chance to join the fight.
Here's the deal.
We're offering a 47% discount on annual Daily Wire Plus memberships.
Why 47%?
Because we're backing the guy who's going to be the 47th president.
It's not complicated.
This isn't some Feel good discount.
This is your opportunity to access real, unfiltered, conservative content that actually tells the truth.
Something that mainstream media seems allergic to.
With this membership, you get it all.
Shows that don't pander to the woke mob, podcasts that make you think, and news that isn't sanitized by leftist ideologies.
Go to dailywire.com and use the code FIGHT at checkout to get 47% off with our presidential deal.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we are reaching back into ancient history,
all the way back to July 9th of 2020.
Now, you might say that it's only a week ago, but in social media time, it may as well be half a century, especially given what has transpired in the meantime.
Be that as it may, we have to talk about this for no other reason than I think it's funny.
And I saw this while I was away on vacation last week.
I made a note that I wanted to make fun of it.
I literally texted that note to myself along with the link.
Make fun of this next week.
And if I make a note to myself, I have to follow it.
So I'm going to stick to the plan, come hell or high water.
When I promise to mock something, I will mock it.
That is my solemn oath.
So, Becky Pringle is the president of the National Education Association.
She gave the keynote address at the NEA annual convention last week.
Now, I didn't watch the speech, apart from the short clip I'm going to play in a moment, but from what I understand, it was mostly the sort of left-wing claptrap that you would expect from the Teachers' Union president.
But she got a little bit worked up as she spoke, and that led to this moment at the end of her speech.
We are the ones who hold steadfast to the belief of the plausibility of the possible.
We are the heirs of all who did this work before us.
We must keep going!
NEA delegates, we can do this work.
We must do this work.
We get to do this work.
We will do this work because our students are depending on us to win all the things.
NEA, we have to win all the things.
All the things!
All the things!
Our colleagues are depending on us to win all the things!
Keep going NEA!
To preserve our democracy, we must win all the things!
All the things!
Delegates, we won't go back!
We will keep going forward because we are the NEA!
We are the NEA!
We are the NEA!
And that's what we do!
Thank you, NEA!
Thank you, I love you!
So as you can see, a triumphant, exhilarating speech, clearly inspired both in tone and content by the two great orators of our time, Kamala Harris and Dwight Schrute.
So she begins by declaring, and I quote, We are the ones who hold steadfast to the belief of the plausibility of the possible.
The plausibility of the possible.
Now, many critics of this speech have said that this statement makes no sense, but that's not true.
It does make sense.
It just doesn't mean anything, okay?
It makes sense, but doesn't mean anything.
There's no actual thought or idea being conveyed here, even though the words do basically fit together and form a legitimate sentence.
So you can listen to that and say, well, that's a sentence.
That's a human English sentence that a person could say, sure.
This again is the Kamala Harris strategy, and it's what distinguishes her brand of incoherence from Joe Biden's.
Because in Biden's case, the words don't fit together at all, and oftentimes the words aren't even real words.
So it's pure gibberish.
But Harris, she's more interesting.
She uses real words, and she combines them in grammatically valid ways, but it all amounts to nothing.
And same in this case.
The plausibility of the possible.
Technically speaking, possible things are plausible, right?
I mean, something is possible if it could potentially happen.
Something is plausible if it's credible or reasonable.
So you might say that if something could potentially occur, then it's reasonable to believe that it could potentially occur.
So a possible scenario is also a plausible scenario.
There's no logical contradiction, but there also isn't any substantive message being communicated.
There's no reason to say it.
Okay, there's no point.
It's just a thing that she said.
She might as well have stood up there and declared, Now, that isn't wrong, exactly.
Big things are large, sure.
But it also isn't any kind of insight.
It isn't anything at all.
And from there, we're told that the Teachers' Union members are heirs to those who did this work before them.
Therefore, they must do this work, they can do this work, they get to do this work, they will do this work, they will work to do this work, because the work they're doing is work that must be worked on.
And why?
Well, because they have to win all the things.
Which things?
The things.
How many of the things?
All of them.
Not most of the things, no.
No, no.
Not 95% of the things.
All of the things.
That's what Becky Pringle has declared.
And she has declared it loudly and confidently and heroically.
What exactly is she declaring?
Well, she's declaring her declarations.
Indeed, she holds steadfast to the belief that declarations must be declared.
Now, although there is nothing at all being said here, we can still learn something, or at least we can have what we already knew reinforced.
Which is that our schools are being run by the shallowest, most vapid people who've ever lived.
I mean, we focus so much on the ideological and political bias and indoctrination in our schools, and for good reason.
That is the most significant problem plaguing the education system.
It is the thing before anything else that ensures that I will never send my kids to public school.
But the second biggest problem, and not necessarily a very distant second, is the total intellectual bankruptcy of the people in charge.
And that clip in many ways encapsulates the whole public school experience.
It drags on, feels like it will never end, and by the end of it, you aren't sure what the point of it even was.
There's one other thing to notice in this speech.
She says that one of the reasons that they must win all the things, whatever the things are that must be won, they must win them all, is because it's what is necessary in order to preserve our democracy.
Now, you might say that's just another slogan that she randomly tossed into this buffet of vacuous platitudes.
And for the most part, that's all it is.
On the left, the word democracy has come to mean all the stuff we want.
So to preserve our democracy, therefore, is to get all the stuff they want rather than the stuff they don't want.
But if we were to look for any deeper meaning, which is perhaps a fool's errand, I think the deeper meaning would be this.
The left supports democracy When, and only when, it results in left-wing policies and helps to fulfill left-wing goals.
So it is not democracy itself that they're so fond of, but rather the kind of culture and country that democracy might create.
And this is why they say, for instance, that a ballot measure that protects so-called, quote-unquote, abortion rights is a win for democracy, but Trump being elected president is somehow an attack on democracy.
They're both democracy, but one is the result they want and the other isn't.
So democracy is a means to an end.
And on the left, nothing has any value unless it is a means to an end.
What does this have to do with the schools?
Well, it has everything to do with the schools.
By indoctrinating the next generation of Americans, they can preserve democracy in the sense of ensuring the results they want.
They can control the democracy by shaping the people who participate in it.
That's what she means.
It's the only thing she said in that speech that means anything.
And it is the reason, above all other reasons, why the public school system should be totally abandoned.
And it's also why the Teacher's Union president, Becky Pringle, is today cancelled.
