Ep. 1410 - Cleaning Out The Homeless Encampments Just In Time For The Election
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, California begins to clean out the homeless encampments just in time for the election. It's about that time when guys like Gavin Newsom temporarily pretend to care about the well-being of American families. Also, the media and Hollywood continue to dogpile JD Vance for his (completely true) comments about "childless cat ladies." Kamala Harris makes a play for the drag queen vote. And Kris Tyson, longtime collaborator with Mr. Beast, first "transitioned" into a woman and now has been accused of inappropriate conduct with minors. What a shock.
Ep.1410
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get tickets to Backstage LIVE at the Ryman, August 14! https://bit.ly/46igytS
Celebrate Christmas in July and gift a membership for 25% off! Use code JULY at checkout. http://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
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
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.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 Wall Show, California begins to clean out the homeless encampments just in time for the election.
It's about the time when guys like Gavin Newsom temporarily pretend to care about the well-being of American families.
Also, the media on Hollywood continue to dogpile J.D.
Vance for his completely true comments about childless cat ladies.
Kamala Harris makes a play for the drag queen vote, and Chris Tyson, longtime collaborator with Mr. Beast, First transitioned into a woman and now has been accused of inappropriate conduct with minors.
What a shock!
We'll talk about all that and more today in the Matt Walsh 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?
Well, 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 an IRA 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.
Imagine being a homeless guy in the state of California.
For most of the year, you're untouchable.
You can sleep completely naked right outside of an art gallery, and if the gallery owner sprays you with a hose to get you to move, he's the one who gets arrested, as happened recently.
The district attorney will issue statements about how unhoused folks have the right to sleep wherever they want, wearing or not wearing whatever clothes they want.
On top of that, the state provides millions of free syringes to help facilitate your drug habit, complete with quote-unquote safe injection sites that function like open-air drug markets.
Plus, the weather's always nice.
So, generally speaking, as a homeless person in the Golden State, you have it pretty good, you know, all things considered.
But every once in a while, on a dime, California's government completely changes its approach.
It's quite a role reversal.
Politicians suddenly become the schizophrenic ones themselves, and they decide without any warning that all the homeless encampments have to be dismantled.
They hose down the sidewalks themselves, they clear the place out like it's Tiananmen Square, and they issue statements about the importance of orderly streets and ending the scourge of lewd behavior in public libraries.
You might remember that this is what happened late last year when the leader of China's Communist Party, Xi Jinping, visited the Bay Area.
Ahead of the visit, Gavin Newsom ordered a crackdown on homeless encampments and drug markets, and he admitted he was only doing it because Xi Jinping was in town.
"Anytime you put on an event, by definition, you know you have people over at your house,
you're going to clean up the house."
That's what he said.
Effectively, Gavin Newsom was admitting that California's decline is a choice.
The only reason they have so many homeless people, more than any other state by far, is that they tolerate it.
In an instant, Gavin Newsom can make it all go away.
Now, somebody might have answered Newsom by pointing out that, yeah, you want to clean up your house for guests, but you also want to keep it orderly and clean for the people who actually live there every day.
But Xi Jinping eventually left the Bay Area, so the homeless people filed back in, started doing meth and defecating on the sidewalks again, just like old times, as if they'd never been interrupted.
That continued until yesterday, when once again, out of the blue, Gavin Newsom decided to put an end to it.
Watch.
Breaking news this morning.
We're hearing from Governor Gavin Newsom after he issued an executive order that directs local authorities to begin dismantling homeless encampments.
KTLA's Omar Lewis live now in Hollywood with those details.
Omar, good morning.
Jessica, good morning.
Yeah, that executive order from the governor is aimed at dismantling thousands of homeless encampments just like this one here on Hollywood Boulevard this morning.
The move follows a landmark Supreme Court decision which gave local leaders greater authority to remove homeless encampments.
Okay, so you hear in that news report that the reason that California is suddenly able to clear all these encampments is that the Supreme Court recently allowed them to do it.
That's a reference to the Grants Pass case, which was decided a few weeks ago.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to prevent homeless people from camping out on public property, even if there's no shelter they can go to.
Obviously not.
Newsom himself made the same argument in a video posted to social media.
He said that he's been doing everything he possibly can to clear out the homeless and now that the Supreme Court has given him the green light, he can finally go forward with it.
Watch.
I don't think there's anything more urgent and more frustrating than addressing the issue of encampments in the state of California.
Over the course of the last number of years, the state has stepped up, where in the past we provided no support, no resources to cities and counties to clean up encampments like this.
Today, we've invested now over $1 billion in encampment resolution grants, not only to clean up sites like this, but to address the underlying issue in the first place.
One of the big issues, though, that has been an impediment ...was the courts.
In the past, the courts have denied the ability for local government, including the state, to clean up many of these encampments.
Today, I announced an executive order to move the process forward.
We're done.
It's time to move with urgency.
Now before we go any further, it's important to give credit where it's due to the extent that you can.
Solely on the merits, Gavin Newsom's order is obviously the right thing to do.
The homeless have no right to make our communities into unlivable garbage dumps.
The idea that they have the right to behave this way and to destroy communities is insane.
They have no right to do it.
As unpopular as it is to say, for the most part, the homeless are not mere victims of circumstances.
These are not always, but very often, aggressive and dangerous vagrants who actively make our communities unsafe.
And in many cases, again, not all, they are homeless because they have decided to live their entire lives around, revolve their entire lives around their drug habit.
And that's all that matters to them, and they couldn't care less about you or your family or what they're doing to you.
So there's been a huge excess of sympathy for these people, but not nearly enough anger at what they're doing to our cities and the people that are allowing them to do it.
So it's a good idea for Newsom's administration to file a brief at the Supreme Court during the Grants Pass case on the side of the city against the homeless encampments.
And it's good that Newsom is sticking with that position.
Now, at the same time, what Newsom is doing is also disingenuous.
And we know that because his excuse, blaming the courts for hamstringing him until now, doesn't really make any sense.
First of all, he was able to clean out the homeless encampments just a few months ago for China's president.
No court stopped that.
Additionally, for well over a decade, Gavin Newsom has been vowing to end homelessness in California.
And courts in California didn't say it was cruel and unusual punishment to evict homeless people from their encampments until 2018.
So, what was the excuse pre-2018?
Newsom's gonna need one because as far back as 2008, he was saying that he would end chronic homelessness in San Francisco by building more houses.
He said that was the solution to chronic homelessness, not clearing encampments.
And he said it again and again.
Watch.
What we call a 10-year plan to end chronic homeless in San Francisco.
How are you going to solve homelessness?
What are you going to do as a new mayor?
And I said, well, what are you going to do?
Focus on a housing first model, direct access to housing.
Shelter solves sleep.
Housing with wraparound and support services solve homelessness.
Homelessness absolutely can be solved.
We've laid out a detailed homeless strategy.
There's been no intentionality on homelessness in this state for decades.
It's not been a focus.
I don't think we can solve homelessness.
I know we can solve homelessness.
We will reduce street homelessness quickly and humanely through emergency action.
The highest investment the state's ever made is $1 billion on homelessness.
We are poised To pass a budget in the next few hours that will provide $12 billion of investment.
I can literally quantify 58,000 people that we got off the streets last year and none of you would believe it.
The state has not made progress in the last two decades as it relates to homelessness.
Why?
We're not interested in funding failure.
We're not interested in failing more efficiently when it comes to the issue of homelessness and the crisis on the street.
So, Newsom said that shelters solve sleep repeatedly for several years.
I've talked about this before on the show, but it bears repeating because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
People in shelters still need to sleep.
Shelters do not solve sleep.
But apparently Newsom thought it was a compelling catchphrase.
Started saying it in 2008.
He was saying it as late as 2014.
It was the line that Newsom used to justify spending tens of billions of dollars to fix chronic homelessness.
And his strategy didn't work, as this chart clearly demonstrates.
Homelessness in California has only increased in the past decade.
The courts in California didn't cause this.
At least, they didn't cause it on their own.
It's a product of a few things.
Mainly, the state's refusal to prosecute and imprison criminals.
It's encouragement of drug use and the glut of NGOs and law firms that work full time to keep these people on the street and destroying communities.
It's true the Supreme Court's ruling makes it easier to clear homeless encampments, but that ruling is not why Newsom is suddenly reversing course.
He's reversing course because Democrats are now realizing they have to pretend to care about the basic security and safety of American communities if they want to win in November.
It's pretty telling that they only care about crime and homelessness during elections and if foreign dignitaries are visiting.
I'm kind of reminded on a smaller scale of some of my teachers in public school growing up.
The ones that were really awful and incompetent and angry all the time and shouting.
But they suddenly became chipper and on the ball and had great activities for us to do and were teaching us when it was the parent day to visit.
So it's a similar phenomenon here.
Last November Newsom sprang into action because he got a call from Xi Jinping.
Maybe this time he got a call from Kamala Harris.
And that would make sense because right on cue, Harris is also acting.
More like a centrist Republican in some ways than the most liberal senator in Congress, which is what she really is.
She's even disavowing rioters.
The woman who raised bail money for BLM thugs is now claiming to be appalled by vandalism and political violence.
After her silence on Wednesday that we talked about, Harris posted this statement on social media on Thursday, quote, Yesterday at Union Station, we saw despicable acts by unpatriotic protesters and dangerous hate-fueled rhetoric.
I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas.
Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.
I condemn the burning of the American flag.
The flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America.
Now obviously everything she says there is true, but like Newsom, she's saying it for transparent and cynical reasons, which will immediately become null and void the moment the election is over.
You'll notice that nowhere in her statement does Harris mention the police officer who was violently dragged on the ground at Union Station yesterday.
She also doesn't demand any kind of accountability.
She doesn't call for an FBI dragnet like the one that happened after January 6th, which she has compared to 9-11 in Pearl Harbor.
That's noticeable because in this case, Harris is effectively the sitting president.
She has the authority to order the DOJ to create a sedition and conspiracy task force, like the one the Biden administration oversaw on January 6th.
Harris could ensure that every single one of the vandals and rioters yesterday is hauled to prison, just like the grandmothers from January 6th were.
She could ensure consequences for the rioters who raised a foreign flag a half a mile from the nation's capital.
That would ensure that nothing like this ever happens again, but she's not doing any of that because she understands that those rioters are her voters.
They are her base.
She can whack her finger at them, and that'll tick them off.
There are a lot of leftists who are upset with that statement, but she's not going to actually do anything to them.
We're seeing this kind of faux moderation all over the place.
It's the same reason Democrats are pretending that Harris was never named the border czar.
They know that she was put in charge of the border for the sole purpose of making sure it stayed open.
The corporate press, including the entirety of left-wing media, reported on that at the time.
But they know that open borders don't play well in the general election, so now they're pretending she had nothing to do with the border.
Now, you'd think that if the left thought that their position was tenable in the election, They would play this differently.
You know, Harris would come out and say, hell yeah, I was in charge of the border, and I opened it for everybody.
America is an idea, remember?
And everyone has a right to participate in this idea.
Isn't it great?
She's not saying that, though.
Instead, she's disavowing the whole mess, and the media is helping her.
Now, along the same lines, they're reacting with outrage that conservatives are calling Kamala Harris a DEI hire.
They're claiming this is a right-wing conspiracy theory to make people afraid of the DEI boogeyman.
But they know that Joe Biden explicitly limited his VP search to women, and they know that just a few months ago, Biden publicly called Harris a DEI hire himself.
Watch.
To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion, are literally, and that's not kidding, the core strengths of America.
That's why I'm proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country and starts at the top with the vice president.
So, he said, I mean, it's always hard to understand what he says, but he says there, to me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion, D-E-I, are literally the core strengths of America and starts at the top with the vice president.
I mean, he said that she's the very embodiment of D-E-I.
That's him talking.
Now Democrats are pretending Joe Biden never said any of that.
They're pretending they never demanded that Joe Biden pick a black woman during the summer of George Floyd.
But there are obvious signs of weakness here that Republicans can exploit.
Democrats understand that their policies simply aren't popular among normal people.
They understand that nobody wants rampant homelessness, or DEI hiring, or unchecked illegal immigration.
Or rioters who wave terrorist flags while assaulting police officers.
They understand that leftist policies actively make people's lives worse.
They actively destroy the well-being of millions of people in ways that are so obvious that we don't have to twist ourselves into knots to explain it.
Whereas on the other side, of course the left will claim that conservative policies destroy American lives.
When you look around, you don't see, well, how is this destroying anything?
So they have to really come up with abstract ways to say, oh, well, this is ruining your life in this way.
But in the reverse, it's quite obvious.
Leftist policies when it comes to homelessness, like if you live in a community run by a Democrat, if you live in a Democrat-run city, I don't have to tell you why their approach to homelessness is making your life worse.
You just walk outside your house and you can see it.
And that's why, with just a few months to go until the election, Democrats are pretending to disavow all of those things.
And they'll do this, you know, they do this all the time before elections.
Normally it works.
This time, though, they're saddled with the single least authentic politician imaginable.
Kamala Harris, of all people, is trying to convince Americans that she's tough on left-wing rioters and illegal immigration.
She's using Gavin Newsom's stick with a fraction of his charisma.
And the reason Democrats are panicking right now, as they look at the polls, is that they realize Most people can see right through it.
it.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing to create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
So we've talked this week about the conversation surrounding the fact that Kamala Harris is childless and how that reflects on her and what it says about her.
We've talked about it, but we should note that the conversation has been driven almost entirely by people who are mad that we're talking about it.
It's been about 5% people like me discussing it and 95% people on the other side who are angry that we're talking about it.
And a lot of the anger has been directed at J.D.
Vance, who three years ago, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, ...said that the Democrat Party is run by childless cat ladies.
He wasn't even specifically talking about Kamala Harris.
She's one of the people that's an example of that, but this is a general observation of the Democrat Party.
So this was said in 2021, but today lots of leftists are pretending to be really upset about it.
And now Jennifer Aniston has jumped into the fray.
CBS News reports, quote, Actress Jennifer Aniston hit back at Republican Vice Presidential nominee J.D.
Vance for past comments he made about lawmakers he described as childless cat ladies.
She said on a post on her Instagram, "I truly can't believe this is coming from a potential
VP of the United States. All I can say is Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate
enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a
second option because you're trying to take that away from her too." Okay, so Jennifer Anderson
has chimed in. She's far from the only feminist to rant about this.
It's all over the place this week, as I noted.
And I just want to say a few things here, and I'm not going to rehash the point about why it's bad to have childless people running the country.
We've already established that.
But let me just make a couple of points, of other points that I think are worth stating.
First of all, people like Aniston are being intentionally obtuse about this.
I think everyone understands.
Anytime this subject comes up, we deal with this.
But I think everyone understands, even if they pretend not to, that when we talk about childless cat ladies, quote-unquote, we're talking about people who choose to not have children.
Not people who can't have children.
Obviously, if you can't have kids, that's not any kind of character flaw.
It's not a reflection on you in any way.
I feel very sorry for people who want to have kids but can't.
I have a lot of sympathy for that.
We're not talking about... It's obviously not a... There's no judgment to be made about someone who can't have... If you can't have kids, you can.
You physically can't.
Now, there are other... You could adopt, which is a great vocation.
Or, as I've said many times, you know, I think every woman has a maternal calling, every man has a paternal calling, and for most that is going to take the form of biological parenthood, but not for everyone.
For some it will take the form of adoption, and for others it might take some other form entirely.
But the point is that we're all called to serve as a man in a paternal role, as a woman in a maternal role.
So that's my position.
I think that's the position of most people who talk about this on my side of it.
And the issue is not people who can't have kids.
I think every honest person understands that.
It's just not who we're talking about or to.
The issue is people who can have kids but go through great lengths, and sometimes even murderous lengths, like killing their own children, to not have them.
And the birth rate is declining dramatically, like we talked about yesterday, not because, you know, people can't have kids.
Now it's true that infertility is rising, sperm counts are dropping, that's a big problem, but that's not at all the main thing driving the plunge in the birth rate.
What's driving it are people making choices.
And I think that collectively, when people choose that they don't want to participate in the repopulation of the planet and the propagation of the species and creating families, that's a bad thing.
It's bad when people make that choice, especially when they make that choice on a wide collective scale.
So, that's the first thing.
So it just really annoys me in general.
You know, you get so used to this, but people who intentionally miss the point, people who get hung up on like specific exceptions that, well, you're making this general point, but you know, I'm an exception because of this.
Okay, well, if you're an exception, you're an exception.
Good for you that I guess I'm not talking about you.
What are you getting upset about?
Well, I'm an exception to what you're saying because I can't have kids.
Well, okay, well then you're an exception that I'm not talking to you or about you.
No reason for you to be upset in that case.
JD Vance was not talking to you or about you, obviously.
One other thing, and this is more of a general point, but we keep hearing that this talk about how Kamala Harris is childless, other criticisms of her lifestyle and her character, pointing out that she slept her way to the top, which she did, calling her the DEI candidate, which she is, making jokes about her, which some people have done.
I'll admit that even I have done a few times, made some jokes about her.
We keep hearing that this is going to alienate female voters.
Like, half of my feed on Twitter right now is conservatives lecturing other conservatives and telling us that we need to stop saying these things about Kamala because it's making women voters sad.
And women voters won't vote for Trump if we keep saying these things about Kamala that happen to be true.
In order to win women voters, we're told we need to stop saying true things about this woman.
Because women voters hate true things, we're told.
And they can't stand jokes.
There's also a lot of, like, pearl-clutching about jokes that are being made.
Oh, if you want to win women voters, you can't make these jokes.
You can't make jokes.
People ruthlessly make fun of male politicians all the time.
You never hear anyone say, you can't make a joke about this politician, he's a man, and men will be sad if you do that, they won't vote for you.
No one ever says that.
Name me a politician on the national level who has not been ruthlessly made fun of.
Name me a male politician.
On the national stage, who has not been ruthlessly mocked, mostly by people on the other side of the aisle from him.
Can you name you one?
I mean, Donald Trump is not gonna be an example that helps you, will he?
So then Kamala Harris comes along and we make jokes about her and suddenly, oh no, you don't make jokes.
This is, well, you can't do that.
So what, we have to treat her, it's like she's special?
We have to treat her as a special case?
Is that what you're saying?
Um, female politicians, we have to give them special treatment?
Oh, don't say that.
No, don't treat her like other po- she'll- that- we don't- no, let's- This is the claim.
The claim is that there are female voters out there, lots of them, supposedly, who would vote for Trump, but now they won't because they're mad about mean tweets sent by- not even by him, but by his supporters.
Even though most of those mean tweets are actually completely accurate.
Now, if you're saying this about female voters, you are the one infantilizing them.
You are treating women like they are stupid, overly emotional children.
Because, frankly, you would have to be a stupid, overly emotional child to actually vote against a candidate who you otherwise would vote for because you're mad about tweets and jokes from other people on Twitter.
Like, to make a decision, to make a voting decision that way is insane.
It's not just stupid, it's crazy.
Okay?
It's, like, suicidal, politically.
If you're a competent adult, you would not make this.
It wouldn't even occur to me to actually, like, there's someone that I am gonna vote for, I support them, and then I see mean stuff from someone who's not even them, and I'm like, well, I'm not gonna vote for them in that case.
That's crazy!
That would be a crazy way to make a decision.
But here's the thing.
I don't have that low of an opinion of women.
And I'm not going to treat people that way.
I am not going to infantilize people that way.
I just won't do it.
I won't.
I don't think we need to walk around on eggshells and completely change the way we talk about politics and have always talked about politics for thousands of years just to suit women voters.
I don't believe that.
I don't know any women like that.
I don't know... None of the women in my life would ever make a decision at the ballot box based on... They would never go through that thought process.
They would never say, oh, I really support this person.
I support their policies.
I don't know, some of the people that support them are kind of mean.
I've never known a woman who would make a decision that way.
So, look, I'm not trying to pull the, you know, you're the real sexist card, okay?
I'm not saying that exactly, I'm just saying that the idea that women are voting based on this kind of stuff is just, I mean, it's incredibly, it is demeaning.
I don't know how else to put it.
And I'll say this too, that if there are any women out there, or any men, if there are any people out there who are that shallow and ridiculous, then they aren't reachable.
Okay?
Like, if there are voters out there who the only way to reach them, the only way you could potentially reach them is to just, uh, is to, like, avoid entire topics.
The entire facts about a candidate you can't even bring up because it's gonna... If they're that shallow and ridiculous, then really they aren't reachable.
Like, those are voters you just can't reach.
You have to write them off.
And I say this in general, that like... Look, I mean, there are plenty of dumb people out there, we know that.
Men and women alike.
But...
At a certain, to a certain level.
If someone is so dumb, there's a certain level of dumbness that you just, you can't, you gotta just write that off.
You can't appeal at that level.
Because if you do, then you risk alienating all the other people who you can reach.
So, there's a certain level where you just have to say, alright, well look, if that's how you're making your decisions, I can't, nothing I can do for you.
I don't know.
The problem, you're the problem then.
I can't do anything about it.
And I'm not saying that Trump himself should go out and go around saying, you know, the fact that Kamala Harris slept away to the top as a DEI candidate, I'm not saying that that should be Trump's primary argument against her.
It shouldn't be.
It's her policy, the policies that she supports and what a disaster they are for American families.
That is the argument.
But at the same time, these are other facts about her that are just true.
And the idea that we shouldn't talk about them and can't mention them, while every negative thing about Trump is dredged up for everyone to see, I just, sorry, that's not how the game's going to be played.
And I just don't believe The idea that treating Kamala Harris with those kinds of kid gloves would somehow succeed in appealing to all these other voters who are reachable, I don't believe it.
I think that's bull****, is what I think.
And I think the people saying that, you're not saying it because you think this is how Republicans are going to win, it's because you don't want Republicans to win.
So I think you're full of ****, is what I think.
Now, here's something that Should concern female voters, though.
Kamala Harris appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race yesterday, and let's watch that.
Hi, everyone.
It's Kamala Harris.
Each day, we are seeing our rights and freedoms under attack, including the right of everyone to be who they are, love who they love, openly and with pride.
So as we fight back against these attacks, let's all remember, no one is alone.
We are all in this together, and your vote is your power.
So please make sure your voice is heard this November and register to vote at vote.gov.
Can I get an amen?
Amen!
Now on with the show.
And remember, you better vote.
OK, so there you go.
I mean, there's something that you should care about if you're a woman or a man.
The Democrat Party supports the degradation and appropriation of womanhood.
In fact, it supports the erasure of womanhood as a category.
So there's something you might think about, something worth caring about as a woman voter.
Again, men should care about it, too.
But like as a woman in particular, I would think the fact that one party thinks you don't exist They reject your biological existence.
Kind of a big deal, isn't it?
I would think.
So, what's worse?
A party where some people make crude jokes about a woman politician?
Or a party where nearly everyone in it denies that you exist as a biological entity?
I mean, what would you rather hear?
Mean jokes?
Would you rather hear mean jokes Or exist.
Okay, what's worse?
Let me put it this way.
What is worse?
To hear a mean joke or to not have your existence recognized?
What's the worst fate?
Now, I guess one advantage of not existing is that you won't hear the mean jokes anymore.
So, you know, is that the logic?
I don't know.
But You know, I would think that this is a rather salient point and something that women voters might think about.
In fact, just to go to my classic move here, I mean, all the Democrats out there saying that Kamala Harris might be the first woman president, there's a question they can't answer.
You know what it is.
What is a woman president?
What is that exactly?
A what president?
What kind of president was that?
A woman president?
What do you mean by that?
I don't know what you mean.
She's the first president.
What is that?
Is that some kind of woman?
What is that?
Is that Spanish?
I don't know.
What is that word there?
I don't know.
What does that word mean?
Can you tell me?
You can't.
Okay?
So if you're a woman independent voter and you're trying to decide you don't know, well, just keep in mind that the side that has put up this woman, potential woman president, they can't even tell you what that means.
And it's worse than that because it's not that they don't know, it's that they do know, they could tell you what a woman is, but they have decided for ideological reasons to pretend that you don't actually exist.
I don't know.
I know I'm a man, and I'll admit that there are many aspects of the way the female mind works that I find mysterious, even as a man who's been married and has six kids.
But I do think that there are certain things that we should all be able to relate on, and one of them is that Like, it's really important that your political leaders are willing to acknowledge that you physically exist.
And if you have political leaders who won't acknowledge that and feel like they can't because they're ideologically beholden to, you know, this crazy idea, well, that's a real problem.
Let's talk about something not political.
Here's something good.
Big news.
Good news, actually.
Way outside the realm of politics, although I'm sure someone could find a way to politicize it.
Southwest Airlines is doing away with its open seating policy that's loved by loyalists and loathed by others.
The airline announced on Thursday that it will begin assigning seats and offering premium seating, marking a major departure from one of the airline's most famous practices.
The company's updates also include plans to redesign the boarding model and introduce red-eye flights.
Southwest says the decision to assign seats came after conducting extensive research on customers' needs.
Quote, the airline said in a press release, quote, the airline has been known for its unique open seating model for more than 50 years, but preferences have evolved with more customers taking longer flights where the seat assignment is preferred.
So they're going to get rid of, you know, it's a big, big change.
And it's good that they're making this change.
It's about time.
The free for all method of boarding needed to change.
There was just too much equality on a Southwest flight.
That's the problem.
I, that's why I never flew Southwest anymore.
I used to, and I stopped flying it because Too much equality.
I hate equality.
Equality is not what you want.
In fact, when you find equality imposed in this really artificial way, it's almost always bad.
And so what happens on Southwest?
It's a metaphor for society.
They're imposing equality.
What happens is everyone gets an equally crappy seat on Southwest.
No Comfort Plus.
No First Class.
And I like for the plane to have a bit more of a hierarchy, I'll admit.
That's the way it should be.
So if you want to pay to have better seating, you should be able to do that, in my opinion.
Although I will say that back when I did fly Southwest, I got very good at making sure that nobody chose the middle seat next to me.
There's a real, there's an art to that.
You can argue that One of the benefits of open seating is that there is some strategy that comes into play.
It makes the boarding process maybe a little bit more exciting.
And, you know, you pick your seat on the end or the aisle or window and then you have to wait as the C-group people start boarding.
The dregs of humanity in the C-group, the rejects and mutants in the C-group, You know, once those people start coming on, you just know when they're coming.
They start lumbering on the C group.
You're like, oh great, here comes the C group.
And these are all the, they're going to be all the middle seat people.
And you have to protect the middle seat next to you so you have more room on the flight.
So I would just, you know, I just glare at people.
And I have the advantage of always looking angry anyway, even when I'm not.
So when I want to look angry, I think I can kind of really dial it up.
And you just glare at people when they walk on.
And you just mutter under your breath as they're walking past you, like, don't.
Don't do it.
Don't sit here, you son of a... It usually worked.
And if you have to pull out the big guns, you can always start eating an onion bagel with cream cheese.
That'll scare people away.
But now you don't have to do that anymore on Southwest.
You can just pick your seat like a civilized person and board and have your seat.
All right, moving on to a little bit back to politics, unfortunately.
This is I just, I can't ignore this kind of thing.
I have to at least mention it, even though there's not much to be said about it.
Really, more evidence that the media simply has no shame at all.
So listen to this from Politico.
Quote, "The Secret Service was already facing its biggest crisis in decades following the
narrowly avoided assassination of Donald Trump.
Now it has a major new task, protecting Kamala Harris not just as the sitting vice president,
but as the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
And the security risks facing Harris are indeed greater simply because of who she is, as a
woman and a person of color."
And the agency is almost certainly taking that into account.
That's according to Jeff James, who worked in the Secret Service for 22 years and resigned in 2018 after rising to the rank of Assistant Special Agent in Charge.
Over the course of his career at the agency, James served on President George W. Bush's protective detail and pitched in from time to time to protect Trump while he was in office.
James is now the president of Capital Security Consultants, a firm that provides risk assessment and security training.
I think you'd be surprised, he said.
Quote, how many people in 2024 still have a very closed mindset and think the president should be a white Christian male and anything outside of that is unacceptable?
Yes, in case you're wondering, this article was written in July, in July, it was written on July 25th, yesterday.
So this is, as it's mentioned in the opening paragraph, this is after Trump was shot in the head.
After an actual assassination attempt on a white Christian male politician.
Politico ran an article claiming the real threat is against black women.
After a white Christian male is shot in the head, they tell us that white Christian males are the safest ones of all.
This is the kind of Just erasing a very recent history that you find with the media, and there's going to be so much more of it.
And so much more of it that will always take the form, of course, of demonizing white males.
Because that's what we're really going to see.
For all the talk about how women are being supposedly treated so badly during this election, no, it's going to be white men who are demonized and scapegoated, like it always is.
It's always white men.
In the mainstream of society, the institutions that control everything, media, Hollywood, government, If any group specifically is going to be demonized, it's going to be white men and nobody else.
Those are the ones.
Okay, you might see mean Twitter comments about other groups sometimes, you might see, but that's always on the fringes.
It's always voices that you could just not listen to and it wouldn't matter.
There's always voices you like, if that annoys you, you can block them on Twitter, you'll never hear them again.
Because they're not anywhere else.
The powerful voices in society, the ones that you can't just block, unfortunately, okay?
If they're gonna demonize and scapegoat a group, it's always gonna be white men.
And again, nobody else.
Which is why, not to bring us back to the beginning here, but, you know, we hear so much about how Republicans need to appeal to women, and they need to appeal to black voters, and they need to appeal to Hispanics.
And yes, yes, you want to appeal to all those groups.
You want to appeal to all voters.
Right?
Everyone's vote counts.
You want every vote you can get.
And yes, you want to appeal to all those groups.
But no one ever says, no one ever points out that, oh, you know what?
You also need to appeal to white men.
You should also appeal to them.
Not only should you appeal to them, but that is your base.
That is the group that will actually decide, Republicans, whether you win or lose in November.
Trump will win if he can mobilize white males, especially in the key states.
That's how he wins.
That is actually the group that will decide.
If enough of them are mobilized to go out and actually vote for you, you'll win.
But it's so, things are so insane that you can't even point that out without it being, it's somehow controversial to even say that, even though we know it's all true.
We all know it's true.
And meanwhile, Republicans, they will specifically They'll put out specific appeals to black voters, Hispanic voters, women.
And when I say specific appeals, it means like, they'll go out, they'll give speeches, they'll say, oh, this is what I'm going to do for black Americans.
This is what I'm going to do for Hispanics.
This is what I'm doing for women.
You know, I love black Americans.
I love Hispanics.
I love women.
They will say that.
They will say that explicitly.
Fine.
No problem with that?
The problem is that they will never say that, ever, about white men.
You will never hear one of these Republicans get up and say, oh, you know what?
And also, white men are extremely important to this country.
They've built much of this country.
We need white men.
We support white men.
White men are demonized so much, unfairly.
And if you're a white man, I want you to know that I want your vote.
You know, I disagree with the ways that you have been demonized and scapegoated.
It is unfair.
It's wrong.
I want you to vote for me.
The Republicans will not say that.
They will not say that.
And you cannot tell me that, oh, well, it's because we don't want to play identity politics.
They're doing it with every other group, though.
They will specifically name every other group except that one.
Their main group.
Democrats don't do that.
They know who their base is.
Right?
They know who they need to mobilize, and they will specifically, by name, make appeals to that group and say, we want you, we want your vote.
Republicans won't.
And it is, again, suicidal.
And, like, what are you worried about?
Are you worried if you say that, that the media is going to attack you and call you racist?
Yeah, well, they're going to do it anyway.
And let them try that.
That would be a great news cycle for, you know, if Trump were to come out and say, white men, white men are great.
Help build this country.
We want their vote.
They should not be demonized.
If he were to say, yeah, yeah, the media is going to turn around and say, oh, look, he's talking to the Nazis and the white supremacists.
Let them try to pull that card.
Because then we can easily point out, oh, you're saying we're not allowed to even acknowledge the existence of white men?
Is that what you're saying?
That's an easy argument to win.
So, I don't know.
With all this talk we hear about every other group and what we have to do to appeal to them and how important they are, like, you know, there's one other group out there that exists and that will determine the election in many ways.
It's okay to acknowledge that.
In fact, it is not okay to not acknowledge that.
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes.
Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted.
If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement.
Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000, or visit the website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000, or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
After more than two years, Daily Wire Backstage Live is making its return to the legendary Ryman Auditorium.
August 14th, join us live in our hometown of Nashville, Tennessee.
One night on one iconic stage with one incredible opportunity to witness Daily Wire history in the making.
I'll be there along with Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavin, Jeremy Boring, and a whole lineup of surprise guests.
Trust me, you don't want to miss this, so here's the catch.
The Ryman only holds about 2,000 people.
This will sell out.
It's been two years since our last Backstage Live at the Ryman, and who knows when we'll do it again.
So go to dailywire.com slash Ryman.
Grab your tickets now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
You know, part of being a thinking person as opposed to an automaton
is the capacity for self-reflection.
We aren't goldfish.
We don't have to live moment by moment.
We could take a step back and analyze what we were saying or what we were thinking a long time ago, and then we could take a look at how things have turned out.
Do the results align with what we thought they'd be?
If not, maybe it's time to reassess our ideology and our worldview.
If we were horribly wrong about, say, trusting a certain person, then we should use that experience to inform how we trust other people going forward.
But if our past thoughts do align with reality, if we predicted that someone would be a horrible father and a narcissistic manipulator, and they ultimately turn out just as we expected, then it's a clear sign we're on the right track.
When we can spot evil and malicious people from a mile away, even when everyone else is claiming there's nothing wrong, then we can say with a high degree of confidence that our ideology is the right one.
It's steering us in the right direction.
Everyone telling us to shut up was, in the end, knowingly or not, complicit.
We should never listen to them again.
That brings me to a monologue I did about a year and a half ago on the so-called gender transition of the social media celebrity Chris Tyson.
If you're not familiar with Tyson, it's probably because you're over the age of 30, but Tyson is a 28-year-old man who worked alongside the YouTube star Mr. Beast for more than a decade.
Mr. Beast, real name Jimmy Donaldson, of course, is extremely popular, to put it mildly, has more subscribers than any other account on YouTube at over 300 million, which is more than Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and the Disney Channel combined times two.
That's just his YouTube channel.
Mr. Beast also has more than 100 million followers on TikTok, where he's one of the top three accounts.
And the vast majority of these followers are kids.
And most of the videos that Mr. Beast uploads are, you know, pretty kid-friendly, pretty innocuous, reality TV-inspired fluff.
They have titles like, I built 100 houses and gave them away, and if you can carry a million dollars, you can keep it.
These are generally age-appropriate, kid-friendly videos, even if they are a little hyperactive, overstimulating, often rather vapid and obnoxious, but, you know, unobjectual for the most part.
A little over a year ago, the content began to change.
The subject matter stayed the same, but Chris Tyson began wearing women's clothing.
He changed his name to Ava, started identifying as a woman.
Tyson claimed all these changes were somehow for the benefit of his family, including his wife and young son.
He pretended he was doing the right thing.
But as I said at the time, that was obviously a lie.
First of all, of course, people can't change their sex.
That's the basic problem.
But even if people somehow could change their sex, it's too late to do that once you start a family.
The window has closed.
At that point, you're affecting other people, people you have an obligation to support and to raise.
That's in addition to friends and business partners and everybody else.
So a father and husband transitioning, quote-unquote, is doing something so wrong, so twisted, so evil, that even if he did actually possess the supernatural power to become another sex, he would still be morally wrong for doing it.
As it happens, though, he is both morally and factually wrong.
He should not transition.
He also cannot actually transition.
Chris Tyson, by renouncing his manhood to fulfill his fetish, rejected all of his obligations to everyone in his life who depended on him, starting with his wife and his kids.
And so, inevitably, he destroyed his family.
His marriage fell apart, his wife left him, he began posting disturbing content online, including a photograph of his two-year-old son wearing heels, with the caption indicating that his son had, quote, chosen to slay this morning.
Tyson's fetish was so clearly an illness, a depraved one, that it began to negatively impact Mr. B's channel as well, through constant media attention.
But through it all, Mr. Beast endorsed what Chris Tyson was doing.
He also attacked anyone who solved a problem with any of it.
He called any of the criticism of Tyson transphobic and bigoted.
And as a result, Tyson's narcissistic transition sent the message to millions of impressionable children that his behavior was somehow normal and acceptable.
And the thing about lies is that the more absurd and unbelievable they get, the harder they are to sustain over time.
And so predictably, this week, this particular lie has come crashing down around Mr. Beast and Chris Tyson.
There are new allegations that Chris Tyson sent sexually inappropriate messages to a minor.
Now he's been fired from Mr. Beast's channel.
As the New York Post reports, YouTube star Mr. Beast has broken his silence on the allegations of a grooming a minor against his former co-host Ava Chris Tyson.
Tyson, 28, this week announced that he's quitting the popular channel after he was accused of sending inappropriate messages to a then 13-year-old when he was 20.
In turn, Mr. Beast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, said that he will no longer be working with Tyson.
Before I go any further, I have to note that in that article from the New York Post, I changed it, but actually they refer to Chris Tyson repeatedly as a she.
So they're still affirming this guy's delusion.
We're at the point where major media outlets in this country are disregarding one of the most fundamental tenets of biology, not to mention grammar, in favor of legitimizing the fetish of a failed father who's now accused of grooming children.
This is something we have to call out whenever we see it because of how absurd it is.
It's not possible for people to transition.
Overwhelmingly, when this happens, it's a symptom of autogynephilia, which is when males are sexually aroused by the thought of being women.
They are identifying as women, not because they actually think they are women, but because they get a thrill out of pretending to be.
And that is not something that merits changing the English language or throwing out the entire concept of human biology.
And when a man sacrifices his family in pursuit of this desire, he should be judged harshly for that.
But apparently the New York Post disagrees.
In the first part, Mr. Beast wrote on Twitter, quote, Over the last few days, I've become aware of the serious allegations of Ava Tyson's behavior, and I am disgusted and opposed to such unacceptable acts.
During that time, I have been focused on hiring an independent third party to conduct a thorough investigation to ensure I have all the facts.
That said, I've seen enough online and taken immediate action to remove Ava from my channel and my company and any association with Mr. Beast.
I do not condone or support any of the inappropriate actions.
I will allow the independent investigators the necessary time to conduct a comprehensive investigation And we'll take any further actions based on their findings.
Now, some of the allegations involve alleged inappropriate messages sent on Snapchat that contain, among other things, sexual innuendo.
And apparently one of the alleged victims, who uses the name LavaGS and who's now 20 years old, has written that Chris, quote, never did anything wrong and just made a few edgy jokes I was never exploited or taken advantage of.
That's what this person claims now.
But another individual has come forward and alleged that Chris Tyson did indeed prey upon quote-unquote him when he was 15 years old and he was doing unpaid work for Chris.
The second alleged victim also claims that Chris made Lava GS sign an NDA and may have paid him off.
Watch.
Chris Dyson from Mr. Beast used me, manipulated me, and did very inappropriate things with me while I was about 15 years old.
I was actually friends with LavaGS at the time, who is the main victim of Chris that everyone has been talking about these last few days, who claims he isn't a victim, but we all know he is, and we all know he probably got paid off.
Not only that, but he's also under an NDA from when he worked for MrBeastGaming for two years, and he tried to get me to join MrBeastGaming himself, Lava.
He's the one who actually sent me the contract and tried to get me to sign the NDA.
He would also frequently bring up sexual topics that was definitely not appropriate to bring up around 15, 16 year olds, especially with him being like, I don't know, 20, 21 years old.
He would even go as far as linking me several different corn and hentai videos throughout the time of me talking with him.
Now, obviously, I'm not in a position to verify or refute any of the specific accusations here.
I have no specific information, one way or another.
There's been no court case, no jury has found that Chris Tyson did something inappropriate, much less illegal with minors.
In his own defense, Tyson has said that he, quote, never groomed anyone, but he also wrote that he apologizes, quote, to anyone I have hurt with my unacceptable social media posts, past actions, and to those who may feel betrayed by how I used to act online.
So he's saying he's denying it, but he's also apologizing for doing unacceptable things.
He's also leaving the door open to more accusers.
He's also, again, not really denying most of the accusations against him, if you parse what he's saying carefully.
So, there may be more to come on this.
It's still developing.
We'll follow it as it does, and we'll follow the evidence where it leads.
But here's the important point.
We don't even need the grooming allegations to know that Chris Tyson is a bad guy.
All of these additional accusations, if true, would be confirmation of what every sane person understood more than a year ago.
Chris Tyson's so-called transition by itself, inevitably, did so much damage to his family, to his business partner, to his audience, that he should have been terminated at the time.
He should have been shunned entirely back then.
And parents should have stopped letting their children watch this content.
Chris Tyson's decision to commit his life to his fetish was always a sign of a deeply disordered narcissistic mode of thought that's totally incompatible with decency or morality.
It's only because of mountains of propaganda and not indoctrination that more people couldn't see all of this coming well in advance.
And even now that propaganda is continuing.
The Rolling Stone, for example, initially ran this headline in their coverage of the story, quote,
"Ava Chris Tyson steps away from all things Mr. Beast amid transphobic attacks."
Yes, transphobic attacks.
And he's being accused of being inappropriate and grooming minors.
That's transphobic, apparently.
This is always the line that they use to shut down obvious and legitimate observations about clearly disordered behavior.
They don't attack Chris Tyson.
They attack you.
And they do this because, most of the time, it works.
They think that most people are as spineless and vapid as Mr. Beast is, and maybe they're right about that.
People don't want to be called a nasty name, so they're fine with the guy who wears women's clothing and sexualizes his own children, as he did with that one photograph.
For what it's worth, as the allegations piled up, Rolling Stone quietly changed their headline to read,
"Mr. Beast launches independent investigation amid Ava Chris Tyson allegations."
I guess they realize that this particular case is beyond saving at this point.
Or maybe, more hopefully, it's a sign that accusations of quote-unquote transphobia just don't work as well as they used to.
Maybe people, even people who read Rolling Stone, are tired of being personally attacked because they make basic, obvious observations about these people.
When children supposedly transition, it's invariably a tragedy that involves a heavy dose of indoctrination and failed parenting.
But when adults supposedly transition, they are betraying their own families in a fit of unrestrained narcissism.
And unrestrained narcissism never ends well.
In Chris Tyson's case, the narcissism continues to this day.
He's continuing to try to sell the fantasy that he's a woman.
He still has his little she-her pronouns on social media.
He's still using his fake name.
He's still fully committed to the delusion that has destroyed his life and the life of many others, most importantly his children.
His wife?
Mr. Beast's content may not have much value to people over the age of, say, 15, but at the same time, the downfall of Chris Tyson should be very instructive to everyone who didn't see this exact scenario playing out a year and a half ago.
And if you're in that boat, think about why you didn't see this coming.
Think about why you cowered in response to allegations of transphobia to the point where you didn't see what was obviously happening.
And then make sure it never happens to you again.
And that is why Chris Tyson and all of his defenders, now or in the past, are today cancelled.
