Ep. 1496 - The Sweeping Pardon That Exposed Biden’s Corruption Once And For All
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden proves—yet again—that he is as dishonest as he is corrupt. After repeatedly promising that he wouldn't, he just issued a pardon to his son, Hunter—but it's even worse than it sounds. In many ways, this pardon is unprecedented in American history. We'll discuss. Also, the New York Times is so desperate to smear Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense that they've now stooped to publishing private emails between Pete Hegseth and his mom. And, Pete Buttigieg gives his recipe for reducing violent crime. Apparently, crime has nothing to do with fatherless homes and everything to do with bad drinking water.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1496
- - -
DailyWire+:
Our largest sale of the year is live NOW! Get 50% off New Annual Memberships this Cyber Monday! https://dailywire.com/cybermonday
My hit documentary “Am I Racist?” is NOW AVAILABLE on DailyWire+! Head to https://amiracist.com to become a member today!
Get the Precision 5 from Jeremy's Razors at https://www.jeremysrazors.com
Join The Candle Club! Become a Founding Member for 20% OFF, plus receive an exclusive members box with a limited-edition candle at https://TheCandleClub.com
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden proves yet again that he is as dishonest as he is corrupt.
After repeatedly promising he wouldn't, he just issued a pardon for his son, Hunter.
But it's even worse than it sounds.
In many ways, this pardon is unprecedented in American history.
We'll discuss also, the New York Times is so desperate to smear Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, But they have now stooped to publishing private emails between Pete Hegseth and his mom.
And Pete Buttigieg gives his recipe for reducing violent crime.
Apparently, crime has nothing to do with fatherless homes and everything to do with bad drinking water.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Cyber Monday is here and our best deal of the year continues.
Get 50% off new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships, including all access, where you can join me live for exclusive weekly Q&As.
Head to dailywire.com slash Cyber Monday and become a member today.
While the progressive Grinches running woke corporations are tearing down traditions, Jeremy's Razors is here to help you save them.
Cyber Monday deals are here.
Save 30% site-wide.
Stocking stuffers under $15.
Shave, hair, and body bundles under $50.
Plus, get free shipping on qualifying orders.
Keep Christmas woke free.
Order now at jeremysrazors.com.
Some exclusions apply.
See website for details.
If you wanted to measure the extent of the Biden family's corruption, there are a lot of ways you could do it.
You could take a look at the lavish properties Joe Biden has owned over the years, which seem a little out of place for a career public servant whose wife is a teacher.
You can go back and watch those interviews in which Tony Bobulinski, the Biden family business partner, explained that indeed Joe Biden is the big guy for whom 10% of Hunter Biden's overseas business profits would be directed, according to emails from Hunter's abandoned laptop.
You could recall the mad scramble by the intelligence agencies to pretend that everything on that laptop was quote-unquote Russian disinformation, a lie that Biden himself repeated multiple times, of course.
You could pull up that video of Biden bragging about how he threatened to withhold more than a billion dollars of financial assistance to Ukraine's government unless they fired their top prosecutor who happened to be investigating Burisma, the oil company that was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars a year for a no-show job.
As Biden put it himself, quote, In the face of this overwhelming evidence, the Biden administration and its defenders attempted to maintain the lie that Joe Biden wasn't complicit in anything his son was doing.
They kept repeating that defense, even after photos emerged showing Joe Biden golfing with Hunter's business associates.
Even after we learned that Joe Biden was on speakerphone, as Hunter was conducting meetings with those associates, again and again we were told to ignore what we could all clearly see happening.
We were told to believe that there was somehow an imaginary invisible firewall between Biden and his son, and that while Hunter may have been the degenerate, he wasn't peddling influence.
This political fiction had to be maintained so that Democrats could claim with some degree of fake plausibility that their prosecutions of Donald Trump were legitimate.
They go on MSNBC and claim that they're the party that cares about the rule of law.
Here's one of Robert Mueller's prosecutors, Andrew Weissman, making that argument on MSNBC. Watch.
What is before us is a president who is living the rule of law.
He is living it in the most...
In the most personal way, he is not pardoning his son, which he could do.
These are federal charges.
He is not doing that.
He is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.
And if you want to know if he believes it, you can actually see what is happening with his own son.
I mean, I'm not saying that he should get credit for it because it is the right That's the norm that Trump is beneath it.
Exactly.
It's the idea that you can't see it, or is that really what's going on?
You can see what he is actually living by.
It's his own son is being prosecuted, and he is allowing the norms that are required to live in a democracy to go forward.
The norms, the rule of law that we heard so much about.
Well, this fiction completely collapsed last night, as you probably heard, with the president's sweeping pardon of Hunter Biden.
This is a pardon that's so expansive and so flagrantly self-serving that it has no precedent in American history.
It's not just the fact that no president has ever pardoned his own son before.
It's also that this pardon excuses Hunter from prosecution for any federal crime that he may or may not have committed or assisted with in the time period from January 1st, 2014 through yesterday, December 1st, 2024. Yes, that's immunity for more than a decade's worth of potential federal crimes, whether they've been charged or not.
Now for comparison, when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he pardoned him for any crimes committed from 1969 to 1974, which is a period of course of five years.
That was previously the record holder for the longest pardon by a president conferring blanket immunity.
So with this pardon, Joe Biden has prevented the incoming Trump administration from bringing any charges relating to Hunter Biden's tenure at Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company.
Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014, which is the first year covered by this pardon, coincidentally enough.
Just two years later, Joe Biden's urging, Ukraine fired the prosecutor who was looking into Burisma.
According to Biden Family Business Associate Devin Archer, that prosecutor, whose name is Victor Shokin, was a threat to Burisma.
As Archer put it, quote, he ended up seizing assets of Burisma's owner, a house, some cars, a couple properties, and the owner actually never went back to Ukraine after Shokin seized all of his assets.
And thanks to Joe Biden applying some pressure, that prosecutor was terminated.
Now, those are facts that might naturally make you wonder whether Burisma was paying the Bidens in order to secure that result.
That was certainly the thought that crossed Trump's mind, and they impeached him for it.
And she impeached Trump, of course, not Biden.
He suggested on a phone call that maybe it's not a good idea to send our money to a country that could be bribing the Bidens.
And that was such a radioactive idea that they tried to have him removed from office for it.
That was a pretty big hint that Trump was onto something.
And those hints kept coming, especially after a longtime FBI informant named Alexander Smirnov claimed that Burisma had bribed the Bidens to the tune of $10 million in order to take out the prosecutor.
The DOJ has accused that informant of lying as part of yet another Russian disinformation operation, which is extremely unusual because it's the kind of thing that might discourage more informants from talking to the FBI. But in this instance, probably because of the political ramifications, Biden's DOJ thought it was important to pursue the case.
That would be an interesting series of events for Kash Patel and Pam Bondi to look into.
But whatever they find, there's no way they can prosecute Hunter at this point.
That's because in one of his final acts as president, Biden has effectively become an accomplice to his son's crimes, including crimes that we may never know about now.
You'd expect a lot of Democrats to run cover for this pardon, and indeed, that's exactly what's happening.
But kind of remarkably, some Republicans are defending it as well.
I've seen even conservatives saying that Well, any father in the same position would do the same thing.
Any father, supposedly, would ensure that his 54-year-old drug-addled son doesn't ever have to face criminal consequences for any crime he's committed, no matter how serious it may be.
That's an argument that overlooks a few very important points.
And this is important to understand if you are tempted to give Biden some benefit of the doubt here or some credit or to think that, well, he's just being a good father.
That doesn't work for a few reasons.
Number one, Joe Biden and his administration have spent years lying to us about their intentions.
They made material misrepresentations during a political campaign for the purposes of manipulating voters.
So any sympathy we might have for Joe Biden is gone simply on that basis alone.
They've all said again and again that Hunter Biden would not be pardoned.
Watch.
As we sit here in Normandy, your son Hunter is on trial.
And I know that you cannot speak about an ongoing federal prosecution.
But let me ask you, will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is?
Yes.
And have you ruled out a pardon for your son?
Yes.
Second one, will the president pardon or commute his son if he's convicted?
So I've answered this question before.
It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago.
And I was very clear and I said no.
Let me go back to the first question of the briefing.
I know you said not a lot has changed since yesterday and that it's a personal matter, but from a presidential perspective, is there any possibility that the president would end up pardoning his son?
No.
You've also said several times that the president would not pardon or commute sentences for his son, Hunter.
I just want to make sure that that is not going to change over the next six months.
The president's saying it would not.
It's still a no.
It's still a no.
It will always be a no.
It's still a no.
It will be a no.
It is a no.
And I don't have anything else to add.
Will he pardon his son?
No.
So no matter how much you, for some reason, might want to defend Joe Biden for looking out for the crackhead he raised, you cannot justify lying like this.
He knew it was false when he said it.
So did his press secretary.
They just also knew that they had to get through a campaign where they claimed to be on the side of the rule of law, so they lied about it.
They lied to the faces of the American people.
Many, many times.
Cannot justify that.
In fact, Biden was equally shameless last night in announcing this pardon.
He didn't do the honorable thing and admit that he was just protecting his son.
He didn't come out and say, yeah, look, obviously I lied about it.
It's what I had to do for my son.
It's just the way it is.
No, instead, along with the pardon, Biden released a statement claiming that his son's prosecution was unfair and selective.
He suggested that the prosecution was only undertaken because he's the president, even though the prosecution was conducted by Biden's own DOJ. And despite the fact that the pardon covers Hunter's activities from many years ago, when Biden was vice president.
The statement reads, So he claims that his guiding principle is to tell the truth,
even while he goes back on his word that he has offered to the American people many times.
Just totally shameless.
So in other words, now that the election's over, we're not pretending the DOJ is fair and impartial anymore.
Now we're just admitting it's a corrupt and political enterprise with no legitimacy whatsoever.
If Biden actually believed any of this, he'd immediately pardon Donald Trump, We're good to go.
Of course, none of that will happen because Biden doesn't believe a word that he's saying.
He doesn't believe a word of the statement he put out.
He's a complete fraud, which is one of the reasons this is so indefensible.
It's also indefensible because he just gave his son a pass for every single one of the federal crimes he committed or may conceivably have committed over 11 years.
It's not just for the gun charge and the tax charge.
It's for anything.
And insulating your adult child from rightful consequences to that extent is, among other things, enormously bad parenting.
Because as parents, our greatest duty is to help our children to develop virtue.
That is your number one job as a parent.
Giving them a hall pass for federal crimes obviously does the opposite.
You cannot become a virtuous person if you're insulated from any and all legal repercussions for any crimes you committed.
So a good father, a loving father, would not want to give that kind of get out of jail free card to his son.
Because any chance that Hunter would ever become anything but a scumbag has now been obliterated.
Now, I mean, obviously there was little chance of him regardless, but if there was any chance, it's basically gone now.
He's going to live the rest of his life a scumbag, and he's going to die a scumbag, which from the perspective of a loving father is a fate far worse than prison.
But it's not hard to see why Joe Biden's doing it.
He's clearly pardoning Hunter, at least in part, to protect himself.
That's why this pardon is so unbelievably broad both in scope and in length.
Any prosecution of Hunter would almost certainly uncover more evidence of crimes committed by Joe Biden and other Biden family members as well.
And we know that because just based on what we have already, there's a lot of evidence that would seem to implicate those family members.
For example, Senate investigators found that Hunter Biden opened a bank account with a deputy at CEFC, a Chinese energy firm that's closely tied with the Chinese Communist Party.
And that bank account, according to Senate investigators, funded a $100,000 spending spree for the Biden family, including James Biden and his wife.
These are the kind of payments that Senate officials were able to uncover with only a very limited ability to look into the Biden family.
You can imagine what a full-fledged prosecution would uncover.
But the Biden DOJ made sure that there would be no full-fledged prosecution of Hunter Biden.
That's why they slow-walked the investigation of his abandoned laptop.
They wanted the statute of limitations to expire on as many crimes as possible.
When the FBI seized Hunter's laptop from the repair store, they sat on it for more than a year until the New York Post finally published its story.
And even then, the FBI told Facebook in advance that the story was probably Russian disinformation.
By shutting down any prosecution of Hunter, it becomes much more difficult to relaunch any of these investigations or to prosecute any other member of the Biden family, including Biden himself.
That's another reason that this pardon is indefensible.
Even for a father who's trying to keep his son out of prison.
At the same time, I'll concede that this story, from my perspective, would be completely different if Joe Biden had only pardoned Hunter for the gun and the tax crimes.
You could probably defend that.
If I was in a position to do it, I would probably pardon my kids for those kinds of crimes if I had the power.
For a tax crime.
I mean, I'd probably pardon every single person who's ever been convicted of a tax crime.
I just hate the IRS that much.
And gun crimes.
I would pardon my kids for that.
Sure.
But that's not what Biden did.
He pardoned him for all federal crimes.
Going back to a time that predates those charges.
All federal crimes includes, for instance, something like sex trafficking.
I'm not saying Hunter Biden is guilty of sex trafficking.
I'm also not saying that he isn't.
There was a lot of interesting stuff on that laptop that would point in certain directions.
But now you can't look into that either.
Is that what a good father does?
For the sake of argument, just hypothetically, let's say that That Hunter did commit some sex crimes.
Just hypothetically.
Does a good father issue a pardon so their 54-year-old son is not investigated for that?
Even if they did it?
You insulate your 54-year-old son from consequences for those kinds of crimes?
Really?
That's what a good father does?
No, obviously not.
And the tax charges were always just a surface-level allegation that obscured the actual underlying corruption.
It doesn't really matter whether Hunter Biden paid taxes on all the foreign money.
What matters is what exactly that foreign money was buying.
That is the investigation that Joe Biden thinks he has just shut down.
But there are a few elements here that should mitigate, as conservatives, should mitigate our anger and frustration about the pardon.
First of all, this is a clear win for the incoming Trump administration politically.
I mean, really, it's more of a gift to Trump than Hunter, because it gives Trump a political green light to do what he should be doing anyway, which is to issue blanket pardons for all of the political prisoners of this administration.
The pardon is also already leading to a lot of interesting moments on MSNBC, where an overwhelmingly Democrat-aligned audience is being forced to confront the fact that everything Democrats said for the past four years was a lie.
Here's just one example.
See, I told you so.
They're all like that.
So the next time any of us complain about anything Trump does, this pardon is just deflating.
For those of us who have been out there for a few years now yelling about what a unique threat Donald Trump is, for Joe Biden to do something like this, Trump, nobody's above the law, we've been screaming.
Well, Joe Biden just made clear his son Hunter is above the law.
Donald Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, we've been screaming.
Joe Biden repeatedly lied about this.
The politicization of the justice system, Donald Trump and his people have been screaming.
That's exactly what Biden said here.
So a realization like this, as basic and as probably inauthentic as it is, still represents progress.
This is the first time that a lot of Democrats watching MSNBC are realizing the extent to which they've been lied to.
And that's obviously a major win for Republicans as well.
Additionally, this pardon might actually simplify future investigations into the Biden family, at least until more pardons are announced.
Now that Hunter can't be prosecuted for any crimes, he also can't assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid responding to subpoenas or testifying.
So Republicans in Congress and the DOJ can and should use that fact to their advantage.
But the most consequential point is that with this pardon, Democrats have once again proved their own willingness to wield their power to the fullest extent possible, no matter how their opposition feels about it or what they say about it.
Democrats are as ruthless as they are shameless.
us.
And there's no way to look at this pardon and come to any other conclusion.
They will spend years telling you one thing, only to do another thing.
All without any degree of remorse or self-awareness.
They'll extol the virtues of the rule of law and democracy and etc.
and so forth, only to admit on their way out the door that actually none of that was ever remotely important to them.
This is the lesson that Trump needs to keep at the front of his mind for the next four years as Democrats repeatedly try to use conservatives' values against us.
That's the strategy they've been using for many years to great effect.
And they're going to keep on doing it.
So Trump just has to ignore them and say, you know, you were wielding your power to whatever extent you could to advance your agenda.
No, I'm going to do the same thing.
And you can cry about it all you want.
But now the Democrats have admitted that they have no values themselves.
There's no reason for Trump or any elected Republican to listen to a word they say.
And if most Americans come to that realization, then Hunter Biden's pardon will probably, on balance, be a net positive.
Because it means that no family as corrupt and power-hungry as the Bidens will ever control the White House again.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
In a world where traditional values are under attack, the Candle Club stands as a beacon of truth.
Started by a mom who refused to be silenced by cancel culture, the Candle Club is now America's premier conservative candle company, and Cyber Monday deals are here.
Get 30% off every hand-poured candle that supports family values while filling your home with premium, toxin-free fragrances.
Shop nine unique brands, including my personal collection of hand-picked scents like my new seasonal candle, Winter Forest.
Find great gifts perfect for any conservative who cherishes quality, family, and tradition.
Live free and smell fancy with The Candle Club.
Visit thecandleclub.com.
All right, staying on the subject of family drama, the New York Times has just published what may be the most disgusting New York Times piece in at least the past day, at least.
As the smear campaign against Pete Hegseth continues, here's the latest headline.
The headline is, Pete Hegseth's mother accused her son of mistreating women for years.
That's the headline.
And just based on that headline alone, and of course the Times knows that most people will only read the headline, that's the point.
But based on that alone, it sounds like Hegseth's mom just came out against him publicly and denounced him.
If you're just looking at the headline, that's what you would think happened.
And if she had, that would be legitimate news.
And you couldn't complain about the New York Times publishing an article about that.
But that's not what happened.
Let's read on.
The mother of Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.
Quote, on behalf of all women, and I know it's many, you have abused in some way.
I say, get some help and take an honest look at yourself, Penelope Hegseth wrote, stating that she still loved him.
She also wrote, I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego.
You are that man and have been for years, and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it's the sad, sad truth.
Okay, so that was the email in 2018, so six years ago.
Now, keep listening because here comes the key part.
New York Times writes, Mrs. Hegseth, in a phone interview with the New York Times on Friday, said that she had sent her son an immediate follow-up email at the time apologizing for what she had written.
She said she had fired off the original email in anger with emotion at a time when he and his wife were going through a very difficult divorce.
In the interview, she defended her son and disavowed the sentiments she had expressed in the initial email about his character and treatment of women.
She said, quote, Okay, so, what's going on here?
Well, the New York Times somehow got a hold of this private email that Hegseth's mom sent to him six years ago.
She didn't give them that email, obviously.
Pete Hegseth, we can assume, did not give them the email.
So someone else who had access to it did.
And we don't know how that person had access to it, but someone else sent this email to the New York Times.
His mom, though, says that she apologized for it at the time.
She disavowed it at the time and now and made it clear that she didn't want them to publish it.
And they did anyway.
Now, if you're in the news media and you wonder why people hate you so much, you wonder why the public has a higher opinion of cockroaches than of you, it's because of stuff like this.
Publishing a private communication between a mother and her son, one that she has long since taken back and apologized for and doesn't want made public, that is, it's just wrong, okay?
It's unethical.
It's despicable.
It's obviously not something the New York Times would ever, ever do if Hegseth was a Democrat.
And I know they don't care that I say that it's wrong, but for the record, it's just wrong.
It's just the wrong thing to do.
It's morally wrong, obviously.
Okay.
Now, all that said, now that we know that this email exists, even if we shouldn't know it, but now we do, does it tell us something troubling about Pete Hegseth?
Should it change our opinion of him or of him being nominated for that position?
And I would say no for a couple of reasons.
First of all, if we're going to take his mom's word for what sort of man Pete is, if we're taking her testimony...
Well, why would we take her word from that email in 2018 and not her word from the apology email or from what she's saying right now publicly?
And second, one of the reasons why publishing something like this is so sleazy is that obviously it's a single snapshot being ripped out of years and years of context.
We have no idea what was going on behind the scenes.
We have no idea what or who prompted his mom to say all that to begin with.
All we do know is that people who love each other, people who are families, parents and children, spouses, siblings, etc., they can sometimes say nasty things to each other.
This is not a revelation to anybody, to any human being who's lived a human life.
They can say nasty things to each other.
They can launch accusations that are untrue or only partly true or it's out of context.
And then they can regret it and they can apologize.
This happens in families.
Families are messy.
And before you judge Pete for this, think about the worst thing ever.
That someone you love has ever said to you or about you.
Like the worst accusations they've ever...
The worst characterizations they've ever made of you.
Or of your behavior.
Or whatever it may be.
Just the absolute lowest moment.
What if someone were to eavesdrop on that and publish it in the paper the next day?
Right?
Um...
You also probably have an email or two that you sent or that was sent to you that you wish you didn't send or you wish hadn't been sent to you.
We all know this.
Which is why you should never be quick to celebrate when something like this happens to somebody, even someone you don't like.
Of course, a lot of people on the left are posting this article and very happy about it.
But we should all agree, just like...
For ethical and moral reasons.
But even just basic self-interest.
We all have a self-interest in not setting precedents like this.
Because we should all agree that private communications are off the table, off limits.
They shouldn't be published.
They shouldn't be up for public discussion.
Unless, unless...
They indicate that some kind of crime has been committed or something scandalous is going on that may have some kind of impact on the public beyond the people involved in the communication.
In that kind of scenario, you can justify it.
Oftentimes.
But beyond that, it should simply be off limits, period.
And I'm consistent on this no matter who it is.
Liberal, it doesn't matter.
Okay, when you tell me, oh, look at this private community, I don't care.
I don't care.
Private communication.
Not my business.
And even if I wanted to make judgments about it, I don't have nearly enough context to understand what that is.
You're looking at one email, it's one part of a dynamic and an exchange that, I mean, this is his mom, so this is obviously, you're talking decades of history, clearly.
We don't know anything about any of that.
And so it should just be off-limits.
And this communication would be in the off-limits category because there's no direct accusation of a crime.
There's nothing scandal, nothing relevant to his job that he would have as the Secretary of Defense.
And it's just scummy stuff.
We haven't even gotten into the confirmation process yet, officially.
And this is how ugly it is now.
Just imagine what it's going to be a month or two from now.
Alright, here's an interesting story from the New York Post.
It says, the lead singer of the rock band Life of Agony is detransitioning more than a decade after coming out as transgender.
Mina Caputo, 50, revealed that he'll be living a life as a male again, citing his gender dysphoria has been cured and announcing he's already started the process.
He said in a video, surgery's been booked to remove my fake breasts.
I'll be lovingly living in my divine male self.
Caputo was born Keith in December 1973 and began identifying as Mina in 2008. The musician publicly came out as transgender in 2011. He posted the announcement in response to his followers and began leaving comments about his appearance and claiming he looked like a man.
And he confirmed that he was always a man, but he said he's off hormones and he's going to get the surgery to try to reverse what has been done to him.
Now, I've never heard of this band before.
That doesn't really matter.
The point isn't that this guy is super famous.
I don't think he is.
But he is still part of the kind of anti-gender ideology avalanche that's happening right now.
And as more and more people come out against it.
And he had some words to say, not just about his own experience, but also about how kids are getting wrapped up in this.
And let's watch a clip of that.
Now suddenly I'm anti-trans because I refuse to...
I absolutely refuse to buy into the psychotic narrative that children need hormones and irreversible surgeries.
That's the furthest thing from care in my eyes.
And I'm gonna...
Prove it to everyone.
I got about 60 books.
60 books that I have, that I've collected over the years before I came out.
It took me almost 30 years to come out.
I went to 3 years of gender therapy before any hormone was administered in my body.
Now these days people are just taking their little ones.
Little spirits.
Let me just tell you this man.
You're robbing the right...
For your child, when he or she grows up, when your child grows up, if you bring your child and put them on puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries and all this bullshit that's going on in this fucking psychotic world, You are literally stripping them their rights, their adult rights, to make decisions for themselves.
No child could consent.
And I'm just using as one example.
Now, my one friend's child who wanted to be a boy is back to being a girl.
She started playing drums again.
She's totally a tomboy.
She's in a softball league.
Now, just imagine bringing your little kid to...
And incorporating these irreparable changes in their life, these irreversible changes, then what?
What are you going to do, parents?
What are you going to do when your children come up to you five years later or ten years later and say, Mommy, Daddy, why did you listen to me?
I was only a child.
Now, obviously, everything he's saying about kids is totally correct.
This is the point we've been making for many years now, and we're going to start hearing a lot more stories like the one he talks about there.
Hopefully, because those are the stories with the happy endings, the ones where the parents pull back from the trans path before it's too late, before they start the drugs and surgeries.
And then they discover that, what do you know, their gender confused daughter is actually not even confused at all.
She's just really a tomboy who likes to play sports and whatever else.
And that's fine.
This has always been our point.
And this has always also been the irony or at least something that might be mistaken for irony, which is that those of us on the quote unquote conservative side of this issue actually have a much more, to use the left's phrase here, expansive.
We have a much more, if you would like to say, gender expansive view than the other side.
Because we are the ones who will say that being a girl or being a boy doesn't put you in a tiny box where there's only one set of behaviors, one set of interests, one set of hobbies, one mode of being that is accepted.
You know, there's this, We're the ones saying there's a lot of different ways to be a girl.
There's a lot of different ways to be a boy.
Some girls like girly stuff.
Many girls do.
Probably most.
But some girls aren't into the dolls and the pink and all that.
And they prefer to go out and play baseball and whatever.
And that's all fine.
Some girls are kind of a mix of the two.
My 11-year-old daughter is into ballet.
She loves to bake.
Very girly in most ways.
But Every time I go outside to play football with my boys, she comes running out and wants to play too.
And actually, she's got pretty good hands.
She makes some impressive catches, I have to say.
And all that is fine.
She's a girl who likes ballet, and she also likes to play football with us.
Great.
The point is that my wife and I don't look at that and then break out the decoder ring to try and figure out if that makes her a girl or a boy or maybe non-binary.
No, there's nothing to even...
It's not confusing.
There's no equation here.
There's no calculus.
She's a girl, but she's a girl who has interests and has a certain personality.
And that's fine.
That's more than fine.
I think it's great.
It's who she is.
It's what makes her unique and interesting.
And this is also, by the way, yet more evidence that...
Which is something that every parent knows, or every parent should know, that kids will tend to develop interests and a sense of identity based, at least in part, in large part, on how the parents lead them.
So the real reason that my daughter wants to come out and play football with us is that I'm playing, and I love football.
She wants to be a part of that.
Because I'm her dad.
That's obvious.
But what does that say about kids who develop an interest in being trans?
Well...
Often, that's the child trying to participate in something that the parent is interested in.
Which is all the gender nonsense.
So it's a reflection of the parent.
But in any case...
Back to the point, this is the happy ending that we'll start seeing, I think, for a lot of kids.
And their parents will pull back from the gender craziness just in time before any physical harm has been done, and the children will be allowed to just be boys and girls who have different interests and different personalities, and that's it.
Now, of course, the tragedy is that it won't always be a happy ending.
There will also be Many sad endings, tragic endings, where the parents pull back after the threshold has been crossed, after they've charged past the Rubicon, and now their children will have to deal with the lasting effects, the permanent effects, forever.
That's the really sad and infuriating part.
And it's also why simply rolling back gender ideology is not enough.
I mean, that's the start.
That's the start, is to roll it back, ban these Frankenstein procedures, ban this abuse of kids.
All of that needs to happen first, but then there have to be punishments.
Justice has to be done to those who push this and cause this harm to children, because this is not a victimless crime, clearly.
And even after, that's the thing, we will, I think, sooner than later, live in a country where Where a lot of this stuff as a culture is behind us.
Especially as it pertains to kids.
I think we will sooner than later live in a country where this stuff is just not happening to kids anymore.
Because it's a losing argument.
It's losing badly.
It's not sustainable, as I've been saying now for months.
But the sad truth is that We might reach a point as a culture where we can say, okay, well, that's behind us now.
And it'll become a bizarre, dark period in the history books that years from now people will read about and they'll be totally baffled by it.
They won't understand.
And those of us who live through it still don't quite understand how this happened.
I mean, we can only have theories.
About how society lost its mind to this extent.
That it started doing this to kids.
But even when we reach a point, I think in the not too distant future where this stuff is behind us as a culture, there are a lot of people who for them, it's never really going to be behind them.
They're going to have to live with it forever.
They're not going to have the option of just closing that chapter in the book and saying, well, that's over.
Because things have been done to them that they're going to have to live with physically, emotionally, spiritually forever.
And that's also why we can't just move on.
There have to be punishments.
People have to be punished for this.
One more thought about this.
I was thinking about recently, going back to this example of my daughter and how she'll participate in some of the more masculine things that I do and that her brothers do.
I've often wondered if this is one of the reasons why gender dysphoria, so-called, is more common in girls than boys.
And there are, you know, as you know, this It has much more often been girls who have fallen into this.
Especially in adolescence.
And there are a lot of theories to explain that dynamic.
I've offered different theories through the years.
And I think that all the theories are true to some extent.
But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of answer.
And there are many different answers, I think.
And there's an element of the issue that I've never heard anyone discuss before.
Or if they have, I haven't heard it.
And that is that, in my experience, and this is entirely anecdotal, I'll admit, but in my experience, girls are much more likely to want to participate in, you know, stereotypically masculine things like football, like whatever else, and to adopt some stereotypically masculine interests than boys are to do the opposite, to adopt feminine interests and to want to participate in stereotypically feminine things.
And it's much more common for it to go that way with girls, but not necessarily in the reverse for boys.
And that's not because all these girls are tomboys.
My daughter is not.
As I said, she's a very girly girl in almost every imaginable way, but she likes to go out and play football and that sort of thing.
She'll go out in the woods with us and shoot pellet guns.
She likes to do that kind of stuff.
And this seems to be common for girls.
Almost any dad of girls that I've talked to will say something similar.
And boys, again, in my experience, aren't usually like that in the reverse.
My sons like all the typically boyish stuff.
They don't mix in any girly stuff at all.
They're not interested at all in any of that.
They're not going to go play with dolls occasionally or express any interest in ballet or what have you.
So it's pretty rare.
It's pretty rare to find a boy who, say, loves baseball and monster trucks and all that, but then also is kind of interested in figure skating.
That doesn't happen very often.
Girls seem much more likely to mix in some of the masculine interests than boys are to mix in some of the feminine interests.
And I think the reason for that is that girls are more social, they're more communal by nature.
So they're much more likely to become interested in the things that the people around them and close to them are interested in for the sake of socializing and bonding with those people.
Like, the fact that someone close to them loves something makes them love it too.
And not just as a put-on, not as a show, but they actually are interested in it.
I remember once, for instance, being over at my in-laws and they're big hockey fans and they were watching hockey.
And my wife was watching it too and getting really, really into it.
Like really into it.
Really emotionally invested in this hockey match.
And we never watched hockey at all.
We're not hockey fans at all.
Never watched it one time.
No interest.
But for a couple of hours on that particular day, my wife was truly invested in it.
Truly interested because her family was.
And it was a communal experience.
Now, on the other hand, I'm not interested in hockey, so I just went off and did my own thing because I don't care.
I'm not going to suddenly care about it because other people do.
I think that's how men usually are.
We like what we like.
We're interested in what we're interested in.
It doesn't matter who else shares that interest or wants to participate in it.
It doesn't really matter to us.
And I think this could partly explain why girls are more likely to exhibit in these kinds of moments these so-called masculine tendencies, which are then misinterpreted or have been misinterpreted by crazy people and abusive people to be a symptom of gender dysphoria and a sign that the girl is transgender or whatever.
Boys are less likely to exhibit those kinds of signs, those signs, Because they tend to stick with what they like, and they're less prone to change or adapt for the sake of being communal or bonding with people or what have you.
Which just adds to the tragedy, because that is a positive sort of attribute of being a girl and being a woman.
This wanting to be communal with other people and adapting their interests.
That's a good thing.
It's a positive thing.
But it's been twisted against them by these gender ideologues.
Our best deal of the year isn't done yet.
Cyber Monday is here, and that means you can still get 50% off new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships.
No codes required.
Just head to dailywire.com slash Cyber Monday.
Become a member today for half the regular price.
With Daily Wire Plus, you get it all uncensored.
Daily shows with limited ads, live breaking news you can trust, and unlimited access to our full catalog of entertainment that's reshaping the culture.
From the number one documentary of the decade, Am I Racist?
Or Jordan B. Peterson's incredible new series, The Gospels.
Plus, so much more.
It's all waiting for you.
With your support, we will continue to fight the left and build the future.
Join us now.
Go to dailywire.com slash Cyber Monday.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we return to the viral YouTube series called Surrounded, produced by Jubilee.
When we last checked in with this series, Ben Shapiro was facing down a ragtag collection of blue-haired leftists.
They didn't all actually have blue hair.
In fact, I think none of them did.
But blue hair at this point is as much a spiritual state as a physical one.
In any case, it was not a fair fight.
All the blue hairs took turns embarrassing themselves, as you would expect.
Now, it turns out that Pete Buttigieg, our soon former transportation secretary, did his own Surrounded episode a day before the election.
Buttigieg was surrounded by 25 alleged undecided voters, and his task was to defend Kamala's policies against their extremely softball questions and challenges.
Apparently, he didn't do a great job because Kamala went on to get totally demolished the very next day, as you probably recall.
I don't think that was entirely the fault of Buttigieg's poor performance in this video.
He's likely only about 80% to blame.
But there's one clip that several weeks later is just now going viral.
Leftists on Twitter are passing it around with glowing praise for Buttigieg.
They think one answer in particular was so brilliant and so incisive and so profound that it points the way forward for the Democratic Party in the future.
Somebody named Micah Erfan initially posted the clip.
It got 15,000 likes, almost 4 million views.
He adds this caption.
He says, quote, send this man on every podcast for the next four years and we will win all 50 states.
Now, somebody else agrees with a tweet that garnered 23,000 likes.
They add, So this is a high praise indeed.
I mean, it's the highest imaginable praise.
Apparently, what Buttigieg says here about lowering crime rates is so tremendous that That it would win the support of a majority of voters in every state in the country.
This man's talents have apparently been wasted on the Transportation Department for the past four years.
He could have been working on eliminating crime.
He couldn't make the trains run on time or even stay on the tracks, but he can solve the problem of crime.
And here's how he plans to do it.
Watch.
This might sound a little weird, but the water infrastructure.
So there's actually very direct research that shows that if you have more kids exposed to lead, you run the clock out 15 years, you'll see higher crime rates because the developmental issues that they experience through lead poisoning lead them to be more likely to be justice-involved.
There's a hugely strong correlation.
So replacing all the lead pipes is not sexy, I think it's actually one of the best things we can do that will lead to a safer society and less crime.
Granted, that's not something you're seeing in the data from one year to the next year.
But I do think by the time my kids are entering the workforce, that will have had a big impact.
So these are things piece by piece that you think about when you come into office and get up every day trying to make other people better off.
And that's what I think she does.
That's what I know she does, because I know her.
And that's not what I believe he does.
And that's why I think it's really important not just to not vote for him, but to vote for her.
Okay, that's the end of this claim.
Please return to your seat.
Okay, so Buttigieg says that the way to reduce violent crime is to get rid of lead pipes.
Which by the way have been banned for use in residential plumbing since the year I was born.
Is there possibly some theoretical indirect link between lead poisoning and a greater propensity to commit violent crimes?
Maybe.
Is this a major factor to consider when explaining crime rates or figuring out how to reduce them?
Almost certainly not.
In fact, there was an analysis, as I discovered when I looked this up, there was an analysis of over 20 studies published a couple of years ago on this topic that found exactly this.
According to the analysis, there may be some sort of correlation between getting rid of lead pipes and reducing crime rates, but it is likely not a significant factor.
Especially now, considering that lead pipes haven't been used in homes since 1986. Yet, in spite of the fact that the link is not significant and also not relevant in the modern age, still it's the only tangible thing Buttigieg mentions in the clip to explain violent crime.
Now, this was part of a slightly longer conversation about violent crime and how to reduce it.
Before this detour into lead pipes, he mentions gun control and then also legalizing marijuana.
So those are the three things.
When explaining how do we get rid of violent or reduce it, he says, well, we've got to get rid of lead pipes, gun control, and legalize marijuana.
Those are the three things he says.
Somehow he completely misses, by far, the two biggest and most obvious factors.
He makes it to lead pipes before saying a single thing about either of the two major overriding factors.
So he never says that we can decrease violent crime by arresting violent criminals, putting them in prison, and keeping them there.
And he never says that the number of violent criminals can be drastically reduced if fathers get married to the women who birthed their children and then stay married to them.
Those two simple steps could rescue every community in the country from the grip of the violent crime epidemic.
Now, they're not going to eliminate all crime.
Nothing can eliminate all crime save the return of Christ and the end of days.
But it could make every single neighborhood in the country safe and livable.
It's close to a utopian vision as you can get.
It's just fathers have kids stay home and also if people commit crimes put them in jail and keep them there.
Do those two simple things in every community in the country?
Every community becomes at least livable.
Nothing else comes close to that.
And yet Buttigieg, one of the great minds on the left, or so we're told, doesn't think to mention either of those things.
He has more to say about lead pipes causing crime than he does about fatherless homes causing crimes.
Well, here's a question, Pete.
What if a child grows up in a home with no lead pipes, as the majority of children do now, and in a city that already has strict gun laws and already has legalized marijuana?
And that describes the vast majority of kids right now.
What if he, like thousands of other kids in that exact situation, still goes on to become a violent criminal?
How do you explain that?
Could it be the total lack of male authority and moral formation in the home?
Could it be the refusal to strongly disincentivize crime by harshly punishing it?
Could that be it?
Now, despite what delusional leftists on Twitter might think, an answer to violent crime that studiously avoids the major factors that actually lead to violent crime will not resonate with most voters.
Although, actually, most voters won't even hear the whole answer because they will have already instinctively and rightfully tuned out the moment they hear Buttigieg drop the term justice-involved, as you just heard him say.
In fact, we could ignore everything else he said and just focus on that alone.
That is, in essence, the reason why Democrats just got demolished at the polls.
Not this specific answer from Buttigieg or anything that Buttigieg himself has said or done, given that he's irrelevant and most voters don't know who he is.
Rather, it's the fact that Democrats and only Democrats use terms like justice-involved instead of saying criminals, which is what that euphemism means.
This is why most Americans are done with the Democrat Party.
It's because they're done with leaders who speak a language that no human being actually speaks.
They're done with people who refuse to address these issues plainly in English while offering solutions that are sensible and grounded in reality.
No person in their daily life, outside of democratic politics or left-wing universities, would ever use the term justice-involved to talk about a criminal, just like they would never use the term latinx or microaggression or cisgender and so on.
And this is, at bottom, the problem for the Democrats.
They live in a different universe.
And they speak like it, too.
And, you know, voters have very minimal requirements of their leaders at this point.
The standards are really low.
But one of them is that their leaders should live in the same galaxy, at least.
