Ep. 1601 - The WNBA Season Just Started, And There Was Already An Insane Race Hoax
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the WNBA made it precisely one day into the season before its first major — and majorly fake — racism controversy. Also, Republican Representative Nancy Mace makes a splash by promising to release her nudes during a congressional hearing. And Starbucks employees are protesting and walking out all across the country because of an oppressive new company policy that requires them to wear a black T-shirt.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1601
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join us at https://dailywire.com/subscribe and become a part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we’re keeping it.
Check out this sneak peek of Jordan B. Peterson’s new show, Parenting, coming exclusively to DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4moWlu0
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Dose Daily - Save 30% on your first month subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout.
ExpressVPN - Go to https://expressvpn.com/walsh and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Kikoff - Get your first month for $1. That’s 80% off the normal price when you go to https://getkikoff.com/walsh today.
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the WNBA made it precisely one day into the season before its first major and majorly fake racism controversy.
Also, Republican Representative Nancy Mace makes a splash by promising to release her nudes during a congressional hearing.
Yes, that's real.
And Starbucks employees are protesting and walking out all across the country because of an oppressive new company policy that requires them to wear a black t-shirt.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
We'll be right back.
Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention.
Your liver.
This powerhouse organ is crushing it 24-7, handling over 500 functions in your body.
It's a hard job, and sometimes your liver just needs a little support.
That's where dose for your liver comes in.
It's not some weak supplement.
This is hard-hitting, science-baked back support for your body's most crucial filter.
The results speak for themselves.
Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got major improvements in their liver enzyme levels.
Want to know what makes this different?
One shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice.
It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function.
No BS ingredients either.
It's clean, it's sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results.
Start giving your liver the support it deserves.
Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to Dosedaily.co slash Walsh.
We're entering Walsh at checkout.
That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y.
Every so often you hear about so-called uncontacted tribes.
These are people who have never had any interactions with the outside world.
They're out in the middle of nowhere in places like the Nicobar Islands and the Amazon rainforest.
And they're obviously interesting to talk about as evidenced by the millions of people who love watching documentaries and YouTube videos about them.
Of course, the reason that these tribes capture people's imagination is not because there's anything especially desirable or admirable about their culture or their way of life.
Instead, they capture people's imagination because they offer a glimpse into a world that thankfully we transcend it.
They're fascinating because every now and then it's encouraging to look at primitive people and think to ourselves, well, it was bad.
We can use these tribes as an opportunity to reflect on all the human progress that's occurred out here in civilization.
Maybe no one wants to admit that that's the appeal out loud, but that's true.
And it's not just uncontacted tribes who fill this role in modern society.
They're maybe the most prominent example, but they're certainly not the only one.
In particular, in recent years, it's become pretty apparent that the organization known as the WNBA serves kind of a similar function.
The WNBA very clearly is not a viable product from an entertainment perspective.
It loses tens of millions of dollars every year.
There's never really been a genuine business case for keeping the WNBA alive.
Even with the historic level of interest the public now has in the league over the last year, historic by WNBA standards, it's still not a viable product because literally all of that interest is now focused on just one player, Caitlin Clark.
And yet, with all that said, it's time to admit that the WNBA, despite all appearances, isn't actually useless, at least not completely.
Like the tribesmen who have never heard of things like the telephone or electricity.
The WNBA serves a purpose, albeit a very twisted one.
In a sense, it exists outside of time and space.
It's a window into an alternate dimension where humans don't respond to economic incentives or social pressure or value things like talent or competitiveness or anything like that.
The WNBA, because it's propped up by left-wing executives at the NBA who inexplicably have no problem losing large amounts of money every year.
is immune from the normal demands of civilization as we know them.
And in practice, that means that if we take a look at how things are going at the WNBA, we can get a pretty good sense of how exactly the country would be doing if we had gotten stuck back in 2020 and never moved on for the most part from the BLM racist area.
And thanks to the WNBA, we don't have to wonder anymore what that would be like.
Instead, all we have to do is tune into opening day of the 2025 WNBA season, which took place on Saturday, in case you missed it, which most people did.
And in just one day, the very first day of the season, the WNBA, for all intents and purposes, completely fell apart.
I mean, to the extent that it can even fall apart because it's already fallen apart.
The entire league, which serves as the platonic ideal of a progressive enterprise, devolved instantly.
On the first day, no one's even pretending to talk about the different teams in the WNBA or the power rankings or whatever.
Instead, once again, they're talking about white supremacy and racism.
Now, the drama officially began in the third quarter of a game between the Indiana Fever and the Chicago Sky.
The Indiana Fever is a team that Caitlin Clark plays for.
The Chicago Sky is the name of the team that...
Caitlin Clark's arch-nemesis, Angel Reese, plays for.
Now, if you're cynical, you might conclude that the WNBA intentionally created this matchup for opening day in order to generate exactly the kind of racial controversy that would inevitably follow.
But for all I know, maybe these are the only two teams that exist in the WNBA, so maybe they had to schedule it that way.
I don't know.
Regardless, I'll play the dramatic moment that started all this.
This is in the third quarter.
And for many of you, this will be the first slice of WNBA basketball that you'll ever watch.
Here it is.
Rebecca Allen, too strong on a three.
And look out, Kaylin Clark pushes Angel Reese, and Angel Reese gets right up into Kaylin Clark.
Afterwards has something to say as Clark walks away.
Okay, now, in case you missed it, we'll play the relevant part back in slow motion.
As you can see, Angel Reese, number five, pushes another player with two hands as she's trying to get the rebound.
Apparently, the player that Angel Reese pushed is named Natasha Howard or something like that.
In any event, it's a clear foul, but it's not called.
And then you can see that Caitlin Clark is stunned the foul wasn't called.
She sticks out both arms in protest.
And then once Reese gets the rebound, Clark fouls her on purpose.
And this is called a take foul in basketball.
And in context, the take foul makes sense.
She wants to prevent Reese from getting the easy layup and force her to go to the free throw line in order to get the point.
And so she has to foul quickly before she begins the shot, because if she waits too long, then it's a shooting foul and a potential three-point play.
Now, if you watch this moment and you're not an alien who's completely unfamiliar with basketball or human interaction, it's one of the least remarkable sequences that you can imagine.
The refs blew a call, and then Clark attempted to end the play as quickly as possible, which everybody knows.
And that's why, moments after this incident took place, a reporter...
I asked Caitlin Clark perhaps the single most loaded question that's ever been asked in professional sports.
Watch.
Walk me through your perspective on the flagrant foul.
What was the point you were trying to make to her?
It's just a good take foul.
Either Angel gets wide open two points or we send him to the free throw line.
Nothing malicious about it.
It's just a good take foul.
Every basketball player knows that.
Yeah, what point were you trying to make with that foul?
What was the point?
Were you trying to say that, you know, black people should be enslaved again?
Were you saying that the 2020 election was stolen?
What specific genocide were you endorsing when you committed that foul?
This is the kind of ridiculous, obviously fake journalism that you see in the sports world all the time, but it's particularly common in the WNBA.
None of these reporters posed the same questions to Angel Reese when she elbowed Caitlin Clark in the head last year, or when she celebrated on the sideline when Clark was blindsided and knocked over by another player.
There's a lot of questions they don't have.
None of these people have ever asked whether Brittany Griner is really a woman.
You know, it seems like a relevant question.
They don't care about questions that are actually grounded in reality, but they're asking Caitlin Clark these very stupid questions because in the alternate universe of the WNBA, they honestly believe this kind of lazy race baiting is still persuasive.
But, you know, very few people are falling for it anymore.
Robert Griffin III, the former Redskins quarterback, was one of the most prominent voices to call out this fraudulent narrative.
He wrote, RG3 also posted commentary about the incident, in which he pointed out all the other times that Reese has attacked Caitlin Clark, physically and otherwise.
And then he pointed to Reese's own words in which she described herself as one of the league's villains, which is one of the most pathetic things you could possibly aspire to be as a villain in the WNBA.
But anyway, here's part of what he said.
Remember last year when they were talking about who gets the credit for the expansion and the eyeballs and the popularity boost of women's basketball?
Not just the WNBA, but women's basketball in general.
Because of the spike in the women's NCAA tournament and NWNBA viewership, a lot of people were attributing that to Caitlin Clark, and rightfully so.
This is what Andrew Reese had to say, and I quote, People are talking about women's basketball.
You never would think they'd be talking about women's basketball.
People are pulling up to the games.
We've got celebrities coming to the games, sold-out arenas, just because of one single game.
Just looking at that.
I'll take that role.
I'll take the bad guy role, and I'll continue to take that on to be that for my teammates.
I know I'll go down in history.
I'll look back in 20 years and be like, the reason we're watching women's basketball is not just because of one person.
It's because of me, too.
I want y 'all to realize that.
Now, I heard a lot of people say that I or others have made Angel Reese the villain.
Did you not just hear herself call herself?
The bad guy?
She called herself the villain.
I'm not making her the villain.
She's making herself the villain.
Now you can agree or disagree with RG3's perspective or not Karen the slightest either way.
Probably the smartest option of the three.
Regardless, in the world of sports commentary, RG3's statements crossed a very clear line because he refused to endorse the latest narrative of racial grievance that was percolating.
And therefore, various commentators lined up to attack him in extremely personal terms.
And no one was more eager to attack RG3 than Ryan Clark, who's a former NFL player.
And watch as Clark unloads on RG3, not for his opinions, but for the crime of marrying a white woman.
Because this is what passes for sports commentary these days.
Apparently, because his wife is white, RG3 is disqualified from commenting on any topic.
And so now, if you're RG3, when is the last time within your household you've had a conversation about what she's dealing with?
You haven't been able to do that because in both of your marriages, you've been married to white women.
You haven't had opportunities to have those conversations to educate you on what they're feeling.
What black women deal with, what they're seeing when they think of a young Angel Reese.
And the whole time that he's mimicking Angel Reese and bobbing his head and moving his neck while he's doing this whole piece, his wife is in the back amening and clapping.
And so to me, it's just another situation that now this young lady has to deal with.
But it also leads to what black women deal with a lot from I mean,
it's just, uh...
It's very difficult.
It's, in fact, impossible to imagine a mainstream sports commentator lecturing a famous athlete or another commentator for marrying a black woman.
You can't imagine it.
But he will openly say this, and there's no problem.
It's an incredible window into how racial politics, in every case, just demolishes any potential for civilized, rational discussion.
It's a race to the bottom every single time.
Instead of talking about, you know, the arguments or the thing that we're supposed to be talking about, which in this case is just basketball, everything boils down to your skin color or your wife's skin color in this case.
And from what I could tell, executives at the WNBA realized how bad this whole narrative was going for them.
And therefore, in order to distract from the fake Caitlin Clark controversy and the transparent anti-white rhetoric that ensued, they concocted the idea that the crowd of this game had actually unleashed racial slurs on Angel Reese and her teammates.
This is the AP's report on the ongoing investigation.
And again, just to remind you, all of this is coming just from the first game, just from day number one.
Quote, the WNBA is investigating racial comments directed towards Angel Reese by fans during the Chicago Sky's loss to Caitlin Clark and the Fever at Indiana on Saturday, according to a person familiar with the situation.
The person spoke to the Associated Press on Sunday on condition of anonymity because the league had not publicly identified the subject of the taunts or who made the allegations.
The WNBA strongly condemns racism, hate, and discrimination in all its forms.
They have no place in our league or in society, the league said in a statement.
We are aware of the allegations and are looking into the matter, close quote.
And the article adds that the WNBA Players Union has released a statement which asserted that unacceptable and hateful comments were uttered during the game at some point by someone in some way.
Now, if this sounds familiar, it's exactly what happened last September when I last made the mistake of talking about the WNBA.
Back then, there were reports that slurs had been directed at Brittany Griner while she, he, they was playing a game.
But curiously enough, no audio or video surfaced that proved anybody was uttering those slurs.
Even though there were television cameras and smartphones everywhere in the stadium, no one caught any of these naughty words on video.
And once again, that's the case here.
No one can quote these racial comments.
Everyone's reporting on racial comments.
No one's even said what they are.
And even less, can they give any proof that these comments were made?
In fact, Tyler Marsh, the head coach of the Chicago Sky, said he didn't hear any slurs from courtside.
The first time he heard about any alleged slur was when the media told him about it.
Watch.
Coach, when did you become aware that there was hate speech that happened?
I think when everyone else did.
I think that...
You know, it's...
It's something that, you know, we heard about.
And so, you know, again, we're just forthcoming with anything that the league is able to get an investigation about.
And just a quick follow-up on, just because you coached in Indiana, did you ever have any issues with that while you were coaching there?
I think my focus was always on the team and on the organization and doing my job as best as I could.
And so, yeah, that's kind of my best.
Were you doing this throughout the game or just at that moment?
Oh, I was concentrated on our team and what we were doing.
Okay, so he's a total coward.
He knows that it's nonsense.
He's a total coward.
He was asked, when you coached in Indiana, did you have a problem with hate speech?
The answer is obviously no.
I mean, the answer is no, never, not one time.
What are you talking about?
People going to watch basketball games or not?
But he doesn't say that.
He says, well, I wasn't really focused on that.
I wasn't focused on that.
So nobody can say what these comments were.
There's no evidence of them.
They weren't picked up by any camera, by any cell phone or anything.
No one seems to have heard.
Someone heard them, but no one is even saying that they specifically heard them.
So, you know, it looks like the KKK ghosts are back again.
After their first appearance in September, they've returned to torment the WNBA for reasons that no one can explain.
On opening night, these racist ghosts once again purchased tickets to see WNBA games because, of course, racists love spending money on the WNBA.
That's like the first thing a racist would love to do is go to a WNBA game.
And then as the game progressed, the racist ghosts decided to drop N-bombs, I guess, that only the players could hear.
And coaches couldn't hear them.
TV cameras and cell phones couldn't pick them up.
But rest assured, the ghosts were definitely being racist, and we should all be very troubled by their behavior.
The WNBA explicitly encourages narratives like this to develop.
In fact, just this year they launched something called No Space for Hate, which the AP describes as, quote, a multidimensional platform designed to combat hate and promote respect across all WNBA spaces, both online and in arenas.
In other words, they have a whole program that's designed to lend credibility to the idea that random people are buying tickets to WNBA games only to unleash racial slurs once they get there.
Now, in reality, as you can tell from the footage of this game that was uploaded online, the handful of people in attendance were not being racist.
They were booing, though, because the product the WNBA sells, from the quality of the referees to the quality of most of the players, is garbage.
The booing is evident in many videos, but the racial slurs were not.
And that's why when she was asked about these alleged racial slurs, Angel Reese rattled off a few meaningless statements, including a reference to the WNBA policy on hate speech.
But at no point did she describe the allegedly racist remarks that she presumably would have heard since she was on the court.
Watch.
Yeah, obviously there's no place in this league for that.
I think the WNBA, our team, and our organization has done a great job supporting me.
I've had communication from everyone, from so many people across this league and being able to support me.
Going through this whole process, obviously, it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone, and I think they've done a great job supporting us in this.
How did it affect you Saturday, trying to do your job, trying to play, and having this going on simultaneously?
Yeah, obviously it's tough, but I think I have a great support system.
I'm loved by it.
So, you notice she never actually even explicitly confirms that she heard anything?
She just says there's no place in a league for it.
There's no place in a league for this thing that didn't happen.
There's no place in a league for imaginary things that don't happen.
So she never even confirms that she heard anything.
And she certainly doesn't tell us what was said, supposedly.
What exactly was said that was racially insensitive?
No one can explain that.
So she's not exactly talking like someone actually heard anything during the game.
Even if you don't know anything about this particular incident, it doesn't sound remotely like she's telling the truth.
Instead, she's making it very clear once again that she's an actor and not a very convincing one.
Her job, as RG3 pointed out, is to play the villain of the WNBA so they can generate some drama.
These people believe that if they generate enough fake storylines about racist fans and non-existent flagrant fouls, then people might actually watch the games.
And then they can scrape together some cash instead of losing another $40 million this year.
The WNBA is the perfect encapsulation of every deranged impulse of modern leftism that the rest of society is rejecting.
The hoaxes simply aren't effective anymore.
I mean, no one outside of the media buys it.
Manufactured narratives about phantom acts of racism without any kind of evidence whatsoever convince no one.
And yet for all the millions of dollars they burn every year on high-priced consultants, the WNBA is one of the few remaining organizations on the planet that doesn't seem to realize this.
The WNBA stands virtually alone as a reminder of what this country would have looked like if we hadn't reversed course after the George Floyd hysteria and the defund the police movement and so on.
And in that sense, and only in that sense, it's fair to say that the WNBA, against all odds, actually does serve something of a purpose.
It's a reminder of a...
Giant bullet that this country dodged.
And every time the league releases a dumb statement about legitimate basketball plays or some ADIQ sports commentator accuses Caitlin Clark of racism for committing a foul, we should thank God that the rest of the country has nothing in common with the WNBA.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Let me ask you something.
Do you really trust your internet provider?
You probably shouldn't.
In many countries, ISPs are required to log your online activity for government access.
In the U.S., it's even worse.
They can legally sell your browsing history to anyone.
What's the solution?
A VPN.
And I personally use ExpressVPN.
It's an app that routes my internet traffic through encrypted servers, keeping it away from my ISP data brokers and other prying eyes.
But of course, you need to trust your VPN provider.
Why do I trust ExpressVPN?
Despite receiving over 300 law enforcement requests last year, they've never exposed customer data, not once.
Check their transparency report if you're curious.
They do comply with authorities when required, but they can't hand over what they don't have.
Their servers run on volatile memory with nothing saved to disk private by design.
I personally use it every time I travel for work events, rallies, and the like.
It gives me peace of mind knowing that my sensitive emails and financial information are safe, even on sketchy hotel or airport Wi-Fi.
ExpressVPN works across all your devices.
Couldn't be simpler to use one tap and you're protected.
It's as simple as that.
So if you want the VPN I trust to protect my online privacy, get ExpressVPN.
In fact, you can get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free with my special link.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
That's exprssvpn.com slash Walsh to get four extra months free.
All right.
Nancy Mace.
My dear friend Nancy Mace is the most...
Attention-starved person in Congress, hands down.
As we have reviewed, especially in recent weeks and months, all that this woman does is talk about herself and cook up publicity stunts.
I mean, that's all she does.
And yesterday, she had another one.
This is what she tweeted earlier in the day.
She tweeted this.
And just to remind you before I read this, this is a member of Congress who is tweeting this.
She says, Yes, I'm going there.
Today I will show my naked body on one of the videos predator and rapist Patrick Bryant took of me and many other women.
Without our knowledge, without our permission, and without our consent, he stripped his victims of their dignity, their privacy, and their liberty.
He meticulously organized and categorized these things.
They stored these images of all these women for years without telling them.
He still walks free, no accountability, no jail, no restitution for his victims, nothing.
He's still free to rape and film without consequence.
So, that was the headline she put out there.
She was going to display her naked body during a congressional hearing.
Just add this to the long list of things that are far more desperate and far more shameless than anything that someone like AOC has ever done.
I mean, as much as I despise AOC, it's actually unimaginable that she would ever tweet this out.
As desperate for attention as she is.
I cannot imagine her ever tweeting out that she was planning to show her naked body during a congressional hearing.
This is the kind of utterly shameless ploy for attention that only Nancy Mace could cook up.
If I read just the first two sentences of that tweet to you, you had no context, you didn't know where it was coming, and I asked you to guess which member of Congress said this, everybody would say, oh yeah, Nancy, it can only be Nancy Mace.
You know.
So, this is what she does.
And she's doing all this ostensibly to expose some guy that no one has heard of.
And actually, the guy is her ex-fiance.
So, when you hear the name, like Patrick, what was it?
Patrick Bryant.
That was the name, right?
Yeah, Patrick Bryant.
And you hear that name, again, without context, you might think, oh, well, so is that some...
Whatever your issue is with him, even if he did something terrible, why are you talking about that in Congress?
If he did something terrible, take it to court.
Is this person relevant?
Is this person a national security risk or something?
Is this a terrorist mastermind of some kind that all Americans have to worry about?
Well, no, this is her ex-fiance.
She's got a problem with her ex-fiance.
And Nancy Mace has been using her time in Congress for months now to lob accusations against her former lover.
Okay?
Now, whether the accusations are true or not, which I have no idea, you may wonder still why it has anything to do with Congress.
If he did something terrible to you, and you have evidence of it, take it to court!
Like, if you really have evidence of all this video, evidence of him...
Take it to court.
What are you doing in Congress?
Bring it to the police.
And if you haven't done that, or if you have and the guy hasn't been arrested yet, well, then that raises a lot of questions about the legitimacy of this supposed evidence that you have.
But regardless, taxpayers are not, we are not sending you to Congress to deal with your personal disputes.
But this is what she's doing.
And the answer is that she's doing it because she cannot talk about anything but herself.
Ever, period.
She cannot do it.
That's literally the only thing she talks about.
So she grabbed headlines by desperately promising to expose her naked body to the world.
This is like some kind of sex pest in a trench coat, right?
Threatening to flash the taxpayers.
And then we get to the hearing.
And that she hyped up, you know, as one does when they're doing legitimate work for the taxpayers, they hype up some, tune into this hearing, you're not going to believe the videos that I show you.
So, we get to the hearing, and here's what that looked like.
Liberty begins with the right to close a door.
A hidden camera kicks that door off its hinges.
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment enshrines a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Yet today, that freedom is violated by secret cameras and hidden devices to record women and girls with impunity.
Freedom is not a theory.
It is the right to breathe.
It is the right to dress and undress, to sleep without someone's camera filming your naked body.
The founders wrote liberty in parchment, but hidden cameras erase it.
Okay, so the—and this, by the way, just all that Congress has been this session is just these women with their publicity stunts and, like, using—just treating Congress like a reality show.
I mean, you know, you had the female—the Congresswomen that were showing up with their babies.
Right, so we had to go through like three weeks of them complaining that they have to come to work and, you know, she's making a big show of having her baby with her on the House floor and now we have Nancy Mace.
It's just one thing after another.
Can you people get to the actual work of Congress?
Can you do something for the taxpayers, not yourselves?
Can you think about something other than yourself for five seconds, Nancy?
So the naked photo that she threatened to share with the world is actually just a grainy, blurry screenshot from a security camera.
Now, did this guy...
It's a security camera from his apartment, I think, and it's in the living room, it looks like.
Actually, it looks like it's in his kitchen, maybe, but it also captures the living room.
So did this guy have a security camera because he's a rapist sex predator?
Maybe.
I honestly have no clue.
I'm not saying that's not the case.
I don't know.
You don't know.
I have no clue.
I haven't the faintest idea.
Now, there are, of course, other reasons why a person might have a security camera.
Also, the camera is in the living room.
I mean, this is a wide shot of the living room.
If the camera is there in order to capture voyeuristic images of naked women, that's a terrible thing.
You should go to jail for that.
That's my point.
If you have evidence of a crime, take it to the police.
But if that is what happened, why would he have it in his own living room?
I mean, if the camera was in the bathroom, a place where there's no legitimate reason...
Now, I think it's crazy people have security cameras in their own homes pointing into their living spaces.
I think that's nuts.
I would never do that.
I don't want a camera.
I agree with Nancy.
I don't want a camera following me around everywhere, even in my own home.
So we have security cameras outside the home, but I'm not going to have a camera.
But people do that.
A lot of people do that these days.
That's like a pretty normal thing.
People have security cameras all over their own homes in the living spaces.
Now, so that in and of itself, when you hear, oh, he's got a security camera in his living room, that doesn't...
Maybe 20 years ago, if you heard that, you would go, oh, this guy's a total freak.
But now it's like, well, you might be a freak, but also a lot of people do that.
So that's not in and of itself abnormal.
If it's in the bathroom, even in this world where people have cameras everywhere, there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason for that.
In the bedroom, even.
Even though, again, a lot of people have security cameras in their bedrooms.
I think it's crazy, but a lot of people do.
But if there was some more damning sort of piece of evidence like that, of, oh, look, he's got a camera in the bathroom, for example.
Well, you would think that she'd be presenting that evidence.
But she didn't.
This is the image that she chose to show in Congress and make a big deal out of.
I think it's...
It's fair to assume that if there were more damning images or more damning evidence, she would have shared it.
So this whole story is very strange to me.
And I'm definitely not going to take Nancy Mace's word for it.
Sorry, I'm just not.
What she's saying could be true.
I don't know.
But I'm sorry, we can't just say, well, Nancy Mace said it.
She would never lie.
She would never lie for attention.
Just recently, we have her in the cosmetic aisle at the pharmacy, claiming she's being viciously accosted by some guy, and then we get the video of it, and all he's doing is saying, hey, what do you do in a town hall?
And she turns that into a five-day news cycle.
So we know that she's capable of just making things up or grossly exaggerating.
Is she doing that in this case?
I have no idea.
No clue.
Either way...
Why is this our problem as the taxpayers to deal with?
If Nancy Mace was actually victimized in some criminal way by her former fiancé, I'm very sorry for that.
That is your personal problem that you need to address in your personal life.
I would suggest going to the police and giving them all this evidence that you claim to have that this guy is a, you called him a predator and a rapist.
Why are you not?
Now this comes back on you a little bit.
You claim you have all this evidence, this guy's a rapist, and you have not ensured that he's in jail?
What are you doing?
Why are you sending out tweets?
So, we still have that question.
Daily Beast has more about this.
Congresswoman Nancy Mace displayed a poster she claimed was of her naked at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday as she accused her ex-fiance and others of taking video of women without permission.
It was the latest in a series of explosive allegations Mace has publicly made against her ex.
The silhouette image was one of the several visuals the South Carolina Congresswoman used during a House Oversight Committee hearing on surveillance in private spaces.
Her ex-fiance and others have denied the accusations.
So they've come out and denied it.
One of the men she has accused sued the Congresswoman for defamation in March.
So, one of the guys she's accusing is suing for defamation.
As far as I know, so far, the other guys aren't.
So, is that potentially damning on their part?
Are they not suing because what she's saying is true?
Again, I don't know.
There is a funny thing about all this, which is, did you know that you actually can't sue a member of Congress for things they say in Congress?
Did you know that?
If a member of Congress makes a false defamatory claim about you during an official proceeding in Congress, you can't sue them.
They have total immunity.
So a member of Congress can get up at a hearing, they can go to the floor of Congress, the floor of the House, and they can say whatever they want about you.
And you can't sue them.
They can make whatever false claims they want with no repercussions whatsoever.
Is that why Nancy Mace is hashing this out in Congress rather than in You know, criminal court?
Because it's the one place that allows her to say whatever she wants without getting sued in a bankruptcy for defamation?
Or are the claims true?
Again, I don't know.
Neither do you.
What I do know is that this is not congressional business.
You are there to represent your constituents, not to settle personal scores.
You're there to do serious legislative work for the American people, not to dream up one ploy after another to grab headlines.
Even if you have really serious problems or if you've been wronged or victimized in some serious way.
Well, you should get restitution for that.
You should handle that.
You should get justice.
But it's still not congressional business.
So, there are basically two groups in Congress.
You know, and most people would say there are two groups, Republicans and Democrats.
And yeah, those are...
That's one way of breaking it down.
And there are significant.
People say, oh, there's no difference between them.
I mean, there are differences.
The difference between Nancy Mace and a Democrat is vanishingly small.
The only real noticeable difference, even politically, with Nancy Mace and a Democrat is that she is now very outspoken against the trans agenda.
But up until, as we talked about before, up until like a year ago, she was out there talking about how much she supports trans rights, quote-unquote, using that phrase exactly.
That was not all that long ago.
So anyway, but there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
But I think the more, perhaps even the more salient way of categorizing them is that you have a group of members of Congress who became politicians.
But really want to be TikTok influencers.
And I know you'll often, this is not some kind of great new insight on my part, because people say all the time that Congress is full of people who are too ugly to become actors, right?
A bunch of failed theater kids.
And that's true, but I think it's not even that they, it's now, that might have been the case 20 years ago, that they're all a bunch of politicians, but what they really wanted to do was be in Hollywood, but they're too ugly for it.
Now, these are people who aren't even, their greatest dream doesn't even aspire that high.
They want to be influencers, is what they want to be.
And then you have another group of people who actually want to be in Congress.
Sadly, the former group of the wannabe influencers is much, much larger than the latter.
The influencer group comprises 95% of Congress.
Out of the 535 members of Congress, of the House and Senate, the wannabe influencer group has 525 people in it.
That leaves 10 or 15 serious adults.
That's another way of putting it.
The most relevant distinction in Congress now, it's the serious adults versus the Attention-starved children.
That's the group.
And there are a few serious adults, but most of them just aren't.
These are just not serious people.
And they certainly don't care about something as boring and kind of technical as legislating.
Because just legislation doesn't get you a lot of attention.
This is what we have now.
We have a lot of people that get into politics because they want attention.
It's not even anymore that you've got people that get into Congress because they have some deep desire for power.
They're lusting for power.
I would prefer that.
At least then, if you have someone, their real goal is they want power.
At least that could be a serious person that might.
Accomplish something or a thing or two.
Maybe their ultimate goals are not good, but at least that's someone who is capable of accomplishing something.
But I think a lot of these people, they're not even power hungry.
It's like they don't even really want power.
They just want attention.
That's it.
All right.
CJ Online reports, a Kansas mom is suing the owner of sites providing online pornographic content under a new Kansas law that requires websites to use age verification technology to prevent minors from accessing their content.
The mom, suing anonymously as Jane Doe, says that her 14-year-old son, identified by the initials QR, opened four cases against Tech Pump Solutions technology, Titan websites, and Multimedia LLC on May 14th.
Doe sent her son to access pornographic websites without any form of age verification.
And now she's suing because this law allows her to do that.
And she also says that...
And her son accessed these inappropriate sites without her knowledge on a device that was not...
So they had a...
I guess it sounds like they had their devices that were being monitored, and then they had an old laptop that was stored in a closet somewhere that this kid found and that they didn't realize he had.
And then he was able to use that to access all these sites.
And so that's what she's suing about.
And this is an important story because it shows...
And I'm not going to give my whole spiel on this because I just did that two or three days ago.
But it's an important story because it shows why you can't just say, oh, this is the parent's job, right?
Apparently, these parents were actively monitoring their child's Internet use.
But he found an old laptop and he was accessing this kind of content on that laptop because this is what kids do.
You know, kids find a way.
Like Jurassic Park, you know, life finds a way.
Well, kids will find a way to do whatever it is you don't want them to do.
Now, I think we can probably assume that there were some real parenting lapses that went into this.
And why do you have old devices in the house that you're not keeping track of?
I mean, if you've got an old laptop you're not using anymore, throw it away.
Don't just keep it in the house.
But still, I mean, you can do almost everything right as a parent and have all the rules in place.
And be setting a good example.
And be attentive.
As attentive as you can be.
I mean, if you've got a 14-year-old kid, you're not following them around the house every second of the day.
So you can do all that, and they might still find a loophole.
They might still find a way around it.
That's what kids do.
And this is why we can help parents by putting some very basic restrictions and guardrails in place.
I don't know why people are so resistant to the idea of just helping parents.
We put parents on an island and we demand that they raise perfectly well-adjusted human beings, but then we're not willing to do anything as a society to facilitate that or make it easier.
When I say help parents, I'm not talking about the welfare state.
I don't mean that kind of help.
I'm not talking about financial help.
I'm just saying try to create a society where there is not...
That isn't just overrun by filth and smut everywhere you turn.
How about helping out that way?
A little bit.
Because, look, I'm not going to start talking about it takes a village to raise a child, because I don't quite agree with that sentiment.
However, and it is...
The job of a parent primarily to take care of your own kid.
But also, yes, as a society, we do have a level of responsibility to the children of society.
We do.
So saying, oh, that's your kid, take care of your own kid, yeah, up to a point.
I mean, you are, as the parent, the responsibility falls first and foremost and primarily to you.
But the rest of us have some...
Amount of responsibility as well.
To just like comport yourself with a certain level of dignity in public.
You know, if you're going around screaming obscenities or something like that and there are kids around.
Well, it's not good enough to say, well, those aren't my kids.
You have responsibility too as a civilized adult.
And so this is one responsibility I think we have.
And we should be more serious about it.
Okay, I wanted to talk about this.
Scott Adams announced a couple days ago that he has the same type of cancer as Joe Biden, spread to his bones, and he anticipates that he has only a few months to live.
Probably won't survive the summer, so it's very sad news, of course.
And Scott Adams is a great mind.
I've been a fan of his for a long time.
He's an interesting person, which to me is the highest compliment, among the highest compliments I can pay someone, because the market is saturated with boring click farmers who regurgitate the same talking points over and over again.
Scott Adams is actually interesting.
He's a real thinker, and so he will be dearly missed.
But he is still with us right now, and I watched the whole show where he talks about his diagnosis and also Biden's.
This is on Monday.
And it's tragic and sad, of course, but it's also fascinating and really inspiring to see a man confronting his own death with forthrightness and courage.
We just don't see that.
Hardly at all in our society.
So here's just a quick clip.
I think this is from the end of this episode where he made this announcement.
And I want to play this.
Watch it.
Now, I realize that for some of you, this is hitting you kind of hard because you're hearing it for the first time.
Weirdly, since it's old news to me, I've just sort of processed it.
So it just sort of is what it is.
And I have to say that everybody has to die, as far as I know.
And it's kind of civilized that you know about how long you have, so you can put your affairs together and make sure you've said your goodbyes and done all the things you need to do.
So if you had to pick a way to die, this one's really painful.
Like, really, really painful.
But it's also kind of good that it gives you enough time while your brain is still working to wrap things up.
You might wonder why it took me so long to tell you, and I think I owe you an answer to that.
Number one, it would change my life because everybody would start treating me like the cancer guy.
You can't really back, like there's no...
There's no second way that goes.
Once you go public, you're just the dying cancer guy.
And I didn't want you to have to think about it.
And I didn't want to have to think about it.
You should know, well, if you didn't already know, I am unusually mentally tough.
So while this could be much worse, you know, for some people, I suppose, I'm handling it quite well.
The pain is tough.
I mean, really tough.
But the mental part, you know, I got that under control.
And I can see in the comments that some of you are having a tough time with it.
But remember, nothing lasts forever.
Nothing lasts forever.
So I think this is really extraordinary because it's such a departure from What we're used to seeing.
I mean, for one thing, this man is talking about his own impending death, and he's talking about it less dramatically and with less self-pity than how most people these days talk about, you know, reading mean comments on the Internet or whatever.
We live in a culture where people claim they're traumatized by the slightest little speed bump in the road.
Everybody complains about everything all the time.
Nobody suffers with dignity.
Nobody suffers with stoicism.
And here's Scott Adams dying of cancer and speaking about it calmly, facing it with dignity and class.
And I think that's a tremendous example and also a tremendous rebuke of our weak, effeminate culture.
And also, you notice what Scott is not saying.
He's not saying that he's still fighting.
And that there's a chance that he'll beat this thing and so on.
Well, you know, there's only a 1% chance, but a 1% chance isn't no chance.
Like, that kind of thing.
And the way people usually handle this kind of situation, which is totally understandable, of course, is that they want to be in denial about it.
And so, you know, what we're used to seeing is someone who's on death's door, essentially, talking about how they're still fighting, going to fight to the end.
And we tend to look at that as brave.
But at a certain point, it's denial.
And Scott is not in denial.
So to plainly say, yes, I'm going to die.
I'm not going to beat this thing.
And that's not weak.
That's not giving up.
That's not surrendering the fight or whatever.
It's quite the opposite.
That takes immense strength.
And what he says also about how everyone has to die, that's an important message.
Maybe the most important one that you can hear.
And yeah, we all know it intellectually.
Nobody's surprised to learn that we all have to die.
But we do live in denial of that fact.
And there's an absurdity to that.
There's an absurdity to the level of denial that we all are walking around with all the time.
And so when we hear that someone is dying, we kind of think to ourselves, well, we're very sad about it, but we also think like...
We're thankful that that is not happening to us.
And there's a certain dread at the thought that, what if that was me?
But of course it is happening to us too.
We've all been diagnosed with a terminal illness, which is the human condition, and our life expectancy is several decades at most, before death shows up on our doorstep.
Really, it's even shorter than that, because we all get...
Or not all, but some of us get, hopefully, a window of time in our lives where death does not come near us.
A window of time, hopefully, where you're alive and all of your close family members and friends are alive.
And so death is sort of this boogeyman out in the shadows, and it's hardly even real because it hasn't touched you.
Death is something that happens to other people, but not to you.
Not to the people who are close to you.
Some people never get this window.
Some people get this window for 20 years, 30 years, maybe a little bit longer.
Then the window closes and death moves in and it starts taking people close to you.
Parents, relatives, friends.
And once that starts to happen, it's not going to stop.
Once it starts to happen, it won't stop until it takes you.
Once you get into that, what we might call the death stage of your life, the stage where the people closest to you start dying and you start losing.
Your life gets lonelier in a way as you start losing people.
The only way that that stage ends is with your own death.
And there's no stopping it.
There's absolutely no stopping it.
And that's just the reality of life.
There's no escaping it.
You can wear all your health monitors and get your physicals and eat a good diet and avoid seed oils or whatever.
And all that is good, but you're still going to die.
And probably, if you're buying yourself any time with all that stuff, not much.
Probably.
So this is a fact that should be a lot more relevant to our day-to-day lives than it is.
It should bear on our lives and on the choices that we make a lot more than it does.
And...
Because we all know that we're going to...
It's like, inevitably, we're going to...
You're going to get the bad call about yourself one of these days if you don't just die suddenly.
So that's inevitable.
The other inevitable part is you're going to go and you're going to think like, so much of what you spent your life doing is going to look ridiculous.
You're going to be embarrassed by it.
You're like, why did I care about any of that stuff?
90% of the stuff you cared about, you won't even be able to, you won't care about it anymore and you won't even be able to understand how you ever did, even though those wants and desires defined your life up until that moment.
So, and one of the reasons why that's the case is that we were able to live in denial and not think about death.
And that's made easier on us because we kind of, we keep it out, we keep death out and we don't really talk about it, we don't acknowledge it.
And when there are people around us, including like famous people, who are now confronting their own death.
The kind of bargain we've all made unspoken is that those people will also like they will talk about dying as if they're not actually going to die.
What they'll rarely do is what Scott Adams did there.
That's pretty rare.
And it's great because it forces you to confront it because he's confronting it.
And I think that's a great service that he's...
Providing for us.
Less than stellar credit can close so many doors, from buying a car to securing a new apartment or house.
Kickoff challenges that narrative with credit building plans designed to safely jumpstart your score in the simplest, fastest way possible, making financial possibilities more accessible.
Again, Kickoff is the number one credit building app out there, and they make it so simple to sign up and start credit building.
You can sign up in minutes right from your Plus, with over 1 million users and hundreds of thousands of positive reviews, There's a reason why Kickoff is the number one credit builder on the App Store.
Start building credit with Kickoff today, and you can get your first month for as little as $1.
That's 80% off the normal price.
When you go to getkickoff.com slash Walsh today, that's Kickoff without the C. Get, K-I-K-O-F-F dot com slash Walsh.
Must sign up via getkickoff.com slash Walsh to activate offer.
Offer applies to new Kickoff customers.
First month only.
Subject to approval, offer subject to change, average first-year credit score impact of plus 84 points, vantage score 3.0 between January 2023 and January 2024 for kickoff credit account users who started with a score below 600 who paid on time and had no delinquencies or collections added to their credit profile during the period.
Late payments may negatively impact your credit score.
Individual results may vary.
Our Daily Wire Plus Memorial Day sale is happening right now.
Get 40% off an annual Daily Wire Plus membership with code DW40.
That includes ad-free shows from the most trusted voices of conservative media, me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and more.
You'll get access to our full entertainment library and the premiere of Dr. Peterson's new series, Parenting, premiering this Sunday exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Join now at dailywireplus.com, code DW40, to save 40% on all new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, I saw a very inspiring bumper sticker once that said, everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.
Be kind always.
And the message is clear.
Everyone has problems.
Everyone is silently struggling against some great obstacle.
And so we should be patient and kind to each other.
It's a nice sentiment.
It's also wrong.
That's true that everyone's fighting a battle, but the problem is that in so many cases, the battle is extremely stupid, and very often it's not being fought silently.
We do know about the battles that most people are fighting because they don't shut up about it.
For example, many of us now know about the battle currently being fought by Starbucks employees against the company's dress code.
Hundreds of Starbucks workers have been on strike for over a week now, demanding that the dress code be repealed.
They're very loud about this battle, and of all the battles ever fought, it is certainly among the dumbest.
Especially when you consider just how incredibly reasonable and normal this dress code is.
Watch.
Monday marked the start of new rules on what baristas are allowed to wear under those famous green aprons.
The company requiring workers to wear plain black t-shirts and khaki black or blue denim bottoms.
Starbucks Workers United, the union representing workers at 570 of Starbucks' 10,000 company-owned U.S. stores, says the dress code should be subject to collective bargaining.
Now, you might have thought that in order for a dress code to provoke mass protests and strikes, it would have to be really onerous.
You might have thought that Starbucks was implementing a formal black tie required policy.
Maybe you thought it would go the other way, and the dress code would be something really morally objectionable.
Maybe the dress code stipulates that they aren't allowed to wear any clothes at all.
You have to come to work naked.
If that was the case, Nancy Mace would have already submitted her job application.
But it turns out that neither of those things are the case.
It turns out that the dress code is the least demanding, least onerous dress code ever devised.
A black t-shirt and jeans or khakis.
It's about as reasonable as you can get.
But the Starbucks employees are horrified.
This requirement to wear jeans and a black t-shirt presents an insurmountable hurdle, they explain.
Watch.
Now we have to purchase new shirts and shoes to be compliant with the new policy.
Why doesn't Starbucks do the right thing and provide a stipend for these newly required items?
We have several partners who have spent lots of money on Starbucks branded shirts, merch, etc.
and are no longer allowed to wear them.
So she wants a stipend to buy a black t-shirt.
I mean, you can get a pack of six of them from Walmart for like $22.
Also, not to be Captain Obvious here, but the three Starbucks employees in that video who were protesting having to wear black t-shirts.
We're all wearing black t-shirts.
They were currently wearing exactly the thing that they said they could not wear.
So Starbucks came to them and said, hey, there's a new dress code.
Please wear exactly what you're currently wearing right now.
And these Starbucks employees said, how can I do that?
How can we possibly wear the thing that we're wearing?
That hasn't stopped them from striking, of course, all across the country.
Watch.
Dress code.
No one ever asked for a new dress code.
They updated a dress code recently and it made it looser where we can wear colors and patterns.
And now they're deciding that we can only wear black.
It's very restrictive.
Most of us had to buy new clothes and we can't.
We can't afford it.
We barely make enough money to pay our bills.
And also on top of that, they keep trying to make all these changes in union stores and it's illegal.
They're not allowed to make these changes without marketing with us and voting on this.
So it's just incredibly alarming and upsetting that Starbucks is continuing to do illegal things to our union stores.
Starbucks has not bargained with our union over these dress code changes.
Therefore, we do not accept this dress code.
Workers United has also sent a letter to Starbucks demanding that the new dress code not be implemented at union-represented stores until bargaining concludes.
Starbucks is legally required to bargain with workers at union stores over changes to their working conditions.
Unilateral changes are not legal.
If the new dress code is implemented at our store, or if workers are disciplined for wearing face masks, we will be forced to take escalating action.
I believe that we will win!
So to be clear about this, they are marching with picket signs because they don't want to wear a black t-shirt.
Even though, again, most of them are currently wearing black t-shirts, and what's even funnier is that many of the striking employees in these videos are wearing Starbucks Union t-shirts, which also happen to be black.
But that means that the union went out and bought uniforms for the union while objecting to wearing a uniform for the actual company itself.
So the whole thing is ridiculous on every conceivable level.
Now, given that all these people can easily comply with the dress code, and some of them already are, accidentally, why are they actually objecting to it?
Well, first, because the bumper sticker isn't actually true, it turns out.
Not everyone is fighting a battle.
Not a real battle, anyway.
And lots of people have easy lives.
They have no significant hurdle or challenge.
And that's why they have to go looking for obstacles that don't exist in a desperate attempt to imbue their lives with some sense of meaning.
And second, a lot of people today, especially the woke crowd, reflexively perceive themselves to be at the center of every situation they encounter in their lives.
Nothing can ever be about something other than them as individuals.
The whole point of a uniform is to make people uniform.
That is, to, in a very small way in this case, subordinate the desires of the individual for the sake of some greater purpose.
And in this case, the subordination is extremely minor.
As it involves simply wearing a black t-shirt.
And the greater purpose is not something of cosmic significance.
It's simply the purpose of creating a slightly better, more appealing experience for the customers.
But to people like this, the idea that they should ever have to do anything at all, the idea that they should have to make any effort, even in the slightest degree, for the sake of something above or beyond or other than their own comfort and interest, is anathema.
I mean, they can't wrap their heads around the notion that there may be Sometimes can be some things that are more important than their personal desires.
And this is why they make terrible employees and terrible citizens and terrible friends and terrible family members and terrible spouses.
They are pathologically selfish.
They cannot even conceive of a universe that they are not at the center of.
Now, you might say that the dress code at Starbucks is a rather small thing to justify such a profound indictment.
But the smallness of the thing is precisely what justifies the indictment.
If you aren't willing to just shut up and wear a black t-shirt because your employer asks you to, then you almost certainly aren't going to be willing to make greater sacrifices for greater purposes.
If this is too much to ask, then, I mean, anything is too much to ask.
A company cannot function if it reaches a critical mass of these kinds of petty narcissists, which means that Starbucks is in for a world of hurt.
But neither can any institution.
Neither can the country itself.
So, in conclusion, the Starbucks employees should just shut up and put on the t-shirt, or else they are today canceled.
