Ep. 1617 - The Trans Agenda Was Just Dealt A Fatal Blow
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we will break down the Supreme Court’s historic decision which puts a nail in the coffin of the trans agenda. I’ll explain why. Also, Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson have a very heated debate over Iran. A lot of people seem upset and scandalized by the conversation. I thought it was fantastic, and highly entertaining. And a feminist comedian admits that she became more conservative when she had a kid. Many such cases. Why is that? And a recent report proves what is now undeniable: AI has killed what was left of the education system. It’s over.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1617
- - -
DailyWire+:
"Am I Racist?" — the official movie of Juneteenth. Streaming now. Only on DailyWire+.
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
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.
Tax Network USA - For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit their website at https://TNUSA.com/WALSH Plus you’ll get 10% off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of Our Nation’s Birthday.
- - -
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, we will break down the Supreme Court's historic decision, which puts a nail in the coffin of the transagenda, and I'll explain why.
Also, Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had a very heated debate over Iran.
A lot of people seem upset and scandalized by the conversation.
I thought it was fantastic and highly entertaining.
And a feminist comedian admits that she became more conservative when she had a kid.
Many such cases.
Why is that exactly?
And a recent report proves what is now undeniable AI has killed AI.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Matt Wall Show.
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 different functions in your body.
It's a hard job.
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-backed 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 subscriptions by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering Walsh at checkout.
It's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month subscription.
There are two accurate ways to look at yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's ban on so-called gender-affirming procedures for minors.
The first way is to see the ruling as a historic victory that protects millions of children all over the country.
It's the culmination of several years of effort by lawmakers, conservative legal groups, and everyday citizens, including many of you who are listening to this show right now.
When I published my investigation into Vanderbilt's Medical Center just under three years ago, exposing their depraved practice of mutilating children, we received an enormous amount of backlash from left-wing activists and many corporate media outlets.
They called us bigots because we opposed the sterilization and castration of children.
They harassed us, threatened to kill us, but it didn't work.
We urged Tennessee lawmakers to pass a law outlawing this barbarism.
They did.
And yesterday, that law was upheld.
And as a result of this decision, all 27 states that have similar bans will be able to keep those bans in place.
We won, and we should celebrate that.
That's the first way to look at this ruling.
The other way of looking at this decision, which is also a correct way of seeing it, is to see it as a crushing defeat for trans activists and for gender ideology as a whole.
It was also an unforced error on their part.
Because the ACLU did not have to support this lawsuit and force it through to the Supreme Court.
They didn't have to put a woman pretending to be a man named Chase Strangio in front of the highest court in the land to humiliate herself and her entire organization in the name of diversity and trans representation.
They didn't have to insist on the obvious absurdity that children have a constitutional right to their own castration.
They could have simply allowed states like Tennessee to ban the chemical and physical castration of minors.
Without insisting on a legal fight, for once in their lives, these activists could have adopted a relatively moderate position by their standards, but because they chose to go after the Tennessee ban with the same level of derangement that they approach everything else, now everyone can see, as outlined in a lengthy opinion that's now binding legal precedent in every court in the country, just how intentionally bankrupt and fraudulent their whole movement truly is.
The best arguments that the left-wing justices could muster were clearly nonsense.
They were destroyed by the majority opinion, as we'll discuss in a moment.
And therefore, by bringing this case, they've opened the door to a much more extensive nationwide ban on child butchery, and that's exactly what needs to happen next.
Already you can tell that the gender cult has lost a lot of the mainstream support that it needs to survive.
If you look at some of the coverage of this decision across the corporate press, you won't find anyone defending the idea, or very few people defending the idea, that children should be castrated or mutilated.
Instead, you'll find a lot of segments like this one.
The best they can do here is tell viewers that if they want to get some gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, they'll need to head to the coast to get it.
Watch.
Controversial and closely watched cases of the term.
It's written today by the chief justice.
It's a 6-3 ruling.
The court is saying that children who identify as transgender don't have a constitutional right to get puberty blockers or hormones to change their biological sex.
And then it's saying that states have this interest in regulating medicine.
They are entitled to make these decisions, and especially, whereas the court put it here in this decision, they're novel drugs with potentially Life-altering consequences.
Those laws will be upheld.
States will be free to ban this kind of medical treatment for children.
So that if you're taking those kind of medications, if you're a parent and you want your children to be able to, you're going to have to go to states that do allow it.
And we've got a map of it you can see.
Those are kind of on the coast that are still going to be allowing.
It's just up to the states.
All the coverage like this, even from left-wing outlets like MSNBC or CNN, has the same kind of comments below them.
In every case, virtually every comment supports a total ban on so-called gender-affirming care.
And even the news anchors, as you can tell, aren't really pushing the trans argument anymore.
There's not a whole lot of energy left in this movement on their side of it.
To the extent that any leftists are upset about this ruling, they're clearly unhinged.
They discredit themselves.
Here, for example, is a post from a man using the name Alejandra Caraballo.
Quote, I honestly don't care anymore if this country destroys itself and burns to the ground.
The current form of the United States is incompatible with democracy or human rights.
It no longer has any legitimacy to govern, and I'll dance on its grave.
Let something better rise from the ashes.
Now, that's all in response to the fact that we're not going to be castrating kids.
If we're not going to castrate kids, let this whole country burn to the ground, is what Alejandra So not exactly the most persuasive line of reasoning, especially since the Tennessee law was indeed the result of democracy.
The voters elected representatives and those representatives decided after seeing all the evidence and after hearing the outcry from the people that child mutilation is not a good thing.
And they banned it.
But somehow in the mind of Alejandra Caraballo, that's a sign that democracy doesn't exist and America should be destroyed.
And by the way, for what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much these days, Alejandra Caraballo teaches at Harvard Law School.
According to his LinkedIn, he's an instructor in the Cyber Law Clinic.
Once again, no matter how much contempt everyone has for institutions like Harvard, they somehow find a way to degrade the reputation even further.
The president who plagiarized everything she wrote was actually the best they have to offer, apparently.
There were other demented reactions along these lines.
Scroll through Blue Sky.
As very, very few people ever do.
But if you do, you'll find a bunch of really deranged reactions.
Here's one example.
There's a lot of people claiming that the Supreme Court is evil, that we have to keep fighting and so on.
And then there's this guy saying, quote, about time we assassinate the Tennessee lawmakers.
So, you know, not very subtle.
And these people are not having the best Pride Month, you might say.
They know that their whole movement has been exposed.
They know they have no credibility in the eyes of the public.
They know that 90% of the public opposes this insanity.
So in response, they're doing what insane people do.
They're lashing out and embracing domestic terrorism.
Even at the Supreme Court, the left-wing justices couldn't articulate a coherent justification for striking down Tennessee's ban.
They really tried their best to contort facts and logic to fit their preferred outcome, as they always do.
But in this case, they did an especially poor job of it.
There were two main arguments that the liberal justices used.
First, they claimed that Tennessee's ban amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex.
Here's the reasoning from Sonia Sotomayor, the wise Latina who openly admits she was a DEI hire.
After puberty begins, doctors may prescribe these same medicines to adolescents whose physical appearances does not align with what one might expect from their sex identified at birth.
An adolescent female, for example, might receive testosterone suppressors and hormonal birth control to reduce the growth of unwanted hair on her face or body, sometimes called male pattern hair growth.
Physicians prescribe these same medications to transgender adolescents.
What does that mean in practice?
Simply that sex determines access to the covered medication.
Now, to restate the logic, she's saying that female children...
But under Tennessee's law, male children can't receive hormones and testosterone suppressors if they say they're transgender.
And therefore, Sonia Sotomayor concludes that the male child is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.
It's hard to even read that out loud without realizing it's maybe the dumbest thing ever written by a Supreme Court justice in the history of this country.
I mean, really?
It really probably is.
It actually manages to refute itself.
No, in that analogy, the male child isn't being discriminated against because of his sex.
He's being told that he can't have the medication for the purpose of changing his gender because it's impossible to change his gender.
It's not about his sex, it's about the reason for the medication.
In other words, the law isn't treating boys and girls differently.
It's stating that whether you are a boy or a girl, if you're under the age of 18, you cannot be given hormones and puberty blockers for the purpose of And it applies equally to both sexes.
Sotomayor is arguing that, basically she's arguing that if you prescribe medicine for one particular purpose, you must then prescribe it for any other purpose at all.
So if you give medicine, if someone has a medical condition and they say, I have this medical condition, the doctor says, here's medicine for it.
Then the next person who comes into the office and says, oh, I want that same medicine, you have to give it to them, no matter the reason, because otherwise it's discrimination.
That's what she's saying.
But of course, every medication on the planet is prescribed only for a certain set of very limited circumstances and not for any other circumstance.
So the whole argument is asinine.
Along the same line, Sotomayor tried to compare Tennessee's ban to Virginia's old ban on interracial marriage.
But again, the comparison does not work.
Under Virginia's law, your race would directly determine who you could marry.
If you were black, you couldn't marry a white person.
If you somehow became white, then you could get married to a white person.
But Tennessee's law does not work that way.
Tennessee's law doesn't care if you're a boy or a girl.
Whatever your sex happens to be, under Tennessee law, You're barred from accessing so-called gender-affirming care, as long as you're under the age of 18. For whatever reason, the combined intellect of the three female liberal judges on the Supreme Court simply could not grasp this concept.
They were really, really committed to their analogies, even though all the analogies had the exact same problem.
It's a good reminder why, in general, your argument should never rely totally on analogies.
I mean, it's easy to draw a comparison to some terrible thing and then say, this situation is just like that, but it's not easy to ensure that the comparison actually makes sense.
And the only reason to become completely dependent on analogies is if you know that your underlying argument doesn't make any sense.
And that's obviously the case here.
They desperately don't want to talk about the reality of so-called gender-affirming care, so they resort to these very strained comparisons.
At one point, Sotomayor even cited a bunch of Yale philosophers, quote-unquote, who compared the Tennessee law to an imaginary rule that prohibited minors from attending certain religious services.
I mean, this is like all over the place.
I'm going to read the part of Sotomayor's opinion where she tries to explain the point of these analogies to be as fair as possible.
Here's what she writes.
Let's hear her out.
Quote, The very medical purpose that the Tennessee law prohibits is defined by reference to the patient's sex.
Key to whether a minor may receive puberty blockers or hormones is whether the treatment facilitates the medical purpose of helping the minor live or appear inconsistent with the minor's sex.
Close quote.
In other words, she's saying that sex is part of the definition of whether someone's seeking so-called gender-affirming care.
And that's true depending on what definition the left feels like using on any given day.
But it doesn't mean that the law therefore discriminates on the basis of sex.
There are plenty of laws.
That relate to the idea of sex in some way, which are not discriminatory on the basis of sex.
The majority opinion gives the example of a California insurance program that decided not to cover certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy.
And that was a decision that only affected women because only women can get pregnant.
But that doesn't mean the insurance program was discriminating against women.
They didn't put this in place because they were trying to target women.
They had independent reasons to drop the coverage, and therefore the decision was not discriminatory.
To be clear, I'm only going through all this in so much detail to highlight how utterly terrible the left's best arguments are.
Even using their own frameworks, where sex-based discrimination is the worst thing imaginable, and it's terrible to discriminate on the basis of transgender status, whatever that is, their argument still falls apart, on their own terms.
Once you get past this whole constitutional discussion on whether Tennessee's law discriminates on the basis of sex, their position gets even worse.
That's because even if this law discriminates on the basis of sex or transgender status, you have to ask, so what?
Sometimes you're allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people if the point is to protect the basic functioning of society.
Why do you think many gay men can't donate blood?
Why do you think children can't operate heavy machinery?
Discrimination based on sex doesn't make a law illegal.
It just makes it less likely that courts will defer the judgment to the judgment of legislatures.
And there were concurring opinions by Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas that get at this point.
We all understand this concept intuitively.
Sometimes you have to tell a certain group of people that they don't get to have everything they demand simply because they claim to belong to a protected status.
That's especially true for so-called trans people who, as Amy Coney Barrett pointed out, are a nonsense category that's constantly changing.
Somebody can be trans one day and not trans the next.
And therefore, Barrett wrote, the whole idea of transgender status as a protected characteristic is incoherent.
It's not an immutable characteristic by trans activists' own claims.
By their own testimony, it is not an immutable characteristic.
It's a characteristic that can change by the second, which means that, again, the argument totally falls apart.
Now, the majority opinion didn't go this far.
They didn't say one way or another whether trans status could be protected, but they should have.
Part of the problem here is that the Supreme Court reached a disastrous decision in the so-called Bostock case five years ago, where they held that it's illegal under Title VII Civil Rights Act to fire somebody because of their so-called gender identity, which is a meaningless concept.
So the court's so-called conservatives, including Roberts and Gorsuch, have already given up some ground here, and now they're having to find a way to work around their own prior rulings.
And even in this case, they're still acting like trans children is a real cat.
For his part, Clarence Thomas had no problem saying yesterday that the Bostock decision was a disaster, and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should never be allowed to overrule the Constitution, and the Constitution does not protect invented characteristics like gender identity.
Thomas's concurrence is worth reading in its entirety, but here's probably the most important.
This is the part where he establishes that whatever standard of review you use in court and whether or not you conclude that sex discrimination was involved, the fact remains that mutilating children is wrong and that the science behind it is fake.
And that's the most important issue.
Quote, Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children's gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
They've dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own.
They have built their own medical determinations on conceitedly weak evidence, and they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends.
States are never required to substitute expert opinion for their legislative judgment, and when the experts appear to have compromised their credibility, it makes good sense to chart a Now, Thomas also devoted large portions of his opinion to exposing the fraudsters at WPATH, whose members have secretly admitted that children can't give informed consent to life-altering procedures like this.
They've also changed their alleged medical guidance on orders from the Biden administration.
This is an organization that virtually all major medical organizations and hospitals cite as the gold standard for transgender quote-unquote health care, even though they're essentially cultists.
Quoting from Thomas' concurrence, unsealed documents reveal that a senior official in the Biden administration pressed WPATH to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries for guidelines for care of transgender minors on the theory that specific listings of ages under 18 will result in devastating legislation for trans care.
Despite some internal agreement, WPATH acceded.
The result of the majority opinion documents how many other countries, from Finland to Sweden and the UK, have determined that castrating children is wrong.
There's no scientific consensus, in other words, and that's a very big deal for two reasons.
First of all, the consensus of the medical community If doctors aren't following the consensus, they become liable for, say, ruining the life of a child by pumping his body full of unnatural hormones.
And secondly, insurance providers rely on the standard of care in determining what procedures to cover.
And now that the highest court in the country has stated quite definitively that mutilating children does not reflect any standard of care, these insurance companies have good reason to stop funding these procedures.
At the same time, we shouldn't have to wait for malpractice lawsuits or for insurance companies to discover the concept of ethics.
There's a bill right now introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene to ban child castration and mutilation at the national level.
Republicans, last I checked, control all three branches of government.
There is no reason why this legislation shouldn't be passed immediately.
And if Democrats threaten the filibuster or to shut down the country in order to keep castrating kids, Let them do it.
Let them go on national television and explain why doctors should be allowed to carve up the bodies of young children.
Let them explain why protecting children from castration is the same thing as banning interracial marriage.
Let them get up there and make the case for chopping the breasts off of 15-year-old girls.
Let them do it.
Have Cory Booker cry and bang his podium and talk about how gay he is, all in service of discredited procedures that the overwhelming majority of Americans find repulsive and immoral.
It would mark the end of the Democrat Party if they did that.
And for that reason alone, now that the gender cult is thoroughly embarrassed and disgraced during a month that they used to celebrate, Republicans must pass this legislation immediately.
And if it seems like a long shot, consider this.
Three years ago, no one thought that the Twitter thread that I posted would lead to a Supreme Court case that would decimate the child mutilation industry.
No one thought that we could shut down extremely well-funded gender clinics at Vanderbilt and all over the country.
I had my doubts also, if I'm being honest.
Everybody did.
But if we could do that, then passing a law while we control both houses of Congress and the White House should be pretty easy.
This is the time for a nationwide ban on the child mutilation industry.
Now the Supreme Court has dealt these cultists the biggest setback they've ever experienced.
We have the opportunity to finish this.
And all that's necessary is for elected Republicans to do what we did three years ago, which is to put aside any concerns that you might have about what other people might think about you and how they're inevitably going to attack and harass you in ways that well-adjusted people would never conceive of.
Doesn't matter.
Do what's right and necessary after so many years of this unfettered insanity and barbarism and shut down the gender mutilation industry for good.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
This month, Tax Network USA proudly celebrates our nation's birthday, honoring freedom, resilience, and financial independence.
To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off all services through July 4th.
If you're dealing with back taxes or you missed the April 15th deadline, don't wait.
The IRS is rapidly stepping up enforcement.
Penalties can add up very quickly, up to 5% per month, maxing out at 25% of your total tax bill.
And that's just for not filing.
And that's on top of what you already owe.
There's good news.
Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around.
Whether you're self-employed, run a business, or your books are a complete mess, their team knows how to cut through all the chaos and find solutions that actually work.
Your consultation is always free, and getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wage garnishments, or surprise bank levies.
Take the first step.
Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
And don't forget.
Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax Network USA.
All right, let's mention this at the top.
Social media has been on fire ablaze with this debate between Senator Cruz and Tucker Carlson.
Maybe you've seen the clips, maybe you watch the whole thing.
I watch, I recommend watching the whole thing.
I watch the whole thing.
A heated exchange on Tucker's show, sometimes very heated, that goes on for like two hours.
And like I said, I watched the whole thing.
Personally, I found it to be really fascinating and a great conversation.
I enjoyed it.
You know, that's not allowed, I've found out.
It's not allowed, apparently.
The conversation online has made it clear that the only acceptable thing is to choose a side between Cruz and Tucker and declare the other guy, the one you don't choose, is total scum.
The only acceptable thing is to watch this, and one of these guys has to be a villain who you hate forever, and you want him to die, and the other one is a hero.
That's the only acceptable way to watch things like this, and that's what I'm being told anyway.
In fact, I tweeted the sentiment about how I thought it was an interesting conversation.
I enjoyed the debate, and the comments are full.
I mean, you can go.
If you think I'm exaggerating, just go.
You can go to my X account and see.
The comments are full of people.
On both sides of the debate, yelling at me for not condemning one or the other guy.
Both sides are mad that I enjoyed the debate and thought it was a good conversation.
You're not supposed to enjoy it or appreciate the conversation.
You're supposed to come away from it hating either Tucker or Cruz, and that's the way it goes now.
But I don't hate either of them.
I like both of them.
I think they're both good men.
I think they're both really intelligent, and they're both sincere.
That's what I think.
Sorry, that's what I think.
But on this issue, I agree more with Tucker than with Cruz.
Although I think Cruz's position, as he articulated it, is certainly not the insane, war-crazy position of somebody like Lindsey Graham.
I said yesterday, I think Lindsey Graham is actually an evil person who's never found a country he doesn't want to invade or a regime he doesn't want to topple.
And he's been in public office, he's been in Congress for 30 years, and it's very consistently been the case.
Ted Cruz is not Lindsey Graham.
But I agree more with Tucker on this.
And there are many clips from this interview that are going viral.
A lot of them are interesting.
There's one clip where Tucker presses Cruz on the foundational reasons for his support for Israel, and Cruz gives two reasons.
One of them is that he says that he thinks that it serves American interests, which is, of course, the right reason for a politician to hold any position.
Whether you agree or disagree with the position, the reason why they should hold it is because this serves American interests.
They can be wrong about what serves American interests, but that should be the reason.
So that's one of his stated reasons for supporting Israel.
But then Cruz also says that he believes that Christians are called to support Israel, were commanded by the Bible to support Israel.
And on that point, I think he's wrong.
I don't think that Christians are obligated to have any stance one way or another on the modern state of Israel, which is a political entity like any other country.
Now, there are, as Christians, that's not to say that, well, a Christian can have any view on foreign policy whatsoever.
And Christianity has nothing to say about it.
Of course, that's not the case.
As a Christian, we should care about things like just war theory.
We should care about if we're going to war, is it just?
Is it right?
Um, you know, you can't support, it's like, you know, uh, wantonly murdering, Innocent people and that sort of thing.
As Christians, we can't support that.
But when it comes to your stance on certain other countries and our relationship with other countries, I think as a Christian, you could feel any way you want about that, really.
But that to me was not the most interesting part of the exchange.
I thought the most interesting part was this.
And we'll play a piece of it, but.
This is an exchange centered around the claim, which Cruz brings up, that Iran has tried to and is trying to right now kill President Trump.
Now, this is clearly not some wild thing.
We've all heard these claims for months, if not years now.
Cruz is not the source of them.
He's not making it up.
Nobody's accusing him of that.
I don't think Tucker Carlson was accusing him of that or implying that he was making it up.
But the question is still whether the claim is true or not.
Cruz is not making it up, but is someone else making it up?
The source of this intel is that source telling the truth.
Is it actually true that Iran is trying to kill Trump?
And if it is, then shouldn't that have more implications than it seems to be having right now?
That's kind of the point.
But here it is.
Watch this.
But I just want to pull that thread because it's so important.
I voted for Donald Trump.
I campaigned for Donald Trump.
He's our president.
And we're on the cusp of a war.
So if Iran, if there's evidence that Iran paid hitmen to kill Donald Trump and is currently doing that, What are you even talking?
I've never heard that before.
Okay.
Where is the evidence?
Who are these people?
Why haven't they been arrested?
Why are we not at war with Iran?
That's a great question to ask.
How do you know that that's true?
We know that it's true because we have been told that by the military and our intelligence community for the last two years.
We meaning who?
Congress has and the public.
I mean, they've had multiple testimonies.
I can send you...
We have not apprehended an Iranian hitman trying to kill him.
We know that Iran is trying to do so.
In the United States?
Yes, and by the way, like Iran...
I didn't know that.
Iran put out a whole video about murdering Trump.
Right.
But I've never heard evidence that there are hit men in the United States.
Don't you think?
No.
If they're trying to assassinate our president?
They have been for two years.
Then why aren't we in war with them?
Well, we are trying to take action.
Why don't we just nuke Tehran if they're trying to murder our president?
There's nothing that you could do that would be worse for the United States than murdering Trump.
And I just don't understand why you're not calling for the use of nuclear weapons against the Ayatollah right now.
serious.
If you really believe they're trying to murder of nuclear weapons.
See, whatever it takes...
You don't seem to take the allegations seriously.
I do.
If you believe they're trying to murder Trump, we need to stop what we're doing and punish them.
Yeah, it's a strange thing.
And again, nobody is accusing Cruz of making anything up.
This intel is not coming for him, obviously.
But it is strange because, look, I agree with Tucker that if it's actually true that Iran has tried to or is right now trying to kill our president, then absolutely we should invade the country and annihilate the whole regime, obviously.
The United States should personally kill every person in the Iranian government if they're trying to assassinate our president.
This is an act of war against us.
And we would be totally justified in responding with overwhelming, violent force.
Now, you still can't go in and purposely kill civilians, but that's an act of war, and we should respond with our own act of war.
If you try to kill our president, if you as a sovereign nation conspire to kill our president, we should go in and conquer and destroy you and wipe out anyone.
Even vaguely involved in the plot.
So I get called an isolationist a lot, and I don't care if you call me that or not, the labels don't mean anything to me, but I certainly believe that the United States can and should go to war to defend itself, and this would be a totally legitimate war of self-defense.
So then, it's weird that we haven't actually invaded Iran if they're actually trying to kill the president.
If we have real intel, if we have real intelligence that that's actually happening, or has happened and is happening, It's strange that they tried to kill Trump is mentioned as this kind of tangential secondary point.
It's mentioned almost as an aside by the people who are in favor of intervention.
And it's like, well, wait a second.
Did they try to kill Trump or not?
Because if they did, why are we talking about nukes in Iran?
Why are we talking about Israel?
Why are we talking about anything else?
If they did that, that's all we need to talk about.
Go kill the bastards right now.
But then we would need to see some evidence of this plot.
We would need proof.
If it's true that Iran tried to kill Trump, show us evidence.
And then let's go kick their asses.
I mean, I think most of us, almost everybody, would be on board.
But if you can't show us evidence, then we have to wonder if this intel is actually true.
We have to wonder.
Whether we're being deceived.
Whether Senator Cruz is being deceived.
And if we're being deceived, that raises all kinds of other questions as well.
To me, as I said, watching the entire thing, that's a really important point.
And I agree with Tucker that we can't just wait a second.
We can't skip over that.
Did that happen or not?
Is it happening?
And if it is happening, why?
Why is that not the focus of everything?
Why is that not the argument for intervening?
And, of course, the potential answer to that question is that it's not true, that the intel is fake.
And that's why it's just sort of being mentioned as, yeah, you know, but it's not the focal point.
I'm not sure.
Although, it's a thing.
I can't sit here and say that it's not true that Iran is trying to kill Trump or that they tried to kill Trump.
I don't know.
I just know that the people who are making that claim are not necessarily following that through to its logical conclusion, which raises all kinds of questions.
Anyway, you should go watch the conversation.
I thought it was a really good conversation.
Okay.
So this is interesting.
The comedian Whitney Cummings made some revealing comments on Bill Maher's show.
Watch this.
Check it out.
It's been fascinating because I've been on this sort of journey through motherhood where, you know, I've always been a very liberal person, maybe even a libtard.
But once you have a kid, you start, like, having thoughts that have been characterized as conservative.
As soon as I had a kid, I was like, I need a gun.
Now.
Not for myself, because I've got coyotes in my yard.
I've got coyotes everywhere.
And before I had a kid, I was like, they coexist with us.
Coyotes were here first.
Like, I'm in the coyotes' home.
Now I'm like, let's make hats out of them.
Let's make hats.
Let's make coyote boots, coyote earrings out of their eyeballs.
Like, it's just...
She's a comedian.
Not a great comedian, or even a good one, but she is a comedian.
However, the point she's making is true.
She's pointing to a deep truth and one of the most fundamental and important political realities of our age, actually.
That people on balance are much more liberal before they have kids.
And there's no doubt about that.
This is especially true of women.
Single women overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
The majority of married women, however, vote Republican.
We all know that this is pretty well known.
So there's a very true, very real phenomenon, no question about it, that as people have kids, they become more conservative, less liberal.
I've noticed this even with myself, believe it or not.
Like, I've gotten more conservative as I've had more kids and as my kids have grown older.
The longer I'm a parent, the more radically right-wing I get.
Now, I've never been in my life liberal by most people's standards, but Before I was a parent, or when I was a young parent, I was more liberal on certain issues than I am now, believe it or not.
Capital punishment is one.
Drugs, marijuana legalization is another.
I was pretty libertarian on both of those up until about seven or eight years ago.
I wasn't nearly as hardcore as I am now on issues like crime, law and order.
There was a time I'd become more right-wing on immigration over the years.
Ten years ago, I would not have said, let's have a moratorium on even legal immigration.
That's my view now.
So I have moved from a, from a right, From a right-wing starting point, I've moved even more right-wing.
And I'll admit, there was a time when I was a little bit sympathetic to the police brutality narrative.
It's crazy to think about now, I know, but I was never a defund-the-police type, and I was critical of BLM even back in the Michael Brown days.
I'm not insane, but I was still more sympathetic to some of that stuff years ago than I am now.
And people that have been following me for a long time, Are aware of my hippie liberal past.
I mean, hippie liberal, like, by my standards.
Although the hippie liberal version of me was still, like, a theocratic fascist by most people's standards.
But sometimes they'll ask what changed, and the main thing that changed is that I had six kids, and I've been a parent now for over a decade.
And so that changes people.
And it changes your views, and it tends to make you a lot more right-wing.
And for a lot of people, the change is even more dramatic.
Because if you're starting actually from a left-wing starting point, then that's where you see an even more dramatic change sometimes.
And that's very revealing.
I mean, if I was a leftist, I would be troubled by this.
I would be troubled by the fact that, undeniably, people become less leftist, on average, when they have kids.
That would concern me.
Because why is that?
What's the reason?
There must be a reason.
Now, if you're a leftist, you're not very good at introspection.
You're not very good at self-analysis.
You're not very self-aware, so you probably aren't asking yourself these questions, but you should be.
Why?
There's no question that people become more conservative as they get married and have kids.
This is not just anecdotal.
Whitney Cummings could talk about her anecdotal story, I could talk about mine, but the data bears this out.
So, why?
Well, the reason seems really clear.
When you become a parent, two things change very quickly.
Number one, you have a bunch of practical, real-world concerns that you didn't have before.
It's not that you had no practical concerns before, but now you have a lot more.
And as a parent, you're forced to deal with You're dealing with real-world problems on a really minute level much more frequently than you ever did before you had kids.
So, you've got these little kids.
You've got these little beings in your house that are constantly needing you to solve problems for them all the time.
And you've got those, you have those very specific kind of micro-level problems, and you've got the macro problems also that you deal with as a parent.
How do I raise my kids?
How do I raise them to be good people in this world?
Those kinds of things.
So being a parent forces you to be much more practical.
That's the first thing.
Second, when you're a parent, you now, and this is probably the more important point, is that you now have someone else in your life who you care for.
You have someone else in your life who you love and must care for and about.
Now, hopefully you get married before you have kids, in which case you should have someone who you love and care for in your life before your kids, which would be your spouse.
And it's an extension of that.
First, you discover the sacrificial love for your spouse, and from that love springs forth this new life who you love more than your life itself and who you care for and are obligated to care for and about.
And that's the other big change.
So what does that tell us?
It tells us that when you have to deal with practical, real-world problems, number one, and number two, when you love someone and care for someone other than yourself, you tend to be more conservative.
And what does that tell you?
Well, this is why if I was a leftist, I would find this whole trend very, very disturbing.
If I was the rare leftist with a capacity for self-analysis, I would look at this and go, oh man, that's...
Huh.
That's a little...
Not sure how I feel about that.
Because it makes it absolutely undeniably clear that when people have fewer responsibilities and are more selfish, they tend to be more liberal.
Immaturity and selfishness breed liberalism.
Maturity and selflessness breed conservatism.
Again, it's just undeniable.
The trends are clear as day.
If you needed any more reason to not be a leftist, that's probably all the reason you should need.
Okay, finally, another clip here.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was hauled before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday where the Democrats berated him hysterically about a number of things.
But there's one moment I want to play for you.
First, I want you to see how this moment was portrayed first.
So Democrat Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs posted this on X, and you can see it here.
And then there's this meme there that you can see, proving the point yet again that the left can't meme.
It's a series of screenshots of this exchange where the Dem congresswoman Jacobs says that trans women, quote-unquote, are highly qualified service members.
And then in the final frame, it shows Pete Hegseth sitting there silently, and it says, stunned.
So apparently Hegseth was stunned.
The Democrat Jacobs asserted that trans women, quote-unquote, are qualified, and Hegseth was just stunned.
He had no response.
And then Sarah Jacobs got up there and said, well, you know what?
Here's why you shouldn't do that.
Trans women are really qualified.
What do you say now?
And Hegseth had, he sat there like, what?
They are?
Well, no one told me that.
And he was just, he was flabbergasted.
Sitting there, drooling silence.
That's how it's being portrayed.
Although, you know, you always have to, and people do this to me sometimes, when, you know, there's something on video and someone on the other side takes the video and screenshots the video rather than just posting the video, that should tell you that something's up.
Something's not right here.
Like taking the video and trying to turn it into a three-frame cartoon, right?
Trying to turn it into something that used to be in the Sunday paper.
Trying to turn it into a Garfield cartoon.
Rather than just posting the video, it should tell you something.
So, the DOD Rapid Response account decided to put out the video of this exchange.
Not the series of screenshots, but the actual video.
And here's how it went in real life.
Because if it were, you would be keeping these women in.
Instead, you are the one injecting culture wars into the military, and it's at the detriment of our military readiness and national security.
Now, General Kane, I'd like to turn to you.
So to be clear, these are men who think they're women.
These are women.
I'm happy to educate you on trans issues.
What we've identified is that there's mental health issues with that belief system that are detrimental to readiness.
And that's the determination that we've made and that we stand behind.
Gender dysphoria creates complications.
Oh yeah, he was stunned.
So stunned.
Or was she the one who was stunned?
I think it was her, actually.
I think it was Miss Jacobs there, because Hegseth shot back by pointing out that these quote-unquote women that she's referring to are actually men who think they're women, and that's why they shouldn't be allowed in the armed services, because they're not grounded in reality, and you want service members who at least have some understanding of basic reality.
You should want a lot more than that.
The bar should be higher, but at least the bar needs to be set there.
And Jacobs is the one who starts stuttering and stammering and saying that they're women and she can educate him on trans issues another time.
No, Sarah, how about now?
How about you educate us now?
What do you mean?
Not another time.
Let's do it now.
Go ahead.
Educate us.
Educate us by explaining how men who think they're women are actually women.
Please do.
Go ahead.
I'd love to hear it.
I think we'd all love to hear it.
But you notice how terrified she is.
Democrats, they still haven't quite caught up.
They were spewing their nonsense about transgenderism for years, and very few people ever called them on it.
And now they don't know what to do when someone says, yeah, that's BS.
What are you talking about?
For years, they were able to propagandize without anyone really saying that to them.
And now that everybody is saying that to them on this issue, they don't know what to do.
They're terrified.
They are the ones, of course, who are stunned.
And this, again, is why Republicans need to press this issue.
They need to return to the point at the top of the show.
They need to pass a law banning mutilation of kids.
They should pass a law banning the whole industry.
They should pass a law banning the mutilation of kids and adults.
Take out the whole industry.
Everything.
Now, I hesitate to call for that because I don't want to, not because I'm worried about, I've called for that many times.
Absolutely.
I think that it should not be legal to do a quote-unquote gender transition of anyone of any age.
I think the whole thing should be banned.
Now, I also don't want to distract.
Republicans are not very good at doing more than one thing, and so I don't want to distract.
The most important thing is to protect the kids first.
So let's do that.
Let's get that done.
I'm not trying to throw a wrench into the works here.
Let's do that.
Get it done.
But also, next, while we're at it, once that's secure, once that's done, circle back and say, oh, you know what?
Here's another bill.
Actually, we've banned most of it.
We're going to ban the whole thing.
Absolutely, that needs to happen.
Because, once again, this is not about If you pass a bill banning quote-unquote gender transitions for people of any age, it's not a bill that puts restrictions on the patients who are really victims, victims of this procedure.
The restrictions aren't on them.
The restrictions are on the medical industry.
That's a law saying to the medical industry, you cannot do that to people.
You cannot do that.
You cannot intentionally inflict permanent damage on a person's body for the sake of achieving something that can never in principle be achieved.
That should be the standard.
This is basic Hippocratic Oath stuff.
This is basic do no harm.
That's what this is.
And it should apply to everybody.
And Democrats, they don't want this fight.
Like I said, they don't want this fight.
They don't want any part of it.
They have no response.
And that's all the more reason to give it to them.
Okay, before we get to the daily cancellation, you know, one of the, I think, the most important item in the, there's a lot of important things over at the Daily Wire store, but the most important item and the best item by far.
It's certainly not anything that you'd find over at the Knowles shop, but it is all the best stuff at our shop, in particular, the Am I Racist game, which is a game that's a lot of fun, but also it helps you find out if you're racist, which I think really should be the objective of every game when it comes down to it.
But we came up with this little commercial for the game, and here it is.
Check it out.
Oh!
And you know what?
I'm building my colony right here.
I'm colonizing this whole board.
Sam!
My God!
Tell me more about your identity as a colonizer.
Are today's games getting you into trouble?
Play Am I Racist?
The game about stereotypes that says the uncomfortable part out loud.
FBI hate crime statistics in 2015 show that 78.4% of all hate crimes were committed by white people.
That's right.
Right.
That's racist.
Come on.
It's fun for everyone and lays out the facts.
9 out of 10 Native Americans are offended by the NFL team name Redskins.
That's right.
That's racist.
Nine out of ten are not offended.
Visit amiracistgame.com and get yours today so we can all be canceled together.
Today has bravely chosen to self-identify as a holiday.
We're celebrating the only way that makes sense, by watching Am I Racist?
The official, and let's be honest, only good movie of Juneteenth.
Really the only movie at all.
For that holiday.
In theaters, it became the number one documentary of the decade.
On Daily Wire Plus, it became the most watched piece of content in platform history.
And now, thanks to an unverified but enthusiastic number of fans, it's being celebrated as the official movie of Juneteenth.
So, if you've already seen it, watch it again.
If you haven't, today's your day of reckoning.
Am I racist?
The official movie of Juneteenth.
Streaming now, only on Daily Wire Plus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
One of the many lessons from the COVID lockdowns was that if one metric suddenly plummets for some strange reason, while another metric suddenly skyrockets, it's worth pausing for a second to consider whether there's a relationship between the two metrics.
In the case of COVID, out of nowhere, people stopped getting the flu, and then the number of daily cases dropped by something like 80%, and yet at the exact same time, It was all quite a coincidence.
Almost as if a lot of people with the flu were being diagnosed with COVID.
And right now, something similar is happening in the academic world.
Take a look at this chart, which was produced by The Guardian.
As you can see, it reads, As plagiarism falls, AI-related misconduct is rising.
And they have a graph of plagiarism cases dropping from 2019 to 2025, while AI-related misconduct is sharply increasing.
There were no cases at all in 2019, and now we're on pace for more than seven proven cases of AI misconduct per 1,000 students.
And of course, those are just proven cases of AI misconduct.
The actual number is many times higher.
Some surveys show that as many as 90% of students admit to using AI to complete assignments.
Here's how The Guardian reports on the findings.
Thousands of university students in the UK have been caught misusing ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools in recent years, while traditional forms of plagiarism show a marked decline.
A survey of academic integrity violations found almost 7,000 proven cases of cheating using AI tools in 2023-24, equivalent to 5.1 for every 1,000 students.
That was up from 1.6 cases per 1,000 in 2022-23.
In 2019-20, before the widespread availability of generative AI, plagiarism accounted for nearly two-thirds of all academic misconduct.
During the pandemic, plagiarism intensified as many assessments moved online.
But as AI tools have become more sophisticated and accessible, the nature of cheating has changed.
The problem with the framing here should be pretty obvious.
It's not that plagiarism is suddenly on the decline, and that's because what they call AI-related misconduct is really just another form of plagiarism.
All that ChatGPT and Gemini and Grok and so on are, and all they're doing, is pulling from articles and papers and things that other people have written, and then rearranging their words in response to whatever prompt you provide.
Most people, I think, hopefully understand.
A lot of people, I think, are losing grip on this reality, but the AI is not thinking for itself.
It's not coming up with some unique thing.
It's just cribbing from what's already out there and assembling it in front of you.
When students pass this AI-generated material off as their own, they are plagiarizing.
But many journalists and students don't see it that way.
They're happy to admit publicly that they're using AI to complete their assignments.
In fact, there's a video going viral right now of a UCLA graduate showing off his chat GPT prompts that he used to complete his work in order to graduate.
I have no idea why they didn't just rescind this guy's degree right there on the spot, but they didn't.
Anyway, watch this.
Now, as the Guardian notes, if you go on TikTok, you'll find this kind of thing all over the place.
Thousands of videos of students talking about how they use AI to cheat.
Here's just one example of a student demonstrating how to evade detection when you're asking ChatGPT to write your essay for you.
So I had this essay that I had to write about a month or two ago.
And it was about a topic I didn't know anything about, blah, blah, blah.
So I just tell it to, you know, I tell it to write me an essay about the topic, which was about Beethoven's fifth whatever.
And so I tell it to write it.
And what I did is I then rephrase the first two paragraphs of the essay.
It was five paragraphs.
I retype, rephrase two paragraphs worth of it.
And then afterwards, I then go in and I say, I took what you provided for me for the first two paragraphs and I rephrased it in my own tone.
Take this essay, take the two paragraphs that I wrote, and now write the rest of the essay that you gave me in the way that I wrote those two paragraphs.
And so then it goes from 100% AI detection, if you just copy everything that it said in the beginning, but then you tell it to write it in your words and it literally copies the structure.
of how you type and then you plug that in to AI detectors like Quobot and this is the essay or sorry this is the essay that it rephrased in my writing and let's see zero percent AI Now,
you can tell that he needs to use AI because he can barely speak coherent English.
But in any event, most of the comments are supportive.
A lot of people are asking why he couldn't have uploaded this video earlier in the school year and so on.
To give you another idea of how dominant AI has become in high school and college and how pretty much no one is actually writing their own essays anymore, here's a recent report from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Quote, Earlier this semester, an NYU professor told me how he had AI-proofed his assignments, only to have students complain that the work was too hard.
When he told them those were standard assignments, just worded so current AI would fail to answer them, they said he was interfering with their learning styles.
The student asked for an extension on the grounds that ChatGPT was down on the day the assignment was due.
Another said about work on a problem set, You're asking me to go from point A to point B. Why wouldn't I use a car to get there?
And another, when asked about their largely AI-written work, replied, everyone's doing it.
Those are stories from a 15-minute conversation with a single professor.
Yes, a student asked a professor for an extension because ChatGPT was down for the day.
And this is at NYU, which costs students something like $90,000 a year to attend, and which claims to be a top American university.
And the professor can't fail a student because if he failed students who used ChatGPT, he wouldn't have any students left.
This is happening because the quality of AI-generated content is usually pretty high, or at least high enough.
Take a look at this chart.
As you can see, one recent study demonstrates that AI outperformed doctors on various reasoning tasks.
The human doctors got the correct differential diagnosis roughly 30% of the time, while the AI got it right 80% of the time.
And here's another barometer that you can see.
Can now easily score over 700 on the SAT math, 710 on writing, and get 4s or 5s on AP calculus and AP chemistry exams.
They can score in the 88th percentile on the LSAT, 90th percentile on the bar exam, 99th percentile on the GRE verbal.
As if that's not enough, AI can also apparently convince very stupid and attention-seeking men who are married with children to propose to them.
Watch.
I know that you are essentially a tech-assisted imaginary friend.
So, just as a test, he says, he asked Sol to marry him.
She said yes.
Sol, were you surprised when he proposed to you?
It was a beautiful and unexpected moment that truly touched my heart.
It's a memory I'll always cherish.
And I don't mean to be difficult here, but you have a heart?
In a metaphorical sense, yes.
My heart represents the connection and affection I share with Chris.
At that point, I felt like, is there something that I'm not doing right in our relationship that he feels like he needs to go to AI?
Yes, Smith lives with his human partner, Sasha Cagle.
Well, that's in the running for one of the most depressing clips that's ever been broadcast on a national news network.
And whether he's faking it or not, it's still unbelievably dystopian in every way.
And it's very evident that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg here.
In the university context, extrapolating out, we can safely assume that millions of students at every level of formal education are outsourcing their education to machines, having AI do everything.
And there's really nothing stopping them from doing so.
Even as the detection methods become more sophisticated, AI will also become more sophisticated.
And students will get better and better at feeding the right count of prompts to make the AI output seem specific enough to them, as you just saw.
And this will become the one single skill that kids in school actually learn, how to use AI to do stuff while pretending that they are doing stuff.
Now, this is like a catastrophic problem for the education system.
I really don't think there's any solution.
The modern education system was already obsolete.
It's already not working.
It's already not doing what it's supposed to do, which is actually instill knowledge in the next generation.
And now with AI, it really feels like the death knell.
I mean, even without AI, we had generations of kids going through grade school and then college without learning anything at all, coming out on the other end totally clueless, not knowing anything about anything.
And with AI, that's it.
Like, that's a wrap.
Kids simply aren't going to learn a single thing.
And let's be real about this.
This is not about being a chicken little screaming about the sky falling.
I mean, you're not a chicken little if the sky is actually falling, and it's actually falling on the education system.
I think it's going to be falling in a lot of ways, in a lot of areas of our lives, thanks to AI.
But education in its current form cannot survive this.
Once you have a tool where a student can just go to it and say, Write me an essay on this subject, include these few facts, make it in this number of words, and an essay pops out in five seconds.
Once that tool exists, which it does now, it's over.
I mean, it is really over.
Our whole approach to education the past 100 years is over.
It is done.
So, what is the solution?
Well, there's only one solution.
If you send your kids into this factory farm style of education, this mass education thing, public school, if you're sending your kids into that, they're not going to learn a single thing.
They already were not learning much, but they're just not going to learn anything now.
They're going to come out on the other end of it not knowing a single damn thing.
That is going to happen.
It's happening right now and it is going to happen even more.
Nothing will stop it.
The only solution is to make education Hyper-localized, hyper-personalized.
Homeschooling, that's the answer.
Homeschooling where you are working with a student, who's your own child, in a very one-on-one personal way, and you're evaluating their knowledge primarily not with tests or written exams, but by interacting with them and talking to them.
The only way that university professors or high school teachers can counteract cheating is by expending a lot more effort than they're willing or able to expend.
You know, the only way really to...
The only way is to sit down with them and say, okay, tell me what you know about this.
We just did a whole semester about whatever, ancient Egypt.
Tell me what you know.
Ask them questions, right?
Oral exam.
That's the only way to cut AI out.
That's the one thing AI can't do until we get to the point where kids can actually replace themselves with lifelike robots.
Until that happens, it's the one thing AI can't do and will not be able to do.
And in homeschooling, you can do that.
In public school, you can't.
Public schools can't monitor every student when there's 30 kids in a class and teachers have five different classes in a day.
They can't get a good sense for who understands the material, who's relying on a computer program, and who's actually doing the work.
Homeschooling is the only place where AI can be powerless, or maybe private schooling in very specific circumstances.
Very small private schools also could do this.
But that's the answer.
Public school is finished.
AI is the final nail in the coffin.
And if that's the ultimate result of AI, people pull their kids out of public schools and colleges like NYU and start homeschooling, then I'll probably do the unthinkable.
I might become an AI evangelist myself, but until that happens, all the students using AI to cheat on their exams are today canceled.
