The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1104 - The Vengeful, Petty Tyrants Who Lead Us

Episode Date: February 1, 2023

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Biden Administration tried and failed to throw a father of seven in prison for 11 years for the crime of being a pro-life activist. The ruling regime is vengeful and petty, and will do everything in its power to destroy anyone who fails to submit. Also, more states across the country are moving to ban the mutilation and castration of children. We'll talk about how the anti-gender ideology movement has managed to have so much success in such a short amount of time. And the surgeon general warns about the dangers of social media to children. He's right about that, but his concern for the safety of children seems to be rather selective. Plus, I scandalized a feminist during a panel segment on Piers Morgan's show when I suggested that women should wear clothing when they go out in public. - - -  DailyWire+: Use code DONOTCOMPLY to get 40% off annual DailyWire+ membership plans and watch the brand new series, Master’s Program with Dennis Prager: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0   Get 40% off Jeremy’s Razors subscriptions at www.jeremysrazors.com  Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at http://puretalk.com  Epic WIll - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/ - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Biden administration tried and failed to throw a father of seven in prison for 11 years for the crime of being a pro-life activist. The ruling regime is vengeful and petty, and we'll do everything in its power to destroy anyone who fails to submit. We'll talk about that. Also, more states across the country are moving to ban the mutilation and castration of children. We'll discuss how the anti-gender ideology movement managed to have so much success in such a short amount of time. And the Surgeon General warns about the dangers of social media for children. He's right about that. but his concern for the safety of children seems to be rather selective. Plus, I scandalized a feminist during a panel segment on Pierce Morgan's show when I suggested that women should maybe wear clothing when they go out in public.

We'll talk about that provocative opinion and much more today on the Matt Wall Show. You know, it's tough to stick to your news resolutions, but here's one that you can accomplish today. You can complete your will with epic will. That's for just $119 in as little as five minutes. Epic will can help you create your last will and testament, your living will, and even your health care power of attorney. their step-by-step online form makes it incredibly easy.

All you need to do is fill in the blanks. 50% of Americans don't have a will. Well, you could choose today to be in the smarter half and get that will done by going to epicwill.com. Use promo code Walsh to save 10% on EpicWil's complete will package. That's epicwill.com promo code Walsh. Well, in September of this past year, early one Friday morning, dozens of armed federal agents descended on the home of a wanted fugitive.

This is a man accused of violating federal law and who said the federal government deserves to spend over a decade in prison. That man was named Mark Halk. Despite appearances, he was not actually some sort of terrorist or drug trafficker or child predator. We could already assume that he was none of those things because if he was, he never would have attracted the FBI's interest in the first place. Instead, he was, along with being a law-abiding father of seven, a pro-life activist. Halk stood accused of violating the freedom of access to clinic entrances or face act,

And supposedly he had done something to prevent people from accessing an abortion clinic, which is a violation of federal law now. Although, strangely enough, the incident in question had occurred a year prior in 2021. And the local DA in Philadelphia, who's hardly a right-wing zealot, had already looked at the case and decided that no charges were warranted. A year after that, the Biden administration gave it another look and decided that not only had a crime occurred, but that the alleged criminal was so dangerous and so sinister that he decided. deserve to be frog marched outside of his home at the break of dawn and if they could prove their case in a court of law, thrown in federal prison for 11 years. But as it happens, they could not prove their case in federal court. On Monday, at the conclusion of a week-long trial, Halk was acquitted by a jury that was not convinced that he was the dastardly militant that Biden's goons

tried to make him out to be. Judge Gerald Pappard seemed to echo the jury's concerns when he asked during the trial, he asked the prosecutor in the case, whether the law that Halk was being tried under was perhaps, he said, being, quote, stretched a little thin. Stretched a little thin indeed. As it turns out, Halk was not blocking anyone from entering a clinic. Now, if he had been, he, of course, still wouldn't deserve a decade in federal lockup. I mean, if it were up to me and he was actually blocking people from entering a clinic, then I would give him the Medal of Freedom for his efforts. But even by the already deranged standards of the Face Act, a law written and passed by politicians who were purchased and paid for

by the abortion industry. Even by those standards, this prosecution was unjust. In fact, there is video of the altercation that led to Halk's arrest, video that was just made public this week. Sean Hannity played the tape on a show a few days ago, and here it is. Now, for this altercation with a, if you take a look, with a Planned Parenthood escort. Now, as you can see, in your upper left-hand corner, Mark, accompanied by his son, standing away from the entrance to the clinic, when he is approached by the escort identified as Bruce Love, who repeatedly try to antagonize Halk, allegedly verbally harassing him and his son before Halk eventually shoves him after multiple attempts to diffuse the situation.

The Planned Parenthood Manual clearly states that escorts, are not to antagonize or even engage with any protesters. A rule let love clearly broke. So there it is. That's why Biden wanted to lock a father of seven in prison for a decade for that, because he shoved a guy. Halk standing far away from the entrance to any clinic. He was standing on the street corner where he has every right to be.

And while he was standing there, he shoved a clinic escort. And Halk says that he was, you know, lashing out because the escort was, harassing him and his teenage son and saying crude and disgusting things. Now, the escort says that that isn't true. And you can decide whether you believe Halk or whether you believe the sort of man who volunteers his time to escort pregnant women into a building so they can have their babies butchered. I know who I trust, but it doesn't make much of a difference anyway. Whatever the reason for the push, a push is all it was. It's hard to imagine a push that could warrant the involvement of 25 FBI agents and felony charges carrying a decade in prison. But if such a push exists,

that one certainly wasn't it. And one can't help but note the irony here. I mean, we spent much of the past week responding to the bleeding heart types who recoil in horror and shout cruel and unusual punishment if you advocate harsher penalties for violent criminals and carjackers and drug kingpins. These types, they'll always show up pocket constitutions in hand solemnly citing the Eighth Amendment, if you dare suggest that we should go a little tough on the types of criminals who have made countless communities across the country basically unlivable. But how quickly does their compassion run out when the criminal in question is a pro-life activist? In this case, they have no problem, in fact, are strongly in favor of giving him a tougher sentence than the courts usually give to rapists and armed robbers. I mean, that's no surprise. After all, these are the same people who scream about police brutality.

but then cheered when Capitol Police shot an unarmed woman for the crime of, you know, trespassing. So what was this all really about then? Why was Biden determined to rip this man away from his children, destroy his family, confine him to a cage for the next 11 years of his life? Why was he so determined to do that? Well, for the obvious reasons. They wanted to ruin him because he dared to act according to beliefs that the ruling regime abhors. And they wanted to ruin him because they could, or they thought,

they could. He was meant to be an example, a warning signal, a head on a pike at the age of town, an ominous sign for those who come after him. A tried and true strategy on the left, and you can just ask Jack Phillips if you want to know more about that. Before Mark Hauke had become the Al Capone of the modern era for getting into a brief shoving match with a creep outside of an abortion clinic, Jack Phillips had long since begun his own reign of terror. Now Phillips, if you see him, he may He may look unassuming and non-threatening, but beneath that placid exterior lies the dark heart of a super villain who once viciously traumatized a gay couple by declining to make a customized cake for their wedding. But that's not the only cake he didn't want to bake. Fox News has the latest, quote, a Colorado baker who won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory in a case where he refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, lost an appeal in another legal fight in which he rejected a request for a birthday cake celebrating a gender transition. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the refusal by Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cake Shop

to make a cake requested by Autumn Scardina did not constitute free speech. The court also found it was illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation. Quote, we conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker, said the court, which also rejected procedural arguments from Phillips. The cake shop, initially agreed to make the cake, but then refused after Scardina explained that it was going to be used to celebrate her. Her. That's Fox News using the her there. Transitioned from male to female, the court found. Phillips said the cake that he makes are a form of free speech

and plans to appeal the ruling. Quote, one need not agree with Jack's view to agree that all Americans should be free to say what they believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs. According to Jake Warner, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented Phillips, John McHugh, one of the lawyers who represented at Scardina, said that Phillips objected to making the cake because he objected, quote, to the idea of Ms. Scardina wanting a birthday cake that reflects her status as a transgender woman because they object to the existence of transgender people. Okay, so it has been 10 years since Phillips gently declined the request to customize a cake

for a gay wedding. And that's an important point. He didn't refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. He never refused service to gay people. He never said, I won't make you a cake. What he says it, what he said is, I can't specifically customize this cake for the purpose of this gay wedding. Ten years since that. A decade. The amount of time that Biden wanted Mark Halk to spend in prison, an LGBT activist has spent all that time trying to destroy him, destroy a small town cake maker for refusing to bend the knee. and submit. They have spent 10 years targeting him. That's how vengeful and petty they are. Ten years trying to exact their revenge for a cake. And that's all that this gender transition

cake was about. Mr. Scardina is a trans activist who engage in a not at all subtle attempt to entrap Phillips by asking him to make a pink cake with blue icing, something that, again, he would have done Okay, if Scardina had just gone to Phillips and said, oh, I want a cake, I want it to have a blue icing, and I want it to be a pink cake. If he had done that, Jack Phillips would have said, sure, here you go, here's your cake, no problem. Okay, Phillips wasn't asking, what's this cake going to be used for, huh? Tell me. You know, fill out this disclosure form to tell us all the purposes that this cake will be used for. That never happened. Philip said, sure, we'll make the cake.

And then Scardina made a point of explaining, oh, by the way, this is going to be used at a gender transition celebration. What do you think about that, huh? There was no reason to tell Phillips that. There was also no reason to throw this celebration, especially because Scardina certainly has no friends to invite to the party anyway. But Scardina targeted Phillips, tried to back him into a corner, all so that he could do, exactly what he has done, spend years in court suing him for his refusal. That's how ruthless and soulless and downright trifling these people are. That's how determined they are to make you submit. Both Mark Howe and Jack Phillips are meant to be a warning to all of us. But you know what?

Instead, they should be an inspiration because they show us what happens if you don't surrender, but they also show us that you don't have to surrender. And you shouldn't. Now let's get to our headlines. If one of your goals this year is to do business with companies who share your values, that's a great goal to have, then check out Pure Talk. Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies. It's proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks. Not to mention Pure Talk service is fantastic.

They're one of the largest networks in the country. You can get blazing fast data, also talk and text for as low as $30 a month. It's probably half of what you're paying, Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile. All you've got to do is switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number as well. Your first month is guaranteed risk-free. You can try it, and if you're not completely happy with your service, you'll get your money back, but I think that you will be happy. This year, make it a goal to support companies that support you. Go to PureTalk.com, enter promo code Walsh to say 50% off your first month.

That's puretalk.com. promo code Walsh. Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless. All right, by the way, my apologies for missing the show yesterday. I think I'm a pretty good excuse. I didn't film the show because at the time when we would film it, I had been sitting in the hospital with our two-week-old baby for at that point about 10 hours or so.

At like midnight on Monday night, I took one of the twins to the emergency room because he was having kind of a labored breathing and erratic breathing, and he'd also stopped eating, which is very bad signs for an infant on both counts. A cold basically has been going through our house, really mild for the rest of us, but for undersized preemie newborns,

a cold can be potentially quite catastrophic. So he made the decision that I would take him. Actually, my wife wanted to take him, but to make matters more interesting, there was supposed to be an ice storm that was going to be hitting us that night. And I wasn't going to send my two weeks postpartum wife and my newborn son out into an ice storm.

storm, so, of course, I took the child. And to get to the end of the story, everything's fine, the baby's fine, they monitored his breathing for what ended up being like 16 hours and he's okay. Scary moments there at first, but everything, thank God, everyone is fine. Actually, the baby's doing better than I am at this point because after I pulled an all-nighter, it's like, that's the kind of thing. As a younger man, I remember being younger and there were times when I would stay up all night, never for a selfless reason, like taking care of a baby. But then the next day, you you're okay, you kind of function. And as you get older, it's just that you have to pay one all-night, or you're going to pay for that for the next two and a half months, pretty much. Although I will say,

while I was sitting in the triage area of the hospital, the nurses came in and they said, you know, if you, we could bring in a cot so you can sleep. And I'm thinking, is that, do parents usually do that? You've got to, you bring your child and you can't breathe and you come in to deal with the child and the father's like taking a nap in the corner of the room? I don't know. And by the way, those ice storms, two of them, there were supposed to be, supposed to be one on Monday night when we took the baby to the hospital. And then last night there was supposed to get another one. And both of them ended up being total duds. I mean, a little bit of freezing rain, but nothing to the level that the forecast predicted. And yet, of course, everything is shut

down here in Nashville anyway. Small amount of freezing rain, some slippery sidewalks, everything shuts down. If you want to know how society would fare in an actual catastrophe, like a nuclear strike or a, you know, asteroid impact, all you got to do is go to a warmer weather climate and see how they respond to a little bit of winter weather. And it's a everything, people panic. So that's, that gives you an idea of how well we would do, which is not well at all. All right. Let's begin with this good news from the Hill. Utah has become the first state in 20, 23 to ban gender affirming care for minors as Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill Saturday to restrict their access to puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures. Cox said in a statement announcing his signature that legislation that affects minors necessitates careful consideration and deliberation. He said the bill is not perfect, but is a more nuanced and

thoughtful approach to a terribly divisive issue. Cox said states and countries are pausing gender affirming care for new patients until additional and improved research can be conducted to determine the long-term consequences of receiving this type of care. Lawmakers in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, and Tennessee have all approved measures restricting, quote, gender affirming care in recent years. And there are more states as well. And this is, this is, in fact, happening all across the country. Florida had previously passed a measure to ban these procedures. And here is Ron DeSantis a couple days ago explaining that. measure a little bit more. I mean, look, you have, and this is sad, but this is going on,

you're having, in our society, they're giving teenagers, kids, puberty blockers. They're changing, they're doing sex change operations. And so we actually have very, you know, young adults who went through this when they were minors, and they're saying this was a huge mistake. And in fact, it's not evidence-based when you start talking about sex changes and puberty blockers. So we've worked through our department or our medical licensing board to say that you in the state of Florida, if you're performing those procedures on these minors, you're going to lose your medical license here in Florida. So that is happening. So that's Ron DeSantis explaining it. And if we could say the other leading candidate in 2024, although Ron DeSantis hasn't officially

announced yet, Donald Trump unveiled his own plan to deal with the same issue. He rolled this out yesterday. This is the Daily Wire report. Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled out a sweeping proposal to protect children for what he called left-wing gender insanity by barring chemical and surgical procedures meant to change the sex of confused minors. In declaring war on radical gender gender theory, Trump blasted the Biden administration's cruel policies on so-called gender affirming care and vowed to stop federal agencies from promoting such policies. He said, quote, left-wing gender insanity being pushed on our children is an act of child abuse. while he said this while launching his third bid for the nation's highest office last November,

and as so far the only major Republican to have declared his candidacy of 2024, the announcement comes as radical gender ideology has become a hot button issue with the daily wire at the forefront of the conversation. So we got DeSantis, Trump, we have all these states. And then obviously Tennessee is another one. And here is a very disapproving report from News Channel 5 here in Nashville. It says a controversial bill that would affect youth considering gender affirming care, moved toward becoming Tennessee law. Republicans are sponsoring a bill

that would ban gender affirming surgeries for children in the state of Tennessee. Tennessee lawmakers made their way into the discourse of gender affirming care and minors in September after a conservative blogger, that's me a blogger apparently. I haven't written in anything that could be called a blog for, I don't know,

seven or eight years, but that's all right. Question whether Vanderbilt University Medical Center should provide gender affirming care to patients. Matt Walsh, a Daily Wire conservative commentator, who questions the legitimacy of LGBTQ rights, said he considered the care to be that of castration and mutilation of minors and adults. I mean, the writing here on top of everything else

is tremendously bad. Matt Walsh, a Daily Wire conservative commentator who questions the legitimacy of LGBTQ rights said he considered the care to be that of castration and mutilation of minors and adults. That's the way that, that's the tortured phrasing they're forced to use in defense of what they call gender, quote-unquote, gender affirming care. It's not that I consider this, quote, care to be castration and mutilation.

It's that by definition, that is what these procedures do. That's what the procedures are. That is a definitional thing. A standing room crowd inside the committee room in the Cordell Hall building reached capacity before News Channel 5 could even get our camera inside. Republicans invited Chloe Cole to testify. She's an 18-year-old from California who at age 13 began gender-affirming care, only to decide that she didn't want to continue down that path.

She spoke about why lawmakers should pass House Bill 1. And so this bill is making its way through the process of becoming law. And I have absolutely no doubt that it will be law in short order. So we got all these things going on. you know, states across the country banning the mutilation of kids. Ron DeSantis coming out strongly against it. Donald Trump coming out strongly against it. And you have to keep in mind that just a few years ago,

there was no political will or momentum to ban this butchery at all. I mean, nobody was even talking about it. There was, we had a Republican White House and Congress for two years, and they never made any attempt to do anything about any of this. They never talked about it. They never brought it up. And now it has become an issue, and it's one that conservatives are, for the most part, united on. And this is something that we, and when I say we, I mean the anti-gender ideology movement.

This is something that we made happen. This is a major success story for conservatives in the anti-gender ideology movement. Now, most importantly, it's a success story. success story for the kids who are now going to be protected from this mutilation. But it's also worth noting that, you know, I'm not sure there is any other example that I can think of, where conservatives mobilized and so quickly converted that mobilization into not only cultural change, but policy changes as well, where this went from something that wasn't even discussed a few years ago to now states across the country banning it,

presidential candidates coming out against it. I mean, it's worth paying attention to what we did here and how we did it. Because this should be the model moving forward on every issue. And on top of that, too, I think that the success goes farther than that because we've also made it not only popular and common now for people to come out against castrating and mutilating kids. we've also made it popular in common to question the fundamental claims of transgenderism, quote unquote, as a concept. Now, it's still not popular on the left, obviously, but I think normal people are waking up and feeling bold enough to speak out. As I've said plenty of times,

we were shooting what is a woman, and we did our man on the street interviews all across the country in many different states and talked to lots of different people. What we found, and we were filming this, you know, started filming a year and a half ago or so. It was very, very difficult to find anyone who was willing to be skeptical about transgenderism, about any part of it, who was skeptical or at least was willing to express that skepticism on a camera, on camera. That was a year and a half ago. Now, I'm thinking that if we did it again, it'd be a very different story. I think we'd have no difficulty. finding people that would stand in front of the camera and say, no, man's a man, a woman's a woman.

Get your hands off these kids. Don't do this to kids. Okay, you can identify, you could say you identify as whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you are that thing. I think it wouldn't be that hard to find people willing to say that. A year and a half ago it was. So, I think this is a very important lessons that we should learn here. From the Daily Wire, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murphy, that is, believe, children 13 years old are too young to join social media platforms, citing kids are still developing their identity, quote unquote, and such engagement can create a distorted sense of

themselves. Murthy, who has served a Surgeon General under the Obama and the Biden administrations, signaled the warning and interview with CNN, noting adolescents should only be allowed to access the platforms until they are 16 years old at the earliest. Murphy said, it's a time early adolescence where kids are developing their identity, their sense of self. It's a time where it's really important for us to be thoughtful about what's going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children. Now, this is obviously correct on every point. I mean, the idea that children at 13 or younger

would be old enough to engage with the entire world on a point. I mean, the idea that children at 13 or younger would be old enough to engage with the entire world on a platform, because that's what social media is. You are saying to a child, well, here you go, engage with the whole world all at once. The idea that they're old enough for that at 13 or younger or even older is it's madness. I mean, it's truly crazy. Why aren't children old enough for that? Not only old enough, by the way, to engage with the whole world, but also to see and be exposed to and consume whatever content anyone in the world wants to post to that same platform.

I mean, when you put your kid on social media, what you were saying is, okay, child, you are old enough to see anything that anyone happens to want to post. That's what you're saying, which again, is crazy. Why aren't they old enough? Well, because their minds are still developing, as the certain general points out. They can't make informed choices about things. They can't discern between what is true and what is not. What is harmful, what is not.

They're impulsive. They're gullible. They're innocent. They're ignorance. Lots of adults are all these things except for innocent, but the rest of the, you know, describes a lot of adults in this society. The difference is that kids have an excuse to be all of those things. So, yeah, keep kids off social media, as I've been saying forever.

And 16 is also too young, by the way. There is no benefit. That's another way of thinking about these sorts of things. Anytime you're allowing your kid to do something, you should think to yourself, well, what do they gain from this? What's the benefit? What is the win here? Okay. Even for 16.

So you're 16-year-old daughters on Instagram and TikTok and all the rest of it. Like, what's the win for her? How does she win being on this platform? I know how she loses. We all know how she loses, but what's the win? So we know what the risks are, and the risks are enormous. What are the benefits? I mean, it makes sense.

You know, kids have to learn how to take risks in a thoughtful and controlled environment. As parents, we have to be willing to take risks. You know, we have to be willing to, in some circumstances, do things where there's a possibility that things go wrong. anytime you let your kid run around outside and play in the yard. I mean, they could trip and fall and break an ankle. And there are things that could go wrong. But you allow that in a controlled environment because the benefits are, well, they get fresh air. They get exercise.

They get to, you know, have a normal, joyful childhood. And the only other option is that you keep them locked inside all their whole childhood. And we can't allow that. But what are the benefits of being on social media when you're 16? they really don't exist. So, you know, we can agree on most of that, apparently, and I'm glad that we do. But then I can't help but point out, as many others have already pointed out, that the Surgeon General and the Biden administration generally, they say that kids are 13 or too young for social media. Yet, yet they also say that these are the same kids who are old enough to change their gender.

Think about the reasoning that he gave. He didn't just point out that their minds are developing. He said that their identities are still developing. Their sense of themselves is still developing. And yet these are kids that can change their gender at 13. Okay. So a 12-year-old, we all agree, doesn't have the mental capacity, doesn't have the psychological and emotional maturity,

doesn't have the powers of discernment necessary to use TikTok. And yet that same child does have all those things in, in, in ample quantity, if he declares that, you know, that although he was born a boy, he's actually a girl. This is completely incoherent. All right. This is a video that's gone viral today. Matt Gates proposed that members of the House Judiciary Committee should say the Pledge of Allegiance before every Judiciary Committee meeting. And he actually proposed this back in 2021, but they didn't have the change.

They didn't have the power then to actually institute this change. And now they have instituted it. But Jerry Nadler, also known affectionately as the penguin, opposed the measure. And this little exchange here has gone viral. Let's watch it. And our Pledge of Allegiance is a national symbol of pride and unity. And it was a great honor to be able to invite one of my constituents this morning to offer the Pledge of Allegiance. And so my amendment gives the committee the opportunity to begin each of its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance.

It gives our members the ability to invite inspirational constituents to be able to share and lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. I offered this amendment to the Judiciary Rules two years ago, and it was defeated, and I'm very optimistic that we'll have a different outcome today. That's the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. Support the amendment. Does anyone seek recognition? Gentleman from New York, Ranking Member. I would oppose it simply on the grounds that as members know, we pledge allegiance every day on the floor. And I don't know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day to show how patriotic we are.

I got to say I kind of agree with the penguin on this one. Not kind of, actually. I really do. I don't think I've ever agreed with Nadler on anything. But on this one, I agree. And I know that, like I said, it's gone viral on social media and there are conservatives on Twitter that are pretending to be outraged by it or whatever. But it's all performance. I mean, they already say the pledge to start the day. You know, the House members say the pledge to start the day already. There's no reason to say it again except as empty performance. You're doing it for the cameras. It's the only reason you're doing it. And I'd say the last thing that we need from Congress is more performance. performance. That's not what we need. It doesn't move the ball down the field. And this is the kind of thing. When I first heard about this and I saw the video, I had that reaction. I said, yeah, I kind of

agree with Penguin. Honestly, they don't need to say it a second time. Like what, you said it once. And for most of them, even once, it doesn't mean anything. Okay, either they are loyal to the flag and to our country or they aren't. And they could say the pledge a million times. It's not going to make them any more loyal. So either what they're saying is true or not, it doesn't become any more true with repetition. That was my first reaction. I kind of agree, but who cares? But then as the more I thought about it, it just, it just annoys me because this is, this is exactly the kind of boomer bait, red meat pageantry that we always get from Republicans. The only reason that this exists is so that we could have that moment where some Democrat says, yeah, we don't really need to do this,

and then it can end up on Fox News. This is a Fox News. This is a Fox News, This is this is tailor-made for Fox and Friends. For a Fox and Friends segment, it's the only reason it exists. It's not because the Republicans and the Judiciary Committee are so patriotic and they love the country so much that they just can't contain themselves. They want to say the pledge every five minutes they love the country so much. Does anyone really believe that? It's like obviously that's the only reason just showing off of the cameras and also putting Democrats in a position where they would say no so you can then go, oh, Democrats aren't patriotic. you know, and by the way, like political gamesmanship like that where you're trying to paint your opposition as the bad guy, I'm fine with that.

That doesn't make me squeamish. But this is just especially lame, I think. And when you're using the pledge and the flag to do it, it makes it a little bit, I don't know, just irritating. All right. And all the more irritating because you are forcing me, you are forcing me to agree. with and defend Jerry the Penguin Nadler. And I resent that. Right, what else are we got here?

So this is the story of hasn't going on for the last, well, for months now, but really ramping up for the last few days. This is a story from a few days ago. CNN says, former president Donald Trump took aim at Ron DeSantis Saturday, claiming the Florida governor and his team are trying to rewrite history regarding their COVID-19 pandemic response and called the potential presidential run by his GOP rival. very disloyal. Trump told reporters while aboard his plane, the Republican governors that did not close their states. Florida was closed for a long time.

They're trying to rewrite history, he added. And there are actually several examples of this. Trump has been going after DeSantis on the lockdowns for several days. He had mentioned it a few times prior to this, but over the last few days, this has been the attack that he's decided to launch on on Descentives. He tweeted, he didn't tweet it. He sent this out on his truth social app a few days ago. He said, the fake news media was good yesterday in their coverage of my stops in New Hampshire and South Carolina, other than the globalist street journal, which is rarely accurate or good. They said the day was really amazing. The enthusiasm to make America great again, I don't know, I don't think that there was anyone in the news media who described a Trump rally as really amazing. I somehow doubt that,

but I don't know. The enthusiasm to make America great again has never been stronger. The revelations about Ron DeSanctimonious doing far worse than many other Republican governors, including that he unapologetically shut down Florida and its speeches was interesting indeed. DJT leading big. Okay. Just a few points here. And DeSantis still has not responded. So Trump has been going after DeSantis for months now.

DeSantis has not said anything directly in response, which I think is the right approach. Now, I have heard, which I think is an interesting argument, that, the right thing here politically is for for Donald Trump to be going after DeSantis because he realizes he's the number one challenger. So that's politically smart. It's also politically smart for Ron DeSantis to say nothing. So they're both kind of doing what is politically smart for them to do. I agree on the latter point. It's smart for DeSantis not to respond. But because I agree, I must disagree with the first point. Like what makes DeSantis smart for not responding is that is that Trump comes off as weak and kind of desperate and pathetic for obsessing over a guy that's not even

talking about him. So I don't see how it's politically smart for Trump to continue down this line of attack when he just looks desperate. I mean, this is the kind of, this is the advantage that Trump has always had in the past, that his enemies are obsessed with him and are constantly talking about him, and it just makes them look desperate and pathetic. We've never seen the reverse. We've never really seen Trump obsessed over someone who doesn't respond to him. Now, Trump has attacked people in the past, but they always respond, or they started by attacking him first. This is a new one. And given especially that Ron DeSantis is in office right now and Trump isn't, so you've got Trump ranting about DeSantis, DeSantis just doing his job as governor and doing a good job,

I don't think the contrast makes Trump look very good. And then there's also the fact that talk about rewriting history. I mean, look, he wants us to forget, and I don't think anyone actually will forget, that he shut the entire country now. Okay, he shut the entire 15 days to slow the spread that turned, that turned into months and months and months. That was Trump. He handed the country over to Dr. Fauci. He could have fired him, but he didn't.

And in explaining why he didn't fire him, Trump has said that the reason he had to fired Fauci is that the media would have been really mad at him if he did it. That's his excuse. That's what he has actually said that he couldn't have fired Fauci because the media would have complained. So instead you would hand our entire country over to this narcissistic psycho. So taking the guy who was very pro-lockdown and trying to make him into the lockdown guy while you were the lockdown president. Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't, I don't, it's obviously not true, but of course we know in politics, truth is sometimes irrelevant. The question is whether that, whether this narrative will resonate with anyone. Can he convince anyone to actually buy into this?

I tend to doubt it. And not only was Trump the guy who locked down the country, but he attacked DeSantis and Kemp for opening their states too soon. Trump, when he was in office went after DeSantis and Kemp in Georgia for opening their states. He said it was reckless and dangerous to do it. It's not hard to, like, anyone can find the tweets and the statements and the things that he said at press conferences. It's all out there. It's all documented. I'm a very skeptical of this approach. All right. Finally, I, on Monday afternoon, I appeared on Pierce Morgan's show, and we talked about, as we've discussed in the show here, the viral trend of women trying to entrap men at the gym

by filming them and pretending that the men were harassing them. And I made one point that scandalized one of the feminists on the panel, and let's listen to that. I don't think you could avoid looking at people because I'm looking at them to see what their forms like, how they're carrying certain weights, are they carrying more than me, you know, male or female. I don't really care.

I'm quite curious about other people using a gym. Am I now going to be something appearing on Instagram, influences sites in some sort of purve? Well, it's possible. By the way, I also, I don't mean to be a victim blamer here, but can we also say that if you're a woman and you don't want men to notice you in the gym, maybe wear more than your underwear to go work out?

These women, these videos, they're wearing sports bras and, like, hot pants. I mean, how about put some clothes on if you don't want people to look at you? This is victim blaming, though. I'm sorry, I'm going to quote more at work. here, that men are afraid of women laughing at them. Women are afraid that men are going to kill them. It is not okay to say that it's a woman's fault for wearing the wrong thing. You think the people looking over at people using some equipment of gym are going to kill them?

I think that taking photographs is threatening, staring at people is threatening. But the ones photographing it are these Instagram influences? No, they're not. They are videoing men taking photographs of them and living out. Victim. Victim, we're the Margaret Atwood quote there. And actually, just so you know, men, the big fear that men have when it comes to women, especially women who try to do exactly what these women in the gym are doing,

the fear is not being laughed at. The fear is being publicly shamed. It's being falsely accused. It's having your life and reputation destroyed. Being laughed at it to your face, who cares about that? the fear is reputational destruction, and that is a power that women wield much more than men. Okay, an accusation from a man in our society doesn't carry a lot of weight. But we know we've heard the slogans, believe all women, believe women.

And we also know that the people that say that, you know, there are plenty of women that they don't want to believe, such as the woman that accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. But that's the slogan anyway. So one woman says something and your life is destroyed. That is the fear for men. And it's a valid fear. And having your entire life and reputation destroyed is a major tragic event. It's not simply being laughed at.

But I know that I said kind of facetiously, I don't mean to victim blame. But fine, I am victim blaming. Okay. If we're talking about someone who is a woman who is the victim, she's the victim of a man looking at her. If that's the kind of victimization we're talking about, a man looking at you, if that makes you a victim, if that makes you a victim,

then, yes, I blame you if you're walking outside of your house in your underwear. Yes, that you have made yourself the victim by doing everything in your power to attract the male gaze, not just the male gaze, but anyone's gaze. Because as I said, when we talked about this last week, if I walked out of the house of my underwear, if any man walked out of the house and underwear, people would stare at us. They might not stare in a sort of pleased way, but they would still be

staring, whether they're horrified and grossed out or whatever the reason they'd be staring because they'd be thinking, why? Look at that person in their underwear. It's just saying, that's a normal human response when you walk around in your underwear. And if that makes you a victim to be the object of someone's gaze, okay, if that's the kind of victimization, we're talking about, then yes, you deserve the blame for it. You deserve actually 100% of the blame for it if you're walking around your underwear. If you're dressed in a way that is designed to attract people's gaze and then you get exactly what you're what you were hoping for, yes, the blame goes to you. Without question. And there's a pretty easy solution here

which is to put on clothes. And also, it does make me question. I know we hear from the feminist. Women walk around all the time, terrified that a man's going to kill them. Is that? So then you walk around your underwear? Like, wearing your underwear to the gym, that's the behavior of a woman who's afraid she's going to be killed by a man? That if you're afraid of men and that's how you respond? That to me seems like the behavior of someone who has no fears at all. That's just that's someone who's utterly oblivious and not afraid of anything. All right, let's get to the comment section. All right, we have some comments here.

Well, these are from two days ago, because we missed the show yesterday. But Chrissy Liberty says, Matt forgot to mention Pelosi having a drink in his hand when he opened the door. Can't imagine if you really feared for your life, you would, you'd stop for a drink. Well, yeah, I think people were saying that he had a cocktail in his hand. I think it looked to me like just a glass of water. But it does make sense because, again, Pelosi was trying to act nonchalant.

And he was telling the intruder that, yeah, we're just waiting for my wife. And he probably offered him a drink. You know, it would be a normal thing to do. He was trying to play it off, which is the smart move, especially when you're an unarmed elderly man. And a crazy intruder breaks into your house, your best move, really, your own. only move is to try to de-escalate the situation and, you know, rather than using force to get your way out of it, you got to use your wits. And that's what he tried to do. Ka-Ross says, Matt, it's unfair to say that that man skates so bad that he makes you look like a professional skater because you

skate like a graceful swan. Well, thank you. I didn't want to say that about myself because it would seem, although I'm not sure that swans really are graceful on the ice. So there might be, we might need a fact check on that. Ghost Leviathan says, Matt, what's your take on cigarettes? I know you have attacked other drugs, but just want to get your take on them. You know, a cigarette, I don't smoke them. I don't think you should smoke them. I don't think it's, you know, we talked before about how does social media improve your life if you're a child?

Really, how does it improve your life if you're any age? You can ask a similar question about cigarettes. How is that going to improve your life? Probably isn't. but so yeah what's my opinion on i don't think you should smoke cigarettes i also don't think you should eat fast food every day right but people do um however cigarettes we don't put them on the same plane as fentanyl and heroin and crack and all that kind of stuff um because because of the effect on individual that those drugs have where they're going to they could they could kill you on the spot first of all

they are certain to utterly destroy your life immediately. They're going to turn you into a zomified husk of a person. Cigarettes don't do that. And also the effect that they have on society. Like a society where lots of people smoke cigarettes can be very functional. And we know that because that was a society that we lived in for much of the 20th century. Much of the 20th century while America was thriving, was at the same time of time when like everybody was smoking.

Now I'm not saying it's because of the cigarettes. I'm not necessarily saying we should go back. We should all start smoking cigarettes again. But we know that we can have a functional society where people smoke. Can we have a functional society where lots and lots of people are on these hard drugs? The answer is absolutely no. We can't even have a functional city where a sizable minority are on these drugs. we see what they've done to the cities.

So I think that there's clearly a very big difference here. Night Warrior says, no, sir, white people are not to blame for the things that we black people do. Well, Night Warrior, that is internalized racism. That is internalized white supremacy, I'm told, that we're hearing from you. Christopher says, come on, Matt, I expected better from you, at least. This talking point of the 911 operator being bad at the job is horribly dumb. She obviously knew what was going on since police were dispatched. We don't need to divert from the main point by making light of completely misconstrued talking

points. No, the 911 dispatcher tried to hang up the phone. Okay, she was ready to hang up. Let's not forget that. When Paul Pelosi said, yes, this person came into my house and is waiting for my wife, my wife's name is Nancy Pelosi. They're here waiting for my wife. And they say everything's fine, but I don't think so.

It was at that moment that the dispatcher said, well, all right. talk to you later. Hey, give us a ring back if there's any problems. So, no, I think we can say that she did a terrible job. And in fact, Matthew W., no relation. Agrees. Says that 911 dispatcher did a terrible job, and it's honestly embarrassing. I was a dispatcher for seven years, and one thing drilled into you is listening for clues that lead you to believe that the caller is calling under duress.

You must listen carefully to your callers, especially when things don't make sense. You're supposed to ask yes or no questions to give them options that might be transparent to something. next to them, for example, is someone there? Say pepperoni for yes and cheese for no, for example. If they call you to ask for pizza, dispatchers need to be able to adapt and use critical thinking. Well, okay, so there's the former 911 dispatcher who agrees with me, so I feel pretty good about that. And that was my other problem with the 911 dispatcher in the Pelosi call is not only was she like trying to get off the phone. Almost she was annoyed. She wanted to get back to doing whatever she was doing. but she was also asking questions that were not yes or no question.

She was asking questions that forced Paul Pelosi to say things out loud that would reveal that he was talking to a 911 operator. So, not a great job all around. As you've heard, we've been running a massive 40% off sale for annual memberships, and it's this Friday that it ends. Don't miss the chance to celebrate one of the greatest moments in DeliWire history with one of the greatest offers. That's 40% off annual memberships with co-exams. code do not comply. The deal ends on Friday so you don't want to wait. One year ago, we sued the government over its tyrannical vaccine mandate, and we won. You can celebrate this victory with us

by joining the winning team. When you join, you get access to the best content, one of the fastest growing libraries, and again, you're on the team with us making changes in the culture. We're adding a ton of new content this year with kids content, more movies, more shows, hard-hitting documentaries, and more. Remember, this is your last chance to get 40% off your new annual membership at Dailywire.com slash subscribe with coach. do not comply. The sale ends this Friday, so head to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Lock in your discount now to enjoy all of our great releases coming soon. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

For our daily cancellation today, we turn to New Jersey, a state that is always perpetually canceled simply for existing. But, you know, the state's general crappiness and the fact that the whole place smells like a poorly maintained Burger King restroom is incidental for our discussion today. New Jersey.com has a story about a former public school teacher now suing the school that she says drove her to quit after shaming her for having emotional breakdowns in the classroom. A lot going on here. Let's start at the top. Says a former teacher in the South Orange Maplewood School District has filed a lawsuit claiming that she was forced to resign after transfer to teach special education without an aid caused her to have crying spells in the classroom.

Sarah Barlow, 34 of West Orange, said in court papers that she was teaching kindergarten at South Mountain Elementary School during the 2020, 2021 school year when she was abruptly transferred to the district's annexed school to teach a different class. Barlow was asked to teach a classroom that included special education students, yet she was not provided any special education teachers or paraprofessionals to assist her, according to the suit filed December 22nd. Prior to her transfer, Barlow had disagreements with school principal Kevin Mason over the handling of two troubled students, according to the suit. All right, well, so far it seems as though Ms. Barlow has legitimate reasons to be frustrated. She was pulled out of her class, thrown into a more difficult situation

without proper supported resources, assuming, of course, that her version of events is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is. After all, it all sounds haphazard, inefficient, self-defeating, which is exactly what we've come to expect from the public school system. And if this is where the story ended, then she would have my sympathy. But unfortunately, it keeps going, and my sympathy quickly evaporates. Continuing, this situation caused Ms. Barlow a significant amount of emotional distress and exacerbated her anxiety, a condition she has suffered with since her teenage years. the suit states. On October 24th, Mason sent Barlow a letter admonishing her for exhibiting signs of anxiety and stress in the classroom. The suit said, Barlow alleges that her symptoms were caused by not

having an aid and by Mason's alleged mistreatment. In this letter, Mason stated that Ms. Barlow's crying spells were unprofessional and stated that a corrective action would be forthcoming. The lawsuit says that Barlow's therapist then placed her on a six-week medical leave due to the stress and anxiety that she was experiencing at work. Okay, so she broke down in tears. in front of her students multiple times, and then took a six-week vacation to work on her feelings. Sorry, it wasn't a vacation. It was medical leave because in our insane culture, we use the same language to describe a woman taking a break from her work because she's anxious, as we do to describe a woman taking a break from work because, you know, she needs a heart transplant. But it gets better.

Listen, it says, quote, unfortunately, due to the district's failure to address her complaints of unlawful behavior and complete disregard for her disability and mental health, Ms. Barlow was forced to resign from her position on November 1st, 2022, the suit states. The lawsuit says that Barlow's anxiety, which requires medical treatment, is a recognized disability under the New Jersey law against discrimination. In addition, administrators in the South Orange Maplewood School District failed to accommodate Barlow's disability, disciplined her for her symptoms, and failed to include her in the discussions about reasonable classroom accommodations, the suit says. Okay. So to use a phrase that I hate, there's a lot to unpack here. First of all, you know, I do hold men to a higher standard

of stoicism than I hold women to. As men, we should be expected, even more, to bear difficulty and hardship without complaint. This capacity is one of the things that makes a man valuable to his family and his community. It's what makes a man a man. And it's why men who cannot carry their burdens with silent dignity are so incredibly useless and such a strain on everybody around them. And also really unappealing to women because it's the last thing that they want. Now, women are more expressive, more emotive, more empathetic by nature, which is why we have and should have greater tolerance for their emotional displays. But that tolerance only goes so far. Because whether you're a man or a woman, if you're in a position of leadership, especially if that leadership

position involves caring for and educating children, you need to be able to handle stress and frustration and setback without making it everyone else's problem. Women have a greater compulsion to share their feelings with those around them, which is usually fine if they're sharing their feelings with their husbands or their friends or their family or trusted confidant. But the children in your classroom are none of those things. Let's hope. They are not going to school in order to be sounding boards for your frustrations or to validate your feelings. Your responsibility is to provide them an education, one that is unburnton. burdened by your emotional baggage. If you can't do that or you won't do it, then you shouldn't be

teaching. I mean, I don't care what you've been through in your life. I don't care how difficult your life is or has been. Sometimes in life, it is your responsibility to suppress your feelings, the feelings you have about those difficulties, and carry on like nothing is wrong. I know that's a shocking thing to hear these days, people hear, but yeah, there are plenty of times in life where no matter what you're going through. It is your responsibility to deal with it and shut up and do your job. It's what's expected of you. You know, the doctor who's performing brain surgery on you, he might be having a bad day also. But you'd be very concerned if he came into the room right before they put you under sobbing and crying and complaining about his anxiety disorder.

And that's because in his capacity as brain surgeon, you expect him to do his duty and to subordinate his feelings. Whatever he's going through, you expect him to just deal with it and get the job done like a professional. You would expect that of your heart surgeon, your brain surgeon, your airplane pilot, really anyone else who's performing a job that you need done, you would be annoyed if you ordered a pizza and it came to your house late. And the reason it came late is because the pizza delivery guy is having a really bad day and, you know, struggling with his feelings. That would annoy you. And it should.

Because you're here to do a job. Your job is to bring me the pizza. And in that same way, you know, we expect you to do your job as well. And again, if you can't do it, there's always the other option, which is to, which is to not, if you really can't. If you can't do the job, then don't do the job. Leave the job. If you're there, people expect you to do it. It's that simple.

Second point, anxiety is not a disability. It is not a medical condition. no matter how often this claim is made, no matter what the psychiatrists say, no matter the billions of dollars of pharmaceutical companies are able to make off of it, anxiety is not a disease. It is rather just one of the tolls we all must pay for the privilege of being human. There is nothing strange or unique about the person who experiences anxiety. There would be something quite strange about the human being who did not experience it, but no such human exists or has ever existed. Of course, the medical industry will claim that what I'm talking about, You know, when I say everyone experiences anxiety, what the medical industry says is that, well, that's just regular anxiety. That's average anxiety. That's anxiety in its normal amount. But when anxiety reaches beyond that threshold, that's when it magically becomes an illness as medically valid as diabetes or Parkinson's or the flu. Well, who decides what qualifies as normal anxiety? Who determines where the threshold is? Who gets to declare what amount of anxiety we're supposed to have? Well, coincidentally, enough, the people who have drugs to sell us, they get to decide. And they're the only ones who can decide, by the way. Indeed, if you as a human being dare to speak about anxiety, which is the most ubiquitous of all human experiences, and if you dare to speak about it as someone who is not selling anything, someone who doesn't stand to profit off of your position on the subject,

that somehow makes you less reliable. The message is clear. When it comes to questions of suppose mental illnesses, the only trustworthy people are the people who are financially incentivized to come up with certain answers. This is all nonsense, of course. Questions about the nature of anxiety and what we should do with anxiety and how much anxiety a healthy person should experience. These are philosophical questions. These are spiritual questions. They're questions that defy simple medical analysis. Questions that cannot be reduced down to formulas or solved with prescription medication. And the problem is that the spiritual authorities, the priests and philosophers of our day,

are the people who put the titled doctor in front of their names. We have long since given them authority over not only strictly scientific and medical questions, but deeper questions about the very purpose and nature of the human person and about the meaning of life and how life is supposed to be lived and how people are supposed to feel and all of that. We've done this partly because we've been duped, and we do this partly because we refer the fiction that these people are selling us because it lets us off the hook. It allows us to claim that we have no control over our emotions.

We can't be blamed for how we behave. And now it even allows us to claim disability and take six weeks of medical leave because we're feeling stressed out. That's what Ms. Sarah Barlow is up to, and it's why she is today finally canceled. That'll do it for this portion of the shows. We'll move over to the members block. If you want to become a member, you can do that now by using Code Walsh, a check out for two months free on all annual plans.

Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.