The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1120 - The Biden Administration Boasts About Its Rampant Anti-White Bigotry

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the White House is becoming less and less white, and this is a fact we're supposed to celebrate. We'll discuss the Left's obsession with "diversity" and how diversity is really a code word for anti-white bigotry. Also, Ron DeSantis orders the execution of a twice convicted murderer who stabbed a young woman to death. According to the media, DeSantis is the real bad guy in the story. Plus, Liam Neeson has his own MeToo moment while appearing on the View. A new study shows that hormone therapy for trans-identified people is having a disastrous impact on their health. Who would have thought? In our Daily Cancellation, a teacher tries to explain why parents shouldn't have any say over what their kids are taught. - - -  DailyWire+: Become a DailyWire+ member for 40% off to access the entire content library of movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d  Shop the Jeremy’s Razors Presidents’ Day sale and get 30% off any razor: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43  Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh Jase Medical - Get a discount on your Jase Case with promo code ‘WALSH’ at https://jasemedical.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 White House is becoming less and less white, in fact, and this is a fact we're supposed to celebrate. We'll discuss the left's obsession with diversity and how diversity is really a code word for anti-white bigotry. Also, Ron DeSantis orders the execution of a twice convicted murderer who stabbed a young woman at death. According to the media, DeSantis is the real bad guy in that story somehow. Plus, Liam Neeson has his own Me Too moment while peering on the view.

A new study shows that hormone therapy for trans-identified people is having a disastrous impact on their health, who would have possibly thought that's the case. And our daily cancellation, a teacher tries to explain why parents shouldn't have any real say over what their kids are taught. All that, and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Are we back on? Well, clearly, someone in the control room forgot to turn on ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts 100% of my online data to protect it from

cyberpunks, like the ones who tried to terrorize my show today. When I use ExpressVPN, my online presence is anonymized, making it difficult for anyone to track my online activity and try to shut me down. Couldn't be easier to set up. You just tap one button on your phone or computer and you're protected. ExpressVPN works on all your devices, your phone, tablet, computer. Wherever you are in the world, ExpressVPN can and will protect you. Don't let the cyberpunks who tried to hijack my show, hijack your information.

Visit expressvpn.com slash walsh. You're three extra months free. That's XP, R-E-S-S-V-N.com slash walsh. ExpressVPN.com slash walsh to learn more. I believe that the Biden administration has been nothing but a parade of incompetence and catastrophe. You may look around and see financial devastation, inflation, crumbling infrastructure, and non-existent border, rampant crime, an epidemic of drug overdoses, a failing education system, are unnecessary entanglements and conflicts overseas, which may lead to a global nuclear war potentially.

And all of this, while Chinese spy balloons float casually over our heads. And you may, after surveying this rather discouraging scene, come to the conclusion that the people leading our country have performed in a manner that may be described as less than adequate. You may think all of that, and you may even be right. In fact, you are right, but the White House is here to tell you that none of that matters, because what really matters is diversity. And when it comes to the diversity contest, they will take second place to no one. Indeed, White House Press Secretary Karen Jean-Pair, herself, a woman who checks multiple diversity boxes, took another opportunity to tout the administration's diversity record, and this was in response to a

question from the ever-vigilant press and the press that is always focused on what the American people care about. And it was a question about the appointment of the next Federal Reserve vice chairman or chairwoman or chairperson or chair of them. The reporter wanted to know whether they would be looking for diverse applicants because obviously it's very important that the Federal Reserve vice chairperson represents a marginalized group. This will be a source of inspiration for all the people in that group who had always dreamed since childhood of becoming the Federal Reserve Vice Chairperson. And if you're in such a group and had such a dream, as so many have, then this response from Karen Jean-Pair should be very encouraging. Listen.

But I want to take the opportunity to lay out. How diverse the President's Cabinet has been, how diverse the President's administration has been. The Cabinet is majority people of color for the first time in history. The Cabinet is majority female for the first time in history. A majority of White House senior staff identify as female. 40% of White House senior staff identify as part of the racially diverse communities. And a record seven assistance to the presidents are openly LGBTQ plus. So again, this is something that the president prides himself on, that he actually has taken action to show the diversity of this administration. You know, just an impromptu question from the press that she happened to have a written speech ready for with, you know, all the statistics.

and the exact number of racial minorities that are in the Biden administration. She just happened to have that on hand for this question from the press. And by the way, maybe she really did. You know, maybe she actually does have that information on it. Maybe she just goes to every press conference and has all that information. We've got 40%, you know, gay people. We've got, because that, from the Biden administration's perspective, that could be an answer to any question at all.

I mean, the question could be, what are we going to do about the price of eggs? Well, you know, here at the Biden administration, we have, here's the number of polysexuals we have. They just, they see that as the somehow the solution to every problem. So in other words, all that is to say, the most incompetent administration in American history is also the most diverse. Make of that what you will. In fact, it's impossible to think of an example of an organization, institution, profession that has become more effective as it has become more diverse. There's lots of institutions we can think of that have become more, quote, unquote, diverse,

but how many of them have been improved by that in any measurable way whatsoever? We hear that diversity is our strength, but there isn't any evidence anywhere of diversity producing anything that would qualify as strength. In fact, what we see nearly across the board is institutional decline coinciding with the diversifying of those. same institutions. Make of that what you will too. But here's what you should make of it. And it's this, that diversity as an end in itself will always produce decline as an end in itself. No institution, no community, no country will prosper by focusing on diversity for diversity's sake. Diversity, the sort that the Biden administration touts anyway, should be a byproduct,

not in aim. In other words, if you recruit people because they're the most qualified, the most skilled, the most effective, which is the only reason you should be recruiting anyone for anything, really, and as a byproduct of that approach, you end up with a more, quote, unquote, diverse organization, then fine, though it would also be fine if the approach resulted in an organization that was predominantly white or predominantly male. As long as by the end of it, the organization is best able to accomplish whatever it's designed to accomplish. Because that's what matters. Okay? Because, and then if you have that, the demographic makeup, whatever that happens to be, is good because it was the result of a merit-based recruitment strategy. But the problem is that

diversity is rarely a byproduct in our society. It is, it is not organic. It's not something that just happens. It's always, almost always engineered. And engineered diversity is never good. engineered diversity is the work of bureaucrats who stand above, you know, the mass of common people and declare from on high that certain races have exceeded their allotted percentages. So other races must be shipped in and installed to fix the problem they have decided. Now, all of this is arbitrary, and it's completely dehumanizing. You know, you're taking away people's humanity, reducing them to statistics. A white person is not a white person, according to the White House.

he's a faceless representative for his race, which is apparently running some sort of surplus. The supply exceeds the demand as far as they're concerned anyway. And so we've got to clear out the stock and then restock with more valuable demographics is essentially the approach. So this is essentially how our social engineers view the problem, which is only a problem in the first place, because they've decided to call it a problem. And notice also that the allotted percentages are not based on representation in the population. See, the diversity proponents, they always say that institutions should reflect the communities they serve. We just heard that yesterday from CNN about the medical profession. They were saying that we need more black doctors because there are a lot of black patients,

and it has to reflect. We have to reflect the diversity of the population. Now, even that would be ridiculous and arbitrary. There's no reason why every institution should reflect the racial makeup of the large, community or nation. Again, it should reflect whatever is the result of merit-based recruitment. But this is especially the case when this demand for representation has only applied to industries and organizations that the elites in our culture consider admirable or desirable or useful. So, for example, only 10% of car mechanics are black, which is actually an underrepresentation compared to the overall population. But you rarely hear them raise that as a problem.

Because the people who raise these kinds of problems don't happen to respect car mechanics or consider it to be a desirable profession. In spite of the fact that car mechanics belong to one of the most important professions in existence right now, because without them, modern society ceases to function, basically. But when it comes to the desirable professions, the professions that the elites consider desirable anyway, percentage-based representation, as ridiculous as that would be on its own, is not actually what they're after, of course. They say they want these institutions to reflect the diversity of the American people. But if it did, that would mean that they would shoot for 13% black and 60% white. If the White House really reflected the American people, it would not be, as Jean-Pair says, a majority people of color. Because the populationism, that's not representation. That is a considerable over-representation.

Yet, of course, overrepresentation is the actual goal, because diversity is not the actual goal. Diversity is a smokescreen. I mean, there's a reason why these days leftists have taken to, I'm sure you've noticed, referring to diverse people, or rather a diverse person. So it's not just that the ethnic makeup of a group of people can be considered diverse. It's an individual human being can be diverse. You know, you could have a diverse person and then a non-diverse person. This makes no sense from a definitional perspective because diversity means variety and difference. One individual cannot be a variety.

Collections of people can have variety. Individuals in a vacuum cannot. So what does it mean to describe a person as diverse? Well, it means obviously that the person isn't white. That's all it means. And especially that the person isn't a white straight male. Diversity is code for non-white. And so anytime they talk about making something more diverse, what they're saying is they want fewer white people, fewer males, and fewer straight people.

Now, I know we've grown accustomed to this kind of bigotry, but we shouldn't fail to appreciate how twisted and ultimately terrifying it is that the White House is openly boasting about discriminating against whites. this is racial bigotry brought to the highest levels and paraded around in the open. That's a very concerning development. That's why our reaction to this sort of thing should no longer be, as it has been for so long, to just scoff at it, you know, like it's a silly thing. The goal to make institutions, especially governmental institutions, more diverse, is not merely a bunch of politically correct nonsense, though it is also that. But it is mainly, you know, actively racist.

It is an actively racist campaign against whites and an actively sexist campaign against males. It is a direct effort to marginalize a group of people that the powers that be despise. That's how we should see it because that's what it is. And we should react accordingly. Any effort to make any institution less white and less male is not only pointless and silly but disgusting. and morally repugnant, as would be entirely clear to everyone if an institutionally openly endeavored to make its members less black or less brown or less female. And this is not just about complaining about a double standard here. You know, I know we do plenty of that. I'm saying that

we need to start calling things what they are, which means that we must say that our government is run not by champions of diversity, but by anti-white bigots. Plain and simple. Now let's get to our five headlines. Have you gone to the grocery store and not been able to find something as simple as eggs? Then when you do find them, of course, they're almost $9 a dozen. There are shortages, and you should be concerned about it, no matter what the media tries to tell you. Shortages aren't just happening with global pandemics and natural disasters. They're happening every day.

And if you're worried about not being able to find the products you need to take care of yourself and your family, well, you should be. It's understandable to feel anxious and uncertain times. but there's a way to feel at peace, even in the midst of shortages, you need to be prepared for anything. And our partners at Jace Medical are here to help with that. A great way to start preparing is with the Jace case, a pack of five different courses of antibiotics that you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses.

All you have to do is fill out a simple online form. Your information will be reviewed by a board-certified physician, and your medication will be dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost. Being prepared not only brings peace of mind, but also helps you save time and money in the long run. You've got to go to jacemedical.com. Enter CodeWalsh and check out for a discount on your order.

That's jacemmedical.com promo code Walsh. We'll begin with this because the media found a new line of attack against DeSantis last night. The line of attack is that DeSantis had a man killed, if you can go. A poor, innocent man was killed by Ron DeSantis. That man's name is Donald Dilbeck. Of course, it turns out this poor innocent man was, was not either of those things. Well, he might be poor, but he's not innocent.

He's a murderer on death row. But here's how the Huffington Post reported on this story, okay? This is our headline. Florida executes man used as political pawn by Ron DeSantis. Subheading, I know I heard a lot of people when I was young. I really messed up, said Donald Dilbeck, who was sentenced to death by a non-unanimous jury. But I know Ron DeSantis has done a lot worse. No, he hasn't done worse than you as a convicted murder on death row.

Although there's no point of addressing Donald Dilbeck now because he's dead as well he should be. Read now from the article says, Florida on Thursday executed 59-year-old Donald Dilbeck, who was sentenced to death 32 years ago by a non-unanimous charity under a death penalty statute that has since been found unconstitutional. Dilbeck was found as was killed as punishment for fatally stabbing a woman named Fay Van. and was the first person executed in Florida since 2019. The timing of his execution appears to be part of a push by Governor Ronda Santhus to bring back death sentences by non-unanimous juries.

DeSantis, who was expected to run for president, signed Dilbeck's death warrant last month on the same day that he floated changing state law to allow non-unanimous juries to impose death sentences. Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree or something. DeSantis suggested at a Florida Sheriff's Association conference just before ordering the execution of a man with that exact jury split. I know I heard people when I was young. I really messed up. Dale Beck said, we already heard that, but I know Ron DeSantis has done a lot worse. He's taken a lot from a lot of people. I speak for all men,

women, and children. He's put his foot on our necks. Ron DeSantis and other people like him can sexual expletive. No, no, you don't speak for Donald. You don't speak for all men. You don't speak for me at all. You're a convicted murderer who's now dead. And, um, you don't, um, decomposing in an unmark grave, as you well deserve. And so you don't speak. You don't really speak for any normal, decent person. In a written statement, Vann's children, Tony and Laura Vann thanked DeSantis for carrying out the execution. Quote, we were robbed of years of memories with her, and it has been very painful ever since. However, the execution has given us some closure. Shortly after DeSantis's jury suggestion, Republican lawmakers filed a set of bills that would

replace the unanimous jury requirement with an eight to four threshold and allow a judge to overrule a jury to impose a death sentence. I'm not minimizing what the ill back did to people. Florida capital defender Alison Miller told the Tallahassee Democrat, but he is most definitely a political pawn. The Santas has cited the outcome of the trial for Nicholas Cruz, who killed 17 people in 2018, school shooting in Parkland, Florida,

as a reason to bring back non-unanimous jury verdicts. Cruz was sentenced to life in prison without parole after jurors split 93 over the death penalty. And that's an important detail that I think maybe some people get confused about with this. They're not talking about, you know, the conviction is non-unandous. What they're saying is that the decision that you could be executed even if the entire jury doesn't agree that although you're guilty, you should be executed for the crime. And of course, Ronda Stans is entirely right about that.

Why do you need the entire jury to agree on that? And then we're told more. There's something missing from, as we've read through this entire report, and this is Huffington Post, but the rest of the corporate media, it's been the same kind of thing as they're telling us a story about Donald Dilbeck. And then they get to a little bit of Dilbeck's background. Like most people sent it to death, Dilbeck endured extreme abuse as a child. His birth mother drank 18 to 24 beers per day throughout her pregnancy, resulting in a catastrophic effect on Mr. Dilbeck's intellectual and adaptive functioning. his lawyers wrote in a petition requesting the Supreme Court review of the case. That Mr. Dilbeck suffers from neurobehavioral disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure

is thoroughly medically documented, unrebutted, and factually beyond dispute. The lawyers continue. And then they go on. They go on for another several paragraphs telling us the poor story of this poor man, poor guy. But do you notice something that's missing? We've got several paragraphs into this. And what's missing is they still haven't given us the precise details of what Dilbert to earn his lethal injection.

They briefly mention it in one sentence, but they don't really give us the full story. And this is always the case with these kinds of articles about criminals executed by the state. They always bury the reason, the full reason, at the bottom, when that should be like the very first thing you tell us. Okay, before you tell us about fetal alcohol syndrome and he had a bad upbringing and his parents were abusive, but we don't need that. I want to know what he did. I want the full story of what he did. Well, the full story is that Dilbeck shot and killed a sheriff's deputy, went to prison for it, escaped, and then found a woman in the parking lot, Fay Van, at a parking lot of a store, and stabbed her to death, really for no reason.

Not that there could be a good reason. Stabbed her to death and left her two children without a mother. And that's how we got the death penalty. So killing the first person, not enough. Second person, now you're getting the death penalty. And that's why, like, I can have all the sympathy of the world for people who experience trauma in their lives, who are abused as children, like, who's not sympathetic to that. But once you victimize someone else, then the sympathy goes away.

Because, you know, part of it is that the buck has to stop somewhere. And, okay, Donald Dilbeck was abused as a child. Terrible thing. But what about the parents who abused him? I bet you we could trace back and see that, well, they were abused too. Right? I'm sure horrible things happened to them when they were, when they were, horrible things happened that would lead a mother to drink 18 beers a day when she's pregnant.

Like, we can guarantee that she had not a great life. I think we can, without even knowing anything else about her, we were pretty sure that's the case. And then what about the people that did that to her? And then her, so you just keep, you keep passing the buck down generations of generations, generations. Turns out no one is responsible for anything. It's got to stop somewhere. And actually, it stops with each individual. It stops with each individual. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. And if you are horribly victimized as a child or any other time, again, sympathy. But when you decide, when you make the decision to pass that victimization

on to someone else, right, to try to, in whatever weird, twisted way, alleviate your own suffering or reclaim some, you know, semblance of power and control in your own sick mind by passing that suffering and that victimization on to someone else, now there's no more sympathy for you. Because now you're as bad, in fact, probably worse now than the person who victimized you. You are also a monster. So all that goes out the window. And this is just justice. right? We could talk about, as we've talked about with the death penalty, you know, things like deterrence that is a factor. Okay, they'll tell you the study show it's not a deterrent. First of all, it's actually impossible to, common sense tells us that obviously the death penalty

has a deterrent factor because most people don't want to be executed. So it's got to have, it's got, Obviously it does. It's hard to go beyond common sense because it's actually impossible to measure. So when they tell you that there are studies, it proves that there's no deterrence. Well, that would, that would require you to know all of the people who would have done something bad but then didn't. So you would have to, that's the only way to measure deterrence. You're measuring all of the people who didn't do something. How could you possibly know that? It's impossible to know.

And then also the way that we carry out the death, but I mean, this guy was on death row for decades. And so there's still a deterrence factor, but that deterrence is obviously going to be incredibly mitigated because we don't execute very many people at all. It's very rare. And when we do, it's decades in the future. They get all kinds of appeals and everything. And so that's going to mitigate the deterrence factor. There is still going to be a deterrence factor. It's going to mitigate it, though. And, yeah, so the deterrence thing, you could talk about that. you can talk about the kind of societal self-defense argument that there are people who are just so dangerous that we have no choice but to segregate them permanently

from all of society in the most ultimate sort of form of segregation which is to execute them. So that argument's fine. But really it comes down to justice and there are things in life that you can do that simply call out, they cry out, for the harshest response. and punishment, and this is one of those things.

And that doesn't change. Your experiences growing up, what you suffered through. That doesn't change the nature of the act that you committed. Ultimately, though, this just makes me like DeSantis more. A convicted killer used his last moment on earth to curse the name of Ron DeSantis. That's supposed to make us like him less? Not for me. All right, moving on, the ladies of the view discuss the East Palestine situation.

You know you're going to get some really intelligent commentary from these ladies. And let's watch. Do you regulate out regulations for a second? Because it seems to me that the Republicans are obsessed with this notion of the free market and they don't like a lot of regulations. Because it means profit. Because it means profit. Yeah.

But I know. But for example, there were. very few plane crashes, thank God. And that's because the industry is highly regulated. We have to pay for regulations and safety standards. Otherwise, where are we? We're all going to go up in flames. Norfolk Southern gives as much to Democrats as Republicans. It's a very powerful lobby that is trying to block regulation. And this train, to Sarah's point, two miles long with two full-time employees and a trainee on it. And they didn't even need to. Because the last administration rolled it down to only one worker. They happened to have two. One thing.

I just want to say is I do think this was an unforced error by President Biden. It was 20 days before we had Secretary Buttigieg go down, 10 days before he put out a statement, acknowledging it. This is Trump country. He won by 40 points. He is a president for all Americans, I believe that, but he needs to show that he is. But there was time for him. I don't know why they would ever vote for him. For somebody who, by the way, he placed someone with deep ties to the chemical industry in charge of the EPA's chemical safety office. That's who you voted for in that district.

Donald Trump, who reduces all safety, he did. He showed up at McDonald's and those voters saw something on the ground that probably resonates in a way that they need to be. But they need to look past the photo ops and say who's doing the job here. Forget about the photo op. Showing up as a big thing, though. I think this is Donald Trump's fault. Of course it's Donald Trump's fault. Everything that happens in the Biden administration is Donald Trump's fault. And it's even just Donald Trump's fault that not only that this happened,

but the Biden administration didn't show any concern for it whatsoever until they were forced to. And even then, it was clear that there was only a symbolic concern. The fact that the Transportation Secretary didn't show up there until three weeks and then walked around for a little bit, looking like a dork in his construction outfit, looked like a child dressing up as a construction worker. All that is Donald Trump's fault. So we know that this is why I told you that they, and when I say they, I mean the media, the government, the elites, they don't care about this story because they don't care about these people. And it really is that simple.

And they don't care about these people because they don't belong to an accepted, you know, a preferred group because they're largely white working class people. And also because they tend to vote Republican. And you just heard it from Joy Behardt. This is who you voted for. Referring to them as these people, this is who you voted for. You notice she would never, ever, ever say that about the crime-ridden hellscape inner cities all across country. Just plagued with crime and violence and drugs and people walking around looking like zombies, fentanyl zombies walking all around.

What she's never going to say is, you know, these people in those cities, they voted for this. This is what you voted for. I'm not going to say that. She will say that about white working class people in Ohio, though. They don't care about the people. Like, it wouldn't matter. I mean, the honest truth is that, and this hopefully is not news to you, but it's a tough truth, that if everyone in that town died from chemical poisoning, the Joy Behar's of the world,

she wouldn't care. In fact, she'd probably be happy about it. Like, she sees you as utter scum. And it's the same thing for the Biden administration. They don't care. Speaking of the view, it's a little bit of a less important topic. I wanted to mention this because this is also making the rounds yesterday. Here's the article in New York Post.

It says, looks like Liam Neeson will not be returning as a guest on The View. The Irish actor, 70 years old, described his appearance on the ABC talk show last week as embarrassing, telling Rolling Stone the entire segment left him feeling uncomfortable. During his appearance on the show, co-host Joy Behar, couldn't help but air out her longtime crush on the taken act. In fact, the segment included a montage of clips that showed Behar making bizarre on-air comments. Neeson said, I was in the dressing room, drinking a cup of tea, turned the TV up, and I thought, oh, this will be great. We're talking about gun violence in America. I agree that it's an American problem.

I go on stage and join the ladies during the break, and I was congratulating them on this discussion. Then our segment starts, and it's just all this BS with Joy and Liam Neeson and having a crush. And he says, I'm uncomfortable in those situations. And he said it was embarrassing. So that's how he doesn't want to go back. He feels embarrassed by it. And here's the, we'll play a little bit of the clip of these women hitting on Liam Neeson. Please welcome Liam Neeson.

We talk about you so much. I feel like you've been here. That's what I thought. You'll talk about it. Don't blow my cover. So he wants to get taken by you. I will find you and I will kill you. I love it.

I got this Valentine from you today. Happy belated Valentine's Day, Liam X. And then I was like, oh, and then I find out you gave it to all of us. She will believe anything that you say because it's no secret that Joy thinks you're the hottest and the greatest ever. At case there was any doubt, we have a few times. She brought you up over the years. I think we have some video. I would just like to have my ashes sprinkled over Liam Neeson.

There's room in my heart for Steve and for Liam Neeson, let's say. I bring Liam Neeson right now. Are those kidnapping movies that he does get me so aroused? I can't even watch this. I can't even sit through this. This is like a human rights violation. This is, I mean, you couldn't even do this to someone at Guatanamo Bay. This is like, this is, and Liam Neeson, yeah, he's a leftist, all that he was complaining about

because he wanted to go talk about gun violence. Gun violence is only an American problem. Doesn't it, right? Gun violence doesn't exist. Did you know that? Did you know that there's no gun violence anywhere else in the world? We're the only country where people get shot. It only happens here.

So he's all that. But even so, you've got to feel some sympathy for the guy. I mean, this is like, can you imagine a worse nightmare? I mean, this is a worst punishment. This is worse than what happened to Donald Dilbeck last night. Having to sit with the ladies of the view being sexually harassed. Sitting next to Joy Behar being not only sexually harassed by her in person, but then you have to sit there and they put the reaction.

So they've got the clips of her, making all these creepy sexual comments about Liam Neeson, and then the reaction of him live having to watch this while sitting next to her. It's just that's not right to do that someone. And this is sexual harassment, right? Now, I know we said in the opening the whole imagine the situations were reversed thing. It gets lame after a while because there are so many double standards. We spend all day on the right pointing out double standards.

Even so, this is, we should still note, obviously a double standard. Like, you know, if we were to imagine a scenario where it was a bunch of men on some kind of talk show and a woman comes on, and it's the same sort of thing talking about he wants to be taken by you and then I'd be playing a montage of sexual comments made it. It would be

everybody involved would be fired. It would be me too, everyone's fired and yet one of the most grotesque women in the country gets away with it. So, my sympathy does go to Liam Mason.

All right. also this important report from our daily wire, transgender patients who undergo hormone therapy have a significantly increased risk of serious health problems such as stroke, heart attack, and pulmonary embolism, according to a new study. A new study presented at an American College of Cardiology Conference found that transgender patients who take cross-sex hormones had an increased risk of dangerous blood clots that can create blockages in the brain, heart and lungs. The study found the subjects had nearly seven times the risk of strokes, six times the risk of the most severe type of heart attack, nearly five times the risk of pulmonary embolism,

compared to those with gender dysphoria who never used hormone therapy. Dr. Ibrahim Ahmed said it's all about risks and benefits. Starting transitioning is a big part of a person's life and helping them feel more of themselves, but hormone replacement therapy also has a lot of side effects. It's not a risk-free endeavor. Who would have thought? Who would have thought just injecting hormones into someone to bring. their perception, to try to bring their body into a line with their perception on themselves,

who thought that it would have catastrophic long-term health effects? So everything we've heard from the media and from the medical establishment, they've been insisting this for years, they've been telling it to parents and kids and patients also who are not kids. they've been saying it's it's entirely safe it's completely safe it's all nonsense they're they are lying as i've always been saying they they couldn't even there's no way for them to know that in the first place because this is experimental what we're doing right now and it's never been done on this scale anything close to this scale before in history and so the people that were doing it to now, undergoing, they're undergoing the quote-unquote medical transition,

they are the test subjects. So we know to begin with anything they say about it's safe, it's long-term, there's no way to know that. You can't possibly know that. However, we can know, again, using our common sense, that it's obviously dangerous to do. And there are consequences. Anytime you put a chemical into somebody's body, there are consequences for it. It's never consequences. So whenever you hear a claim, yeah, there's no problem at all, no consequences. That's a huge red flag. Run the other. direction. Because there are always going to be consequences. There are side effects taking Tylenol. There are dangers of taking Tylenol. And when you're injecting hormones in yourself,

of course there are going to be consequences. Obviously, it's not a risk-free endeavor. Not anything close to that. But now, since we've been doing this to people at a pretty large scale for several years now, that's when we're now going to really start to see. So now they have, They've got their crop of test subjects, and now we're starting to get the results. And this is only just the beginning. And it only is going to get worse from here. All right. One other quick thing before we get to the comments section, CNET has this report.

Plant-based milk alternatives can keep calling themselves milk, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday. So plant-based milk is allowed to still refer to its. itself as milk, says the FDA. The agency commissioned and conducted focus groups and found that the term milk is strongly rooted in consumers' vocabulary when describing and talking about plant-based alternatives. Consumers are aware that plant-based milks are different from dairy milks, research found. They also use the plant-based alternatives in the same way people use dairy milks and cereals, coffee, and more. Although many plant-based milk alternatives are labeled with names that bear the term

milk, they do not purport to be, nor are they represented as milk. Oh, really? They don't purport to be milk. It says milk on the carton. That's not purporting to be milk. So they're allowed to continue this lie. The FDA, no surprise, the FDA gets it wrong again. This is nonsense. I'm sorry.

Look, you trust consumers to know that it's not actually milk? They don't know that. And besides, when did these bureaucrats start trusting consumers to know things? I mean, that's why they have warning labels on mattresses saying, don't use it as a flotation device, right? Don't bring this to the beach and try to float on in the Atlantic Ocean. That's why they put signs on the highway saying that the roads are slippery when it's wet. That's why they have, you know, it's a million examples.

They have warning labels on sleeping pills saying warning may cause drowsiness. So they don't have any faith in the ability of consumers to know things and to figure things out. And yet, suddenly when it comes to this, they're like, yeah, people will figure it out. They know. Since when do you have that sort of faith in people? And this is the one area where they actually should have the warning label. Warning, this coconut milk is not milk. Coconuts do not lactate.

This is a liquid secretion from a fruit. It is not milk, something like that. Because that's honest. It also pays due respect to actual milk, which is something that's important to me. As you know, as someone who is the opposite of lactose intolerant. I don't believe in lactose intolerant. We are a lactose welcoming household. And yet there are all these products appropriating the lactose identity

when in fact they are merely discharge emitted from fruits and nuts, which is not milk. I've already explained to you many times. Okay, almond milk. That is not milk. That is nut discharge. That's what it is. You might not like it, but that's what it is.

And you ought to know that and it ought to say it on the card. FDA fumbles the ball. yet again, big surprise. Let's get to the comment section. The control room was complaining because I called almond milk nut discharge. Well, this is what this week's been all about, right? It's been all about being blunt and honest, and we've had this conversation, and I believe calling something, you know, we call a thing what it is. You know, that's one of my most important principles in life.

And yes, and we should apply it. We should especially apply it to the things that are in our refrigerator. or you should know what you're consuming. That's all I'm trying to say. Patrick says Steve Harvey has to be one of the Goat Game Show hosts. I'm curious how Matt would rank them. It's an interesting question. So Game Show hosts, Alex Trebek obviously is number one.

I don't think that that's controversial. I'm going to put Pat Sejack number two, because he's been in this game for a long time. And he even, you know, Alex Trebek still my number one. Pat Sejack is even more, though, the prototypical game show host. When you think of a game show host, I think you think of Pat Sejack.

He even has a great game show host name. And then number three, I put Bob Barker. I think he put him in, and then maybe Steve Harvey would be number four. And then number five, maybe Regis Philbin. So he's in the top five. Not top three. He's not, but he's not, he's not goat yet.

He's not at that status. And I don't think anyone's ever going to be at Alex Trebek. Magnificent Ginger Snap says, one perk of being a tomboy, Sam Brinton will never steal my luggage. If my Adidas duffel did happen to catch his eye, his euphoric thrill of stealing it would fade quickly when he realizes it's full of car heart and flannel. But you know, maybe this is like the one good argument for gender bending, if you're a woman, I guess. And you make a good point. Because it's, for women, it's the only Sam Britten deterrent. It's the only way, just pack a bunch of men's clothes. It's the only way to

guarantee that Sam Britain won't get you at the baggage claim. So there's an argument for that. Jacqueline says, Matt, maybe you didn't realize how big is getting the movement that you started against child mutilation, but on February 9th, a member of the Mexican Congress introduced a bill to make child mutilation, castration, and prescription of hormones to children illegal in our country. I know this is thanks to you. You started this in Tennessee and now it's happening in Mexico. Thanks so much for everything you do. Well, it's thanks to a movement of which I'm a part, but I'm not certainly far from the only person. But I am very happy to see that, yeah, we've talked about how it's spreading across the United States.

Not just the United States, though. It also is a global movement as more and more countries. We see this in Europe also. More and more countries are beginning to pull back from a lot of this stuff. Took too long. Never should have happened to begin with. But at least it's happening now. then the greatest thing about this week is that Matt got all the grifters on YouTube to expose themselves by attacking him

I've seen a lot of comments like this and I to be clear I that's not what happened because the people who criticize me are not grifters and this has become a point of annoyance for me is I mean I appreciate you that you're supporting me when you say that but not everyone's a grifter like a grifter doesn't mean someone you disagree with you. with. Somebody could be wrong about everything. It doesn't make him a grifter. That's not what grifting ends. There are plenty of grifters out there, especially in the media space. But the people I addressed this week, people I was addressing specifically in, you know, that video are not grifters. So Jeremy from the quartering and Tim Poole and Amala, Akhenobi, Sidney Watson, none of them are grifters. In fact, I appreciate all their work. You should subscribe to their channels and you should follow their work as well. We disagreed on this one issue, which is fine, but they still have lots of valuable things to contribute. It is possible. It's possible to not

only disagree, but disagree passionately, as I obviously did, without saying, oh, this person has no integrity. They're totally worthless. Now, if I think that about someone, if I think they have no integrity that we shouldn't listen to anything they say, you know, I'm not going to hesitate to tell you that. There are people, plenty of people who I feel that way about, and I will tell you. That's not the case for these people. What is a, what's a grifter? A grifter is someone, just to be clear about this. Grifter is someone who, it's just another word for hypocrite. It's someone who pretends to believe things they don't believe. And in the media space, they're pretending it because they want to, they're trying to get attention, they're trying to get clicks,

and they want to monetize it. So they're, they're pretending to be something they are, to pretending to believe things they don't believe. That's grifting. And yes, there, there's a lot of it happens in the media. There's a lot of it that you can find on social media. There's a lot of it among, you know, self-proclaimed, quote-unquote, influencers. But it has nothing to do with disagreement. It also has nothing to do necessarily with being wrong. If you're wrong, if you express a viewpoint that happens to be wrong, but you really believe it, then that's not a scam or a con or a grift. It's just, you're just wrong. Well, Jordan Peterson has a new five-part series out on Daily Wire Plus called Vision and Destiny that is designed to help you find

clarity and direction considering the chaos most of the world seems to be in with mental health issues skyrocket, especially among teenagers. I would dare say it couldn't have come at a better time. So here's a clip from Vision and Destiny. Check it out. There's an infinite number of gender identities. It's like, yeah, if you want to play it that way, that's true. Because the amount of variability at a five-dimensional space is, it's unbelievably large. You could say with no reason to be contradicted that every single person on the planet in some sense has a unique gender identity

if you associate gender with temperament, because every person is unique in their particular constellation of personality. And so if you want to conflate those two things, then you can, it starts to become very problematic when you additionally conflate them with sex. It's like, well, sex and gender and temperament, they're all the same thing. It's like, well, actually, they're not. And the reason they're not is because to say it again, you need a man and a woman to produce a child.

And I'm excited to watch that entire thing, because this is actually, this is, if you watch What is a Woman, of course, one of my favorite interviews to do was with Jordan Peterson. We talked about this exact issue where this conflation of personality and gender identity. People talk about gender identity, what they're really trying to describe. If they're trying to describe anything at all, they're trying to describe just their personality. Of course, you don't need the term gender identity to describe that. So we had a long conversation about that in the film, but, you know, this is a film, so you've got to cut everything down. It ends up being just a couple minutes.

So here's an opportunity to hear all those things fleshed out. And it's definitely me worth watching. I know I'll be watching. The first two episodes are out right now. episodes are coming online every single week, but it's all exclusive for DailyWire Plus members. You can join now at DailyWire.com slash subscribe and watch Vision and Destiny. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. We begin the daily cancellation with Senate Bill 1700, which is currently making its way through the Arizona legislature. This bill is definitely not what we're canceling

today, as it is a good and necessary piece of legislation. The Arizona State Senate provides this fact sheet about the proposed law. Reading out says, the bill requires the Arizona Department of education to maintain a list of books that public educational institutions may not use or make available to students, including books that are lewd or sexual, promote gender fluidity or gender pronouns, or groomed children into normalizing pedophilia. Grants parents the right to request removal of school district or charter school library or classroom materials, extends public review periods for library materials and district textbooks, and removes exceptions from district curriculum approval and school library access requirements. So in summary, it takes overtly sexual

books out of the schools, pornographic books out of the schools, and gives parents a say in the material that their own children are exposed to. This is, of course, basic common sense, and the only problem with the law is that it's not a law already. That's the only issue. It's like this should already be the law. But as we've seen, there's nothing more likely to stir up controversy and outrage than basic common sense, which is why this bill in Arizona, just like similar bills in Florida and other places, have been met with furious protests from the last. At a hearing this week, a teacher named Alicia Messing stood up and made her own case against the bill. She apparently believes that it is crucially important for elementary school students to read books about, you know, masturbation and gender fluidity.

And although she can't explain why it's so important, she can explain why we should all listen to her opinion, whether her opinion makes sense or not. And the reason is that she has a master's degree. Listen. I have a master's degree because when I got certified, I was told I had to have a master's degree to be an Arizona certified teacher. We all have advanced degrees. What do the parents have? Are we vetting the backgrounds of our parents? Are we allowing the parents to choose the curriculum and the books that our children are going to read? I think that it's a mistake. I'm just speaking from the heart. The one line that I love is, we know. You must remember that the purpose of public education is not to teach only what parents want their children to be taught.

It is to teach them what society needs them to be taught. You know, this meme is overused and cliched at this point, obviously, but listening to that, it's the one time when I'm tempted to respond, ma'am, this is a Wendy's, mainly because I'm sure this woman even presents her academic credentials when in line of the drive-thru. You know, like, yeah, hi, I have a master's degree. Also, I'd like a number three meal and a chocolate frosty. Sorry, man, we're out of frosties. What? Did you hear me?

I have a master's degree. I have a master's degree. You would dare to withhold a frosty from a woman with an advanced degree. You scoundrel? But you can't blame Alicia, I suppose. Her master's degree is utterly useless. It's not good for anything. So she'll try to use it as a trump card in arguments because she has to get something out of this piece of paper that she bankrupted herself to purchase.

Now, I say that the master's degree is useless because it is. In the vast majority of cases, master's degrees are nothing but money-making scams for the university system. And this has become so clear that even left-leaning sites like Slate, for example, are publishing articles declaring, as they did last year, that master's degrees are one of the biggest scams in higher education. CBS News finally clued into this issue in May of this past year, publishing a report with this headline, quote, many graduate programs are scams according to higher education policy analysts. The report begins, some three million Americans will enroll in graduate programs this year, only to work towards degrees that often aren't worth the time or money, according to an education policy analyst. Many undergraduates earn their bachelor's degree and go straight to graduate school in hopes of gaining a new degree or skills that will make them more attractive to prospective employers. Well, they're already off on the wrong foot if they're trying to find skills. You know, you don't, you don't, that's, gaining skills is the one thing that you don't do.

in quote-unquote higher education. It's one of the big problems with it, is that you're spending a lot of time in early adulthood, not learning skills. Quote, the reason people go makes sense. They go to get a job and make more money, said James Murphy, senior policy analyst and advocacy group education reform now. The recent research shows that 40% of master programs in the U.S. have no positive return. If you take in the cost of attending and the time spent not working, what you get out of the master's degree doesn't even pay for itself. Murphy told CBS News. Of course, you should note, higher education itself is usually also a scam. Master's degrees aren't even close to worth the investment in a large number of cases, but that is increasingly becoming true of all college degrees, including undergraduate degrees. The scam simply becomes more obvious and more financially costly as you move up the educational ladder.

That's why half of all student debt is now held by people with graduate degrees. And these are mostly people who, you know, they want to stay in college. want to stay in the college system because they don't know what else to do, and they're afraid to actually start living their adult lives and getting to the point where they actually have to learn skills. They don't want to do that, so they just stay in the system. Or they do it because they've been convinced that it's a smart strategy to spend the first decade of adulthood stacking degrees, even if you don't know what you're going to do with them. Or because, as was the case with Alicia, she says, the teacher in the clip, they have to get a master's degree in order to get into their

chosen line of work. Now, this third case where they get it because they have to, it doesn't make it less of a scam, but in fact, more of a scam. Like so many other professions, hers comes with an entirely arbitrary barrier to entry. It requires her to sink herself even further into debt to obtain what amounts to nothing more than extremely expensive calling card, you know, signaling that she's a member of the club. That's why I wouldn't make fun of her for getting the degree if it's what she needed to do in order to get the job she wanted. But the problem is that she's now pretending that this symbolically significant token has actual significance. She says that parents aren't qualified to determine which books are appropriate for their own children because the parents

don't have the magical piece of paper that she has. That's not how it works, Alicia. If the parents don't have a master's degree, it only means that they weren't suckered or coerced the way that you were. That doesn't make them less qualified. If anything, it makes them more qualified. After all, You don't need a degree to determine what is appropriate for children. All you need is common sense and powers of discernment. And we must immediately suspect that people who blew their money on a useless advanced degree are probably lacking in both of those things. But again, this is not really a question of qualification.

It is a question of the proper ordering of things. It's a question of who's the primary earthly authority over a child, the parent or the government. Who's the primary caregiver? Who has the parental rights? Does my child belong to me or the state? Is my child my child? Or is he the state's child? The state's property.

And I'm just there as backup. These are the fundamental questions at play here, and these questions have nothing to do with academic credentials. And the answer right down the line is the parent. The reason that we give primary authority to the parent is not just because it's the parent's right. though it is, but also because that's what's best for the child. And you notice how she says at the end that we shouldn't consider what the parent wants the child to be taught, but rather what society needs the child to be taught. But when she says society, she means, of course, the institutions that run society. And those institutions will decide what they need the child to be taught

based on what sort of person they need the child to become. In the case of the institutions in charge of our society today, they quote unquote need our children to be morally and intellectually vacuous vassals of the state with no firm sense of self, no understanding of their own identity, who could be easily placated and manipulated. Those are the sorts of people they need, and so they want them to be educated in a way that will produce those results. But here's an alternative idea. What should we teach the child? Well, maybe we should teach the child. Well, maybe we should teach the child what the child needs to know. Okay? It's not what society needs the child to know. It's what the child needs to know. Maybe you should take the child's needs into account first and foremost.

Rather than teaching based on the needs of society, i.e. the institutions, perhaps we should be teaching based on the needs of the actual child, the student. And the fact that this option wasn't even mentioned by the teacher, that she hadn't so much as considered this, tells you all you need. to know. And as far as what kids need to know, well, we certainly know that they don't need to know about gender ideology and gender fluidity and whatever else this teacher wants to shove into their minds. They don't need to be exposed to that. In fact, they need to not be exposed to it. And that is ultimately why this teacher and her master's degree are today canceled. That'll do it for this portion of show as we move over to the members block. If you're not a member yet,

member and use code Walsh at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you on Monday. Godspeed.