The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1168 - Why I'm Banned From Fox News

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a new report reveals how far Fox News has gone to enforce and promote trans ideology, both on the air and in the workplace. In fact, as I'll explain, I have personally been banned from Fox because of my criticism of trans ideology. Also, a white supremacist rams his U-Haul into a barrier near the White House. The funny thing about this white supremacist though is that, yet again, he isn't white. Plus. Tim Scott announces his presidential campaign. The woke Indiana Jones film, featuring a decrepit old Harrison Ford, is getting panned by critics. And in our Daily Cancellation, the LA Dodgers invite satanic drag queens to their pride night celebration. And then they uninvite them. And then invite them again. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show. Ep.1168 - - - Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  - - -  DailyWire+: Get 30% of your DailyWire+ membership with code TRUTH: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3lfVtwK   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get a FREE 5G Samsung Galaxy phone! https://bit.ly/43m1iJE Genucel - 70% off the Most Popular Package + FREE SHIPPING + Free Spa Essentials at https://bit.ly/428Hmtq - - - 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, a new report reveals how far Fox News has gone to enforce and promote trans ideology, both on the air and in the workplace. In fact, as I'll explain, I have personally been banned from Fox because of my criticism of trans ideology. Also, a white supremacist rams his U-Haul into a barrier near the White House. The funny thing about this white supremacist, though, is that yet again, he is not white. Plus, Tim Scott announces his presidential campaign. The woke Indiana Jones film featuring a decrepit old Harrison Ford is getting panned by critics. and our daily cancellation, the LA Dodgers invite satanic drag queens to their Pride Night celebration, and then they un-invite them, and then they invite them again.

We'll talk about all that, and more today on the Matt Walsh. Well, I've seen all your comments, and we know how much you all are enjoying the sick burns during my Genuicell ad reads. Well, coming up with creative insults to target everyone at the daily wire can be quite grueling. Sometimes even hours of sleep are missed coming up with ways to make people feel so insecure that they never want to be around me. Again, and that's why the writer of these Genucel Burns also uses GenuCel, so she never has to be at... Wait, am I mischandering myself?

I thought we're pretending that I'm coming up with this stuff. Anyway, he or she never has to be at risk of insulting herself in these ads. And as she says, no one is immune besides me to catching the smoke. Just kidding, she doesn't say that. She just wanted me to read that in the prompter. It's a great ad read yet again. Anyways, I've told you, I don't do anyway. Anyway, we don't need the S at the end of anyway.

Anyway, did you know that our friends at GenuSel have upgraded their most popular package to feature their top-selling deep-firming vitamin C serum plus ultra-retinal moisturizer with natural retinal alternative? Right now, you can take advantage of this limited time package upgrade for 70% off. Why waste time and money to go get work done to your face when you can just get GenuCel skin care shipped right to your door? GenuCel Secret is a family recipe for over 20 years that makes it safe for all skin types, perfect for both men and women, made by a compounding pharmacist and small batches,

and it's always safe, cruelty-free, which is so important to me and also natural. So go to genusel.com slash Walsh. Try GenuSel's most popular packets for 70% off featuring both GenuSel's ultra-retinal and Genu-cell's firming serum. Get a complimentary spa essentials box with every package order plus free upgrade to priority shipping. Go to genuSel.com slash Walsh. That's genuSel.com slash Walsh. Another week, another catastrophic drop in sales for Bud Light.

Six weeks have passed since the boycott began. The boycott that many critics, including many on the right, assured us would fail. And sales of the goat urine beverage plunged another 25%. The week before, sales dropped 24%. A cause of even greater concern for Anheiser Bush executives is that the company's other brands are also seeing significant losses. Sales of Budweiser were down nearly 10% for the second week in a row. And this is what Anheuser-Busch gets, and rightly so, for betraying their mostly working-class conservative customer base

in order to promote transgenderism. So then I ask, what should Fox News get? If that's what Bud Light got, what should Fox News get? The Daily Signal has a report this week from journalist Mary Margaret O'Lehahan, laying out the conservative, quote-unquote, media conglomerates, official company policies pertaining to trans employees. Now, Fox pretends to object to the invasion of women's spaces by men, but its own policies tell a very different story.

Citing the radical far-left human rights campaign, the employee handbook grants employees at Fox News, the right to use whatever bathroom aligns with their quote-unquote gender identity, and it guarantees that they'll be addressed according to their quote-unquote preferred pronouns. More from the report, quote, under the category gender transition, Fox's employee handbook promises that the company is dedicated to expanding and strengthening efforts to sustain a more inclusive work environment. The Fox employee handbook is posted on workday where employees can see company guidelines or policies, a former employee told the daily signal. Quote, employees who are transitioning their gender have the right to be open about their transition if they so choose and to work in an environment free of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, and without fear of consequences or transphobia. for living openly, the policy says.

Citing the Human Rights Campaign, one of the most prominent LGBTQ organizations in the country, the Fox Handbook defines a slew of LGBTQ terms, including cisgender, gender expression, gender fluid, gender identity, gender nonconforming, gender transition, LGBTQ, non-binary, and transgender.

For the past several years, Fox received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which is the nation's foremost benchmarking survey and report measuring corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ plus workplace equality. A former Fox News employees told the Daily Signal that the company frequently mentions this perfect score in employee training materials. So they're very, very proud of having gotten a perfect score from the human rights campaign,

which is, again, a radical far-left organization. As a former Fox employee mentions in the article, Fox spends a lot of time attacking woke corporations but forgets to mention that it is itself a woke corporation. In fact, there is absolutely no difference between Fox and any of the woke corporations that it pretends to criticize. This also creates the rather funny possibility that a female pundit who goes to Fox Studios to do a segment complaining about men in women's bathrooms may visit the restroom after her segment only to find that she is sharing it with a man.

Now, if you're more gracious than me, you may want to, excuse all of this by arguing that Fox is only following the law in the states where its offices are located, it has no choice. And if that was the case, it would make Fox merely a pitiful capitulator. But the fact is that their advocacy for trans ideology goes far, far beyond anything that is required by law yet. Keep in mind that Fox has for a long time now made the editorial decision to refer to trans-identified males as she and trans-identified females as he, and trans-identified females as So even in articles and in commentary, ostensibly critical of men who invade women's spaces, still its journalists and commentators refer to those men as women, thereby kneecapping their own argument.

But there's more. The Daily Signal reveals, according to sources at Fox, that the new producers for the APM slot, now that Tucker Carlson has been fired, are under strict orders from up top that they aren't allowed to bash Dylan Mulvaney anymore. even when Carlson was still there, he had to fight just for the ability to refer to Mulvaney by male pronouns in the show's chirons. Now, none of this comes as a surprise, given that Fox almost exactly a year ago, this was back in early June, ran a now infamous puff piece about a family that transitioned, quote unquote, their young daughter. And just to refresh your memory, here's some of that.

14-year-old Ryland Winnington is a typical Southern California teenager. And the Whittingtons, along with mom Hillary, dad Jeff, and sister Brindley are a typical family. The only difference, though, in Rylund's eyes, is what this family can mean to the tens of thousands of kids under 18 who identify as transgender. We put our story out there so people could see that there's another family out there that is going through what we're going through, or there's another family who's proud of who they are. Before Rylan could even speak, he managed to tell his parents that he is a boy. I could just see it. It wasn't him trying to be a brat. It was like painful. It was truly painful for him to have to wear feminine clothing and, and for us constantly telling him that you're a girl. And unlike some trans kids, when Rylan came out at age five a few years later, he had the full support of his parents.

When Rylan came out at age five, that's your conservative. news source, ladies and gentlemen. And of course, I can refer to you as ladies and gentlemen because I don't work for Fox News. Actually, as it turns out, I'll never work for Fox News because I am banned by Fox News. The Daily Signal quotes a former Tucker producer who says that I have been blacklisted by the network due to my frank condemnation of trans ideology. And this is not, I will tell you, news to me. In fact, I personally began hearing from sources inside Fox dating back to last June, that the decision had been made to block me from appearing on any Fox show because of my anti-trans ideology stance, especially after I criticized that Fox segment promoting

the transing of kids. I used to appear frequently on Laura Ingram show and Jesse Waters. In the past, I'd made numerous appearances on Fox and Friends in the morning. All of that went away. And this was not a surprise to me. I figured that would probably happen when I called them out for promoting child grooming. I was also a regular contributor on Tucker's show up until that point, and I heard from multiple sources that when Tucker found out about my blacklisting, he was livid, and he fought back against it internally and even managed to have me on his show a few times over the next year, in spite of the directives from up top, especially the case when we exposed Vanderbilt's child mutilation racket back in the fall, and Tucker had me on to talk about

that, and he had to fight hard to get me on the air to talk about it. And I want you to think about that for a moment. Because Fox wanted to prioritize its grudge against me, a grudge based entirely in the fact that I'm a strident critic of trans ideology, over the effort to expose child mutilation. Remember that the next time you hear someone at Fox talk about protecting children. Now, fortunately for me, Fox's blacklist has had no effect on my career as yet another testament to the waning relevance of cable news this past year on the Fox blacklist has been the biggest year in my career. My audience and platform has never been larger. And I say this not to brag, but among other things, as a word of encouragement to the great many conservative commentators and

pundits and podcasters who are listening to me right now and know that everything I'm saying about Fox is true, but are terrified to speak up publicly for fear that they'll lose their precious Fox segments. Well, let me assure you, yes, you will absolutely lose those segments, but that will only make you marginally less famous with the nursing home population. If you have anything interesting to say, you can more than make up for it by going around the cable news gatekeepers and speaking directly to a much larger and not to mention younger audience. Or preferably, you can speak up simply because it's the right thing to do, regardless of what effect it may or may not have on your career. Now, look, I have often warned about punching rights.

You know, we want to be careful about that. But you can punch to the right all you want, and you aren't going to hit Fox News. That's the point. By embracing gender ideology, not just embracing it, but promoting it, enforcing it, banning from the airwaves, anyone who seriously opposes it, Fox News has staked out a position that is as far to the left as you can get, okay? gender ideology is leftism distilled down to its purest and most potent form. It represents everything that we're supposed to be fighting against, everything that we oppose. Now, there are issues that we as conservatives can disagree on and still remain conservatives.

But this is not one of those issues. It cannot be one of those issues, because if you are an ally of the left on gender ideology, then you are an ally in the war against fundamental truth. And if we are not first and foremost fighting to conserve that, to conserve truth, then what else is there? What is the point? What is left? Now, these are not questions that the executives at Fox concern themselves with,

because Fox is just another corporation like any other. It's not the evil empire that the left makes it out to be. And we'll always make it out to be, by the way, no matter how much Fox respects the pronouns, the left is still going to hate them. And it's certainly not the bastion of conservatism that Fox's viewers apparently think it is. The answer is none of the above. It is a factory churning out a product to be consumed. But it isn't honest about what that product is.

It is lying to its consumers. It is pretending to be something that it isn't. That's what makes Fox's betrayal far worse than Bud Light. I mean, far worse. Bud Light never pretended to be anything but piss water. That's what it always was. That's what it will remain. Fox pretends to have much higher pretensions.

Yet, what it actually produces is something quite similar to Bud Light, something watered down and empty and foul, and yet for its consumers, apparently strangely intoxicating. And this slop is served under false pretenses by a company that fundamentally agrees with the leftist worldview it's supposedly trying to criticize, which is why its critiques always prove so impotent and ineffectual. Conservatives are making real progress. I believe that. We are winning battles in the culture war. Long way to go. Okay, long way to go. But we're getting things done, finally. With no thanks to Fox News. They are working against us, not for us. And it's time for us to realize whose team they're on and treat them like it.

Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, the first step in growing up and being a real man is getting off your parents' phone plan. Getting your own cell phone plan gives you a sense of independence and responsibility. It's a step towards becoming more self-sufficient by paying for your own finances. You learn how to budget and manage your money. There are a ton of cell phone providers out there. Unfortunately, most of them want to lock you into these contracts that on tack on hidden fees at any chance they get. That's why I'm a big fan of Pure Talk. There are no contracts, no hassles.

You can cancel at any time. It's very simple. Pure Talk is also giving you a free 5G Samsung Galaxy phone when you sign up for the $55 per month unlimited plan plus hotspot today. They use the same nationwide networks as major carry, so you get all the same coverage that you do, but a lot cheaper, a lot easier. Switching over to Pure Talk is so easy.

You can make the switch. Keep your cell phone. Keep your phone number. With their U.S. customer service team, you can make the switch in as little as 10 minutes. Pure Talk is so sure you're going to love your service. that they're backing it up with a 100% money-back guarantee. So go to PureTalk.com, enter promo code Walsh, just say 50% off your first month.

That's PureTalk.com. Promocode Walsh, Pure Talk, is simply smarter wireless. So our headlines begin with another alleged attack by an alleged white supremacist. NBC News has the report of a driver of a truck that crashed into security barriers near the White House on Monday night has been identified as a 19-year-old from Missouri, who was arrested on multiple charges, including threatening to kill or harm a president, vice president or family member, officials said. Authorities said the preliminary investigation indicates that the driver intentionally crashed into the ballards outside of Lafayette Park. A Nazi flag was seized by

authorities at the scene of the incident. Nobody was injured. A law enforcement official told NBC News that the suspect made threatening statements about the White House, but was quickly detained. And the official said, quote, I don't think there's any place for a Nazi flag or the statements that he made. So we're being told that a white supremacist did this and he had a Nazi flag. And in fact, there's a picture going around, one that quickly made the rounds on social media very quickly. And you can see in the picture the U-Haul, and then there's a new, nice new, crisp Nazi flag laid out on the pavement right next to it. So here's a question. Is this normal police procedure? Like, do they normally go to a crime scene and take out evidence and

lay it on the ground neatly so that reporters can take pictures? And at the scene of a crash, especially, you go into the vehicle and extract items from it and lay it all neatly on the ground. Now, I've never been, you know, I'm not a police officer. I've never been, do we have that picture? Oh, there it is, right there. Yeah.

Look at that Nazi flag. So it was in, now, first of all, why do you need a U-Haul that size for a Nazi flag that size? That's the first thing I'm trying to figure out. And the second is that we assume what happens, this white supremacist had this dastardly plot to kill the president, and the way that he was going to do it was to take his U-Haul and slam it into some barriers.

That's step one, and then step two is a question mark. Step three, president is dead. That didn't work somehow, so they detained him quickly, and then the police opened up the U-Haul, and they went in there, and they took the Nazi flag out, and they just laid it there on the pavement. As I said, not a police officer. I've never been to the police academy. So I don't know what procedures they teach cops, especially these days.

But I didn't think that that was the procedure. I think that if you have a crime scene, you preserve the evidence, you're not going to lay it all out neatly. And then say, hey, hey, guys, you want pictures of this? Come and take a selfie if you want. Also, don't worry about the fact that the white supremacist's name is apparently sigh. Varsheth Kandula. A picture that is allegedly of this guy is also making the rounds, and he indeed looks like a Sigh Varsish Varsheth Kandula.

He looks like that. He doesn't look like a white supremacist because he's not white. But I guess that means he does look like a white supremacist because these days white supremacists are very often not white. I mean, it seems like the majority of the recent cases of white supremacists staging attacks and crimes, that sort of thing, we find out that the white supremacist isn't even white. And so this is another case of that. Nothing suspicious about this, nothing strange. Take it at face value. Don't ask any questions. Okay, in a brown-skinned white

supremacist got a massive U-Ha van for his brand new Nazi flag, and he put it in the U-Haul, and he crashed into a barrier near the White House, and all of this is normal. Okay? You don't need to think about it. Read the headline, absorb it, move on. That's what you're supposed to do. Next from Washington Examiner, Senator Tim Scott criticized President Joe Biden for leading the country into retreat as he launched his campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination

with an optimistic faith-driven message about the first. future. And here is Tim Scott explaining why he has decided to run for president. Our nation, our values, and our people are strong, but our president is weak. But under Joe Biden, our nation is not a nation in decline. But under Joe Biden, we have become a nation in retreat. Retreating from our heritage and our history, retreating from personal responsibility and hard work, retreating from strength and security, even retreating from religious liberty and the worship of God himself. They say opportunity in America is a myth and faith in America is a fraud.

But the truth of my life disproves their lies. Now, we did cut out the part where his mic cuts out in the middle of, it cuts off for about two minutes, and he's sitting there, he's trying to yell to the audience and they're switching out microphones and everything. And I feel bad for him for that. I might vote for him just out of sympathy based on that fact alone, you know. And anyone who's done any public speaking. We've been in a position before where a mic cuts out. It's always really awkward. But imagine, like, you're announcing that you're running for president. So once in a lifetime, experience. Maybe not for Tim Scott, because something tells me this is going to be the kind of guy who runs for president seven times and never makes it. But it's a first-in-a-lifetime experience anyway, and the mic cuts out in the middle of your announcement. Really tough. But aside from that, this is his campaign pitch, you know, hopeful, optimistic. America is not in decline. He says, we have to have hope and change. That's the message he's going with. And maybe the hope and change message will take him all the way to the White House. Maybe it will. And make him the first black president

because that message obviously worked well for the first biracial president. But I have my doubts. Because here's the thing with Tim Scott. He seems like a nice guy. I have no personal issue with him. Seems nice enough. And just like Nikki Haley, he would be a formidable and serious candidate in the year 2004 or 2008 or 1992. Or 1992. but in the current age, not so much. Because he represents a kind of safe, cautious, bubbly conservatism that has long outlived its purpose, if it ever had a purpose to begin with, which I'm quite skeptical of. And the other thing is, I'm not looking for a president.

And, you know, I'm saying me, but I think I speak for many other Americans as well when I say this. I am not looking for a president to make me feel good about myself or about the country. Okay. I don't need him to tell me that America is not in decline. I don't need those sweet nothings whispered in my ear because I know that it's not true. America is in decline by pretty much every measure. Economically, culturally, you know, in every, in every, every measure. So that's the truth. America is in decline. I don't like it. I wish it wasn't the

case, but it is the case. And we should face it and deal with it. And we can't deal with it if we're not facing it. Tim Scott is, he's telling us how we want it to be, but he's pretending that that's how things actually are. And you're not going to make things, you're not going to make something become the way that you want it to be by just pretending that it already is that way when it isn't. And that's what we get from Tim Scott. Just your, you know, basically milk toast, friendly neighborhood republicanism sort of thing. And that's not going to win, even if it does win, which it won't. It's not going to, it's not enough.

You know, it's not enough. It's not enough to make the changes that need to be made. Yeah, he's a, by all accounts, he's a, I guess, a talented politician, he's personable. I don't care about that. I don't think anyone really cares about that. You know, the media cares about it. That's why, while someone like Tim Scott gets praise, you know, Ron DeSantis is constantly credited.

I mean, all this week, there's, and this has been the criticism of Ron DeSantis, is that he is, he's not personable, allegedly. There's this one, I don't think we even have it, but there was a video. of him making a campaign stop somewhere, I think in New Hampshire, and he walks into this restaurant and he's doing the glad-handing thing, and it's like a 50-second video, and it's being passed around by people on the left and people on the right who don't like Ronda Sanders because they're Trump's Trump fans, saying that, oh, Ron DeSantis is terrible at this. Look how awkward he is. And of course, I'm watching it, and I'm thinking, that's not awkward. It seems perfectly fine.

Like, he's clearly an introvert, so maybe as an introvert myself, I can just relate to it. Like, it's obvious he doesn't really want to be there, but he's doing it because he needs to. And so who cares? Is this what we're worried about? We want our president to be per-he. He's not personable. I don't know if I could be friends with him. Geez, I don't know if I could make small talk with him if I was sitting down at the bar.

Well, you're never going to be sitting at the bar with him. And that's not what you need. We're not electing a friend. The president of United States of America, not the friend of the United States of America. If you want friends, go out and get friends. That's not what politicians are for. So that doesn't matter. I don't care.

Oh, he's a little bit awkward. So? Can he lead? Can he accomplish things? Does he understand policy? Is he intelligent and thoughtful? And those are the things that matter. You know, I have one other objection to Tim Scott.

And this is something that Will Chamberlain pointed out yesterday on Twitter. And some people are mad at him for it, of course. But he's right. Tim Scott is not married and he has no kids and he's in his 50s. And that's really, on top of everything else, that alone is reason enough not to vote for him. I'm not voting for a man for president if he doesn't have a wife and kids. Like, I'm just not. Okay.

So that's, for me, you know, that is a form of discrimination that I will engage in when I'm voting, you know, when I'm casting my ballot for president. In fact, anytime you're voting, you're engaging in it. It is a discriminatory process. You're discriminating against the kinds of things you don't want in favor of what you do. And I don't want a president who doesn't have a wife and kids. For one thing, it raises too many questions. To have a guy, I think Tim Scott is 57 and he doesn't have a wife and kids. It raises questions.

Not everybody in the world is called to marriage and family life. I understand that. But the vast majority of people are. And so we have to ask why Tim Scott doesn't have a family. And aside from that, if you have a wife and kids, then I know that at least in theory, you have some kind of experience as a leader. You know, you have led, you have served. Now, there are plenty of parents who don't fulfill that obligation very well or at all.

But ideally, in the theory, that's what it means, right? If you're a father. And if you're 57 and you've been a bachelor your whole life, it means that you've only really lived for yourself. Not to mention, I want a president who has a stake in the future. Okay? Like, the future has to really matter to you personally. And if you have kids, then it does. Because you have kids, they are going to live in the country that you help to create through your time as president.

This is also my objection to really old presidents. Because a really old president may have kids, but they, themselves are on their way out. So they are helping to shape the future and then they're going to leave. And that also makes me uncomfortable. So call me picky. But I want a president who has kids that will inherit the future that he helps to build. And also a president who himself will be alive for at least a few decades after he leaves the White House. So a lot of reasons there. And they all add up to Tim Scott isn't the guy. And I don't even think he's really running. running for president. This is just another one of these people running for to be a vice president

or something like that, running for a cabinet position. It's also interesting that Donald Trump put out a statement on his truth social after Tim Scott announced his candidacy. And it was very friendly. It was very nice. It was, you know, in essence, like, welcome. Welcome to the race, Tim. and that has been Trump's response to every single person who's gotten into the race. He's been very friendly to them except Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis is the one guy who's not allowed to run. The very fact that he might run is an offense. It's a personal offense to Donald Trump.

But all the rest of them, yeah, all of them can jump in. And we know why that is. The reason is that Ron DeSantis is a threat to Trump politically and these other people aren't. Trump knows that the more the merrier for everybody else, all of the also-rans, the more the merrier because they're going to split the vote. They're going to split the non-Trump vote. And so he wants a bunch of them in there so that it doesn't all coalesce around Rondisand. So, you know, I said it doesn't. I can't figure out why he's doing that. Of course, I can figure out it makes sense politically, but that is what's happening there. All right, this is from CNN.

Uber's diversity chief is on leave from the company after criticism from some employees related to an internal panel called Don't Call Me Karen. Bo Young Lee, Uber's chief diversity and inclusion officer, is on a leave of absence, according to an Uber spokesperson. Lee oversaw a series of sessions called Moving Forward at Uber that focused on issues around race, gender identity, and class. One of the more recent sessions was titled Don't Call Me Karen, and focused on the experiences of a handful of women leaders,

a person familiar with the matter told CNN, Karen is a slang term that usually refers to a middle-aged white, woman with a strong sense of entitlement, often at the expense of people of color. Lee was put on leave after a follow-ups listening session in response to concerns about the Don't Call Me Karen panel resulted in additional concerns. So there was a listening session in response to concerns, which resulted in concerns. And so she was put on leave. Black and Hispanic workers at Uber first felt that the organizers of the event were focusing more on the harms caused by using the moniker Karen than the harms white people can inflict on people of color.

In a follow-up listening session, the Times reported, some employees felt that their concerns weren't being heard, and that instead of a chance to provide feedback or have a dialogue, they were lectured by Lee about their response to the initial, don't call me care an event. Okay, so there was concerns, and there was a listening session about those concerns,

which led to more concerns, and then they had a follow-up listening session about the concerns that came from their listening session about the concerns, and those also created concerns. And so what we need is that we need now a third listening session about the concerns from the listening session about the concerns from the original session. We just got to keep listening and keep talking about our concerns. Everyone is very concerned.

Well, I'm concerned too, and my concern is this, that if you still have any confusion about what these diversity initiatives actually are, well, this should clear it up. Diversity absolutely means anti-white. That's what it means. All diversity initiatives are anti-white initiatives. Anytime you hear about any kind of diversity initiative anywhere, whether it's in government, in corporations,

in any institution at all, it is an anti-white initiative. diversity is an anti-white conspiracy. And you can clip that and cut it and post it on Twitter, because I know you will, because that's what it is. And if you ever doubted it, well, here you go. Because the diversity chief at Uber tried to do one thing, okay, host one event. This was one session, as part of a series where they were talking all about diversity and all the ways that, quote, unquote, people of color are victimized. And in the middle of that series, just one session, One little event where she tepidly suggested that, hey, you know, maybe we also shouldn't use racial slurs against white people. Maybe.

You know, maybe we shouldn't do that. And just that one time, and she was fired for it, the black and Hispanic workers were offended. They were offended by it. 99.999% of all diversity and equity material and all training is all about telling the black and Hispanic, Hispanic workers, how great they are and how wonderful they are and how persecuted they are and how everyone else is out to get them and they're right about everything. That's 99.999% of everything, but this was the 0.00001% of cases where it focused on somebody else briefly and they were furious. They just couldn't handle it. How dare she shift the focus away from them for 12 seconds?

You can't do that. Never. How dare she suggests? most of all, that they should actually maybe treat white people with some level of basic human respect and decency. So that was the really egregious thing, is that not only did this diversity chief briefly shift the focus away from, you know, racial minorities to talk about white people, but she also suggested that if you're a racial minority, and I doubt that she put it this frankly, but she, you know, this was the implication. She suggested that if you're a racial minority, you know, you, maybe there are some standards of conduct that apply to you too. Maybe. Like, maybe you can't just say whatever you want all the time. Maybe there's times

when you should also think about what you're saying and treat people with respect. Maybe. And because she did that, she's now fired or on a leave of absence anyway. Because that's not what these programs are supposed to be about. They're supposed to be anti-white. It's interesting, too, to see how vehemently people defend the Karen slur. And, you know, we talked about this yesterday. Again, they get really, really angry when you merely mention the obvious fact that it is an anti-white slur. They're not going to engage with the argument, obviously. As I pointed out many times, if I started calling annoying black women Shanikwas, everyone would agree that it's racist.

Every single person. You know, if I went up to you and I said, man, this damn Shaniqua at the grocery store yelled at me. I can't stand these Shaniquas. Hey, shut up, Shaniqua. If I said that, everyone would agree that it's racist. Okay? There would be no argument about it. And this thing with Karen is exactly the same thing.

It's exactly the same thing. There's no denying it. nobody can deny it. Instead, they just explode with fury if you dare suggest that perhaps racial slurs against whites aren't great because that's what it is, right? They're not really denying that Karen is a racial slur against white women because it obviously, I mean, even CNN says it, it refers to white women. It's derogatory. It's not a compliment. It's a derogatory label that is used against a particular race of people, racial slur. So that can't be denied. Instead, what, the people who object to my objection or anyone's objection to use in Karen,

what they're really saying is that, yeah, it's a racial slur, but I should be allowed to use a racial slur against white women. And not only should I be allowed to use it, but I will passionately defend my right to use that racial slur. And that's what all this is. All the diversity stuff is simply about establishing and reinforcing the racial hierarchy. That's all it is. We all know it.

So let's just be honest about it. That's all I'm saying. Let's be honest about what it is. All right. Moving to this from The Daily Wire, the first Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Art, came out in 1981. Back then, Harrison Ford was 38.

Now Ford's 80 years old, not exactly the age of an action hero, and the fifth installment of the movie is not faring well with critics. Peter Howell of the Toronto Star wrote, quote, it's all pretty goofy and laborious over its 142 minute running time.

142 minutes. The Rolling Stone Review was even more harsh. You either die as an intellectual property hero trapped in amber, or you live long enough to see yourself riding a fake horse against a green screen subway background when most of your peers have slowed down. Critic David Fear wrote, quote, You're largely left with what you'd imagine you'd get if you programmed a 21st century AI program to write up nostalgia bait for the children of the late 20th century.

So a lot of reviews like this. With a running time of nearly two and a half hours, reviewers said the $300 million movie is a bloated mess with endless chase scenes. David Rooney of the Hollywood Reporter wrote, quote, that nonstop pacing might sound ideal, but it's mostly an exhausting slog. And so much phony CGI.I. Quote, parts of what dims the enjoyment of this concluding chapter is just how glaringly fake so much of it looks, Rooney wrote. Maybe the filmmaker should have stopped at Ford installments. While some reviewers said Ford still has his trademark swagger, one reviewer wrote, quote, I'm not sure how many fans want to see

Indiana Jones is a broken, helpless old man who coweres in the corner while his patronizing god daughter takes the lead. But that's what we're given. And it's as bleak as it sounds. So that's Indiana Jones five for you. An 80-year-old daughtering and competent Indiana Jones being lectured to by his woke goddaughter. That sound appealing? Is that everybody on board for that? honestly, and not to put too fine a point on it or make too much of it, but if this movie doesn't absolutely bomb at the box office, then I think I give up on America. I give up. I give up. I give up on this country if this movie does not completely tank. If this is not a humiliating box office disaster that ends the careers of everybody involved, then I give up. I mean,

the country is done. There's, like, seriously. This is a hollow, lifeless cash grab remake that has none of the original, the charm of the original series, has no respect for the characters, has no respect for the audience, is being used as a vehicle to send yet another message about how men are stupid and useless. There's just no reason to watch it. Look, why would you watch it?

There's no possible incentive. If audiences go to watch it, then it will simply be because of zombie-like instincts to mindlessly consume whatever garbage these movie studios dump on our heads. And if that instinct is so overwhelming that even this movie does well at the box office, then I don't know. I think there's no hope because we don't have, there's not enough mind left. Okay. We're not thinking enough anymore. Especially after all, like everybody complains, and rightly so, about the cash grab remakes and sequels.

We've complained about that for decades. Everyone knows they're never good. And then there's the, and there's the wokeness factor to being preached to constantly. Everyone complains about it. And then these movies come out and many of these same people still go and they spend lots of money to watch the movies. And if that, if we have that little self-control, then, uh, then what hope is there? So yes, that is, if, if this is not a box office bomb, then America is officially doomed. It's, it is all over. That's what I'm saying. Um, all right,

here's a message from the U.S. Embassy in Brazil. Watch this. Hi, my name is Mark and I use he-him pronouns. You've probably noticed that more and more people are still dating their preferred pronouns when they introduce themselves in social conversations, in classrooms, in the workplace, in their email signatures, and on social media. The reason is simple. There is a range of gender identities beyond male and female. In English, many use he-him or she-her pronouns, but a growing number of people are using different pronouns, like they then, Z-Zem, Z-here, per-pers, and AM.

These are called gender-neutral pronouns. They don't specify the gender of the subject of the sentence, and they exist because you can't assume someone's gender just by looking at them. Words matter, and they are powerful tools to convey meaning and connect more deeply with one another. Making incorrect assumptions about someone's gender, that's a microaggression that could be hurtful for individuals who identify with certain communities, such as transgender or queer communities. So what's the best way to be sure you're using the right pronouns?

Just ask. for and using someone's preferred pronouns show respect and help create an inclusive environment. There you go, a little PSA. That's from the U.S. Embassy in Brazil. That's the video that they wanted to put out. And I don't know, I was just talking about how America is doomed. So this is what we're exporting. This is the, this again is the colonization. We hear from the left. They're constantly complaining about colonization. They're accusing, you know, the west of being colonizers. and they're right actually, but what they don't specify

is that this is the kind of colonization that we're doing. This is what it is. These are the colonizers. That guy right there, people going around preaching about pronouns, these are the colonizers in the 21st century world. Speaking of pronouns, though,

before we get to the comment section, here's a little bit of good news. I had a lot of bad news. Now for some good news. The Daily Mail has this report. Two workers at a Christian University in Upstate New York have lost their jobs after including their pronouns in their work email signatures and then ignoring the university's request to remove them. Reagan's Eliah and Shua Wilma were both fired from their positions as residence hall directors at Houghton University in upstate New York after they refused to remove their pronouns in accordance with a newly introduced university

policy. The university, which is affiliated with a conservative branch of the Methodist Church, asked for their pronouns to be removed, but Zelaya and Wilmot refused to comply. The pair were subsequently fired just before the end of the semester. And sparked protests on campus, but they're still being fired. Zelaya and Wilmot, neither of whom are transgendered, have both experienced misgendering due to their unique names. So this is part of the excuse that they gave is that they have unique names. People don't know just based on the names, whether they're male or female. And that's true.

Like sometimes just based on a name, you don't know if someone's male or female. And when you want to address them, especially if you're communicating through written word, through email or something, and you want to be able to address them in response, then it helps to know whether you're talking to a man or a woman. And so that can be a problem. Does that mean that you need to include your pronouns? Well, no, because let's think about how did people, before all of this stuff was invented, okay, before the idea of preferred pronouns was invented 15 seconds ago, people started listing their

pronouns because up to 15 seconds ago, nobody ever did that ever anywhere. So how did they do it? Oh, it's because you had Mr. and Miss. That's what that's for. So if you want people to know, you know, whether you're male or female, that's part of how you accomplish that. By referring to yourself, you know, you can be Mr. Zelaya or Misalaya. I don't know what gender they are either. But the university has no patience for the pronoun thing and fired them. And this is great news. This is exactly what needs to

happen. This is what, you know, really any allegedly conservative or Christian organization, if they are not firing people for listing their pronouns, then they need to answer for They need to explain why they aren't. Because listing your pronouns, it's a calling card. That's what it's meant to be. It's a virtue. It is a virtue signal, but you're not signaling actual virtue. It's a signal to the left.

It's a signal of allegiance to the left. That's what it means every single time. It means either that you are pledging your allegiance to the left, signaling your allegiance to the left, or you are surrendering to them. cooperating with leftism, but either way, if you work at a conservative or a Christian organization, there should be no patience for that, no place for that silliness whatsoever. And, you know, the only thing this university did wrong was giving them a chance to take the pronoun signature down. So that's the only thing. You know, beggars can't be choosers. I'm not nitpicking,

but if it was up to me, and I was in charge of this institution, and you put your pronouns in your email signature, you're gone immediately. Like, we're not having a conversation. There's not any chance to explain yourself. You don't, it's, you're gone. We don't need you. Go somewhere else. So they, all that tells us, though, is that they were gracious and they were generous.

And these people decided to be insubordinate and they got fired. And I think that's fantastic. Great news. Awesome work. Keep it up. Let's get to the comment section. They're the sweet baby. All right, folks, I've been putting this off for some time now.

Countless comments from members of the sweet baby gang have forced me to engage in endless hours of deep introspection. And I've now come to terms of the fact. I'm somehow responsible for what I'm about to address. My refusal to make a formal comment has to end. I'm done gaslighting the SBG. Hold up sweet baby plush. Yes, this is a sweet baby plush. You are not hallucinating.

He's been lurking behind me in smug silence for months now. At first, I thought this was a prank that the company was playing on me as they prodded with Matt, the stuffed Walbers for such as a success. You know, we have to make this next. But the joke didn't end there because it was not so much a joke as it was an attempt to offend God and offend all people of all decent people with... I can't even hold this thing and talk. I've been informed that as of today, you can get your very own stuffed sweet baby by purchasing yours. from the swag shack at dailywire.com slash shop. And if they run in your family like they do in mind, there's an option to purchase a set of twins as well so you can get two. The sweet baby plush is the

perfect addition to your home for your kids to play with and to haunt your dreams, inevitably transforming into a walking nightmare once you come to in a pool of sweat, realizing that you actually purchase the cuddly meat-pawed monster now inhabiting both your home and the darkest, most repressed corners of your subconscious. So adopt your sweet baby plushy at dailywire.com slash shop today while supplies last. I never asked for this, but some of you have, and this is your fault. God help us all. Christopher says, I'm not saying we shouldn't have sympathy for what happened to the city bike woman,

but you knew exactly how the woman in the video would react after the incident because of one simple thing, she said in the heat of the moment, you're hurting my fetus. That tells you all you need to know. Well, right, and I noticed that too when she's the pregnant hospital worker when she was being, you know, when the black teens were trying to steal her bike and blaming her and all that, the whole incident. And she complained that that they were hurting her fetus. I picked on that too. In fact, she said, you're hurting my fetus. You're hurting my baby. So she changed it. You know, she said both, which is interesting. But certainly that will, I mean, the fact that you live in New York already is a pretty good indication that you're liberal.

but you were referring to your own unborn child as a fetus. I mean, just saying that, my fetus just sounds bizarre. It sounds like you're intentionally dehumanizing your own child. And doing that in the heat of the moment, as you point out, when she's in distress and rightly so, and yet she still makes that move, really does tell you what you need to know about her. And that's why, and I understand the argument from some on the right who say that, look, I don't care about any of these incidents. You know, you choose to live in a city like that. You vote for this.

And then even after you're victimized, you still are, are once again signaling your allegiance to the very people who are victimizing you. And if you're going to do that, then what is there for the rest of us to say? You've made your choice. You've made your bed. now lay in it. I don't care. And that's the attitude of some people on the right. And there's some on the right who apply that basically to the entire epidemic of crime in the cities. And they say, I don't care about any of it. Because if you're still living in one of these cities at this point, then, you know, again, you've made your choice. I can't totally adopt that attitude for a few reasons. And one of them is that.

But look, an injustice is an injustice. And also, it's not just about sympathy for her. It's about a righteous anger towards the predators. So that's the thing. Like when you say, oh, I don't care about crime, I don't care about this. You're letting the criminals and the predators off the hook. And I can't do that. So it's my own desire for justice more than it is sympathy for people who are

what they voted for. Because I agree. I have very little sympathy for people who get what they vote for, but at the same time, I desire to see justice. And I don't like to see bad guys getting their way, and I don't like to see bad guys winning. And I don't want to see that. I want to see bad guys punished. If not for the sake of the people who are, again, getting what they voted for, just for the sake of justice in principle. And that to me is what a lot of the stuff boils down to. Let's see, soul rebel says, I can't with this guy. One, everyone uses Karen, not just black people. Two, the kids were not trying to destroy her life. She didn't work for them. And I'm sure they never called her job. Three, if you want to use racist slurs so bad, go ahead. Stop being an expletive. Everyone might use Karen. Well, not everyone. Not everyone. I don't use it. Lots of people might use it. But the origins of the word are important. The origins of the word are very clear. And if you listen to the left-wing media, they will, in that CNN article, they admitted it.

This is where it comes from. It originates as a term that non-white people started using to refer to white women they don't like. That's where it comes from. Now, you might say in this guy, well, it doesn't matter. The origin of the word doesn't matter. All that matters is how it's used now. Well, that's really interesting because something tells me that you would not use that same logic for other racial slurs. Now, would you? Okay, there are other racial slurs. There's one big one in particular that comes immediately to mind that has certain origins, but is now used casually all the time. In fact, it's used casually constantly by the very people who were originally targeted by it. So does that mean that that word has no meaning anymore? Anybody can use it? Something tells you. me you wouldn't say that. So what you're really saying, whatever you, whatever you claim to,

whatever argument you claim to be making here, your real argument is again that, yes, this is a racial slur, but it's targeting white women, and so it's okay. That's your actual argument. And as far as the kids not trying to destroy her life, they stole the bike, filmed it, and then posted it online pretending that they were the victims of racism. So, yes, Yes, when you do that, you're trying to destroy somebody's life. Because that is very likely going to be the effect. If you're not trying to seriously harm someone, why else would you do that? Now, you might point out that, well, why would they want to destroy your life?

That doesn't make any sense. Yeah, really good question. Okay, why do you have people that just for sport are trying to destroy some random woman's life who they don't even know? Like, why can't they go on with your day? go do whatever you were doing. Like, leave her alone. How does this help you? How does this make you feel good? That's a good question. I have the same question. But that is, in fact, what they were doing. Scott says, Matt, you posted that people who aren't married with kids shouldn't give marriage advice. How is this any different from the trust the experts nonsense?

Yeah, I did. I think I posted on Twitter a few days ago. And I've said that before. I would think that that should be relatively uncontroversial, that if you want to give advice on marriage, you should at least be married. But this is a problem now. There are a lot of people on social media who have, you know, fashioned themselves, you know, advice givers and gurus. And they give a lot of a relationship advice. And my point is always, if you're going to give a relationship advice, I want to know what your relationship resume is first. Like, have you actually been in a successful relationship? And what is a success? a successful relationship. Successful relationship is one that leads to marriage, and then you stay married, and then you form a family together. That's how you, you're now on your way to a successful relationship. And if you haven't done that, then you have not yet had a fully successful

relationship, which means that you can't give relationship advice. Now, how is this different than trust the experts? Well, because trust the experts is a phrase that is used. to stop people from making basic, common sense, factual observations. So if I say that men have penises, only women can give birth, you shouldn't castrate little kids, these are basic, common sense, factual statements and observations about the world, and you don't need a PhD, you don't need any kind of experience, really, to know that. So anybody who uses trust the experts about that, it's obvious that they're just trying to shut down dissent. They're trying to shut down ideas and arguments and statements that they can't otherwise engage with.

But when it comes to marriage advice, it's not, you know, if you're giving marriage advice and relationship advice, you're not so much making simple factual statements like you would about biological sex. This is about wisdom. Okay, you're telling people how to do something. So it's sort of the difference between between telling somebody the what versus the how. So anybody can talk about the what, but how do you do it? How does it work? How can you be in a relationship and stay married and do so successfully? Well, then you need to have some experience in that area, I think. Then you need actual wisdom. And I think what I'm saying right now is pretty common sense, or at least you, you, you would imagine that it would be. You know, if you, along with tens of millions of people, watch Netflix's hit show Making a Murderer, then you're going to love DailyWire Plus's new exclusive

10-part docu-series with Candice Owens called Convicting a Murder Coming this summer. When leftists are confronted with the truth, their only response is to scream in your face or run away. Well, I've personally been confronted with that myself, and so has Candace Owen. She's unafraid to call out the mob and expose the truth. When Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series,

she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery. And the end result is convicting a murderer. You're not going to want to miss it. And right now, there's never been a better time to become a DailyWire Plus member because you can sign up now for convicting a murderer and you'll receive an early bird discount of 30% off your DailyWire Plus membership when you use Code Truth. This is your last chance for 30% off. So don't wait until a series comes out this summer. You'll also get all the other premium content from the DailyWire Plus, like the greatest lie ever sold. What is a woman? Jordan Peterson. Everything else. Join now at DailyWire.com slash subscribe to become a member.

and see the truth when it finally comes out. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Well, if you think that Bud Light holds the title for worst handling of a PR crisis, then you obviously haven't heard about the L.A. Dodgers. So let's review. One week ago, the Los Angeles Dodgers announced that they would be celebrating their 10th annual LGBTQ-plus Pride Night

on June 16th by giving an award to a group of drag queens. Baseball Club plan to bestow the honor of community heroes. So these are community heroes. and they're going to bestow it on to the Los Angeles chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. For those who are blessedly unfamiliar with this group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are drag queens who dress up like sacrilegious caricatures of nuns. Now they, in fact, make a mockery of the whole process of becoming and being a nun in the Catholic Church, just like actual nuns, new members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are called

postulants, and then they graduate to novices, and then they become sisters. At the group's founding, actually, they used to use actual religious habits that had been worn by Catholic nuns as their costumes. And these days, the men take on names like Sister Erotica Psychotica, Sister Mary Effing Poppins, and Sister Magically Delicious. And as you could see, if you look at just some pictures of these guys, they dress as, again, sexualized satanic parodies of nuns. The entire act is meant to be an anti-Catholic mockery. As I mentioned to the past, My own little sister is a nun. She's also the nicest, most charitable and gracious person you're likely to ever meet in your life.

So I must admit that I take the grotesque, monstrous parody of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence a little bit personally. These are grown men specifically picking on and mocking women who have devoted their lives to prayer and service and helping the poor and needy. I cannot think of anyone less deserving of this level of disrespect, but that, of course, is exactly why they're targeted. Evil hates the light, and my own sister and her sisters in the convent are full of light, and so they're hated. Of course, the LA Dodgers, if they were looking for community heroes, they could have given their award to actual nuns or anyone else who serves their community and helps the less fortunate. There are plenty of people still doing that.

These drag queens, they serve no one but themselves and their own desires. It's right there in the name, perpetual indulgence. Leaving aside the anti-Catholic bigotry, it's hard to see how perpetually indulging your own desires is heroic. But that's the point, obviously, in the inverted world of Satanism, vice is virtue, weakness is courage, and selfishness is heroic. That's the message that the sisters of perpetual indulgence seek to spread, and it's what the L.A. Dodgers decided to infish officially endorse, until they thought better of it anyway, because shortly after inviting the satanic sisters to their Pride Night, the Dodgers rescinded the invitation and they apologized. The organization released a statement acknowledging that the inclusion of anti-Catholic

drag queens who dress like sexualized nuns has somehow shockingly offended some of their fans. And so they said they'll no longer be included in the event and they're sorry about it. Now, the Dodgers said that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence would be removed from this year's list of a community hero honorees, but that, of course, wasn't the end of the story. LGBT activists were obviously furious. They wailed and they screamed and they cried. They declared that it's somehow homophobic and bigoted to not include men in sexualized nun costumes in your event. The Sisters of Perpetual indulgence were not merely privileged to be invited.

they have apparently a God-given right to be there. They have a right to be everywhere and to do anything they want and to be showered with praise and adulation all the time from everyone. Anything short of that, anything less than absolute unanimous, unquestioned worship is a hate crime.

It is a genocide. It is an anti-drag Holocaust. This was the argument that LGBT activists made and they only had to make it once before the LA Dodgers caved. Last night, the Dodgers released another statement. This one adorned with the, this one they had the club logo adorned in the colors of the gay pride rainbow. And the groveling statement reads, quote, after much thoughtful feedback from our diverse communities, honest conversations within the Los Angeles Dodgers organization, and generous discussions with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the Los Angeles Dodgers would like to offer our sincerest apologies to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, members of the LGBTQ Plus community, and their friends and families.

We have asked these sisters to take their place on the field at our 10th annual LGBTQ Plus Pride Night on June 16th. We are pleased to share that they have agreed to receive the gratitude of our collective communities for the life-saving work that they have done tirelessly for decades. In the weeks ahead, we will continue to work with our LGBTQ plus partners to better educate ourselves, find ways to strengthen the ties that bind, and use our platform to support all of our fans who make up the diversity of the Dodgers family. Now, I was interested, as you probably are, to hear about the life-saving work done by cross-dressing men in satanic nun costumes. I had to look it up to find out more. I mean, do these people moonlight as shock trauma surgeons?

Do they wear their nun outfits to the beach and work as lifeguards? Which lives have been saved by these sisters of perpetual indulgence exactly? Who is alive today because of a dude and a nun costume? Well, it's not going to surprise you to learn that the claim is just simply nonsense. They aren't doing any life-saving work or any worthwhile work of any kind at all. They are called, again, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, not the Sisters of Perpetual Service or the Sisters of Perpetual Self-Sacrifice. That's what real nuns are about.

These men are all about themselves. That's what the left means now when they talk about life-saving work. they believe that the indulgence, indeed the perpetual indulgence of desire, the acting out of every inclination, every fetish, is a life or death matter because they can't conceive of how a person could possibly live if they're not able to do whatever they want all the time in every conceivable context. They have made selfishness not only into a virtue, but into a necessity. It is life-sustaining. That's how we have to understand life-saving work in this context. That's what they mean when they say it.

And how can we understand the L.A. Dodgers exactly. How do we understand, you know, their own behavior? Well, cowardice on top of cowardice, on top of incompetence. First, they decide to invite the anti-Catholic drag queens, apparently unaware that the decision will be remotely controversial. Then they immediately backpedal as soon as they detect a whiff of controversy. And then they backpedal again when the backpedaling proved controversial. And now they're back where they started after having angered everybody on all sides.

Which means that now they're going to engage in this display during Pride Night that is absolutely guaranteed to rightly offend a large portion of their fan base. Many fans will be alienated. No new fans will be made. Okay. There's not anybody who's going to be an L.A. Dodgers fan now that they've invited these satanic drag queen nuns to the event. There are some people who won't be anymore, but there's not going to be any new fans. Because this is the deal that LGBT activists make. It's the offer that so many organizations feel they can't refuse, though really they very much can refuse, and they should. The offer is that you debase and humiliate yourself, you alienate your base, grovel before the LGBT altar, and in exchange, you get nothing in return. give up your honor and your dignity and receive nothing. Receive nothing but more demands and more accusations.

Because once you give in to these people, they're going to want more and more and it will never end. So let the old anti-drug slogan become the anti-woke slogan, which is just say no. Just say no. Say no to them every time. Say no. Move on. Let them cry about it. that's what the Dodgers should have done, but they were too stupid and too cowardly.

And that's why they are today finally canceled. And that'll do it for this portion of shows. We move over to the members block. You become a member today by using Code Wall to checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.