The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1383 - The Truth About The Covenant School Shooting Is Finally Coming Out. And It's Exactly What We Thought.

Episode Date: June 7, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, some portions of the Covenant School shooter's manifesto have finally been made public, after over a year. These excerpts make it very clear why the powers that be wanted to keep the manifesto a secret. Also, a town in Massachusetts will now send social workers to respond to some 911 calls. What could go wrong? Joy Reid claims that women in Missouri have been enslaved. That's news to most of us. And, a morbidly obese woman wins a beauty pageant. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.   Ep.1383   - - -    DailyWire+:   Watch the brand new animated sitcom Mr. Birchum only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC   Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC   Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Good Ranchers - Get FREE bacon for life with promo code WALSH at https://www.goodranchers.com   ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE! http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH   - - -   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

This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. Today in the Matt Wall Show, some portions of the Covenant School Shooters Manifesto have been finally been made public after over a year. These excerpts make it very clear why the powers that be wanted to keep the manifesto a secret.

Also, a town of Massachusetts will now send social workers to respond to some 911 calls. What could possibly go wrong except for everything? Joy Reid claims that women in Missouri have been enslaved. That's news to most of us. And a morbidly obese woman wins a beauty pageant, all of that. And more today on the Matt Wall Show. For an exclusive Father's Day treat, choose Good Ranchers. They've just unveiled their limited edition King Cut, available only for this special occasion.

The King Cut box is packed with thick-cut bone-in ribbyes, center-cut filet mignones, and thick-cut bone-in New York strips, all sorts from local family farms and age 21 days to perfection. The work of a father never ends, so Good Ranchers is offering free bacon for life with any new subscription. Make sure to use Code Walsh to receive two packs of Good Ranchers' uncured applewood smoked bacon with every order. Seriously, you won't just get free bacon this year. you'll get it next year and every single year after that. And if you need any other reason to support Good Ranchers, they're not only amazing partners of my show, but they support the paralyzed veterans of America too.

Every order saves American farms and supports American veterans. So knock this father's day out of the park. Visit Good Ranchers.com and use Code Walsh to secure their brand new kingcut box for a dad you know or subscribe to any of their custom curated box for yourself. Don't forget to use Code Walsh at checkout to claim your free Applewood smoked bacon for life. That's Good Ranchers.com. promo code Walsh. The same day that a trans-identifying shooter opened fire at a Christian school in Nashville

killing three nine-year-old children and three adults, it took just a few hours for the corporate press to inform us that the real victims were not the people who had just been murdered. Instead, we were instructed to reserve our remorse for the so-called transgender community who were supposedly being attacked. Here's how one NBC affiliate covered the story on the same day as the shooting. This is how they handled it, watch. Nashville police, Keith, identify the shooter as 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who police say identifies as transgender.

That news has already prompted some attacks against the trans community. KPRC2's Bryce Newberry picks up our coverage from here. Demonstrators at the Texas State Capitol Monday fighting against anti-trans bills being considered by state lawmakers as news broke that the Nashville school shooter identifies as transgender. It doesn't excuse anything that happened. I am concerned about how opposition and people who are anti-trans will try to spin this. Concern about tweets like this from GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, writing, how much hormones like testosterone and medications for mental illness was the transgender Nashville school shooter taking? Everyone can stop blaming guns now.

The comparison of they did it because they're trans is very unfair to trans people. Now, that footage, of course, was not edited in any way. It's a full minute from the news report on the day of the shooting. They don't express any concern whatsoever for the men, women, and children who were just mowed down in this Christian school. Instead, the NBC affiliate talks about anti-trans bills. They show a tweet from Marjorie Taylor Green in which she asks a fair question, what medications the shooter was taking. We're told that her question was concerning and that the transgender community fears attacks.

Never mind that the Christian community that was just, you know, actually attacked. And then there's a trans activist who says that it would be very unfair to suggest that the shooter's motivation had anything to do with the fact that she identified as transgender. Multiply this report by about a thousand and you get a sense of what the coverage was like, as you probably recall, in the wake of this mass shooting. Then, of course, the White House got involved and amplified the message. Under no circumstances were you allowed to ask what medications might be involved, nor could you suggest that the shooter's transgender status was relevant in any way to the story. It was always very clear why we were being told to shut up and stop asking these questions. Whenever you're told not to look into something, that's usually because the truth is unapproved and highly inconvenient for the people in charge. And now, more than a year later, thanks largely to reporting from Tom Pappert at the Tennessee Star, we have confirmation of that fact.

The Star just obtained several additional pages of the Shooter's Manifesto, as well as a search warrant, served by Metro Nashville Police on Vanderbilt Medical Center and a a memo sent by the FBI to the Nashville PD. I'll start with the search warrant, which reveals, according to the star, that, quote, the shooter was given access to boost-prone, lexapro, eschatolopram, hydroxazine, and a sodium chloride nasal spray, probably mispronouncing all these. Lexopro and escatolopram is a depression medication from the family of drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors or SSRIs, as you've probably heard of them. common side effects for Lexapro include mood swings, headache, tiredness, sleep changes,

and brief feelings similar to electric shock. The Star also reports that, quote, using Lexapro and Bootsprone simultaneously, or Lexopro and Hydroxazine simultaneously, can increase the risk of side effects from both Lexapro and the other drugs. Now, note that this isn't necessarily an exhaustive list of the drugs the shooter was taking. It's all we can tell from the search warrant that the Star obtained the upshot is that Marjorie Taylor-Green's question was not, in fact, ridiculous or conspiratorial or concerning. She was exactly right to suggest that, at a minimum, the shooter might be on SSRIs.

About eight months ago, I did a monologue on the clear and undeniable link between SSRIs and mass shootings. This is something we very, very often see where you have mass shooters that are on these drugs. In fact, it's so common that you can almost assume it every time there's a mass shooting. and most of the time you'll be correct. A lot of official, quote-unquote, government data often downplays this connection, as I outlined at the time, but it's clearly there. So to just give one example, a recent paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that the use of antidepressants doubled the risk of suicidality and violence.

And they used data going back to the 1960s and cited dozens of trials, but the official numbers minimize the impact of SSRIs on mass shootings, in part by counting violence in the city as mass shootings, and that's one of the ways that they, in many of those cases, gang violence, in other words, is a mass shooting. And so in many of those cases, the gang members are not on SSRIs, and so they're able to bring down the percentage considerably from that. And now the Covenant School shooting in Nashville appears to be yet another mass shooting in which the shooter was taking SSRIs, drugs that are well known to cause increased agitation in some people. The labels even warn that this side effect is possible.

So why are more people asking whether SSRIs are actually helping reduce violence and depression at all? Just a couple of years ago that we learned that SSRIs don't actually work the way we're told they work. Turns out there's no clear link between low serotonin and depression after all. And meanwhile, after we're hopping up the entire country in SSRI's rates of depression and mass shootings are only increasing. Incidentally, so are instances of so-called trans-identifying individuals, there are now more trans people self-identified as such anyway than ever. And by their own admission, and according to the left's own words, they're one of the most depressed demographics on the planet. But even after a transgender shooter opened fire in a school, you weren't allowed to suggest that the shooter's motivation might have had anything to do with transgenderism at all or even about politics in general.

Do that, of course, and the media labeled you a conspiracy theorist instantly. Here's how News Channel 5 in Nashville covered this, and this is a week after the shooting. Watch. Director Rauch spoke at a Sheriff's Association meeting in Franklin on Wednesday. Now, I'm told that he said that what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target, but really more of a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive. Director Rauch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write to about, specific political, religious, or social issues.

In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings. Certainly more details will emerge, but at this point, Director Rauch indicated it does not appear the shooter wrote of any particular agenda regarding politics or to target a specific person or religion. So for now, a clear motive remains a mystery. Move, move! There are many rumors and unconfirmed conclusions fed, frankly, by conspiracy theories, but none of them have yet been confirmed by actual facts. So there's nothing political in the manifesto, according to the director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

There's nothing coherent at all, except maybe a desire to emulate school shooters. And that's what they told us. And if you ask questions, as you just saw, the media labeled you a conspiracy theorist. But at the same time, they wouldn't let us see the man. manifesto for ourselves. That was a pretty big clue that they're lying to us. And indeed, once again, thanks to the Tennessee Star, we have the proof of that. Before I get into the Star's findings, a quick recap here. Late last year, as you might remember, Stephen Crowder posted some excerpts of the shooter's manifesto, which he obtained from law enforcement sources.

And those excerpts already demonstrate that the authorities were lying. The shooter wrote about her hatred for crackers who go to private fancy school. So that's an anti-white slur, which the authorities tried to hide. the star, rather, with the help of law enforcement sources, has shed even more light on what the authorities were hiding. And their findings paint a very clear picture of a mentally disturbed individual who wrote, just weeks before the killings, apparently, about her desire to change her gender. Quote, the shooter's diary or journal entry begins with the title, My Imaginary Penis, and includes a crude drawing. Quote, my penis exists in my head. I swear to God, I'm a male.

unquote. She then wrote about her desire to have a penis for the purpose of heterosexual sex with a woman. The shooter also railed against her conservative upbringing, calling it torture. She described having intercourse with dolls as well. Quote, quote, I hate parental views, how my mom sees me as a daughter. God, I'm such a pervert. She also wrote about puberty blockers, quote, I'd kill to have those resources. 2007 was the birth of puberty blockers and a newfound discovery for treatment of non-conforming transgender children, she wrote. So now you're starting to see exactly why we weren't allowed to read the full manifesto. It presents a very clear and direct link between the shooters trans identity and the murders. You know, this was not a shooter who just happened to be trans, as the media suggested.

That's what the government and the corporate press wanted you to think so that you wouldn't have any unapproved thoughts of any kind about this incident. They also didn't want you to blame their rhetoric for these deaths. They're the ones who ran around telling trans-identified people that conservatives and Christians are planning and carrying out some sort of genocide against them, which could have the effect of encouraging people to take drastic action. But they don't want you to draw that connection. So they bury this manifesto as best they could. In fact, the star obtained a memo from Joe Biden's FBI to the Nashville PD shortly after the star requested the government released the manifesto. And in the memo, the FBI tells the National Police that they, quote, strongly discourage public dissemination of any legacy tokens.

And that term legacy tokens as FBI lingo for the manifesto and any other writings of the shooter. Quoting from the star, the FBI acknowledges in its memo of the Tennessee Police that the desire for public release of legacy tokens often revolves around the public's need to understand what led to such tragic events. However, the FBI claims legacy tokens seldom provide such comfort and instead could, lead the public to dismiss the attacker as mentally ill. The FBI in its third point claims that releasing legacy tokens will lead to the spread of false narratives. So there you have it there. It's the narratives that they're worried about. And you know that's a lie because the FBI's failure to release the manifesto is what led to false. So they are worried about narratives, but not really

false ones because when you don't release the manifesto, there are still going to be narratives, and those narratives are much more likely to be false because they're not based on the actual evidence that could be provided to us. Without the manifesto, the media was free itself to lie to us and pretend that there was no relation whatsoever between the shooter's transgender identity and the killings, but in fact, there was a clear relationship.

The shooter was clearly enraged about the fact that she couldn't be a man. A man. Joe Biden's DOJ understands that this kind of revelation might be a setback for the White House's narrative, so they just covered it up. They told you that the trans community was in danger instead. Now, in a country where the government actually cared about the well-being of its own citizens and felt the slightest need to be honest with them, this would be a national scandal. The FBI director and the senior leadership of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

would all be fired immediately at a minimum. But our government lies to us as a matter of course, as we know, and they're not subtle about it. And that's why the government's narrative about the Tennessee shooter is just one of several mainstream lies cooked up by the government and promoted by the media that we're getting clarity on this week. So there's another one that we've talked about a little bit. In his first testimony since leaving office, Tony Fauci just admitted under oath that the whole six feet of social distancing thing was completely made up. No basis for it whatsoever. The guy who goes around calling himself the embodiment of science actually had no science to support social distancing. Watch.

A Lego set is a gift that always clicks. And clicks. So beautiful. And clicks. For kids who love to create, choose a Lego set. A gift that always clicks. Sees now when Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted there were no clinical trials to back up the recommended six feet distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Fauci admitted that the social distancing guidelines to stay six feet apart had no scientific basis. I said that it is not based in science and it just appeared. It actually came from the CDC. The CDC was responsible for those kinds of guidelines for schools. Not me. So when I said that it just appeared, it appeared. Was there any science behind it?

What I meant by no science behind it is that there wasn't a controlled trial that said, compare six foot with three feet with three feet, 10 feet. So there wasn't that scientific evaluation of it. Now, I don't need to remind you of this, but pretty much every single venue on the planet, from restaurants to schools to grocery stores and so on, mandated six feet of separation at all times during COVID. And yet there was never any testing to confirm that it actually helped, just like there was no experiment that ever determined lockdowns were a good idea. And now we learn, years after the fact, long after it stopped being important, that it was all a lie.

The lockdowns did more harm than good, and the social distancing rules were nothing more than a power trip. And when I say we learned that, we knew that all along if you were paying attention, but now it's out in the open. And that wasn't all that Fauci lied about. He also denied under oath that he had any role in squashing the lab leak theory. Watch. I don't think the concept of there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory. What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that particular subject, like it was a lab leak and I was parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak. I had no input into the content of the published paper.

The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originating. from a lab. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite. Now, first of all, no one said that Tony Fauci was like Jason Bourne parachuting into the CIA or whatever. You can tell he's thought a lot about that fantasy, which is weird. I don't think anyone ever said that was happening. So that's a total red herring. What people did say is that Tony Fauci funded the lab that may have created the virus, which is true. Then people said that Fauci conspired to shut down a discussion of the lab leak, which also appears to be true. He denied it under oath, but there's at least some reason to think that it happened.

Here's an interview that Megan Kelly did back in November of 2022 with Dr. Robert Gary, who's one of the leading epidemiologists in the country. Initially, Gary thought the lab leak was the only possible explanation for the origin of COVID. And he communicated that in an email that surfaced in a public records request at the time. Walter Gary explains his decision to change his mind. Why did you originally think that it was likely from the lab? because we've seen in your correspondence with Fauci and Collins that you initially took a look at this

along with other virologists and experts and said things like, I can't think of a plausible natural scenario. That was February 2nd, 2020, where you get a bat virus or one very similar to it, where you insert exactly these amino acids and nucleotides that all have to be added and so on. And then you said, I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.

And then two days later, well, then you spoke to Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins. And then within days, you completely reversed yourself and did a 180 and said it can't possibly be lab leak. It is nature. Yeah. So let me correct that a little bit. I mean, that was one email that, you know, I had sent to, you know, some of my colleagues that were looking at this. One email out of hundreds of emails and, you know, different kinds of Zoom calls and things like this. where we're discussing, you know, the possibilities about where this, you know, where this virus might have come from.

So that one email that you just read is, like I said, hundreds of emails. I actually wrote it, you know, and it added the evening. I was out of Marty for a ball here. I'm in New Orleans, right? So, you know, I was typing on my iPhone there and, you know, just got this question. You know, what's the evidence that, you know, this, you know, if you're in cleavage side is natural or not. And that's what I typed out. Okay. So Rob Gary first says there's no way this virus occurred naturally. It must be manmade.

That's his assessment. Then he talks to Tony Fauci and suddenly he says it definitely came from nature. Disregard what he said before about the lab. He was just drunk at a Mardi Gras ball, I guess. Nothing to see here. Now, if this happened just once or twice, maybe you could write it off as a coincidence or something, but keeps happening. We keep on learning that we're being lied to in new and different ways all the time. Just the other day, for instance, the Telegraph finally admitted that the COVID-Vax might have contributed. to all of these excess unexplained deaths that we've been seeing in recent years. As far as I can tell, this is the first mainstream admission of this even being a possibility. Quote, COVID vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic scientists have suggested.

Researchers from the Netherlands analyzed data from 47 Western countries discovered there had been more than 3 million excess deaths since 2020 with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures. Well, that's good to know. Three million more people just died than normal, and now we're learning that this experimental MRNA vaccine might have had something to do with it. This was a possibility that was never even discussed when these COVID shots were rolled out. I mean, never discussed in the mainstream was not allowed to be discussed.

We were told that they were totally safe and effective. Not that they might contribute to the deaths of millions of people. But now we can finally have that conversation, because enough to. time has passed that I guess they feel like it doesn't matter anymore and it's water under the bridge and so we can talk about it. Now in all of these cases that I've discussed, the covenant shooting, the social distancing BS, the lab leak cover up, the lies about the vaccine, the corporate press and the government are lying about the truth for the same basic reason. They understand that the truth would expose their underlying ideology as a complete fraud. The experts, quote unquote,

don't actually know what they're talking about. Public health is based on violence. I guess, not logic or science. Your best guess about the ideal response to COVID is better than theirs. Your intuitive understanding of transgenderism and mental illness better than theirs. The most fundamental belief of the elites, which is that they're elites, because they're more knowledgeable and intelligent than you are, would come crashing down instantly if you could see what they're hiding. That's what they fear the most. And after the revelations of this week, for the first of the first of,

first time in a very long time, that fear is definitely justified. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, there's nothing like sitting behind home play at a baseball game being courtside at a basketball game or front row for your favorite concert. When you want the best, you have to act quickly or someone else will instead. It's like if you're hiring for your business, you want to find the most talented people for your open roles before the competition scoops them up. So what's the best way to do that? ZipRecruiter. ZipRecruiter finds qualified candidates fast. And right now you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. Once you review ZipRecruiter's list of the most qualified candidates for your job, you can easily invite your top choices to apply, encourage them to apply

sooner, amp up your hiring performances with ZipRecruiter and find the best talent fast. See why four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a qualified candidate within the first day. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh and try for free. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. I want to begin with this local news story. out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, where they have been training a team of unarmed social workers to respond to 911 calls. And here's the report from Boston 25 News explaining how this is going to work or not work, as the case may be.

Here it is. We're definitely a pioneer in this approach. A tentative plan to send a team of unarmed social workers to some emergency 911 calls in Cambridge could officially be rolled out as soon as next month, says Liz Speakman, of the city's new community assistance response and engagement. Having an unarmed civilian with experience in mental health, going to mental health calls is really the right response. Speakman tells us that the five members of the care team have extensive backgrounds as social workers and first responders. Unlike some other alternative response programs recently deployed in other cities across the country,

the care team will not be accompanied by police when they are sent to nonviolent, mental health-related calls. If anything goes wrong, if there's any safety concerns, they can radio for assistance immediately and get back up right away. It's an opportunity for us to help fix the system that's been broken for a really long time. Care team member Marie Matthew is eager to start responding to emergencies that are presently handled by police with guns. I think this program is an opportunity for us to take care of the people that we are trained

to take care of. So the only question is how long, how long before one of these people ends up dead or in the hospital? I'd give it about six months, maybe. I think that's probably a generous, generous estimate, generous guess. Here's what I'd like to know. How many situations are there where you would call 911 over somebody's mental health issues, but the person isn't potentially dangerous? Like in what scenario would you where no one is in danger, as far as you can tell,

and yet you're still calling 911 over someone else's mental episode that they're having? Like, give me some examples of hypothetical scenarios where someone's mental health crisis would warrant a call 911, and yet the people around this person are not in any plausible danger. Now, I'm sure there probably are some hypothetical scenarios where that could be the case. You could probably come up with some hypotheticals, but I think those are going to be rare. Generally speaking, if somebody's mental health warrants a call to 911, by definition, it warrants a response from the police. Because if all they need is counseling or somebody to talk to or something like that,

then you don't need to call 911 for that. Like, 911 isn't for that anyway. So that's what doesn't make any sense about this. Because what they're saying is, well, sometimes someone doesn't need the police. They just need someone to talk to. They need someone to understand. They need whatever. Agreed.

You know, not everyone who's experiencing some sort of problem with their mental health. It needs the police. But if you're calling 911 by definition, it has risen to that level. And here's the other issue with this, because we talk about a mental health episode, and she says that we need people with experience in mental health going to mental health calls. Well, what is a mental health call exactly? Or more precisely, I guess a better way of putting it, what isn't a mental health call? Like, I'd like to hear that woman that we just heard in the video specifically answer this.

give us some examples of times when you might call 911 on another person, but it isn't related to their mental health. Now, I could give examples, but the point is that she probably can't as the woman who's like spearheading this whole thing. And that's because mental health is an umbrella that people like this use to describe like every crime, every misdeed a person could commit is now under the umbrella of mental health.

So, you know, robbery is mental health. Stealing is mental. Murder is mental health. Rape is mental health. According to the way these people look at the world, anyone who does any of those things is, like, primarily, it's because of their poor mental health. So then how does that work?

Like, every bad thing a person does, it's because of their mental health. And so, so you just said the social social. workers out for everything. I don't think it means that right now. They don't, they don't plan right now to send social workers to respond to every. They're, as much as we joke about it, I assume they're not going to send the social workers out to respond to a carjacking or, you know, a murder or something like that. They don't plan on that yet. But that's where this

sort of thing is headed. Because that's the category that mental health is in. Mental health isn't even, like, mental health is a category. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's the ultimate catch-all. It's the ultimate explanation for every bad thing that happens in the world. And so, although we, we, we may joke about it now, I guarantee you that if all these people don't end up dead or in the hospital because of this, eventually you're going to see social workers and mental health professionals showing up to pretty much every call because, again, it's all mental health, according to them.

All right. Here's something that's getting some attention because of the – well, this is Joy Reed and has said something dumb. It's not exactly breaking news. But let's check in with her anyway and see what she has to say. Well, I don't understand it because many of them said, well, we, of course, we support contraception. This is one of those weird deals. What do they want the Democrats to do?

The Democrats have the majority in the Senate. They have an obligation to try to pass legislation that they think is a priority in America. This didn't have to be a show vote. All the Republicans had to do is vote yes. All they had to do is vote yes. but they voted no, which tells you all you need to know. And you mentioned Missouri, let me tell you how crazy it's gotten in Missouri. All abortions are illegal.

There's no exception for rape or incest. Conception happens. Life begins at conception. It's a personhood state. Okay? So no abortions are being performed at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood got money as a Medicaid provider to do what? Provide contraception.

And what did the Missouri legislature do this year? and what did the governor sign into law, making sure they got no money to provide contraception to women to prevent abortions. It is so nuts, Joy. It's nuts. And you've left off, Claire,

that in your state, it's illegal for a pregnant woman to get an abortion. So they've also gone after no-fault divorce. So if you're a pregnant and you're in a marriage with an abusive spouse, you can't even get a divorce once you become pregnant. You become the property of both your husband and the state.

They have joint ownership. of you in the state of Missouri. That is a slave state as far as being a woman is concerned, as far as I'm concerned. So that's getting some attention because of the dumb comments you made about how Missouri is a slave state, and that is incredibly stupid, not really worth responding to or engaging with. Joy Reid doesn't even believe the things that she says. She's very stupid, but she's not actually that stupid. Despite all appearances, she does, we can assume, have an IQ somewhere above 45. And so she knows that allowing women, or rather not allowing women to kill babies, is not slavery, the legalization of the murder of babies is in itself much more analogous

to slavery. And as I've gone through plenty of times in the past, the arguments that people make against abortion bear no relation to the arguments that people made 150 years ago in favor of slavery. On the other hand, it does work, that correlation is there, the opposite. opposite way, in that the arguments that people make in favor of abortion really do mirror right down the line, the arguments that people made in favor of slavery 150 years ago. And the number one argument is here's a category of people who are not really people. And so we can treat them differently because although they might technically sort of qualify as

human beings, they're not people. They don't have the same moral rights as people. So that's the, that's the fundamental argument for both slavery and abortion. Anyway, I think she understands that this is not slavery. And do you know why it's not? Well, there's 10,000 reasons why it's not slavery, and there isn't just one single reason. But here is one factor worth noting is that you can leave. if a woman really doesn't like the laws in her state, she can leave. She doesn't have to live there. Now, granted, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be anywhere in the country a woman could go to get an abortion legally, because I think it should be illegal across the entire country. But the situation right now is that a, quote, unquote, enslaved woman can simply move away if she's that distraught. So it's all very stupid.

But I want to note what Claire McCaskill says at the beginning of the clip. She laments the fact that Planned Parenthood isn't getting funding in the state anymore to give up birth control. And that is very foolish, she says, because they were preventing abortions, she says. Well, if you really think that Planned Parenthood was ever in the business of trying to prevent abortions, then you must also think that Apple designs its new iPhones to be as durable as possible in order to prevent you from having to buy a new iPhone. But I think we all understand that it's the opposite. But the main purpose of the iPhone, as far as Apple is concerned, is to cause you to buy another iPhone. They are in the iPhone business, and so they want you to keep buying them, and that is the main thing that they want you to do.

Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. That's where they make almost all their income. If you don't count tax funding, almost all their income comes from abortion. They make millions and millions of dollars on abortion. And that means that whatever they're doing, they do it because it ultimately creates more abortion customers down the line. So why do they give out contraception? Well, because they have determined rightly that encouraging and facilitating cheap, meaningless sex between strangers will lead to more abortions ultimately, even if they're using contraception. The point of the birth control is to get people

in the habit of having sex with people that they don't want to have babies with, and also to see sex as the sort of thing that ought not to lead to babies. And this just guarantees that eventually one day, when the birth control fails, or they have sex one time without it or whatever, one of these days, the pregnancy will happen and the abortion is almost guaranteed at this point. So that's why. The Planned Parenthood, they like to give out the birth control, not because they're trying to prevent abortions, but because they are, they are, it's an invest. They're making an investment in the future. They're bringing in customers and they're given the birth control, but then there's the upsell down the line to abortion. And so that's what they're trying to establish customer relations so that later on they can do the abortion.

And that's because birth control does not prevent abortions at all, as McCaskill claims. Abortion is not a consequence of not having birth control. Abortion is a consequence of the choice people make to get abortions, which itself is a consequence of their values and attitudes and expectations. And those values, attitudes, expectations have been shaped by institutions like Planned Parenthood for the purpose of ensuring that there are more abortions. All right, Hillary Clinton tweeted this out yesterday. 80 years ago today, thousands of brave Americans fought to protect democracy on the shores of Normandy. This November, all we have to do is vote. People seem to be extremely upset by this tweet.

I'm not exactly sure why. I mean, I know why. She's comparing Biden voters to the troops on D-Day, comparing Trump to Hitler. It is very gross and very insane. But I don't really have the energy to be actually mad about this kind of thing anymore because it's all so empty and so fake. You know, you notice something for all the talk that Trump is going to be the end of democracy, the end of the Constitution, and so on.

on. They never explain how exactly. They never explain how that's going to work. James Carville, who's the 145-year-old political strategist, had the same message yesterday when he was trying to explain on, I think it was some kind of podcast. And he was trying to explain why, although normally he thinks that the media should be unbiased and objective and honest, truthful in the reporting, he thinks an exception should be made this time around because the most important thing is to keep Trump for getting elected. Listen to this. So this is the basic question. But people say, you know, Trump is going to be a Republican nominee, and we've got to cover it,

and Biden's a Democratic nominee, and we cover this. And if there's something bad about Biden, of course, we've got to print it, but if something comes up, that is, I don't know, he can't say any good about Trump, but more favorable to him, like the L.A. Honig's and the forreides of the car use of the world. you know, that's one way to look at it. We just, we tell the truth and let the people decide. Or at times when the country is at great peril or the moral imperative is so great, you don't do that.

And so now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor, publisher, whatever he is, in the York Times, said, you know, we're just going to cover this down in the middle. We're going to cover what it is. I don't think that's the role of the news media at a time when the entire Constitution is in peril. I don't have anything against slanted coverage.

I really don't. I think I would have something against it in most other times in American history, but not right now. Fuck your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we're either going to have a constitution or we not. All right, so the news should not be objective,

he says, because right now the country is in great peril and it'll be the end of everything if Trump was elected. My first question is when has that not been the case? That's why I say everything is so fake and empty and just, every election that I have been aware of for as long as I've been alive, this has been the narrative. I mean, every four years we do this again and again.

It's the same pageant, every election cycle that this is the one, this is the last one. If we don't, this is the, it's the end of democracy, great peril. And I don't know, do people, does anyone still buy this after all this time? Like, can you hear this over and over and over again and still buy it? Yeah, sometimes in fact, I think we, I mean, look, there's plenty that the opposition is doing to Trump that would qualify as certainly unprecedented, starting with the criminal trials, the two impeachment.

So there's a lot that they've done that is truly unprecedented. There's no question about it. But somehow, I think that we overstayed it to some extent. We overstate anyway how different their response to Trump is. Even again, while I acknowledge that they're doing a lot that has never been done before in history. But my only point is that it can be easy to forget that back in the Bush years, although the impeachments and the criminal trials weren't there, the level of panic was very similar. We heard a lot of the same things. We heard a lot of those same things about like Mitt Romney, the most just the most milk-toast human being who's ever lived probably.

We heard a lot of this same kind of stuff. And the only point of bringing that up is just to show again how empty and fake it is. And next election cycle, assuming that it's not Trump running again if he does not win the presidency. Assuming it's not Trump running again, assuming it's somebody else in 2028, you think they're going to dial it back? You think they're going to say, all right, well, it's not Trump this time. So, hey, we want to win, but look, it's not going to be the end of democracy. Trump was a unique figure, but this new guy, whoever it is, yeah, we prefer for him not to win, but look, we're not in, the country's not in great peril. You think they're going to say that? Of course they're not.

Of course, they're not. This is what they say. They say that we won't have a constitution. Of course, what Carver is neglecting to mention is that we already, we already don't have a constitution. The Constitution is dead. it's deader than rotting roadkill on the side of the road at this point. That's why Biden has completely ignored it through his whole tenure. Presidents have been ignoring it for decades.

The Constitution didn't factor in at all during COVID. It, you know, basically like it didn't exist. So it is already effectively dead, sad to say. But Trump isn't going to come in and be the death of whatever is left of the Constitution, the death of the country itself, the death of democracy. That's the claim. We've heard a million times. But again, whether it's coming from Hillary or James Carlin,

or any of these people, what they never do is they never explain how. Because nobody ever asks that follow-up question. It's a basic follow-up question. And if you took the claim seriously, you would ask that question. When you've got these pundits on these cable news shows saying, Trump's going to end democracy. If you're the host of the show and you think that that is sincere and you don't see that this all is just a pageant, if you take it seriously, then the obvious follow-up question is, oh my gosh, how is he going to do that? Tell me more.

Oh, my goodness. Tell me, how is he going to do it? What do you foresee in your crystal ball of what exactly is Trump going to do to end democracy in the Constitution and bring about a dictatorship? They're never asked that question because they don't have an answer to it. they can't answer it. They know that it's not going to happen. And again, it's all just so fake. It's fake. Everything's fake.

Now, there are some unmistakable signs that summer's quickly creeping in. Grills are firing up. The cicadas around my house are finally quieting down. Of course, we've got season finales on the horizon. This Sunday, we're bringing you the grand finale of the DailyWire's first ever animated sitcom, Mr. Bircham, exclusively on DailyWire Plus, created by the one and only Adam Crow. of this show features an impressive lineup of town, including Megan Kelly, Roseanne Barr, Jay Moore,

Tyler Fisher, Danny Trejo, a very own Brett Cooper, and many more. We've been keeping the best for last, and let me tell you that we're pulling out all the stops for this final episode. You won't want to miss it, and you'll only catch it right here on the Daily Wire. So here's a game plan. If you haven't already started tuning in, spend the first part of your weekend binge watching the series now in Delaware Plus, then come Sunday, sit back, relax, enjoy the thrilling conclusion of season one. Don't let this opportunity pass you by. Join us exclusively on DailyWire Plus for the unforgettable season finale of Mr. Bircham, the Daily Wire's first ever animated sitcom.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. I began the show by talking about how the media and the government tried to gaslight us into believing that the Covenant School Shooting had nothing to do with transgenderism, that social distancing work, the vaccines were safe and effective, et cetera. As serious as all of those frauds are, there's an even larger scam that's going on. One of the biggest brainwashing efforts, one of the biggest sci-op campaigns of all, These are the campaign to convince us that morbid obesity is healthy and beautiful. We've seen this all over the place, including Doves' Disturbing New ad campaign featuring an obese social justice activist,

as well as Gillette's creepy demand that we love our skin, Victoria's Secrets, so-called body positive fashion shows, etc., etc., etc. All of these campaigns, among many others, are a disingenuous effort to convince Americans that being fat and unhealthy is, in fact, beautiful and wonderful and great. We're expected to suspend our senses and affirm, yet another thing that is obviously not true. True, but amid this intense bombardment of pro-obesity propaganda, what just happened at the National American Miss Pageant manages to stand out? This is an event that, according to its website, aims to foster positive self-image by enhancing the natural beauty within. Now, it's distinct from the better-known Miss America pageant. Normally doesn't get that much attention. It's getting attention this year, though, because the National American Miss pageant just named a morbidly

obese 23-year-old woman named Sarah Milliken as their Miss Alabama. She'll go on to compete at the national level later this year. Watch. A woman from Atmore is living her dream, representing the state of Alabama in the National American Miss program. WUKRG News 5, Summerpool introduces us to this inspiring young woman. Crowning achievement, eight years in the making. Sarah Milliken of Atmore has competed in the National American Miss program since she was 15. I competed once as a junior teen when I was 15, again as a teen when I was 16, and not placing that was really, really hard.

Now at 23, the famous saying rings true. Third time's a charm. Just being able to come back eight years later and say, okay, I didn't give up on the stream. And now because I didn't give up on it, I get to be the next Miss Alabama and wear this crown for a year. Now, there's at least some cause for relief here because as far as we can tell, Sarah Milliken is indeed an actual woman. So, you know, that in some ways is a, is an improvement.

That's a point in her favor, because you can't take that for granted these days. And that's how low the bar is these days with these pageants. Unfortunately, just about everything else about this display is disturbing. To be clear, as far as I can tell, the National American Miss pageant is ostensibly supposed to celebrate beauty. They do talk about positive self-image and all that, but it does appear that most of the contestants actually put some effort into their appearance and are, you know, basically healthy for the most part. Here's a look at Milliken's competitors just to give you some idea. And, you know, for the most part, a traditional beauty pageant sort of look with one and a half notable exceptions.

And as you can see, they're not all obese. They look healthy for the most part. So how exactly did Milliken squash the competition? How did she win? From that interview, it sounds a bit like she just sort of wore down the judges. She kept coming back year after year, presumably getting larger and larger each time. And then maybe the judges decided to put an end to it before things just got completely out of hand. Quote, because I didn't give up on it.

I get to be the next Miss Alabama, she says. Now, normally when people say something like that, they're referring to all the hard work that they did in the interim. They're implying that they endured some form of personal sacrifice and prove themselves before ultimately winning the prize. But that's not the case here. This woman just kept throwing herself at this competition until, you know, she tipped the scales in her favor somehow. Now, to be fair, as the interview went on, Milliken did attempt to provide some clarity as to what exactly she was doing for the eight years that she was trying to win this competition. Watch. I hope that they learned that no matter what your body looks like, no matter where you come from, you can do anything that you set your mind to.

You know, I didn't think that it was possible for a plus-size girl to win. I didn't think it was possible for a girl from small town Alabama to win. Getting that win took a lot of hard work. I worked literally every single day for 365 days. There wasn't a day that I wasn't practicing my own stage speech or my introduction, interview. So she was working every day for 365 days on her speech and interview prep. Now, left unstated is that she was also overeating dangerously so the entire time. And it's strange that she doesn't mention that.

After all, it's a big part of this interview, her whole story. She's presenting herself as a success story because she won despite being obese. So why isn't she proud of the fact that she's obese? Why isn't she telling us exactly how much you have to eat in order to get her figure? If it's not shameful and dangerous to be critically obese, then why shy away from talking about it? Now, at one point in that clip, you heard this woman utter the cliche, you can do anything you set your mind to. And it's supposed to be an uplifting message amid all of the online hate that she's receiving.

But it's not really. I mean, yes, the people referring to this pageant as I've seen online, as a cattle auction or calling this woman miss all 50 states in one. It's another quote that I saw online. These people are being crass, but there's also an important point here, which is that this woman is setting herself up for very early death. And no one encouraging her to pursue that actually has her best interests at heart. If you actually care about this woman, then you would not encourage her to kill herself and eating that much is a slow motion suicide. Like we all know, you are looking like that, you are not going to live to the age of 75. Doesn't mean you won't live the age of 75, but you, so you can either choose to cut the weight and then you can live a long and healthy life or not.

And you won't. Consider the fact that many of these body positive influencers drop dead before they even hit middle age. So we've seen this play out several times. Daily Mail just published a roundup on several of them. There was the 33-year-old TikTok star Woffler 69, real name Taylor Lejeune, who had 2 million followers, the day before he died of a presumed heart attack. He videotaped himself eating a giant fruit loop in milk. According to the Daily Mail, Taylor-Rugn didn't flaunt his weight, but there were many other dead influencers who did. example, here's Professor of Fat Studies Dr. Kat Paws, who I assume that's not her real name,

but she died at 42. And according to Dr. Kat Paws, quote, the science isn't quite clear as, it isn't quite as clear cut as we'd like to believe. There's not really quite a consensus yet about the relationship between weight and health. Obese people and even morbidly obese people have just as good health or better health than someone in the normal weight range. And that is obviously insane, tragically insane, because it claimed her own life. But you have to understand that this is something that people are accepting as true. This has become a popular myth among many people. That being massively overweight doesn't necessarily mean you're unhealthy.

There was also 37-year-old Jamie Lopez, who founded a salon for plus-sized women and push-body positivity. Her show was called Super-sized Salon. It lasted just one season before she died. according to the Federalist, she weighed more than 800 pounds at one point and came up with the idea for her company while confined to her bed. At her heaviest, Lopez weighed 846 pounds and designed her company while, again, confined to a bed. This is the consequence of this body positivity agenda. And the truth is that obesity cannot be beautiful for the same reason that cancerous tumors can't be beautiful because it is toxic. It is destructive to the human person.

seeing beauty and self-destruction is inherently disordered. They know they can't actually convince anyone or hardly anyone to buy into the fat is beautiful lie. So instead they try to manipulate us into pretending that we buy into it with news reports and beauty pageants and body positivity campaigns that insult our intelligence. That's the real reason they're parading this hapless poor woman around. And it's why the National American Miss pageant, everyone else who pretends that heart disease and an early death are beautiful, are today canceled. That's good for the show today.

And this weekend, talk to you on Tuesday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount. New vehicle discount.

Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit USAA. slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply.