The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1581 - The Legal Team Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely HUMILIATED

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will decide

00:00:03.980 whether parents have the right to opt their children out of LGBT indoctrination in schools.

00:00:08.620 The side against parental rights humiliated itself badly throughout the arguments. We'll play some

00:00:12.280 of the clips. Also, Tesla profits dropped by over 70% as the coordinated campaign of violence

00:00:17.660 against the company continues. Now, woke DAs are refusing to press charges against the vandals.

00:00:22.820 And Trump is considering a plan to give financial rewards to women who have kids. Plus,

00:00:27.280 Representative Nancy Mace has spent most of this week complaining about a man who allegedly

00:00:30.820 harassed and threatened her. But the video of this encounter tells a very different story.

00:00:35.080 All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

00:00:56.760 Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention, your liver. This powerhouse

00:01:06.860 organ is crushing it 24-7, handling over 500 different functions in your body. It's a hard

00:01:11.300 job and sometimes your liver needs a little support. That's where Dose for your liver comes in. It's not

00:01:16.140 some weak supplement. This is hard-hitting, science-backed support for your body's most

00:01:19.860 crucial filter. The results speak for themselves. Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got

00:01:24.740 major improvements in their liver enzyme levels. Want to know what makes this different? Well,

00:01:29.220 one shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice. It's designed for peak

00:01:34.260 performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function. No BS ingredients either.

00:01:39.340 It's clean, sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results. Start giving your liver the support it

00:01:44.100 deserves. Save 30% on your first month of secretion by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering

00:01:49.920 Walsh to check out. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month

00:01:57.160 subscription. If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days from elementary school

00:02:03.500 on up, one of the first things they'll tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold.

00:02:09.140 Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns, made up genders. To call this phenomenon

00:02:15.300 unnatural will be a vast understatement. It's obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards

00:02:20.520 are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school

00:02:25.180 system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases, without their parents'

00:02:30.120 knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it's very clear

00:02:33.980 that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls. After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with

00:02:41.300 total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute

00:02:46.880 the minds of elementary school age children on up. And based on how the justices acted during oral

00:02:53.000 arguments yesterday, this could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court

00:02:56.660 rulings of this generation. So it's worth spending some time on this. Now in a moment, we'll go through

00:03:02.080 the oral arguments in the case that I'm talking about, which is called Mahmoud v. Taylor. But first,

00:03:07.320 here's just a little bit of background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools,

00:03:11.860 the larger school district in Maryland, introduced a new gender and sexuality curriculum. Now,

00:03:17.840 initially, students or their parents could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short

00:03:23.520 period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn't feasible to continue allowing all these

00:03:27.460 opt-outs. So they decided that it's going to be mandatory. And to give you an idea of what exactly

00:03:32.820 this curriculum entails, here's an image from one book that children are introduced to. You can see

00:03:39.940 it on the screen there. This is what's apparently known as an LGBT storybook. This one's called

00:03:45.700 What Are Your Words? And as you can see, one line of dialogue reads, my pronouns are like the weather.

00:03:52.060 They change depending on how I feel. The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a non-profit,

00:03:57.500 reported on some other books that were included in this new curriculum. Quote,

00:04:00.540 One book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes intersex

00:04:06.460 flag, drag queen, underwear, leather, and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker.

00:04:14.440 Another book advocates a child knows best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a

00:04:18.900 decision to transition doesn't have to make sense. Teasers are instructed to say doctors only guess

00:04:25.120 when identifying a newborn's sex anyway. Close quote. Now, when parents of varying

00:04:30.180 religious faiths, including Muslims and Christians, objected to the idea that their five-year-olds

00:04:34.860 needed to be taught about sex work and gender transitioning by left-wing activists posing as

00:04:39.820 teachers, the school district told them that they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the

00:04:44.640 parents as bigots. And all these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this

00:04:50.060 indoctrination. They didn't even demand that the classes and this material be removed from the

00:04:55.700 curriculum, which of course it should have just been removed to begin with. But still, the school

00:05:00.920 district denied their request, so the parents sued. And that brings us to yesterday's oral arguments.

00:05:05.940 And I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue.

00:05:11.120 Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about

00:05:18.740 homosexuality and transgenderism and so on. To be clear, that's what the school district is doing.

00:05:23.940 They're not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling

00:05:28.640 students to read the books as part of the class, mandating it. So the truthful answer to Justice

00:05:33.900 Alito's question is pretty simple. The left understands that if the LGBT movement is going to

00:05:38.540 survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age. But the school district can't say

00:05:45.020 that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district's

00:05:49.580 superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible

00:05:55.660 it would be at a practical level for the school district to allow students to opt out of this

00:06:01.020 curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes any sense. It gets so bad that at the end of his

00:06:06.400 rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the

00:06:13.440 hell this guy's even talking about. Listen. The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to

00:06:20.640 change its curriculum. They're just saying, look, we want out. Why isn't that feasible? What is the

00:06:26.140 big deal about allowing them to opt out of this? So a couple of answers. I think on the facts of this

00:06:32.720 case, we have the natural experiment of the schools permitting these opt-outs and then finding that it was

00:06:38.980 not administrable. It wasn't true in every school. Why is it not administrable? They're able to opt

00:06:44.060 out of the health class, right? The health class is taught discreetly. There's a mandatory meeting

00:06:50.720 for all parents where they are told exactly what's going to be taught in it. And they're given the

00:06:54.400 option of opting out of the unit of instruction, not the particular... Well, that's how you define the

00:06:59.500 unit of instruction. You could define the unit of instruction to include the reading of these

00:07:05.500 storybooks. And that's not compelled as a matter of Maryland state law. The Maryland state... It's not

00:07:09.040 compelled as a matter of state law, but why should it not be compelled as a matter of the free exercise

00:07:14.600 clause of the First Amendment? There's nothing... What is infeasible about doing that? So again, I think

00:07:21.080 the experience of the schools with respect to these five books showed that it was infeasible. And let me

00:07:25.040 give you an example. Let's say the school, an exquisitely competent and well-resourced school, is able to say

00:07:30.960 on Tuesday at nine o'clock, we're going to read Uncle Bobby's Wedding. We're going to make arrangements

00:07:34.580 for alternative space. We're going to give suitable supervision for our six-year-olds. And we're going

00:07:40.020 to give them an alternative assignment that accomplishes the same ELA goals. Let's say that

00:07:44.420 happens, right? That they were able to pull off. The next week, someone says, that was my favorite

00:07:50.260 book ever. I'm going to pull it off the shelf, and I'm going to ask Alan to sit down and read it

00:07:53.700 with me. What happens then? The teacher can't simply summon a librarian to come to the school, say,

00:07:59.380 those were the kids who opted out of that lesson. Well, I don't think you're really answering my

00:08:03.220 question. Why can't this all be put? We're going to read Uncle Bobby's Wedding and these other books,

00:08:08.500 but we're going to read it during a period of time that includes the health class. And

00:08:14.420 children are already able to opt out of that, so they can opt out of reading these books.

00:08:18.900 I think there's no constitutional obligation to treat these books that introduce people to LGBT

00:08:23.220 characters in a curriculum that is meant to teach about different matters.

00:08:26.980 I'm not understanding why it's not feasible.

00:08:32.100 OK, so as best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that because students

00:08:37.300 might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum,

00:08:41.380 it's therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words,

00:08:45.860 whether or not students opt out, there's a chance that they'll hear about the materials that are

00:08:48.980 discussed in these gay adventure books or whatever it is. But this ignores a couple of obvious points.

00:08:54.420 The big one is that when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect

00:08:59.620 as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever.

00:09:03.860 The teacher is in a position of authority. It's much easier for a five-year-old to discount

00:09:07.860 something another five-year-old says than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher

00:09:12.340 he's told to trust. And anyway, if this is an argument for anything, it's an argument for not

00:09:16.740 having these materials in the schools to begin with, which of course is the correct answer. But either

00:09:21.780 the way, it's not an argument against allowing parents stopped out. The lawyer for the school

00:09:25.620 district knows this, but again, he can't admit it. So he ends up confusing everybody in the room

00:09:30.660 with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. The whole thing

00:09:34.420 was just a disaster for the side that is against parental rights. So listen to this moment where

00:09:41.780 Justice Gorsuch points out that in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students

00:09:48.660 who dare to suggest that men can't become women. And then Gorsuch asks the lawyer from Montgomery

00:09:54.660 County whether this could constitute coercion. The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that,

00:09:59.940 here's the gibberish that the attorney comes back with. I have a slightly different question.

00:10:07.540 And you say this is only about exposure, but we also have in the record some guidance materials

00:10:14.260 for teachers. And one of which is if the student says that a boy can't be a girl because he was born

00:10:21.460 a boy, the teachers to respond, that comment is hurtful and we shouldn't use negative words to talk

00:10:26.980 about people's identities. Is that just, is that exposure or is that something else for a three to five

00:10:35.380 year old? So two points on that, Your Honor. The first is that the record is seriously underdeveloped on

00:10:40.820 whether and how these support materials are used. These were recommended potential answers for

00:10:47.620 questions that students might pose. There's nothing in the record about whether any teacher.

00:10:51.460 Let's say a teacher does as instructed though and uses that. Is that exposure or is that coercion in

00:10:58.500 your world? I think that as Your Honor has recited it, it is exposure to particular ideas and teaching

00:11:03.620 students to be civil in the classroom. There are certainly circumstances where use of that script in a

00:11:09.300 particular context could give rise to a claim of coercion.

00:11:15.140 So Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says a boy can't be a girl. And then the

00:11:19.620 lawyer states that it's not coercive in any way for the teacher to correct the student's comment

00:11:24.980 in front of the entire class. And then he kind of changed his mind, I guess, and says the opposite.

00:11:30.340 And even when he's not contradicting himself, the school district's lawyer managed to make a mockery

00:11:35.220 of the entire case. Here's his opening statement, for example. Listen to this.

00:11:38.820 Mr. Schoenfeld. Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. Every day in public elementary

00:11:45.540 school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their family's

00:11:49.620 religious beliefs. Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work

00:11:54.500 outside the home. Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars.

00:11:59.940 And children in Montgomery County read books introducing them to LGBT characters. Each of these

00:12:05.060 things is deeply offensive to some people of faiths, but learning about them is not a legally cognizable

00:12:10.180 burden on free exercise. So yes, according to this district, this attorney for the school district,

00:12:17.540 there's no difference between teaching elementary school students about wars and teaching them that

00:12:23.620 boys can become girls. You know, telling students about the war of 1812 is just like telling them that it's

00:12:31.060 totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors. Now, one of the ways we know that this isn't true,

00:12:37.140 aside from using basic common sense and just being sane, reasonable people, is that there's no army of

00:12:43.380 parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. I mean, he says there that all these things

00:12:48.420 are objectionable to some group of parents. No, no parents are objecting to kids learning about wars in

00:12:53.460 school. It's understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence.

00:12:58.980 Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it's grounded in

00:13:05.700 reality. It is reality. It's what happened in the past. That's history. On the other hand, gender ideology

00:13:11.140 is not reality. It is just that. It is ideological. Now, as entertaining as it would be to just rip apart the

00:13:18.920 school district's dumb arguments for the next hour, I do have to pause here for a moment and acknowledge that this

00:13:23.760 this lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That's a given. After all,

00:13:28.640 Kentonji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you'd expect, she did not

00:13:32.880 disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points just

00:13:37.840 by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children

00:13:41.400 because she takes the left's position on every issue. Behold, Kentonji Brown Jackson's argument

00:13:46.620 in favor of mandatory LGBT indoctrination in public schools. Listen.

00:13:52.500 That the parent can choose to put their kid elsewhere. That you don't have to send your kid

00:13:59.300 to public school. In that situation, I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's

00:14:05.560 religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with. You have a choice.

00:14:12.420 You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation. You can

00:14:17.160 homeschool them. How is it a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kids elsewhere?

00:14:23.600 Well, Your Honor, the world we live in in this case is that most parents don't have that option.

00:14:27.500 They have two working parents. They can't afford in a private school. Yes, as a matter of practicality,

00:14:30.660 absolutely. And that's the reality for our parents. I understand. But in so many other

00:14:34.020 constitutional doctrines, we don't focus on whether people actually can afford to protect their

00:14:39.320 rights. Well, here they're forced to pay for the public. No, I understand. But usually we set

00:14:44.100 aside and we say, but you still have the right to get an attorney in a civil case, even if you can't

00:14:49.440 afford it. Right. So we don't focus on whether or not they can actually do it. They have an option.

00:14:55.360 And what I guess I'm worried about is a world in which when there is an option to send your kids

00:15:00.600 somewhere else, it seems to me that these parents would be dictating what this school does

00:15:06.020 in the way that you say our cases say they can't do. Right. And Carson versus Fulton,

00:15:10.800 this court never required coercion. The parents were already paying tuition to go to the school

00:15:14.040 in, in, in, uh, in, in all those cases, Lukumi, the schools didn't really need tires. They weren't

00:15:20.400 being coerced to do anything. This court has always sent Sherbert, Adele Sherbert, Thomas,

00:15:24.180 they weren't being coerced to do anything. They just were being pressured to violate the religious

00:15:27.900 beliefs in order to access the benefit that's much less value than education. Thank you, counsel.

00:15:32.580 So there you go. You can homeschool says Cantanja Brown Jackson, you can pay for an expensive

00:15:39.220 private school. Therefore there's no burden on these parents. Apparently it's not a burden

00:15:43.240 to have to take your child out of the school. He's in pay a lot more money, uh, change a child's school

00:15:50.060 or homeschool because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. There's no burden there.

00:15:55.060 She says, and the lawyer representing the parents responds and points out that she's completely

00:15:59.720 wrong. And in many other cases demonstrate why she's wrong. Like, obviously it's a burden to have

00:16:04.700 to change your child, where your child goes to school. Uh, and then she goes quiet and they just

00:16:10.360 move on. And we'll play one more clip from these arguments involving a justice Alito questioning the

00:16:15.620 school board's lawyer. He follows up on this logic about how the parents can supposedly just go to a

00:16:20.820 private school. And he begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents. Here it is.

00:16:28.080 We pay taxes to support the public schools, but, uh, we don't have enough money to send our children

00:16:36.300 to private schools. And one of us can't stay home and provide homeschooling. So, uh, we just want to be

00:16:46.400 able to take our children out of the part of the instruction that we find objectionable. And what's

00:16:53.960 your response to that? Your response to that is just, well, it's too bad. All right. This is the

00:16:59.540 public school and the public school can teach what the public school wants. And, uh, you don't like that.

00:17:05.660 Well, you can take your, you can send your children to private schools. There's no indifference to the

00:17:11.720 religious beliefs of the petitioners. In this case, the school did what it could to accommodate those

00:17:15.980 use. There are simply, um, circumstances in which what the petitioner or what any plaintiff

00:17:21.780 recognizes that a burden on their religious belief is not a legally cognizable one given legal and

00:17:26.460 practical. Well, it's nice that you say that they respect the parents religious beliefs, but basically your

00:17:31.580 answer is it's just too bad. I think my answer. You've got to send your school, your children to

00:17:36.540 school. You can't afford to send them to any place except a public school. Unlike, you know, most of

00:17:41.300 the lawyers who argue cases here, they can send their children to, to private schools. We may think

00:17:47.200 that that's the way most of the world is, but it's not. It's just too bad. So your answer to the

00:17:51.980 parents that I, uh, I talked about, which are real parents here is just, well, if you, you don't like

00:17:57.480 this, uh, you got to get involved in politics and, uh, run for the school board and change it through

00:18:03.640 politics. But basically the public schools can do pretty much whatever they think is correct as far

00:18:09.000 as the curriculum is concerned. So this is what it sounds like in a Supreme Court when, uh, sparks fly,

00:18:16.620 so to speak. Uh, Alito's making his disdain for the school district's argument extremely clear, which

00:18:21.800 is exactly what he should do. They're trying to force feed gender ideology to children. And instead of

00:18:27.000 owning it, they're lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that

00:18:31.260 won't interfere with their religious liberties and not just their religious liberties, by the way,

00:18:35.580 it's also, this is also a parent's understanding of basic reality. You know, the fact that,

00:18:40.960 that boys can't become girls is, uh, not just a matter of Christian faith. Uh, it's also just a

00:18:48.360 fact as well. And anyway, this is not how the constitution works. And, and it appears the Montgomery

00:18:53.460 school district and school districts all over the country are about to discover that.

00:18:57.000 I mean, this is not a close case. That's why even the far left outlet Vox reported quote,

00:19:01.840 the Supreme courts don't say gay arguments when disastrously for public schools at the moment,

00:19:07.400 the most likely outcome is that when very young children are involved, parents will retain the

00:19:11.980 right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology or any other extreme ideology that conflicts

00:19:17.300 with our established religion. Um, everyone can see this coming at the moment. And just under,

00:19:21.960 underscore that yesterday, Randy Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers unions in the

00:19:26.060 country went on Fox news and she admitted right away that she would not read these kinds of books

00:19:31.900 in the classroom. Watch community. So you believe though, that there's a, you know, that there's an

00:19:38.140 appropriate age to have a discussion. These are four to six year olds and they're being read. And this

00:19:43.660 is out loud in the classroom, not just, Oh, this is a book on the shelf in the library. If there's a

00:19:48.280 particular child that, you know, you might want to read this with, but you know, just as an example,

00:19:53.340 my pronouns are like the weather, they change depending on how I feel. And that's okay because

00:19:57.580 they're my words. Sometimes I use all the pronouns I can think of just as one example here.

00:20:02.780 Let me put it, let me put it this way. Go ahead, Martha. And I think that this will be shocking to

00:20:08.780 you. It, these would not be the books I would be reading as a classroom teacher to kids who are four

00:20:16.220 to six years old. And, and I say this, I went through the New York city public school system.

00:20:21.980 I was a teacher during Heather has, when we had the big issue around Heather has two mommies.

00:20:27.500 And I think when you don't actually make sure that things are age appropriate and we don't actually

00:20:33.580 have sufficient conversations with teachers and parents in terms of how we accept differences,

00:20:41.980 then you have situations like this right now.

00:20:47.340 Now, we all know that Randy Weingarten isn't saying this because she believes it. She's maybe

00:20:51.740 the most calculating political operative in the country after Nancy Pelosi. But Randy Weingarten

00:20:57.420 understands when the left is overplaying its hands, she knows that they're on the cusp of yet another

00:21:02.140 crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children. And she's trying to soften that blow and

00:21:07.020 inevitably comes. Unfortunately for Randy Weingarten, the truth is there's no way to

00:21:11.500 accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we've discussed many times,

00:21:15.580 are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country to the point that they may

00:21:19.820 have cost Democrats the last election. The only way that an ideology like this can survive is by

00:21:25.260 targeting children before they're able to develop their cognitive abilities. That's their only viable

00:21:30.620 play. And in a few short months after this case is inevitably decided against the public

00:21:35.340 school system of Montgomery County, it'll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

00:21:41.900 Now let's get to our five headlines.

00:21:49.260 Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona,

00:21:52.780 believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life,

00:21:56.540 liberty, the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts

00:22:01.260 with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing,

00:22:05.260 and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career

00:22:09.900 calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by

00:22:14.300 putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's,

00:22:18.940 master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to

00:22:24.540 help you achieve your unique academic and personal and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs,

00:22:30.940 as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides you a path to help you fulfill your

00:22:36.460 dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon

00:22:41.980 University, private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. The New York Post reports a progressive

00:22:48.780 district attorney has declined to charge the state employee in Tim Wallsled, Minnesota, who was

00:22:53.340 allegedly caught causing $20,000 worth of damage by vandalizing half a dozen Teslas,

00:22:58.780 a decision the local police chief ripped as the latest betrayal of victims. The suspected vandal,

00:23:05.580 33-year-old Minnesota government employee Dylan Bryan Adams, was allegedly spotted keying the vehicles

00:23:10.940 and stripping their paint off while out walking his dog around the city. Despite what police believe

00:23:16.140 to be evidence of Adams' kid admitting felonies, Hennepin County District Attorney Mary Moriarty

00:23:20.300 will seek diversion rather than criminal charges. The attorney's office said, quote,

00:23:25.260 this is an approach taken in many property crime cases and helps to ensure the individual keeps their

00:23:29.340 job and can pay restitution, as well as reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses.

00:23:35.900 So they are going to charge this person with a crime. And this is, you know, you'll see some

00:23:41.340 people arguing that, well, for a first-time offense, you know, this is common. Except that this is not

00:23:47.500 one offense. He did it six times. So this is the DA saying, uh, well, we'll give you the first six for

00:23:55.420 free. And, but if you do it a seventh time, number seven, mister, then you're going to be in trouble.

00:24:01.020 Okay. We'll let you vandalize six cars, but, but seven. Now that's a, that that'll be a problem.

00:24:06.140 And the really outrageous thing is that they don't even have the usual kind of bleeding heart liberal

00:24:10.700 excuse. They can't say, oh, this is a wayward youth. This is a young person victimized by the system.

00:24:15.740 We got to give them a second chance. Now this is a 33 year old government employee.

00:24:22.060 He's even a white male, if you can believe it. So I guess we figured out if you're,

00:24:26.220 if you're a white male and you want to woke DA to let you off the hook for a crime,

00:24:29.820 uh, this is the crime you need to commit is vandalizing a Tesla. Now, meanwhile, the media

00:24:35.260 are, uh, as this is going on, the media are gloating today because of reports that Tesla's profits

00:24:40.540 are down 71% this quarter. And listen to how USA today reports on this quote, Tesla CEO Elon Musk

00:24:47.580 said that he would soon be spending less time with the Trump administration after first quarter

00:24:51.820 earnings fell short of expectations. Net income for the quarter was down 71% after a decline in

00:24:58.060 vehicle deliveries with Tesla battling a growing competition from foreign brands, shifting trade

00:25:04.140 policies and growing backlash to the brand after Musk aligned himself with the Trump administration.

00:25:08.460 So, you know, they blame competition, uh, tariffs backlash to the brand. And this is what you'll

00:25:16.780 see in every article on this topic. What, what they don't do is specify what they mean by backlash.

00:25:24.380 You know, Tesla profits are not down because of a boycott. They're down because of a coordinated

00:25:32.380 nationwide campaign of violence against Tesla cars and Tesla owners. They're down because they're down

00:25:39.100 because, because people don't want to buy the car because they don't want to, uh, they don't want to end up

00:25:44.300 being a, you know, a, a target for criminal activity. Um, this is a conspiracy to sink Tesla through

00:25:55.100 targeted acts of violence and it's working so far. It's a conspiracy that involves Democrat politicians

00:26:04.700 who are encouraging and inciting it involves district attorneys that like this one in Minnesota that will

00:26:09.900 refuse to pursue criminal charges against anybody who vandalizes a Tesla. Um, I mean, this, this DA has

00:26:15.420 just very deliberately and explicitly given an open invitation for anyone in her district to attack and

00:26:20.700 vandalize Teslas. That's why profits are down. And we've really never seen anything like this. I'm

00:26:27.580 trying to think of a, of anything of a, uh, any kind of analogy, but in memory, there's not been anything

00:26:35.100 like this, this effort to take down a company, not through boycotts. We've seen that, but doing

00:26:42.300 it by targeting and victimizing the customers, trying to destroy the company by making people

00:26:47.820 afraid to buy the product that is unprecedented. I cannot think of another example of this in re

00:26:54.300 and certainly in recent history. And this is also, again, the difference between, uh, you know,

00:27:00.300 one of the fundamental core differences between the left and the right, because when it comes down to it,

00:27:04.860 the right will always operate inside the bounds of the law. Um, just, you know, just, of course,

00:27:10.940 despite what we hear from the media about how conservatives are, you know, uh, are, um,

00:27:18.060 and Trump in particular are lawless and all this kind of thing. That's, that's not the case at all.

00:27:23.740 The right will operate inside the bounds of the law. The right respects the law, believes in law and order

00:27:29.740 as we should, but the left does not. And they will use violence and criminality to bring about whatever

00:27:35.820 end they desire. This, this is the disadvantage that we have. I mean, if we had, if it, we could take down

00:27:46.220 any company that we wanted, we could sink any of these woke companies that we want. It doesn't matter

00:27:53.420 how big they are. If we were willing to do this, if we were willing to use violence and intimidation,

00:27:59.340 the way the left does, we could sink any company. And I'm not advocating that by the way,

00:28:06.060 because we can't do that. Even if we wanted to, I mean, first of all, it's morally wrong,

00:28:10.460 but second, we don't have the DAs in our back pocket. So if we were to go out and start vandalizing

00:28:16.860 stores that carry Bud Light, for example, then every DA in the country would be ready to charge

00:28:23.340 us with every crime they possibly could. Culprits would, would not be doing months in jail. They'd

00:28:30.140 be doing years in jail. So aside from the moral problems with that kind of approach, it would also

00:28:35.980 just be suicidal, right? So in the end, it wouldn't work because I say it would work if the right was

00:28:44.940 willing to do the same thing and would be allowed to do it by the system, but we would not be allowed

00:28:51.580 to do it. We would, you know, you'd find people being sent to prison and that'd be the end of it.

00:28:57.240 And that's why, as we all know, the left engages in, you know, engages in rioting all the time.

00:29:02.760 Rioting is a left-wing activity, almost exclusively. But the one time that some right-wingers did it on

00:29:08.460 January 6th, they were all hunted down one by one and thrown in prison. And that's the system saying,

00:29:13.200 well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You guys can't do it. This is not for you.

00:29:17.200 You're not allowed to do this. This is, this is our thing. And the same would happen if we tried

00:29:21.720 to pull a Tesla on any brand that we didn't like. So, you know, then, then what do we do about it?

00:29:28.060 Well, fortunately, conservatives have the DOJ or are supposed to have it, should have it.

00:29:35.980 So the DOJ needs to get involved. I don't mean talk about getting involved, but actually get

00:29:42.860 involved. We cannot just allow the left to use this tactic of widespread criminal activity to

00:29:49.660 destroy what was once the most profitable company on the planet. I mean, it's, it's not like this is

00:29:55.180 some rinky dink mom and pop shop that they're doing this against. They're doing this against

00:30:03.240 Tesla. And if they get away with it, we will have a monster on our hands that we won't be able to

00:30:10.000 contain. If they actually succeed in destroying Tesla using this strategy, this strategy of crime

00:30:14.860 and violence, then they'll be able to use that same strategy to destroy any other organization or

00:30:20.180 company that they want. If they can do it to Tesla, they can do it to anyone.

00:30:25.180 So it cannot be allowed. The DOJ has to put a stop to it, has to start prosecuting,

00:30:31.140 not just the people doing it, but the people encouraging it and organizing it has to start

00:30:35.400 making examples out of people, which we still have not seen. We've heard talk of it. We have not

00:30:41.060 seen who, who is the, yeah, there've been some prosecutions here and there, but who, what is the

00:30:46.720 case that we can point to where, okay, we're making an example out of this person and who is it?

00:30:55.180 The only examples that we're getting are on the other end.

00:31:01.060 The examples and the precedents that are being set are that, you know, well, you can do this.

00:31:06.320 Hey, every leftist can at least go out once and key a few Teslas and you'll get away with at least

00:31:11.400 the first time. That's the, that's the example and the precedent that's being set.

00:31:16.280 Okay. The Trump administration is considering a plan to reverse the decline in the birth rate.

00:31:20.440 And before we get to the plan, we should establish that yes, birth rates are declining at a record

00:31:25.020 pace. It is a major crisis. Speaking of Elon Musk, he's been talking about this of course for a long

00:31:30.920 time. He issued a dire warning during an interview recently. I think this was on Fox News a couple of

00:31:36.740 weeks ago, but listen to this.

00:31:38.400 The birth rate is very low in almost every country. And unless that changes, civilization will disappear.

00:31:48.580 America had the lowest birth rate, I believe, ever. That was last year. Places like Korea,

00:31:53.680 the birth rate is one third replacement rate. So that means in three generations, Korea will be

00:31:58.440 three or four percent of its current size. And nothing seems to be turning that around. Humanity is

00:32:04.340 dying. And people, it's, it's just not something we evolved to react to. And I, I mean, I worry generally

00:32:16.560 about the, uh, the strength of America. You know, America is the central column that holds up, holds up

00:32:29.880 all of Western civilization. So if you like, if we've got the temple of Western civilization, America is the

00:32:36.320 central column. If that column fails, it's all over. You can't run off to New Zealand or some other place.

00:32:42.740 It's, it's, it's over. So either we strengthen that column and make sure America is, is strong

00:32:48.740 and will be strong for a long time or, or, or, well, that roof's coming down.

00:32:56.560 Well, he's exactly right. It may, it may sound dramatic or overblown to say that humanity is

00:33:00.700 dying, but, but it is, it actually is. I mean, the birth rate, um, hit a record low in 2023 in the U.S.

00:33:08.140 The birth rate was 55 births, uh, per 1000 women, ages 15 to 44, which is how they count the birth

00:33:18.960 rate, uh, which is the lowest in history. And just to give you an idea, because these numbers can

00:33:26.220 sound kind of meaningless if you have nothing to compare it to. It's kind of hard. It's that's,

00:33:29.920 maybe one of the reasons why people are whistling past the graveyard on this thing is like, it's hard

00:33:33.300 to conceptualize what is a high birth rate, what's a low birth rate. So for comparison, um, the most,

00:33:40.320 the most recent birth rate we have data for in 2023 was 55 births per 1000 women in 1950, for example,

00:33:48.760 it was 106 births per 1000 women. Okay. In 1850, we don't have exact data for this, but this is

00:33:57.540 estimated. It's estimated that the general birth rate was upwards of 300 births per 1000 women.

00:34:04.120 So follow the trends here. The birth rate was cut to a third from 1850 to, um, 1950 and then halved

00:34:10.840 again from 1950 to now. The birth rate is so low now that our general birth rate today is about equal

00:34:19.860 to the, what they call the crude birth rate in 1850. The crude birth rate is the number of births per

00:34:25.920 1000 people, not just 1000 women of childbearing age, but per 1000 people. So in 1850, the number

00:34:33.020 of births per 1000 people was about 45 and now it's 55 per 1000 women. Okay. So it's, it's, um,

00:34:42.660 this is a, a catastrophic decline, uh, in a, in a relatively short amount of time. In fact,

00:34:50.340 the only group of people that the only group of women that, that have, have, have seen stable or

00:34:56.220 even increasing birth rates is the over 40 bracket. So women over 40 are having more babies.

00:35:04.300 Everyone else is having fewer, a lot fewer, a lot fewer. So the age group where there's an increased

00:35:12.060 risk of pregnancy complications, increased risk of stillbirth, of miscarriage, of preeclampsia,

00:35:16.780 of all kinds of problems with the baby. Uh, you know, your chance of having a baby with down

00:35:21.420 syndrome is about one in 1200. If you have a baby at 25 at 40, it's one in 100. Okay. So we're talking

00:35:29.540 about drastically higher risks pretty much across the board for the mother and the baby. And yet that

00:35:36.480 is the one age group that we've decided should definitely still be having a lot of babies. I mean,

00:35:42.480 previous generations. So the way it would work in previous generations is that women would, would

00:35:47.740 sort of be, uh, stop having babies around 40, or at least they'd be on kind of the tail end of their,

00:35:54.400 this is, this is when, uh, once you get to 40 into your forties, you have, not only have you had a bunch

00:36:00.280 of kids already, but your kids are, you know, you've got kids that are getting ready to move out of the

00:36:04.860 house, um, or already have. So previous generations stop having babies around 40. Uh, now,

00:36:12.480 that's when we start. And that's just insane. It is insane way of trying to maintain a civilization.

00:36:18.840 It, it, it, you, it doesn't work this way. You can't do it this way at scale. Okay. So now there's

00:36:26.560 always going to be exceptions. You could always, Oh, I know someone who's that they had a baby when

00:36:30.540 they were 42. Uh, okay. But at scale at a civilizational level, we, you cannot do it this

00:36:38.040 way. It does not work. So in other words, this is a crisis. It's a major problem. If the survival

00:36:44.660 of our species is important to you, then you should care about this. I mean, it matters a lot.

00:36:52.300 So here's Trump's idea to help reverse the trend. New York post reports,

00:36:55.960 president Trump endorsed giving new mothers a financial award on Tuesday after a report service

00:37:00.320 that the white house was considering handing out up to $5,000 per delivery to reverse the decline

00:37:06.340 in us birth rates. Sounds like a good idea to me. Trump told the post in the Oval Office when asked

00:37:11.240 about the reported cash incentive to get more Americans to have kids, the administration's

00:37:15.000 deliberations over the so-called baby bonus were first reported Monday by the New York times.

00:37:19.840 One plan would give a $5,000 incentive to new moms while another would give, would see that 30%

00:37:24.780 of all Fulbright scholarships be given to applicants who are married or have children.

00:37:30.920 Okay. Now I think this is a great idea. I mean, I'm very much in favor of almost any plan to

00:37:35.360 incentivize people to have kids and start families. The only stipulation I would make

00:37:39.680 and, and, um, that these plans should make is that whatever the reward is, you only get it if

00:37:46.740 you're married. Okay. We don't want to incentivize single motherhood. It's, it's not as simple as we

00:37:51.440 need people to have more kids. Um, yes, we need people to have more kids, but in a certain context,

00:37:56.380 if the goal is to maintain support and protect, uh, human civilization, then yeah, I mean, step one,

00:38:09.860 you need more people. You need, you need the people who are here to create more people. That's how it

00:38:13.880 works. But then as part of that, it's not even like step two, as part of step one, the, the, the new

00:38:19.900 people who are born need to be born into a certain context. And that context needs to be, uh, the family,

00:38:24.600 a stable nuclear family. So we don't want to incentivize single motherhood. We don't want to

00:38:30.480 give, you know, a woman who already has three baby daddies and incentive to go out and find three

00:38:34.740 more. So it should be $5,000 per delivery. If you are married, only if you're married, they get 10,000.

00:38:41.220 And if you're, and if we are whittling down the pool a bit like that, then, uh, make it $10,000 per

00:38:45.660 delivery, they get 20,000. Okay. And make it retroactive so that I can collect my, uh, 60 grand. If

00:38:53.020 we're doing $10,000 per delivery. So there's, there's a lot that can be done here. How about

00:38:57.720 this? Here's a plan. I like no income tax for married couples with kids under 18. Now,

00:39:06.700 as you know, I'd like to see the tax income tax abolished entirely across the board for

00:39:10.280 everyone. But if that isn't going to happen, which it almost certainly isn't, then why not

00:39:14.800 this abolish the income tax for all families that feature married parents with kids under 18.

00:39:21.180 That would be the ultimate incentive. I mean, now you want to talk about an incentive

00:39:27.000 if you don't have kids. So if you have kids under 18 and you're married, you have, there's zero income

00:39:33.860 tax, uh, zero federal income tax. Uh, if you don't have kids and you're married, you still have to

00:39:40.240 pay. If you have kids, but you're unmarried or divorced, sorry, you still have to pay. And people

00:39:45.940 will say that that's unfair. It's preferential treatment. And they're right. It is preferential.

00:39:50.140 It should be, we need to start giving preferential treatment to married couples who have children.

00:39:55.340 We should give them preferential treatment because we should prefer them. We should prefer them.

00:40:01.360 We don't prefer couples that decide not to have kids. You're willingly contributing to the extinction

00:40:05.760 of our species. If anything, you should be taxed more. I mean, raise the income tax to 80% for couples

00:40:11.600 who choose not to have kids. I mean, you have to verify somehow that it's a choice and not a medical

00:40:15.000 issue. So that'd be a little bit difficult, but either way, they shouldn't get this reward.

00:40:19.900 And if you're divorced or never married and you have kids again, we don't, we don't,

00:40:23.340 we don't prefer that. Let's say you don't get the preferential treatment because as a society,

00:40:27.080 we, that's not the arrangement that we prefer. And even if you're divorced or, or, uh, you know,

00:40:33.600 unmarried with kids, you should agree with this. You should say, yeah, it's unfortunate. I'm in this

00:40:38.880 spot, but yeah, of course we don't prefer this. This is not what we should prefer as a society.

00:40:43.340 We should prefer that people are not in the spot that I'm in. That's what you should be saying.

00:40:48.320 Because as a society, that kind of arrangement does not benefit us. It actually harms us.

00:40:53.900 So society benefits from married couples having kids. It does not benefit from really any other

00:41:02.900 arrangement. And we need to start just lavishing rewards and benefits on the people who are doing

00:41:12.240 the thing that sustains, uh, civilization and ensures that it thrives. Just shower them with

00:41:21.580 privileges that nobody else gets. And I know it's, you know, I'm, I'm a bit biased because I'm part of

00:41:29.600 this group that would be getting all these privileges, but I'm not saying it just for that

00:41:33.580 reason. I'm saying it because we, as the, uh, married couples that have kids, we are the future

00:41:42.040 of the species. Like we are the future. We are carrying the entire weight of civilization on our

00:41:48.540 backs. It's, it's completely down to us. And, um, and so, yeah, it's anything that can be done to make

00:41:57.760 it easier on that group should be done. And, um, and I, I think this plan from Trump is just the

00:42:03.980 beginning, but, uh, there's certainly a lot more that could be done with the uncertainty surrounding

00:42:09.000 tariffs. Families across the country are potentially facing another wave of price increases at the

00:42:13.240 grocery store, but there's good news. Good ranchers.com is completely tariff proof. Thanks

00:42:18.660 to their 100% American supply chain. You'll get stable prices for high quality meat grown right here

00:42:24.520 in the USA without worrying about tariff related price hikes. The average family throws away $500

00:42:29.220 worth of meat and seafood every year. Well, good ranchers helps you avoid this waste with their

00:42:34.240 vacuum sealed individually wrapped cuts that stay fresh for a year in your freezer. Plus their cuts

00:42:39.380 are pre-trimmed by professional butchers, meaning you only pay for meat that you'll actually eat. No

00:42:43.580 more trimming 10% off before cooking. You get more value with every bite. I've tried many of their steaks

00:42:49.080 and other choices, and they are quite possibly the most tender, tasteful, clean protein options I've ever

00:42:53.420 had. And the convenience of delivery to my door makes them, uh, all the more, uh, that much better

00:42:58.900 as well. Here's an amazing offer. Visit good ranchers.com, uh, right now and use my code

00:43:03.560 Walsh to get $40 off your order. Plus free meat for life. When you subscribe, choose free ground beef,

00:43:10.580 uh, wild caught salmon, seed oil, free chicken nuggets, or bacon in every box forever. That's $300

00:43:16.360 of free meat every year for as long as you stay subscribed in a world of constant change. Your

00:43:21.860 mealtime can stay consistent and affordable. Visit good ranchers.com today and use code

00:43:27.440 Walsh for $40 off and free meat for life. Good ranchers, American meat delivered.

00:43:33.220 If you're listening to this, you're probably tired of being lied to. Well, so are we. That's

00:43:37.260 why the Daily Wire exists. We don't wait for permission to bring you the facts. We're here

00:43:41.320 to challenge legacy media every day. We make the kinds of movies others won't. We investigate

00:43:46.220 the stories they bury, and we tell the truth even when it costs us. This only works because

00:43:51.240 our members have our back when it matters most. Join us now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:43:57.700 Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

00:44:05.340 For our daily cancellation today, we once again have to, uh, deal with Republican representative

00:44:10.280 Nancy Mace. Nancy was canceled during the segment a few months ago. You may recall for, uh, for two

00:44:16.440 reasons primarily. For one thing, she constantly pretends that she's leading the fight against

00:44:20.740 gender ideology, even though up until a year ago, she was going around talking about how

00:44:24.240 important trans rights are to her. And she came to this issue very, very late, which I

00:44:30.300 wouldn't hold against her if not for the fact that she is so obsessed with taking credit for

00:44:34.200 work she did not do. And second, she was canceled for, uh, after coming late to this issue,

00:44:39.480 trying to give the anti-gender ideology argument, a feminist framing. And Nancy Mace always brags

00:44:45.120 about being the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, as if that somehow

00:44:48.700 gives her more credibility in the fight against the trans agenda. But the truth is that Mace started

00:44:53.100 invading male spaces long before men started invading female spaces. She helped set the stage

00:44:58.040 for the erasure of gender lines and gender distinctions. As a feminist, she is part of the movement

00:45:02.480 that built the framework for the trans agenda. In fact, Nancy Mace is not just part of the

00:45:08.600 feminist movement. She is in fact, the most hyper and obnoxiously feminist politician on the national

00:45:14.760 stage, even more than AOC or Jasmine Crockett or any of the usual suspects. Nancy Mace's feminist

00:45:20.420 histrionics trounce all of them, which brings us to the latest incident involving the Congresswoman.

00:45:27.320 Mace has spent the past four days on, on the interview circuit and on X incessantly talking about an

00:45:32.500 interaction that she had with a constituent while she was out shopping over the weekend. And Mace posted

00:45:37.820 this video on Saturday and has spent the week talking almost exclusively about this. This has

00:45:43.280 been, you know, she's not focused on matters of national importance or matters that actually matter

00:45:47.500 are important to her constituents. She's instead focused on this viral video. Um, now in the caption

00:45:55.140 to the video posted to X, she says that she was accosted by an quote, unhinged lunatic. She then bragged

00:46:02.800 that in the face of this grave threat, she held the line and refused to back down. Now, as I said,

00:46:08.640 she has spent the majority of the week bragging about the incredible courage that she displayed in

00:46:12.360 the face of this very intimidating man who was, as she claims, getting in her face and invading her

00:46:17.740 space at the store. So let's now watch the video and, uh, you can decide for yourself who is the

00:46:23.480 unhinged one in this interaction. And just for context, right before the video started, the man asked

00:46:29.300 Nancy Mace when she was going to do a town hall for her constituents. And this is how the

00:46:36.740 Congresswoman Nancy Mace responded. I do them. I do them every year. Every year. You want to keep

00:46:43.080 going? Do you want to keep going and keep harassing me? You could have gone to a dozen town halls last

00:46:48.480 year. I asked if you're doing any more this year. It was one simple question. Yeah. Are you doing

00:46:52.080 I've already done one? I'll do plenty more. Are you doing any more this year? It was a simple question. You're

00:46:55.540 always invited. Okay, sweet. And by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice. What does that have to do with me? So I'm

00:47:01.780 just saying it has to do everything to do with you. Do you think everything about me has to do with gay marriage? I do.

00:47:06.280 That's your first stance when you speak with me? Absolutely. There's no other humane conversation you can have about me.

00:47:09.560 If you want to get in my face about town halls, you should have shown up to one last year. There's no other humane thing you can

00:47:14.260 talk about me just saying, oh, I support gay marriage. Yeah. Because you're getting in my face

00:47:18.380 about a town hall. You could have gone last year. Would you like me? If you have any plans to have

00:47:23.580 more towns halls this year. I have town halls every year. I have over a dozen every year. Great. That was

00:47:27.580 my entire question. You didn't have to go to the spiel. You could have, you could have come to any of

00:47:31.880 them last year. I had over a dozen. Where were you the year before that? Or the year before that? Oh,

00:47:38.840 because you know what? Because you people on the left are crazy. So I'm absolutely crazy and get

00:47:45.720 out of my, get out of my face. Goodbye. I'm not. I won by so much. You're a disgrace. That's what you

00:47:57.320 are. You're a disgrace. I asked you a simple question and you just to go on this tirade and

00:48:01.220 tell me. Yeah. Get out of my face. Get out of my face. Try it. What's your name? What's your

00:48:08.420 name? What's your name? Yep. I sure did. Absolutely. Get out of my face. Now.

00:48:17.620 You couldn't take me on, baby. Say the way for me.

00:48:25.320 So to review and the, the, the, the censoring of the language in the video, they're kind of

00:48:30.840 obscured an important point here, but you can watch the original video that she posted on her proudly

00:48:35.860 on her, on her ex that the man was, was 10 feet away asking if Nancy Mace is going to do any town

00:48:41.380 halls. She responds by pulling out her phone, recording a video where through the whole

00:48:44.780 interaction, she is without question, the more aggressive and confrontational one.

00:48:48.580 Then she accused him of getting in her face, even though he's calmly standing 10 feet away.

00:48:52.480 And then she says, and this is the part you didn't hear there, F you, but she doesn't say F

00:48:56.360 to the guy. And just to be clear, this is a United States Congresswoman saying F you to her

00:49:02.980 constituent in public. It is just impossible that any reasonable person could watch that video and

00:49:09.180 come to the conclusion that the man was the one who acted inappropriately. Like, I don't believe

00:49:14.220 anyone. And there are plenty of people on, on X that are so, well, Nancy Mace, good for you.

00:49:18.960 I don't believe you. I don't think that you actually think that she was justified in that. I just

00:49:22.960 don't believe you. And by the way, lest you think that this is out of context and maybe this man

00:49:27.460 said or did something egregious in the lead up to the video, which still, by the way, wouldn't

00:49:31.160 justify Nancy Mace's response, but, uh, well, the guy was also recording apparently, and he released

00:49:36.000 the beginning of this interaction and there's about 30 seconds leading up to it. And it consists of him

00:49:41.000 asking from 10 feet away in the same measured tone when she's going to host a town hall. That's it.

00:49:46.480 That's the whole thing. So what you see in Nancy's video does accurately represent this man's

00:49:52.340 demeanor and tone throughout the entire interaction. So not only was Nancy clearly in the wrong,

00:49:57.280 but that was some of the most repugnant, unhinged, asinine, grotesque, stupid behavior I've ever seen

00:50:03.880 from a member of Congress. I mean, Nancy managed to make Jasmine Crockett look like a model of decorum

00:50:09.660 immaturity by comparison. If AOC did something like that, we would ruthlessly excoriate her for it.

00:50:17.580 But the truth is that as bad as AOC is, she's not nearly shameless and obnoxious enough to say

00:50:22.980 F you to her own constituent because he asked about a town hall. Only Nancy Mace stoops to this level

00:50:29.400 in her obsessive, never ending quest to get attention. And that quest continued a few days

00:50:34.600 later on Fox news. Here she is talking to, and by the way, she did a bunch of interviews about this.

00:50:39.940 This is all she's talking about this week. All she ever talks about is herself. That's the only thing

00:50:43.920 she cares about. The only thing she ever talks about. Uh, and this week it's all about her,

00:50:48.320 you know, this, this is the, cause she's the main character of, of America. And this is the,

00:50:53.040 so this is the, the, the, the, uh, this episode is all about, is all about this thing at the store.

00:50:58.700 So here she is talking to Sean Hannity and listen to the way that this woman describes the incident

00:51:04.100 that we all just watched. Listen, I just wanted some face wash. That was it. I went to the store.

00:51:11.740 Uh, I had a little bit of time to myself on Saturday afternoon, want to go shopping. Like

00:51:16.460 I do. I'm a normal person. I do my own grocery shopping and this guy approached me and I will

00:51:22.400 tell you, I felt threatened. I felt harassed. And I will tell you as someone who's experienced,

00:51:27.060 um, trauma in her life. And a lot of women will understand what I'm talking about. When some guy,

00:51:32.720 when gets in your face and approaches you in the aggressive manner that he did,

00:51:38.520 and you feel like you're in danger instinctively as women who've been through trauma, who've survived

00:51:46.400 sexual assault, survived domestic abuse, you have two options. You can fight or you can flee. And,

00:51:52.980 and Sean, I'm a fighter. Oh my gosh. So Nancy says she felt threatened, harassed, and in danger

00:52:03.260 because a man spoke to her in the face wash aisle at the grocery store. She says, and has repeated

00:52:09.620 this line frequently this week, that she says that her, her, her history of trauma causes her to react

00:52:15.540 this way. And if that's true, if she is so traumatized that she can't help, but lash out

00:52:19.280 belligerently at any man who attempts to speak to her in public, then she is not fit for public service.

00:52:25.000 Either her reaction was a program response that she can't help, that she can't help,

00:52:29.100 which I don't believe for a second, by the way, or it was a calculated attempt to go viral and get

00:52:33.440 attention by verbally abusing one of her constituents. In either case, she is not fit

00:52:37.660 for public service. If Nancy has experienced trauma in her life, I'm sorry for it. But if it

00:52:43.200 has made her emotionally unbalanced and unable to remain composed and dignified, even in the most

00:52:48.120 low stakes, low stress situation imaginable, then she is not suited to hold public office.

00:52:54.120 If she's acting belligerent just for attention, which I think is what's happening, and then using

00:52:58.700 trauma as an excuse after the fact, then she's even less suited. But whichever way you slice it,

00:53:03.600 you arrive at the same conclusion. And it gets even worse because yesterday she posted another tweet.

00:53:07.900 This one, like so many of her tweets, was accompanied by a picture of herself. This woman

00:53:11.500 posts more selfies in a day than I've posted in my entire life. But the selfie is the least of the

00:53:17.820 problems with this post. Here's what she wrote, quote,

00:53:19.680 If a woman feels unsafe, a real man backs off. He doesn't argue. He doesn't linger. He doesn't

00:53:25.680 force her to explain her fear. A real man respects her and walks away. Real men protect women. Hold

00:53:32.120 the line. Now, hold the line, of course, is the slogan that she's adopted because Nancy bravely held

00:53:38.740 the line on transgenderism starting in the year 2024. She held the line by belatedly and cautiously

00:53:45.540 stepping up to the line that had already been held for years by people who have far more moral and

00:53:50.940 intellectual courage than she does. In any case, by the way, Nancy Mace has never held the line on

00:53:56.660 any issue ever. Okay. A year after George Floyd, she was still claiming that he was horrifically

00:54:02.160 murdered. A year later. Okay. This is her holding the line. She has never held the line on any important

00:54:09.120 issue ever. Okay. Ever. In any case, the bigger issue is all the stuff before that in that tweet

00:54:16.580 where she says that a man is only a real man if he backs away and runs off like a scolded puppy

00:54:22.820 whenever a woman tells him to. A man is only a real man if he's obedient to women like Nancy Mace.

00:54:28.900 This is classic feminist manipulation coming from an allegedly conservative politician.

00:54:32.720 Now, in truth, a man should never make a woman feel unsafe intentionally, obviously, but a man is

00:54:40.440 under no obligation to fall silent and submit just because a woman claims that she feels unsafe.

00:54:46.660 Sometimes women can use the I feel safe, unsafe line as a manipulation technique to shut down

00:54:53.060 disagreement or to coerce men into doing what they want. And we know that that happens sometimes because

00:54:57.860 that's exactly what Nancy Mace just did. We all saw it. Nancy Mace's behavior in the face wash aisle

00:55:02.580 at the store is a perfect example of exactly this phenomenon. Mace was embarrassed that a

00:55:08.180 constituent noticed how she's so busy doing cable news hits and talking about herself all day and

00:55:12.900 isn't doing anything for her constituents. And instead of meeting that challenge head on and

00:55:16.500 having an adult conversation, she started screeching about how she feels threatened and harassed and

00:55:21.220 unsafe. And now she says that if we want to be real men, we must bow to that manipulation tactic

00:55:27.040 and shrink away in silence. Nancy Mace knows what a real man is. And coincidentally enough,

00:55:33.420 a real man is a man who does whatever Nancy Mace wants all the time immediately and without objection.

00:55:37.940 Well, Nancy, if you can start telling me what a real man does and how a real man behaves,

00:55:44.720 then I can do the same in the reverse. A real woman acts with class and dignity and doesn't start

00:55:50.140 screaming profanities in the grocery store because someone tried to ask her a question.

00:55:54.640 A real woman isn't desperate for attention, constantly talking about nothing but herself.

00:55:59.300 A real woman doesn't use manipulation tactics to silence men. A real woman would never hide behind

00:56:04.280 trauma as an excuse for boorish, grotesque behavior. A real woman takes her responsibilities

00:56:09.820 seriously and would have a lot more respect for her position as a public servant than you do.

00:56:14.620 A real woman, if she serves in Congress, knows that her constituents have the right to talk to her or

00:56:19.640 ask her questions whenever they see her in public. That's the job she signed up for. And if she doesn't

00:56:25.180 want that job, then a real woman would resign and let someone more suited take over. That's what a real

00:56:31.020 woman would do. But it's not what you do, which is why Nancy Mace is, again, sadly canceled.

00:56:39.740 That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Talk tomorrow. Godspeed.

The Matt Walsh Show - April 23, 2025

Ep. 1581 - The Legal Team Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely HUMILIATED

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript