Ep. 1414 - Wokeness Turns The Olympics Into A Farce
58:25 Share

Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart. We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, major controversy at the Olympics as a biological male boxer easily defeats a woman in the women's competition. Also, Kamala Harris speaks to reporters off script for the first time since stealing the nomination from Joe Biden. And it doesn't go well. A reporter who was suspended for wishing death on Trump after the assassination attempt has now been reinstated. And a number of schools across the country are just now beginning to ban smartphones in the classroom. Why did it take so long? And why are there still schools that haven't banned them? We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

As a Daily Wire Plus member, you get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, the real-time breaking news alerts, and more. Join the fight now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. One of the most common arguments you'll hear in defense of gender ideology is that some people are intersex, and therefore the gender binary is a myth.

Now, that's what we're told. It's a non sequitur, as I've explained many times, and it's usually accompanied by a series of additional lies. You'll often hear wildly inflated numbers from gender activists about how many intersex people there are in the world. You also hear various definitions for what it means to be intersex. Those definitions are often tailored to that so that they can inflate, you know, the number of people who qualify as intersex. Here's the only definition that has any meaning, as Leonard Sachs framed it.

Being intersex means that your phenotypic sex, meaning your primary sex characteristics, is inconsistent with your chromosomal sex. For example, someone with Y chromosomes is biologically male and normally has male genitalia. But if that person develops female genitalia or genitalia that appear female, then that person will be a biological male who suffers from intersexuality.

On the other hand, if someone is born with Y chromosomes and then chooses to remove his male genitalia through surgery, that individual would not suddenly become intersex. There's no comparison whatsoever between being intersex and identifying as transgender. These are two different things. Being intersex is a condition.

It's a medical condition. It's not a choice. And it's a condition that a vanishingly small percentage of the population suffers from, something like 0.018% of the population. And this is all just basic biology, or at least that's what it used to be considered. But because people still take gender activists seriously, at least some people do, there's a lot of confusion in this area. And at the Olympics the other day, that confusion led to a male, somebody with XY chromosomes,

pummeling a woman in the face at a women's boxing event on live television. This male, an Algerian named Iman Khalif, was reportedly DNA tested at the Women's World Boxing Championships in New Delhi last year by an organization called IBA. And officials at the time disqualified Khalif from the competition because testing confirmed a Y chromosome, which means, again, that Khalif is a male.

There are reports of some sort of a disorder affecting the primary sex characteristics. I can't verify those. Either way, the fact remains that whatever condition this person may or may not suffer from, whether it's an intersex condition or something else, Khalif is a male by definition.

Intersex is just a word we've come up with to describe people who suffer from certain conditions and deformities. Intersex is not a third sex. It's not an exception to the rule of the sex binary. There are no exceptions. Everybody is either male or female. Everyone. A male that we call intersex may, because of his condition, appear female, potentially, but he's still a male.

However, the International Olympic Committee, which is overseeing the boxing competition at the Paris Olympics, apparently doesn't care about chromosomes. According to the Washington Post, the IOC does not test for gender. Now, it's not really clear what that means. Does that mean that they let LeBron James compete in the women's basketball tournament? What it appears to mean, based on reporting that I found, is that the IOC allows different events to implement some testosterone guidelines.

Not rules, but just guidelines, which can vary event by event. And if that's the case, it obviously would be completely useless for a few reasons. One of them is that even if you have low levels of testosterone now, you might have had very high levels in the past, which would contribute to increased muscle strength, bone growth, etc. The other reason is that having high levels of testosterone doesn't make you a man in and of itself. Having a Y chromosome makes you a man.

And a man with low testosterone, even a man with very low testosterone, is just a man with very low testosterone. That's still not a woman. But sporting competitions like the rest of society have, many of them, have caved to gender activists on this point. And that's why the Algerian males fight with Italy's female boxer, Angela Carini, ended in just 46 seconds. Watch. Solid, straight right hand.

Now, one of the things about all these gender tests and DNA tests is that, I mean, really, for the most part, they're not even necessary. Like, looking at that footage, anyone can instantly tell that Angela Carini was fighting a male.

I mean, we said at the top that there are intersex conditions where someone is a male biologically, but because of things that have gone wrong may appear female from the outside. That can happen in very vanishingly rare cases. But this isn't even one of those cases. I mean, you can look and you can see the absurdity of the situation.

Her opponent is obviously much stronger than she is. This is obviously an unfair fight. There's just, there aren't any females on the planet who look like this boxer from Algeria. And of course, it took just one hit to the face for Angela Carini to figure out that she was in danger after working her whole life to get to the Olympics and competing in them. Something that obviously meant a lot to her based on her interviews after the fact and based on the fact that it's the Olympics.

She had to quit because the IOC put a male in the boxing ring with her. She didn't want to quit, but reality quite literally hit her in the face, so she had no choice. Now, trans activists have claimed that the fact that this male boxer apparently isn't trans, that's the claim anyway, again, I don't know for sure, the fact that Khalif is allegedly intersex,

That that somehow proves their point about the women's sports issue. But of course it does the opposite. Because those of us on the side of common sense have always said that segregating sports based on sex has nothing to do with transgenderism. We are not trying to keep males out of women's sports because we're engaged in some kind of discriminatory plot against trans people.

We don't care if the male competing against women is trans or not. His self-identification is totally irrelevant. That is our point. It's what we've been saying the whole time. Trans, intersex, or something else, it doesn't matter. If somebody is male, if they have a Y chromosome, they should not compete against women. When you ban males from women's sports, you are not banning

trans identified people for women's sports. This is not a trans ban as it's so often called. No, you can write these laws and these policies and never make any mention of trans cuz it's beside the point. You are banning males no matter how they identify or what genetic condition they may or may not have. All that matters is that they're male. That's it. For these purposes, all that matters is that they're male.

If you think that, you know, violent episodes like this are going to make the trans activists admit that, you know, they're wrong and so wrong that now actual women are being endangered. And this, of course, actual women have been endangered by this for a long time now.

You should know that there's precisely zero chance of that. They're not going to admit anything. These people have assumed such a degree of power that even their victims don't want to criticize them for fear of losing their livelihoods. And that's true in this case as well. In a post-fight statement, Angela Carini stated, quote, I felt a severe pain in my nose. And with the maturity of a boxer, I said enough because I didn't want to. I didn't want to. I couldn't finish the match.

I'm not here to judge or pass judgment. If an athlete is this way, and in that sense, it's not right or it is right, it's not up to me to decide. I just did my job as a boxer. I got into the ring and fought. I did it with my head held high and with a broken heart for not having finished the last kilometer. Now, what's interesting about that statement is,

you know, how common this sort of thing is. She says, it's not up to me to decide whether a male can compete in a women's event. And that, you know, that's true technically, but it doesn't mean she can't have an opinion on it. And if enough female athletes started sharing their opinion and stopped participating in this charade, it would end very quickly. Now, of course, some brave female athletes have been quite vocal about this. Riley Gaines, for example, she's not the only one. But still, most, most, even now, remain silent.

for fear of the consequences of speaking out. And it's worth mentioning something else too. Some of the women who are our vocal opponents of gender ideology still feel the need to frame this conversation in the terms of left-wing victimology. So yesterday, in response to this story, the children's author J.K. Rowling wrote, quote,

Could any picture sum up our new men's rights movement better? The smirk of a male who knows he's protected by a misogynist sporting establishment, enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head and whose life ambition he's just shattered. Now, I agree with her on the points, right, about what the policies should be in place and the fact that men should be competing against women. So we agree on that fundamental point. But the problem with Rowling's attempt to blame this on the men's rights movement is

whatever that is, is that, first of all, there is no men's right movement, at least not one with any degree of power right now. It's like anyone who identifies themselves as a men's rights activist, these are people who have no power whatsoever in society. And there certainly isn't a men's rights movement that's pushing trans ideology.

Okay, in fact, if you find anyone who would identify themselves as a men's rights, you could pretty much guarantee that that is not someone who supports trans ideology. Instead, what we saw in Paris this week is a natural consequence, not of men's rights or the patriarchy. It's a natural consequence of the ideology that feminists have been pushing for decades.

It was feminists who argued that sex differences are mostly social constructs that are exploited by patriarchal oppressors. Feminists are the ones who laid the groundwork for the idea that there's no job a man can do that a woman can't do better. Okay? They came up with that. Men and women are equal. They can do the same things. Gender is a social construct. That came from feminism. And once you believe that lie, then you get this. You get women in a boxing ring with men getting violently assaulted.

And it's precisely because of feminists that this insanity will continue. By refusing to identify the problem and how we got here, they're making it impossible to solve it. J.K. Rowling has said a lot of things on this issue that I agree with. She's done a lot of good on this issue. But she can't help but pivot it every time back to patriarchy and, you know, this is all a plot by men. Even though, by the way, it's mostly women, actually, who support gender ideology. And the polls will show you that every time, in this country especially.

And so these even the feminists who oppose it now, they are not willing to look at their own their own ideology, which is feminism, to see that that's where this stuff that's where this stuff is grounded in. In fact, they share the same if it didn't come from feminism, they're on the same tree. OK, they share the same roots.

Now, this Algerian male is scheduled to fight Hungary's first Olympic women's boxer, Anna Luka Hamori, on Saturday. And what's her reaction? Well, she said, quote, I don't care about the press story and social media. If she or he is a man, it'll be a bigger victory for me if I win. Now, again, this is stock feminist rhetoric. Sounds great on posters. Sounds great, you know, in the classroom. But when you're getting punched in the face, suddenly none of that rhetoric matters.

All that matters is reality. And right now, a lot of people are choosing to ignore reality. They're choosing to ignore what we all just saw. Even after what happened at the fight on Thursday, BBC's boxing commentator Steve Bunce suggested that Carini wasn't actually hit all that severely. Listen. BBC Radio 5 Live's boxing commentator Steve Bunce was there. And Steve, this seems extraordinary. Can you talk us through what happened?

I'd like to. I have no idea what happened. I was watching a fight for 46 seconds, a fight that people have been talking about and writing about and pontificating about for about 10 days. And 46 seconds after it started, it finished. There was a half a blow, then there was a right hand. And Angela Karina turned around, said something to a corner man. They got up on the apron. Khalif stood in the middle of the ring. There was confusion. And then the referee waved it off.

She quit after being hit with one solid right hand punch. Right. And there was there were some reports that Angela Carini's nose might have been broken. Can we substantiate that? Well, I'm not a doctor, but I have been at ringside for nearly 40 years and I've seen damaged, hurt, injured boxers. I've seen boxers, male and female, in tears on their knees.

Absolutely bamboozled. I've seen them up close. And I saw that this fighter, Karini, up close. I was five feet from her six minutes after the fight. Her nose wasn't broken. Her nose wasn't bleeding. She didn't have a mark on her, he says. Everyone's just pontificating. That's the BBC's boxing expert.

Of course, you know, these are not people who care about the safety of women. They're mocking women even after they take the worst hit of their lives to the, you know, to the face from an opponent who's clearly a male in a women's competition. And this appears to be the prevailing attitude. Right now, there are no indications that the IOC is going to take any additional steps to protect the women in these competitions.

There's another mailboxer, Lin Yu of Taiwan, who's set to go up against a woman at another event. And I think that happened today. We seem to be at the point that it's going to take, what, a woman to die in one of these events for the powers that be to wake up to the fact that concepts like sex and chromosomes are real. And in fact, if something as horrible as that did happen, it's quite possible at this point that the expert class will pretend to be shocked by it.

Who could have seen this coming? It's a tragedy, they'll say. But the thing about reality is that it's not political. It asserts itself whether we like it or not. And based on what's happening right now in Paris, we appear to be rapidly approaching the moment when reality asserts itself with tragic consequences. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfod returns? The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters. Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.

In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA. With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes. Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage. Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement. Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted.

If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns or if you're missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement. Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun, Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.

So for complimentary consultation, call today 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. Fox News reports American reporter Evan Gershkovich and Marine veteran Paul Whalen were among four former prisoners released from Russia yesterday who finally stepped foot

On American soil, again on Thursday night, a plane carrying the Americans freed by Russia during the large prisoner swap landed at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, greeted by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whalen, also Karmashiva, were the three freed Americans, as well as American green card holder Vladimir Karamurza.

Those were the people freed. And it's great that Americans are coming home, something to celebrate. Will I give Biden credit for it? Not really, no. He could have brought Paul Whalen home a year and a half ago, but chose Brittany Griner instead. So hard to give him a lot of credit for that. And they're doing it now, timing it for the election. Obviously not a coincidence. So it's a good outcome, but I don't give you credit for leaving the guy in jail for an additional 18 months and then timing it for the election.

Hard to give you credit for that. But yesterday was a significant moment for another reason, aside from these Americans finally being released. It's also a moment when Kamala Harris, for the first time since executing her coup and stealing the nomination from Joe Biden, for the first time she spoke off script to reporters. And it wasn't very long. She didn't say much. But even in the little snippets that she gave us, she demonstrated why they don't let her speak off script right now. Watch.

This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy and strengthening alliances. This is an incredible day. This is an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the

the significance of diplomacy. She just can't speak like a normal person. And in fact, the way she speaks, you might say, is really an extraordinary testament to the importance of not babbling incoherently. And it demonstrates the strength that rests in the significance of not babbling incoherently. I think her problem is, first of all, she speaks in cliches, which, by the way, is one of the most reliable hallmarks of middling intelligence.

This is really kind of the definition of a midwit, is someone who speaks in cliches. You can listen to someone speak and you don't even need an IQ test. If it's just a parade of cliches, then you already know that this is someone whose IQ is certainly not in the upper range, let's say. And she also, and this is another midwit thing, she also feels this compulsive need to make her sentences longer than they need to be.

Cuz she could have just said, this is an extraordinary testament to the power of diplomacy. That's all you needed to say. That's like ten words, ten words in and out. But she said that in 30 words. So she uses about three words for every one word that she needs to use. There's a three to one babbling ratio here that she's using. I've noticed something else about Kamala. And pay attention, next time she speaks off script, which probably won't be until after the election at this point, most likely.

There's this very interesting thing where, and you can see it, where she'll kind of give her thought about something. She'll say what she wants, and she'll say it in a sentence, a wordy sentence, but still a relatively clear sentence. And then she's done saying her thought. She's conveyed what she wants to convey, but she keeps going. So she always adds a second sentence, right?

even though she said everything with the first one. And then she'll realize about halfway through the second sentence that it's actually just a, she's repeating what she said the first time. And you can see in her face as she realizes that she's repeating herself and she starts searching frantically in her mind while she's talking for other words to use. So it doesn't sound so redundant, but she can't, her vocabulary is pretty limited. So she can't think of any of the words. So she just ends up saying the same words again.

It's pretty funny. And this, again, is why they keep her on prompter as much as possible. And it does matter. It might seem like it doesn't matter that much. This is the kind of thing that doesn't really matter. But it does matter because it's so clumsy and cringy that it destroys the branding that they're trying to do with her.

Kamala's whole campaign right now is just vibes. It is a vibes-based campaign. But the problem is that if you live by the vibes, you die by the vibes, right? To paraphrase the Gospels. Live by the vibes and die by them. So when it's all vibes, but then when she speaks off script, the vibes are terrible. They're just terrible, awful vibes. The only way to maintain the vibes is to keep her away from cameras as much as possible, have her only on script, and let the media know.

generate the Kamala vibes that have almost nothing to do with Kamala herself. Now, I will say not every attempt to generate vibes on her behalf has been successful either in recent days. So, for example, let me show you a I just have to show you that this is a very real a real tweet sent out by the Democrat Twitter account. It's the Twitter account for the or sorry, the X account for the Democrat Party. And let's let's put that up on the screen, can we? All right.

It says, Republican praise for Kamala Harris. We obviously disagreed, but she's personable. That's from Senator James Lankford. Lindsey Graham said, I always found her pleasant to deal with. Mitt Romney, very personable and knowledgeable. Mike Rounds says, we work together well. We still say hello to each other. And Marco Rubio, I don't remember any problems with her on the committee. Those are the quotes that they give us.

Now, so think about this for a moment. They scoured through like years of commentary on Kamala Harris to find the absolute highest praise ever offered to her by the opposition. And I don't remember any problems with her made the cut, okay? We say hello to each other, made the top five list of nicest things she's ever, of top five praise for Kamala Harris is we say hello to each other.

Critics are raving about Kamala Harris. She's fine, I guess. I don't hate her that much. Yeah, she's a person who exists. One thing about that Kamala is she exists. She's a person. There's no doubt about it. Of all the people who've existed, she's in the top. She's as good at existing as anyone else who's ever existed, if not better. That's...

Not a lot of great vibes on that one either. So they'll, I mean, Kamala Harris has a lot going for her and none of it has anything to do with her personally, but just with the corporate media and Hollywood and entertainment industry invested in propping her up and all of that. But they can still screw it up. They can screw this thing up. So don't, so take heart in that at least.

Here's one more thing on Harris that actually is quite a bit more important than all this other stuff. This is a report from The Daily Wire. Never before seen footage showing a Planned Parenthood employee appearing to discuss the sale of aborted baby's body parts was released Tuesday, years after now Vice President Kamala Harris seized the footage as Attorney General of California. The five-minute video shows a conversation between a person identified as Dr. Stacey Dillon,

Planned Parenthood New York City medical director for abortion services and an undercover reporter with the Center for Medical Progress. During their conversation, Dillon seems to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood would sell the livers of aborted babies. In one clip, Dillon is told by a CMP investigator that she could pay you $1,000 up to $1,500 for a liver. Yeah, that's great, Dillon responds. I think a financial incentive from you guys, like to the people we have to get this approved from, they'll be very happy about it.

Harris's office confiscated footage in a 2016 raid on CMP President David Daleiden's California home two weeks after meeting with Planned Parenthood officials and after the organization had specifically requested the computers used for the undercover videos to be seized. And now we're just now seeing this. So the Democrats obviously considered the abortion issue to be a major vulnerability for Republicans and for Trump specifically. But it's only a vulnerability if they aren't smart enough to play it right and steer the conversation in the right direction because the truth is,

is that abortion should be the last thing that Kamala Harris of all people wants to talk about. She has a history of absolutely radical extremism on this issue. She has abused her power in blatantly corrupt ways in order to protect the abortion industry. You think she wants to talk about this? You think she wants to talk about Planned Parenthood selling the livers and internal organs of aborted babies? She doesn't want to talk about that, I can tell you that.

Because the fact is that she used her position as Attorney General to cover up this crime. She prosecuted the journalists who exposed the crimes and then not only refused to prosecute anyone at Planned Parenthood, but in fact, at their behest, took the evidence of their crimes and concealed it. So this is major corruption. And it's all in the name of protecting butchers who are selling the body parts of dead babies. That is a thing that happened.

It's a real thing. It's so horrifying and brutal that it sounds made up. And in fact, Planned Parenthood, for years, ever since this all came to light, and really even before that, in a weird way, they have almost, from a PR perspective, they've almost benefited from just how barbarically evil they are. Because it's so evil that it sounds made up.

They're so over the top villainous that it doesn't even sound real. And so when you hear that, selling the body, come on, they didn't do that. But they did. There are hours of footage proving it beyond any reasonable doubt. We have the Planned Parenthood officials on camera working out monetary deals for body parts in explicit terms. So that's it.

Like there's no denying it. And Kamala Harris was very involved in covering that up. And I think that, so this brings up two sort of issues that she doesn't really want to talk about. One of them is the reality of what Planned Parenthood is and what they do. And the other is her attacks on journalists. I mean, now she pretends to be some defender of free speech, a defender of journalism. She legally pursued journalists and tried to put them in prison for doing journalism. That's a fact.

All right, the Post Millennial has this. A reporter for far-left Seattle outlet The Stranger has been reinstated after a suspension for lamenting that the Butler, Pennsylvania, would-be assassin failed at killing former President Donald Trump. She has a byline on the website that was on July 30th. Staff writer at The Stranger, Ashley Nurbevig, who covers policing, incarceration, and courts for the far-left outlet, posted on X following the news that the president had survived the shooting.

She posted, make America aim again. And that was back the afternoon when all this happened and she was suspended and now she's back. So that's basically the story. Wish death on the president, President Trump, minutes after he was shot, her very first reaction was,

She gets suspended by the media outlet that she works for. Then a couple of weeks later, she's back on the job. Now, yes, The Stranger is a far left outlet. It's not an outlet that any thinking person takes seriously. But even so, what does it tell us? What does it say that a person can keep their job in media after lamenting publicly that a former president was not fatally wounded after being shot in the head? Now, there was a brief moment in time. We can maybe vaguely recall

when leftists who made these comments about Trump after the assassination attempt were actually seeming to face consequences, normal consequences that anyone else would face. And that's what seemed to be happening. This woman was suspended from her job. Jack Black's friend, whatever the guy's name is, I forget, made a similar joke on stage, as we recall. And both Jack Black and Kyle Gass is his friend. They both apologized. The band basically broke up.

So there was a brief moment when it seemed like leftists were actually being held to some basic standard of decency and decorum. But that didn't last. It lasted. It's over now. And it kind of goes to show, I think, just how thoroughly the media has been able to memory hole the Trump assassination attempt. It's only been three weeks, only three weeks. And it's like it never happened.

For maybe two or three days, this was a major topic of conversation. As I said, leftists were actually seeming to get in trouble for making light of it. Democrats were a little shy about attacking Trump. And most of them, not all, most of them backed away from the really vicious anti-Trump rhetoric. But that lasted for half a week, maybe a full week at most.

Probably not even a full week. It was really half a week, three or four days. And now we're back to normal, back like it didn't happen. This shocking historic moment, something the likes of which most of us have never witnessed before. And in fact, the full thing, no one in history has ever, no one in American, nothing exactly like that has ever happened in American history. Even though, of course, there have been other assassination attempts and successful assassinations.

But either way, historic moment. And now it's like it may as well have not even happened. That's the power that the media still has to drive the conversation. We like to pretend that they're irrelevant. We like to say that corporate media is dying and all of that. But they may not be as powerful as they once were, but they're still very powerful. Corporate media is still extremely powerful and has a profound ability to set the narrative. And that's what they're doing here.

Now, granted, in this case, they're assisted by the general sort of ADHD nature of American society. It's very difficult for Americans to pay attention to anything for more than 45 seconds. It's very easy to forget about stuff that happened a week ago and that the media exploits that, but also helps to cause it. But it cuts both ways. That's the other thing.

So it means that, yes, incredibly, insanely, Trump surviving an assassination attempt will probably not help him at all on election day. I think a lot, myself included, a lot of people, myself included, when it first happened, because it was such a historic moment. And you have that iconic image of Trump acting with just real physical bravery. And a lot of us saw that and we thought, well,

I mean, the election's over. This is such, you can't, for something like this to happen during a campaign, I mean, this is going to sway people in a way that nothing else possibly could. And I think a lot of us thought that because that's the way that it should be. That's the way that it would have been at any point in American history until very recently. But then, of course, Biden drops out of the race. So that helps to change the narrative a little bit. But

Even before that, this was already fading into distant memory. And it's again because we just live in a society now where nothing matters for more than a couple of days. It's really crazy. But as I was saying, it cuts both ways. So it also means that all this hype around Kamala right now could, by election day, be a distant, faint memory of the ancient past also. The public could get bored of the Kamala hype forever.

just as quickly as it got bored of the fact that a former president was shot in the head. And what that means is that it makes political predictions very tenuous, if not meaningless, because all that really matters, by the time people are voting, all that matters is whatever happened within 24 hours, or maybe 48 hours at most, of them casting the vote. That's all that matters.

All right, another thing I want to mention briefly, this is a woman who's gone viral on TikTok with a message for her fellow white women. Watch. This is a message for every single person who looks like me, specifically white women. It's time.

This is no longer about politics and you get to right your wrongs of 2016 when you didn't put a woman in the White House who was overly qualified. Now's your chance. You did not stand behind black women, people of color, immigrant families, differently abled people, none of them. You said I matter more than you in 2016. Not anymore.

you have the chance to again put an overly qualified person in a seat that they absolutely deserve because they are willing to go to bat for you and everyone around you.

This is no longer about red versus blue. This is our lives that we are playing with. And the piece that you have control over is who you vote for in November. You need to find a spine. Shut up. That's good. You know, she says that this is a message for anyone who looks like her. And so, you know, I watched that. And at first I thought that's kind of weird because if you have a message for Chris Farley, it's a little late.

But then I realized she was talking about her skin color. And it's not a joke or insult, by the way, against her. By no means, I was truly confused at first. I didn't understand what she meant. I was a little confused. No offense to her or Chris Farley. May he rest in peace. Anyway, here's all I want to say. I know that white women, specifically single white women, are overwhelmingly Democrat, overwhelmingly liberal.

But I just have to ask, as a woman, don't you ever get tired of this crap? Don't you get sick of it? This never-ending guilt trip? It's relentless. And I know we've established that white men, lowest on the totem pole, right? We are the most villainized group in the country, in the Western world, by far. We know that. But it's not much better for white women, right?

And you could even make an argument that in some ways it's worse. White women, even though white men, it's almost like as white men, we're hated so much that we're just kind of written off. We're a lost cause. So we don't get lectured nearly as much. That's at least the advantage is that there aren't as many lectures to white men because it's just assumed that we're all a bunch of cavemen bigots. And so they just leave us alone in our caves.

which I'm fine with, like, fine, just give up on me. Perfect. Please do. I am a lost cause for you people. There's nothing you can do. White women, though, I think are not spared the lectures. And oftentimes, so they're getting lectured constantly by non-white liberals, but then there's also a lot of this, where you have one of your own, like, talking down to you

And it's just, it never stops. It's a little bit, the dynamic, it's like, I'm trying to think of a comparison. It's almost like, think of a full metal jacket, you know, the boot camp scenes and the way that the new recruits were treated. You know, old school Marine Corps boot camp, Parris Island, you know, just being cut down constantly. You maggots, everything, just being cut down, abused, abused.

And so that's like what white women are in the left-wing world. Whereas white men, we're the enemy. So in a way, we are ranked lower because we're the enemy. We're the ones that you're training to go out and kill. But a lot of the negative energy on a day-to-day basis is focused on those white women, the new recruits who are just sitting there standing at attention in boot camp, the drill instructors walking down the barracks.

Just cutting you down one by one. Hey, you over there, just insulting you. But the thing is, at least if you're a full metal jacket recruit, you can get through boot camp and you can move up the ranks. But as a white woman, you never get through it. This is what you are forever. You're the new recruit maggot, and it just will never stop. You're always at that level. And I also had another, I don't think we have the clip, but

You kind of compare this to the way that women are talked about of other races, like black women. So there's a clip of Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago now, no better than Lori Lightfoot. In fact, he is more woke than Lori Lightfoot was. And anyway, he's talking about the Trump thing with the National Association of Black Journalists.

And he starts talking about like the majesty. He starts to say, well, Trump, he ran into those, the black women, the majesty. I forget what the exact term was that he used, but he was talking about like the majesty, the mystical majesty and beauty of black women. Talking about black women as though they are deities. And that's the way black women are talked about. And then you compare that to how white women, even white women who are on their side,

Who are on the left. How are they talked about? These are not deities. You're just like scum. Everything is your fault. Everything. So black women are beautiful goddesses, queens, right? What are white women? Karens. It's actually the one group that has a slur like that. That's common parlance. And you can say whenever you want. Even white men don't quite have that.

Yeah, I mean, there are slurs you can use about white people and men that you can say that and you're not gonna get in trouble. But there's nothing, Karen is the one, it's like the one kind of race and gender based slur that's household usage. It's like everyone says it and it's not an issue. So black women are queens, goddesses on high. How dare you disrespect them? When you're in the presence of a black woman,

You better show your respect, damn it. And then white women, these Karens, there's another Karen again. God forbid a white woman is upset about anything ever or is in a position where someone's actually being rude to her. So she stands up for herself automatically. You Karen, shut up, Karen. And all of that is coming from the left. It's all coming from them. So they hate you. They absolutely hate you. And if you're on the left and you're a woman, you hate yourself too.

They hate you. They want you to hate yourself. It's just gross. Like, free yourself of that stuff. So that's my little pep talk for white women.

Brace yourselves, everybody. The Daily Wire is about to release its very first theatrical film, and it's going to be a rude awakening for the woke. Am I racist? This is just a movie. It's a full frontal assault on the DEI industrial complex. It's infecting our nation. I went undercover in the belly of the beast, surrounded by professional race baiters and diversity grifters. And this is a movie from the white guys who brought you What Is Woman? And now we got the team back together. We're asking the question that makes liberals break out in hives.

Pre-sale tickets are available August 14th. Mark your calendars or risk being labeled a racist by default. Watch the trailer now at miracist.com and get a taste of the madness. You don't want to miss this. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Our daily cancellation today begins with a positive story for a change. Here's the news out of Michigan reading from an outlet called The Midwesterner.

At East Jackson High School, engagement is up and drama is down exponentially after school officials last year banned cell phones in class, according to Principal Joel Cook. Quote, when you take away the compulsion to address Snapchat and TikTok, kids find themselves having to concentrate, participate in some of these debates in the classroom, he told MLive. Students, staff, and parents have appreciated it.

The district's Power School data center shows that since school officials required students to stash their phones in their lockers during class beginning last school year, behavioral referrals have declined by 40%.

I don't think people fully understand the amount of behavioral issues that began with a Snapchat, Cook said. If you take that out of the classroom, a lot of the drama goes away, Cook told WSYM. He initially expected the phone ban to result in a battle, but found that that wasn't the case. Honestly, kids were relieved, he said. Most parents were relieved. Well, this is very good. They banned cell phones in school and immediately started reaping the benefits. Because of course they did.

There is only upside to banning cell phones in school. It can only have a positive impact on the learning environment and the well being of the kids. So this is not a case of weighing the pros and cons, making a trade off. It's not like, yeah, you can ban school, ban phones in school, but then this is gonna happen. There's no trade off. Having phones in school is only bad. Therefore, getting rid of them can only be good.

Which is why when I read a story like this, even though I'm quite happy that this improvement was made, I can't help but wonder, why are you just doing this now? The iPhone was first released 17 years ago. Smartphones have been ubiquitous for well over a decade. Many of the kids entering their senior year of high school right now have had phones since elementary school.

Phones have already ruined the educational experience of an entire generation of kids, and we're just getting around to banning them now? Well, better late than never, you might say. But as you read on, you discover that this school with its cell phone ban 17 years late is still ahead of the curve somehow. Reading on, quote, the move to ban phones at the high school followed a two-year trial at East Jackson Middle School that served as a litmus test.

Jackson officials are now encouraging other schools and districts to consider the same. Michigan's Tomlinson Middle School, Melvindale High School, McDonald Middle School, and others have had similar successes with improving student behavior and academics by banning phones, echoing research from Central Michigan University, the New York Institute of Technology, and California State University that correlated increased learning, better comprehension, lower anxiety, and more mindfulness with a decline in smartphone use.

Those studies, along with trial runs in schools across the country, have convinced lawmakers in some states to consider or implement statewide cell phone bans as a means to improve student learning and reduce behavioral problems that have increased in many places since the pandemic. Through mid-June, only Indiana, Florida, and Ohio have banned cell phones statewide in schools, while lawmakers in New York, Oklahoma, and Missouri are considering the same. But in Michigan, legislators remain hostile to the idea.

So there are 50 states in this country. Smartphones have existed for 17 years. In 17 years, across 50 states, only three of them have gotten around to banning these devices from the classroom. And these bans are new. In fact, if you Google it right now, you'll find a whole slate of articles just like this one from Midwesterner reporting on schools in various states who will be trying, trying something new this coming school year by actually forbidding students from using their phones during school hours.

Meanwhile, CNN reported back in late June, quote, adding to a growing list of school districts banning cell phones. The nation's largest district could be moving to do the same as early as January.

Phone usage during the school day has not only become a distraction, but an addiction, David Banks, the chancellor of New York City public schools, said during an on-camera interview with WNYW. Quote, we recognize the problem and that it's a major issue, Banks said. The chancellor said he expects a formal announcement to be made as soon as he fine-tunes how to implement a plan that would impact more than a million students across nearly 2,000 public schools in the city.

Wednesday is the last day of the school year before the summer break. New York's decision comes on the heels of Los Angeles Unified School District moving to ban cell phones in schools just last week. Okay, so New York City public schools might ban smartphones from the classroom starting in January. Los Angeles just started to implement a ban this past June. Other school districts across the country have just gotten around to it. Three states just passed bans.

But smartphones are still permitted in schools during school hours in 47 states and countless schools across the country. Now, I know you might say that any progress is good and I should be happy with these steps forward, even if they're very small steps and very slow and a decade and a half late. But we should really expect more from the people in charge of educating 50 million American children.

Like, it's crazy that this is, the fact that cell phones are not banned in every school in the country with no exception is insane. Do you understand how insane that is? These, again, these little distraction boxes hit the market 17 years ago. The sole function of the distraction box, especially when used by children, is to distract them.

Kids are given the distraction boxes and they proceed to spend most of their day staring into them, distracted. For kids, the distraction boxes have literally no other point. They have no utility except to distract. Any legitimate use outside of that, say making a phone call, can be achieved by regular phones. All of the additional stuff, all of the stuff that makes a smartphone a smartphone,

serves for children the single sole solitary purpose of distracting them. And yet, the people who run our schools have spent 17 years pondering over these distraction boxes. They've argued amongst themselves, should we allow kids to use the distraction boxes in school? Say, have you noticed that kids are extremely distracted all the time?

Do you think it could be because of the distraction boxes that they all carry around in their pockets and stare at for 18 hours a day? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they're very distracted all the time. Could have something to do with that. And they ponder over this and they still can't figure it out somehow.

The geniuses in charge of our schools have spent all this time deliberating on the question for nearly two decades. And only now have some of them concluded that, yes, perhaps the distraction boxes are causing distractions. And still somehow many districts in 47 states have yet to arrive at that conclusion. They need to think about it more. But, you know, this is not all the fault of the schools, of course. The primary culprits, as always, are the parents who have paid exorbitant sums to purchase distraction boxes for their children.

The parents who pay a monthly fee to Verizon or T-Mobile to make sure that their kids can continue to be distracted. I mean, think about that for a second. You're paying a monthly bill. It's not even just like a one-time dumb purchase. Every month you're paying another bill. Hey, honey, did you pay the distraction bill for our kids to make sure they're always distracted all the time? Did you pay that? Make sure to pay it. We gotta make sure they're always distracted. Don't let that, yeah, make sure it's paid. We don't wanna get the service shut off

We don't want our kid might go a day without being distracted. We don't want that. We can't have that. These parents who go out of their way to furnish their children with distractions. And then when their kids end up being distracted, what do they do? They immediately put their kids on medication rather than simply taking away the distraction box. And this is all very unfortunate because the key to giving your child not just a better education, but a better and healthier and more joyful childhood, a better life in general is so simple. Okay, this is not the only thing that will make it happen, but

It starts with take away the distraction box, take away the phone. Let me just close with this thought. We just spent the last month at a lake house up in the mountains. And now, as you know, our kids don't have phones at all. We don't do phones with our kids. But for the last month, they also haven't had TV because the house that we were staying in, the house actually had TVs. It had like a lot of TVs, but none of them worked reliably. So our kids spent the better part of a month

With no phones, because they never have phones, no tablets, and no TVs. No screen-based entertainment of any kind. They complained about the lack of a working TV for the first few days. They did. But then they stopped complaining. And they found other ways to entertain themselves. They played out in the woods. They swam in the lake. They played card games. They built forts. They played dodgeball and so on and so on.

They were lively and active and engaged. They didn't miss the screens. The screens would not have improved their experience at all. There was never a moment, not one moment, when either we as the parents or they as the children thought, you know what would make this even better for them? A screen that they can stare at silently. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should get rid of all of our screens. I'm not saying that a kid should never watch TV. At our house, we do have TV. Our kids do watch it.

And I realize that it's easier to keep kids entertained when you're on vacation, it's the summertime, you're at a lake, like I get all that. I'm a realist. My point is simply that the screens really do not enhance a child's life. And the benefits of limiting the screen time, the benefits of removing the screens to whatever extent possible are immense.

Because no parent is going to look back on a child's life once they reach adulthood and lament that he didn't spend more time staring at a screen. No parent will think that. But many, many, many parents will deeply mourn and are already deeply mourning childhoods squandered and sometimes destroyed by the obsessive, oppressive reliance on and presence of screens.

And this is doubly true in schools. Some schools are finally starting to realize that, however belatedly, but the ones that still somehow haven't gotten with the program are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Godspeed.

Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey. If I'm going to sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.

♪ They gon' say I'm racist ♪ - Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. - Here's my certification. - And what you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. - This is more for you than this for you. - Is America inherently racist? - The word inherent is challenging there. - I'm gonna rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. - America is racist to its bones. - So inherently. - Yes, this country is a piece of . - White. - Folks. - White. - Trash. - White supremacy. - White woman. - White boy. - Is there a black person around here? - What happened? - There's a black person right here. Does he not exist?

Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. I never read too careful. In theaters September 13th, rated PG-13. Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart.

We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.