Ep. 1427 - Whistleblowers Risk Everything to Expose Shocking Practices at Texas Children’s Hospital
51:38 Share

Let's be real. French fries are the only good tasting vegetable out there, but unfortunately they're not very healthy. Balance of Nature fruit and veggies are the most convenient way to get your daily intake of fruits and vegetables. You know, like the kind of vegetables that actually count. Balance of Nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables into whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants.

The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar. The only thing at Balance of Nature fruit and veggie capsules are fruits and veggies. You need nutrients to function at your best each and every day. Balance of Nature helps you do just that. Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WIRE for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WIRE.

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, whistleblowers are coming forward to expose the scam behind the child butchery industry. But the Biden administration is doing everything it can to intimidate them into silence. Also, talking heads on CNN are reduced almost to tears by Obama's speech to the DNC.

Kamala Harris says she has a plan to reduce grocery prices, but if that's the case, why isn't that plan in place right now? And Kamala apparently intends to put a tax on unrealized capital gains. That's an idea so god-awful that it will single-handedly crush the entire economy. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.

This show is brought to you by Helix Sleep. Sleep is so critical, but no two people sleep alike. That's why Helix offers several different mattress models, each designed for specific sleep positions and preferences. Head over to helixsleep.com slash dailywire, take their sleep quiz, and find the mattress that's made for you. Whether you're a side sleeper, stomach sleeper, hot sleeper, or a cold sleeper, Helix has exactly what you're looking for.

I took the Helix Sleep Quiz and was matched with a Helix Midnight because I wanted a medium firmness and I sleep on my side. I gotta tell ya, it's made a world of difference. So what are you waiting for? Head over to helixsleep.com/dailywire, take the quiz and order the perfect mattress right to your door, shipped for free.

All Helix mattresses come with a 100-night trial and a 10-15 year warranty. Helix even offers financing options and flexible payment plans. For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders. Just go to helixsleep.com slash dailywire. That's helixsleep.com slash dailywire. With Helix, better sleep starts now. Texas Children's Hospital in Houston is the largest children's hospital in the world. They treat more than 4 million patients under the age of 21 every year, most of them minors.

And because of the hospital's size and prestige, what happens at TCH doesn't just affect those patients. What happens at TCH also influences other major children's hospitals all around the world and how they conduct their operations. And that's what makes the reporting out of Texas Children's Hospital this year, most of it done by Chris Ruffo,

impossible to ignore, even if the media of course would like to ignore it and has ignored it. In the span of a little over a year, two whistleblowers have come forward to allege that TCH is systematically deceiving the public and potentially violating the law. Now the first whistleblower, a general surgeon named Ethan Haim, provided records to Ruffo which demonstrated that TCH had not in fact shut down its child sex change program as promised.

And this was significant because the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, had just released a legal opinion stating that child sex change surgeries, as well as cross-sex hormone treatments, constitute child abuse under Texas law. So TCH claimed that they shut the program down in order to avoid prosecution. As the hospital put it, they wanted to safeguard our health care professionals and impacted families from potential criminal legal ramifications.

So they stood by the child sterilization, but they said they had no choice but to comply with the attorney general so they wouldn't all be arrested. Now, according to Ruffo's reporting, Haim provided redacted records proving that TCH then quietly restarted the program without informing the public. In effect, they didn't really shut it down at all.

Haim didn't give Ruffo any personally identifying information about any patients and no personally identifiable information was ever released publicly. He provided only the information that was necessary to verify that TCH was continuing to perform procedures related to child sex change surgeries in apparent defiance of the Attorney General. For example, the records reportedly demonstrated that TCH allowed a doctor to "insert a non-biodegradable drug delivery implant into an 11-year-old girl who identified as transgender

Records also indicated that several children between the ages of 11 and 15 received these implants, among many other procedures. The Texas legislator clearly thought that Haim's revelations were worth acting on. The very next day after Ruffo published his report on Haim's claims, the Texas legislator voted in bipartisan fashion to ban so-called gender-affirming care for minors. So the attorney general's legal opinion wasn't just an opinion anymore. It was binding on hospitals like TCH.

On these facts, there's no question that Ethan Haim is a whistleblower by any definition. He chose to risk his career, which was just beginning, to provide information that his employer might be systematically violating the law. And not just any law, but a law designed to protect children from being abused and permanently sterilized. And on top of that, Haim's evidence indicated that TCH might be lying to the public, which is a pretty big deal when you're talking about a children's hospital.

If they're willing to lie about castrating children, it might lead you to wonder what else they're willing to lie about and how deep the corruption goes. Hame's disclosures directly led to a substantial change in Texas's law in record time, which means that by definition, they were highly relevant to the public interest. You cannot define whistleblower anymore, any more clearly than than that, I think.

But Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' DOJ didn't see it that way. So a month later, they sent federal agents to his door to inform him that he was under investigation for HIPAA violations. And shortly afterwards, he was indicted. Watch. The question now is whether the doctor violated HIPAA when he accessed those patients' information. The government says he did. The doctor says he's a whistleblower.

You know, I maintained from day one that I had done nothing wrong. This is Dr. Ethan Hay, a former resident physician at Texas Children's Hospital. Today, the Department of Justice claims he obtained protected health information for patients that were not under his care and without permission.

In a four-count indictment, the FBI says the doctor obtained personal information, including patient names, treatment codes, and the names of patients' physicians through the TCH electronic system without authorization. Prosecutors say he did this under false pretenses in order to cause malicious harm to the hospital by passing the information along to a media contact.

So according to DOJ, Ethan Haim wanted to cause malicious harm to the hospital. They're not concerned about the permanent harm that this massive and well-funded hospital may be causing to children. Instead, the prosecutors are worried about the harm that the hospital might suffer when the public learns about the harm they're doing to children in defiance of the Attorney General and Texas law. This is a hospital that, by the way, receives a lot of money and tax breaks from the government. So we have every right to know, as the public, we have every right to know what it's doing.

But apparently the hospital's employees are not allowed to harm the hospital by informing the public about the procedures that they're performing. You might remember that Democrats didn't always treat whistleblowers this way. During the Trump administration, a CIA operative who was assigned to the White House leaked classified recordings of Trump to Adam Schiff. And that led to the first impeachment trial. We weren't even allowed to know the CIA operative's name at any point during the proceedings. Corporate media outlets refused to tell us.

Even in Congress, lawmakers were told it was off limits to reveal his identity. John Roberts, who was presiding over the impeachment, enforced that rule. This was a whistleblower who wasn't even alleging that Trump had violated any law, and yet this CIA employee was treated with such reverence that to this day we're not allowed to say his name in public. But Ethan Haim, who actually displayed real bravery, who disclosed relevant information about a children's hospital, now faces up to a decade in prison if convicted.

His life gets destroyed, his career ended, all for telling the truth. And he's not the only one. This week, a nurse named Vanessa Sivage revealed that she was recently fired by Texas Children's Hospital. Her crime was alleging that TCH bills Medicaid to provide puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children in violation of federal law. TCH immediately denied this allegation. Then the Biden administration sent more federal agents to harass her at her home.

Because that's what happens when you start saying inconvenient things about so-called gender-affirming care, quote-unquote. Watch. Hello. Hi. I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. Okay. Yeah. Who are you? I'll make some of the FBI agents. Okay. This is Mr. McBride. I am David McBride. Okay. Nice to meet you, sir. It's a very pleasant interaction. You're not in any trouble. Okay. All right. Hi. Hi. How are you? I see snag up on you there. You want a seat, too?

Are we interrupting dinner? I'm really sorry. That's all right. What's going on? Let me start at the beginning. So I'm sure you're aware of some of the things that have been going on at your work lately. With regards to? Yeah, so I got to, can we sit down for a minute? Let me do my song and dance.

Now, the only reason these agents showed up to Savage's home was to intimidate her. They weren't there to arrest her. They weren't there to inform her that she was the target of any investigation. The point was to imply that she'd better keep her mouth shut because the federal government was watching her.

Now, in a letter to Ruffo, Sivage said that she had attempted to transfer away from the endocrine unit as a last-ditch effort to avoid working in this area of so-called medicine, but the hospital refused her request. Quote,

This is unlawful for two reasons. It is retaliation for my coming forward with information on TCH's egregious pattern of deception and Medicaid fraud. This action also illegally disregarded my request to transfer due to my belief that these procedures provide irreversible harm and lifelong regret to children confused by their sex.

If it's true that TCH is defrauding Medicaid, it wouldn't be particularly surprising. Last year I posted a Twitter thread looking to two of the largest so-called trans healthcare providers known as Plume and Folks, and both of these providers indicated that they diagnosed patients with dysphoria, even if they don't really have it, in order to ensure that the insurance pays out, which is fraud. In fact, Folks openly admitted that they were doing this on their website.

This is the kind of apparent fraud that can take place openly when your industry has the full backing of the Biden DOJ. When you know the government's on your side, you can admit to fraud in public and no one does anything. It's the people who point out the fraud who get harassed and even jailed. What's especially troubling about the situation at TCH is that Vanessa Sivage was clearly in a position to know if the hospital was defrauding Medicaid. She interacted with doctors who were ordering various procedures and medications.

She coordinated prescription refills all the time. She once taught a child how to inject sex change hormones. It was her job, which she performed up until the moment that she realized how immoral it was. And as Sivage put it, quote, in the cardiac clinic, we were taking sick kids and making them better. In the transgender clinic, it was the opposite. We were harming these kids.

So there's only two possibilities here. Either this nurse is, for some reason, lying about her own firsthand observations and doing so in order to completely destroy her own career and her own life, or, like Ethan Haim, she's telling the truth. And right now, the latter explanation seems a whole lot more believable. In response to her termination, Sivich posted just two words on social media, worth it.

That's the kind of response you'd expect from someone who knows that Texas Attorney General's investigation is going to validate everything she said. It's a rare example of bravery in an industry that is sorely lacking it. And it's exactly what it will take to end this insanity and stop the mutilation and sterilization of children. I mean, these whistleblowers, just two of them alone, have had major impact.

What happens next at Texas Children's Hospital could determine what happens not just to the millions of children in their care, but to all the other children's hospitals that look to TCH for guidance. And what's needed now is for more whistleblowers to come forward to follow their conscience and what they know is right and to expose this fraudulent, abusive industry for what it is. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled 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, you're

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 the 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 are 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. IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now the tax season is over. Collection season has begun.

Tax Network USA can help with state tax issues also. So for a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit the 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.

Okay, pretty reprehensible moment from Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear yesterday when discussing J.D. Vance and the abortion industry. Let's watch that. I mean, think about what some people have had to go through because of these laws. I mean, J.D. Vance calls pregnancy resulting from rape inconvenient. Like, inconvenience is traffic. I mean, it is... Make him go through this.

Make him go through this. Go through what? Well, he was just talking about rape. So he very clearly said, make him go through the rape of a family member. And that's obviously what he said. We just heard him say it.

Like, we're not all having a hallucinatory event. We heard him say it. So now later in the same day, he was asked about this again and about Vance's response to him. Vance responded and said that that's a disgusting thing to say because it is. And but but Bashir refused to apologize. There it is. You said this morning on Morning Show. OK, let's prepare you for this saying that.

Well, let me take a look at what he said about you. Janie Vance calls pregnancy resulting from rape inconvenient. Like, inconvenience is traffic. I mean, it is... Make him go through this. So what he's saying is that you were somehow suggesting...

um he said what the hell is this why is andy basheer he tweeted this out uh wishing that a member of my family would get raped what a disgusting person so how do you respond to that i mean well is that what you're talking about of course not it's ridiculous but it's also deflection i mean jd vance knows that he and donald trump are so wrong on this issue and so he's trying to make himself the victim listen hadley duvall

was a victim. The women that were on the stage last night, the couple that had to go through a non-viable pregnancy are victims. You know, as a man, J.D. Vance will never have to face any of this personally. But it's sad that he lacks the empathy to be able to put himself in a different position and to understand why having exceptions, having reproductive freedom is so important in the first place. Obviously, I'd never wish harm on anyone. It just...

Again, deflection, trying to make himself and Donald Trump the victims. Of course not. Of course I wasn't saying the thing that you all clearly heard me say. Now, ironically, of course, he accuses Vance of deflecting even as he immediately deflects. He did indeed say that we should make Vance go through a rape.

And we can assume that he didn't mean that Vance himself should be raped because Vance can't get pregnant. And, you know, I know the Democrats believe in the existence of pregnant men or claim to anyway. But even so, it's clear from the context that going through this for Vance means that one of his family members, a female family member, goes through it.

Now, it's not surprising that he would say this. This is actually a very common rebuttal from the pro-abortion left. Wishing rape on a family member is one of their favorite moves. I've heard it myself from these people many times. From the left in general, but especially when it comes to the abortion industry, this is something that you often hear. But that's not even the grossest thing about this, or it's not the only gross thing about this, I should say, because even when they aren't wishing rape on their enemies...

which again they so often do, they are, just as Bashir was doing here, shamelessly using rape as a political cudgel. Constantly bringing up rape as a way of winning the abortion argument or thinking that you've won it, trying to win it, is just as disgusting and despicable as what Bashir said. And so even if he hadn't said that make him go through it line, it still is disgusting.

And I know you guys probably get sick of hearing me make this point over and over again, but I have to keep making it because, I mean, they keep doing this, so I have to keep pointing this out. And the point is this, that rape accounts for a vanishingly small number of abortions, fewer than 1%. Fewer than 1% of abortions are due to rape. So it's a very small number. And that means that we don't even need to talk about

that until we've talked about the 99 percent and in 99 percent of cases abortion is simply used as an after-the-fact birth control method in 99 percent of cases a woman consented to sex consented to doing the thing that might create a baby the thing that has created babies billions of times in the past and and then created a baby and then wants to kill the baby to erase the mistake quote-unquote that's 99 percent of cases

And a certain portion of that 99%, a portion much larger than 1%, are cases where you have a repeat customer, a woman who has had multiple abortions and is making essentially zero effort to avoid conceiving a child, displaying just a total disregard for human life, for the lives of the children that she continually slaughters, and continually getting the abortion in order to, for her own convenience, just to protect her lifestyle.

That is a far more common scenario than an abortion because of rape. And that's what we need to talk about. And we need to talk a lot about that. In fact, I would argue that when we're talking about abortion, 99% of the conversation should be about the 99% of cases. And then 1% of the conversation could be about the 1% of cases. That makes a lot of sense.

But they don't want to talk about the 99%, so they talk about the 1%, and they are simply using it. They don't care at all. They don't care about women who are raped. They don't care about rape victims. They don't care about anyone. They certainly don't care about the babies here. They just see it as a convenient political tool, and they use it as such.

All right, the Obamas spoke at the DNC last night. The CNN talking heads were gushing over their speeches. Both Michelle and Barack spoke, and the talking heads on CNN were just overcome. I mean, practically in tears over it. Watch. Michelle Obama's speech was probably the most effective, powerful political speech I've ever heard.

It was rather remarkable. I didn't know how much I missed them. I missed them. I missed that. I miss hearing that. You know, Biden did something important last night, and he transferred the machinery of the party to Kamala Harris. The Obamas renewed the magic of the movement. That's what they were transferring.

And they did it beautifully. They did it powerfully. Obama used nostalgia in a beautiful way. He didn't say, make America great again, we're going to go back. No.

He reminded everybody of the best things about our families, about our neighborhoods. That was beautiful. And then Michelle, she wasn't doing the minister role. She was really doing the coaching role in that she called it right out. She said, you guys, you know, she talked about the affirmative action of generational wealth. She talked about the luxury of widening and cheating that other people don't have. But she didn't stop there. She also called the left up.

And she said the winding on the left needs to stop. The Goldilocks, they're not perfect. This was a masterful act of leadership. It was a sacred task. They took it on well. It was like an oasis. I didn't realize I had been in a spiritual desert until they created that oasis on that stage. And they did a beautiful job tonight. That was your oasis, the spiritual water quenching your...

Deep spiritual thirst. First of all, I'll say this. I mean, it's absurd to react this way to any political speech on either side of the aisle. I'm not just saying this because it's the Democrats. And I'm not saying you can't praise a political speech or say that it was effective or compelling or whatever. That's fine. On rare occasion, I will praise a political speech in those terms. And that's that's OK. But to have a spiritual experience because of a political speech is quite asinine.

you know, every political speech is contrived, every single one. That's the nature of the beast. I'm not revealing anything you don't know. These speeches aren't written from the heart. If someone's giving a speech at a convention, they're not sitting down and saying to themselves, hmm, what am I really feeling right now? What do I want to tell the American people? That's not it. They're written by teams of speechwriters and consultants tailored to hit certain points and use certain language as part of a political strategy. And, you know, that's the game. That's fine. But

That's what they're supposed to do. But that means there's always going to be a kind of an air of phoniness to any speech delivered by a politician, especially at a convention, but really at any other time. The only exception really is Donald Trump at a rally because in that case, it's not scripted at all. And he's really just talking about whatever he pops into his head. And so it's authentic in that way. But

I'd also think it's pretty silly to have a spiritual experience because of one of his rally speeches. It would be a ridiculous thing. So this is not cheap cynicism on my part. It's just the reality. These speeches are extremely contrived. None of these people are saying what they actually think. I mean, if Obama gave a speech from the heart and said what he actually thinks, he would have said that he hates Kamala Harris, that he tried to have her removed from the ticket.

But that didn't work, so now he's stuck with her, and so he's playing along, and he's going to take solace in the fact that even when Kamala Harris is in the White House, if she is, it will really still be his White House. Now, that's what an honest Obama speech would have said, and we all know that, because they also hate each other. Like, the Obamas and Kamala Harris, they hate each other. Kamala Harris, I believe, wasn't even there. She went to give her own speech. She counter-programmed Obama at the convention.

So these people just despise each other. But they're playing the game here. But that's just why it's to be that overcome with emotion at a speech that's at least like 70% phony. And I mean, leaving aside all the claims that are made that are false, but just like the speech itself, it's coming from someone who hates this other person, tried to knife her in the back and it failed.

So it's ridiculous. But the comments from Van Jones are still revealing. They reveal that the left on the left politics is religion. This is their church. This is their sacred place. And so he's right. They have been in a spiritual desert because they look to political figures to be their messiahs, to be their saviors. And Biden really couldn't play that role because it's kind of hard to make a tomato plant into a into a, you know, a savior.

And what Van Jones really means is that he finally has a messianic political figure to look to again. The Obamas are transferring their messianic powers to Kamala. Or maybe a better analogy would be, this is kind of like when the Pope selects a new bishop, and Obama is the left's Pope. Kamala is, she's not going to be the new Pope, she'll never be the Pope, but she's now being ordained as sort of a bishop in the leftist religion. And that's the way they look at it.

Politics is religion for them. It's also why they just can't handle it. They can't stomach it when someone like Trump, when they lose, it is a great tragedy for them because this is their church and this is their religion. They're losing control of their own religion in their minds. Speaking of Kamala, as I mentioned, she went and spoke at a rally last night, I believe at the same time that Obama was speaking. But here's one little interesting clip from that rally.

We believe in a future where we lower the cost of living for America's families. And when I am president, I will bring down the cost of groceries by making sure markets are competitive and fair. Now, this has been pointed out many times by many people on the right, but I have to just join the chorus here in making the observation that Kamala Harris is in office right now. You know, if she can bring down the cost of groceries, why aren't you doing it right now at this very moment?

It's worse than that. Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years. We've only had Republican governance for four years, arguably less than that, because Trump's last year in office was claimed by covid. So it's more like three years of normal Republican governance. But, you know, call it four years. That's four years against 12. And and and they've been in office the last four, the last four of those 12th.

So it's like imagine if you rented someone's house on Airbnb and they live there, but then they leave for a little bit so that you can move in and you're there for a few days or weeks or whatever. You move out, you check out, everything's fine. And then four years later, the owner of the house calls you irate because his house is destroyed. Carpets are all stained, furniture is broken, sinks are all clogged, doors ripped off the hinges, everything.

Imagine that he calls you, blaming you for that and demanding that you pay for the damages. But wait a minute. I was there for a brief time four years ago. I mean, who are we going to blame for where we're at now? Is it me or is it the people? You've been living there for the last four years and you lived there before that. This is the case that she's making. It's totally incoherent. And you would think it'd be an impossible case to make if the media would hold her accountable for it. But of course they aren't.

Fox News has this. Former President Trump promoted images on Sunday, including some generated through artificial intelligence, showing apparent support from singer Taylor Swift and her fans, triggering a widespread media outcry. Trump posted a collage of Swift-related images to his Truth Social account, showing apparent support from the pop star and her diehard fans known as Swifties. One doctored image played off the classic Uncle Sam recruiting posters, showing Swift in red, white, and blue with the caption,

Taylor Swift wants you to vote for Donald Trump. Over the images, he wrote, I accept. Other images included one of a satirical headline with accompanying fake pictures made by an ex-user. Swifties turning to Trump after ISIS foiled Taylor Swift concert. Stephen Chong told Fox News Digital, Swifties for Trump is a massive movement that grows bigger every single day, while Kamala Harris is guilty as sin for all the hurt she has caused every American. I don't know, is guilty as sin, is that some sort of Taylor Swift reference from one of her songs?

Anyway, well, look, I mean, this is a trolling thing. I get it. It's funny. I would never troll myself. I never do any trolling. I'm very anti-trolling personally. I would just, I just would never troll. I haven't trolled. I'm not trolling right now in this city that I'm visiting. So I'm not the troll type myself, but I get it. And I appreciate the trolling, but I guess, I guess I don't understand the strategic political play with this Swifties for Trump thing.

And I've seen and Trump's promoting it. I've seen other people, other conservatives like on Twitter promoting it. Swifties for Trump, because if Trump is out claiming that and I know it's like a joke, but if Trump is out claiming that Swift supports him, even as a joke, isn't he greatly increasing the likelihood that Taylor Swift will come out against him and campaign against him? Because you'll feel like now she has to to make clear that she's not with that guy. And if that happens, I don't see how it helps Trump.

Trump, I mean, I don't see how Taylor Swift being fully activated against him with her billions of religiously devoted fans could could possibly be a helpful thing. I don't think it would decide the election necessarily, but it's not helpful. I mean, it's not like it's not a win. Right. It doesn't benefit Trump to have Taylor Swift out there saying vote for Kamala. So I don't get it. I'm not sure I quite understand the strategy there. There probably really isn't one.

And then there's this from Breitbart. Producers of the recently released animated Batman series Batman Caped Crusader have swapped out its male penguin villain for a female penguin because they claim there aren't enough good female villains in Batman. The show developed by Warner Brothers Discovery was not released on W's streaming service Max, but instead dumped on Amazon Prime this month.

With this version of Batman, the Penguin, voiced by actress Minnie Driver, is a showy, over-the-top cabaret owner who moonlights as the head of a criminal organization. The series kept its gender-swapping of the Penguin under wraps with its first trailer, but it did showcase that one of the new characters would be a strong female police detective who leads a Gotham police task force to capture and prosecute the Dark Knight as a criminal vigilante. Here's a look at what the female Penguin does.

will look like. You can see there. And I got to say, I'm getting some kind of like Rachel Levine vibes from the female penguin. And I don't mean that as an insult. The penguin's obviously a beautiful woman. So I mean, that is only a compliment to Rachel Levine. And, you know, this story obviously doesn't matter at all. If they want to make a female penguin villain in the new Batman cartoon, fine, whatever. The penguin's one of the lamest supervillains anyway. I mean, what is the penguin's power? He doesn't have one, right? His power is that he's

short and fat and deformed and he has an umbrella? He's a short, fat, deformed guy with an umbrella. How does that make him a supervillain? Like, if the penguin walked into the room right now, I would not be scared at all. Not even named after an intimidating bird. He's named after a bird that, like, if a flock of a million of those birds attacked you, it wouldn't do any damage at all. So it doesn't matter. But this story is kind of funny to me for two reasons. First, it's funny that we have to make sure there's equal representation among villains in

Like, if you didn't know any better, you would think that that would be the one type of character the left would be happy to allow white males to dominate. You'd think, but apparently not. And second, it just goes to show that these people are incapable of creating compelling original female characters. They just can't do it. Every female character now is just a male character hollowed out and repackaged with slightly longer hair. And that's because the writers of these shows, you know, they might be very focused on diversity and equity, but...

They don't actually understand women well enough to write a new original female character, especially a female villain. And so this is their way of doing it. But there can be interesting, even intimidating female villains. For example, I just watched a very good show called Kingdom. It's a Korean show set in the 17th century. And it has zombies. So it's basically a Korean Western with zombies. I don't think, maybe I'm wrong about this. I'm sure someone's done it. But I can't think of an example of

Someone who's thought to take the zombie premise and move it back, you know, centuries so that you're fighting the zombies with swords and stuff. Maybe someone's done that. Seems pretty obvious. But first I'd seen it. And and it's so, you know, what's not what's not to like a Korean Western zombies. It's like a you can't you can't fail. You can't lose. And and it's a good show. But the main villain in that show ends up being the queen. She's kind of a classic evil queen character.

Doesn't beat anybody up. You know, she's not physically intimidating. Doesn't know karate. But she is highly manipulative, callous, power hungry. And you take her seriously as a villain. And that's because they wrote her as a female character who is villainous in kind of female ways. They didn't write her as a male villain who they then just gender swamped. Anyway, that was really just my long excuse for bringing up the show Kingdom, which it seems like no one's heard of somehow, but you should. It's good.

Not everything on TV now is terrible. There's at least one good thing. Let's get to the comment section. Here's a comment from Cregan4584 responding to the discussion yesterday about the outrage over my trailer playing in front of Elliot Page's new trans film. And the comment says, Ellen Page, don't submit, Matt.

A few other comments correcting me and accusing me of capitulating in some way by referring to her as Elliot Page rather than Ellen Page. But, you know, that is not a capitulation at all. I've always said that I will refer to you as whatever name you pick for yourself because that's how names work. You're allowed to give yourself a new name. If the name is ridiculous, if it's a name commonly associated with the opposite sex, if it's a name I don't like, like, okay, but it's still your name.

So it's just a fact that Elliot Page's name is Elliot Page. It doesn't make any sense for me to say, no, no, no, her real name is really Ellen Page. Well, no, it isn't. I mean, assuming she legally changed her name, which I have no reason to think she didn't. If she legally changed her name, then her name is in no way and in no sense Ellen Page. It's just not her name. So you can't really do that. Now, with pronouns, you can. And actually, this is an important distinction because when you refuse to use the new name,

You are conflating names with pronouns. And I think you're actually helping the left because they want you to treat those two things as if they're the same. They're not. Our whole point is that names and pronouns are different things. A name is, you can choose a name. You can identify as whatever name you want. It makes sense to say, I identify as Matt Walsh. Like, that's how I identify myself. I could identify myself as something, I could pick a new name and identify myself as that, and that would be my name.

So that makes sense. But with pronouns, it doesn't. You can't identify as a pronoun. You can identify as a name. Names are arbitrary, subjective. They have no scientific basis, right? If somebody says they identify as a he, him, you can scientifically find out whether that's true or not. If I say that I identify as Bill, let's say, you can't scientifically prove that I'm not Bill. So, because names are arbitrary, subjective, they have no scientific basis. And pronouns, on the other hand, are objective. And...

They're not something that you identify as. They're something that speaks to the other person's perception of your biological identity. Let's see. 1313kateybug. As I was listening to the show yesterday, I said to myself, Self, he's not in the studio. There are an abundance of police sirens and his voice has an echo of trolling today. Him and the man bun wig are 100% going to sneak into the DNC. I don't know. I'm not. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Um...

That's a weird comment. That's strange. Punster says, Matt, don't forget that many misogynists are not single but divorced and they've been through the ringer. In fact, many of the single men avoid marriage because they've seen divorce ruin men's lives. Divorce also ruins women's and kids' lives. It might not be so bad if the government wasn't involved or if the legal system treated everyone fairly. That's true. A lot of the hatred between sexes is driven by divorced people, men and women.

But that just proves my point even more. If we're noticing a greater gender divide, lots of woman hate and man hate going around out there, then, yeah, as I said yesterday, a lot of the really, the truly sort of woman-hating comments that you see on Twitter or something, it's going to be young, single men. Most of it is coming from that. Same thing on the other, vice versa. The man-hating comments, most of it is coming from single women, whether young or not.

But yes, and then in other cases, probably in a certain preponderance of cases, these are coming from people who were not single at one point and then got divorced. But it still goes to the same solution, I think. And the solution to this is happy marriages. If you have a lot of resentment and anger and hatred between the sexes out in society, which it seems like we do,

The solution is happy marriages. If you have a society where people where there's the majority of people are in happy, healthy marriages, you're not going to have that. And finally, I don't know. I was saying the same thing at first, anti-white racism before I ever heard it online. But the more I hear it said by others, the more I think we just need to call it what it is. Racism just doesn't quite hit right. It sounds too niche. Yeah, I think you're right that I mean, it would be nice if we didn't have to specify anti-white racism.

And I certainly agree that we shouldn't be using the term reverse racism to describe anti-white racism, because that implies that racism is fundamentally a white on black thing. And so black people hate white people, then they are reversing it, which we shouldn't. We don't want to imply that. But I do think you have to specify anti-white racism because people associate racism with bigotry towards non-white people. That's that when you say racism, that's what most people think.

And so using the term anti-white racism is to get people to understand that there are other forms of racism aside from white on black or white on, quote unquote, people of color. That's what the phrase anti-white racism is supposed to accomplish. Now, eventually, it'd be nice to live in a society where you could just say the word racism and everyone understands like that's racial bigotry from anyone to any other group.

But I don't think we're at that point yet. If you've already visited amiracist.com and grabbed your tickets for September 13th, thank you. But I'm hearing from some of you that your local theater isn't showing Am I Racist, The Daily Wire's first theatrical release.

Well, here's how we change that. Every ticket sold right now helps add more theaters nationwide. Think of it as the free market actually working. Wait until you see what we uncover about the weird world of DEI and what they really think about you in America. The response to this movie has been phenomenal so far, but we're just getting started. If Am I Racist is playing in a theater near you, head to amiracist.com and buy your advance tickets today. Let's get this movie into every theater across the country by September 13th. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

Now, the other day I went into some detail about Kamala Harris's plan to implement price controls on groceries like they had in the old Soviet Union. At the time, it seemed like a proposal that was pretty hard to top. If you wanted to fast track the destruction of the economy, a surefire way to do it would be to have bureaucrats in Washington tell your Kroger how much to charge for bread.

You know, it's pretty much a kill shot. So I didn't think that the Harris campaign would immediately announce yet another new proposal that might do even more to push the economy towards a Great Depression. I didn't think it was possible, frankly. But it turns out that price controls are just the beginning of Kamala Harris's economic plan. You can call it that.

That's just the part of her plan that she's willing to talk about in public. CIMA 4 is now reporting that the Harris campaign has just secretly announced its support for an unprecedented plan to tax unrealized capital gains by high net worth individuals. In other words, she wants to tax money that these individuals haven't actually earned and which they do not possess.

They're just paper gains from stocks that have increased in value. And now Kamala Harris wants to tax them. That revelation came in an analysis released on Friday by the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, which spoke to the Kamala Harris campaign and confirmed that they endorse a series of revenue options included in the Biden administration's recent budget. And those options include a 25 percent minimum tax on, quote, billionaire wealth, the vast majority of which is held in unrealized capital gains. In particular, the proposal would apply to individuals worth more than 100 million dollars.

Now, it's worth emphasizing the way this was communicated. Kamala Harris didn't give a policy speech explaining why she plans to tax rich people's unrealized capital gains. She didn't release a statement explaining how it's possible or legal to tax unrealized capital gains. Instead, her campaign told the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget about the plans in a Friday news dump, hasn't spoken about it since. To give you an idea of how this would work, let's say you're Elon Musk and you own $10 million in Tesla stock. And let's say Tesla stock increases in value by 50% to $15 million.

Kamala Harris's plan would allow the federal government to tax your $5 million in unrealized profit at a rate of 25%, even though you can't spend that $5 million in profit because it's still tied up in the stock. You now owe the federal government some of that money. By contrast, if your stock had declined in value by 50%, you would not get a tax credit for that drop. And if the stock value were to drop after you paid the tax on the unrealized gains,

Well, then tough luck. You've just lost the value of the stock plus paid a tax on money that you never had. This is a proposal that is unconstitutional for one thing. The federal government doesn't have the power to tax something you don't have. They also don't have the power to levy direct taxes on anyone, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. We only have an income tax because the 16th Amendment specifically allows for it. But a tax on unrealized gains isn't a tax on income because there's no income, just appreciation.

Additionally, even if this new tax were somehow constitutional, it would still be a terrible idea. Harris's tax proposal would discourage investment in the stock market at the highest levels by encouraging wealthy investors to take their money elsewhere. That's what happened in Norway when they tried to tax unrealized capital gains. They thought they'd be getting hundreds of millions in new tax revenue only to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the ultra-rich fled the country, obviously.

This is the exact opposite of what you'd want to happen if you were trying to ensure that people's 401k balances keep going up. We want rich people keeping their money in the market and buying more stocks because that benefits the market for everybody. We don't want them to take their money into offshore tax shelters. We don't want them selling their stocks in order to pay some massive tax so the government can waste their money. We want to encourage investment, not discourage it. Very basic concept. The other problem with this proposal is that it's obviously going to expand. Like it's not going to stay limited to rich people.

Once the federal government assumes massive new powers to tax money that people don't have, they're going to apply those new powers whenever possible. They'll start with billionaires and they'll work their way down. And if you don't believe that, look at what happened with the income tax. That was passed in 1861. At the time, it only applied to people making 800 bucks or more, which would put them in the top 3% of income earners at the time. But the income tax obviously didn't stay relegated to the top 3% for very long. Now pretty much everybody pays income tax at a much higher rate also.

The same thing happened with the AMT or the alternative minimum tax. In 1969, the Treasury Secretary told Congress that a total of 155 taxpayers who made more than $200,000 in the past year had managed to pay no federal income tax. Reportedly, the public was so outraged by this that they sent more letters to Congress complaining about these 155 taxpayers than they sent about the Vietnam War.

In response, Congress passed an additional tax, tack-on tax, that these 155 households would have to pay in addition to income tax, which included a new tax on capital gains. It was a popular proposal because most people assumed that they wouldn't be affected by it. And you probably know what happened next. By 2015, the AMT affected a lot more than 155 people. In fact, it affected more than 5 million taxpayers in 2017.

And that's how many people had to pay some form of AMT. It wasn't until the Trump administration reduced that number to around 200,000, but it was still a lot higher than 155. So given this history, there's absolutely no reason to think that this new tax on unrealized capital gains is going to be restricted to wealthy individuals for very long. It's very likely that the government will quickly start going after unrealized gains that millions of Americans supposedly possess. For example, your home. Let's say you bought a home for $200,000. It's now worth $400,000.

That would qualify as a $200,000 unrealized gain. Even if you didn't sell it. You don't have the money. It's your home. Your home is the money. Can Kamala Harris charge you 25% of the $200,000 whenever she wants? Which would bankrupt many families? Under this new proposal, she could. She could also come after your 401k directly, since there are probably a lot of unrealized gains there as well. But here's the point.

Even if this proposal somehow did remain restricted to rich individuals, even if for the first time in recorded history, the government decided not to expand its unprecedented new powers over the economy, then it would still be wrong. The government doesn't get to steal money that people don't have. It doesn't matter if they're Elon Musk or a homeless guy on the street. Taxing phantom money is an unethical and unconstitutional and unworkable plan. We have to reject this kind of thing completely, reject it in principle.

To be comprehensive about this, there are additional proposals that Harris's campaign quietly endorsed on Friday that would also help speed along the destruction of the economy. For example, Harris would also raise the corporate tax rate to 28%, marking the first hike in 40 years, a dramatic increase in the current rate of 21%, which has been in effect since 2018. She also raised some long-term capital gain tax rates to 44.6%, the highest rate since 1922. All of these proposals, combined with the price controls and the tax on unrealized gains,

would put this country closer to a Great Depression than we've been since the 1920s. And the only reason the Harris campaign is doing it is that Democrats are incapable of even mentioning the actual solutions to our economic problems, slash government spending and slow the printing of money. Adopting those solutions would mean disappointing core constituents of the Democrat Party, including the millions of new arrivals from Central America. It would require admitting that the Biden administration

made our economic outlook worse, not better, by spending nearly a trillion dollars to reduce inflation. So Kamala Harris instead has endorsed a series of proposals that would turn our economy sharply towards actual collapse. And that is why Kamala Harris and her plan to tax money that does not exist are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. 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-- I'm trying to learn. I'm on this journey. I'm going to sort this out. I need to go deeper undercover.

Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. Here's my certifications. 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 going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. America is racist to its bones. So inherently. Yeah, this country is a piece of...

White folks. White trash. White supremacy. White woman. White boy. Is there a black person around here? There's a black person right here. Does he not exist? They gonna say I'm racist. Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. Never be too careful. They gonna say you racist. Buy your tickets now in theaters September 13th. Rated PG-13.