Ep. 1555 - Michelle Obama And Dylan Mulvaney Both FLOP In The Same Week

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Michelle Obama launched a podcast this week. Too much fanfare.
The trans activist Dylan Mulvaney launched his new book in the same week. Both have been complete humiliating flops.
What does that tell us about the left's broader problems in the culture? Also, President Trump has a plan to eliminate taxes for everyone making under $150,000 a year. I have some issues with that, which I'll explain.
A member of a health board in Oregon identifies as a turtle, so obviously we need to discuss that. And an official at the FAA helped non-white applicants cheat on their insurance exam.
Of

course, he still has a job somehow. We'll talk about've turned the tide in the battle for the soul of America.
Donald Trump has been elected, is beginning the Herculean task of pushing back against the forces of wokeism in America. It's true that many businesses are beginning to mothball their DEI, CRT, and ESG programs and focus on serving customers, all customers, rather than political interests.
What about you? Have you joined the movement of Americans who are using their investments to hold companies accountable for their ethical behavior? I'm not a client of the firm, but if you'd like to join other patriotic citizens by aligning your investments with your conservative values, go to constitutionwealth.com slash Matt for a free consultation. Constitution Wealth is a registered investment advisor.
You should review Constitution Wealth's disclosures at constitutionwealth.com to understand their services and fees. All investing involves risks, including the risk of loss.
There are a lot of things that I'm willing to do for this show, a lot of sacrifices I've made over the years, both big and small. And usually I don't like to draw attention to these sacrifices because no one tunes into this show to listen to my personal problems.
But today, I have to make an exception to my normal practice. And once you see the footage I'm about to play, you'll see why.
I just endured what could be the single greatest trial of my podcasting career, if not my entire life on this planet. Without the assistance of any mind-altering substances or the YouTube fast-forward button or anything like that, I just listened to multiple minutes, entire chunks of Michelle Obama's new podcast, which is called IMO.
And each episode is a full hour, and it features Michelle Obama and her brother Craig. And sometimes if you're lucky, you even get a special guest.
But really, the special guest is not an important part of the formula. Because whether the guest is there or not, you can expect to listen to approximately one hour of Michelle and her brother talking about themselves.
It's actually impressive the degree to which the entire show is about inane, completely uninteresting details of these two people's lives. So here's just a sampling of the first episode.
And frankly, it's an impressive achievement if you can even manage to get through this short montage of the most banal and uninteresting footage ever recorded in human history. Here it is.
What's really ironic is that we were talking about how small our place was. Growing up, our house, yeah.
And then look where we're doing this taping in this big, beautiful Airbnb. Palatial Airbnb.
Got a little more room here. I know.
Who would have thought we'd be able to be in a snazzy place like this? Very early on, mom was like, you're going to kindergarten now. Here's an alarm clock.
Here's how to set it. Set it.
Get yourself up. Because as she said, you're going to school for you, not for me.
She's like, I had my education. And I don't believe that if you care about yours, that you need your mom to be waking you up every morning.
So from the time we started kindergarten, you know, now she was up. It wasn't like she was sleeping in.
She was just listening to hear us. Get ourselves up.
Get ourselves up. Right.
Start getting dressed. When we got a little older, even start our own breakfast.
And then I followed you to Princeton, where you were two years ahead of me and big man on campus there too, because he was all Ivy on the basketball team and all this sort of stuff. So everybody knew Craig.
I was always Craig Robinson's little sister. I'm really enjoying the payback of Craig Robinson now being Michelle Obama's brother.
Boy, times have changed. But it made me stop and think about who I wanted to be and whether I was pursuing what I thought I was supposed to pursue or whether I was being true to what I cared about.
And Barack came into the picture and he was, as I call a swerver, never really even thought about, you know, the need to pursue some high-powered career, even though he was Harvard educated, blah, blah, blah. It was all about what were we giving back? What were we doing? And really, it comes off like a conversation between two.
It's like a relative you haven't seen for a while, and they're coming over for Thanksgiving. It's like the relative that you are least interested in talking to gets there first.
And so now you're just sitting in the kitchen or standing there making small talk. And that's how it comes across.
When she says blah, blah, blah at the end of that clip, that was the one moment in the entire episode that really resonated with me on a deep level. And that's when I thought that she recognized that actually people didn't want to hear about her inferiority complex at Princeton or her mom giving her an alarm clock as a kid or or the precise educational credentials of her husband.
Maybe this would mark a pivot point in the podcast where she starts talking about something remotely interesting, but it never happened. It never even came close to happening.
By far, the best part of the first episode was the comment section, which included lines like this. Someone said, this should be called drop the mic with Michelle Obama.
Someone else said, remember when this guy drowned his chef in a lover's quarrel? Allegedly. And then Joan Rivers was right.
And then Mark Dice chimes in with, which one is Michelle? Which is credit where it's due, one of the funnier YouTube comments I've read in quite some time. Then there's a bunch of people wondering why she's unwilling to be seen in public with her husband anymore.
And there's this observation. Someone here has got some serious balls.
By that, I mean whoever hasn't disabled the comments yet. And that last person makes a particularly good point because you will not find a single positive comment anywhere on the page.
As of Wednesday afternoon, a full 24 hours after the episode launched, it managed to rack up just 65,000 views. And more than half of that was clearly, or all of it, by the comments anyway, was from trolls, people that were just looking to troll her.
In the first 15 hours, it had under 20,000 views. And now everybody's flooding into market.
But in the first two days, it did not come close to 100,000 views, which is the bare minimum you'd expect a podcast like this to achieve. Overnight, it seems to have made it up to about 160,000 views just from last night to today, which means they're almost certainly paying for views now because it's embarrassing to have a podcast like this that doesn't at least crack 100,000.
But all in all, the show has not resonated, to put it mildly. And it's actually incredible if you think about it.
Somebody as famous as Michelle Obama launches a podcast that's been widely promoted and publicized, and yet nobody is watching it. The media tells us that Michelle Obama is highly popular, and that she would be a shoo-in if she ran for president.
But the numbers suggest that the public isn't all that interested in her. And just to be sure I wasn't missing anything, I subjected myself to some of the second episode of the podcast, which was also released on Wednesday.
This one features an actress as a guest, but it doesn't remotely change what they talk about, which is themselves. Here it is.
My best friend and I have the same birthday.

And it was like the 30-something birthday. You're a Capricorn, too.
I'm a Capricorn. Like me, 17.
You already know, 12th over here. That's why we bossy.
Yeah, I know. I don't like saving it.
I don't want to give my mother that satisfaction. You know, I guess with me and my friends, because like you, I don't want to generalize.
as long as every now and then somebody else buys a round of drinks or it's lightweight and I'm gonna get it when I get home. I'll give you an example because my husband doesn't fully understand it and he's got great friends friends that he has since high school I know his friends meaningful but when.
But when a girlfriend comes to visit, it's usually like, you got to stay for two days because it's going to take us two days to check up, right? Both of us probably as Capricorns, we're probably a little more honest about who we are, what we want. And, you know, and even though women talk a lot, sometimes we don't, you know, we don't spend that time because we're pouring that energy out.
Like I'm, I'm, I understand you before I understand me. Yeah.
Yeah. Yes.
Yes. And it's, that's the nature of, you know, a lot of times women are giving or, you know, without opening themselves up because that's hard, you know.
Now, the lack of self-awareness here is genuinely breathtaking and at least a little hilarious. The last clip came at the very end of the episode, by the way.
She spends the whole time talking about herself and then she nosedives into astrology. And she claims that she's really interested in trying to understand other people.
having discussed herself for two hours across two episodes, Michelle Obama wants you to know that she's really interested in understanding other people. That's what this is all about.
And once again, the comments are full of people asking what Big Mike did to the chef. That's all the comments care about.
This episode has about 75,000 views in two days. Just for comparison's sake, Joe Rogan released an episode on the same day, and it has a million views.
Unfortunately for anyone hoping the misery would end here, there was one more video, a digital exclusive, that they uploaded along with these episodes. Picture the most cliched, trite content imaginable, and somehow this will probably exceed your expectations.
Even if you manage to get through the other two clips, there's a very good chance that this will take you out. This is

the last one, I promise. But here it is.
In my opinion, a hot dog is not a sandwich.

And people have been trying to convince me that it is a hot dog.

It's its own category?

It's its own category. Is a hamburger a sandwich? A hamburger can be a sandwich.
Yes. Why can't a hot? Well, what makes it? It's the shape of the hot dog? You have two pieces of bread and some kind of thing in the middle.
Now, whatever focus group they paid to come up with segments like this, they need to get a refund immediately. It's like if you asked AI to generate a relatable podcast, it would come up with exactly this segment and have everyone say exactly what these people are saying, and it would give the podcast the name IMO.
And this is what Michelle Obama, who again, some people still pretend as a major star and a potential presidential contender, is capable of producing. By the way, that video about hot dogs has 25,000 views.
So the point is that this is not just a problem that Michelle Obama is facing. This is a broader crisis on the left.
The trans activist Dylan Mulvaney, for example, has just launched yet another effort to get himself some publicity after falling off the face of the earth. And specifically, he released a new book that promises a modern lens to womanhood, even though it's written by a man who decided he was a woman a couple of years ago.
And predictably, his book launch has been a complete disaster, like everything else he's ever been associated with. The word flop does not begin to describe this particular publication.
It sits right now, and it came out this week, at number 1,081 on Amazon at the moment, a few days after its release. A day after its release, it had not cracked the top 500.
So this probably translates to maybe a few hundred books sold at most, to go along with, by the way, a rating of 2.9 stars on Amazon.

So it's an unmitigated failure. And initially, I wasn't even aware that Mulvaney's book had come out, but then I saw that, like Michelle Obama's podcast, pretty much every major media publication in the country has been covering it.
CBS News, for example, had a friendly sit-down with Dylan Mulvaney, asked him a bunch of softball questions, which he somehow couldn't answer. Getting a sit-down interview on CBS to talk about your book is the kind of promotion that most authors can only dream about.
Conservative authors especially would never get that. But this is a sort of assistance that Mulvaney, as the great trans mascot, gets, and it has not moved the needle for him even one inch.
But maybe Mulvaney's most embarrassing media appearance came on The View, in which he didn't seem capable of articulating a coherent thought at all. Here's just one example.
Last week, California governor Gavin Newsom said that he thinks that trans athletes competing in girls and women's sports was deeply unfair. Now I want to hear what you think, cuz I'll tell you what I think too.
The last time I played a sport, I was six years old and I was on a soccer team, but I assigned myself as the nurse. So I sat with the band-aids.
And so in the words of Wicked, I am not that girl. But a dear friend of mine, Skylar, he is a trans athlete.
His handle's Pink Manta Ray. That's someone who I really look to for guidance.
And I think that is what's tricky is like now stepping in this identity. I'm like a baby trans you know I've only three years in tomorrow's my anniversary your friend went from female to male and is competing with other males correct her friend went from female to male and is competing with other males so Gavin doesn doesn't have a problem with that.
So Whoopi Goldberg begins by distancing herself from Gavin Newsom because he dared to suggest dishonestly that he doesn't think men should compete against women in sports. And then she asks Mulvaney about his thoughts on the topic.
And it turns out that he has no thoughts. He can't defend the idea of men competing against women because it makes no sense.
And for some reason, he pretends that he can't have an opinion about it because he was bad at soccer or something. So instead, he defers to somebody named Skylar, who he says is a trans athlete.
And from what I could tell, Skylar was a top-performing female swimmer at Harvard. And then she decided during a gap year that she's really a man, so she swam with the men.
And in that capacity, she went from a record-breaking swimmer as a woman, which is what she is, to one of the worst athletes on the team. And somehow this is supposed to be proof of something, I guess? If you ask Skyler, it's proof that men don't have any advantages over women in sports, even though Skyler herself is living proof that the opposite is true.
But as the interview continued, Whoopi offered her own assessment of the situation in an attempt to pick up the slack for Dylan. Here's how that went.
When you come in and you say, oh, you know, these men, these are men, you know, competing against women, you're assuming that the women are weak and just can't do anything except be here.

Have you seen female athletes? They know what they're doing. So I'm not sure what's going on or why this is an issue.
The same for me as when people say, oh, I don't know how I feel about you. You do, God doesn't make mistakes.
No.

And the challenge is not to the trans people, it's to the I don't know how I feel about you. You do.
God doesn't make mistakes.

No.

And the challenge is not to the trans people. It's to the people who are not trans.
That's what God is looking to see, how you treat people. Yeah.
That's what is happening. So I was just curious as to what I liked your answer.
Thank you. I liked your answer.
Now what Wobby pretends not to understand Is that no one is assuming

That women are weaker. We just know that that's true.
It's true in every relevant respect. This is why high school boys can defeat the best women's soccer team on the planet.
It's why women don't play in the NFL, and it's why no one is watching The View anymore or buying Dylan Mulvaney's book or listening to Michelle Obama's podcast. People are tired of being lied to in the name of a political ideology that becomes more discredited by the day.
And we can also add to this list the total failure of Meghan Markle's Netflix show and her Spotify podcast that was just canceled. These are all people, all leftists, who have been heavily promoted by the media in Hollywood.
They get the kind of mainstream exposure that nobody on the right has ever gotten or will ever get, and yet the audience doesn't care. They can't sell books or podcasts.
The public is totally disinterested. In fact, just about the only success the left has had culturally lately is with Gavin Newsom's new podcast.
That's actually doing fairly well. It's getting, you know, it's getting, it has an audience, but it's only doing well because his guests are all Republicans.
If Gavin Newsom were doing a solo show or talking to other leftists, it would do about as well as IMO with Michelle Obama. In other words, the left has the same problem culturally that they have politically.
They have no stars. They have no leaders in the culture or on the political scene.

There's a reason nearly all of the most popular political podcasts are right-wing.

No matter how aggressively the left tries to force demented actors and disingenuous politicians and incoherent ideologies on the public, it's just not working. They can shove all of these people

in our face, and they do. But what they're discovering is that they can't make us care.

Now let's get to our five headlines. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promotes human flourishing and creates a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian affordable. Visit gcu.edu.
MSN reports U.S. President Donald Trump does not want taxes on people making less than $150,000 a year.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CBS News in an interview emphasizing proposals such as removing taxes on tips over time and social security contributions, describing them as transformative ideas for America. Ludwig's comments on tip taxes and social security echo Trump's promise to eliminate tip taxes while also pushing for sweeping tax cuts for individuals and corporations.
And now the idea is to get rid of taxes for people making under $150,000 a year. So that's the latest.
And it seems to be a pretty popular proposal, at least among people on the right. And I'm going to be the party pooper on this one.
I don't like this idea. Just like I'm not a fan of the no tax on tip thing.
But you kind of have to track what I'm saying. You have to follow the argument, listen to the whole argument, because I fully support letting people keep all their tips without having to pay taxes on it.
I fully support no tax on people under $150,000 a year. Yeah, I would like for those people in that income bracket to not pay taxes.
Totally. I think that's great.
I support and would celebrate people in those groups not paying taxes, as long as everyone else also doesn't have to pay taxes. Because what I really want to get away from, what I'm frankly really sick of, is using the tax code to arbitrarily choose winners and losers, which is what already happens, and this is more of that.
And we're so used to it that we think, well, it's just the way it is. It doesn't have to be this way.
There are other ways to handle taxes. There are other tax systems you can have in place where it doesn't work this way.
But the system we've had now for a long time is that the government just decides who the winners and losers are going to be. already high income earners carry almost all of the tax burden, almost all of it.
So already, if you commit the great sin of achieving financial success, you will have 40% of your income confiscated by the government. And that is just obscene.
And I know that, like, about this and we were debating it on X as well, and so I get a lot of comments like, oh, you only complain about it because they're taking 40% of your income and that's why you don't like it. Well, first of all, yeah.
I mean, I don't like it when they take 40% of my income.

I do find that

quite frustrating. I don't like that 40% of your income taken by the government to then be wasted.

Yeah, I don't like that. But for the record, I felt this way when I was a low-income earner

and a middle-income earner. I felt this way when I was making $17,000 a year.

I felt this was when I was a low-income earner and a middle-income earner.

I felt this way when I was making $17,000 a year. I felt this way at $44,000 a year.
I felt this way all the way. I feel this way now.
When it comes to taxes, I've been saying the same thing my entire adult life. I've had the same view of it my entire adult life, regardless of where I am.
And I've traveled, you know, I've been, I've traveled up and down the income brackets.

So I've got a good picture of where everybody sits and what the tax burden is. Doesn't matter where I am.
I feel the same way about it. I've always opposed the progressive tax rate system that we have now.
I've always opposed this idea of choosing winners and losers, even when I was in the winner group. The winner group as in the group that didn't have to pay any taxes.
I would look at that and say, well, that's not like, I like the fact I'm not paying taxes, but how is it fair that I'm not paying anything? These people over here are paying like everything. In what way is that fair? I don't understand how that could possibly be fair.
What definition of fair are we using here? Now, my position, as you probably know, is that the income tax is theft. It should not exist.
It's an abomination. We should get rid of it.
But if it does exist, it should be equal. It should be flat.
Everybody should pay the same percent. And that doesn't mean that everyone pays the same amount.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that everyone should pay the same amount. Well, I do think everyone should pay the same amount because the same amount should be zero.
I think everyone should pay zero. But if there has to be an income tax system, then it should be a flat tax, a stable equal rate of, say, 10%.
And then everyone's paying the same

percentage, but everyone obviously is not paying the same amount because the amount you pay is depending on the percentage of your income. But that is without question the fairest way to do an income tax if you're going to do one, which again, you shouldn't.
I mean, if someone making $150,000 a year doesn't have to pay any tax, why should someone making $225,000 a year have to pay tax? How is that fair? These are people basically the same income bracket, living next door to each other, probably in the same neighborhood. So if you're the 225 guy, you're living next to $150,000 a year salary.
You got to pay taxes, but he doesn't. How in the hell is that fair? And what makes $150,000 so special? Why is that the cutoff? Why not 165? Why not 200? Why not 75,000? Why are we putting it there? And what if the guy at $225,000 is the sole breadwinner for a family of four while a guy making $145,000 a year is single and has no dependents? Why should the single guy with $145,000 a year income get to pay no tax while the family has to pay a tax.
I mean, that makes no sense. The only justification I ever hear for this kind of thing or the progressive tax rate or anything like that is, um, is while it's a fair share.
Everyone has to pay your fair share. No, what I'm asking is how is that the fair share? Okay.
In our current system, you pay 40% if you make over, I think, $600,000. Whatever the topic of Brexit is, you pay about 40%.
Why should anyone have 40% of their income confiscated? I don't care how much they make. How is that? And then the answer is, well, it's a fair share.
Says who? Who said that that's the fair? What do you mean by fair?

Who decides that?

Who is this, you know, flawless arbiter of fairness?

Who gets to decide that?

And there never is any answer.

It's always just, well, it's a fair share.

What do you mean by fair?

That's fair. That's it.
By fair, I mean fair. I mean, really, if you're going to choose winners and losers, which I don't think we should be, but if you're going to select some special group that gets a get out of jail, get out of a tax-free card, you know, it should be families, if anything.
It should be Americans with X number of kids, whatever it is, say two or three. They don't have to pay any taxes.
That at least makes sense because then you're incentivizing Americans to have kids and you're making it easier for parents to feed and clothe their children. So if you are, if you're going to, if we're going to just look at a certain group and say, yeah,

they don't have to pay any taxes. They're going to get off scot-free.
And everybody else is going

to have to carry the tax burden, but not these people. If you're going to do that,

if there's any group that it makes sense to kind of single out for that great privilege,

families, that's the group that it makes sense to kind of single out for that great privilege, families.

That's the group that would make sense.

But I'm not in favor of that either, actually.

Because I think it should just be equal for everybody, if you're going to have it.

Everyone pays the same percent.

And not only is that, quote unquote, fair, or it's, there is no fair way to do an income tax.

It's an inherently unfair abomination of a practice, but it's the fairest version of this unfair thing. But not only does it make it fair, it also greatly reduces the complication and makes the whole tax system much simpler.
Like, it makes it so that you can, you actually know how much tax you're going to owe. There's no complicated formula.
You don't have to pay anyone to figure out your taxes for you. It's no mystery at the end of the year.
How much do I owe? How much am I getting back? None of that stuff. You know exactly, if you can do basic math, you wouldn't even need a calculator.
Taxes should be, if you're going to have them, income tax, it should be so simple that you don't even need a calculator to do it, much less an accountant. That would be the case with a flat tax of 10%.
All right, let's move to this. Daily Wire has this report.
Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order on Tuesday barring the thousands of correctional officers she fired from ever working for the New York government again, including even for counties. That's covered the Daily Wire, about 15,000 officers began

striking and protesting on February 17th, arguing that prisons across the state have become totally

unsafe for inmates and workers following the implementation of the Democrat-backed Halt Act.

Hochul used aggressive tactics against them, including terminating health coverage for some 5,300 officers and their dependents, and eventually firing 2,000 officers and sergeants on Monday. and now she signed an executive order saying, not only are you fired, but you can never work in the prison system or in any government job anywhere in the state at any level ever again.
So this is obviously vindictive, evil. Kathy Hochul is seeking vengeance on the people who dared to defy her.
She's trying to permanently prevent them from getting jobs in their field or in any government field. There's no reason to do that other than just a desire to harm the people who tried to defy you.
That's the only reason to do it. And this all stems from these prison guards simply not wanting to be assaulted at their jobs.
They're trying to minimize the amount of times that they are attacked and bludgeoned and sexually assaulted and sprayed with urine and feces. That's about the most reasonable demand an employee could ever make.
It's the most reasonable demand. It's the lowest bar that you can set, and that's all they're asking for.
But the problem is that Democrat policies in the state have made the job much more dangerous for prison guards. They've created this problem.
So giving them what they want, which is a basic level of safety and dignity, would mean rolling back some Democrat policies and actually prioritizing the needs of prison officers over prisoners. And Hochul just can't do that.
She won't do it. So instead, she's playing a very vicious form of hardball.
And here's what gets me about this. Aside from the fact that the

prison guards, the corrections officers are obviously right, Hochul is wrong. Also, the

governor here is showing a willingness to play hardball in a way that she never has and never

would in any other context. Do you think she'd ever do this to teachers who were striking? No.
Or what about, again, the inmates? Where is this energy when it comes to the violent criminals who are wreaking havoc in your cities? Imagine if Hoka was willing to be as tough and heartless and ruthless with them

as she is with the people who we rely on to protect us from these criminals.

But no, she reserves all of that, this kind of ruthless, merciless approach,

she reserves only for the people that are actually serving the public and protecting us. I want to respond to this briefly.
You may remember, I'm sure you remember the, because it just happened, the incident with Congressman McBride at the hearing this week when he was correctly gendered by Republican Congressman Self. And lots of people on the left We're mad about that.
But Tommy Lahren, Fox News commentator, was also a bit peeved. And I want to respond to this because here she is talking.
I think this is Danica Patrick she's talking to. But they're talking about this incident.
And here's what they have to say. Listen.
There is a representative who is transgender. Sarah McBride was purposely referred to as Mr.
And it's getting a lot of traction. I feel like it's mean spirited to do it just to be mean.
Now, that doesn't mean that I want transgender people in women's sports or women's spaces, because that has an actual, physical, tangible impact. Like I'm still learning the characters in politics right now.
I'm like, oh, it does look like a girl. So, you know, obviously there's been a transition made.
There's it's it's it's a lot different than when someone's at a cafe and it's a guy with a beard and a mustache and clearly a man, but then has a skirt on and lipstick and you're like, want to be a girl. It's like, that is very difficult to understand.
And this is reaching. This is attention.
This is reaching. This isn't fair.
But I think it's inappropriate. I think, look, this is clearly looks like a woman.
And it was done twice. So no twist ending here.
I have to disagree. I have exactly the take that you knew that I would have.
I very much disagree with this. It's not mean-spirited to call a man a man.
In no context, in no scenario, could it ever be mean or mean-spirited to correctly identify a man as a man. And that doesn't mean that it's never mean-spirited to say something that's true.
I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that it can never be mean to speak the truth.
There are scenarios where saying something that is true could be mean. Now, there's never a scenario where lying is okay or where you should ever lie in order to not be mean.
but there are times when you could say something that is true, but you didn't need to say it. And so it was mean-spirited to say.
And there are many obvious examples of this kind of thing. For example, if Congressman McBride was also massively overweight and Congressman Self had introduced him by saying, okay, I now yield the floor to the very fat gentleman from Delaware, and I got to yield a lot of floor to him.
Now, that would be true. It's a true statement.
It would also be mean. In that context, there's no reason to say that.
You don't need to, yes, now there could be times when you have to talk to somebody about the fact that they're overweight, and you never want to lie to them and tell them they're not overweight if they are, if they ask you. But in that context, there's no reason to point that out.
It's true, but it would be mean. Or, you know, how about another example? What if Jasmine Crockett was on the committee and if Congressman Self had said, I now recognize the woman with a 75 IQ from Texas, Ms.
Crockett. Again, that's true.
It's a true thing to say about her. And it would be hilarious.
So, I mean, I would laugh if he had said that, but it would be mean. I mean, we can't deny that it'd be a mean thing to say in that context.
So those are examples where saying something that is true is mean because it's an

unnecessary detail or observation about someone. It's an embarrassing observation about someone

that you didn't need to make in that context. However, the fact that McBride is a man, that is not the same as weight or IQ or some other embarrassing fact.
I mean, the fact that you're a man is not an embarrassing fact about you, first of all. If you're embarrassed by it, then that's kind of your problem.
That's your own hangup. That's not anyone else's problem.
It's also more importantly, a fundamental fact about him. It's so fundamental that you cannot even talk about the guy.
You cannot say two sentences about him without acknowledging that he's a man. Just in the past two sentences that I've said about this case, I have acknowledged McBride's sex like three or four times.
And not even because I'm trying to make a point, but just because that's how people talk. It's an unavoidable reality.
We are forced to either acknowledge that he's a man or play along with the shray that he's a woman, or completely change our speaking

patterns and make ourselves sound like these weird AI robots in order to avoid using pronouns at all. But those last two options are not acceptable.
The last two options would be us going along with or going out of our way to cooperate with a falsehood. And that's the trans issue, that it forces us to take a side.
And there have been people like Tommy Lahren this whole time. One of the ways that the trans agenda has been able to,

was able to establish such a foothold in our culture,

get a stranglehold on the culture,

is because you had a lot of people that took the Tommy Lahren approach

and said, yeah, I don't agree with it, but I don't want to be rude,

and so I'm going to stay out of it.

But in this case, staying out of it or trying to avoid it

Thank you. agree with it, but I don't want to be rude.
And so I'm going to stay out of it. But in this case, staying out of it or trying to avoid it is taking the side of the trans activists.
Because when you've got people who come along and make the claim that men are actually women and women are actually men, that's the kind of claim that you can't stay neutral on it. And when you have a person walking around in the world who's a man claiming

that he's a woman, you can't stay neutral on that. He is forcing you to take a side.

He is forcing you to either side with the reality or with this fiction that he's created.

And they do this very intentionally. They very intentionally are doing this.
We have a choice to stick with the truth or join them in the lie. There really is no middle ground here.
And so you have to choose the truth. And that's it.
And Congressman McBride, Sarah McBride, who's really Tim McBride, I believe is originally. If the other option, aside from the Republicans being quote-unquote mean to him, would be for Republicans to do what they would have done had this guy showed up in Congress five years ago, which is just to go along with it, to play along with the charade.
And you cannot do that. All right.
Speaking of charades that you can't play along with, New York Post has this. A member of a state panel advising the director of Oregon's health authority made a wild first impression at a meeting by proclaiming, I use they, them, and turtle for my pronouns.
J.D. Holt, who also goes by J.D.
Terrapin on Facebook, made the declaration with a straight face while introducing themself. That's how the New York Post wrote this.
While introducing themself at a virtual council meeting on December 20th, we have, I think, a clip of this half human, half turtle introducing herself. I believe this is a female.

Introducing herself here. clip of this half human, half turtle, uh, introducing herself.
I believe this is a female introducing herself. Here it is.
Let's listen. Hello everybody.
It's JD, turtle and pronouns, uh, pronouns are turtle and they, them. Hello everybody.
It's JD. I use they, them or turtle for pronouns.
Hello everybody. It's JD, they, them and and turtle for pronouns in this Pinkfield Eugene area.
I got to say this, um, this Ninja Turtles remake looks a bit strange. I, uh, I don't know what happened.
Usually the Ninja Turtles were in pretty good shape, weren't they? But they did eat a lot of pizza and that catches up with you after a while. So I'm not going to make fun of this woman.
Honestly, I'm glad she's finally coming out of her shell, even if the news of this person does leave me a bit shell-shocked. That's really all.
That's it. That's all I had on this.
I just wanted to make a couple of turtle puns, a couple of Ninja Turtle jokes and turtle puns, and then we're out. That's all needs to be said.
Because I don't think we need to spend time explaining why it's absurd to identify as a turtle. Although, just for the record, it's not any more absurd than any other false self-identification that you hear from these people.
A man is as much a woman as he is a turtle, in the sense that he's totally not a woman at all, just as he's totally not a turtle at all. I do wonder about the grammar here, because even if she is a turtle, which I don't think she is, my hypothesis is that she's not actually a turtle.
But that wouldn't change her pronouns. If I was talking about an actual turtle, I would use he or she pronouns.
If there was a turtle walking across the ground, I would say, oh, he's walking across the ground. Because turtle is not a pronoun.
So what does that sound like? Let's just try an example. You take the sentence, she drove in her car to the store and bought 12 of her favorite donuts and ate them all by herself.
Okay, let's take that sentence. Now using turtle pronouns, turtle drove in turtle car to the store and bought 12 of turtle favorite donuts and ate them all by her turtle.
That's how that sentence would sound if you were actually

respecting the pronouns. Which, to go back to our last story, if you're Tommy Lahren, I'd like to

ask Tommy this. Would you respect those pronouns? Would you use the turtle? She uses turtle pronouns.

You don't want to be mean-spirited, do you? This is how she identifies herself as a turtle. So would you speak that way about this woman? Like ever in a million years, would you do that? I'm going to assume that you wouldn't.
And why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you use turtle pronouns, even though this is how she identifies? That's her self-identification. That's her truth.
And it would make her really sad. It would make her very sad if you did not use turtle pronouns.
But why wouldn't you use the turtle pronouns? Well, because number one, it's ridiculous. Okay.
Just like it's ridiculous to call a man a woman. And number two, it's just not true.
Because even though she would like for you to refer to her as a turtle, you recognize that she's actually not that. It's just, it's not true is the reason why you wouldn't do it.
So I would take that and apply it to Mr. McBride.
Let's get to the comment section. You can't have a good time in bad boots, and that's why you need Tecovas.

Whether you're a generational rancher or trying boots for the very first time,

Tecovas crafts quality Western boots that are perfect for you.

Born in Texas in 2015, they've made it easy for anyone to find their perfect pair.

Every boot is handcrafted with over 200 meticulous steps,

which is why they feel so comfortable from the moment you pull them on.

If you get the chance, you should absolutely try them out. Try them on in person at your nearest Tecova store.
They offer complimentary drinks and hospitality that's pure Texas. Plus, with their best in the West guarantee, you get free returns and exchanges for 30 days.
These boots are truly built to last and impress no matter where your day takes you. I just ordered a pair of Earl boots and Midnight Cowhide.
In fact, these will be my third Tecovas pair that I'll have. I've never been more excited about a pair of boots that I know would feel comfortable and sturdy to wear around right out of the box.
Right now, get 10% off at tecovas.com slash Matt. When you sign up for an email and text, that's 10% off at tecovas.com slash Matt.
Tecovas-S dot com slash Matt. TECOVAS dot com slash Matt.
See Cipher Details. TECOVAS.
Point your toes west. The story about Matt's sister with the homeless woman.
I had a very similar situation happen to me years ago. There was a homeless woman living in her car in a parking lot near where I worked.
I saw her every day. She had a dog who was clearly sick and was breaking my heart as an animal lover.
I decided to take her a big bag of supplies, including food like granola bars, water, personal care items, and a large bag of dog food and supplies. She did take it, but didn't say thank you and told me next time she really prefers McDonald's to all this.
True story. Yeah, there are a million stories like this that most people have if you've tried to help the homeless, if you've done these kinds of random acts of kindness.
But I mean, there could be plenty of times when you offer a helping hand and you get gratitude and all of that, what you would expect. But that is certainly not always the case.
I mean, I can remember just one example of many that I could pull from personal examples. It was a couple of years ago.
I was going into a deli, I think it was, to get just lunch. And there was a homeless guy outside, and so I decided to buy him a sandwich.
And yeah, granted, I didn't go out and ask him what kind of sandwich he likes. I was in line.
It was kind of a spur of the moment decision.

But I did figure that he'll probably accept whatever sandwich I get him.

I mean, he's homeless.

He's living out on the street.

He needs to eat.

So I got him a sandwich and I gave it to him.

And he didn't say thank you.

He just kind of took it from me.

As I'm walking away.

And that part, you know, fine, whatever.

But as I'm walking away, I saw him throw it away. I think it took one bite and just threw the sandwich in the trash.
And now you could say, well, maybe he wasn't hungry. Maybe he doesn't like that kind of sandwich.
Okay, well, you could have just said that. You could have let me keep the sandwich.
Or you could have given it to one of your fellow homeless people. Pass it on to somebody else who's in need.
If you don't want the sandwich or don't like it. Instead, you just waste it.
When you're homeless, you're living on the street, you're throwing food in the garbage. Is a crazy thing to do.
But of course, that's the kind of behavior you often get from homeless people because they are, in the vast majority of cases, they are homeless because their minds have been warped either by drugs or because they're severely mentally ill or some combination of the two. And usually it's a combination of the two.
Usually these are factors

that are feeding off of each other.

I used to feel way more sorry for homeless people

than I do these days.

I've had people turn up their nose

when I've offered them food

and I don't offer people stuff like that.

I don't offer people stuff that's been chewed on

or anything like that.

When I do offer food,

it's nothing that's been cut in half and not touched.

One time there was a guy sitting near the train station near the house. I had just come from grocery shopping.
He looked in bad shape. I can't remember what I offered him, but it was obviously new slash fresh because I just bought it.
I remember asking him quite a few times. I showed him the bags.
I told him I just bought it at the store down the street. He turned it down over and over.
What could I do? I've also heard that they turned down being taken to a, even in below zero weather. I haven't seen it personally, but I've heard about it when I have called 911 when I've seen people out there in the winter who does that.
Yeah, well, drug addicts and mentally ill people do. And that describes almost 100% of homeless people.
Not 100%, maybe not actually 100%, but almost. And that is the underlying problem that has to be addressed, like we talked about a couple of days ago.
If you want to do something about homelessness, the kind of giving them money, giving them food, giving them blankets, opening homeless shelters, all that, these are good things to do. As I said, I have done them.
I still do them. But as we've noticed, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem.
The problem only continues to get worse. So these are very much band-aids.
And sometimes it's good to give someone a band-aid, but you're not doing anything about the underlying problem. Matt, you keep lumping together gender identity and sexual orientation.
They're not the same thing. I agree with you that a boy is a boy and will always be a boy, but attraction to someone of the same sex or both sexes is not something someone can convert from.
If you're homosexual or bisexual, you will always be that no matter how much you may or may not suppress it. You may find it disgusting or a violation of Christianity,

but it doesn't mean it's not a reality.

As far as free speech and therapy goes, I agree with you there.

If somebody wants to pursue therapy to try to convert from one orientation to another,

though, they should have every legal right to do so

in a manner that doesn't violate the law.

Okay, so we agree that so-called conversion therapy should not be outlawed.

We agree on that. That's the most important thing for this conversation.
But you say it's impossible for a person's sexual orientation to change. My question is, how do you know that? I understand that that's the gospel these days.
I understand it's accepted as fact. It's accepted as fact that if somebody has same-sex attraction, that there's no therapy, there's no counseling, or anything that they can go through that's going to change that.
So I know that that's the generally accepted fact. I'm asking how we know it's a fact.
Where are you getting that from? Don't we have plenty of evidence of people's sexual orientation changing, at least don't we have evidence of people's sexual behavior changing, which would point, it would seem, to a change in orientation? I mean, there are obvious examples that you could use. Prison, for example, a lot of homosexual behavior among men who we can assume did not engage in such behavior before going into prison.
Now, you could say that their behavior changed, but not their orientation. That's your hypothesis.
It's what you assume. But I guess I would say that the distinction then between behavior and orientation is sort of moot.
It's kind of irrelevant. If you're involved in sexual activity with a dude in prison, you're gay.
I mean, that's a pretty good indication that you're homosexual. That's your orientation.
So it stands to reason that it can go the other way. Someone who has same-sex attraction can change their behavior and thus their orientation.
I at least would need to know what your evidence is rather than this being constantly asserted as gospel. I don't care that it's, you know, the modern gospel, the modern secular liberal gospel is one that I reject in almost every case, or not Elmant.
I reject it in every case. I have not found any time when my beliefs even incidentally line up with the modern secular gospel.
So I know it's in that gospel, but what I'm saying is, what are you basing that on? But when it comes to, as you point out, when it comes to this topic of conversion therapy, that's almost, if not irrelevant,

that's kind of a downstream topic. Because whether or not you think it's possible for a person to quote-unquote convert from same-sex attracted to heterosexual, obviously, if they want to pursue that change in their lifestyle, they should be able to.
And if you have a Christian counselor who wants to try to help people in that quest,

they should be able to. And if you have a Christian counselor who wants to try to help people in that quest, they should be able to do that.
And if you think that it's horrifically offensive, you can feel that way. That's fine.
But you don't need to be in the room. You don't need to be involved in that counseling.
If you actually care about truth, sanity, and reality, then it's time to become a Daily Wire Plus member. Get exclusive access to my show completely ad-free with member-exclusive content you won't find anywhere else.
Watch high-quality films and documentaries that Hollywood refuses to make, like What is a Woman and Am I Racist? Join a community of normal people who haven't lost their minds. Watch anytime, anywhere on desktop and the Daily Wire Plus app for mobile and TV.
And with new content added every week, there's always something worth watching. Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Here's a statistic that, unless you're familiar with how things work in the third world, probably comes as something of a surprise.
It turns out that as of 2020, roughly one-third of all pilots in Pakistan have fake licenses. They didn't pass any of the required proficiency tests.
More than 260 of the 860 pilots working for Pakistan's domestic airlines, according to the government, did not take the exam themselves. They paid someone else to do it for them, when in fact they had little or no flying experience.
And Pakistan finally realized the extent of this fraud only after a plane crash in Karachi that killed nearly 100 people. The pilots in that crash made about a dozen mistakes, like forgetting to drop the landing gear, just as one example.
And it took a catastrophe of historic proportions for Pakistan to realize that their system was hopelessly broken. As a result, you know, for years, Americans have been

able to look at countries like Pakistan with a sense of pity, if not morbid amusement. We say,

look at those people who can't even make sure their pilots can fly planes. And then we congratulate

ourselves for living in a country where something like that would be unthinkable. After all, in the

U.S., we have rigorous standards. We would not allow people who are complete frauds to handle

critical jobs in the aviation industry, jobs that, if they're done poorly, can cause mass casualties. And that was true, of course, right up until the Obama administration, as we've covered.
Around 2012, standards for air traffic controllers began to plummet. The Obama administration effectively replaced a rigorous aptitude test, one that asked difficult logic questions, with a much more straightforward biographical questionnaire.
And this biographical test was more heavily weighted than any other part of the application process. In this questionnaire, applicants were asked, for example, whether they needed a great deal of time to complete assignments or whether they take chances very often.
And also asked, for some reason, how many sports they played in high school. And believe it or not, applicants got top marks if they said that they take chances a lot and take a long time to complete assignments and played more than three sports in high school.
In other words, yes, the Obama administration deliberately sought out air traffic controllers who are risk takers and who are procrastinators as long as they can play basketball. Now, we've discussed this biographical questionnaire before in the context of a lawsuit that was filed by white air traffic controllers who determined correctly that the point of this test was to discriminate against them.
Not much of a stretch since Obama had already admitted as much. What we didn't have until this week is the full picture of just how corrupt this application process was.
So about a decade ago, Fox Business reported that a senior FAA official, who also served as a member of an industry group called the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees, had tipped off some non-white applicants about the best way to answer the questions for the FAA's test for air traffic controllers. Fox obtained some of his communications at the time, but now, courtesy of the Daily Mail, we have a full, unredacted voicemail sent by that FAA official whose name is Shelton Snow to potential air traffic control applicants.
And I want you to listen as Snow tells his, quote, brothers and sisters that he's about to send them an email giving them the answers to the FAA's test. Listen.
Washington, Suburban, associate members, brothers and sisters, listen. It's been a really busy time for me these past four days.
I know that each of you are eager, very eager, to apply for this job vacancy announcement and trust. After tonight, be able to do so I am asking that you give me another 15 or 16 hours allow me to go to work and come home provide you with an email that will be extremely crucial in the opening stages of this hiring process there are some valuable pieces of information that I have taken a screenshot of and I'm going to send that to you via email trust and believe it will be something that you will appreciate to the utmost keep in mind we are trying to maximize your opportunities and I'm doing the very best that I can with the time that I'm given.
Today when I get off at 11 o'clock, the first thing that I'm going to do is I'm going to finish out that email. I'm going to send it to each of you.
And as you progress through the stages, refer to those images so that you will know which icons you should select. Now, before I play the rest of this voicemail, it's worth pointing out that Snow is still employed by the FAA as a supervisor.

He's apparently handling air traffic operations in New York, making over $160,000 a year.

This is despite the fact that he left a trove of voicemails and text messages and emails documenting his efforts to help non-white applicants cheat in the hiring process at the FAA. The Department of Transportation actually investigated him back in 2016 when people started complaining about what Snow was doing.
There were several applicants who, to their credit, refused the opportunity to cheat, even though it cost them the job. But the FAA didn't get rid of Snow or punish him in any way.
Quoting from the inspector general's report, which was obtained by the researcher Trace Woodgrains, quote, during the interview with the office of inspector general, Snow did not initially acknowledge his participation in the teleconference. However, after being shown the text message string and consulting with his counsel, Snow recalled organizing the teleconference.
Snow acknowledged that he explained to each person how they should answer, close quote. So he goes from having no idea about this whole scheme to admitting that he's running it.
And no one ever hauled him to prison for lying to federal investigators because, of course, the federal government was on his side. Here's just a couple of relevant text messages that Snow was sending as documented by the inspector general.
And as you can see, he's complaining that some people are advertising his services outside of racially segregated groups that he'd prefer to run. And these are texts that apparently Snow completely forgot he sent.
But he later admitted to investigators, as if there was any doubt, that his intent was to benefit certain racial groups. Here's how he phrased it.
Quote, our organization wasn't for Caucasians. It wasn't for, you know, the white male.
It wasn't for an alien on Mars, you know. So he's definitely not trying to help the white male, who he compares to aliens from Mars.
But let's play the rest of his voicemail to the members of his race collective. Listen.
I have a good mind to send it to one of my HR representatives first and give them the opportunity to sign off on it before you actually click it. But in the sake of time, I'm going to send it directly to you because I'm about 99.99% sure that it's exactly how you need to answer each question in order to get through the first phase.
Standby to standby. Later on this evening, when I get home, I'm going to finish those emails.
And then I'm going to go back to planning for the Black History Month program. Great.
So after he's done planning for Black History Month, he's going to get right back to helping applicants cheat on the air traffic control test as long as they aren't white males.

At no point in this voicemail does Snow explain why exactly it's necessary to help certain demographics pass this test,

nor does he indicate at any point a degree of concern for the safety of people flying on planes throughout the country.

Instead, it's just assumed that he's looking out for his own racial demographic and just assume that they won't be able to pass the test without his help,

which is probably a safe assumption since the test by design is completely arbitrary.

Of course, the whole reason that the Obama administration made the application process arbitrary is that it's easier to cheat on an arbitrary test. And here's why.
Let's assume that the FAA only takes the highest scoring applicants. Now, if you make the test too easy, then everyone, including the white applicants, will get the questions right.
Even if you cheat on it as a non-white applicant, you're just breaking even with all the white guys. But if the test questions are essentially random, if the scoring system is arbitrary and basically subjective, then everyone's going to do poorly on it except the people with inside information.
And that's the whole point of the fraud. And this fraud didn't just affect the biographical questionnaire.
It also affected the resume screening portion of the application process. Take a look at this email that Shelton sent to his brothers and sisters.
He says, quote, FAA Human Resources will scan in resumes and the computers will group resumes based on keywords. These buzzwords will flag your resume, thereby giving you the advantage over thousands of resumes that may flood the system.
A list of these buzzwords are attached to this email. The list is being provided to you through one of our members in HR.
Then he adds, quote, I encourage you to keep a lid on this attachment and focus on your resume. If the entire country caught wind of this attachment, then how will your resume be distinguished from the others? Please keep this email confidential between yourselves and the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees.
In just case this wasn't explicit enough, this group put out a bunch of documents like this. Here's another one.
It reads, we are only concerned about African-Americans, women of every ethnic background, and other minorities. Please ensure that you share this information with no one identified outside of that.
This information is reserved for those classes of people we represent. This is to minimize competition.
Explicitly saying, we are trying to discriminate against white males. Because that's the only group, by the way, that's not in there.
Do not help white males. This is specifically designed to discriminate against them.
Just announcing it for the whole world. What's remarkable about this, aside from the brazen anti-white racial

discrimination, the ethnic warfare, the complete disregard for public safety, is that to this day,

we still don't have any accounting of the damage that's been done. As the Daily Mail reports,

quote, exactly how many applicants were able to capitalize on Snow's brazen offer to secure coveted controller jobs responsible for the safety of millions of flyers remains a mystery. But one former National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees member, Matthew Douglas, told DailyMail.com, I know several people who cheated, and I know several people who are controlling planes as we speak.
Now, that's a sobering statement, especially as it comes just weeks after one of the deadliest midair collisions in American history. In many cases, competent air traffic controllers are the only thing preventing these kinds of collisions from happening.
Consider this incident from just over a week ago at Phoenix Airport. This didn't get much attention, but it's genuinely amazing footage.
A Southwest Airlines plane flies directly towards an American Airlines

jet on a collision course.

And as controllers try to redirect the Southwest plane, they get no response because the Southwest

plane is on the wrong frequency.

Watch.

2790, you have the 73 off your left inside.

American 3rd stop list, 3606, turn left immediately, heading 280.

American 2790, cancel approach, turn right, heading 360. Traffic alert, traffic off to your left north on 73 at 4000.
The tower traffic order will arrival at 3000 for American at 2239. 3606 turn left immediately heading 240, traffic alert one o'clock one mile turning north on 4000, American Airbus 321.
Stop Southwest 3606, Phoenix Air. American 279 climb, maintain

5,000 immediately. Turn right heading 360.
And approach, all right, power, Southwest 3606. Can

I get a frequency for approach? Southwest 3606. Southwest 3606, you're not able to reach them on

19-2. I'll switch.
Now, in this case, the controllers reacted quickly. After the Southwest jet stopped responding, they told the American Airlines plane to abort its landing and pull up.

Almost certainly, the controllers in the tower saved a lot of lives.

If they hadn't been competent, if they'd cheated on their entrance exams, then the outcome could have been very different.

And very soon, we'll probably see an outcome like that.

That's because close calls like this happen on average every week, if not more often. And the voicemail that the Daily Mail just unearthed is obviously just the tip of the iceberg.
The DEI scam was running in the airline industry for years before there was any serious pushback. And even now, many of these people are still working at the FAA, which needs to change and needs to change immediately.
Retest all the controllers, if necessary. Review how every controller was hired, which is something that the White House has already suggested is in progress.
And at a minimum, get rid of the ringleaders of this cheating ring who are somehow still working in the industry. Those are the tangible, productive steps we can take.
We can either get them done now, or we can take them after yet another aviation disaster happens.

Either way, it's clear that unless we want to end up with an aviation system on par with Pakistan's,

these are the steps that we need to take as quickly as possible before many more people

lose their lives. And that is why DEI in the airline industry is once again today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today and this week.

Have a great weekend.

Talk to you on Monday.

Godspeed.