Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth

Family Of Karmelo Anthony Hosted The Most Disgusting Press Conference I’ve Ever Seen

Austin Metcalf

High School

Karmelo Anthony

Lawyer

Matt Walsh

Murder

Opinion

Race

Texas

Fayez Sarofim & Co. U.S. Men’s Clay Court Championship – Final Day

Leftists Demanded Police Body Cams. Now They Regret It.

Michigan

Ohio

Police

video

Before it&#8217;s possible to discuss any policy position that&#8217;s supposedly &#8220;progressive,&#8221; the first step is always to escape the world of euphemisms and start talking, in explicit detail, about what&#8217;s actually happening. This might sound straightforward, but every single organ of the Left is committed to making sure you don&#8217;t do this. They would much rather you debate the abstract concept of &#8220;a woman&#8217;s right to choose,&#8221; for example, than discuss how children are dismembered and discarded like trash. They would also prefer that you use terms like &#8220;gender-affirming care,&#8221; instead of discussing chemical castration. And on and on. Euphemisms are one of the most potent tools these people have. They are everywhere, in every single debate on every issue. And in every case, they&#8217;re a gross misrepresentation of reality. They need to be neutralized immediately before any actual discussion can begin.
To that end, take <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/14/hungary-poised-to-adopt-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-lgbtq-gatherings">this headline</a> from the other day. It ran in The Guardian: 
<blockquote>Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ+ gatherings.</blockquote>
The Associated Press ran a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/hungary-pride-ban-amendment-orban-gay-rights-lgbtq-155ec12cbbde7cc6be0f96adb323de77">similar story</a>:
<blockquote>Hungary passes constitutional amendment to ban LGBTQ+ public events, seen as a major blow to rights.</blockquote>
The article explains that Hungary&#8217;s parliament just overwhelmingly passed an amendment that will outlaw, &#8220;public events by LGBTQ+ communities.&#8221;
If you&#8217;re just skimming these headlines, this might seem like a surprising development. You might wonder: What are &#8220;public events by LGBTQ+ communities,&#8221; exactly? And what precisely is an &#8220;LGBTQ+ gathering?&#8221; If you take these headlines literally, then it sounds like the government of Hungary has just made it illegal for gay people to appear in public, for any reason. It&#8217;s a total crackdown on figure skating, musical theater and art exhibitions. Gay people can&#8217;t even get together and watch “Glee” reruns on the couch without getting hauled to prison. This is the current state of Hungary, if you believe The Guardian and the Associated Press.
In reality, of course, Hungary has not banned gay people from assembling in public. What they&#8217;ve banned are disturbing and morally objectionable public displays of sexual hedonism that can easily be observed by children. That includes Hungary&#8217;s annual pride parade. Pull up any footage of this parade that&#8217;s posted online, and you&#8217;ll quickly see exactly what I&#8217;m talking about. Here&#8217;s some of it, or at least the parts we can play. This is from Budapest several years back:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Budapest gay pride" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hMLRsBLKnEU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And again, this is the most sanitized footage I could play. This is what the corporate press means when they say Hungary has banned &#8220;LGBTQ events&#8221; and &#8220;LBGTQ gatherings.&#8221; This is the truth behind the euphemism. They mean that Hungary has banned public indecency that everyone — including children — can see. In fact, in many cases, these public displays are explicitly directed at children. This is what &#8220;pride parades&#8221; always entail, as we&#8217;ve discussed dozens of times on this show.
If you actually look at the text of the amendment that just passed in Hungary — and again, it was an overwhelming vote in Hungary&#8217;s parliament, passing by a margin of 140 to 21 — then you&#8217;ll immediately understand why it passed. This is not simply an amendment about &#8220;pride parades&#8221; or &#8220;gay gatherings&#8221; or anything like that. It&#8217;s not, as the Associated Press claims, an amendment that constitutes a &#8220;major blow to rights.&#8221; In reality, it&#8217;s the exact opposite.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1577-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
This amendment, with very forceful and unapologetic language, affirms the right of everyone — and in particular children — to enjoy public spaces without being confronted by someone else’s sexual obsessions. As far as I know, this is the first major piece of legislation, and certainly the first constitutional amendment, to explicitly state that gay and trans activists are not, in fact, the only people on the planet with rights that deserve protection. Until relatively recently, that didn&#8217;t need to be spelled out.
Here&#8217;s the National Review&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hungary-approves-constitutional-amendment-banning-public-lgbt-events/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">summary</a> of the amendment:
<blockquote>The amendment forbids LGBT pride parades that conservative lawmakers argued threatened the well-being of children. One of its provisions specifically declares that children’s rights to moral, physical, and intellectual development supersede the right to peaceful assembly and almost every other right, except the right to life. Hungarian authorities are also allowed to use facial recognition software to identify and potentially fine demonstrators at the newly prohibited pride parades if they are held in defiance of the law.</blockquote>
Yes, this amendment — which codifies a law passed by the parliament a few weeks ago — states that a child has a right to be protected physically, morally, and spiritually, and that this right supersedes the right of gay people to celebrate their sexuality in the town square. That&#8217;s exactly the right way to frame this situation. It&#8217;s certainly the honest way to frame it.
Virtually all of our cultural and political debates, regardless of the particular topic, ultimately come down to a battle of competing rights and interests. That&#8217;s not how you normally see policy debates framed, but it&#8217;s the truth. Even something as simple as a speed limit involves weighing various rights and interests. On the one hand, you have people&#8217;s reasonable interest in traveling to their destination quickly. On the other hand, you have people&#8217;s reasonable interest in not being killed in a high-speed car accident. These two interests are obviously in tension. If we wanted absolute safety on the highway, we&#8217;d set the speed limit to 5 miles per hour. But we don&#8217;t do that, because we&#8217;ve decided that other interests are more important. Every functioning society has to weigh competing interests like this, in every single area of policy.
The only way to sort through this mess is to come to some kind of understanding about which rights are most fundamental. With this amendment, Hungary has decided that, apart from the right to life, the most fundamental right is a child&#8217;s &#8220;right to protection and care for their adequate physical, mental and moral development.&#8221; You can agree or disagree with this philosophical claim — and of course I strongly agree with it. But regardless of your particular stance on the issue, you can&#8217;t deny that, at the very least, they are dealing with these questions in a clear and coherent way.
The opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, are not responding coherently. Instead, they&#8217;re reacting in exactly the kind of hysterical manner you would expect. They&#8217;re lying about the content of the amendment, as we just discussed. They&#8217;re also setting off smoke bombs in Hungary&#8217;s parliament and blocking the entrance to government buildings. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 smoke bombs protests" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QSWKwOCVHOc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is the response you expect from people who know they have no actual argument. They&#8217;ll blockade buildings. They&#8217;ll spread propaganda that has no basis in reality. They&#8217;ll detonate smoke bombs in parliament. But the one thing they won&#8217;t do — because they can&#8217;t do it — is rationally explain why you&#8217;re wrong, and they&#8217;re right. In this case, these LGBT activists simply cannot articulate any reason to oppose this amendment. And there are a couple of reasons for that. One of the reasons, of course, is that these so-called &#8220;pride parades&#8221; are indefensible, morally and practically. Every sane person knows that they should be banned from public streets. Anyone who&#8217;s ever seen footage of one of these parades understands this.
But the more fundamental issue is that, even if the pride parades weren&#8217;t bizarre, explicit, and objectionable, these activists would still have a problem. Put simply, the Leftist conception of human rights gives no real basis for objecting to this constitutional amendment. These people believe that rights are social constructs, codified by the government. They generally reject the idea that rights come from God. After all, it&#8217;s hard to make the case that the right to abort a baby created by God somehow comes from God. But if rights are social constructs, then society can abolish a right just as easily as it creates it. And that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s happened here. Hungary, through its democratically elected government, has decided that the absolute right to gay pride displays no longer exists in their culture. As a result, it makes no sense for the Leftist to object.
They can&#8217;t say that the rights of LGBT people are being infringed in Hungary. How could they? The right doesn&#8217;t exist anymore. There is no authority higher than society and government (according to them), and those authorities have spoken on the matter. That&#8217;s all there is to it.
In other words, gay activists are melting down in Hungary right now because they&#8217;re realizing, if only subconsciously, that their ideology can be erased just as quickly as it took hold. As it turns out, a fiction that&#8217;s maintained by a patchwork of laws and government policy can also be eliminated by law and government policy. And it&#8217;s not just the so-called LGBT community in Hungary that&#8217;s coming to this realization. In this country, as we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtFCCDy__os" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a>, &#8220;pride parades&#8221; are also facing serious problems, mainly because the major sponsors are pulling out and people are losing interest. They&#8217;re going door-to-door in San Francisco right now to cover a multimillion-dollar funding shortfall for their pride events this summer. In every respect, these people are now weak and desperate.
If there were ever a moment to implement a Hungary-style ban on &#8220;pride parades&#8221; in this country, now is that time. Yes, activists in this country would inevitably act out, just like they&#8217;re doing in Hungary. But there are some things that are a lot more important than the feelings of screeching Left-wing protesters. One of them is the right of children to grow and develop and have their innocence protected. Hungary is now finally enforcing that right. For the benefit of every child in this country, we should do the same.

Protest Against Amendment Banning Pride In Budapest, Hungary

LGBT Activists Panic After This Huge Move In The Fight To Protect Children

Europe

Hungary

LGBTQ

Parade

Parliament

Pride

Young boy jumping in mid-air

The ‘Experts’ Are Finally Admitting That ADHD Is A Scam

The 'Experts' Are Finally Admitting That ADHD Is A Scam

Boys

Children

Drugs

kids

Middle School

New York Times

Teenagers

MixCollage-14-Apr-2025-05-21-PM-3053

Matt Walsh Breaks Down The Deceptive Propaganda In ‘Adolescence’ Netflix Show

Crime

England

Great Britain

Movies

Netflix

Stabbing

United Kingdom

Violent Crime

Here&#8217;s a headline that, if you&#8217;ve been making car insurance payments over the last few years, might seem pretty hard to believe. It turns out that average auto insurance premiums actually declined in March, month-over-month. Yes, for many people, premiums have gotten cheaper, even as car prices have remained high. Inflation has seemingly been defeated, at least in this particular industry. The declines were particularly steep in Florida, where insurers like Geico, Progressive and State Farm are cutting rates by as much as 10%. But there&#8217;s no question that this is a nationwide phenomenon. Insurance rates are down by roughly 1% across the board — which might not sound like a lot, but it&#8217;s a big difference from the typical double-digit increases that we&#8217;ve been seeing lately. When you go from 15-point average increases to a 1% decrease, you&#8217;re saving a lot of money, relatively speaking.
So why is this happening, exactly? Ask ten different people and you&#8217;ll probably get ten different answers. And all of them might be right, at least partially. But here&#8217;s one theory. It could be that insurance rates are going down because our roads are getting safer. And maybe our roads are getting safer because two grand Left-wing experiments — the BLM &#8220;de-policing&#8221; movement and the open borders agenda — have both finally come to an end.
Each of these movements clearly made driving significantly more dangerous, in their own way. Beginning in 2020, of course, BLM convinced police departments to stop enforcing laws — including traffic laws. And the effect was immediate. By one estimate, 35% more black people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2021, as compared with 2019. In other words, a lot of black motorists suddenly realized that they could drive however they wanted. They&#8217;d no longer be pulled over for supposedly &#8220;driving while black,&#8221; which was something they imagined was happening all the time. And they took full advantage of the situation. Insurance companies had to deal with the carnage that followed.
Along the same lines, as we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezo_P2uRNWY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a> before, the flood of illegal aliens into this country under the Biden administration has led to a lot of drunk-driving collisions, which have wiped out entire families in some cases. Many of these illegal aliens don&#8217;t have driver&#8217;s licenses, and they refuse to obey the rules of the road. In the tiny town of Springfield, for example, one resident recently <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/influx-of-wild-driving-haitian-migrants-turning-streets-of-springfield-ohio-into-combat-zone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimated</a> that she sees 8 to 10 traffic accidents per day. Haitian migrants, which now make up around one-third of the population, routinely drive into buildings and onto sidewalks. They&#8217;ve mowed down children and elderly women, with total impunity. One of these Haitian migrants <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/influx-of-wild-driving-haitian-migrants-turning-streets-of-springfield-ohio-into-combat-zone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ran over</a> Kathy Heaton, a 71-year-old grandmother, while she was collecting her garbage cans. She died in the street, after an impact that was so severe that her socks were literally removed from her feet. The driver wasn&#8217;t even prosecuted.
This era of impunity is now over. Police departments are no longer being overrun with BLM mobs. Border security is being enforced again. The result is that the prices that American citizens have to pay — both in terms of dollar amounts, and lives that are lost — are coming down. It turns out that, when you have a society that enforces laws, everyone benefits.
The White House seems to understand this. That&#8217;s why, every other day, we&#8217;re hearing about a new plan to reduce the cost of these kinds of externalities for Americans.
Here&#8217;s the latest example. The New York Times is now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/migrants-deport-social-security-doge.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a> that the Trump administration is canceling the Social Security numbers of foreign nationals who, for one reason or another, were allowed into this country during Joe Biden&#8217;s presidency:
<blockquote>The Trump administration has moved aggressively to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were allowed into the country under President Biden. &#8230; Now, the administration is taking drastic steps to pressure some of those immigrants and others who had legal status to “self-deport” by effectively canceling the Social Security numbers they had lawfully obtained. &#8230; The goal is to cut those people off from using crucial financial services like bank accounts and credit cards, along with their access to government benefits.</blockquote>
According to the Times, thousands of &#8220;convicted criminals and suspected terrorists&#8221; are among the foreign nationals who just had their Social Security numbers revoked. Yes, apparently the Biden administration provided &#8220;convicted criminals and suspected terrorists&#8221; with Social Security numbers, so that they could obtain government benefits. The Biden administration determined that this course of action was preferable to just deporting these people, or throwing them in prison. Now the Trump administration is changing that policy.
Again, this will have the effect of reducing payments by taxpayers to people who shouldn&#8217;t even be here. It will also make our roads and our communities a lot safer, in all likelihood. More than anything else, this is what Americans voted for in the last election. If Republicans are going to remain in power in Washington, and avoid a Democrat takeover of Congress in the midterms next year, then this kind of thing has to continue. And more importantly, Congress has to start supporting it. That&#8217;s how we can ensure that the cost of living will continue dropping.
A large part of that equation is reducing government spending, which Congress controls. As we all know, when the government spends trillions of dollars every year, that money is either coming from taxpayers, or it&#8217;s being printed and borrowed (which reduces the value of the money we&#8217;re all holding). Either way, we&#8217;re losing a lot of money in the process. At the moment, it appears that a small contingent of Republican lawmakers in Congress recognizes that this arrangement needs to change, at least to some degree. They just held out for assurances that the next spending bill will slash one-point-five trillion dollars from the budget. And after a lot of hand-wringing, they apparently received those assurances. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 budget framework resolution" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fnwMlNZgVZ8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So there were two plans here, for a spending bill to fund the government. The Senate plan, which passed over the weekend, would only reduce the deficit by around four billion dollars. That&#8217;s basically nothing compared to the new House framework, which demands a minimum of one-point-five trillion dollars in deficit reduction.
But here&#8217;s the problem: Even this new framework isn&#8217;t binding. It just sets a broad outline for future negotiations between the House and Senate, which still need to finalize a budget. And several members of Congress — most notably Thomas Massie of Kentucky — believe that this deal is worth about as much as the paper it&#8217;s printed on. Thomas Massie has been in office for more than a decade, and he understands how Congress works. He knows that it&#8217;s one thing for lawmakers to promise spending cuts. But it&#8217;s a completely different matter for them to agree on a bill that actually cuts spending. Here&#8217;s what Massie told a reporter after the framework was announced:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Thomas Massie" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C5z901MgYh0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What&#8217;s surprising here isn&#8217;t anything Thomas Massie is saying. What&#8217;s surprising is that so few Republicans in Congress are agreeing with him. The reason voters elected Republicans to control both chambers of Congress, along with the White House, is that they want government spending and the cost of living to come down. That&#8217;s one of the top issues in every exit poll. And now that Donald Trump is doing that — or attempting to do it — Congress is refusing to codify any of his cuts into law. If a Democrat becomes president, he could override all these DOGE cuts in a day-one executive order.
And by the way, no matter what you think of Trump&#8217;s tariffs, Massie makes a good point. Why hasn&#8217;t Congress held a vote on them? Tariffs are a form of taxation. They have the potential to significantly raise the cost of goods in the United States, among other effects. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax. Even if you approve of the tariffs, you should still want Congress to vote on them, for the simple reason that they&#8217;ll be harder to overturn in a future administration. On the other hand, if you&#8217;re skeptical of tariffs, a congressional vote would allow for a full debate on the issue. Instead of unilateral announcements from the White House, we&#8217;d be able to hear the arguments on each side.
But the GOP leadership in Congress hasn&#8217;t displayed any interest in holding a vote on tariffs. In fact they&#8217;ve blocked a vote on the topic. And they haven&#8217;t held votes on the DOGE cuts or any other significant spending cuts. In fact, they still haven&#8217;t reined in any of the trillion dollars&#8217; worth of spending in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was full of giveaways to environmentalist groups and NGOs. Why exactly hasn&#8217;t any of that waste been rolled back? Why is no one bothered to even talk about it? Really congress has not codified any of Trump’s executive orders at all, which means they’re all susceptible to being overturned with the stroke of a pen by the next administration. Where is congress?
When it comes to spending, if you ask Missouri Congressman Eric Burlison, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, he&#8217;ll say that Republicans aren&#8217;t actually serious about cutting spending. Like Massie, he thinks the spending cuts will never actually happen. Here&#8217;s what he said:
<blockquote>I think that this town has got a lot of snakes in the grass who don&#8217;t want to accomplish it, and anyway that they can they&#8217;re going to stop it from happening. And I want to ensure we don&#8217;t end up in a place where we let the president down in that regard.</blockquote>
Whatever Donald Trump makes of the deal, at the moment, it looks like Republican voters might be let down. We&#8217;re talking about raising the debt ceiling by a historic amount, and potentially spending more than the Biden administration ever did. And we&#8217;re doing it at a time when we&#8217;re initiating a broader trade war, which means that we&#8217;ll have less access to money to borrow. This is not a recipe for a stable economic situation going forward. In separate interviews, Thomas Massie and Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas outlined what&#8217;s at stake here. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Massie and Arrington" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NYky0gMHiCg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Even if you listen to that rhetoric and conclude that it&#8217;s overblown, or that there&#8217;s really no cause for concern, the fundamental point remains: Republicans ran on a platform that involved lowering the cost of living, which includes lowering taxes and government spending. If Republicans cannot deliver on that very simple promise, they will not be in power for very long. And they will be replaced by a party that&#8217;s even more committed to more taxes and government spending. 
This particular spending bill won&#8217;t be finalized for several weeks, in all likelihood. Between now and the moment this legislation is finalized, it&#8217;s hard to imagine that anything in Congress is more important than holding GOP leadership to their promise on these spending cuts — and pushing them further, for as many cuts as possible. If Republicans (and their voters) stay focused on that goal, they will have achieved something that the party has promised for decades, but failed to deliver. They will have permanently reduced the size of the American government, for the benefit of everyone living in this country. The White House is clearly committed to this goal. Now it&#8217;s time for every Republican in Congress — not just Thomas Massie and a few others — to follow suit.

House Tax Cut Fumble Shows Big Hurdles For GOP

Congress Needs To Act On This Very Important Issue Right Now

Biden Administration

Congress

DOGE

Federal Government

Joe Biden

Mike Johnson

President Trump

Republicans

Social Security

Spending Bill

Thomas Massie

U.S. House of Representatives

Normally when a major new law is proposed, it&#8217;s given a name that makes it catchy and appealing to as many people as possible. Of course, pretty much every time, the name is an obvious lie. But it&#8217;s still an effective lie, because every time someone says the name of the law, they&#8217;re giving you a positive soundbite. Obama&#8217;s health care plan, of course, was famously called &#8220;The Affordable Care Act.&#8221; So all of the news articles and cable news segments that talked about the law — even if they were critical of it — ended up reinforcing the message that it would make health care &#8220;affordable.&#8221; The same principle applies to the so-called &#8220;Equal Pay Act,&#8221; the &#8220;Freedom of Information Act,&#8221; the &#8220;Fair Housing Act,&#8221; and so on.
With that in mind, it&#8217;s worth taking a look at the name of a new ballot initiative that was <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0002%20%28Health%20Care%29.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> last week in the state of California. This ballot initiative was proposed by a retired lawyer in the state. And it would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for medication or procedures, unless those insurance companies could demonstrate — by &#8220;clear and convincing evidence&#8221; — that the medication or procedure is completely unnecessary in every way. In other words, they can&#8217;t reject a procedure because it&#8217;s too expensive. If they do, they&#8217;ll face a lawsuit that will almost certainly be successful. In practical terms, this would mean that the cost of health insurance (and medical procedures) would skyrocket. It would have the exact opposite of its intended effect. Insurance companies would probably go bankrupt very quickly, and a lot of people would lose access to health care entirely as a result. So calling this &#8220;bad policy&#8221; would be an understatement.
But that&#8217;s not the point. The point is the name of this ballot initiative. It&#8217;s not called the &#8220;Better Health Care Insurance Act.&#8221; It&#8217;s not called the &#8220;Save Lives Act&#8221; or the &#8220;Free Money Act&#8221; or anything like that. Instead, this ballot initiative is called the &#8220;Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act.&#8221; Yes, a law has just been proposed in the state of California that&#8217;s named after someone who just (allegedly) shot a health care CEO in the back, on camera, after stalking him for weeks. And as much as I&#8217;d like to say that most people in this country have rejected this legislation, that&#8217;s not true. It&#8217;s actually getting a lot of support and mainstream attention at the moment. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="&#039;Luigi Mangione Act&#039; would penalize insurance companies, draws ire | NewsNation Now" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NS45gHNjfa8?start=33&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So evidently, it&#8217;s not enough for the ballot initiative to be named after an alleged murderer. On top of that, the text of the ballot initiative also references the words that the assassin wrote on the bullets that he used to murder Brian Thompson. This is about as sociopathic as things can possibly get. But it&#8217;s got a fighting chance to pass in California. Already many <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1jnl1rm/california_ballot_measure_named_after_luigi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">people</a> are supporting the proposal on social media, as you can probably imagine. They&#8217;re particularly fond of the idea on Reddit, which has become a breeding ground for domestic terrorists of late. And the state of California is well-known for passing ballot initiatives like this one.
Reason Magazine <a href="https://reason.com/2025/03/31/the-best-thing-about-the-proposed-california-initiative-named-after-luigi-mangione-is-the-title/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> that: &#8220;California has a history of gadflies getting far-reaching policies on the ballot that then end up winning. Liberal California likes to point to Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases, as the canonical example of this. Another example would be Proposition 103, an initiative pushed by consumer advocates that created California&#8217;s current regulatory regime for property and auto insurance. Prop. 103 limits insurers&#8217; ability to raise rates on policyholders and creates a laborious system to justify whatever price increases they are still permitted.&#8221;
And there&#8217;s another reason to think that this initiative will pass. This is a poll that was just conducted by the &#8220;Network Contagion Research Institute,&#8221; which just surveyed Americans across the political spectrum in order to determine their level of tolerance for political violence. <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/bombshell-study-reveals-assassination-culture-080006498.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From Fox</a>, which reported on the results: &#8220;38% of respondents said it would be at least &#8216;somewhat justified&#8217; to murder Donald Trump, and 31% said the same about Elon Musk. &#8230; When counting only left-leaning respondents, justification for killing Trump rose to 55% and Musk to 48%.&#8221;
Yes, more than half of &#8220;left-leaning respondents&#8221; — which includes anyone who identifies as a liberal in any way — believes that it would be acceptable for an assassin to execute Donald Trump. And nearly half of &#8220;left-leaning respondents&#8221; believe it would be acceptable if someone murdered Elon Musk. On top of that, nearly 60% of &#8220;left-leaning respondents&#8221; declared that it would be acceptable to destroy a Tesla dealership. They&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s fine to commit acts of domestic terrorism, solely because they disagree with the political views of the CEO of the company.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1572-member-exclusive?row=2&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Yes, polls can be misleading. We talk about the bias that exists in polls all the time. They&#8217;re not necessarily a reliable indicator but in this case, based on everything that&#8217;s happened in this country in the last few years, everyone knows this poll is accurate. We&#8217;ve all seen the outpouring of support for Luigi Mangione — support that continued even after it became very clear that he&#8217;s a raging, wealthy narcissist who had no reason to be upset with United HealthCare whatsoever. In fact, a few months ago, many of Luigi Mangione&#8217; supporters dogpiled one of my videos on YouTube, in order to inform me that I should &#8220;read the room&#8221; and defend first-degree murder.
We&#8217;ve also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXtWVnpnx4U" target="_blank" rel="noopener">played</a> dozens of clips of random Tesla stores and vehicles being attacked, as mobs cheer on the carnage. People are being terrorized solely on the basis of a vehicle they&#8217;ve purchased — which as far as I can tell, has never happened before in the history of this country. At the height of the Bud Light boycott, no one was violently assaulted for drinking a Bud Light. But for Tesla owners, it&#8217;s a different story. And these attacks are continuing, by the way. Just yesterday, shortly after midnight in Washington State, an explosion <a href="https://www.carscoops.com/2025/04/explosion-rips-through-tesla-supercharger-triggering-fbi-response/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">destroyed</a> a Tesla charging station.
Along the same lines, as we <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ7Lue_aa0I" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a> earlier this week, there&#8217;s been a groundswell of support for Karmelo Anthony, who recently stabbed a white high school student to death in Texas at a track meet. Anthony&#8217;s family has now raised more than $250,000 — a quarter of a million dollars — on GiveSendGo, on the theory that the killing was somehow an act of self-defense — even though Karmelo Anthony himself asked officers, as they arrested him, whether self-defense was a viable strategy to pursue. At this rate, he&#8217;ll raise a million dollars for killing a white 17-year-old. Yes, there&#8217;s essentially a bounty for killing white people in this country. Does it matter to these people that Austin Metcalf didn&#8217;t hurt Karmelo Anthony in any way? Does it matter to them that Karmelo Anthony instigated the fight and then threw away the murder weapon as Austin Metcalf died in his brother&#8217;s arms? Does it matter that Karmelo Anthony brought a deadly weapon to the opposing team&#8217;s tent at a track meet, and then dared someone to touch him? Of course not. None of that matters. All that matters is that Austin Metcalf was white and Karmelo Anthony was black.
<div id="attachment_903441" style="width: 966px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-903441" class="size-large wp-image-903441" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-05-at-9.43.51-AM-956x576.png" alt="" width="956" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-05-at-9.43.51-AM-956x576.png 956w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-05-at-9.43.51-AM-300x181.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-05-at-9.43.51-AM-768x463.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-05-at-9.43.51-AM.png 1168w" sizes="(max-width: 956px) 100vw, 956px" />Frisco Police Dept//Metcalf family handout</div>
So no, it&#8217;s not surprising in the slightest that most self-described liberals in this country are explicitly supporting political violence. We see the evidence everywhere. But at the same time, the diagnosis from the political science experts is obviously lacking in several respects. They aren&#8217;t fully grasping the problem. To give you some idea, here&#8217;s what they have to say.
This is <a href="https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/new-survey-reveals-disturbing-trend-in-support-of-political-violence-president-trump-left-of-center-elon-musk-liberal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">from CBS</a>: &#8220;Stanley Schwartz, a history professor at Cedarville University, tells us, violence has a long history in American democracy, but it was still striking to read through this report. &#8230; &#8216;A lot of folks on the left are probably feeling a sense of hopelessness or despair following the election loss,&#8217; said Schwartz. &#8230; [Another expert], Darryl Paulson, who specializes in political parties and elections at the University of South Florida, tells us, there used to be rules in how you conducted politics. But those rules don&#8217;t exist anymore. &#8216;Those rules of the game have been thrown out, and it&#8217;s every man for himself,&#8217; Paulson said.&#8221;
That&#8217;s the explanation that the academics have come up with. They&#8217;re saying that something has abruptly changed, and that &#8220;a lot of folks&#8221; are mad that a Republican won the presidency. But that doesn&#8217;t actually capture the magnitude of what&#8217;s happening here. So-called “assassination culture” — as these pollsters have referred to this phenomenon — is not merely the result of hyper partisanship and political division. We&#8217;ve had a lot of very intense political disagreements in this country&#8217;s history, including all-out brawls on the floor of Congress in the 19th century. What we haven&#8217;t seen, until now, are coordinated terror campaigns — endorsed by a major political party — that are conducted against American citizens on the basis of their political beliefs. That is new.
When the Weather Underground bombed The Capitol, both Democrats and Republicans had the good sense to condemn it. But when the modern Weather Underground gets to work against Elon Musk and his supporters, Democrats say nothing. Actually, it&#8217;s worse than that. They come out and publicly taunt Elon Musk and his company, and they suggest he and Tesla got what they deserved.
We&#8217;re seeing this response because, at its core, Leftism is relativistic, fundamentally amoral, and dehumanizing. Leftism has taken over the Democratic Party, and we&#8217;re now witnessing the consequences of that takeover. That is why Leftists are celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson, without any pushback from elected Democrats. That&#8217;s why they&#8217;re happy Austin Metcalf is dead, and it&#8217;s why they&#8217;re now desperately hoping that they&#8217;ll get to kill Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Above all else, Leftism is concerned with advancing the interests of the party. That is their overriding goal. It&#8217;s all that interests them. Nothing else matters. They will continue their campaign of violence, at any cost. They don&#8217;t even feel the need to hide it anymore, as the &#8220;Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act&#8221; demonstrates. The same people who cheered the killing of Brian Thompson would cheer your death as well, if they felt it would advance their interests in any way.
Countries can survive economic upheaval, political disagreements and even civil war. But they cannot survive an ideology that is fundamentally anti-human — that&#8217;s completely uninterested in any form of human progress. That is what Leftism, as endorsed by the Democratic Party, now stands for. A majority of Democrats agree with this sentiment. It&#8217;s impossible to overstate this, so I&#8217;ll say it again: They will rationalize your murder if you don&#8217;t agree with them. They will rationalize your murder, as we&#8217;ve seen with Austin Metcalf, if you&#8217;re white. It is incumbent on every sane person — anyone with any survival instinct whatsoever — to stay as far away from these people as possible. And if we accomplish nothing else in the next few years, we should do everything we can to eradicate this ideology so that it doesn&#8217;t result in any more death and destruction than it already has. Leftism arrived in this country relatively quickly. If there&#8217;s one silver lining here, it&#8217;s that we can eliminate it just as quickly.

Luigi Mangione

The Rise Of ‘Assassination Culture’ In America

The Rise Of 'Assassination Culture' In America

assassination

California

Democrats

Elon Musk

Health Care

Leftists

On his show this week, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-oliver">John Oliver</a> decided to spend 45 minutes defending the idea that men — or “trans women,” as he calls them — should play in women&#8217;s sports. The trans issue has destroyed the Democratic Party and utterly demolished the Left’s cultural and political credibility. But they can’t let it go. Transgenderism is a religious conviction. They must remain committed to it. Which is disturbing and bizarre and uncomfortable to witness — and extremely fortunate for Republicans. It&#8217;s also, let’s be honest, really funny. In fact, John Oliver’s commitment to the transgenderism bit is, by far and away, his funniest routine. It is in fact his only funny routine. It&#8217;s the one time when he lives up to his billing as a comedian, if unintentionally.
So today we’re going to pick through Oliver’s arguments for “trans inclusion” in women&#8217;s sports. We’ll go through it piece by piece. And in the process we’ll see how utterly vapid and hollow and deceitful John Oliver’s whole schtick is. And how morally and intellectually bankrupt gender ideology is. As one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt people in all of media, it’s no wonder that Oliver is so attracted to it.
As we’ll see, Oliver trots out all of the standard tropes in his desperate attempt to make gender ideology seem like it isn’t insane. He blabbers for 45 minutes, hitting each talking point one by one, punctuated every five or six minutes with something that, I can only guess, is supposed to approximate a joke. But in this whole long diatribe he never once addresses the core, fundamental argument of the other side. He never once acknowledges, much less makes any attempt to respond to, our actual point. Instead we get all of the tropes. Starting with <a href="https://youtu.be/flSS1tjoxf0?feature=shared&amp;t=59">this one</a>:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=60&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
So he starts with the old “why are you so obsessed with this” routine, as expected. He then says that this “obsession” by Republicans is the reason why 6 in 10 adults don’t want men in women’s sports. The actual number is more like 8 in 10. But either way, he says that Republicans have waged a relentless propaganda campaign against trans people and that is why so many Americans now agree with them. Oliver has this, of course, completely backwards.
John, let me ask you this. What did the polls on trans athletes say 20 years ago? What about 30 years ago? If the poll numbers today are the result of a recent propaganda push by Republicans, that should be born out by comparing the poll results on the question today to the poll results 30 years ago, right? So what were the polls saying on this question 30 years ago? What do you think, John? Have you checked?
Well, don’t bother. I’ll help you. There were no polls on this question 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Organized sports have existed in this country for like 170 years. And yet you’ll find no polls on the topic of “transwomen” in women&#8217;s sports, you’ll find no discussion about the subject at all, until very, very recently. Women’s sports in particular have existed in some form or another since the late 1800s. And yet, again, there was no discussion about whether men who think they&#8217;re women should be included in women&#8217;s sports.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1571-member-exclusive?row=2&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
If someone had conducted a poll in, say, 1950, and asked whether men who identify as women should be able to compete in women&#8217;s sports, what do you think the result would have been, John? Do you think you would have found at least 60% who responded in the negative? You’d find a lot more than 60%, wouldn&#8217;t you? It would be more like 100%, wouldn’t it? And that&#8217;s in spite of the fact that in the 1950s there was precisely no one pushing what you would call anti-trans propaganda. Republicans weren’t talking about the issue at all. And yet everyone agreed — everyone, literally everyone on Earth agreed — that if a thing is called “women’s,” it should only be for biological women.
So what does all of this tell us? Well, it tells us first of all that Republicans and conservatives aren’t the ones who started this conversation. We were all living our lives contently, without having any discussion about transgenderism, or whether men should be in women&#8217;s sports or bathrooms. Nobody was talking about it. Nobody was obsessing over it. Until the trans activists, to include yourself, came along and started screaming in our faces about it. You guys brought up this subject. You guys started marching and waving your flags and injecting your propaganda into schools and TV shows and films and everywhere else. Your side started giving castration drugs to children. Your side started listing your pronouns. None of this existed, this entire subject didn&#8217;t exist, until you guys brought it up and started obsessing over it.
Those polls you mentioned are not a result of our propaganda but of yours. The fact that there are 40% of Americans according to the poll you mentioned — or 20%, if you&#8217;re using an accurate poll — who actually think men should compete in women&#8217;s sports is a result of the relentless propaganda from your side. Again: if we’d asked this question 50 years ago, there would have been 100% of people on our side. But the question wasn&#8217;t asked. It wasn&#8217;t asked because when 100% of people are on one side, it’s not the kind of thing you even think to poll in the first place.
Moving on, Oliver next does the thing he always does, where he finds the weakest and most easily mocked version of the counter argument, and then frames the entire rest of his rant around that <a href="https://youtu.be/flSS1tjoxf0?feature=shared&amp;t=348">one example</a>. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=345&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Now, if you wanted to find an example of someone making the case against men in women&#8217;s sports, you have literally thousands of options to choose from. Thousands and thousands of people have made this case on camera. Female athletes, biologists, doctors, highly credentialed scientific experts in any number of related fields. But John sifted through all of that and went with Lance Armstrong, because Lance Armstrong is infamous for cheating in a sport. I’d say about 99.9999% of all the people who have made the case against men in women’s sports are not themselves famous for cheating in a sport, but Oliver went searching for the .0001% who had. And he uses the silly hypothetical offered by Armstrong — Rafael Nadal suddenly transitioning to a woman — as the framing mechanism for the rest of his argument. So Oliver has chosen the absolute weakest version of the opposing argument, offered by the weakest possible spokesman, and that will be the only argument he responds to the whole rest of the way.
Of course, even the weakest version of our argument, offered by the weakest spokesman, is still totally devastating to John’s side. Our weakest argument is made of steel compared to the flimsy, fantasyland nonsense that you hear from the pro-trans side. Armstrong is, in fact, correct. If all it takes for a man to be a woman is to identify as one, then if Nadal identified as one, he would now be a woman, and there&#8217;s nothing stopping him from dominating women’s tennis like Shaquille O’Neal in his prime playing basketball against a bunch of nine-year-olds. The point isn’t that Nadal is actually likely to make this transition. It&#8217;s that the policy that John Oliver advocates for, and the position he takes, would make that sort of absurdity possible. 
But Oliver is determined to miss the point, which he continues to do here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=432&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Oh, they don’t? Well first of all, John, how do you know that? There are many examples of mediocre male athletes who, after a while of not succeeding against the men, suddenly discover their latent female identity. Lia Thomas is just one of many examples. How do you know that the fact that he could go from the middle of the pack to first by a mile isn’t what motivated him to make the switch? That trans “sports scientist” says that the social cost of transitioning is too high. He says that he personally lost his marriage and family when he transitioned. In other words, he willingly blew up his marriage and family for the sake of living out his fantasy of womanhood. What does that tell us? It tells us that he is extremely selfish. So the argument seems to be that trans identified people would never transition just to succeed in sports — because they&#8217;re too selfish for that. But I’m not sure that logic tracks.
And at any rate, none of this matters. None of this is even remotely related to the actual point. The reason for their &#8220;transition&#8221; is totally irrelevant. It does not matter. It makes no difference. Nothing that John has said to this point — nothing — even comes close to actually addressing our argument. And that trend will continue here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=509&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
&#8220;It’s not the case that any man is stronger and more athletic than every woman,&#8221; says John Oliver. And in saying this, he has expertly knocked down and dismantled an argument that literally no one on Earth, at any point, anywhere, has made. Nobody claims that every man is stronger than every woman. John Oliver himself is proof of that. He would likely lose an arm wrestling match against my 11-year-old daughter. It’s true that scrawny, pathetically weak men do exist in this world. We’re looking at one of them.
But that’s not the point. The point about athletic advantages is that ON AVERAGE men are significantly — not slightly — significantly stronger and faster. This is because men and women are built differently. Women on average have 20% less muscle mass in their legs, smaller fast-twitch muscle fibers, smaller lungs, smaller hearts, shorter legs, much more estrogen and much less testosterone, and a lesser capacity to produce oxygen when they exert themselves. That’s why a team of high school boys could beat the women’s national team in soccer. It’s why the top ten male finishers in nearly every Olympic event always beat the top ten female finishers in the same event. In fact, the top 25 or 50 or 100 male finishers will beat the top 10 females.
It’s why you can find hundreds of examples just like this one. Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, both males, finished first and second in the 55-meter dash at the women’s state indoor track and field championships in Connecticut a few years ago. Miller also finished first in the 300-meter. Miller won the gold with a time of 38.9 seconds. Second place was a full second behind him – a near eternity in track time. But if Miller had raced against the boys in the same event, he <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1101274590586851330">would have been</a> two seconds behind the guy who finished in 25th place. 
To reiterate: his “winning” time against the girls would have put him far outside the top 25 in the men’s field. The worst guy on the men’s track team can instantly become the best on the girl’s team. That’s the point. Or at least it&#8217;s the point about the athletic advantages. But even that point is not THE point. John Oliver still hasn’t addressed the actual point.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trans Athletes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/flSS1tjoxf0?start=682&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Now, John goes on for a while about the dearth of studies dealing with “trans women” in female sports. He’s perplexed that there haven&#8217;t been more studies on the subject. But of course trans women are men, and there is ample scientific evidence and many, many studies demonstrating the physiological differences and athletic advantages enjoyed by men. He wants a study that specifically studies trans women, as if the fact that a man sees himself as a woman will in and of itself fundamentally impact his biology. But that is not the case. Which is why no one has bothered to study it. No credible scientist would ever say, “Hey, we know that men are faster and stronger than women. But what about men who think they&#8217;re women. Are they also faster and stronger?”
Their perception of themselves as women does not alter their biology. We don’t need a study to show us that, John. We just need to be not insane.
So what John is really talking about here are men who have undergone a “medical transition.” We’re being told that after “transition,” the physical advantages are diminished, supposedly. Does this mean that John Oliver is saying that only male athletes who’ve taken the drugs should be allowed to compete against women? No, he’s not saying that. At least he doesn&#8217;t appear to be saying that. His only real argument in favor of men in women&#8217;s sports is that, supposedly, men who&#8217;ve taken the transition drugs become weaker and slower. But he actually doesn&#8217;t follow that argument through to its conclusion and say that only men who’ve transitioned should compete. So again this whole thing is a red herring.
Also, why are men weaker and slower after transitioning? Why do they have less muscle mass? Well because the drugs are destroying their bodies. John Oliver is, here, proudly demonstrating that medical transition destroys the human body. It has a destructive effect on the physiology of the men who undergo these “treatments.” John seems to have little curiosity about that fact. He doesn’t linger on it or think about it very hard. Instead he just declares, “Look at that! Their bodies have been destroyed! Now they&#8217;re just like women!”
He doesn’t see any problem with equating a destroyed male body to a female body. He doesn’t see any problem with giving people supposed medical treatments that are designed to physically harm them. And he doesn’t even really think these treatments are relevant to the question of whether or not a trans woman is actually a woman or not.
That brings us to the argument that John has spent this whole diatribe studiously ignoring. The reason why our side actually opposes men in women’s sports is, as I explained during that hearing in California last week, very simply because men are not women. No matter how great or small their advantage. No matter if they’ve “transitioned” or not. No matter how they self-identify. Men are not women. The fundamental claim of the trans woman — that he is a woman — is false. It is objectively, scientifically, logically, empirically, in every way, and from every angle, false.
If there was a 30-year-old adult who wanted to play in a t-ball league against six-year-olds, we would all — even John Oliver — tell him no. But what if this 30-year-old was really un-athletic? Would that change our mind? What if he was very short, as short as a child? What if this 30-year-old would be only the tenth best t-ball player on the t-ball team? Would we let him play against the six-year-olds? No. Why? Because he&#8217;s not six-years-old.
Now what if the 30-year-old thought he was six.? What if he identified as six? What if he spent his whole life and had built his entire personality around the fantasy that he is six? Would we let him play in the six-year-old league in that case? No. In fact, we’d be even LESS accepting of him on the six-year-old team. Because not only is he still not actually six-years-old — he’s also deranged. The fact that he is deranged doesn’t make him six, and it doesn&#8217;t make us any more eager to let him play with six-year-olds. It has the exact opposite effect.
The same logic applies to women’s sports. Men are not women. Men who think they are women are still not women, and are, if anything, even less fit to be competing against them. This is the argument John Oliver won&#8217;t address. He will talk and talk and talk about the issue, but he won’t go anywhere near the actual point. The point that so-called trans women are not actually women. That’s our whole argument, John. I dare you to spend even five minutes addressing it. You’ve spent plenty of time on this topic. I think it&#8217;s time you actually get to the point.

Comic Relief Stand-Up for LA:  A Benefit For LA Wildfire Recovery

Debunking John Oliver’s Insane Defense Of Men In Women’s Sports

Comedy

Gender

gender ideology

John Oliver

Transgender

Women's sports

Last Friday we discussed the killing of a white high school junior in Texas named Austin Metcalf. Metcalf was stabbed through the heart by Karmelo Anthony, a 17-year-old black student who attended a different school. 
According to the arrest warrant, Anthony was in the wrong tent at a track meet, for reasons that aren&#8217;t entirely clear. Metcalf told him to leave; Anthony dared Metcalf to touch him; Metcalf apparently touched Anthony or his backpack; and then Anthony produced a knife from the backpack and killed Metcalf. Afterwards, police say, Anthony threw the murder weapon away. When police asked Anthony what had happened, he admitted that he had stabbed Metcalf, then asked them if his actions could be considered a form of self-defense.
Of course, there hasn&#8217;t yet been a trial in this case. Karmelo Anthony, like everyone else accused of a crime in this country, enjoys the legal presumption of innocence under our Constitution. At the same time, reasonable people can look at these facts and come to one obvious conclusion, which is this: Unless the police and all of the witnesses are engaging in the single most organized conspiracy to frame a criminal defendant that&#8217;s ever been undertaken in the history of this country, for no apparent reason, then there was clearly no justification for Karmelo Anthony to kill Austin Metcalf. There was no reason for him to bring a deadly weapon to a track meet in the first place, much less use that weapon to execute an unarmed teenager, and then attempt to hide evidence. In other words, any defense of Anthony must rely on something other than the facts.
Over the past few days, that kind of defense is exactly what has emerged. Despite the overwhelming evidence in this case, tens of thousands of people have now publicly declared that, in essence, Metcalf had it coming. This sentiment isn&#8217;t based on forensic evidence or new witness testimony or anything like that. Instead, the defense of Anthony is based on the fact that Anthony is black, and Metcalf was white.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1570-member-exclusive?row=2&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
We will go through some of these defenses, below, so you can see the exact arguments I&#8217;m referring to. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that the identity of the person writing the post doesn&#8217;t matter. What matters are the massive amount of positive responses these posts have received. Each post listed below has received tens of thousands of positive responses, in the forms of replies and &#8220;likes,&#8221; along with millions of views. So even if we&#8217;re talking about professional agitators here, it really doesn&#8217;t matter. The point is that the agitation is working. A significant number of people are responding positively.
Here for example was <a href="https://x.com/tariqnasheed/status/1908338545020018820">a post</a> written by the commentator Tariq Nasheed, who describes himself as a &#8220;foundational black American.&#8221;
<blockquote>A suspected white supremacist named Austin Metcalf (pictured with his twin) allegedly demanded honor student Karmelo Anthony give up his seat—like it was the Jim Crow era. Karmelo defended himself from the alleged threat. The Daniel Penny case set this precedent.</blockquote>
Nasheed <a href="https://x.com/tariqnasheed/status/1908289160038977683">added</a>:
<blockquote>If Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in using lethal self defense&#8230; And Daniel Penny was justified in using lethal self defense&#8230;. Then Karmelo Anthony was justified in using self defense against alleged bullies who instigated an altercation, correct?</blockquote>
Collectively, these two posts received over six million views and tens of thousands of likes. Austin Metcalf, according to this post, was a &#8220;suspected white supremacist&#8221; even though there&#8217;s been no evidence whatsoever to suggest that&#8217;s true. It&#8217;s just completely invented. In this instance, as in pretty much every other instance, the words &#8220;white supremacist&#8221; are really being used as a synonym for &#8220;white.&#8221; The people responding to this post understand that Austin Metcalf wasn&#8217;t a member of some white nationalist group. They don&#8217;t care. They simply despise him because he was white, which is all it takes.
Then Tariq compares this situation to the &#8220;Jim Crow era,&#8221; which is apparently meant to imply that it&#8217;s impossible for black people to be in the wrong place, at any time, for any reason. If you are a white person, then evidently you are not allowed to tell a black person that he&#8217;s not allowed in a particular area. That appears to be the logic here. If you wake up at 2:00am and a random black person is inside your home, and you tell him to leave, then you&#8217;re basically reinventing Jim Crow.
The rest of Nasheed&#8217;s defense makes a half-hearted comparison to the Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny cases. Nevermind the fact both Rittenhouse and Penny were repeatedly threatened with lethal force before they responded in kind, which is why juries acquitted both men. Also never mind the fact that Tariq Nasheed thinks both Penny and Rittenhouse should be in prison — which means, by his own logic, Anthony should be too.
But in reality, as those cases demonstrated, lethal force is the appropriate response to someone pointing a loaded gun in your face, or to a violent felon who&#8217;s terrorizing a subway car as he yells, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to kill you&#8221; and &#8220;I&#8217;m prepared to go to jail for life.&#8221; On the other hand, lethal force is not the appropriate response to a student touching your backpack during a track meet. The only person who could possibly be confused about this or pretend to be confused is someone who is seeking, as desperately as he possibly can, to justify the murder of a white minor at the hands of a black killer. That is the only explanation for this kind of reasoning, or lack thereof. We are witnessing the endorsement of racial violence, on a very large scale.
To give another example, someone named Talbert Swan, who calls himself a &#8220;bishop,&#8221; posted a <a href="https://www.threads.net/@talbertswan/post/DIHYiXqxbE2/yall-said-17-yr-old-kyle-rittenhouse-was-justified-in-killing-two-people-with-an">similar comparison</a> on social media. Again, it received an overwhelmingly positive response:
<blockquote>Y’all said 17 yr old Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people with an AR 15 because he felt threatened. 17 yr old Karmelo Anthony was defending himself when he killed Austin Metcalf with a knife and y’all think he deserves to go to prison. I wonder whyTE.</blockquote>
What&#8217;s being conflated here, again, is that Kyle Rittenhouse didn&#8217;t merely &#8220;feel&#8221; threatened. The jury determined, correctly, that Rittenhouse&#8217;s fear was objectively reasonable. It was not a pretext. Rittenhouse did not invent his fear in order to kill anyone. Nor did he kill anyone because he has very little impulse control, or because he grew up in a culture that glorified violence. He killed people because they attempted to kill him first, and any reasonable person could see that. It was quite literally on video. There was no denying it.
The reason these people are making the Rittenhouse comparisons is that they&#8217;re projecting. They want to glorify racial violence, but they don&#8217;t want to make it explicit, at least not yet. So instead, they&#8217;re pretending that white people are already glorifying racial violence. They&#8217;re then framing black-on-white violence as a proportionate response.
Here&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/MikeBaggz/status/1907927941566312508">another post</a>, from someone calling himself &#8220;Mike Baggz.&#8221; It racked up something like seven million views and 30,000 positive responses: 
<blockquote>Whenever white supremacists immediately flood our mentions before the full story is even out, you know something’s up. It turns out, Austin Metcalf was the aggressor, and the Black kid, Karmelo Anthony, was defending himself.</blockquote>
According to this analysis, the person who goes into the wrong tent while armed with a deadly weapon, and then dares someone to touch him, is not in the final analysis the &#8220;aggressor.&#8221; What&#8217;s missing in this analysis is that Metcalf never put Anthony in any fear of his life, reasonable or otherwise. Touching someone&#8217;s backpack at a track meet when they&#8217;re in the wrong tent is not a threat of lethal violence, especially in this context. Therefore, Anthony was not justified in using lethal force as a response. And Anthony probably knew that, which is why he got rid of the murder weapon, and why he asked the police officers if he could possibly have a viable self-defense claim — which is not something you do if you have a viable self-defense claim.
But a lot of people seem intent on ignoring these facts. 
Here&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/HussleMase/status/1908172510442422722">another post</a> with ten million views and around 80,000 likes: 
<blockquote>The twins didn’t just &#8216;ask him to leave.&#8217; They tried to JUMP him. before attacking him, they tried to take his belongings, BROKE his phone, and STOMPED on it. &#8230; Ask yourself: If two 200+ lb attackers came at YOUR child, what would you expect them to do? Karmelo defended himself against violent aggressors. That is NOT a crime.</blockquote>
None of this is true. Austin Metcalf didn&#8217;t &#8220;jump&#8221; anyone. He didn&#8217;t attempt to steal any belongings, nor did he break anyone&#8217;s phone. All of that information was contained in a fake Facebook post from someone pretending to be the local chief of police. Anyone with access to Google, or who&#8217;s equipped with basic common sense, could have figured that out immediately. But millions of people wanted to believe that this post was true, even though it was obviously fake. And the reason these people wanted to believe this fake information is that, when you get down to it, they would support a black person — any black person — who kills a white person, for any reason. This is the OJ Simpson effect, except Karmelo Anthony isn&#8217;t famous. He has no pre-existing fanbase. This is the purest form of racial resentment. And now it&#8217;s on full display.
We&#8217;re not dealing with an honest disagreement about the facts here. We&#8217;re dealing with people who believe that violence against white people is justified, solely on the basis of their skin color. That is why, as of right now, a GiveSendGo fundraiser for Karmelo Anthony, the man who just stabbed a teenager in the heart and killed him, has raised more than $175,000. Yes, the killer&#8217;s family, with his official GiveSendGo, has raised $175,000. Those are people — actual people, not bots or trolls — giving someone money for killing a white kid.
The <a href="https://www.givesendgo.com/HelpKarmelo">fundraising page</a> complains that it&#8217;s been a &#8220;challenging and difficult time&#8221; for Karmelo Anthony&#8217;s family. It claims, &#8220;the narrative being spread is false, unjust, and harmful.&#8221; A similar fundraiser was taken down by GoFundMe, because raising money for murder suspects isn&#8217;t acceptable under their terms of service. But it&#8217;s apparently fine for GiveSendGo, the supposedly Christian alternative.
The reason this is happening, the reason a killer is being celebrated and even funded by a significant number of Americans, is that everything I said on Friday is true. The culture among young black males in this country glorifies violence. And in particular, it glorifies violence against white people. That&#8217;s why young black males are disproportionately violent, to a degree that&#8217;s almost impossible to believe. Black people are roughly 12 times more likely to kill a white person, and 28 times more likely to violently assault a white person, than the other way around.
This is what happens when the vast majority of black children are born without present fathers. It&#8217;s what happens when black culture is dominated by degeneracy. And it&#8217;s what happens when the worst kinds of people are hailed as heroes of the black community. Now it&#8217;s a kid who stabbed another kid in the heart. In the past it&#8217;s been George Floyd or Michael Brown or any other BLM martyr we might name. If not them, it&#8217;s rappers and athletes, who would be the least objectionable of the bunch, at least in most cases. But ask yourself: when was the last time that a great black man of high moral character, someone who achieved something meaningful, was given the George Floyd or Karmelo Anthony hagiography treatment?
You become what you admire. This is true of people and cultures. When you elevate people like Karmelo Anthony and George Floyd, you become like them. There are great black men and women in the world and throughout history, obviously. Just one modern day example is Ben Carson, one of the world&#8217;s greatest surgeons. His personal story is harrowing and inspiring. But he&#8217;s been cast out of &#8220;black culture.&#8221; Mainstream black culture celebrates George Floyd or Kendrick Lamar far more than it would ever celebrate a man like Carson. Not only are the good, decent, productive black men and women not celebrated they are in fact condemned by the very culture that should be celebrating them.
This is what happens with all of the Left&#8217;s victim groups. When you are a victim group, your heroes must be victims. The qualification to become a hero is not that you achieved something, but that something bad happened to you even if, in reality, you did the bad thing to yourself (as was the case with George Floyd, Karmelo Anthony, Michael Brown, and so on). We see a version of this problem in American culture at large. We tore down the statues of our true historical heroes, and now they&#8217;re being replaced by pop stars and celebrities and other assorted degenerates.
The end result of this trend, which is continuing even though so many Americans reject it, will be that many more people will die. Any country that tolerates racial violence will inevitably descend further and further towards dysfunction and open race warfare. If BLM types can justify the killing of Austin Metcalf, they can justify the murder of any white man, woman or child. That is their goal. That is why they&#8217;re sending money to the family of Karmelo Anthony and comparing him to Kyle Rittenhouse. And it&#8217;s why everyone, whether they&#8217;re white or black, needs to pay very close attention to where they&#8217;re living and what schools they&#8217;re sending their children to. Until this culture changes, and right now there are no signs that it will, the consequences of ignorance are simply too great to ignore.

USA, New York State, New York City, Crime scene barrier tape

Black Teen Raises Thousands In Fundraiser After Killing White Student

Blacks

Daniel Penny

GoFundMe

Kyle Rittenhouse

Track and Field

MixCollage-04-Apr-2025-03-56-PM-4174

The Media Desperately Wants You To Ignore This Horrifying Story

Dallas

Students

Violence

MixCollage-02-Apr-2025-02-19-PM-4003

Why I Went To Speak In Front Of The California Assembly Yesterday

Transgender Athletes

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh testified Tuesday before the California State Assembly on a bill that would ban trans-identifying male students from girls&#8217; sports and bathrooms.
Walsh <a href="https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media-live-event/9124?format=video" target="_blank" rel="noopener">slammed</a> Democrat lawmakers, telling them that they are &#8220;predators&#8221; if they force girls to change in locker rooms with boys.
&#8220;The man who identifies as a woman is either deluded and confused or he is a cross-dressing fetishist looking to play out his fantasies in public. In either case, the claim that he&#8217;s making, the claim to womanhood is not true,&#8221; Walsh told Democrats on the California&#8217;s Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism.
&#8220;And compelling women to take part in this untruth is evil, perverse, and predatory. If you would use the force of law to compel young girls to use a changing room with a boy, you are yourselves predators,&#8221; Walsh said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“&#8230;Will you side with the truth, a truth so basic that every toddler understands it, or will you disgrace yourselves by denying it?” <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mattwalshblog</a> testifies to keep men out of women’s sports. <a href="https://t.co/kt0Kkpb8tr">pic.twitter.com/kt0Kkpb8tr</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1907139490935628158?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Assembly Bill 844 ultimately failed to make it out of committee by a 6-2 vote on Tuesday.
The bill would have required participation in school sports and bathroom and locker use to be based on a student’s sex, not gender identity. It would have applied to both public K-12 schools and public colleges.
The measure would have reversed a decade-old law in the blue state. Since 2014, California has allowed students to play on the sports teams and use the facilities “consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
Walsh began his remarks at the hearing by saying he was not going to talk about &#8220;fairness&#8221; or &#8220;safety,&#8221; but &#8220;something even more important and even more basic &#8230; It&#8217;s truth.&#8221;
&#8220;Why shouldn&#8217;t men play in women&#8217;s sports? Because they aren&#8217;t women. It isn&#8217;t true. We should not allow men into women&#8217;s sports for the same reason we shouldn&#8217;t go around claiming two plus two equals seven. It&#8217;s just not true. It is a lie,&#8221; Walsh said.
&#8220;Transgenderism is a lie. It is, in fact, the most deranged lie that mankind has ever invented,&#8221; Walsh said.
&#8220;In a free country, nobody should ever be forced to participate in a lie,&#8221; Walsh told the lawmakers. &#8220;Will you side with the truth, a truth so basic that every toddler understands it, or will you disgrace yourselves by denying it? That is your choice to make.&#8221;
Also testifying was Taylor Starling, a high schooler in Riverside who said she was removed from her varsity track and field team and replaced by a trans-identifying male transfer student who was given &#8220;favorable treatment.&#8221;
&#8220;He did not have to attend practice while my team and I were running seven miles a day together,&#8221; the 16-year-old said, adding that she missed out on running in a top cross country invitational, the teen said.
Starling also said that when she tried to speak up by wearing a shirt that said, &#8220;Save Girls Sports,&#8221; her athletic director told her it was &#8220;like wearing a swastika in front of a Jewish person&#8221; and that she would face disciplinary action if she wore it again.
Before the hearing, Walsh noted that “even Gavin Newsom, after sniffing the political wind, now admits it’s unfair — let’s see if California Democrats can stop playing pretend and follow his sudden rediscovery of basic truth.”
On his new podcast, the California governor shocked his fellow Democrats by calling biological men competing in women’s sports “deeply unfair.”
Newsom was asked by his conservative guest Charlie Kirk whether he would “say no to men in female sports.”
“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that,” Newsom answered. “It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair.”
However, when Newsom was lieutenant governor in 2014, he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaA2RIwnXtg&amp;t=437s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">celebrated</a> California’s new law allowing trans-identifying male students to compete in girls’ sports. He celebrated <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/24/transgender-rights-california/5795659/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">again</a> when conservative groups failed to repeal that law.
On Friday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon <a href="https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1905278307664576715" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sent</a> Newsom a letter noting his shifting position and warning him to comply with federal law on prohibiting male students in girls’ sports and bathrooms or risk losing federal funding.
Newsom did not make any public comments about Assembly Bill 844.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Bill Essayli, a Republican, who slammed California Democrats ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, saying he expected them to reject his bill.
“I believe the Democrats will double down and reject this bill tomorrow,” Essayli <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/matt-walsh-testify-favor-california-bill-ban-males-from-womens-sports-this-isnt-complicated" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News. “They want to make a public scene out of it so they can be heroes to their progressive base.”
At the hearing, Essayli noted that California K-12 schools receive about $8 billion in federal funding. Essayli added that he believes California will ultimately come into compliance with Title IX, either through the legislative or judicial process.
If not, he said, &#8220;we will not only be failing our female students and athletes, but we are also jeopardizing a critical funding source for our school districts.&#8221;
&#8220;As the governor said, it&#8217;s a question of fairness. And if we&#8217;re Nazis, the governor&#8217;s a Nazi, so you should impeach him,&#8221; Essayli said. &#8220;The governor gets it, 80% of the people get this, and if you double down today and you reaffirm this law, this failed policy, you&#8217;ll get it in the next election.&#8221;
Before lawmakers debated the bill, members of the public lined up at a microphone to voice their opinions. Many female high school athletes, their parents, girls&#8217; coaches, and others showed up to support the bill. Others voiced their opposition, including several trans-identifying men, LGBT activists, and parents of trans-identifying children, many of whom were wearing face masks.
Just before the committee considered Assembly Bill 844, the lawmakers considered another similar bill, AB 89, which would have mandated that the California Interscholastic Federation, which governs high school sports, bar male students from girls’ teams.
That bill also failed in a 7-2 vote.

‘You Are Yourselves Predators’: Matt Walsh Slams California Assembly On Trans Sports, Bathroom Bill

'You Are Yourselves Predators:' Matt Walsh Slams CA Assembly On Trans Sports, Bathroom Bill

Sports

Women Sports

Menu