Ep. 1491 - Why DEI Is Finally on the Chopping Block In D.C.
58:03 Share

Today on The Matt Walsh Show, there was a hearing in Congress yesterday to debate a Republican bill that would abolish DEI in the federal government. Various Democrat lawmakers presented their best arguments for keeping DEI intact, and their best arguments are extremely, extremely stupid. Also, the trans lawmaker in Congress backs down and admits defeat in the bathroom fight, and Jaguar puts out the most unintentionally hilarious woke ad we've maybe ever seen. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

Did you know that American homeowners have over $32 trillion in equity? That's mind-boggling. But here's what's concerning. Cybercriminals are targeting with a scam the FBI calls house-stealing.

It's disturbingly simple. With just one forged document and a fake notary stamp, criminals can transfer your home's title to their name. And from there, they can take out loans or even sell your home all without you knowing. The worst part, you don't find out until the foreclosure or collection notices show up in your mailbox. By then, it's too late. You're stuck with a financial and legal nightmare. But there's a way to protect yourself, just like my producer, Sean Hampton, protects their home with triple lock protection from home title lock.

Here's what it does. It monitors your title 24/7, urgently alerts you to any change in your title, and if fraud does happen, their team steps in to restore your title at no extra cost to you. When was the last time you checked your home title? If you're like most people, probably never. That's exactly what scammers are banking on. So how can you stop them? Head to HomeTitleLock.com, use promo code WALSH for a free title history report and a 30-day free trial of Triple Lock protection. Don't wait. Protect your home before it's too late.

That's hometitlelock.com, promo code WALSH.

The other day we talked about some of the encouraging signs that Republicans in Congress are going to be a lot more responsive to their voters this time around. Unlike what we saw following the 2016 election, it doesn't look like Republican lawmakers are deathly terrified of the left anymore. They're not worried about being called bigots or transphobes, at least not nearly to the same extent that they were during Donald Trump's first term. It's still early, obviously, but the preliminary indications are good. And these indications keep getting better and better. On Wednesday, we

We saw yet another sign that Republicans in Congress are actually going to start doing what their voters want. And in particular, it's a sign that they're going to follow through with the Trump administration's legislative agenda, which involves dismantling DEI policies at every level of the government and throughout the country. The House Oversight Committee met yesterday to mark up a bill called the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024. This is a bill that was co-sponsored by J.D. Vance and Michael Cloud, a congressman from Texas.

The bill would undo every single one of Joe Biden's many executive orders on DEI, including his executive orders mandating DEI in every federal agency, as well as his executive order establishing a chief diversity officer's executive council to coordinate affirmative action throughout the government. And in terms of concrete steps, the bill would force every single government agency to shut down their DEI office and fire everybody in it.

And those employees can't be reassigned throughout the government either. They have to pack their bags, find another job. Everyone remaining in the federal government, meanwhile, will be barred from ever discriminating against anybody or in favor of anyone on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and so on. Now, for Democrats, this bill is obviously a major threat. Democrats went all in on identity politics a long time ago, and now their entire party is defined by it.

They have entire caucuses in Congress that are segregated by skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation. And as we saw during the campaign, Kamala Harris' supporters voluntarily segregated themselves into white dudes for Harris, black women for Harris, a million other subgroups. Democrats have calculated that racial animosity and racial guilt can be leveraged for political gain, and up until the most recent election, it looked like they were right.

But now it doesn't look that way anymore. The momentum has shifted decisively against this kind of flagrant race hustling. All of the emotion and moral panic from 2020 has subsided. Many people are thinking clearly again. Now Democrats actually have to provide coherent, well-reasoned arguments in favor of the DEI policies that they've been supporting for so long. And as yesterday's markup hearing in the House of Representatives demonstrates,

Democrats are completely and comically incapable of doing that. So I'll start with the opening remarks by Jasmine Crockett, who represents Texas in Congress, specifically the Dallas area. I'll get to the other lawmakers' opening statements as well, because a lot of them are worth talking about for all the wrong reasons. But Jasmine Crockett's comments stand apart. I mean, they are, without a doubt, some of the most ridiculous, untrue statements

unhinged arguments you will ever find in support of DEI, which is really saying something, obviously. And they suggest very strongly that DEI is about to be completely eradicated in the federal government. With defenders like this, DEI doesn't need critics, honestly. And it helps that Crockett has the IQ of a baby squirrel, as we'll also see. So here's how her statement began. She starts by touting her own extensive credentials and then launches into a really kind of astonishing monologue. Watch.

Okay, Ms. Crockett. So many of you know that I practice law, but some of you don't realize that I actually was a business major at a Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. And the emphasis that I got in my business degree was on finance.

And as I traveled the country campaigning this election cycle, one of the things that I talked about was this idea that in finance, we always promote this idea of diversity. If you know anything about a portfolio, the one thing that you want to do is make sure that it's as diverse as possible because at times, certain stocks will perform better than others.

And they will exemplify various strengths and weaknesses. And together, a diverse portfolio is usually what any good finance person would promote. They wouldn't promote that you solely invest in vanilla wafers, believing that that is going to be the strongest portfolio. But instead,

Instead, they may want to add some chocolate cake and some Twinkies into the mix to make sure that we have the best portfolio because there will be different preferences by different people. And again, there will be different strengths. So don't hire Jasmine Crockett as your financial advisor, I think is the lesson there. Now, you might hear that and think that it makes no sense. You might think it's strange that a congresswoman is comparing diverse human beings to low quality food items.

You might even think that it's the single most strained, irrelevant analogy you've ever heard. But you've got to ask yourself, did you major in business at Rhodes College? Because in case you didn't hear, Jasmine Crockett did major in business at Rhodes College. So it's pretty safe to say she knows what she's talking about. You don't just invest in vanilla wafers. I don't know why you'd invest in those to begin with, but you've got to add chocolate cake and Twinkies to your portfolio too.

And, you know, DEI is just like that, apparently. Now, admittedly, I didn't go to Rhodes College. I didn't major in business. I didn't even go to college at all. So maybe there's something a simpleton like myself just isn't grasping about the finer points of Jasmine Crockett's argument here. But I can say pretty authoritatively that

The point of a diverse portfolio is not to include supposedly underrepresented and marginalized stocks for the sake of it. You don't go to a broker and say, hey, I'd like to add some shares of Boeing because there's a lot of anti-Boeing bigotry out there. And we need to rectify that. We need more representation of this marginalized stock in my portfolio. You don't buy shares in Spirit Airlines because nobody else wants them. That kind of strategy would very quickly drive you to bankruptcy.

Now, the point of a diverse portfolio is to pick a variety of quality stocks with enough redundancy that you're not dependent on any one stock in case things go wrong. You don't go out of your way to pick bad stocks in order to give them more representation. So the point of DEI, on the other hand, is to elevate incompetent people and punish more deserving people solely on the basis of characteristics that are irrelevant.

But to be fair, I did interrupt Jasmine Crockett's monologue, so let's see what other insights she has to offer us.

But you consistently said over and over the word oppression and every time that you said it, it was almost as if I was hearing nails on a chalkboard because it seems like you don't understand the definition of oppression and I'd ask you to just refer to Google to help you out. Oppression is the prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. That is the definition of oppression.

And so as I sit here as a black woman who practiced civil rights, let me tell you the reason that my colleagues wanted to make sure you understood the same black history that your side of the aisle wants to delete out of classrooms is because you can then misuse words like oppression. There has been no oppression for the white man in this country.

You tell me which white men were dragged out of their homes. You tell me which one of them got dragged all the way across an ocean and told that you are going to go at work. We are going to steal your wives. We are going to rape your wives. That didn't happen. That is oppression. We didn't ask to be here. Well, first of all, I will admit that that's never happened to me. You're right, Jasmine. It's also never happened to you.

It didn't happen to your parents. It didn't happen to your grandparents. It didn't happen to anybody you know ever. So there's that. We're all in the same boat, if you'll pardon the expression. So Crockett says that she didn't ask to be here, which is true. I mean, nobody asked, right? I mean, none of us asked to be in the situation that we're born in and in the lives that we were born into. I certainly didn't.

Like Jasmine Crockett, I was fortunate enough to be born in America, which is a country that's apparently so bigoted and so oppressive and so evil that it made Jasmine Crockett, one of the dumbest women in the entire world, into a member of Congress. But I guess she's talking about her ancestors and what they chose to do.

She wants to know which white men were ever enslaved. And in order to think that that's a compelling point, you have to, well, first of all, you have to overlook the fact that many of her ancestors, there's a pretty good chance, were also slave owners. They could have been the ones who sold other Africans into slavery.

And on top of that, you have to overlook the Moors conquest of Spain and the enslavement of Christians there, the Barbary pirates enslavement of more than a million Europeans from the 16th to the 19th centuries, the Roman conquest of modern day France, and so on and so on and so on. A lot of the descendants of those white slaves are probably in this country too. In fact, a huge number of white people are descendants of slaves. Yes, that's true, because slavery existed across the world for thousands of years.

But Jasmine Crockett never advocates on their behalf in any of these hearings. She pretends they don't exist, actually. To be fair, her knowledge of world history extends as far back as about nine seconds ago, so she can't be expected to know this. Just kidding, of course. She also doesn't know anything about what happened in the world nine seconds ago. But again, I'm interrupting. Let's continue. Don't let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us people of color on this side of the aisle.

That y'all are the ones being oppressed. That y'all are the ones that are being harmed. That's not the definition of oppression. You tell me the prolonged cruel or unjust treatment that you've had and we can have a conversation. You can start with Exodus. The reality is that when it comes to financial performance, companies with more diverse work

are more likely to outperform their competitors. Companies in the top quartile for racial diversity are 35% more likely to outperform their peers on profitability. Companies with diverse executive teams are 25% more likely to generate greater profits. Diverse companies earn 2.5 times higher cash flow per employee. Diversity works. And until you can show me data that says otherwise,

I think that we need to go back to being a country that listens to experts.

Yes, don't let it escape you. Don't let it escape you that only black people have ever suffered oppression in the world. They're the only ones. The only ones. Everyone else, our history, our ancestry going back thousands of years has been nothing but, it's just been wonderful. For us, the rest of history going back thousands of years has been nothing but roses and rainbows and that's it. So she's the only one who has any oppression in her background.

Because, you know, Jasmine Crockett tells us that she Googled. She Googled the word oppression, which apparently means prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment. And she says that this can't possibly apply to white people for some reason. She never really explains why white people can't suffer unjust treatment or why, and this is her claim again, that they never have ever in history, not at any point. Even though, of course, white people suffer unjust treatment every day. That's the whole reason this bill is being proposed. And also leaving aside the fact that this whole thing about oppression that she's whining about,

has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway. Even if it were true that black people are the only ones who have ever been oppressed, that would not justify DEI programs and it would not explain why we need them or why they're a good idea. But it's not true. Then she launches into that infamous McKinsey study that supposedly shows that DEI somehow makes companies more money. This is a study that never made any sense because there's no reason that picking less qualified candidates would make a business more profitable.

But McKinsey kept on repeating this claim in 2015, 2018, 2020, 2023. They keep producing this same study showing that DEI is supposedly a smart financial move for companies. Then earlier this year, a group of researchers at Econ Journal Watch looked into McKinsey's claims and they tried to rerun McKinsey's methodology.

And they couldn't replicate the results, which tells you that there's a problem with a study when it can't be replicated. The researchers concluded, quote, McKinsey's studies neither conceptually nor empirically support the argument that large U.S. public firms can expect, on average, to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial ethnic diversity of their executives.

The researchers found that, quote, better firm financial performances causes firms to diversify the racial ethnic composition of their executives, not the reverse. In other words, when firms have a ton of money to spend, they throw it at the useless DEI programs. That's what McKinsey's data actually showed. It doesn't show the DEI makes companies money. It shows that companies with a lot of extra money spend their money on DEI, or at least they used to.

So this is the data that, according to Jasmine Crockett, justifies the use of DEI in the federal government. Just completely and totally baseless. Now you'd think a business major and lawyer like Jasmine Crockett would know that, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the same Jasmine Crockett who recently touted her honorary degree as a serious credential. Let's go back and watch that again.

Because as I'm sitting here and there seemed to be this question of you're either diverse or you're qualified, all I could think about was the fact that I currently hold an honorary doctorate. I also hold a jurist doctorate. I also hold a bachelor's. I also technically hold the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol. And I actually practiced law for almost two decades in addition to serving on various boards, in addition to being a professional

prior state lawmaker, and there are those that would make some people believe that because I happen to be black and/or a woman, that somehow, even though I can rattle off all the qualifications in the world, my blackness makes me unqualified.

By the way, an honorary doctorate, that's as meaningful a title as like, that's like me touting the fact that my kids gave me a mug for Father's Day that says world's best dad. Okay. It's like, in fact, that's more meaningful. I actually had to earn that. I mean, I at least had to earn my own kids thinking that I'm the world's best dad. But the honorary doctorate means you don't earn that at all. It means absolutely nothing.

And anyway, to answer your question, Jasmine, the reason that you're unqualified is not that you're a black woman. It's that you're a moron. And, you know, that's the entire point of the bill. People are tired of entitled, low IQ bureaucrats drawing taxpayer funded salaries to work useless jobs. Americans want their government to start being productive instead of wasting resources. They also want to end over racial discrimination. That is overwhelmingly where most voters stand on this issue.

At least one Democrat appeared to understand this, so he took a different approach. Here's Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida arguing that the bill is a bad idea, not because DEI is good, but because it supposedly is wrong to fire any federal government bureaucrat for any reason. If you want to close the DEI offices, he says, then you have to rehire those same employees in another government job. Watch. But the problem is, is that argument falls apart on page six, line 17, line 17 through line 20.

In fact, if you're sincere about your intent of the bill, what I would tell you is you should delete those lines. Because actually those lines are actual new discrimination. See, you want to get rid of an office. We may disagree with it, but you can get rid of an office. You want to change policy, we may disagree with the policy you want to change, but here actually in those lines...

you are creating second-class federal employees. You're creating new discrimination, may not transfer discrimination, may not reassign discrimination, may not redesignate any employee discrimination. Those are protections that every other federal employee in every other office in the federal government gets. It's a right and a privilege that they get.

Now, watching this, it's pretty clear that Democrats believe that we work for the bureaucrats in the federal government. We are their servants rather than the other way around. According to Jared Moskowitz, every single federal government employee has the right and privilege to a job. And if that job goes away, then you got to give them a new one. Even when they're fired, we have to find them a new job in the federal government like it's an adult daycare or something.

This is how Democrats plan to keep DEI embedded in the federal government. They want to just shuffle these useless bureaucrats around because supposedly they can't be fired. Now, if that's how these civil service laws are currently written, then we obviously need to change those laws. You can't run a government if you're obligated to employ professional DEI leeches. That's just not sustainable. No company on the planet works like this. When a private business fires somebody for being useless, they don't have to find them a job in the mailroom or something. I mean, it's obscene.

And besides, firing bureaucrats is a lot of fun. We should do it at any possible opportunity. And to be clear, Jared Moskowitz's argument is the best one I could find. I mean, it's bad, but it's the best Democrats could offer. The rest of their statements were like this one from Congresswoman Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. Watch.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs only exist to band-aid over decades, hell, centuries of discrimination against people's skin color, their religion, disabilities, gender, or sexual orientations, you name it. Contrary to Republican conjecture, remedying past discrimination is not, in turn, a discrimination. And we're not going to sit here and pretend racism is over just because one black person on the Supreme Court agreed that it should be.

What DEI does not do is give some kind of magical pass to better jobs, like some of our colleagues are implying. Well, actually, Summer, that's exactly what DEI does. It's a magical pass that allows people like Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court, even though she can't define the word woman. It's a magical pass that allows Kamala Harris to run for president and serve as vice president, even though nobody in the country likes her or voted for her. It's a magical pass that allows Claudine Gay to become president of Harvard after writing four papers, most of which were plagiarized.

And now finally, that magical pass is being revoked. There was something else that Summer Lee said in that clip that was interesting in the sense that it was even dumber than things she usually says. She claims that it's Republican conjecture to say that remedying past discrimination can possibly involve discrimination. But I seem to remember as a renowned DEI expert myself that a man named Henry Rogers, a.k.a. Ibram X. Kendi,

once said, quote, the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. Apparently, Henry Rogers never said that. Apparently, that's Republican conjecture. In reality, according to Summer Lee, anti-white discrimination isn't actually discrimination at all. So we're now in the phase of DEI's death spiral where

The proponents of DEI are pretending they never said the things that they've been saying for years, that they said in writing, in books, that you can read. It's astonishing to watch. Or maybe she's escalating the rhetoric. Maybe she's saying that white people are so awful that no matter what you do to them, it can't possibly constitute discrimination. If that's the case, then presumably you can do whatever you want to white people. Maybe that's the vision Democrats are outlining in Congress right now.

There's one more moment that stands out from this sordid excuse for a hearing. It involves Congresswoman Chantel Brown of Ohio, who really thinks she has a gotcha moment here. Meanwhile, no one around her has any idea what the hell she's talking about. But here it is. Watch. I just want to point a clarification here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are addressing this bill is being proposed to address reverse racism, yet we're not willing to acknowledge racism.

Would you just appoint? What are you doing here? I'm asking for clarification. If the bill of the amendment that Ms. Presley is proposing suggests that we just simply acknowledge that racism exists and the fundamental point of your legislation is to deal with reverse racism, then I should ask you, what are we doing here?

I would assume you're asking Ms. Pressley the question. No, I'm asking you. You might as well ask Ms. Pressley the question. Well, maybe I should ask the author of this legislation. Mr. Cloud? Yes, ma'am. I apologize. I was reading. Okay. Just trying to get clarity here. If we don't, if we cannot agree that racism exists, but this legislation you're proposing is to deal with reverse racism, why are we here?

I think you answered the question in your question. We have discussed that over and over. There's been no denouncement or statement that racism doesn't exist. So she begins with a straw man argument. She says Republicans believe racism isn't real, which isn't true. And then she says, well, aha, if racism is real, then reverse racism can't be real. So this whole bill is unnecessary.

Apparently she thinks that she's just going to shut down the whole bill that way, but there's just silence before she's informed that nothing she said made any sense. Put aside the fact that reverse racism is a redundant expression. Yeah, it's not reverse racism, it's just racism. When a black person is racist against a white person, that's not reverse racism, it's just racism. And put that aside, put aside how unbelievably uncomfortable this whole moment was. Instead, imagine if you can, how much this congresswoman must have rehearsed this moment. Imagine the level of self-confidence she must have

Despite the fact that she should obviously have no self-confidence whatsoever, it's kind of inspirational in a way. So if there's anything encouraging in this whole debacle and all of the idiocy that we've just seen, there was a lot more, there's a lot more clips we could play, but I think we've probably seen enough. Anything encouraging in it, it's that Republicans are finally making a serious effort to get these leeches out of the federal government. That's what the dismantled DEI Act will do.

And after watching most of this hearing, it's pretty clear the Democrats have no logical argument for opposing it at all. All that's left to do is pass it into law and terminate as many of these unqualified bureaucrats as possible. To borrow an expression from the great wordsmith, Jasmine Crockett, we don't need vanilla wafers, chocolate cake, and Twinkies in the government. We need smart and capable people. And very soon, based on how this hearing went, there's maybe a chance that we might finally get them. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Let's talk about something that keeps business owners up at night, managing finances. If your current system feels about as useful as a chocolate teapot, well, I've got a solution that'll make you wonder how you ever lived without it. It's called Ramp. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Picture this, you

You give every employee a card, but you're in complete control. You can set tight limits. Plus, you can say goodbye to wasting your life deciphering expense reports at month's end. Ramp categorizes your expenses in real time and collects receipts automatically. You'll be closing your books eight times faster. But Ramp isn't just about saving time. It's about cold, hard cash. The average business saves 5% in their first year with Ramp. Not to mention, Ramp is so easy to use. Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000.

And now get $250 when you join RAMP. Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh. That's ramp.com slash Walsh. Cards issued by Sutton Bank, member FDIC, terms and conditions apply. Yesterday we talked about the bathroom wars that have erupted on Capitol Hill.

Delaware elected the first trans congressman who identifies as a congresswoman. This necessitated Republicans, beginning with Nancy Mace, to introduce a measure clarifying that only actual women can use the women's restroom. Well, the update is that yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson announced that, indeed, men were banned from women's facilities at the Capitol. This is only a day after Johnson had initially been too shy to say, you know, whether women

the trans congressman, Congressman Sarah McBride is the name he goes by now, is actually a man. A day later, he banned him from the women's room. And now we have the response from McBride, reading from the Daily Wire, it says, the trans-identifying congressman at the center of a Capitol Hill bathroom battle has agreed...

not to use the women's facility following a mandate from House Speaker Mike Johnson. Sarah McBride, a newly elected representative from Delaware who identifies as a transgender woman, issued a statement on Wednesday saying that he will abide by Johnson's Wednesday directive that all single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House office buildings are reserved for individuals of that biological sex. McBride said, I'm here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families. Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.

So he's not going to fight over bathrooms because he knows it's a losing fight for him. A few years ago, he definitely would have fought over the bathrooms. And we know that trans activists have fought over the bathroom issue quite a bit. The whole reason it is an issue in the first place. But now he can't win, and he knows that. Nancy Mace, meanwhile, announced that she's following this up with a bill to extend the ban to all federal buildings. Watch.

Everyone, I told you I wasn't going to stop with Capitol Hill. I'm filing another bill tonight that would ban biological men from women's spaces on all federal property all across the country. This fight starts here. It starts now. Men are not allowed in women's spaces, period. Full stop. End of story. Now, I would certainly stop short of saying that the fight starts here. You know, the fight actually started many years ago.

So that doesn't actually start here. Republicans in Congress are just now joining the fight, which is great. Now, I'm glad they are. I mean, this is a hugely positive development. And you just kind of have to deal with the fact that, I mean, this is the way it goes. This is politics. They're going to start sort of taking credit and positioning themselves as leaders on an issue, even though in reality, they're actually following our lead. That's all fine. It's how it goes. And I really, I mean that. I'm not just saying it sarcastically. This is how we win. You know, this is the, this is,

the process of winning. We need to drag the Republican Party kicking and screaming over to where we are. And one of the ways you incentivize them to do that is that when they finally come over to where we're standing, they can start talking about how they're taking the lead in the fight and all that kind of stuff. And I'm okay with it because it's all part of winning. But it does really show you something important. Look at this tweet from Nancy. Nancy Mays put this tweet out yesterday.

She said, your mental illness will not become my new normal. Again, great. I totally agree. It would have been totally unthinkable for a Republican to put out a tweet like that three years ago. I mean, almost no elected Republican would have spoken that way even three years, even two years ago. And now here we are. And, and, and,

it's really emblematic of something. The whole Republican Party, this is what you see in this. You see it in this fight, in the way that these Republicans are talking about this, the kinds of things that they're saying, which again, I mean, you go back five years ago, it's just, it would never happen that they would speak this way about this issue. They would not do it.

Five years ago, most Republicans were still using preferred pronouns and all that kind of stuff. But now they're not. And now the whole Republican Party has lined up on the side of sanity and common sense. And sometimes using quite blunt and unvarnished language, which is great. And in the past, they wouldn't all line up on the side of sanity and common sense. Certainly not using this kind of frank, straightforward language.

And now they are. Meanwhile, the other side backed down and backed away immediately from this bathroom fight. We know that, quote unquote, Sarah McBride accepted defeat. There really were very few Democrats. AOC was out, you know, valiantly defending the rights of men to use the women's room in the Capitol. But there are probably a couple other Democrats, but not that many. That's the other very noticeable thing here.

Which also shows you why McBride had to come out and say, I'll use whatever, I'll follow the rules, I'm not interested in this fight. It's because nobody had his back on this, or very few people did. And it just shows again that we're winning on this issue. Not just winning, but dominating. And I don't think the other side can recover. So I'm not trying to spike the football too early or whatever. And I'm not saying that we can stop paying attention to this issue and that it's all fixed and finished. It's obviously not.

But, yeah, I think that they are losing badly, and I don't think they can reverse it. I think—see, what we've been fighting for this whole time—and this was—if you go back, again, you go back to the earlier days of this current fight against—and gender ideology has existed for a lot longer than the last 10 years, but—

this kind of current fight against it. And when it first sort of exploded on to the main, into mainstream society back in 2013, 2014, around there. And you go back to then, and those of us who were in the fight, even all the way back then, it always felt, it was like living, you just felt you were living in a bizarro world. There's this crazy thing happening

That's obviously wrong. I mean, we're being told to call this person's a man. We're being told to call the person a woman. Give them access to women's bathrooms. Like, what's going on here? Why are we doing this, people? How is everybody okay with this? And that's what it felt like. It felt like being in this kind of bizarro world. And it was like this fever dream. And you just need people to wake up.

As I've been saying this whole time, it's like you don't have to explain to most people why men should be in the women's room. Most people understand that. But it's like so many Americans were, and certainly our political leaders, supposedly on our side, were walking around like a trance or something. And you just had to shake them awake. Like, hey, look at this. This is crazy, guys. You see what's happening here? Look at this. Right? We all agree this is nuts. Say something.

And you always knew, even going back to the beginning, that the moment people, you know, the moment they're jostled out of that trance, the moment you can shake them awake and they see it for what it is, it's over at that point. It's over. And the reason that it's over is because the other side, they don't have any argument they can present for this at all. They have nothing. There's no argument for it. It's the most indefensible thing ever, really. Yeah.

And so once everybody was awake and saw it for what it is, you know, it's basically game over. And I think people are awake now. They're awake to the trans agenda. I don't think they're just going to fall back asleep. And then eventually you reach a critical mass in society where it's perfectly socially acceptable now for somebody to stand up and say, yeah, men are men. Men don't belong in the women's room. Perfectly socially acceptable. There's no reason to be worried about saying it.

Of course, it should have been socially acceptable the whole time, but there was, again, that bizarro period in American history, recent American history, when somehow it wasn't socially acceptable. Once that goes away, they got nothing on the other side. So I think it's a losing battle. I think that they're...

Now it's kind of a cleanup job on our part to find the remnants of this agenda everywhere that it's hiding and root it out and get rid of it. That's what it comes down to. All right, the New York Post says this. A progressive Georgia district attorney who was prosecuting nursing student Lakin Riley's illegal immigrant killer refused to seek the death penalty even after removing herself from the case.

Drawing outrage when the defendant was sentenced to life without parole, Athens-Clarke District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, who appointed a special prosecutor to take over the prosecution of Jose Ibarra at the end of February amid criticism over her own prosecutorial record, laid out her soft-on-crime reforms when she assumed office in January 2021.

Gonzalez said that her office would no longer seek the death penalty and when considering charging defendants, she would take into account collateral consequences to undocumented defendants, according to a copy of the district attorney's policy shared by Georgia State Representative Houston Gaines. So now the killer, Jose Ibarra, is going to get life without parole. You know, yesterday there was a video.

circulating of Lakin, Riley's father, before the sentencing, reading a journal entry from Lakin where she was writing a letter to her future husband in her journal shortly before she died. And basically talking about her hopes for the future and what sort of man that she hopes to meet and what sort of wife she hopes to be in the future.

I'm not going to play the video because it's too upsetting. I mean, hearing a father read something like that after his daughter was viciously murdered is devastating beyond all imagining. There are also videos now floating around of the body cam footage showing the moment when Lake and Riley's family was first told that she had died. Kind of video that, you know, I don't know why that video was released, a video like that. I don't know why the public needs to see that. I don't think the public should see it.

But again, beyond devastating, completely heartbreaking, crushing, can't imagine it. But it only emphasizes the point that her killer does not deserve to live. And that's why we should have the death penalty. It really comes down to that. It's not because of a deterrent factor. Yeah, that's a side benefit of the death penalty, but it's not really the reason for it. And even if you could convince me that, oh, the death penalty has no deterrence factor, doesn't deter anyone. I don't think that's true, but...

It almost doesn't matter. You could convince me of that. It wouldn't change my position on the death penalty. I'd still be in favor of it because that's all secondary at best. The real reason you need the death penalty is that some people simply don't deserve to continue breathing. I mean, really, that's it. They just don't deserve to live. Can anyone argue that Jose Ibarra, after what he did, deserves to live? Why does he deserve to live? He doesn't deserve to live. But this scumbag DA wouldn't allow that because she's worried about how it may impact

undocumented defendants, which is the worst possible reason she could have possibly given. And it again goes to show that the anti-death penalty movement is not driven by compassion. It is not a bleeding heart liberal thing where they're just so sensitive and they're so concerned with people's feelings and all of that. That's not it. It is driven by total callousness.

but a total lack of compassion. If you have compassion, it is your compassion for the families and the victims that compels you to advocate in favor of the death penalty in cases like this. But I think you have a lot of people who just, they don't feel that compassion at all. They just don't really care. I think somebody like this, whoever this DA is, I forget her name, just a totally soulless, empty person. I think when she

When she sees and hears the father reading the journal entry of his murdered daughter, she feels nothing. She's got nothing going on inside whatsoever. That's where all this comes from. Here is a moment of surprising self-awareness, maybe, on MSNBC. Watch this. One in five adults regularly get their news from influencers on social media.

The number is even higher among younger Americans, with almost 40 percent under the age of 30 getting their news from those sources. According to the Pew Research Center, the social media site XM.

remains the most widely accessed platform, followed by Instagram and YouTube. I mean, that comes obviously for political news. And Mike, that's the challenge. You grew up in a newsroom like Gene grew up in a newsroom. I mean, that's a lot of challenge. That's a challenge for a lot of mainstream media sources is

Do they make themselves relevant again to hear 20 percent of adults who actually get influencers on social media? I don't know. Maybe somebody who makes baskets and while they're making baskets, they look up and say, vote for candidate X. I don't know how they make themselves. We make ourselves relevant again because we can't compete with 20 second snippets.

on an iPhone, walking up the street, getting your entire news digest of the day in less than a minute on your phone as you're walking in the crowd with coffee in one hand and your phone in the other. I don't know how we catch up to that. Yeah, so Gene Robinson, do you agree with Mike? Because I find this hard to believe, that younger voters would be more interested in getting an entertaining 20-second news snippet

than watching a cable news show for four hours from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. This seems like an easy choice to us here. What is wrong with these people? Exactly, yeah. I mean, look, if I knew the answer, you know, I would implement it immediately, right?

So I don't know how we make ourselves relevant, he says. I'll answer that. You don't. You don't make yourself relevant. It's over for you. But it's got nothing to do with the length of the content. They're kind of consoling themselves by telling themselves that they're careening into irrelevance because the audience wants shorter snippets, not the kind of long-form content that they put out.

But that is definitely not it. Okay, Joe Rogan is the most relevant figure in media today. His shows are two or three hours long. People will sit and listen to a single conversation between two people for three hours. The Joe Rogan show does not lend itself to short clips and snippets. I mean, there are clips and snippets that come out of it, but if you want to get the Joe Rogan experience, as the show is called, you got to watch the whole thing. And millions of people do. In fact, most of the most popular podcasts

in the country are long, even on the news commentary side. If you look at like the top 10, top 15 news commentary podcasts, including this show that you're listening to right now, you'll find that we all do shows that are an hour long, you know, maybe a little less, sometimes more. I open my show every day with a 20 minute monologue. I finished with like a 10 or 15 minute monologue. Length is not the issue.

You know, actually, the irony is that the cable news shows are the ones guilty of what we may call the clipifying of political discourse and news consumption in America. They're the ones who did that. They bring their guests on for three-minute conversations. It's all about soundbites and clips. Cable news is generally nothing but a succession of soundbites and clips. So if anything, the problem for cable news is the opposite of what they're

of what they're saying here. The problem is that it's too clippy, it's too short, it's not in-depth enough. And, you know, that is, if not the problem, it is a problem that cable news has now. The bigger problem is just that the audience doesn't trust or respect these cable news shows. It doesn't respect corporate media, doesn't trust it. That's what it comes down to. When you're on air every day, you need to develop a loyal audience of people who trust you. And

That that's if you're on cable news, if you're doing a podcast, your audience has to trust you. If they don't trust you, then you're dead in the water and that's it. And what does it mean to trust you? Well, because these corporate media types, they don't understand this point either. Trust does not mean like for your audience to trust you does not mean that they think you're right about everything or that they accept everything that you say. But my audience doesn't think I'm right about everything.

Maybe I should say they don't realize that I'm, of course, right about everything. I constantly get a hard time from my audience because of the stuff I say. If I say something that they don't agree with, they'll let me know. But my audience knows that if I say something, even if they think it's wildly off base and wrong, which often they do think that, still, I'm saying it because I believe it. I'm being honest about who I am and what I believe.

Unless it's one of those monologues where I'm being relentlessly sarcastic for 15 straight minutes. But putting satirical bits aside, if I'm saying it on the show, it means that I believe it. I'm being honest about who I am and what I believe. And you might not always agree. You don't have to. But I wouldn't say it otherwise. So that's the kind of trust you have to build up with the audience. And I think with corporate media, there's just none of that trust at all. None of that trust. And when you turn on corporate media, you...

You have no reason to believe that any of the people saying the things they're saying actually believe what they're saying. And if you don't believe what you're saying, why should I watch it? It's totally pointless. It's also just like boring. See, I could be interested in watching someone who says things I don't agree with. That could be more interesting to listen to someone saying things you don't agree with. Just having your own opinions, you know, 100% of your own opinions repeated back to you, that can get pretty boring.

So yeah, I could happily listen to someone who says things I don't agree with. But I have to at least believe that they agree with what they're saying. I have to at least believe that this is an accurate reflection of their own beliefs. And if it's not even that, then what is the point? And so there's none of that trust. And how does corporate media build up that trust again? I think it's

If there's any way to do it, it starts by just totally cleaning house. Because all these people that you see on MSNBC and CNN, their credibility and trust is gone. It can't be reclaimed.

So totally clean house, start over, maybe there's hope, but still probably not. Let's talk about something that affects all of us, taxes. The October 15th deadline is passed and if you're not prepared, you could be in for a world of hurt. Do you owe back taxes? Are your returns still unfiled? Did you miss the deadline to file for an extension? Now that we're past October 15th, the IRS is probably gearing up for some aggressive enforcement. And trust me, you don't want to be on their radar. We're talking wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, or even property seizures.

It's not pretty, folks. But before you start panicking, there's still hope. Tax Network USA has helped taxpayers save over a billion dollars in tax debt and filed over 10,000 tax returns. These guys specialize in reducing tax burdens for hardworking Americans like you. Look, I get it. Dealing with the IRS is about as fun as a root canal.

But ignoring the problem won't make it go away. So here's what you need to do. For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000. Visit the website at tnusa.com slash Walsh. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.

Today we're celebrating a monumental achievement by one of the most prominent, influential voices of our time. Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has officially reached his 500th episode. That's right, 500 episodes of brilliant, thought-provoking, and life-changing conversation, and it's all available right now on Daily Wire Plus, including his Mastering Life series. It's your personal roadmap to building a life of purpose, strength, and meaning. And coming December 1st, Jordan Peterson is releasing his highly anticipated 10-part biblical series, Gospels,

exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Head over to Daily Wire Plus right now. Celebrate Dr. Jordan Peterson's 500th episode with us today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

We've talked a lot about various brand collapses in the past year or so. Most famously, of course, there was the whole Bud Light implosion after they hired a guy in a dress to be their new spokesman, while also insulting their entire customer base as dumb frat boys. And there were other brand disasters too, from Balenciaga to Target, whose stock just collapsed the other day, incidentally enough.

After all of those very public and humiliating spectacles, I have to admit that I really thought major brands might stop voluntarily lighting themselves on fire, at least for a little bit. Even if you're really interested in promoting DEI and the woke agenda and so on, you have to realize at this point that it's not what people want.

It's a surefire way to destroy your company. And if you're a brand manager, it's a guaranteed way to ruin your career. So I assume that we'd see something of a lull, maybe, in terms of corporations running the Bud Light playbook. But as it turns out, I was wrong. And not just a little wrong, very, very wrong, in fact. The folks over at Jaguar, the renowned British automobile manufacturer,

have apparently decided, without any prompting whatsoever, to channel their inner King Leonidas of Sparta. They decided to boldly press on with their agenda, damn the consequences, even though they know that total and catastrophic defeat is all but assured. Except, unlike King Leonidas of Sparta, the people running Jaguar are very, very effeminate and not impressive or interesting in any way, nor are they accomplishing anything whatsoever.

Other than that, comparison is perfect. They're going all in, just like the 300 Spartans, charging boldly ahead into the abyss and sure defeat. Behold, the latest advertisement from Jaguar, a company that apparently still makes cars, although you wouldn't be able to tell it from this. Watch. You know, one of the unintentional bits of humor here, as spotted by Christina Pushav from Ron Santis' team, is that

Jaguar uploaded a slightly shorter version of this video on their Middle Eastern accounts. They cut one segment out and it was the part featuring this guy. So apparently Jaguar, like so many other companies, is all about promoting bravery, by which they mean cross-dressing, but they're not brave enough to promote cross-dressing in the Middle East. That's a bridge too far. Apparently it would also be a bridge too far to feature a single car in that car commercial.

Instead of any vehicle of any kind, you saw a routine that looks like an outtake from Zoolander, except without the humor or any sense of irony. But there was some sense of irony in Jaguar's post after this video was uploaded, and the predictable backlash occurred. They received tens of thousands of comments asking them what the hell was going on over there. They responded with a bunch of coy messages about how the future will be revealed soon and everybody should stay tuned for more developments. So that obviously implies that

They knew what they were getting into, at least to some degree. They might just want attention since their sales have plummeted in recent years. They sold fewer than 70,000 cars last year. So maybe they figure that no publicity is bad publicity. And to be fair, they also did eventually post an image of something resembling a futuristic looking car, which you can see here. But again, this just caused more backlash because it looks like a weird knockoff of a Cybertruck.

It's nothing like the cars Jaguar is known for making. And on top of that, Jaguar also debuted its new logo, which, of course, ditches its iconic leaping Jaguar with something more abstract and just totally soulless. And, you know, then people were mocking it even more. So here's what that looks like.

As many people pointed out, this is a pretty big shift towards making Jaguar as generic as possible. It's a move that many other brands have made. This is a common thing now from Google to eBay to Facebook. Somebody compiled a list of similar logo reinventions that have been done recently, and they all come out looking the same. So they're all just taking what is distinct and interesting and getting rid of all of that

to make it completely generic and boring. That's what the marketing genius is, and every major corporation have been doing now for 15 years. So Jaguar's new ad campaign uses the slogan copy nothing, and they then proceed to copy the same graphic design of pretty much every other corporation on the planet right now. All of these companies spent tens of millions of dollars to make their logos less distinct and less interesting. Now Jaguar has joined the list for some reason.

Admittedly, when I saw all of this, one of my first assumptions was that maybe Jaguar is eventually going to announce that this is some kind of prank like an April Fool's Day in November. It's the only way that any of this could make any logical sense whatsoever. But then I came across a recent speech by Jaguar's brand director, a guy named Santino Petrosanti. This was apparently delivered at the Virgin Atlantic Attitude Awards, whatever that is. Here's how the speech began.

It is a true honor to stand here surrounded by such extraordinary individuals, trailblazers in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, creativity, and self-expression. We are here to celebrate you, the ones who despite everything keep that vital flame alive, the flame that refuses to be extinguished no matter how hard the world might try.

Well, the flame's not being extinguished, that's for sure. It's very much alive. Jaguar is on fire right now. They're flaming away more than ever. And as Santino goes on to explain, Jaguar owes that success to their 15 DEI groups, as well as their policy of allowing transitioning at work. Watch.

And at Jaguar, we are passionate about our people and we're committed to fostering a diverse, inclusive and unified culture that is representative not only of the people who use our products, but in a society in which we all live. A culture where our employees can bring their authentic selves to work. And we're on a transformative journey of our own.

driven by a belief in diversity, inclusion, creativity, policy, and most importantly, action. We've established over 15 DEI groups such as Pride, who are here tonight in the back. Thank you guys for coming. Women in Engineering and Neurodiversity Matters. We've launched major policy revisions such as Transitioning at Work.

So he goes on to boast that Jaguar, or Jaguar as he pronounces it, just hosted a DEI summit with 10,000 people in attendance. And he says that Jaguar will reinvent itself to embrace the full spectrum of human potential and creativity. Seems a little outside the scope of what a car company should be doing. And then he talks about DEI some more.

All that's to say, if this is some kind of performance art, Jaguar is very, very, very committed to the bit. Right now, it looks very much like yet another once-renowned company has decided to torch its own reputation on the altar of DEI, all while pretending that their approach is somehow unique or innovative. But the remote possibility that this is some kind of head fake from Jaguar actually proves yet another point, which is that these woke rebrands are truly indistinguishable from parody at this point.

No one can really be sure if Jaguar is even being serious when they come out with ads like this. And when their executives talk about their 15 DEI groups and their massive DEI summits, it's all so played out. All you can really do is mock it. And that's exactly what millions of people are doing. What that means is that wokeness, which has taken hold at so many corporations in this country, is currently in its death throes. An ideology as fundamentally absurd as wokeness can't survive mockery, not on this scale. And that's all that it's getting now.

And if Jaguar has accomplished anything with their latest rebrand, it's demonstrating that more people are now willing to mock wokeness than ever before. And that is why the once-renowned British carmaker Jaguar, which has decided to go fully woke in the West and only partially woke in the Middle East, is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.