Ep. 1490 - Why Every Republican Must Stand Against Gender Lunacy Now

Today on Matt Wall Show, there is now a battle over the bathrooms raging on Capitol Hill after the first trans lawmakers elected to Congress. We'll discuss also Republicans grilled ahead of FEMA over the agency's egregious discrimination against Trump supporters and a commentator on CNN promises to physically block the National Guard from carrying out Trump's deportation orders. Talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Using the internet without ExpressVPN, it's like taking a call on a train or bus on speaker for everyone to hear. You know what keeps me up at night? The thought of big tech companies and government agencies tracking every single move we make online. And it's not paranoia. In this country, your internet service provider can legally sell your browsing history to advertisers. Think about it, every website you visit, every search you make, it's all being monitored and monetized. That's why I use ExpressVPN. I don't just mean what I'm doing research for the show. I mean, every single time I go online,

Whether I'm at home or traveling for speaking events, whatever I'm doing, ExpressVPN reroutes all of your traffic through secure encrypted servers, making it impossible for these tech overlords to spy in your digital life. Look, I'm not exactly what you'd call tech savvy, but ExpressVPN.

is literally one click to activate your hit a button and suddenly all of your devices, your phone, your laptop, whatever are protected. When I say protected, I mean your IP address is completely hidden from these digital surveillance vultures. There's a reason it's rated number one by CNET and the Verge because it actually works.

Right now you can take advantage of ExpressVPN's Black Friday slash Cyber Monday offer to get the absolute best VPN deal you'll find all year. Use my special link expressvpn.com slash walls to get four extra months with the 12 month plan or six extra months with the 24 month plan totally free. That's expressvpn.com slash walls to get an extra four or even six months of Express VPN for free.

After Donald Trump's first successful presidential campaign back in 2016, it quickly became clear to everybody that Democrats and Republicans have very different approaches to getting things done in the world of politics. Democrats immediately launched criminal investigations of Trump's campaign. They started talking about impeachment before Trump was even sworn in. They united as a party to do what their voters wanted them to do, which was to sabotage the democratically elected president at every opportunity.

They were coordinated and therefore effective. Meanwhile, many Republicans in Congress took the opposite approach. They decided to ignore what Republican voters wanted. They failed to repeal Obamacare. There were disputes over border wall funding and other aspects of the budget as well as Trump's travel ban. This infighting wasn't particularly surprising. The Speaker of the House at the time, Paul Ryan, had publicly stated just a month before the election that he wouldn't defend Trump anymore.

He abandoned his party's nominee entirely, which was unprecedented in modern politics. And that was the divide back in 2016. Establishment Republicans were very resistant to change, even as Republican voters wanted a lot of it. That's one of the reasons we should all pay attention to the drama that unfolded in Congress yesterday. It's one of the first clear signs we have that this time around,

maybe things might be different. We now have a clear indication that Republicans finally understand what their voters are demanding and that, like Democrats, maybe they'll actually try to act on those demands. We have our first sign that Republican lawmakers are getting something resembling a spine. Finally, maybe. Now, admittedly, it was a rocky start. So at a press gaggle early in the day,

The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Republican, was asked whether an incoming lawmaker from Delaware who uses the name Sarah McBride is a man or a woman. In case you're not familiar with this person, McBride is being touted as the first transgender lawmaker in Congress. He previously used the name Tim before he decided in college that he's really a woman. Now, in the vast pantheon of questions that Mike Johnson could have been asked,

This one should have been pretty easy to dispense with. For about a million different reasons, here's three of them. Mike Johnson is a Christian. He understands basic biology. And he's familiar with the results of the most recent election, which showed that Americans overwhelmingly reject gender ideology across party lines. So by all accounts, in every respect, this was the biggest softball that could have been lob Mike Johnson's way, and yet Mike Johnson whiffed. Watch.

I'm not going to get into this. We welcome all new members with open arms who are duly elected representatives of the people. I believe it's a command that we treat all persons with dignity and respect and we will. And I'm not going to engage in silly debates about this. There's a concern about the uses of restroom facilities and locker rooms and all that. This is an issue that Congress has never

I had to address before, and we're going to do that in deliberate fashion with member consensus on it, and we will accommodate the needs of every single person. That's all I'm going to say about that. Do you plan on bringing Nancy Mason's transgender bill and putting that into the rules package?

I'm not going to address the plans on any of that. I just told you what I'm going to say about the issue. I'm not going to engage in this. We don't look down upon anyone. We treat everybody with dignity and respect. That's a principle that I pursued my whole life. And we will take care of this issue of first impression for Congress as we will any other thing. We'll provide appropriate accommodation for every member of Congress. A truly terrible answer. Because it wasn't an answer at all. And the question is very, very easy.

And there's no conceivable reason why you couldn't just say he's a man. No, nothing bad would happen from you just saying that. Nothing bad politically, nothing bad at all.

In a way, it's fitting that this spectacle took place on the same day that SpaceX was launching another starship into orbit. On the one hand, we have geniuses who are solving some of the most complicated physics problems known to man in order to change the future of humanity for the better. On the other hand, we have a prominent congressman who is too afraid to invoke maybe the most fundamental principle of biology, which is that men are not women.

He just kind of smiles and delivers some platitudes about being nice to people. So as far as contrast go, it's not a flattering one. Now this kind of thing had happened back in 2016, nobody would have batted an eye. Everyone understood back then that congressional Republicans were following the Mitt Romney School of Thought. The idea was pretty simple, don't make Democrats angry. Whatever you do, don't hurt their feelings. If you don't make them mad, maybe they'll be nice to you. This was the genius political theory that animated the Republican Party for decades.

It didn't matter the voters had just defied every poll in existence and sent Donald Trump to the White House. All Republicans cared about in 2016, making sure the Democrats weren't going to call them bigots. So if Democrats wanted to deny basic biology and claim that men can become women, who are they to stand in their way? That was the prevailing sentiment. Well, that's not the political reality anymore.

Now when members of Congress try something like this, Republican voters don't let them get away with it. So within minutes of Mike Johnson's non-answer, there was significant blowback, both inside the Capitol and all over social media. And it was enough that about two hours later, Johnson called reporters back to deliver this clarification.

This one make a statement for all of you here and be very clear. I was asked a question this morning at the leadership gaggle and I rejected the premise because the answer is so obvious. For anybody who doesn't know my well-established record on this issue, let me be unequivocally clear. A man is a man and a woman is a woman and a man cannot become a woman.

That said, I also believe, that's what scripture teaches, what I just said. But I also believe that we treat everybody with dignity. And so we can do and believe all those things at the same time. And I wanted to make that clear for everybody because there's lots of questions. But that's where I stand. I've stood there my whole life and those are facts. Now it's incredibly embarrassing that you have to call the reporters back two hours later after having given it some thought.

to clarify that, in fact, you do believe that biology is real. But still, it's good that he said that. And although it's still not a direct response to the original question, which is whether McBride is a man or woman, Johnson could have come right out and answer that by stating the truth, which is that McBride is obviously a man. But as a basic statement of biological reality, what Mike Johnson said here is clearly correct.

And it's a massive improvement over his original answer. And logically, it rejects any claim that McBride is a woman, even if he didn't want to just come out and say that, although he should. In other words, Johnson took the temperature and found out that he better plant himself firmly on the side of sanity. That is the winning political hand. And also the morally right one. Gender ideology is an affront to biology, it's an affront to Christianity, it's an affront to logic, it's an affront to common sense.

By standing against it, you can be on the side of truth, justice, common sense, and God Almighty while also remaining on the winning political side. It's the best of all possible worlds, or you can stand against all of that, all that is right and good in the world, and also against your own political interests.

It really should not be a difficult choice. There is literally no advantage at all to cow towing to gender ideology. There is no benefit. It doesn't even require courage to stand against it anymore. It did maybe five years ago, but not now. Now it's the obvious play now. Also again, it's the correct one. But just from a matter of pure politics, this is the smartest thing to do.

Now over in the Democrat Party, however, gender ideology is still a centerpiece of their whole agenda and worldview. In fact, it's so potent on the left that it's the entire reason this incoming lawmaker quote unquote Sarah McBride has risen to fame in the Democrat Party. Like most trans activists, McBride is among other things, rather one note, his entire political agenda and identity centers around being trans.

It's the only thing he's really interested in, that's all, that's it. And on top of that, he's, of course, extraordinarily disingenuous. Here, for example, was McBride arguing against a bill that would keep boys out of girls' sports. And this was his line of questioning. See if you can spot the logical fallacies here, watch.

The stated motive behind its legislation is to address a perceived competitive advantage within women and girls sports. One of the most significant competitive disparities that exists is based on family wealth and those who can afford private coaching and those who can't. And so I'm curious, this legislation does not forbid private coaching, correct?

This legislation is aimed at fairness in women's sports is to protect women's sports and protect women against injuries and protect them from losing opportunities for scholarships. Okay. So to that comment and to some of the comments that were made before, my understanding is that you all are particularly concerned with a perceived biological or physiological advantage some students may have.

So I'm correct that this legislation does not forbid competition between taller and shorter girls in basketball, correct? This legislation doesn't forbid competition, for instance, between girls with different cardiovascular capacities, correct? Absolutely not. No.

Okay, so the only difference between students of the same gender identity that this legislation singles out for exclusion is based on a student's sex marker on their original birth certificate, which specifically singles out those who are transgender. No, it singles out biological males and separates them out of the equation as far as who's allowed to participate in female sports.

They're always so impressed with themselves when they make this argument, even though it's the dumbest argument known to man. McBride's argument is that, which you hear all the time from trans activists, it's that because some women are better at sports than other women, there's no point in keeping men out of women's sports also. There's a form of inequality that already exists in women's sports, so why not destroy women's sports entirely?

You know, taller women have an advantage over shorter women in basketball. Therefore, let's end women's sports. That's the argument. That's the logic. And of course, McBride delivers this line of questioning with total confidence and sincerity. It really thinks that he has something here. And it might be a compelling argument if you don't understand the concept of sports at all. And if you've never watched any sort of sporting event in your entire life, but for everybody else, the problem is pretty obvious.

The entire idea of competition is to establish a category and then explore the variation and skill within that fixed category. Otherwise, the competition is unwatchable and one-sided. That's why we have heavyweight and welterweight divisions in boxing. It's why NFL teams don't compete against high schoolers.

It ends why men don't compete against women. Sex differences are by far the most predictive factor to consider when you're trying to maximize competitiveness within a category. That's why the moment a group of so-called trans men, quote unquote, otherwise known as biological females, otherwise known as just females, decided to form a soccer team in Spain to play against actual men. They lost their first game by score of 19 to 0.

That's why when two male athletes decided to compete in women's track in Connecticut, they promptly broke 17 track records and won 15 state championship titles. That's why a team of boys under the age of 15 soundly defeated the women's national soccer team by a score of five to two. Everyone intuitively knows what's going on here. Men inherently are stronger and faster and therefore more competitive in athletics than women. Everybody knows that.

And now because Democrats insist on denying this, Republicans are going to have to codify the truth. And this shouldn't be remotely necessary, but it is necessary now. Congresswoman Nancy Mase of South Carolina has just introduced a rule, which is what they were talking about with Mike Johnson there, that would keep males like McBride out of women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill. This rule would affirm that men and women are not the same thing and that men cannot transform into women and that women deserve to have privacy in the bathroom.

It is also, again, an easy political win. The vast majority of Americans support it. It was only a question of which Republican lawmaker will be smart enough to seize the moment here and take this stand and turns out it was Nancy Mase watch.

Is this effort in response to Congresswoman McBride's coming to Congress? Yes, and absolutely, and then some. I'm not going to stand for a man. You know, if someone with a penis is in the woman's locker room, that's not OK. And I'm a victim of abuse myself. I'm a rape survivor. I have PTSD from the abuse I've suffered at the hands of a man.

And I know how vulnerable women and girls are in private spaces. So I'm absolutely 100% going to stand in the way. If any man who wants to be in a women's restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms, I will be there fighting every step of the way.

Now you'll notice, of course, that all the left-wing activists who were behind the Me Too movement are silent about this. And none of them are taking Nancy Mase's side. None of them care that she was raped and that she's worried about being assaulted again by a man in a private space. If you needed more evidence that the Me Too movement was a complete fraud, well, there it is. They've always cared about just one thing, which is advancing the interests of the Democrat Party. So now it falls to Republicans like Mase to actually advance the interests of women here.

Now, later on a reporter with ABC News tried to again shame Nancy Mason to backing down. This was the theme for the day. Reporters kept trying to badger her into changing her mind. Try to badger her into agreeing to use the bathroom with a man. Nothing creepy about that at all, right? Watch.

Here she goes, here's Congresswoman Mase. Congresswoman Mase, can I ask you a question as you walk here? So the question is, with your piece of legislation about banning women from using, my question to you is. It doesn't go far enough. You have said that it was created in response to Congresswoman- Okay, 100%. And it- But should legislation be created, targeted at one specific person? It doesn't mention anyone in the legislation, but I- But you've said it was aimed at her.

No, I have said it's a result of this. I'm not gonna allow biological men into women's private spaces. I will stand in the brink and stand in the way of anyone on the radical left who thinks that it's okay for a penis to be in a women's locker room or a bathroom or a changing room. Hell, no, I'm not gonna stand for it. And the speakers said it would be in the house rules package. If it's not, I'll be ready with a motion, a privilege motion to force a vote on this. This is not okay. I'm a survivor of rape. I'm a survivor of sexual abuse.

And I'm not going to allow any man and any female private space in that story. And by the way, I'm getting death threats from men pretending to be women. Why is it that these crazy people, the insanity, the radical left, are willing to kill women over a man's right to be in a women's restroom? Speaker Johnson has said, he wants to treat every new member with the words dignity and respect. Forcing this Congress person to go into a male restroom, is that dignity and respect?

But forcing women to share private spaces with men is not dignity and not respect. You have to force them to use the men. Like every other man is, quote, forced. No, of course, Nancy Manchin is correct. In this case, dignity and respect, it goes the other way. That the onus is on McBride to treat

his female colleagues with dignity and respect and respect their desire for privacy. That's on him. That's the onus is entirely on him. Now they keep hitting a mace with this claim that her bill is targeting a particular member of Congress. But they know that's not true. A bill can be motivated by the actions of one person without targeting a particular person.

Yeah, this person is who necessitated this, the bill is necessary because of this person, but doesn't mean that the bill targets quote unquote that person. And these reporters all know that, or at least they should know it, but because they're all reading from the same talking points from the DNC, they just keep repeating the same claim.

Nancy Mase keeps demonstrating that they have no idea what they're talking about. By the way, when she mentions death threats, she's talking about social media posts like this one, where trans activists openly threaten to murder her, watch.

This video goes out to Congresswoman Nancy Mase. Congresswoman Nancy Mase, I hope that one day I do find you in that woman's bathroom and I grab your ratty looking here and drag your face down to the floor while I repeatedly bash it in until the blood's everywhere and you're dead. Thank you. I hope that Nancy Mase receives this message well.

kisses. Extremely common, by the way, with these trans activists, violent fantasies. This is one of the primary ways that they communicate their political views is through this.

So this person is not praying in front of an abortion clinic, which is usually how you get noticed by Mary Garland's DOJ. But he does seem pretty unstable and he's making a clear threat to murder a sitting congresswoman. So hopefully someone at the DOJ takes a look into this, but of course we can't count on that. There was an industrial grade paper shredding truck outside of the DOJ yesterday, so they probably have other things on their mind. Here's what that looked like, by the way.

As you can see, the DOJ is apparently focused on destroying as much evidence as they can before the new administration discovers what they've been doing for the past four years. So maybe all the people threatening Nancy Mase just aren't a priority right now. Now obviously this person is unhinged, but the truth is he's not that far removed from how trans activists normally behave and communicate, and everybody knows that.

Without exception, proponents of gender ideology are aggressive, unhinged, unstable, and as Marjorie Taylor Greene pointed out in response to yet another hostile inquiry from the media, people are sick of it. They've had enough. They're just not putting up with it anymore. That's what this last election was about. And this time around, Republicans in Congress are going to hopefully honor what their voters want. Watch.

I support a resolution that keeps all biological men out of women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and private places. Not only here in the capital complex, our office buildings, but all taxpayer-funded facilities. How does one, I guess the logistics question will be, how does one check if someone qualifies to use a ladies' room gun?

Obviously there's a new openly transgender member of partners. Right, which is a man. He's a man. He's a biological male, so he is not allowed to use our women's restrooms, our women's gym, our locker rooms, and our spaces that are specified for women. He's a biological male. He has plenty of places he can go.

And so they make like, I guess like gender neutral, but I guess like it's just- No, he can go in the men's room. And he has a bathroom in his office, just like all of us do. And that's where, you know, I use the restroom most time in my office. If he has a bathroom that'll be personally designated for him. But, you know, men need to respect our spaces.

And that's what this election was all about. This was a mandate from the American people that are not only fed up with the open borders, they're fed up with inflation, they're fed up with the economy, but they're fed up with the left shoving their sick, trans ideology down our throats and invading our spaces and our women's sports. So sorry for the uncomfortable question, but I'm giving you the direct answer. The American people spoke at the election. They're sick of this.

So you hear the question to start there, just more disingenuous bull crap about, well, how would you check? How would you know if somebody was a man or not entering the women's room?

As if it's not completely obvious, like 99.9% of the time. You always get this, well, what are you gonna check people? How do you know if it's a 99.9% of the time? It's obvious. Okay, we all know. It's not hard to tell, all right? So this is a non-issue.

And by the end of the week, every single reporter on Capitol Hill will have asked an indignant question about this. They're all outraged that women would possibly want to exclude men from women's bathrooms. They can't articulate why, but they're outraged by it. And one by one, they're being told the truth, which is that Americans want this insanity to end. And so it's going to end.

Several Republican members of Congress, in addition to Nancy Mason, Margaret Taylor Greene, have made that clear. Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchit, for example, wrote on X quote, he's a dude in the dress referring to McBride. And of course, Burchit says he'll support bases rule banning men from entering women's spaces.

This should be the baseline expectation for every member of Congress going forward. Any Republican who doesn't support a measure to keep men out of women's bathrooms should be shamed, humiliated, and voted out of office at the earliest opportunity. Because this is as easy as it gets. Every Republican must be on board no exceptions. This is a question of whether the incoming Congress will operate within the bounds of reality, or if they're willing to suspend reality for the sake of catering to the most radical elements of left-wing ideology.

The correct choice is clear and obvious, and it's time that every Republican made it. As I've outlined many times before, the alternative is disastrous. Once you agree that reality is subjective, you have no basis to object to anything. You forfeit all of your rights. You can't make any kind of rational argument. You have to accept the whims of left-wing activists who will do whatever they can to destroy you and your family. I mean, that's always what's been at stake here.

This is not a hypothetical. It's happening right now. This week we learned that a California judge is apparently given the go ahead for the castration of the 12 year old son of a man named Jeff Younger who we've talked about on the show many times over the years. Younger's ex-wife moved with a child from Texas to California, a so-called sanctuary state for trans experimentation on children. And now Younger has lost all parental rights and access to his son all because he wouldn't affirm his son's alleged gender identity.

This is where all the supposedly humanitarian arguments in favor of gender ideology always end up. They lead to the most inhumane authoritarian outcomes possible. But even if they didn't, even if there were no consequences whatsoever to embracing this demented ideology, it would still be wrong to embrace it because it's fundamentally untrue and it's always been untrue. One of the many reasons to be optimistic about the next four years is that finally,

even Republicans in Congress are willing to say that out loud. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Let me tell you about a looming threat to our constitutional republic that the mainstream media won't cover. The radical left is plotting a Supreme Court coup. They're not even hiding it anymore, folks. You know, these progressive ideologues want to eliminate the court's conservative majority by packing it with their own hand-picked justices. It's not court reform. It's a blatant power grab to get the outcomes they want. You know, we've already seen their playbook made up ethical attacks on justices, illegal protests at their homes and open threats from so-called representatives.

It's Venezuela style court packing and it would spell the end of judicial independence and the rule of law as we know it. But hey, who needs checks and balances when you can have a rubber stamp for your radical agenda? But there's hope. First Liberty is leading the charge to protect the Supreme Court from this radical plan. They're fighting to preserve the legitimacy of the court and the separation of powers that safeguards our freedoms. Here's what you need to do. Go to supremeku.com slash Walsh. That's supreme C O U P dot com slash Walsh to learn how you can help stop the left takeover of the Supreme Court.

The future of our country is quite literally in your hands. Check out supremeku.com slash walls today.

Last week we discussed the bombshell report from the Daily Wire revealing that a FEMA official had directed her subordinates to avoid homes with Trump signs while they were on the ground in Florida providing disaster relief. The official was fired but has since gone around claiming that contrary to what the head of FEMA, Dan Criswell has said, she's claimed that actually she was not a lone outlier telling people to avoid Trump supporting homes. She said this is standard practice at FEMA.

This is an endemic systemic issue. And this is according to the woman who did this and was fired for it. Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee brought Criswell in and grilled her about all of this. And I want to go through and play a couple of clips from the hearing. And we'll start with this one. The House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed during the hearing that he had made contact with a new whistleblower who had more information. Listen to this.

During the recess for votes, my staff made contact with a new whistleblower who provided a credible account that a FEMA contractor visited the home of an elderly disabled veteran's family around October 10th following Hurricane Helene. While there, the FEMA contractor recommended that the family remove Trump campaign materials and signs from both their house and their yard.

He warned the family that his FEMA supervisors do not take kindly to Trump supporters and that they seem as domestic terrorists. The elderly homeowners were so frightened by this and afraid that they would not recover their loss, that they removed all Trump materials and signs. Nevertheless, FEMA has not returned to their residence. This took place not in Florida, but in Georgia.

administrator were happy to provide you with more information on this but we in the american people want to know what fema is doing to ensure that political discrimination is not dictating how the american people are receiving aid following a disaster so that directly lines up with what the fired fema officials said it also makes the most sense

You know, as I said, when the story was first reported, there's no way that some lone official at FEMA operating entirely on her own would casually put in writing these instructions to avoid homes with Trump signs. That doesn't happen unless this really is a standard practice and therefore she had no fear or thought she had no reason to fear that this would ever come out and blow back on her. But nonetheless, Deann Criswell is sticking to her story. Watch.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Administrator Criswell. Is Ms. Washington lying to us? Ms. Washington has... She said it's common practice. You said it's reprehensible and isolated. Both statements can't be true. So someone's not giving us the facts, and I'm kind of trying to figure out who's not telling the truth. The actions that Ms. Washington took were unacceptable.

Well, you had another employee, now they remain anonymous, but I think one of my colleagues pointed this out earlier, FEMA official who spoke on condition of anonymity said, Ms. Washington likely received quote, very clear guidance from her supervisors. Does that not act like that person lying to? I have not received any evidence outside of the screenshot that Ms. Washington directed her team. So those two people are wrong. They're not telling the truth to. We are currently investigating

But that's not what you said. You said this is isolated, reprehensible, hasn't happened. This is the only time. And they're saying, nope, nope, nope, it's commonplace. The part about avoiding the Trump homes, that's not a best practice. That's not commonplace. Is that what you're saying? That is nowhere in our policy. And I can't speak to my patients. I'm not saying that your policy is behind what Ms. Washington did. But it was okay. And then her supervisors, if Mr. Hershey, have you talked to him to find out if he knew this was happening?

I understand that he was in her chain of command and this is under investigation. Have you talked to the, there's 13 people on this text message. You talked to all 13 of those individuals? This incident is under investigation. That's what I asked you. I know it's under investigation and we know how investigations work when it's done inside the agency. It takes forever. I'm asking, did you talk to the 13 people on this best practices text message?

The Office of Professional Responsibility has taken this and they are following appropriate protocol to investigate. Is the Inspector General looking at it as well? And I have asked the Inspector General to take a look at this. Any idea when they're going to talk to these 13 people since you have it? How about you personally? Have you talked to these 13 people? I have not talked to them. You have not talked to them. I have an entire team that focuses on this investigation and that's what they're doing.

Okay, so Criswell has not talked to any of the people who received the text message telling them to avoid Trump homes. She also repeatedly says that the incident's still under investigation, yet she declared that it's not a systemic problem and that it's isolated. So she knows it's an isolated loan issue, and yet it's still under an investigation, she can't say anything else other than that. Well, if it's still under investigation, then how do you know that it's a loan incident? How do you know that it's isolated?

It's almost like this investigation has already determined its conclusions ahead of time. Almost like any investigation is going to be a sham when it's an agency investigating itself.

It's what a shocker that the investigation that Dianne Criswell is directing, that that investigation will not turn up the results that tell us that Dianne Criswell is at fault. Dianne Criswell is going to do an investigation which will tell her that Dianne Criswell didn't do anything wrong.

And this is how the hearing went. I'm glad it happened, it needed to happen, but Criswell just stonewalled the whole time, which is why we need to make sure this goes beyond hearings. People need to go to jail for this. This has to end with people in jail. And that's the part where Republicans historically have failed to follow through. Usually they do the hearings and we enjoy the hearings and they give their speeches to the person and say how terrible they are. And then nothing else happens.

The part where people actually held accountable and punished, that's what we don't see. And that's what needs to change. Hopefully it will. I also want to play this clip. AOC was at the hearing too. And she very clearly did not want to talk about this. She didn't want to find out anymore about this scandal. She was desperate to run cover for D.N. Criswell and FEMA. And she was not subtle about it. So this is quite pathetic. Watch.

And I'm going to ask you if this is true or not. And I apologize that I even have to ask you some of these things. But I think it's important for the American people to see in a setting like this where we have to swear to tell the truth that we see officially on the record that these things are not true. The first being that the suggestion that FEMA assistance was only a $750 loan

that would have to be paid back, and if not, FEMA would seize the homes of everyday people who may not be able to make that back in such a catastrophic moment. Is that correct? That is completely inaccurate. Completely false, correct? But was it in your assessment, and did you see lots of people believing this on the ground or in the field? I was on the ground for over three weeks in North Carolina, and I did hear from people on the ground asking me, is this real or is this not real?

Another one that I also saw very widely circulated, that FEMA did not have enough money to provide relief services because that allocation of funds went to either undocumented immigrants, aid to Ukraine, or even aid to the Israeli government, is that correct? That FEMA's funds were allocated away to those causes. Completely inaccurate. Completely false. On the record, completely false. Correct.

And other things that we've seen as well, that it's standing policy for FEMA to politically discriminate, we know that that's not true, correct? Correct. And there was an incident we see, but that individual was fired and that this is not a policy at scale, correct? Correct. Now, we know that these are important pieces, very large and influential pieces of disinformation.

Okay, so AOC runs through some irrelevant claims and rumors about FEMA that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. And then she finally gets to the actual topic. They're supposed to be investigating and she waves it away as a total non-issue. She calls it an incident and then even says that we know, we all know that it's not a policy for FEMA to politically discriminate.

We know that. We all know that. How do we know that? How do we know that FEMA doesn't politically discriminate, even though it's just been confirmed that they do? How do we know that? What do we just do? We know it. We all know that. AOC can't explain how, but she knows that we know. She never asks Crizzwell a single question about it. She just says, we know that the stuff isn't true, that we're right, correct, correct. And that's it, then she moves past it.

I guess we've been keeping with the theme of the show so far, people not doing things that would be even politically expedient for them. AOC's approach here doesn't even make sense politically. There's no political reason why she needs to jump in front of the train to protect some awful FEMA bureaucrat who's going to be fired soon anyway.

Nobody is claiming that AOC herself had personally had anything to do with this. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if she did, but that's not what anyone is expecting. So AOC doesn't need to debase herself this way. In fact, this is an easy political win for her.

This is also a softball. She could have gotten up there and actually questioned Criswell in a serious and skeptical way. She could have acted like she cared about political discrimination. She could have given a little speech about how Trump supporters deserve to be treated equally by the government. And then ripped into Criswell and interrogated her and made kind of a show of it. That would have been a win for her. That's a win-win politically. She looks good. She makes the Democrat party look good, makes it look like they had nothing to do with this.

And you're just throwing this woman under the bus. She deserves to be thrown under the bus. Easy, win, win. Why not do that? But you can't bring yourself to do it. This is how much these people despise you. This is how much they despise you. Even if it would benefit her. This is a huge win. If she had just gone up there and said, this is unconscionable, this cannot be allowed. We know that this goes deeper than one person.

We won't stand for this. I disagree with Trump supporters on many things, but they deserve to be treated equal by the government. She could have said that. It would have been a popular thing to say. It would be true. It would be the right thing to say. She can't bring herself to do it. And she can't because she just hates, it really isn't as simple as that. She just hates you. She hates Trump supporters.

She can't even pretend. She can't stomach even pretending that she cares about Trump supporters. That's how much she hates them. It's pretty amazing.

Let's see, BBC reports, President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed on a social media network that he plans to use in the US military to carry out a mass deportation of undocumented migrants. On Monday, he posted true in response to a conservative commentator who wrote that Trump would declare a national emergency and use military assets to lead a mass deportation program that campaign events Trump repeatedly pledged to mobilize the National Guard to assist immigration and customs enforcement, the federal agency tasked with carrying out deportations.

So that's the plan. It plans to mobilize the National Guard to help with the deportations. Sounds like a great idea to me. Great use of the National Guard. And the left, of course, is not happy about it. In fact, one commentator on CNN is so unhappy that she pledged to physically prevent US troops from carrying out these orders. Listen to this.

I promise you with every fiber of my being, because I'll probably be one of those people, that if anybody comes for these people and tries to drag them out by force, there will be protests of people like me, American citizens, who are going to stand there and do everything possible to prevent these women and children, which is all who these people are.

how about the criminals from being about the cameras about the kind of stuff how do you know who to sort through all of that's the trouble i don't know what i can tell you that there is a government that i can tell you have to figure that out okay but what i'm telling you right now practically speaking is that there will be people american citizens who will prevent these little kids from being dragged out of these shelters

there are and what's going to happen to these people what is going to happen to the military when the military opens fire on us no one's okay see we're waiting on a rabbit hole here you okay so that's uh... julie or whatever last name was uh... seen a commentator

talking about the women and children. They're women and children. Are there some terrorists? I don't know, but they're also women and just ignoring the fact that pretending that all of the huddled masses that are coming to America, it's nothing but women and children. Which by the way, as a Democrat, it's always funny when Democrats still try to use that line. Think of the women and children.

Okay, you don't know what a woman is and you think children should die in the womb. So you're not really qualified to be using the women and children card here. But regardless, she says that she's going to physically, she's going to stand in front of the military.

So, first of all, Julie, you ain't doing... Okay, so you're not going to throw yourself in front of a tank. Not that Trump's going to use tanks to deport immigrants. I'd be fine if he did, but he's not going to. You're not doing that. You're going to be on TV crying about it. That's what you're going to do. That's all you're going to do. That's the only thing you're going to do.

And also, by the way, not to get into semantics here, but we keep hearing about and we heard it from Julie there that the illegal immigrants are going to be dragged. You're going to drag these people. You're going to drag them out of their shelters in their homes. Well, in the vast majority of cases, they're not going to be dragged. Why would they be dragged? That's a wasted effort.

No, they're going to walk. They're going to be escorted into vans and they're going to be taken to planes or taken to buses and transported to their home countries. That's it. I mean, in the vast majority of cases, it's going to be a very orderly thing. There's no reason why anyone would be dragged. They don't need to be dragged. You know, the authorities are going to show up and they're going to say, okay, time to go. We're taking you back to your home. You don't belong here. You're not here legally. And that's it.

If they're dragged, it's only because they're refusing to leave. And then in that case, you have no choice but to drag them. What are you supposed to do? When you go to enforce your immigration law, you say, well, we got to take you back to your home, you're not supposed to be here. If they say, no, I'm not leaving. What are we supposed to say? Well, okay, well, if you don't want to, then never mind. Well, if you don't want to. Oh, you'd rather not, you'd rather not be deported? Well, okay then.

No, well, yeah, in that case, you do have to drag them. But I think that most, it won't come to that in most cases. I actually think that in most cases, the scene will not be nearly as dramatic as the CNN commentators are predicting and claiming. Mass deportations in practice will actually be, for the most part, pretty boring.

You know, it's not going to be this big dramatic scene. There's no reason why it needs to be. And if it does become that, it's going to be the fault of the illegal immigrants who are not cooperating when a country that they have illegally entered tries to simply enforce its own laws. Will there be mass protests against these deportations?

as is also being predicted. We'll see, but I have to say I doubt that as well. Sure, there will be protests. And we know the left is very good at ginning up protests on fraudulent grounds. They're very good at using hoaxes and using out-of-context things to gin up protests. They've done that many, many times.

They're going to be looking for their kind of George Floyd of illegal immigrants. They're going to be looking for an illegal immigrant George Floyd moment. That's what they're praying for. They are fantasizing about it right now. They would love for that to happen. So they'll be looking for that. Maybe they'll get it and maybe if it doesn't happen, they'll pretend.

So there will be protests, we also know the left good at not only ginning up protests, but also they know how to pay for them. If they can't get people to protest, you can always pay that, people come out and protest. So they'll do all that, but I don't think that there will be a kind of popular uprising against deportations. I think that most Americans will be perfectly fine with it because most Americans have their own problems. You got your own family to take care of.

These are people that are not supposed to be in the country anyway. The law is being enforced in a fair and orderly way. And that's just not the kind of thing that's going to infuriate most Americans. Why would it?

But I'm gonna go out and protest because the law is, because a basic law that every country has and every country enforces, that law is being enforced, we're supposed to suspend our laws, abolish our national sovereignty for the sake of these people. Why would we do that? The law is not suspended for me. Okay, this is what most Americans are gonna say to themselves, but they're not, no one's spending the law for me. If I break the law, I'm held accountable.

So why should it be suspended for them? What makes them special? I think that will be the calculation that most Americans make, and that's why mass deportations are actually have popular widespread mass appeal and approval on both sides of the aisle. And I don't think that's gonna, everyone, I think there are a lot of people that think, well, that's gonna change once they start actually doing it. And we have these visuals, these very upsetting visuals. Like I said, why would the visuals be upsetting?

I think they'll be wonderful visuals because they are visuals of the law being enforced and our national sovereignty being restored. I can't wait to see it. I can't wait to see that happen.

So I think that's where most people are on this. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and devastating folks from the Maui fires to Hurricane Helene, seeing entire towns wiped out in 24 hours with barely any warning. And what happens? People are left without basic resources scrambling to survive. Now I know what you're thinking, it won't happen here. That's exactly what everyone thinks until they're in the middle of a catastrophe. Being prepared isn't just smart, it's essential. And that's where the wellness companies emergency kit

comes in. These aren't your run-of-the-mill first aid kits. We're talking about a personalized mini pharmacy right in your own home, no more relying on overworked doctors or under-stocked pharmacies with disaster strikes, bacterial infections, staff, bite wounds, UTIs, strep throat, respiratory illnesses,

These kids have you covered with all of it. It's like having a doctor in your pocket minus liberal indoctrination from med school. Look, you keep a fire extinguisher handy, don't you? Well, consider this your medical fire extinguisher. It's not paranoia. It is preparedness. Here's how it works. Just fill out a form online. A pharmacist reviews it and boom, your kit arrives in two weeks. It's even comes with a medical board approved guidebook.

It's very simple. And right now, when you go to urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh and use promo code Walsh, you'll save $60 plus get free shipping. That's urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh to save $60. This is preparing this simplified invest in your family's self-managed insurance plan today, urgentcarekit.com slash Walsh, USA residents only.

Believe it or not, Thanksgiving is eight days away. And at the Daily Wire, we're getting you ready for that conversation with those members of the family, the one with her unhinged Facebook posts complaining about Trump's glorious return as the 47th president, the cousin proudly rocking his vintage white guys for Kamala t-shirt. Get the facts that will leave your liberal relatives nervously reaching for the gravy boat. With your new annual membership, you'll get uncensored, add free access to daily shows for the most trusted voices in conservative media. And when dinner hits a meltdown,

gather everyone around to watch.

We begin the show by talking about how Republicans in Washington are finally getting serious about rejecting the idea that men can become women and vice versa. Nancy May's introduced legislation that would keep men out of women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill, in part because it's necessary to protect women. It's also common sense because biologically men and women aren't the same thing. Of course, it's not just Capitol Hill that's wrestling with this issue. Nancy May's is using the same logic that just a few years ago led a Korean spa near Seattle to come up with a policy of only allowing entry to quote biological women.

This spa called Olympus Spa is fashioned after something called Jimjilbang, probably pronouncing that wrong. But apparently an exotic term that means that patrons have to be nude, I guess is the basic idea. Facilities at the spa include, quote, a bath area containing multiple whirlpools, a traditional Korean body scrub service area, standing showers, sit down showers, a steam room and a dry sauna.

So it's a full service spa, apparently, and every single one of these stations requires some degree of nudity in keeping with the principles of that word I can't pronounce and won't attempt again. Therefore, because people's bodies were going to be exposed at various locations within this full service establishment, the spa decided that men shouldn't be allowed inside the spa.

Now, just to be clear, before we go any further, I should note that Olympus Spa is distinct from the We Spa, which you might remember from this viral clip involving its own policies on biological women. We Spa, unlike Olympus Spa, had no problem allowing men into women's spaces, a policy that ultimately produced this immortal footage. Let's watch it again.

We spot is an agreement with men that just say they are a woman and they can go down there with their penis and get into the women's section. Is that what you're saying?

What what really what law what law? So women can go into the man's with their brass Okay Yeah, you shouldn't y'all wouldn't come back either. Yeah, get your money back You got a man with his penis come back. He's a woman. He ain't no woman Yeah, give her money back There's no such thing as transgender he hasn't

Okay, he has a penis. He has penis is hanging out. Okay, no, I'm not one. Actually, I'm a woman who doesn't stand up and speak up from my right. As a woman, I have a right to feel comfortable without a man exposing himself. Okay, no, you go somewhere else.

Again, that's We Spa, which is distinct from Olympus Spa, but it does give you a sense of how common this issue is and how women feel about men invading their private spaces. Now, for its part, Olympus Spa asserted a variety of justifications for its women's only policy, including the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, also common sense. They stated that, quote, women are in a vulnerable position when they're unclothed and are having treatment while unclothed, and we seek to ensure that they feel their privacy and rights are respected.

To that end, this spa specifically denied entry to men, as well as any self-identifying transgender women, quote unquote, who had not undergone bottom surgery. Now already, you may have noticed that there are some obvious issues with the spa's policy. In particular, it doesn't go nearly far enough. I mean, for one thing, there's no distinction between a biological woman and a woman. All women are biological women. If a woman isn't a biological woman, then she isn't a woman at all. And that's determined at a fundamental chromosomal level.

Also, no amount of bottom surgery changes that. Just because a man has had his genitals cut off doesn't mean that he should be allowed in a private, confined space with naked women. If anything, it gives women even more reasons to be uncomfortable with his presence. In any event,

The reason for the policy, such as it is, is pretty clear. Naked women don't want to be around naked male strangers. That's why Olympus Spa reports that in recent years, there have been very alarming incidents in which males have, quote, penetrated the interior of an Olympus Spa facility. And in one instance, according to a federal court, an individual with male genitals was roaming around the spa. This turned out to be a transit edifying customer. And ultimately, several customers requested refunds and left the spa.

There also been situations in which patrons, quote, noticed male genitals exposed in locker room and or pool areas. And as a result, experience, quote, humiliation, trauma, and rage, those patrons apparently demanded refunds and never returned. But in Washington State, gender activists don't see any problem with any of this. And to that end, a trans-identifying man using the name Haven Wilvitch,

tried to access the spa in defiance of its women-only policy was rejected

And then of course, properly complained to the Washington State Human Rights Commission. Yes, because this is a human rights issue in 2024. The commission then ordered the spa to open their doors to men, regardless of how they identify or what kind of surgery they've had at the spa refused. Then a federal district court in Seattle sided with Haven Wilvitch and the Human Rights Commission. They decided that there's nothing unconstitutional about forcing the spa to serve both naked men and naked women.

After that, the spa appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this week, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case. Those oral arguments produced this soundbite, which may be the most remarkable quote from a federal judge that perhaps you've ever heard. Watch as this judge, whose name is Margaret McCown, explained that the spa's women-only policy is basically equivalent to Jim Crow. Watch. Who can go into the spa?

Can a transgender female enter the spa before they change the language? What was the admission post? Only women, biological women, or transgender women who have had bottom surgery could enter the spa. Right. So that's like the Supreme Court said in fair, if you have a law that says white applicants only. This is biological women.

entrance only. It seems to me they're quite parallel there. First of all, how old are these judges? You see the guy in the middle, he can barely lift his head up. These judges are 155 years old and they're still sitting on a bench destroying America because they're not done. They're going to be there until they die and they want to get every last moment they can on earth to destroy this country.

Anyway, this is one of those brilliant deductions that you can only find in a federal courthouse on the West Coast. You couldn't find anyone else to come up with logic like this anywhere in the country. Something this profoundly nonsensical could only come from an appellate judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yes, banning men from entering a women's space is parallel to banning all non-whites from the spa, says the federal appellate court judge. It's basically the same thing, she says.

Of course, to believe that, you'd have to overlook all of the reasons why it's not remotely the same thing. You'd have to overlook the very rational reasons why women don't want to be in an isolated environment where they're completely exposed to men, which relate pretty well to pretty well established facts about human sexuality and biology. You'd have to overlook the fact that men can rape women for starters. That's one concern among many others that has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with biology.

But the lawyer arguing for the spa amazingly enough didn't make this argument. Instead, he tried to make the case that the spa was just encouraging women to enter the spa rather than prohibiting men from entering it. Then the judge immediately sees through it because that's not at all what's happening. Watch.

I could address the whites only language in fair. And that first whites applicant said whites applicants only. That is the language of exclusion. This says biological women are welcome. And if I could

draw a parallel to employment recruitment. It is legal for an employer, government or otherwise, to say persons with disability, military veterans, racial minorities are encouraged or welcome to apply. They don't say military veterans only.

women only can apply. So we think that that is a distinction. So if you were to leave that on the website, biological women welcome, and then a transgender female shows up at the spa, there's also this same admissions policy, right? There is. If she doesn't have bottom surgery, then the answer is no.

And so that's- It's not really biological women are welcome. It means non-biological women are not welcome. I mean, that's the reality. Non-biological women is the phrase we just heard from a judge sitting on the bench. Non-biological women.

So this is a disastrous moment, obviously. It's hard to know what explains it. Maybe the lawyer got confused, but in this case, the judge is right about this one point, that the spa is denying entry to men as it should. And the lawyer probably should have just defended that policy instead of watering it down. There's no reason to shy away from defending the spa's policy.

Yes, they are denying entry to men, to males, to quote-unquote biological males. If that's the phrase you want to use, it's obviously justified. There's no need to rely on technicalities when your position is so clearly the correct one. But right now, it's hard to see exactly how this case will end up at the United Circuit. Fortunately, the spa has some heavy hitters writing briefs on its behalf already. One of those briefs was written by Cara Dansky, who made this argument, quote,

If the district court is correct that Washington state law requires Olympus Spa to admit naked men into a nude woman's spa, it's very difficult to see how the state of Washington, including local law enforcement agencies, can also enforce criminal laws that include voyeurism and indecent exposure, which is a pretty good point. And it's the kind of argument that if the Ninth Circuit rules against the spa could lead to a pretty straightforward appeal to the Supreme Court. And if that happens, precedent could be said that ends this insanity at a nationwide level.

That's actually what they're currently fretting about over on Reddit, which is normally very supportive of trans activists who go to court. But they're not as supportive in this case, which is interesting. One top comment on the Seattle subreddit reads quote, trans advocates are making a big case taking up a big mistake taking up this case. This is going to go to SCOTUS where it will get overturned and set precedent against them.

Another comment says, I'm trans. I'm kind of lost for words with this case. It's embarrassing. Any sane minded trans woman will make sure they're respectful and discreet when using women's spaces or use unisex spaces where possible. I cannot describe how embarrassed I would be having that part of my body exposed in that way. And beyond my own embarrassment, that's wildly inappropriate and disrespectful to other people in that space. Like I actually don't know what to say. It's infuriating to see the trans community attached to this. And I'm just so sorry this ever happened.

Now when trans activists have lost Reddit, they know they've messed up. And that appears to be what's happening. As Republicans in Washington finally find their backbone on the trans agenda, trans activists on the West Coast are vastly overplaying their hand. They're equating rational, common sense pro woman, pro privacy, pro sanity policies to Jim Crow.

And the process without realizing it, they're almost certainly hastening the end of their deranged and untenable agenda. And that is why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the trans activists who are trying to force a spa to allow men to stare at naked women, are today canceled. I'll do it with the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.