USA Today Reveals the WORST Women of 2023





USA Today released their 2023 Women of the Year (even inclusive of—you guessed it—a man). Liz analyzes the list to break down why these people were chosen, what they encourage, and what it tells us about the Left’s agenda for the upcoming year. Plus, Trump was not indicted yesterday as we expected, and it’s for the most hilarious reason. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Good day, guys. Welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. Well, President Trump did not get indicted yesterday. I’m sure you noticed that if you’re anything like me, you were sitting around all day waiting for that indictment to happen. It did not happen. It’s not so much that the Daily Mail who had published this exclusive the day before saying that President Trump was going to be indicted on Wednesday, actually not Tuesday like Trump had originally predicted.  

It’s not that the Daily Mail was wrong in their prediction, it’s that something additional happened to alter their prediction. What happened was there was testimony from an individual by the name of Bob Costello. And the reason basically that this indictment, it’s not for sure off or anything, it’s possibly just delayed. It might still happen. It might be off. I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going to happen at this point. 

Things are changing, but the reason the indictment didn’t happen is actually for the most hilarious reason, the funniest thing that I’ve seen all day. It happened because somebody told the truth and they told the truth in a way, not just like you and I tell the truth about this all the time. We can analyze this allegation against President Trump and see that it’s completely phony. It’s bogus, not just in that way, not just the public talking about the truth, not just Trump talking about the truth, but there’s this attorney by the name of Bob Costello who is actually advising Michael Cohen when Michael Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney during this, this whole ordeal.  

And this attorney that had been advising Michael Cohen said that, and this is what he testified in front of the grand jury, that you can’t trust anything that Michael Cohen says, which is so hilarious because this entire case, and I should put case in quotation marks, this quote unquote case against President Trump is built on what Michael Cohen has said, that Michael Cohen claimed that Trump was in on this. 

Meaning that there was this n d a, this non-disclosure agreement. You can also call it hush money, whatever. It’s the same thing. It’s legal people do it all the time. That this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels was Trump claims that Michael Cohen did this on his own. He had no awareness of it. Michael Cohen claimed that Trump was in fact in on it.  

Therefore, Trump would be culpable for this falsification of business documents because he wrote that it was legal fees that he was paying back to Michael Cohen. It’s super colluded. It’s super ridiculous, confusing and dumb. It’s the thinnest case possible. But Bob Costello had been advising Michael Cohen at the time and now says that Michael Cohen can’t be trusted. So this entire case built on this claim from Michael Cohen is now what? Like are you supposed to continue with a case when the one person that you’re building this case around is being exposed as a liar? 

So that happened, which got a grand jury. The grand jury was supposed to be convened on Wednesday. They were supposed to hear were for one final witness, and suddenly out of nowhere, the grand jury, this, this, this testimony gets canceled. The grand jury is told they don’t have to come in that day that they can wait until the next day. And then we have this, I want to bring this up because I want to read this to you word for word. Then we have a letter from 2018.  

This is from a lawyer of Michael Cohen’s, not just an advisor, but actually like his lawyer. The guy’s name is Steven Ryan, and in this letter, Michael Cohen’s lawyer Steven Ryan says that Michael Cohen actually used his own money $130,000 of his own cash to pay off Stormy Daniels. That this wasn’t Trump’s money to begin with, it was Michael Cohen’s money, and that the Trump organization and the Trump campaign, nobody involved in either of those two things, had any idea that Michael Cohen had individually decided to use his own money to pay off Stormy Daniels. 

This is what the letter reads. Let me read it to you. I’m writing on behalf of my client, Michael Cohen, in response to your letter dated January 30th. This is addressed to the Federal Election Commission, by the way, specifically, Ryan writes this letter responses to the complaint numbered m u r 7,313, which was filed with a federal election commission by Common Cause, and Paul S. Ryan in a private transaction. In 2016, before the US presidential election, Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.  

That, by the way, is Stormy Daniel’s legal name. Neither the Trump Organiz organization, nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly. Contrary to the allegations and the complaint, which are entirely speculative, neither Mr. Cohen nor Essential Consultants LLC, made any in-kind contribution to Donald Trump for President Incorporated or any other presidential campaign committee. 

Mr. Cohen has not been a government employee during any of the relevant time period. The payment in question does not constitute a campaign camp contribution or expenditure, and therefore, the FEC lacks jurisdiction over this matter. The complainants have not and cannot present any evidence. To the contrary. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed. Now, the interesting part of this, this might seem really obvious to us, but the interesting part of this is if President Trump did in fact falsify business documents, first of all, no one cares because this is such a piddly little thing that literally no one cares. But accepting the premise for the sake of this argument for one second, even if he did, that would be a misdemeanor, right? A misdemeanor.  

The only way, or the only reason, the only justification for elevating that to a felony would be if this district attorney in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, had reason to believe that the falsification of the business document, meaning that Trump said that he reimbursed Michael Cohen for a legal expense when it wasn’t a legal expense, if this was done with the intent to cover up another crime or to commit another crime. 

And the allegation is that that secondary crime was this campaign finance violation, which even Michael Cohen’s own lawyer is now saying, that was never the case. This had nothing to do whatsoever with the campaign. So now Alvin Bragg might be in a situation where he was intending to elevate this piddly misdemeanor into a felony and accuse Trump of another crime. But now a key witness who was advising Michael Cohen at the time, had the audacity to tell the truth under oath in front of a grand jury, and the whole case came crumbling down.  

So I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. I don’t know what’s going to happen later today. I don’t know what’s going to happen over the weekend. I don’t know what’s going to happen next week. This indictment, maybe it still will happen. These people were obviously not interested in the facts from the beginning, but the chances of an indictment, if there’s a, if there’s odds on this, the chances just got a little bit less. The chances of this indictment got a little bit less. Also, yesterday I was right about something really important, and I am going to take a moment and brag about that. So let’s get to it. 

Okay? So I’m not one to necessarily brag about, brag about it when I’m right. I’m not going to sit here and pat myself on the back but for a second I am, because I was right about something and something that I got a little bit of flack for after the show yesterday. And that’s the only reason why I want to talk about this for just a second.  

Yesterday I said something in the show that I did not intend to sound bombastic. I did not intend it to be something controversial, but just inherently the observation that I made was controversial when I said that in a perverse way, it seems that President Trump almost wants to be indicted because he perhaps understands the political benefit to him in the Republican primary for the 2024 presidential election. If he were to be indicted, this would, this would enrage his base, and rightly so, that’s right, righteous anger. 

I would, I would feel that rage, it would because a lot of people to rally behind him as the 2024 presidential nominee, which he hopes it seems, would, you know, allow him to defeat the other primary candidates. And I know it sounds like a very controversial thing to say. It sounds very bombastic. It almost sounds like, it almost sounds like a nasty allegation to say, oh, this guy wants to be indicted. And I didn’t, I don’t mean it like that at all. I’m simply observing politics. I’m simply analyzing politics. It’s what I do for a living. Well, it turns out I’m right about this.  

That this observation, this analysis of Donald Trump’s behavior, his reaction to this targeting by the Manhattan District Attorney was spot on. The New York Post reports, actually sources told the New York Post. So by the way, a little behind the scenes here, you probably know this, but when they, when, when a media outlet says, sources close to Trump, tell us, it usually means either the candidate themselves, their press SEC secretary or someone in their immediate orbit with the authority to do something or with the authority to release this information. 

This is not like a rumor that someone near the candidate heard. This is usually an official statement given by the campaign to the media organization under the under the constraint that it be cited as just someone close to the campaign. But you can pretty much always assume it’s the campaign itself. So sources tell the New York Post that Donald Trump actually wants to be handcuffed if he is indeed indicted. Now, the reports about this indictment originally were that, you know what, it’s a former president. The Secret Service is never going to allow him to be handcuffed.  

And in fact, it would be disrespectful of that they’re going to give him the opportunity to surrender himself. And that because he has secret service protection, it’s not like he’s a flight risk. There’s no need to handcuff him. Even if he surrenders, he might be fingerprinted, he might have a mugshot, but let’s avoid the perp walk. 

Let’s avoid the handcuffs. And I hate to even say like, oh, good. They’re showing a sign of respect because fundamentally disrespectful to indict a president for such a stupid, invented false phony charge. However, sources tell the New York Post that Trump doesn’t want that respect. That Trump says if he is indicted, he wants it to be a spectacle. He wants to be put in handcuffs, he wants to be dragged out of there because he thinks that it will be politically advantageous. Sources.  

Tell the New York Post that while Trump’s advisors, the people around him disagree, Trump says he doesn’t care if people get shot because it will make him look like a martyr. Is this true? Is this not true? Who’s to say I was right yesterday when I said, perversely, it seems like Trump wants to be indicted. Hey, maybe Trump will pull an AOC. 

Remember when AOC put her arms behind her back when she was being marched out of that protest outside of the Supreme Court, she pretended she was in handcuffs when she was no such thing. No such thing. Hopefully President Trump doesn’t pull something like that. However, all this being said, we didn’t do the live stream on Rumble because President yesterday, because President Trump wasn’t indicted. But if he is at any point, we will in fact do that live stream.  

But the topic of the show today is one that absolutely cracks me up. We did this last year, we had a great time. I want to do it again this year. USA Today has issued their annual list of Women of the Year. Now, you might say, Liz, I do not care about this. Aren’t there more important things to talk about than USA Today’s stupid list of like the 50 or 60 women that they think are so wonderful? 

And my answer to that is, this is very important, and I will tell you why this is very important to pay attention to, because like it or not, you might not pay attention to USA Today. I might not pay attention to USA Today, but a lot of people do. The mainstream media is extremely influential. We pretend CNN doesn’t make a difference.  

We pretend nobody watches MSNBC, we mock them for getting, you know, for MSNBC, getting slaughtered by Fox ratings and all that’s true. But it’s a mistake for us to pretend that they do not influence and indoctrinate a lot of people in this country. They do, and we can relegate them to, Hey, I’m never going to read you, I’m never going to pay attention to you. And if I happen to see a headline from you, I’m not going to believe it. 

But it’s mistake not to debunk the narratives coming from those outlets, because those narratives take root in the minds of so many of the American people. So when USA Today drops a, an article, an annual article like their Women of the Year, I want to analyze this because this is how this, the le this is the Left telling us what their agenda is for this upcoming year.  

The Left is featuring people, these people, and I say people because it’s not really all women. Spoiler alert. I want to talk about why these people were chosen to be featured. I want to talk about the cultural impact that each of these women has. And I want to talk about what each of these women is encouraging because the Left actually always tells us what they’re going to do. They tell us what their agenda is, they tell us what their strategy is, they even reveal their tactics. 

And if we don’t pay attention, then oh my goodness, we’re surprised when these things, these bad things, critical race theory and queer theory and DEI and all these things start popping up all around us, we’re surprised. But if we had listened, the Left actually told us what they were going to do. That is true in this case. USA Today Women of the Year.  

Each of these women was chosen because she, or perhaps he embodies something that the Radical Left wants America to be. They want to infuse this in the call into the culture. So the perfect example of this is the first quote, unquote, woman of the year from USA Today, who is a man. This is a man on the list. Last year, you’ll remember U s USA Today featured Dr. Rachel Levine. This year, it’s Lei Fike. 

This is what USA Today says. She never planned to be a politician. Now she is the first transgender legislator in the State’s House of Representatives fighting to build a better future for trans youth. Le Fike is a man, a biological man, which you can tell by looking at the picture, right? This is not, this is not even, this is not even someone that looks female.  

This is someone that looks like an ugly dude with pink hair wearing a pair of earrings. This person is extremely dangerous, obviously, because this person is now in charge of, or parts of the legislative body in the state of Minnesota. And the reason that USA Today chose this man as a woman of the year is because USA Today knows that queer theory and the oblation of objective truth is critical, critical to ushering in Marxism into our country. 

So they pretend that a man can be a woman just because he identifies as a woman and puts on some red lipstick that in fact is not true. That in and of itself from USA Today is dangerous. But this individual Le Fike is actually dangerous, even aside from being honored by USA Today because Le Fike has proposed legislation to make Minnesota a trans refuge for kids. This is a sanctuary state. This is essentially what this means, A sanctuary state for children who want to transition, who want to go on puberty blockers, who want to go on cross-sex hormone therapy, who want surgical transitions. Maybe they want, maybe a young girl wants her breast removed.  

A young boy wants to have wants to have his penis removed in the name of gender identity. And this Minnesota state legislator who is a man identifying as a woman dressed up in women’s clothing, is trying to make Minnesota State where young children, if their parents say no, if they live in a state where it’s illegal, they can come into Minnesota and they’re allowed to access that won’t even call it healthcare. 

They’re allowed to access that mutilation and those pharmaceutical drugs. That’s extremely dangerous, but that is something that the radical left is going to try to do throughout the course of the next year. Mark my words.  

That’s one of their primary agendas is to make blue states not just havens of radical leftism, but actually a sanctuary state where if you are not able to access an abortion, if you are not able to perform an abortion, if you are not able to drug children and mutilate their bodies in the name of gender identity, you can go to a blue state and all of the parental rights that existed in the red state will be terminated in the blue state, and the blue state will take over your children terrifying. Second on the list is a woman named Bobby Cord. Now this woman is actually a woman. This Bobby Cordon is the honoree of the District of Columbia. 

By the way, USA Today divided up this list into honorees from each state plus national honorees. We’re not going to be able to get to all almost a hundred women, but we are going to get to some of the good ones. Bobby Cord is from the District of Columbia. This is what USA Today writes. She’s the first deaf woman and first openly LGBTQ person to become president of Galette, the world’s only liberal arts university for deaf and heart of hearing people.  

Okay, so at first it seems just like virtue signaling, like, oh, did they pick her just because she’s deaf? Is this just, is this a pretend glass ceiling moment? Well, no, that’s not the real reason here. The real reason is because Bobby Cord, this is what it says on the website of the college where she is president. 

It says, president Cord is vigilant, vigilant in infusing equity, diversity, and inclusion into all aspects of the college. Oh, equity, diversity, and inclusion. So DEI, this individual, it’s not this individual’s not being honored because she did something cool. She’s not being honored because she added something to society. She’s being honored because she meets these, these check boxes that make her some sort of victim.  

Oh, she’s a lesbian. Cool. Oh, she’s deaf. Cool. That means she must be marginalized, right? Both marginalized characteristics. And then of course, she pushes in response to that, she pushes the ei radical leftist agenda. This is what the Left likes. They’re not interested in what she’s accomplished. They’re interested in whether they have co-opted her into being a pawn in their goal to push Marxism on the United States. Then we have the Hawaiian honoree. Her name is Psi or Pua case. 

This is what USA Today says in description of her committed to keeping native Hawaiian customs culture and language alive case helped organize the manna Kea probably not pronouncing that correctly. Mauna Kea movement to protest installation of a telescope on the dormant volcano. Okay, so at first glance, you think, huh, alright, maybe she just didn’t want a big building on the side of, of a dormant volcano in Hawaii. But that’s not really the crux of USA Today picked her.  

This woman is a pagan. This woman believes that this mountain is sacred. This woman believes that a goddess lives in this dormant volcano. This woman believes that screaming out loud is a prayer to the goddess that lives in this dormant volcano. This woman believes that the United States, Hawaii in particular, is stolen land from the natives.  

You might recognize that it’s very popular right now in public schools and in college campuses to start instead of with a pledge of allegiance to start a class, but to start it with a land acknowledgement, a stolen land acknowledgement instead that says, you know, we’re on the land that was stolen by white colonialists from the indigenous peoples who were here first as a way of de-legitimizing the entirety of the United States. 

If it’s stolen land, then what even are we, we aren’t is the answer to that question. This woman is a pagan who believes that the United States, particularly Hawaii, is stolen land and is anti-Christian. Part of her activism has been resisting the Christian missionaries that that we’re part, a prominent part of bringing the united or bringing Hawaii into the United States.  

This is why USA Today honors this woman, not because of her activism to keep a, a telescope off of a dormant volcano That seems awfully obscure, even if there’s no inherent morality or immorality into a telescope on a volcano, I don’t really care one way or the other. There’s nothing wrong with her not wanting it there. Maybe she didn’t like what it looked like. Doesn’t really matter. That is not why USA Today auditor, u s USA Today honored her because she’s anti-Christian. 

She’s a pagan, and she believes that the United States was, is is existing on stolen land with which delegitimizes our entire country. Then we have our next our next woman of the year is actually also a woman. Thank goodness her name is Dasia Taylor. And I gotta tell you, I gotta tell you, part of what this girl did is super, super cool. The first half of why she was honored is a legitimate reason to be honored. This is what USA Today says.  

This 19-year-old invented an infection, detecting suture, then founded an inclusion focused medical device company. I’m not your average science kid. She says, so first and part first, the cool part, this is really cool. So think about if you have sutures, if you get stitches in the emergency room or you get stitches after a c-section after surgery. I use the C-section example because that’s what motivated this young woman. 

She said that, you know, a lot of women after c-section, their their sutures, their incision gets infected. She invented a really cool way of detecting this infection before it makes women sick. She found out that when there’s an infection on the skin, the pH of the skin is the first thing that changes or perhaps the precursor to the infection.  

And she invented a concoction that’s actually made of bee juice. Yes, red beets bee juice that changes the red, the bright red color of bee juice to a different shade when the pH of the surface on which it resides is also changed. So she put this beet juice into a type of suture so that when you sow up the incision and it’s at a pH that’s healthy, that would not beget infection. It’s one color. But when the pH begins to change, which is the first sign of an infection, but hasn’t otherwise been able to be detected until the infection has actually taken hold, the bee juice in the suture changes color and you can identify it. 

I read that and I was like, wow, that is super, super cool. And she’s 19 years old. Holy cow. This is really awesome. That’s the cool part. That however, is not exactly why she’s being honored. She’s being honored because she is pushing equity. In fact, she says one of her biggest goals is equity and global health.  

Now, equity is not equality, equity is not equal access, equity is not equal opportunity. Equity is equal outcome health equity specifically is the deprivation of medical care for people based on the color of their skin. So for example, in during the pandemic, there was this health equity policy that said certain people could, this was in a in a healthcare system in the state of Ohio, there was this policy that said that people who wanted to access monoclonal antibodies, because there was a shortage of monoclonal antibodies, had to qualify for those antibodies. 

And it wasn’t based on whether the person was old or whether the person was overweight or had preexisting conditions. None of those factors were the primary factor in saying like, okay, you get to go to the front of the line because you need this. The most skin color was actually taken as a factor that was worth more than any other factor of any other factor regarding whether you qualify for these antibodies. And it’s just racial discrimination.  

Health equity is racial discrimination aimed at white people that would say you don’t get medicine because of the color of your skin. It’s really, really evil stuff. And USA Today, maybe they were likewise impressed with her medical invention, but that’s not why they picked her. They picked her because the radical leftist agenda is focused on this idea of health equity, which is not just destructive, it’s downright evil. 

The next woman on USA, today’s Women of the Year list, her name is Sadika Reynolds. She’s from Kentucky Sadika Reynolds. This is what USA Today writes about her, an outspoken advocate for racial justice. The former Louisville Urban League president helped pave the way for black women in her community and beyond. Well, that’s a little vague, isn’t it? And that’s a little vague.  

So I took it upon myself before the show to do a little research about her, and I looked on her Twitter account and one of the first tweets, about 10 tweets down on her Twitter account, says, do not vote for Daniel Cameron for anything. Daniel Cameron, of course, is running for governor in the state of Kentucky. Daniel Cameron is a black man, but he has the audacity to be a black man who is a Republican.  

That is why Sadika Reynolds is being honored, because she is a political activist in the state of Kentucky, Kentucky, which is a red state, and she is advocating for blue policies in a red state as if Louisville, by the way, hasn’t suffered enough from blue policies, especially in their police force. 

My goodness. But of course, this is what, this is what USA Today, the rest of the radical left want, they want radical leftists to infiltrate red cities and red states to try to turn them blue. The reason that this woman was honored, our next the next woman on the list is Sherell Parfait Darda. She’s from Louisiana, and this is what USA Today writes about her. T 

hey say a Native American chief, she’s committed to healing the earth, helping her community recover from hurricane Ida and mitigating the impact of climate change. This, of course, is the radical left’s favorite agenda item, healing the earth. What does this mean? Healing the earth. The earth is not a human being. The earth is not a person, the earth. We are called to be stewards, good stewards of the earth. We don’t want to pollute it. 

We don’t want to destroy it. All that’s true. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees with that. But what the radical left does, what the Neo Marxists do is they try to elevate the planet to a higher pedestal than human beings. And using language like this is a perfect example of this. They actually tell us that fossil fuels should be completely abolished and eliminated because it supposedly harms the earth. It supposedly emits CO2, well, it does emit CO2, but supposedly, according to the climate change alarmists, that is what’s going to because the destruction of the earth is CO2 from fossil fuels.  

So instead of thinking about the human impact of this, meaning if we abolish fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have medicine, we wouldn’t have clothes, we wouldn’t have sterilization for medical instruments, which means that surgery would be so dangerous that it would be rendered obsolete. 

We wouldn’t have gas-powered cars, we wouldn’t have a way to heat our homes. We wouldn’t have a way to cook on stoves. It would, it would, we would return to the dark ages almost. We would return to pre-industrial, the pre-industrial globe where starvation and poverty and oppression and death was commonplace. The climate change alarmists don’t care about that. They don’t care about the human cost because they’ve elevated the planet to something of a status above human beings using phraseology like this, healing the earth, healing the earth mitigating the impact of climate change.  

Well, let me tell you, credit Thunberg just deleted her tweet from five years ago where she said, if we don’t abolish fossil fuels, that the planet would be incinerated by this time, the planet would be destroyed by 2023. It didn’t happen. So she deleted the tweet. So mitigating the impact of climate change, maybe you don’t have to worry too much about that. The next woman on the list is from USA Today is a woman named Mara Healy. This is what USA Today writes. She’s the first woman to be elected governor in her state, and one of the first two lesbian women to be elected as governor of any US state. 

Okay? Something to note. Many of the very radical leftist activists who are women are lesbians. The leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are lesbians. Three Lesbian Women’s Act. Lesbian women actually founded that organization. The founder, the author of the founding document of Queer Theory is a lesbian. And it doesn’t make you anything special if you are a lesbian.  

It’s not a characteristic that sets you apart. It’s not a reason to be honored. It’s like when Kamala Harris wrote that letter to the transgender TikTok star, Dylan Mulvaney congratulating Dylan Mulvaney for quote unquote being a woman for I think Kamala Harris said, living authentically for the past year, she was congratulating him for supposedly being a woman when every other real woman in the country doesn’t get congratulated for being a woman. We simply are. We simply live our lives and do our thing because we’re women, that’s who we are. 

And we don’t need a, we don’t need congratulation letters from the Vice President of the United States just for being a woman. That’s what this, that’s what this is congratulating her for. What, what accomplishment? Being a lesbian. Being a lesbian is not an accomplishment, but the radical left supports and pushes and advocates for and grooms people into LGBTQIA identities.  

There’s a reason that one out of every five gen Z-ers identifies as queer, identifies as LGBTQIA compared to other generations where just a tiny fraction of individuals identified as non-straight the Left needs this. They need you to reject your inherent identity. They need you to reject objective truth and instead latch on to their invented identities if they’re going to convince you to be the revolutionaries they need you to be, to turn this nation into a Marxist nation. 

The next woman on the list is a woman named Nikki Clark. Nikki Clark, if we could show this one on the screen. She, this is what USA Today writes about her. She says, young people quote, have the answers, they have the solutions. Through her work with a nonprofit focused on empowering young people, she’s determined to elevate their voices.  

Two things, if you click out, if you, if you click into her profile on USA Today, these little blurbs that we’re showing are just the blurbs on the outside of this article. They have fuller profiles with interviews of each of this, each of these women, if you click into it and inside her profile, she, she used a phrase that I want to focus on for just a second. She said, equity work, which is what she focuses on, equity work, requires so much self-reflection. 

And I thought, okay, so we’ve already established that equity is not equality, equity is not equal opportunity or equal anything. It’s equal outcome, which is discrimination. It is, it is socialism, it’s redistribution of whatever you’re talking about. Because in order to have equal outcomes, someone has to be deprived and someone has to be chosen as a winner when they wouldn’t have otherwise been a winner. It is discrimination.  

So Nikki Clark uses this phrase, equity work requires so much self-reflection. And first of all, we know that equity is not equality, it’s not equal opportunity. Equity is discrimination. It’s socialism essentially. Because in order to have equal outcome, you have to, you have to redistribute whatever it is that someone was trying to achieve, which means you have to take it away from someone who would’ve achieved it to give it equally, quote unquote equally to someone else. 

Equity is wrong. It’s bad, it’s evil. But equity work requires so much self-reflection is actually piling on these communist Marxist ideologies on top of themselves. Equity is both socialism and eventually socialism leads generally to communism. But this idea of self-reflection, self-reflections not bad in and of itself. We were just talking about self-awareness on the show yesterday, but what she’s talking about, she’s talking about struggle sessions. She’s talking about these self-loathing actually Maoist, it’s a Maoist idea. It’s a reeducation idea.  

It’s like DEI training at work. If you have to go to sensitivity training or diversity training, you’re going to that training because they want you to say, oh, I’m bad. I’m white and I I propagate white supremacy just by being white. Therefore, I’ve come here so that you can tell me I’m bad and you can tell me how I need to think in order not to be so bad. 

Even if of course you’re not a racist, you’re not a white supremacist and you’re not inherently bad based on the color of your skin, obviously you’re not. She’s talking about equity work requires so much self-reflection. She is, she is parroting this Marxist ideology, not to sound hyperbolic, but that’s what it is. It’s Marxist ideology. She’s also parroting a specific Marxist when she says young people have the answers, they have the solutions. This is, this is the Paolo Freire version of Marxism. Poly free was a Brazilian Marxist who pioneered this twisted, warped idea in the education system that teachers shouldn’t teach students.  

That that was an oppressive structure that teachers should actually learn from students because students lived experiences were equally as valid to the quote unquote knowledge that teachers teach children. Now, if you’re laughing at this, because this sounds so familiar, because this is where we are today in our country where lived experience and your truth and my truth aren’t the truth. 

There is no such thing as the truth. That is Paulo Friar’s version of Marxism, and that is what she’s echoing. This is why USA Today is promoting her, not she’s working with youth because she’s indoctrinating youth in Marxist ideology.  

Then we have the next the next woman on the list is Tette Bramlet. She’s from Oregon. This is what USA Today writes about her. The first black woman appointed to oversee a US winery. She founded the nonprofit, our legacy harvested, which champions diversity in the wine industry. I gotta tell you, when I read this, I started shrieking with laughter because honestly, who gives a rat’s tail? If the person making the wine is a black person or a white person, or a brown person, or a tall person, or a short person, or a fat person, or a thin person, no one cares. 

There is no goodness inherent goodness or inherent morality to diversity in the wine industry. This is not, there’s not systemic racism in the wine industry. There’s not institutional discrimination in the wine industry. Therefore, there is no morality. There’s no goodness in diversity for the sake of diversity, especially when it’s advocated for in a way that actually means tokenism. She doesn’t mean she’s encouraging other black people to just get involved in the free market, get involved in the wine industry.  

What she means is that she’s advocating for DEI. What she means is she wants white people to be denied jobs based on the color of their race and black people to be hired in jobs in the wine industry based on their race. That is bad. And that of course is why she’s honored. The next woman is named Monica Munos Martinez. 

She is the honoree from Texas. And you would think that maybe from Texas, there might be a conservative woman toss in here. No, no, no, no. I actually didn’t find a conservative woman or a woman who was outspokenly Christian in her beliefs in the entirety of this list of women. But Monica Munos Martinez, this is how USA Today describes her, an associate professor at University of Texas and an award wing winning historian, she works to make the history of anti-Mexican violence at the US Mexico border publicly accessible. This is interesting, isn’t it?  

Because right now, in this moments in history in 2023, USA Today has the opportunity to highlight so many wonderful women who are working around the US border. Maybe someone from border patrol, maybe a woman rancher who’s been harmed by the cartels. Maybe someone who’s ex escaped human trafficking by these coyotes. 

No, no, no, no. USA Today wants to highlight a woman who talks about violence that the US inflicts on Mexicans because of the Mexican-ness of the Mexican people. A little ironic, isn’t it a little ironic that we’re not going to talk about the cartels and the drug traffickers and the human traffickers and the violence and the beheading and the rapes and the horrendous human rights violations happening down there. Not, not inflicted by the us inflicted by from the Mexican side on the us. USA Today, of course has a very clear agenda.  

The next woman is whose name is Katie Quinonez. This is how USA Today describes her, the executive director at what was the state’s only abortion clinic, she vowed to keep providing essential healthcare to women, quote unquote, Dobbs did not break us. She says she’s from West Virginia. 

By the way, the only reason that she was highlighted is because she was the director of the only abortion clinic in the state. A woman of the year USA Today calls her because she presided over the exploitation of women who are mothers and the murder of their unborn children. That is anti-woman, that is so evil and so wrong. But this, of course, the reason we’re talking about this list is not because you care about any of these women individually.  

It’s just like, I don’t, the reason we’re talking about this list is because USA Today highlights these women because they are showing us what their agenda is for the next year. This is what they are trying to infuse into our society. They’re labeling these women as culturally influential because they want these women to influence culture from Puerto Rico. The honoree is a woman named Anna Irma Rivera Lassen. 

This is what USA Today writes about her, the first openly gay member of the Puerto Rico Senate. She spent four decades pushing for anti-racism, me, me measures and LGBTQ+ and women’s rights. Well, anti-racism is just a fancy word for critical race theory. LGBTQ plus and women’s rights is usually just a fancy word for queer theory and abortion.  

This is what USA today writes. They also, by the way, highlighted Michelle Obama. This is what they wrote about her. The former First Lady continues to share her story, which these days includes knitting with the hope that it will help others see value in their own stories. Like what does that even mean? Help others see value in their own stories. Michelle Obama is famous for having done nothing. Michelle Obama once told us that she was not proud to be American, and yet look at what she has reaped in the in in America by being an American citizen. 

She’s famous because of her husband’s political career. She’s a celebrity because the radical left controls Hollywood and they want to elevator her into some kind of position of influence, even though she’s done nothing but claimed that she didn’t like being First Lady and she wasn’t proud to be American. And she cried when she left the White House after Trump had been inaugurated. Absurd, absolutely absurd. Also, two entities that aren’t, that aren’t individual women.  

These are groups of women that were honored. The women of the 118th Congress, USA Today has named as a Woman of the year. This is their, their blurb after the 2022 midterms. Women hold a record, 150 seats in Congress, 25 in the Senate and 125 in the House and serve in key leadership positions. Of course, when they highlight Elise Stefanik, who is the highest-ranking Republican woman, the highlight, only her policies that aren’t conservative, Elise Stefanik is not really conservative. 

She’s not a good conservative. She’s a major RINO. The only reason actually that she’s elevated to the position that she’s in is because she defended Trump during the hearings of the Ukraine impeachment. And she was great on that. Kudos to her. She did wonderfully. Trump then decided that she was on his side and he elevated her.  

But she’s actually a total RINO who believes in things like the Equality Act, which would force schools to allow biological men into women’s locker rooms at bathrooms. Like she’s not conservative whatsoever. So of course, the brief mention that that USA Today gives of the Republican side of the women in Congress. They’re talking about Elise Stefanik, not conservative stances which is of course absurd. And then of course, USA Today honors the US Women’s Soccer Team. This is what they write matching their success on the field. 

The players won in the legal arena. Two, ultimately promoting are prompting Congress to pack the equal pay for Team USA to act gross. These women don’t deserve to be paid equally as the men because they don’t do what the men do. The men bring in a ton more money than the women. Therefore, they deserve to be paid more because they earn more. It’s really truly that simple.  

These women are not facing discrimination. These women are not oppressed. These women are not deprived. These women are living what most people would say, living the dream. They’re getting to play the sport that they love for a living and getting paid for it, even though no one watches women’s soccer. But of course, USA Today is highlighting them because making women think they’re victims and making women who have been convinced that their victims turn to government to discriminate against men in the name of so-called equality, that is what USA Today is all about. 

There is there are two women actually that seem legitimately cool on this list, like legitimately cool. One of them, her name is Angela Tatum Malloy, and she’s from North Carolina. This is what USA Today writes about her through African-centered breastfeeding support, parenting, education and doula care. This Fayetteville resident works to improve maternal and infant health outcomes for black families.  

Now I’ll be honest with you here and say, I don’t know what her political ideology is, and I actually don’t care because what she’s doing is accidentally, probably, accidentally, maybe she knows this for a fact, I don’t know. She is exposing the fact that our healthcare system run by big pharma, run by places like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, insurance companies, the NIH, the CDC are anti-science. That the advice and the support you get from our medical industry does not beget the best outcome for moms and babies in pregnancy, in birth, and in postpartum. 

And that in order for moms to experience the best kind of healthcare, they generally have to go outside of the healthcare system. It’s not because it’s racist, it’s because the profiteering corrupt bureaucrats in government and terrible people in the private industry and the insurance in the insurance industry and in big pharma would rather profit off of us than actually compete to provide good healthcare. So it’s really cool that she is advocating for breastfeeding support and doula care, which oftentimes means that you have a better birth outcome, a better birth experience.  

That’s really cool, and I’m happy to see that. The other woman that is doing legitimately badass things is Kama Morris. Karina Morris is from New York, and this is what USA Today writes. After her 13 year old niece was murdered, this Buffalo woman launched a mission to bring other, missing, missing children home. 

Her work also supports families affected by homicide. If you read the full explanation of her work, she literally goes out in her car and hunts down missing children and finds them. This is like the absolute coolest thing. I can’t imagine how scary that is. I can’t imagine how dangerous that is. She finds children who have been abducted when authorities law enforcement don’t. That is really, really, really cool.  

Again, I don’t know her political ideology either, but her work is super cool and her description of her work is not infused with radical leftist Marxist ideology. So these are aside from those two and perhaps the young girl scientists who at least for science work is cool. Most of these women are some of the worst women of 2023. If you are a young woman, if you have a daughter, if you have a sister, if you have a wife, if you have a mother, these are not if, if you are a woman yourself, these are not the woman to copy. 

In fact, these women are terrible examples. This is what the Radical Left wants women to be. They want women to be men. They want women to be victims. They want women not to be independent. They want women to turn to government and to be activists for socialism, communism, and Marxism.  

And that’s why they highlighted each and every one of these women find a better role model, but understand that even if you and I laugh off, USA Today, USA Today has incredible cultural impact. And so lists like this, they’re tipping their hand. They’re telling us what they want our culture to look like. And if we don’t listen, then maybe we’re the fools.  

Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show. 

Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top