Today on the Matt Walsh Show, outrage over a plan by some congressional Republicans to form a caucus dedicated to preserving our Anglo-Saxon political traditions. This is offensive because, as the new rules clearly states, anything even loosely associated with whiteness is bad. We’ll talk about, and break, that rule today. Also Five Headlines including a high profile elected Democrat committing jury tampering and incitement. Shockingly, the people who were so worried about “incitement” a few months ago have nothing to say about this. And the mother of a “trans boy” goes viral. But the video proves the opposite of the point it’s supposed to prove. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll talk about the millions of Americans who apparently will cling onto their masks, even after they are vaccinated, because for them it has become nothing more than a security blanket.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, outrage over a plan by some congressional Republicans to form a caucus dedicated to preserving our Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
This is offensive because, as the new rules clearly state, anything even loosely associated with whiteness is bad.
We'll talk about and break that rule today.
Also, five headlines, including a high-profile elected Democrat committing jury tampering and incitement.
Shockingly, the people who were so worried about incitement a few months ago have nothing to say about this.
And the mother of a trans boy goes viral.
But the video proves the opposite of the point it's supposed to prove.
In our daily cancellation, we'll talk about the millions of Americans who apparently will cling on to their masks even after they're vaccinated because for them it's become nothing more than a security blanket.
We'll talk about that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The title of my talk is Delusions of Gender, How the Left Turns Boys into Girls.
And this again is a talk I'm giving in Austin.
I expect a warm reception.
Hopefully not in a literal sense.
So you can go to my Twitter or Facebook page and find a link to register to attend that talk there.
Now, if you made the mistake of spending any time on the internet over the weekend, you may have become acquainted with the latest fake controversy.
I'll read now from the NBC News article on Friday.
Get ready to be confused about what you're supposed to be offended by exactly, but here it is.
It says, a group of ultra-conservative House Republicans, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, are discussing launching an America First caucus that would protect, quote, Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
Representative Louis Gomer of Texas told reporters that he's looking at joining.
There's an America First caucus, he said, confirming that Green has evolved.
A seven-page organizing document that includes the group's name and a logo, first reported by Punchbowl News, whatever that is, says, America is a nation with a border and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
It adds that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en masse into a country, especially without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country.
Okay.
It's a four-page document, but that's part of what it says.
Now if you have a fully intact brain, which has not been partially eaten by worms at this point, you'll hear that and think, okay, so what?
Yes, America First conservatives are against mass immigration.
No news there, and that's for a good reason they're against it, by the way.
Yes, we're supposed to be a nation with a border and a culture.
And yes, we have Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
All of that is undeniably true.
But it's that last part, right, Anglo-Saxon, which sent the outrage into overdrive.
The outrage followed, as it always does, the familiar path first.
Leftists on the internet were mad, and then high-profile Democrats joined in, and then high-profile Republicans, in an effort to signal that they're really good little boys and girls, also joined.
Representative Adam Kissinger of Illinois said that the representatives involved in the caucus should be punished, and they should have all their committee assignments taken away.
Representative Ken Buck said that the caucus plan was hateful and ignorant.
Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming called it nativist, racist, and somehow anti-semitic.
I don't know.
And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called it a nativist dog whistle.
And then the Democrats came over and patted them all on their heads and gave them lollipops, I guess, because that's what they were hoping for.
Finally, the inevitable conclusion to this familiar saga, as NBC News again reports, Now, this was yesterday, they said two far-right House Republicans linked to a document calling for the protection of Anglo-Saxon political traditions distanced themselves from what they said was a draft of prescriptions for an America First caucus.
Representative Paul Gosar said in a Saturday statement that he did not author the document and that he became aware of it only after it was reported by the news media, saying he'll continue to work on America First issues in the House Freedom Caucus.
He said, quote, let me be perfectly clear.
I did not author this paper.
In fact, I first became aware of it by reading about it in the news yesterday like everybody else.
In addition, Nick Dyer, a spokesperson for Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, said in a statement that the document was merely an early planning proposal and nothing was agreed to or approved.
All right.
Now, it's unfortunate that they distanced themselves, as there is nothing that needs to be distanced from.
Narrowing in on the Anglo-Saxon term.
It is, again, undeniably true that we have Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
Anyone who favors our system of government must also be in favor of preserving those traditions.
The critics can't really deny this, and for the most part, they don't, or aren't bothering to deny it.
Instead, they're simply insisting that we can't acknowledge this truth.
And if we do acknowledge it, we can't be proud of it.
That's the rule.
And it is a rule strictly followed by the GIMP contingent on the right, of which Kevin McCarthy is the leader.
The rest of us, though, should just ignore it.
What's the problem with Anglo-Saxon, exactly?
Well, simply that it's loosely associated with whiteness.
In the minds of the left.
It doesn't mean the same thing.
There are plenty of white people who aren't Anglo-Saxon, plenty of people who defend and enjoy Anglo-Saxon traditions, who are not white, and would have been, by the way, invited into that caucus.
But even so, anything associated, however loosely, with the ever-broadening category known as whiteness cannot be anything but evil.
That's the rule now.
Notice how the America First Caucus never said that only those with Anglo-Saxon ancestry can join the caucus.
No, see, for that kind of racism, you have to look to the Congressional Black Caucus, which excludes white members.
In fact, here's a Politico article from 2007, and I think it seems relevant here.
It says, quote, As a white liberal running in a majority African-American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year.
If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans.
He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.
Cohen said, I think they're real happy I'm not going to join.
It's their caucus and they do things their way.
You don't force your way in.
You need to be invited.
Cohen said that he became convinced that joining the caucus would be a social faux pas after seeing news reports that former representative William Lacey Clay, a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was, quote, critical that the group remain, quote, exclusively African American.
Okay, there you have a congressional caucus which denies entry based on race.
And yet we're supposed to accept that a caucus which denies entry to whites is not racist, while a caucus that merely mentions Anglo-Saxon traditions is racist?
If you're still going along with these kinds of double standards and accepting them, I don't know what to tell you.
You're a lost cause.
But I think I might sell the issue short by calling it a mere double standard.
Double standards are annoying, right?
The double standards around race, though, in this country are far worse than mere annoyances.
Again, the problem with the term Anglo-Saxon In the minds of those offended by it, is that they associate it with whiteness.
And whiteness, as they've made quite clear, is bad.
The message is that if you're white, the only thing you're allowed to feel about your identity is guilt.
Everybody else on earth, all other races, may feel proud of their identity and history.
They may even feel superior and declare themselves to be so publicly.
That is outright definitional racism, and it's acceptable, as long as the person displaying it is not white.
For whites, the only acceptable feeling is one of guilt, remorse, and regret.
All for sins they didn't personally commit, and which, even if their ancestors did commit, everyone else's ancestors also committed.
But all of the sins of the past, slavery, racism, conquest, which are shared by all people, the common heritage of the whole fallen human race, must be carried exclusively by white people.
To even protest this or object to it is racist.
To even say so much as, I'm a white man and I like being who I am, is racist.
You're not allowed to like being who you are, if you're white.
This is not defensible.
It's not sustainable either.
History shows clearly the danger of singling out certain races and saying, oh yeah, well, we're allowed to say certain things and do certain things and have certain attitudes, but not you.
You can't.
This is for us, not you.
That has never worked out well.
Though in another sense, it has exactly the effect that is intended.
So it works out perfectly in another sense.
The point is to divide and dehumanize.
That's what's happening now.
And if you're white, all you're supposed to do in response to all of that is keep apologizing.
Which is why I must say as a white man, I for one do not apologize for being who I am.
I don't accept any historical racial guilt at all.
I apologize for nothing.
I don't expect anyone else to either.
What I want is for us all to simply live under the same standard.
That's it.
And that should not be controversial.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
That's your last chance this week.
My friends over at constitutioncoach.com have many wonderful programs for equipping citizens to defend liberty by studying and living out the Constitution, and you want to experience this for yourself.
I've experienced their constitutional defense course.
And the great thing is that you cover all the bases.
It's the intellectual bases, you're learning about our history, about the Constitution.
You're also getting the physical training at the premier firearms training facility in the nation, all in the same course.
You get to join hundreds of other patriots from across the nation for a time of learning, training, and fellowship with like-minded people.
Whether you've shot guns your whole life, or you've never touched one, or you're somewhere in between in your skill level, they took me to a whole new skill level.
They'll do the same for anyone, and that's why you need to not just get a gun, All right, so as mentioned in the opening, Maxine Waters, perhaps the biggest scumbag in Congress.
yourself and your family, go to constitutioncoach.com.
Rick and the Constitution Coach team have another class again on April 25th,
but it's filling up fast, so last chance, go visit constitutioncoach.com.
All right, so as mentioned in the opening, Maxine Waters, perhaps the biggest scumbag in Congress.
I mean, there's a lot of competition for that title, but I would maybe give her,
I would, she's in the top three, certainly.
She's in the running.
Anyway, she traveled to Minnesota.
She traveled from D.C.
to Minnesota to incite a riot and intimidate jurors.
That's what she did.
A whole series of felonies she committed, and she did it on video for everyone to see.
We can all watch it.
We'll watch it right now.
Here it is.
And so, yes, I would like to see the bill in Congress passed on police reform.
But I know that the right wing, the racists, are opposed to it.
And I don't know what's going to happen to it.
But I know this, we've got to stay in the street.
And we've got to demand justice.
As a black man, despite all the efforts, I feel like nothing changes.
And George Floyd is waking so many people up.
We're looking for a guilty verdict.
But you know, despite the rhetoric, what needs to happen that's different this year than
all the years before?
We're looking for a guilty verdict.
I am very hopeful and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that is a guilty verdict.
What should the people do?
And if we don't, we cannot go away.
And not just manslaughter, right?
Oh no, not manslaughter. No, no, no.
This is guilty for murder.
I don't know whether it's in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned, it's first degree murder.
Ms. Congresswoman, what happens if we do not get what you just told?
What should the people do?
What should protesters on the street do?
I didn't hear you.
Can you get more confrontational than burning buildings down?
And we've got to get more active.
We've got to get more confrontational.
We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.
More confrontational.
Can you get more confrontational than burning buildings down?
Well, we're gonna find out.
By the way, she's calling for Chauvin to be found guilty of a charge that he's not
He's not charged with premeditated murder.
He's not charged with first-degree murder.
That's what she wants.
So she's already setting it up, and doing so intentionally, of course, that no matter what... I mean, he could be found guilty on every single charge, and that's not going to be enough because he wasn't charged with enough crimes as far as she's concerned.
So she's already setting that up.
And of course, needless to say, if you're actually worried about truth and justice and all that kind of stuff, it doesn't make any sense.
It's not even that she's giving a press conference in DC.
That'd be bad enough.
She went to the community.
She went to the city where this trial is happening.
She went to the community where these jurors live.
And said, if you don't give us a guilty verdict, if you don't, in fact, conjure up a charge that doesn't exist and convict them on that, then we're gonna be more confrontational, quote unquote, wink, wink, wink.
But if, even like leaving aside all the many crimes she committed there, obviously, it doesn't make any sense, if you actually care about truth and justice, to be protesting Ahead of the jury verdict.
He was charged.
He had a trial.
That's what we do in this country.
And now the jury is going to weigh the evidence and come to a determination.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
To demand a certain verdict doesn't make any sense.
If you care about truth and justice, which obviously they don't.
And this is why we know, closing arguments today, but the case has been presented.
So we can say now, officially, if you've been following the trial, as I have, that we have seen the state present its whole case.
And I was not convinced by the state's case all the whole way, but I at least, I'm the one preaching, we have to let the trial play out, so I tried to allow that to happen.
Thinking maybe, I didn't think it was going to happen, but maybe somewhere along the line they'll come up with compelling evidence.
They never did.
And so now we can say, after the trial's already happened, we've seen the state present its case, it doesn't really have a case.
If the jury is making this decision based on the evidence, they would acquit on all charges.
Not because they think Derek Chauvin's a great guy, not because they want him to be back on the police force.
Not even because they're categorically rejecting the idea that he murdered George Floyd.
But just because there's just bundles of reasonable doubt here.
Reasonable doubt all over the place, through every facet.
It is at least, I think we can say this, like being as conservative as we can, it is at least Reasonably plausible, even now, after seeing the state's evidence, that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and nothing Chauvin did caused it.
Even now, that remains a reasonable possibility.
Which means he should be acquitted, but I just don't see that happening.
Because these jurors, think about the situation they're in.
First of all, if it were me, There's no way I would allow myself to be on that jury.
Like, I would say whatever I had to say to not be on it.
But the situation they're in now is, um... This is happening in their community.
This is where they live.
And probably they're screwed no matter what, because like I said, Chauvin isn't charged with first-degree murder, and that's what these morons in the street want.
And because they're morons, or in the case of Maxine Waters, dishonest scumbags, and also a moron, they're going to blame the jury for the fact that he's not convicted of first-degree murder, no matter what happens.
But if they were to acquit on all charges, here's what they know is going to happen.
Their lives are ruined.
And they may be killed for it.
Because their identities are going to leak, that's going to happen really quickly.
At a minimum, they have to leave, basically enter witness protection.
In effect.
But this follows them for the rest of their lives.
They have to live the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder.
To come back with acquittal in a situation like that would require, I mean, immense... It would be one of the greatest examples of moral courage, I think, that we've seen in modern times.
Really.
To follow the evidence and do your job knowing, knowing what's going to happen because of it.
Most people don't have that kind of moral courage.
I don't know if I have it.
Like I said, I'd be trying to get off the jury.
I got a family I got to look out for.
Now, by the way, hours after Maxine Waters said that we have to get more confrontational, there was a drive-by shooting against the National Guard in the city.
Hours later.
So, I mean, do we know that they did that because of what Maxine Waters said?
No.
But they certainly are following her recommendation.
They're getting more confrontational.
How do you get more confrontational with burning down buildings?
Well, start shooting at the cops, I guess.
The BLM, they've been doing that.
But do it more?
Yeah.
That's one way.
Remember Trump at January 6th, at his speech to the crowd.
He actually said the words.
Now you can speculate all you want about his intentions and everything else, but he did say the words, peaceful.
He said we have to go, whatever the exact phrase was, I know for sure he said the word peaceful.
We have to speak out peacefully, you know, about this, he said.
Words to that effect.
But he put the word peaceful in there.
So all you're left with is speculation that, yeah, he said peaceful, he didn't really mean it, and he knew that the people in the crowd would interpret it that way.
Well, notice with these Democrats, they're not even bothering to say peaceful with a wink.
They could say that, and it would actually make a difference.
If Maxine Waters had flown in from D.C.
and said, listen guys, We're really upset about this, and so on and so forth, validating all their emotions, but we have to be peaceful.
This is not the way to go about this.
If she had said something simple like that, it would have made a difference.
But she doesn't want peace.
It is the omission of that word.
It almost doesn't matter anything else she says.
The fact that the deafening silence from Democrats, that they will not come out and even say, let's be peaceful.
All right, let's move on to number two.
Chris Cuomo on CNN a couple days ago, he said that if you're a white parent, your child might need to be killed in order for the political changes that he wants to happen.
Let's listen to that.
Because you want to make the problem them.
Takes the onus off the idea that you're wrong about policing not needing to change.
Forget that police are trained to deal with non-compliance with force that is not lethal.
Hey, comply or die!
And you know what the answer is?
You really do.
You don't like it.
I don't like it.
It scares me.
Shootings?
Gun laws, access to weapons?
Oh, yeah, I know when they'll change.
Your kids start getting killed?
White people's kids start getting killed?
Smoking that doobie that's actually legal, probably, in your state now, but they don't know what it was, and then the kid runs, and then, pop, pop, pop, pop!
Cop was justified.
Why'd you run?
Oh, we had a baseball game tonight.
Huh.
The white kid.
Oh, big family, that house over there?
Those start piling up?
What is going on with these police?
Maybe we shouldn't even have police.
That kind of mania, that kind of madness, that'll be you.
That'll be the majority, because it's your people.
Really?
Well, because white people's kids are getting killed by the cops.
How many times do I have to explain that?
That is happening.
It's happening more often than are black people's kids being killed by the cops.
More often.
It's not just happening, it's happening more often.
500 since 2020.
A little over 500 white people killed by the cops.
I don't know what the comparison he's making there.
The kid runs away because he's trying to get to a baseball game.
What is that supposed to be analogous to?
Is that supposed to be Adam Toledo?
The 13 year old kid?
He ran because he was trying to get to a baseball game?
At 3am?
After he was just firing a gun at a car?
That's why the cops came.
With Adam Toledo.
And the 21-year-old gangbanger that he was with.
Adam Toledo had just gotten a Latin Kings tattoo.
You know, he's in a gang.
A gang, by the way, that's terrorizing the city.
And they were firing a gun at a passing car.
You could easily kill someone just for the sake of it.
The cops know that.
They know they're not there for a kid smoking a doobie.
To use Cuomo's boomer language.
They know that.
They were not called to the scene because someone complained that there are some kids out in the street smoking a joint.
They're called to the scene to a gang-infested area because there's people firing guns at passing cars.
So that's what they know.
And then they see someone.
They don't know if he's 30.
They don't know his age.
In that moment, it doesn't make a difference.
It's someone with a loaded gun.
No matter your age, you're just as capable of firing a gun and killing somebody.
So they see someone with a gun that they know was just being used.
And then he runs and he stops and he turns around and ditches the gun behind a fence so that the cops can't see him do it.
The implication from idiots like Cuomo is that if Adam Toledo was white, they wouldn't have shot?
Could they even tell his race?
It's 3 a.m.
and they're out in a dark back alley.
Could they even tell what his race was?
Are you suggesting?
Because what this was about for the cop who fired the shot, justifiably fired the shot, for him it was a matter of self-preservation.
Confronting a suspect, you don't know who, got a gun that he was just firing.
Dark alley, he's got nowhere to take cover.
He's totally, this cop is totally exposed.
He knows this person, the suspect has a gun, he turns and now it's just, it's self-preservation.
Do I want to go home and see my family tonight?
Or do I want to die right now?
Do I want this, whoever this is, this gangster, who I don't know who it is, do I want them to kill me?
Do I want to be taken down by this person?
That's the decision.
Now, are you suggesting that if he knew the suspect, didn't even know it was a kid, if he knew the suspect was white, he'd be more willing to be killed?
You think that's going to factor into his calculation?
He's going to say, well, he's white, you know, I'll take one for the team.
It is so delusionally insane, this claim.
99.999% of police shootings, even the unjustified ones, it's about self-preservation for the police.
They're trying to save their own lives.
There are cases where they are a little too eager to do that.
The Daniel Shaver case, which, again, is one that BLM completely ignores, even though it is the worst police shooting ever caught on video, to my mind, It's certainly up there.
BLM ignores it because Daniel Shaver was white.
But the cops there, did they kill him?
They were all white people in that hallway.
When they shot Daniel Shaver while he was on his knees, literally begging for his life, they were all white people.
Was it racially motivated?
No.
Did that cop go to that hallway and he just felt like killing someone that day?
Probably not.
This was self-preservation, but he wasn't willing to take any chance at all.
He'd rather just kill this guy.
Even if there was like a 0.01% chance that the guy had a gun hidden somewhere and was about to pull it out, he said, I'd rather just kill him.
Doesn't make it okay.
That police officer should have went to jail.
That was murder.
But let's just, let's be reasonable thinking adults about what motivates these kinds of things.
Most of the time when a cop, even when a cop is being overly aggressive, why is he being overly aggressive?
All it takes is a basic understanding of human psychology.
Self-preservation is an overwhelming, overriding factor.
It can go too far.
In the case of Adam Toledo, self-preservation led to a tragic result, but it didn't go too far.
He made a reasonable choice that I submit almost anyone else would have made if they were in that alley that night.
Facing an unknown perp who has a gun that he was just firing.
Alright, um, let's see, what else do we have here?
I wanna, okay, we're gonna play, I gotta play this.
From the Hill, it says, the mother of a transgender boy in Texas went viral this week after making an emotional plea to state lawmakers about a bill that would make it illegal for parents to provide gender-affirming health care, gender-affirming health care, quotes around that, procedures for their children.
Under the bill, parents aiding their transgender children in receiving medical care, including puberty suppressant drugs, medical procedures, and hormone replacement therapy, would be labeled abusers, and their actions would be considered a felony.
Good afternoon.
under the age of 18, great law.
But Amber Briggle, who's the mother of a quote unquote trans boy, didn't like it.
She spoke out during a legislative session and this went viral.
A lot of you go girl type of responses from the left.
Let's listen to what she had to say.
Good afternoon.
My name is Amber Briggle and I am terrified to be here today.
I'm terrified because I'm the parent of a transgender child.
And I'm afraid that by speaking here today, my words will be used against me
should SB 1646 or SB 1311 pass.
And my sweet son, whom I love more than life itself, will be taken from me.
(sighing)
But here I am.
I want you to know how hard it is for me to be here today.
Not only am I terrified for the future of my family, but I'm a small business owner with two children at home who are still going to public school 100% online.
I have a million better things to do than be here today, like rebuilding my business and supervising my children's online learning and repairing the damage that occurred to my home when the electric grid failed.
But this committee and the bill's authors somehow deems my son's private medical care more important than COVID relief for women-owned small businesses or making public schools safer or fixing ERCOT.
Okay, I want to stop it there for just one second.
She has about three and a half minutes.
We're not gonna play the whole thing.
I'll have some mercy on you.
But she has about three and a half minutes to make her point, give her a little speech.
Now we're almost a half of the way into it, over a third of the way into it, and you notice what, like a minute, 15 seconds out of three minutes, I, me, my, this is all about her.
She spent the first third at least talking about herself.
That should tell you something for these parents.
It's about them.
Okay, this is not a coincidence.
This is almost always the case when you listen to parents of quote-unquote trans children and you hear them make their case.
It's like mostly them and then they'll throw in, and we'll get to this in a second, and then they'll throw in their concerns for their child.
But the justification for how they're treating their child and the long-term effects on their child and the well-being of their child, that's really an afterthought.
It's mostly about them.
As far as her child goes, let's listen to what she has to say.
My son was four years old.
He asked me if scientists could turn him into a boy.
I didn't understand then that he was trans.
I only knew that he wasn't like most girls his age, and that something inside him was hurting.
Like many of you, I thought he was asking for surgery, and I freaked out.
Okay.
None of that is true, by the way.
It's all completely false.
the gender affirmation surgery isn't done on minors, and that there is a whole array of medical options
available for transgender youth, including hormone blockers, which are 100% reversible,
are not new and are clinically proven to save the lives of the trans children taking them.
Okay.
None of that is true, by the way.
It's all completely false.
Now, it may be true that in most cases, the surgical mutilation is gonna happen after they turn 18,
but the conditioning and the brainwashing leading to that happens when they're young.
So the fact that you're waiting until they turn 18 to actually do this thing that you've conditioned them for and brainwashed them into for all these years, you know, that to me doesn't make me feel any better at all.
But what you're doing before that is drugging them.
Chemical castration, before you get to the physical, surgical castration.
Again, doesn't make me feel much better about it.
Doesn't make it any better.
What she said about it is 100% totally reversible.
That is BS.
She does not... Nobody actually really knows the full long-term effects of this.
Because we've never done it on anything approaching this scale ever before in history.
This is a new thing.
This generation of children, they are the guinea pig generation.
We don't actually know.
Before this, you have scattered cases here and there, but to this extent, we have not had a sample size, put it this way, we haven't had a sample size big enough to really know yet what the long-term effects are.
So all of these children with the totally reversible and safe puberty blockers, what What impact is that going to have on them 20 years from now?
30 years from now?
You don't really know.
You don't.
You just hope that it works out.
And even if it doesn't, your child's long-term physical health, and even short-term physical health, is a side issue.
That's not the primary thing for you.
And then she says, when my child was four years old, he came to me and said, can scientists turn me into a girl?
Or no, it was a girl who's a boy now, right?
Identifying as a boy.
Let me rephrase.
It's a girl whose mother has identified her as a boy.
Okay.
So she says that when her daughter was four, she said, can scientists turn me into a boy?
This is a really easy thing to handle as a parent.
It's not even a difficult situation.
It's not.
Okay?
When your four-year-old says something like that, very easy.
I don't even want to hear.
It goes too far for me when I hear conservatives sometimes say, well, at least we have to admit this is a difficult situation for parents.
No, it's not.
Especially not at that age.
Now you've got a 16-year-old who out of nowhere, and I've heard of cases like this, a 16-year-old out of nowhere comes home one day and says, I want to change genders.
That's difficult.
Of course, the response from the parent, you can never go along with it.
But it's not a simple thing to solve.
And it's going to take therapy.
It's just that is difficult.
That's painful as a parent.
For a four-year-old, though, not hard.
I don't want to hear that it's hard.
It's so hard, I didn't know what to do.
He's four.
She's four.
You know what you say when the daughter says, can scientists change me into a boy?
No, they can't.
You're a girl and that's a wonderful thing.
Oh, but I think I'm a boy.
It's okay.
You're a girl.
It's okay.
Go run along and play.
That's it.
That's all you have to do.
It is really that simple and that easy.
Unless, you know...
Unless, as a parent, you were waiting for something like that.
Or maybe you planted those seeds in your child's head.
Because this is Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, and you are planting this gender dysphoria in the child's head.
For your own purposes.
Because you want to parade your kid around like a prop.
And show the world how enlightened you are, as parents.
But if you actually are concerned, just for any parent, whatever a four-year-old's... Four-year-olds are actually really easy to deal with.
They are.
These are simple, innocent little kids.
They're easy to deal with.
Alright, let's... Okay, we're gonna move on to reading the YouTube comments.
This one is from Fern Diaz, says, thank you for calling out the stupidity behind the term Latinx.
I, along with every single friend of mine who are Latino or Latina, think it's idiotic and would never use it and would not want anyone to use it to describe us.
Yeah.
I have honestly yet to hear, and I've brought this up several times, you know, on the internet and I've, you know, I've just, because I'm curious, is there any Latino person who actually likes this term and uses it?
I've yet to meet a single one.
But you wouldn't expect that, because not only is it ridiculous, but it doesn't make any sense.
In the Spanish language, it doesn't... Latinx doesn't mean it.
It doesn't make any sense.
And it is such a gendered language that to randomly, you know, de-gender this one term, again, makes no sense.
Audrey says, honestly, I support Matt's decision to look atrocious once every week with that shirt.
Takes guts.
Godspeed, brother.
You know, I'm going to take that as a compliment because you're saying I only look atrocious once a week.
There are those who would say it's more often than that.
Jared Powell says, your opening on this was so true, but legitimately depressing to listen to.
The kid was 13 and never really had a chance.
You know, I agree with you.
I mean, yeah, of course, it's a terrible thing, it's depressing, it's tragic, but when you say the kid never had a chance, I agree with you there, too.
That's why a 13-year-old, I don't blame the 13-year-old kid, he's 13.
And you take me, you take anyone, and you put them in the environment that this kid was in, take the father out of the picture, neglect at home, Falls in with the wrong crowd, parents don't care about it or just aren't on the scene.
Like all of that together, all the things we talked about on Friday.
You take any kid and throw them into that situation, they could be the one in that back alley by the fence holding the gun.
So yeah, that's why, you know, I don't blame the kid.
13 is so young, you know.
And your ability, that's one of the points I always come back to with the gender thing.
These kids are so young and their ability to evaluate risk and reward and to make mature, long-term decisions and all that kind of stuff.
Discernment, I mean, their ability to do any of that is, shall we say, very, very underdeveloped.
Which is why, for me, it goes back to the parents.
I don't blame the kid, I blame the parents.
The kid, you can't expect them to know better, given the circumstances.
The adults around him, you do expect them to know better.
And to do a better job of raising their kids.
And so that's where I put the blame.
Not on the cop, not on the kid, on the parents.
Finally, this is from Hank, who has apparently written a poem about my polka dot shirt.
You go through all that effort, I have to read it on the show.
Here it is.
Oh, how the interstices of many a white dot Defy darkness with their promise of light and ardor, That through the fabric Matt's tender heart is not Cancelled by virtue of this, his knight's armour.
This majestic men's blouse, seamed with gold, Casts wide its net of fashion's statement, That this his soul, so pure, so bold, Impresses the oppression of his critic's abatement.
And so to you, sir, I bid Godspeed on your departure from your shirt so flanneled, and pray indeed that you may consider my own need, that this poem be heralded and summarily cancelled.
Well done.
I really brought a tear to my eye.
It actually did.
You can't see it.
I only cry invisible tears.
I'm a man, but it is, I'm crying on the inside.
Beautiful.
That my, you know what?
So this is not, that my polka dot shirt Could bring this kind of beauty into the world.
That's a lesson for all of us, I think, isn't it?
Well done.
Well done, good sir.
Some people might be surprised to learn this, but I actually am... I enjoy cooking, and I think I'm a pretty darn good cook, if I do say so myself.
At least that's what my wife will tell me, I think, because she likes it when I cook, so she doesn't have to, so she flatters me.
But one thing about cooking is that you get a lot of appliances in the kitchen, they take up a lot of space, and that's why it's great to get an appliance that kind of can cover a lot of the other bases that you use other appliances for.
Chef Emeril Lagasse's Power Air Fryer 360 is what you've got to check out.
It's award-winning for a reason.
This is so much more than an air fryer.
It's an air fryer, rotisserie, toaster, broiler, pizza oven, and more, all in one, so you get rid of all the other stuff.
All you need is this.
Do you love fried foods but hate the guilt?
Well, Emeril's Air Fryer 360 cooks with hot air, not oil, so you can cook healthier with up to 70% fewer calories from fat.
Plus, it's faster than traditional appliances.
So how do they do it?
Their 360 degree quick cook turbo heat technology cooks food with a whirlwind of superheated air to get that great crispy fried taste, but you're not getting all the oils and everything in it.
Which means that it's not only healthier, but for me, more important than healthy is the taste.
And I don't care about health, I care about taste.
And it tastes a lot better as well.
You've got to try this yourself.
Emeril's Air Fryer 360 makes an amazing Mother's Day gift.
Right now, they have an exclusive offer just for the Matt Walsh Show listeners.
If you go to TryEmerilAir.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll receive 10% off plus free shipping.
Now's the time to get that gift for Mother's Day.
So head now to TryEmerilAir.com.
That's T-R-Y-E-N-E-R-I-L, air.com.
Use our promo code WALSH.
One last time, TryEmerilAir.com.
And use promo code WALSH.
Well, it's almost time for another episode of Candice.
This week's special guest is Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, which is the largest mixed martial arts organization in the world.
And you probably already know who Dana White is, but I explained it if you needed it.
The show streams on Fridays at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, only on dailywire.com, and you can get 25% off a new membership with code CANDICE.
Also get the audio podcast, Candice, as well on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
If you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, make sure to go there.
Leave the five-star review if you like what you hear.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we're going to cancel slates, and the reason may seem counterintuitive at first.
Well, there's nothing counterintuitive about cancelling slate in general.
You know, they could be cancelled every day in principle simply for existing.
But the specific thing that's causing the cancel hammer to come down on them today is this article published on Saturday with the title, It's About Time For Us To Stop Wearing Masks Outside.
And then it says, Briefly passing someone on the sidewalk just isn't risky.
The article goes on to make the simple case, already summarized, that wearing masks outdoors is effectively pointless.
You almost certainly aren't going to spread COVID or contract it by walking past someone on a sidewalk.
The piece concludes with this paragraph.
While I'm not super interested in breaking my city's social norms, especially while our cases are still high, our collective agreement to mask up obsessively outdoors comes at a cost.
Masking can be exhausting.
It makes recreation really annoying, especially as the weather warms.
It makes it difficult to escape even temporarily from the pandemic.
It deprives us of seeing one another's smiles.
I'm aware that these are also arguments deployed by those who decry all masking, even indoors.
But the point is that masking shouldn't be about signaling what side you're on.
It should be about using a tool in response to a risk.
Being overly vigilant about masks, when they are not important, makes it more difficult to keep wearing them when they are.
Also, I fear that it is making us look a little ridiculous.
Well, that last point is wrong.
I mean, it doesn't make you look a little ridiculous.
Also, notice how this is presumably a left-wing writer in Slate saying, I don't want to break my town's social norms.
Oh, how the cultural radicals have fallen.
I don't want to break... Isn't that your whole thing at Slate?
Breaking social norms?
Now, why am I cancelling Slate for making an argument that's correct, and which I myself have been making for months on end?
Because it's too late.
The left-wing media has been fear-mongering for too long, and as a result, many people in this country have become paranoid lunatics, and there may be no rescuing them now.
The time for sanity was months ago.
Now this sane and reasonable position, which is also scientifically unassailable, was met with anger by Slate's own readers.
Just listen to some of the comments under this article when they posted it to Twitter.
I'll read a few.
We don't wear them to only protect ourselves.
We wear them to help protect others.
What is wrong with you?
Someone else says, wearing my mask outside makes me feel safer.
It also helps to reduce the amount of pollen I'm breathing in as well.
I felt so much better this spring.
Someone else says, actually, I like wearing my mask when I go for walks, and will be sad to see them go.
I don't have to eat dust or exhaust from traffic, having 100% sunblock, need no moisturizer or lipstick, and see people learning to look into each other's windows of the soul.
Someone else says, she can say what she wants.
Pre-masks, when walking behind someone who was smoking and they exhaled, you got waft of smoke in your face if the wind was right.
COVID is no different, only you can't see it.
If you're walking behind someone, you could be breathing their exhalation.
Someone else, is the writer a doctor?
I appreciate the citing of studies, but one more random person's opinion on how to wear masks is unhelpful.
Why even publish this?
We have enough issues with masking, mask wearing generally, regardless of whether this opinion has any validity.
And then here's my favorite.
More clickbait BS.
Must be losing readers.
Only they spelled losing L-O-O-S-N, S-I-N-G, so it's loosing readers.
Yeah, clickbait.
Just saying, hey guys, we probably don't have to wear masks outside.
That's clickbait.
Look at this.
The point is they see that as not just wrong, but like outlandish.
It is outlandishly wrong that you should wear a mask outside.
So outlandish that if you say it, the only reason you could possibly be saying it is just for clickbait.
See, it's almost terrifying to peer even briefly into the minds of these disturbed and pitiful people.
Their brains have been broken.
They need the mask as a security blanket to simply walk outside their house.
In some cases, they're admitting that that's the case.
At this point, a person wearing a mask outside should be treated with the same respect as a grown man clutching his teddy bear while he walks down the street.
It's exactly the same sort of thing.
And to be clear, we should not have any respect for the grown man with the teddy bear.
Like, our response to that should be the same.
Imagine walking, you see a grown man with his teddy bear and a pacifier in his mouth, walking down the street.
Now, of course, you know, this doesn't really work because these days we probably would be told that we have to have respect for that person's lifestyle choices.
But in saner times, you would look at that and say, what the hell?
This guy's crazy.
It's the same thing.
Speaking of men who clutch teddy bears, a guy named Nick Nudson Somehow his name is just perfect. I don't know why.
HuffPo writer and Democrat activist posted his outdoor mask selfie to Twitter along with this caption.
He says, "Retweet if you're partially or fully vaccinated, but you're still wearing a mask to help protect your
community. #WearAMask."
Post a photo in the reply.
Nick is vaccinated and wearing his mask outside.
Many people in the replies are in his boat and proud of it.
One woman who apparently works for Disney posted a picture of herself out in public in an astronaut helmet.
Not meant to be a joke.
And it isn't a joke.
It's mental illness.
This is mental illness that's been fostered, instilled into the minds of the public by guys like Dr. Fauci.
And Fauci's not letting up anytime soon.
Here he is on Meet the Press yesterday, recommending that people still wear masks while vaccinated.
Let's listen to that.
Why does a vaccinated person have to wear a mask?
Okay, this is something that as we get more information, it's going to be pulling back that you won't have to, but currently the reason is that when you get vaccinated, you are clearly diminishing dramatically your risk of getting infected.
That's one of the things we've got to make sure everybody understands.
You dramatically diminish it.
However, what happens is that you might get infected and get absolutely no symptoms, not know you're infected, and then inadvertently go into a situation with vulnerable people, and if you don't have a mask, you might inadvertently infect them.
Now there's a small risk of that.
But it's there.
The other thing is that there may be variants that are circulating.
We know New York area has their own variant of 526.
There's a South African variant.
Fortunately for us, Chuck, the 117 variant that is dominant in Europe and in UK is also now dominant in the United States.
Thank goodness the vaccine works very well against that variant.
Now just so you know, the CDC says that 0.008% of vaccinated people have had breakthrough cases where they still get COVID.
So he talks about a small risk, okay?
Let's be clear about how small.
0.008%.
That's not much higher than your chance of getting struck by lightning.
It's much smaller, much smaller than your chance of dying in a car accident.
There are a million risks out there which pose a greater threat than 0.008%.
If we're supposed to mask even with 8.008% risk, then we really shouldn't be going anywhere or doing anything.
We shouldn't walk down the steps without a helmet on.
Maybe the astronaut helmet.
Or eat a meal without chopping it into small bits first to prevent choking.
Or sit in a bathtub without a life jacket.
You know, on this risk assessment philosophy, you shouldn't be doing anything.
0.008% risk is the kind of risk that healthy, insane people ignore.
Yes, you just ignore it.
When someone tells you there's a 0.008% chance of such and such happening, you just say, okay, go about your day.
Because the only other option is paralyzation.
If you have to respond to a risk like that at all, then you can't live your life.
The only other option is to basically give up on living a normal human life, all in the hopes of preserving the very life that you've effectively forfeited.
These are the kinds of calculations that millions of Americans have lost the ability to make.
This is the point.
We all used to make them intuitively.
You know, there have always been areas where our caution exceeded what is statistically justified.
Like, for example, parents worry that their kids are going to be kidnapped by a stranger in a van or something.
Something that almost never happens in real life.
But most parents, and this has been the case for a while, are more worried about that and take more precautions against it That is statistically justified.
But for the most part, most of us carried on living our lives basically free of crippling paranoia.
But that's not the case anymore.
For many people, COVID was the first time that they seriously faced their own mortality.
And that, you know, startling confrontation coupled with the sustained fear mongering and panic porn from the media caused a sort of psychotic break for a lot of people.
For most people, the risk posed by COVID was never lethal.
Or even especially severe for most people.
But the combination of psychological factors noted above made it so that lots of these people could not process the situation that they found themselves in.
We all have an internal risk calculator that's working all the time, and for a lot of people it broke.
Next thing you know, they're walking alone in the woods with two masks and a visor.
Publications like Slate and other left-wing media outlets could have helped prevent this early on by simply being reasonable and honest.
But the media are the ones who pushed the idea early on that there's no difference between 100% risk and 0.001% risk.
You know, any risk is too much.
That's why you weren't allowed to point out that there's no reason to wear a mask outside.
Or that asymptomatic transmission really probably isn't a huge concern.
Yes, it can happen.
Anytime you bring this up, people always say, what do you mean?
It can happen.
Maybe it can, but there's no reason to think that it's likely.
You weren't allowed to say that.
You also weren't allowed to say that, hey, you know, washing your hands is great and all, but you're probably not going to get COVID from touching a surface that a guy with COVID touched three hours ago.
Like, you don't need to use hand sanitizer every time you touch something.
Weren't allowed to say that.
All of these true and reasonable things were shouted down, in some cases censored, by big tech.
The marching orders for an entire year were that no amount of COVID risk is acceptable.
None.
And this, of course, was always insane and unworkable.
But it's the dynamic that outlets like Slate helped to create.
Now, some of them may want to pull back, perhaps because some of the people, you know, working in these outlets who push the panic porn really are just sick of living like this.
But it's too late.
In fact, just a couple of months ago, Slate itself published an article recommending double masking outside.
Now they want to retreat back into a semblance of sanity.
I wish that were possible.
For a lot of people, it's not.
They've gone insane.
And oftentimes, that trip is a one-way ticket.
And that's why Slate and all other COVID fear peddlers are once again completely and totally cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager, Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Maxine Waters calls for more leftist street violence.
