Ep. 878 - The Left Attacks Dr. Phil For Allowing Me To Speak
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left is now going after Dr. Phil for allowing me onto his show in the first place. But if they are confident in their position, and if they really believe in their own gender ideology, why should they be so afraid of having the debate? Also, the March For Life takes DC by storm and the Biden Administration has to trot out Tom Hanks to convince the public that his first year in office wasn’t a complete disaster. Plus, an old clip of an MSNBC host saying that your kids don’t belong to you goes viral again. What might we learn from it? And M&Ms are getting a more progressive and inclusive rebranding for the year 2022. With this final piece in place, Utopia awaits.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left is now going after Dr. Phil for allowing me onto his show in the first place, but if they're confident in their position, and if they really believe in their own gender ideology, why should they be so afraid of having the debate in the first place?
Also, the March for Life takes DC by storm, and the Biden administration has to trot out Tom Hanks to convince the public That his first year in office was not a complete disaster, plus an old clip of an MSNBC host saying that your kids don't belong to you goes viral again.
What might we learn from it?
And M&Ms are getting a more progressive and inclusive rebranding for the year 2022 with this final piece in place.
Utopia awaits.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The great thing about Naturally It's Clean is that they have a great product, which I'll tell you about in a second, but also they actually are on our side in the culture.
They're on our team.
Naturally It's Clean is a home cleaning company dedicated to providing the most effective cleaning products for your home while reducing the use of harmful chemicals.
Their secret?
Powerful plant-based enzymes.
Nature's solution to cleaning.
When I say powerful, I'm talking about hospital-grade enzyme cleaning power.
They have solutions for almost every need in the house, from the kitchen, to the bathroom, to the laundry room.
Naturally, it's clean.
Has a specialized formula to clean the area effectively.
And I can tell you, as someone with four kids, I've got plenty of opportunities.
To clean the house, or at least my wife does anyway.
And that's why Naturally It's Clean has become in big handy.
And talking to the guys over at Naturally It's Clean, I can tell you again, we appreciate all of our sponsors, but when our sponsors actually share our values, it's a huge bonus.
So I'm encouraging my listeners to start with four of their top products conveniently packaged together in their Daily Wire Essentials Kit.
And for a limited time, my listeners can receive 15% off their order.
Just enter promo code Matt at checkout when you visit naturallyitsclean.com slash Matt.
Try these incredible products in your home today.
Shipping is free and everything is made right here in the USA.
Again, try our Naturally It's Clean Daily Wire 4-Pack today by going to naturallyitsclean.com slash Matt and use promo code Matt to receive 15% off your purchase.
Don't delay.
Make the smarter, safer choice for your home cleaning needs today.
With Naturally It's Clean.
So it's been a couple of days since my episode of Dr. Phil aired, and I've read and heard plenty of reactions to my appearance and to the discussion that we had on the show, and many of these reactions have been quite angry.
But the one thing I have not heard from the angry side, from my critics, is any sort of counter-argument.
They're all quite sure that I'm wrong, and not just wrong, but hateful and vile and evil and dangerous, and yet none of them I mean, not a single one has been able to explain why.
They especially are unable or unwilling to answer the question that has provoked much of this outrage, which of course is, what is a woman?
Instead, the left, finding itself unable to answer my arguments, has directed its ire at Dr. Phil for allowing me to make the arguments in the first place.
The Daily Wire has catalogued some of these responses.
One of them comes from Matt Bernstein, the social media influencer with a significant following, who goes by he-they pronouns, by the way, because sometimes he's a man, other times he's two men, apparently.
And he tweeted, quote, truly F Dr. Phil for this.
Why would you invite a non-binary person onto national television just to be humiliated by an outspoken transphobe?
Who is this for?
Who does this help?
Man, F you, Dr. Phil.
Another guy who works in media, Hunter Lacey, tweeted, Dr. Phil is always stirring the pot.
This is so disrespectful.
Why does this man still have a show?
Instead of letting the actual queer voices speak, he's doing mental arithmetic to get through his sentence.
I am fuming.
Yes, let the queer voices speak, he says.
To which the rest of us may wonder, when exactly the queer voices ever stopped speaking?
I mean, those are by far the loudest voices in our society.
Let the queer voices speak.
When do they shut up?
I mean, come on.
Meanwhile, drag queen Nicolette Nouveau, who was crowned Miss Gay Omaha some years back, by the way, a profound honor, no doubt, screeched, Dear Dr. Phil, please don't ever live tweet during RuPaul's Drag Race and act like an ally ever again if you're going to have people like Matt Walsh on your show spreading transphobia to the masses.
Sincerely, the LGBT community and their real allies.
I can't fathom what Dr. Phil will do with himself now if he's not allowed to live tweet.
During RuPaul's Drag Race.
I mean, some punishments are simply too much to bear.
Imara Jones, founder of a trans media company said this, Dr. Phil inviting people on who compare trans people to tomato plants continues the idea that we aren't real, which is the basis for the murders and violence against us.
Matt Walsh is the pied piper of slick dismissiveness and this show is not what we need.
Catherine Caruso, a writer for Teen Vogue, wrote, You know, Dr. Phil has done a lot of crappy things, but having Matt Walsh on to call trans people delusional and mentally ill to their faces is a new low, especially since he frames it as a debate with two valid opposing arguments when it's really just transphobia.
Well, Catherine, would you rather I say it behind their backs?
I mean, you're right that I'll say all this to anybody's face.
I don't change my opinion or my tone or approach based on the audience.
My view is my view, and it'll be the same all the time in front of anybody.
On any platform, in any context.
That's called being honest.
In any case, you get the idea.
This is the basic tenor of the response to my appearance.
Others called Dr. Phil a scumbag and a coward for allowing a bigot, a transphobe, and a white supremacist, by the way, to access his platform.
Apparently you're a white supremacist now if you criticize leftist gender ideology.
Many of the criticisms were similar to this from some guy named Brant Brickell who tweeted, and F Dr. Phil for having Matt Walsh on the show and giving him a platform to attack the trans community under the guise of equal debate.
There is no debating someone's right to exist.
This is a common theme, or rather, straw man, claiming that the debate was over the existence of people who identify as trans, and that I was on the side either claiming that trans people do not exist at all, or else they do exist, but should not be allowed to.
Which, by the way, that's not the point.
We all acknowledge, I think everyone acknowledges, that people who identify as trans exist.
We know that.
In fact, that's why we're having this discussion.
The real question is, does biological sex exist?
And if so, what are the implications of that?
Of course, LGBT media got in on the outrage action as well.
The website Queerty has this headline, Dr. Phil's show yesterday was a transphobic train wreck, and we don't even know where to begin.
The article explains that Dr. Phil is now on the hot seat for bringing me on his show because, quote, to anyone who knows him, it should come as no surprise that Walsh came ready to spew transphobic vitriol.
He has a long history of transphobia, having authored the children's book Johnny the Walrus, which compares being transgender to pretending to be a walrus.
He also has a history of homophobia, having called Pride Month a celebration of vanity.
Well, it is.
And denounced adoption by same-sex couples.
He's also defended the vigilante actions of Kyle Rittenhouse.
He opposes abortion.
Imagine that.
And claims that doing yoga is anti-Christian.
I mean, it is.
Among other things.
I appreciate Queerty, by the way, cataloging all of my right opinions like that, and especially mentioning my number one LGBT book, Johnny the Walrus, which is available at johnnythewalrus.com right now.
Go pick up a copy.
LGBTQ Nation was similarly incensed.
Their headline, Dr. Phil invited anti-transgender activists to spread hate on TV, and it's painful to watch.
Not painful for me, I quite enjoy it.
The article claims that my job, quote, depends on generating media attention for my anti-LGBTQ antics.
And that is true, I admit.
I actually have a little behind-the-scenes, behind-the-curtain thing here.
I have a certain number of anti-LGBTQ antics that I have to engage in each week contractually.
It's written in the contract.
And on Fridays, I have a meeting with the bosses where they review my anti-LGBTQ antics catalog to see if I met my quota.
Now, fortunately, if I fall short, some weeks I do, I can make up for that by oppressing some other marginalized group.
And this is how it works in conservative media.
The left's suspicions are totally accurate.
But what about the rest of this?
What about this idea that the other side was trapped, humiliated by the simple fact that I was allowed to sit on a stage with them and speak to them?
Well, we see here again the incredible fragility of the leftist position, especially on the issue of sex and gender.
They like to accuse others of being fragile.
Fragile masculinity, they call it.
But what's more fragile than having to insulate yourself from any direct challenge to your worldview?
If these people were confident in their position, they'd be bragging that I was the one who was humiliated.
Right?
They'd be patting my good friend Addison on the back and giving the woke professor a high five and congratulating them for defeating the transphobe in open rhetorical combat.
But you notice, interestingly, how even the people on their side are not attempting to claim that their side was victorious.
Nobody's saying that.
Not even them.
Instead, they retreat into their victimhood fortress, flinging insults from behind the walls.
You know, whenever there's an NFL game, I can always tell who lost, even without watching the game or checking the score, because the losing team is the one whose fans are on social media complaining about the refs.
And something similar is happening here, except in this case, the losing side is complaining not just about the refs, but that the game was allowed to happen in the first place.
So imagine if the Lions, you know, lost to the Vikings, and then Lions fans responded by saying it was unfair and traumatic to put the Lions on the same field as the Vikings to begin with.
That is how unfathomably weak and empty and irrational the left's position is, on everything really, but especially on this.
Their side collapses like a Jenga tower when it's directly challenged.
And yet, it has won the culture anyway.
Because it's so rarely challenged.
They use emotional blackmail, intimidation, and coercion so effectively that they've managed to conquer civilization with an army that turns to dust the moment you turn around and face it.
Their gamble is that you never will.
You'll just continue running away and retreat.
Afraid of the loud noises they're making, but never calling their bluff.
Well, I think it's time to stop running.
Let's get to our five headlines.
Before we get to the headlines, I gotta mention, this is way more important, my wife put me on blast.
Last night, as the kids say, or did say at one point, she was tweeting attacking me.
This is like while we were in bed.
I thought she was asleep, but she's over there persecuting me on the internet.
This is what she tweets.
She says, Matt keeps our bedroom so cold at night.
It's like the tundra.
I may have to wear an overcoat to bed.
Isn't this the age-old debate between husbands and wives?
Now, this is how pervasive cancel culture has become, that it's even made its way into my marital bed.
But this started a whole conversation about the correct temperature for the bedroom and the house and who should control it.
By the way, there is a right answer.
The right answer is that bedrooms should never be above 62 degrees.
The rest of the house should never go above 65.
Really, it's best to have both below 60, ideally.
That's especially true at night when you're sleeping.
So I set the house very cold.
I also have an overhead fan and a box fan blowing directly on me.
Because the best way to sleep is to just be on the verge of hypothermia the entire time, I've found.
But here's the thing.
This is an important discussion that especially you women in the audience could benefit from hearing.
Because I know women often complain about being cold, and so there's this controversy about who should get to determine the temperature.
So here it is.
Two things.
First of all, I get to control the temperature because I'm the warmest.
And the warmest one should decide, not the hottest.
So, I mean, not like the hottest in terms of appearance, because then I would, by that limits test, I would never win, but the warmest, like physically.
Because there's only so many, if you want to, if you're warm and you want to regulate your temperature, there's only so much you can do without adjusting the environment.
There's only so many layers you can take off.
This is especially true in public, like at work, or at the dentist, in the waiting room or something.
If you're cold at work, You can wear as many sweaters and jackets as you want.
You can put on earmuffs and mittens if you want.
That's not an HR violation.
I can only take off so much before someone calls the police.
So that's why I should get to decide what the temperature is.
But there's also a second point.
And this is the more important point.
And it's going to be tough to hear this.
But I'm the man.
And so as the man, as men, we have the special right and responsibility to be in control of the temperature in any building that we're in.
Why?
Well, because, and don't take this the wrong way, but women, you're too fickle to be in control of the thermostat.
Same goes for the volume on TV, because you can't make up your mind.
I'll be watching TV with my wife, and suddenly after 47 minutes, she'll shout, it's too loud!
Turn it down!
Getting mad at me for a volume that was acceptable to both of us for the better part of an hour, and now all of a sudden it's a problem.
And then I'll turn it down.
And what happens five minutes later?
She says, I can't hear it.
Can you turn it up?
Similar thing happens with a thermostat.
So if she controlled it, it would be adjusted every 15 minutes until our HVAC system exploded.
With me as the man, there is consistency.
You know that the house is always going to be cold, enough to cause frostbite.
You know the TV is always going to be loud enough to rupture your eardrums.
It may not be pleasant.
It may not be comfortable.
It may not be reasonable.
It may not be safe.
But it's consistent, it's steady, it's reliable.
Okay?
And furthermore, Ephesians 5, wives submit to your husband as to the Lord.
I've used that on my wife too, with the thermostat conversation.
Doesn't always go well.
All right, we'll start with this.
March for Life.
March for Life is currently underway.
Started at about noon in DC.
And a couple of things that you always know with the March for Life, and the first is that you're not going to hear much about it from corporate media because there's just no way for them, they have no choice but to acknowledge it.
Because it's right in their backyard, it's right outside their window.
There are hundreds of thousands of people marching, and it's been this way for over 40 years, every single year consistently.
And so they have no choice but to at least acknowledge it, but they're going to acknowledge it as quickly as they can.
Now, as we know, of course, you put 500,000 or a million pro-lifers at the March for Life marching, and they're going to get a five-second mention, you know.
But you take a fraction of that crowd, say like 50, and they're marching for BLM or whatever, some leftist thing, and that's suddenly front page headline news.
So we know that's how it goes.
Um, the attendance will always be underestimated.
In fact, I was just reading an article.
I can't remember which, which, uh, which, uh, outlet it was, but saying that, uh, you know, organizers estimate that, uh, typically there's around 50,000 people attending the March for life.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Uh, 50,000, you know, multiply that by 10, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people come to the March for life every single year.
And what makes that so impressive is number one, that it's every single year.
This is by far the largest annual political rally in American history.
There's never been anything like it.
Now, there have been other marches where you have one particular march that draws a greater crowd than the March for Life does on average.
But no one has been able to sustain that for anywhere near as long as the March for Life has.
Again, well into the fourth decade.
So the attendance is always going to be always going to be underestimated and they're not going to
show you or they're going to be very sparing in showing you images
from the crowd.
You know and they're going to try to the other thing they'll do is they'll report it as and I
guarantee you're going to see headlines like this.
Something like people on protesters on both sides of the abortion debate show up in Washington DC.
Yeah, protestors on both sides because there's 500,000 pro-lifers and three pro-abortion people, and then that equates to protestors on both sides.
But they're not going to show you the crowd, or they're going to be very sparing and very selective in what they show, because what they don't want you to notice Is that the March for Life is very, very young.
It's a very young crowd.
Now, I would, having been to the March for Life many times, I would estimate that certainly the vast majority are certainly under 40 and many are under 30, even under 20.
So this is a very young crowd.
The pro-life movement is a young movement.
Though I hesitate to point this out because it sounds like I'm trying to appeal to the left on their own terms, which I'm very against doing.
But I will mention, I will say that, in fact, it's a very diverse crowd as well.
Actually diverse.
Because it simply is.
You go to the March for Life, really any pro-life event, but especially the March for Life because you've got people from all over the country going, and all different kinds of people from different walks of life are there.
Because as it turns out, You know, you don't need to be an old white conservative, not that there's anything wrong with being an old white conservative, but you don't have to be that to believe that it's not okay to kill babies.
This is a position that is appealing to people of all stripes.
And this is another example of the kind of debate that the left doesn't want to have.
I mean, how often have you even seen, you can certainly turn on cable news and you're going to hear pro-abortion talking points and you're going to hear abortion discussed, but how often on a mainstream platform have you seen that debate really happen where the pro-abortion side is actually challenged?
Very similar to the gender issue.
It doesn't happen because they know they can't really defend it.
They know it's an indefensible position.
It's indefensible scientifically.
The idea that these unborn babies aren't human or they don't count as people scientifically makes no sense.
I mean, logically, we've always known that the babies in the womb are people and are human beings and are living.
But as technology progresses, and we're able to see more and more what's actually happening in the womb during pregnancy, it only serves to, each day, further vindicate the pro-life side while invalidating the pro-abortion side.
So they can't engage with it scientifically, and they can't really engage with it morally either.
Because when it comes down to it, ultimately, you are arguing for killing innocent people.
You have one side which says, it's never okay to kill an innocent and defenseless person.
That's why we're against abortion.
And the other side who says, you know, sometimes it is okay.
But only if that innocent and defenseless person is a baby.
So, that's the March for Life.
We'll go here.
Joe Biden has really gotten himself into another bind, another pickle, by openly claiming that our elections are rigged and illegitimate after a year of condemning Trump for saying exactly the same thing.
So it's been a bit of a PR nightmare, and that's why the White House Has trotted out their secret weapon to mop up the mess.
Their smooth talking damage control expert, Kamala Harris.
So let's see how she handles questioning on this issue.
Let's talk about another comment the president made.
He openly cast doubt on whether the 2022 midterm elections would be legitimate.
He said it all depends, which is astonishing to hear a president question whether our elections will be legitimate.
We've heard it before, but not from this president.
Is he really concerned that we may not have fair and free elections?
The president has been consistent on this issue.
And the issue at hand, the issue, I was there last night in the chamber of the Senate, and the issue is that there are two bills, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, that have been the solution that has been offered to address the fact that around our country, states have put in place laws that are purposely making it more difficult for the American people to vote.
Okay, so no answer there.
Are the elections actually going to be free and fair and legitimate or not?
And we heard the word astonishing there.
The only thing astonishing going on here, because it's not really astonishing.
It's not actually astonishing to have Joe Biden questioning the legitimacy of the elections, because we know that he is a soulless, mindless goon.
So that's not astonishing.
The astonishing thing Is that the media, or it might seem astonishing at first until we understand what's really happening here, but the media is actually taking them to task for this.
Same thing happened when you watched the press conference, however much of that you could stomach watching.
The media, they were actually asking some real questions, a few anyway.
And so let's watch a little bit more of this as the anchor continues to actually press her on this question.
Does he think, now that these bills have been passed, that the 22 midterms won't be legitimate or fair or free?
Let's not conflate issues.
So what we are looking at and the topic of so much debate last night was that we as America cannot afford to allow this blatant erosion of our democracy and in particular the right of all Americans who are eligible to vote to have access to the ballot unfettered.
That is the topic of the conversation and let's not be distracted by the political gamesmanship When what is truly at stake are issues like whether Americans with disability have the opportunity to vote by mail.
Yeah, again, only astonishing thing is that the media is challenging, actually challenging her on this.
And why are they doing that?
Well, I think the answer is that they want the Biden administration gone.
They want Biden gone.
They want him primaried.
They know he's going to lose if he actually runs again in 2024.
Which, if he's physically still on Earth, he will.
Because he's power-obsessed and power-hungry, like all these people, and this is all he cares about.
That's the whole reason that he ran for office at the age of 78 anyway.
But they want them gone.
They want this administration gone.
They want someone else put in there.
And so they are actually... For totally self-serving reasons.
That's what we have to understand.
It's not because they care about integrity.
It's not because they care about ethics or they have any real passion for doing real journalism.
Just for their own reasons.
Self-interest.
Their own ideological reasons.
They want Biden gone, so I think we're going to see probably more scenes like this.
Moving on, you know, Democrat politicians are sometimes accused of being out of touch, elitist, narcissistic.
That's not really fair.
I mean, listen to this truly humble moment from Nancy Pelosi yesterday.
Listen to this.
Here's the thing.
I say to my members on a regular basis when we gather in caucus, and as you know, sometimes it's hybrid these days.
Anytime we have gathered in caucus, when we're actually virtually or hybrid, I've said to them, under this roof, figuratively or actually, is the greatest collection of intellect, integrity, and imagination for doing the right thing for the American people.
I have great confidence in the contegrity of my members.
are remarkable.
So when people talk about, well, somebody might do this and so on, I think I trust our members.
If, in fact, we should have severe penalties for delay in reporting on stock, then do that.
I've said to the House Administration Committee, review all the bills that are coming in and see which ones, where the support is in our caucus.
We heard more of that than we needed to.
The greatest collection of integrity and intelligence in the world is among the Democrats in Congress.
If that's true, then we are absolutely doomed.
And in fact, we are doomed, but that's still not true.
You could find a greater collection of intelligence and integrity just going to the, you know,
going to the DMV or waiting in line at Walmart.
The bar is very, very low there.
But this is actually how, this is a rare moment.
She claims they have integrity and they don't, but there are moments of honesty at least,
This is a rare moment of honesty where she shows how they see themselves and how they see everybody else.
They really believe that they are better than the rest of us.
That comes as no surprise.
It's just pretty rare that you hear a politician actually come out and say, we're better than all of you.
Amazing.
Finally, Joe Biden has, um, A plan to convince everyone.
It seems like he had the worst first year of any president in American history, which is not hyperbole, but merely an observation.
Everything is demonstrably worse.
By every category, by every measure, everything is worse now.
And specifically because of what this administration has done.
But how are they going to convince people that it's not, that the truth is not what they see staring them in the face?
Well, what do you do?
You bring in Tom Hanks to narrate.
You have a little video, Tom Hanks narration, some inspirational music.
We'll play some of this.
Keep the mic open because I don't know how long, how much of this I can actually stomach.
We'll have to cut it off, but let's watch some of Tom Hanks convincing us that actually this past year of your life was amazing.
For there was always light, if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.
If only we're brave enough.
Brave enough to live through two of the most difficult years many of us can remember.
Brave enough to pull ourselves up again and again.
America is the home of the brave.
It's why we keep getting up, no matter how many times we get knocked down.
Like with our economy.
It isn't all the way back, but it's getting stronger.
We may be entering year three of a pandemic none of us wanted or expected, but we're moving.
I was the first person to get the vaccine in the whole country.
And now, how many people are vaccinated?
Over 200 million, right?
That's what keeps me going.
That I can feel the change.
Restaurants have opened their doors.
Shops and businesses are buzzing again all over the country.
Yeah, this is bravery.
Showing the bravery of Americans by people wearing masks outside.
Okay, shut up, Tom.
Even Tom Hanks can't do it.
Maybe they should try Morgan Freeman.
You gotta bring in the big guns now.
I mean, you know, oftentimes all it takes is a Tom Hanks narration or Morgan Freeman narration and some inspirational music in the background to convince anybody of anything.
But that's not good.
Now, of course, he's talking about the qualities of the American people.
And even if what he said was true, that wouldn't speak at all to this administration.
But unfortunately, I mean, there are plenty of brave people in America, but collectively You know, it's hard to look at the last two years and give us all, as a group, credit for bravery and courage.
And ironically, that video kind of demonstrated why.
Talking about the bravery and courage of Americans, and then showing a bunch of cowardly, paranoid hypochondriacs wearing masks outside, along with children who are being forced to wear them because of the paranoid, cowardly hypochondriacs in their lives.
So, I'm still not convinced somehow.
All right, let's play another clip.
Now, this clip went viral yesterday, though it's actually from way back in 2013.
It's Melissa Harris Perry, if you remember her.
I don't, but maybe you do.
She was on MSNBC back a few years ago, and back then she said this.
Now, what's... Well, we'll play it first and then we'll talk about it.
Again, this is several years old, but I think the fact that it's old, there's an important point to be made about that, but let's play it first.
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children.
Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.
We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children.
So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.
Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.
We have to break down this private idea of children.
Kids belong to the entire community.
And as always, just like when they say the public and public school doesn't really mean public.
It means specifically the state.
This is government school.
And so when she says community, she doesn't mean community.
She means the government.
Those words are synonyms as far as she's concerned.
The amazing thing, though, is this is in 2013, and this was not like something she said off the cuff.
On one of her shows.
It's not something that she was caught saying.
It wasn't like a hot mic moment.
This was a promo.
They put this as a promo and they ran it as a commercial for the network.
They were so proud of it.
Saying your kids don't belong to you.
So what we can take away from this is that the left has been working to take away parental rights for a long time.
And they've been very open about it.
The only difference is that recently, much of the right has finally noticed.
Now, there are some of us who have been screaming about this for years, you know, since that Melissa Harris Perry video and before.
Especially people who homeschool, the homeschool community is quite aware of You know, the government's and the left's attitude towards people who take charge of their own kids' education.
But all this shows is that this recent emphasis on parental rights, that is a product of conservatives finally waking from their stupor on this issue.
It is not a product.
It is not that the left in the last year has been suddenly more aggressive in going after parental rights.
If anything, they've been a little bit more subtle about it.
With some exceptions, you know, Terry McAuliffe saying parents shouldn't decide what their kids are taught.
That's another good example, because he said that off the cuff, and you could tell he immediately regretted saying it out loud after he said it.
Go back about 10 years ago, and they were saying this stuff scripted, openly, in commercials.
So this has been happening for a very, very long time.
And for the record, of course, no, my kids do not belong to the community.
They belong to me.
Not as property, not like in the way that you'd say your car belongs to you, but in the sense that it is my sacred and solemn responsibility to care for them.
And also, I care about my children more than anybody else.
My wife and I care about our children more than anybody else does.
There are a lot of reasons why I will not surrender my kids to the community or rely on the community to care for them.
A lot of reasons.
One is I don't trust the quote community, which again means government, to take care of my kids.
I don't believe in their values.
I'm not going to entrust my children to be morally formed by the quote community.
But then also, it's because I recognize that the community, referring both to the government and the actual community, doesn't care about my kids the way that I do.
You could say all you want, oh, they're all our kids.
No, but you actually don't care about my kids that much, because they're not yours.
I mean, you might care about my kids in theory, in the sense that you care about all kids and you want everyone to have a happy and nice life.
But I wake up every day and my kids are the first thing that I think about.
Right?
This is a constant presence in my life.
Constantly at the front of my mind.
As parents, as a parent, I live every day taking care of my kids.
I've structured my life around that.
Around my kids specifically.
Not around kids as a general concept, but my kids.
So I know them and care about them more than anybody else.
So that's another really good reason why I'm not going to surrender them to the community.
It's also a really good reason to take care of your kid's education, if you can do it, and start homeschooling.
Because you know your kid better than anybody.
And you care about them.
You send them to school and, you know, there are plenty of really good teachers.
There's a lot of bad ones, but there are plenty of really good ones.
But even the really good ones, your kid is their job.
And if they're good, then they do care about making sure your kid has a good education, but they can only afford to care so much.
And in most public schools, they've got, you know, 30 other kids in class, and that's just one class.
So your kid is one in this assembly line that they care about as much as they can.
It's just not much.
And they certainly don't know your kid like you do.
All right, one other clip I wanted to play.
This is the account Woke Preacher Clips on Twitter, kind of like the libs of TikTok, but for Christians.
Doug up this clip of Simon Woodman, he's of London's Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, at some kind of panel discussion talking about Jesus and informing us that apparently Jesus, maybe you didn't know this, was transgender.
I think Jesus transgenders himself on a number of occasions.
I think, you know, just a little phrase where Jesus is lamenting over Jerusalem, longing to gather Jerusalem as a mother hen gathers her chicks.
I think if you look at the foot washing from John's Gospel, foot washing elsewhere in both Old and New Testament, it's consistently done by women.
And yet Jesus takes that on.
People often cast that as being the servant's role.
It was the woman's role.
And Jesus does it and becomes the woman at that point.
So transgender is a verb now too.
Jesus transgendered himself.
I play that clip because it perfectly captures how transgender ideology reinforces gender norms while pretending to deconstruct them.
So Jesus becomes the woman by taking on the quote woman's role.
But why not just say that Jesus proves that the role is not just a woman's role?
Which, it isn't.
Why is it that Jesus' sex changes because of the role, rather than saying the role changes because of his sex?
You see what I'm saying?
Why?
It's like when a boy plays with, the example I used in Dr. Phil, a boy plays with a dollhouse.
You know, and for decades, back when the left really did seem to be in, you know, the feminists were more in control of gender ideology back then.
And so there was this emphasis on breaking down gender roles and everything.
And so they would have said back then that a boy plays with a dollhouse and all that does is prove that boys can play with dollhouses and it's not just a girl thing.
Okay, so this idea that dollhouses are just for girls is an artificial social construct.
And so this boy is helping to break it down by playing with a dollhouse.
Well, now they say that when the boy plays at the dollhouse, it's an indication that he's actually a girl.
So you are reinforcing that stereotype.
And by him engaging in that activity, you know, playing that role, it actually changes him.
Rather than him changing the role or the nature of the role, the role changes the nature of him.
And so things have been flipped around exactly backwards, upside down.
Perfect example of it there.
Let's get out of the comment section.
And I have not seen these yet, but we're just going to... I entrusted McKenna to compile the video comments, so blame her if these are not the good ones.
Let's watch.
Hello to the handsome and brilliant sweet Daddy Walsh.
My name is Rachel and I'm from Brighton, Michigan.
I just wanted to share a proud parenting moment with you that I had this week.
My nine-year-old daughter Lacey came home the other day from school and said that a boy in her class was wearing a t-shirt with a panda on it.
Lacey made the appropriate comment, pandas shouldn't exist.
This really threw her fourth grade classmates for a loop and they all started asking her what she had against pandas and you know they were so cute and why didn't she like them.
Fortunately, being a junior member of the Sweet Baby Gang, she was under no obligation to respond.
Just wanted you to know that I am doing my part to indoctrinate the next generation.
Keep up the great work.
SBG for life.
That almost brought a tear to my eye.
That's amazing.
The fact that, not just that we're getting the Sweet Baby gang out there, but that we're spreading the word on these really important issues, like the utter uselessness of pandas, that I think is incredible.
The only thing is, I would sit down with your daughter, and she has the lines, so she's been indoctrinated into the anti-panda community, but I think the next step is to be able to go out there and evangelize to this position and explain why the pandas are useless.
So maybe that's a conversation you could sit down and have with her.
That's wonderful.
Let's check out another one.
Hello, Mr. Matt Walsh.
My name is Ari Ginsberg.
I use all pronouns, every single one of them.
I must know I have had sleepless nights over this.
What is your workout routine?
Please tell me.
Thank you very much and sweet baby gang for life.
My workout routine?
Well, over the last, I'd say six months, my workout routine is walking up and down steps when I'm putting my kids to bed.
That's pretty much what it has been.
That's been the entire thing.
I don't know why, and I do got to get back to the gym and back to working out, but it's as much of a mystery to me as maybe it is to you that I'm not 100 pounds heavier. I don't know why I'm not extremely fat.
I don't it's it's not because of any effort on my part My diet is terrible. I just eat whatever I want
and Somehow and people keep telling me that event, you know,
eventually your your metabolism slows down. So one day I'm just gonna balloon
I'm gonna come in here one day and be like 350 pounds. It's just gonna happen overnight, but it hasn't happened yet. So
That's it. Let's watch one more my sweet sweet sweet daddy I come before you in solidarity in my cold truck
my polka-dotted polo My name is Weston, and my pronouns are life, liberty, and the pursuit of proper voting restrictions.
My question comes to you around the Catholic faith.
I am not Catholic, but I do have several friends that are.
Growing up, you had some of your friends that were Catholic in name only and some that were pretty devout.
And what I did notice is the friends that are pretty strict with the Catholic faith look at the Pope in the same way that I see the left look at Dr. Fauci.
You know, Fauci says he's the science and the Pope is the faith.
So my question to you, as a devout Catholic man and cult leader, what is your view on the position of the Pope and the Catholic faith?
And how do you, as a very conservative-minded person, uphold the Catholic doctrine, even when the figurehead espouses pretty left-leaning ideologies?
Thank you, sir.
SPG for life.
Yeah, well first of all I gotta say that thanks for the comment and it is it is I have discovered with these video comments that The the sweet daddy Walsh thing.
It's it's a whole other ballgame when I can actually See and hear the person calling me that and it's like an extra element of weirdness, but that's that's fine You know, well, I'll get through that part of it as far as the Pope goes Fortunately And this is something that Catholics, we're constantly having to explain, or at least the Catholics who understand their own faith, and part of the problem is that many Catholics do not, and they're the ones who create this confusion.
So I don't blame non-Catholics for not understanding this.
But fortunately, we are not obligated to agree with the Pope on his positions on various subjects.
You know, the Pope has his own views and his own ideas, and I happen to think that this Pope is wrong about very many things.
I think he's fundamentally wrong in his basic worldview as well, and I'm allowed to think that.
I'm not required to say anything otherwise.
The Pope's every pronouncement is not an infallible declaration.
Now there is some disagreement among Catholics and theologians about how many infallible declarations have actually been made by popes, and there's discussion about how many it is, but however many it is, it's a very small number, actually.
And so this Pope just kind of speaking off the cuff, or even standing up at Mass and giving a homily.
I'm not required to agree with any of it, and I don't.
I very much disagree with this Pope on almost everything that he seems to say, at least when it comes to his ideology and his worldview.
You know, part of the problem is that, because you could always ask, well, have there been Popes in the past Who you would have disagreed with just as much, probably.
But the issue is that we are now in a position, both because of 24 Hour Media and the internet, and also because of this Pope's propensity for just babbling.
We're in a position to constantly hear everything he has to say about everything.
He's constantly talking about things.
He'll be on a plane and just, you know, talking to reporters.
And so he loves to talk and we can hear it.
And so we're constantly subjected to it.
But, I very much disagree, and I'm perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to do that.
Alright, a couple written comments.
This is from Ryan Listerman, says, Matt delivered such savage mic drops his opponents had to change their pronouns to was-were.
That's good.
That might be my favorite comment of all time.
Incredibly well done.
We should send you a prize.
Can we do that?
Send them a t-shirt or something?
Maybe.
If we can, we'll send you one.
Ironman says, the fact that they were traumatized by a debate is 100% proof they need mental help.
I actually don't think it's proof of that.
I think you let them off the hook by saying they need mental help or whatever.
I think it is evidence of the flimsiness and fragility, as we were talking about, of their worldview.
And the fact that they are aware that it's flimsy and fragile.
David says why is Matt so obsessed with the transgender issue the lady doth protest too much me thinks
Sorry, I meant gentlemen somebody needs to check the back of Matt's closet for panties bras and corsets
So what are you implying? I?
I talk about it because I'm secretly trans, is what you're saying?
Well, you got me.
It's true.
Actually, you got it backwards, though, because I'm a woman originally, and I underwent the most convincing transition of all time.
You got me.
It's 100% true.
And now that my secret is out, I have the social credit to say whatever I want about the trans issue, and you can't criticize me.
Transphobe.
So, checkmate.
As the beloved author of the best-selling children's book, LGBTQ+, plus children's book, I should say, Johnny the Walrus, I am now a very important voice in the transgender conversation.
That's why I was invited to Dr. Phil to discuss these most important issues with experts who could not even tell me what a woman was.
Here's a clip of my enlightening experience.
That's a question I would like to throw out to other members of the panel.
Actually, because just like the four-year-old can't answer, what is a girl?
Well, this is one of the problems with this left-wing gender ideology is that no one who espouses it Can you tell me what a woman is?
No, I can't.
Because it's not for me to say.
Womanhood looks different for everybody.
What do you define a woman as?
An adult human female.
And what does a female mean?
How do you define a female?
Someone with female reproductive organs.
Okay.
Someone who's, you know, here's the thing.
When you're female, it goes right down to your bones, your DNA.
So that's why if someone dies, we could dig up their bones a hundred years from now.
We have no idea what they believed in their head, but we can tell what sex they were because it's in, it's down in, it's ingrained in every fiber of their being.
Interesting.
So I'm trying to understand.
Your definition is that a woman is someone who is female, you said, right?
Correct, as a biological female.
So, what happens if we have maybe someone who is female, identifies as a woman, right?
You know, cisgender woman, right?
As you just explained.
Maybe doesn't have the ability to reproduce.
Maybe doesn't have those organs that you're talking about that are reproductive organs.
I have answered the question.
You stood up here and said trans women are women.
Yes.
Tell me what you mean.
What is a woman?
Womanhood is something that, just as Ethan explained, I cannot define because I am not myself.
But you used the word.
So what did you mean when you said trans women are women if you don't know what it means?
So here's the thing.
So I do not define what a woman is because I do not identify as a woman.
Womanhood is something that is an umbrella term.
It includes people who... That describes what?
People who identify as a woman.
Identify as what?
As a woman.
What is that?
What's to each their own.
Each woman, each man, each person is going to have a different relation with their own gender identity and define it differently.
And so trans women are women too.
Okay.
You want to reduce women, you want to reduce men down to maybe just their genetics, our genitals, our chromosomes, right?
That's what you're saying.
What you want to do is appropriate women.
You want to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that can be worn.
If you want to learn more about toxic transgender ideology, pick up a copy of my best-selling children's book, Johnny the Walrus, about a boy who believes he's a walrus and the internet mob who tells his mother to respect his trans-walrus identity.
Johnny the Walrus sold out in 48 hours when it was released.
Don't worry, more copies are on the way.
You can reserve yours now at amazon.com or go to johnnythewalrus.com.
Luke Rosiak, the Daily Wire journalist who broke the big national story about sexual abuse in Loudoun County schools, has a new book out exposing public schools.
It's called Race to the Bottom, Uncovering the Secret Forces Destroying America's Public School System.
You can pre-order it at Amazon today.
It includes the never-before-told story of America's first woke school system, which was in Seattle.
Tracy Castro-Gill, the Director of Ethnic Studies at Seattle Public Schools, turned math into Math Ethnic Studies, where students must explain how math is used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.
Math is used.
I mean, I always felt oppressed by math when I was in school, but I'm, you know, white.
By spring 2018, the Math Ethnic Studies program was piloted in six schools.
On the next state math exam, the performance of black students at those schools plummeted.
The state named Tracy Regional Teacher of the Year for 2018 to 2019, and they're employing her methods all over the country.
To learn more about this and so much else, pre-order a copy of Luke Rosiak's book, Race to the Bottom, Uncovering the Secret Forces Destroying America's Public School System, today at Amazon.
Now let's go to our daily cancellation.
Well, the world rejoiced yesterday when candy maker Mars Incorporated announced that it would be rebranding M&Ms to make them more inclusive and progressive for the year 2022 as part of their, quote, global commitment to creating a world where everyone feels they belong and society is inclusive.
This is one of the final pieces necessary to usher in an age of harmony and tranquility.
Now all we need is for the patriarchal gender essentialist Mike and Ikes and the violent and triggering Pop Rocks to finally evolve as well.
We are on the cusp of utopia.
So close I can taste it.
Tastes sweet and has 35 grams of sugar per serving.
Nobody expected that civilization could be saved by junk food brands.
But they've been at the front lines in the battle against bigotry for a long time, actually.
It began two years ago when Gushers tweeted in support of BLM.
They tweeted, Prior to this statement, most people had never thought about the intersectional relationship between fruit snacks and racial justice.
We're working with Fruit by the Foot on creating space to amplify that.
We see you. We stand with you.
Prior to this statement, most people had never thought about the intersectional relationship
between fruit snacks and racial justice, but the dream team of Fruit by the Foot and Gushers
changed all of that. Junk food brands have been leading the charge ever since,
and brands in general have remained at the forefront in the struggle for tolerance and equality.
We talked yesterday about an Audi's ad promoting gender-sensitive language.
Every day another brand steps up.
The brands are our guiding light.
The brands will show us the way.
The brands will save us.
Or so we hope.
But sadly, as I read more about M&M's alleged efforts to promote inclusion and diversity, I found myself unsatisfied.
Come to think of it, we even need to ask some questions about Gushers.
Whatever happened to the space that it was supposed to make to amplify black voices?
That was two years ago.
I have not heard any black voice amplified by a fruit snack in the two years since.
I've seen black people buy fruit snacks.
I've seen them eat fruit snacks.
I haven't seen the fruit snack do anything for them, though.
The fruit snack just sits there passively, waiting to be consumed.
Its silence is deafening.
Its silence is violence.
What about M&Ms?
Well, the VP of the company appeared on the website Cheddar News, where all important news is reported, to talk about the brand's mission and vision for the year ahead.
Here she is explaining how M&Ms, she hopes, will spark a movement and change the world.
M&M's is on a mission to create a world where everyone feels they belong.
We're wanting to start a movement to remind everyone that despite our differences, we have an incredibly powerful thing in common as a community, which is the power of fun.
It's actually a reaffirmation, a concrete commitment to what we've always believed as a brand, That the power of fun is the most important way that we can help people feel included and increase that sense of belonging.
And as you mentioned, as a reflection of that, you're going to see our brand evolve in its look and feel to reflect a dynamic and progressive world that we're living in.
Sounds promising.
There's nothing lofty about a brand of candy promising to fundamentally change and reshape society.
In fact, historians agree that a great number of the major revolutions in human history have been sparked by different types of candies.
The Reese's Revolution of 1645 is just one example.
But let's listen to their actual plan.
Because here's where things go off the rails a little bit, I think.
How will M&Ms be more inclusive exactly?
Listen.
So as an iconic brand that's been around for actually over 80 years, it's really important that we're evolving over time as well.
And one of the most powerful ways we can do that is through our beloved characters.
You'll see them as we've done a deep look at them both inside as well as out in terms of reflecting new looks, personalities, and backstories.
For example, Green, you'll see her better reflect empowerment and confidence and be known for more than just her shoes.
You're going to see green and brown together being a supporting force for women who are throwing shine and not shade.
You'll also see Orange really embraces true self, worries and all, and not be afraid to express it.
We actually know Orange is the most relatable of our characters in the crew, based on some conversations we've had with Gen Z, which we know is the most anxious generation.
And beyond our characters, you'll see things such as our increased color palette, as well as the different sizes and shapes of our lentils.
And a personal favorite of mine, more of an emphasis on the ampersand.
It's a distinctive element of the M&M's logo that connects the two M's together.
And it's really a signal of our belief as a brand that we are better together.
Wow.
Look, there's no question that women across the country will be uplifted and empowered by the green and brown M&M.
The support of these two anthropomorphized pieces of candy will be crucial to women.
In fact, not but a week ago I came into the living room and I found my wife collapsed on the couch in tears.
I asked her what was wrong and she told me that she didn't feel supported by the green M&M and all I could do was hold her and weep with her.
Now M&Ms have addressed this problem and that is admirable and important.
And there's likewise no doubt that we all will derive inspiration from the Orange M&M as he embraces his true self.
It's always been clear to me that the Orange M&M was repressing his true identity, hiding his truth away in fear.
And it brings me comfort to know that he'll finally be able to live authentically.
But with all that said, M&Ms have still dropped the ball significantly.
First of all, it is unconscionable that in the year 2022 there still is no overt LGBT representation in the M&M community.
Perhaps the true self stuff is supposed to hint at the Orange M&M's sexuality, but mere hinting is not even close to good enough.
We have to know in very precise terms about the Orange M&M's sexual identity and gender expression.
Is he gay?
Is he bisexual?
Is he a trans M&M?
Is he a genderqueer, non-binary, transmasculine, two-spirit, demisexual?
The fact that he's still forced to keep this part of himself locked away only shows that M&M's, as a company, is not serious in its commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Indeed, its erasure of LGBT identities is a direct assault on an already marginalized community which has been waiting too long for candy brand representation.
Further, while we can appreciate the fact that there is a brown M&M which serves to validate black and brown bodies, still there has not been any ad campaign, so far as I'm aware, dealing with systemic racism or police brutality.
We have not seen an ad, for example, where the brown M&M is racially profiled during a traffic stop.
Is that because the M&M's brand denies That the black community is subject to such persecution?
Or do they just not care enough to acknowledge this reality in their ad campaigns?
Which is it, M&Ms?
This is all to say nothing of the fact that still, even now, in the year 2022, they haven't introduced a line of M&Ms where the M is written in braille for the sake of the visually impaired.
This continued oversight effectively makes it impossible for blind people to eat M&Ms, a problem that could be solved by litigation or legislation if Congress could get its act together, but which is, you know, a truly inclusive company would address on its own.
Of course, this is part of a long history of M&M ableism.
For a long time, their motto was, if you remember, melts in your mouth, not in your hand, completely ignoring the fact that some Americans don't have hands.
So it's clear that M&M's commitment to progress, equity, and inclusion is tentative at best.
Disingenuous at worst.
This rebrand is an improvement.
Doesn't go nearly far enough.
All I can say to M&Ms is this.
Listen to marginalized communities.
Hear what they're saying.
And do the work.
Until then, you're cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today and the week.
Have a great weekend.
Talk to you on Monday.
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 producer is Mathis Glover, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vladovsky, the show is edited by Robbie Dantzler, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
