Ep. 895 - We Must Defend The Biden Administration’s Perverted Values
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Biden Administration has said that American families will have to bear the cost of defending Ukraine against Russia. Why should we have to bear this cost? Because we have to defend our values overseas. But whose values? And what values? We’ll talk about that today. Also, the Supreme Court will decide whether a web designer has the right to refuse to make wedding announcements for a same sex wedding. And the sponsors of that so-called “don’t say gay” bill in Florida have started to buckle under left wing pressure. Plus another UFO sighting, proving once again definitively that aliens walk among us. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with the unintentionally hilarious efforts of the Women’s March to turn student debt into a women’s rights issue.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
I am now a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/ud1j6
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Stopping the attack on America starts with exposing the source: from within. Subscribe to The Daily Wire and start streaming The Enemy Within today. https://utm.io/uejBd
Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Biden administration has said that American families will have to bear the cost of defending Ukraine against Russia.
Why should we have to bear that cost?
Because we have to defend our values overseas, they say.
But whose values and what values?
We'll talk about all that today.
Also, the Supreme Court will decide whether a web designer has the right to refuse to make wedding announcements for a same-sex wedding.
And the sponsors of that so-called don't-say-gay bill in Florida have started to buckle under left-wing pressure.
Unfortunately, Plus another UFO sighting proving once again definitively that aliens walk among us in their daily cancellation.
We'll deal with the unintentionally hilarious efforts of the Women's March to turn student debt into a women's rights issue.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
The pro-life movement must maintain its momentum now more than ever.
And what better way to help than by supporting the charities and
causes that you care about, even if the Supreme Court were to strike down Roe v. Wade.
Abortion will still exist in America.
It's still going to be legal in many states across the country.
Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company, and it's still so important that you support the pro-life cause and pro-life companies.
They partner with you to automatically support the pro-life, pro-family charity of your choice with 5% of your monthly plan price and have sent millions of dollars to charities so far.
There's plenty of other perks as well, like new activations and eligible accounts.
Get a free cell phone with free activation and free shipping when you mention offer code WALSH.
Charity Mobile makes it easy to switch.
You can keep your existing phone number and you might be able to keep your existing phone as well.
But if you need a new phone, no problem.
Charity Mobile has a variety of options, from the latest 5G phones to the low-cost smartphones and basic phones as well.
All of their monthly plans include unlimited domestic minutes and messages, which can be shared by up to eight lines on a family plan.
No contracts, no termination fees, and no risk with a 30-day guarantee.
There's also great live customer service as well.
So switch to Charity Mobile and support the causes you care about.
Call them at 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com and mention offer code WALSH.
Up until this point, I think it's safe to assume that you had never spent one second of your life thinking about Ukraine or worrying about who controls the different regions of it.
It's not that you're callous or apathetic, it's just that you're a finite being, limited by both time and space, and so you're naturally most concerned with the things happening closest to you.
Countries are fighting all over the globe in various ways.
Factions are at war with one another all over the place.
Land being taken, claimed, reclaimed.
Are you supposed to have an opinion about all of those conflicts?
Are you supposed to take a side?
Maybe there are people fighting over something in Botswana right now, or Zambia, or wherever else.
But you don't even bother to check, because if there is a fight happening in those places, it's not your fight.
Now, this again is not cruel disregard for the suffering of others.
It's rather a lack of mental, emotional, and physical resources.
You can only be so many places at once.
You can only care about so many things at once.
It's also a matter of priorities.
You are loyal first and foremost to your family and your community, your country.
That is your realm of interest, your sphere of influence.
That's what's been given to you to care for and help protect.
But now, in an instant, Out of nowhere, the powers that be in your country are telling you that you should care very much about Ukraine.
It is indeed now your responsibility to care about the suffering of the Ukrainian people, you're told.
How could you abandon them in their time of need?
You are tied to them by spiritual bonds that you've just now been made aware of, and which require you to care about their circumstances, even as you're allowed to continue not thinking much at all about the circumstances of people in Botswana, or Zambia, or Bolivia, or Uzbekistan, or Nigeria, or even Afghanistan now.
That last country was supposed to matter deeply to you for the last 20 years, but now it's not supposed to matter at all.
Nobody can quite explain why it should have mattered before or why it shouldn't matter now if it did matter before.
But you're required to stand still and let the conveyor belt take you to the next destination.
Don't ask any questions.
Because now it's all about Ukraine.
You were allowed to spend every second of your life, up until now, not caring about that country, not ever thinking about it, ever.
But today, today you must care deeply.
You must be willing to sacrifice anything for its sake.
And if you don't, if you commit the sin of feeling the same way about Ukraine as you felt yesterday and every day before that, then you're a despicable traitor.
You're treasonous scum.
You should be arrested and shot, or maybe just shot.
Why bother with the arrest?
Russia is moving into some regions of Ukraine that you know nothing about.
You've never been there, you don't know what they look like, you don't know anything about them.
But Putin claims that the people in those regions want him there.
Ukraine says that's not true.
Our government and the media also say that it isn't true.
Now, you have no way of knowing for sure how true it is or isn't, but your patriotic duty, allegedly, is to simply believe whatever distilled version of a complex geopolitical issue you happen to hear on CNN.
If you fail to believe it, or if you even ask for more information in regards to it, you are, again, a traitor.
I mean, if you ask a simple question, like when Putin says, well, they want us there, and you say, do they?
I mean, do we know that they don't?
Even that question makes you a traitor.
You can't ask it.
Who are you to ask questions like that?
President Biden spoke to the nation yesterday and managed to be rambling and meandering, even though he only spoke for 10 minutes and didn't take any questions.
Of the parts of his speech which were intelligible, amid all of the drunken, dementia-riddled slurring and stuttering, this perhaps was the most important.
Biden said that there will be costs that your family will have to bear for the sake of Ukraine.
Listen.
Defending freedom will have costs for us as well and here at home.
We need to be honest about that.
But as we do this, I'm going to take robust action to make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at the Russian economy, not ours.
Now, you might point out that gas prices were already high.
That's true, but it's a fact that the administration hopes you forget, and most people probably will forget it, as we're all like the guy in Memento with a memory that resets itself every 45 minutes.
But from here forward, every bad thing happening in our country will be because of the Ukraine crisis, and thus because of Russia and Putin.
CBS News got the memo and published this headline this morning.
Here's the headline.
The U.S.
economy has been hit with increased gas prices, inflation, and supply chain issues Due to the Ukraine crisis.
Now, sure, we had increased gas prices, inflation, and supply chain issues last month, and the month before that, and before that, and before that, and before that, and before that.
But it turns out that all of those problems were caused by the things that Putin is doing right now.
He's more dangerous than we thought.
Apparently, he has a time machine, too.
But even if the administration plays this game, it's still true that our involvement in the Ukraine crisis, which is only really a crisis because we've chosen to treat it as one, will come with a cost.
And it'll be a cost primarily paid by you and by me and our families, not Joe Biden.
If this does escalate to a full-scale war, that'll be another cost paid exclusively by us and not by the ones who caused the war.
This raises another important question.
Why should we have to pay any cost at all?
Why should my family be forced to suffer any consequences whatsoever or make any sacrifices whatsoever for Ukraine?
Now, I ask this question sincerely, by the way.
It's not rhetorical.
I mean, unlike most pundits and everybody else on social media, I'm not pretending to be an expert on the Russia-Ukraine conflict just because it's the thing that's happening right now in the news cycle.
My focus and interest and area of study is our culture, the things happening in our country, the state of our own society.
So I admit to knowing very little about Ukraine, which puts me in the same boat as almost everybody else talking about the topic, even if most of the rest of them won't admit that they don't know anything about it.
So I'm willing to believe that there might be, theoretically, some valid national security reason to involve ourselves in the Ukraine situation.
That's the only reason why I would ever support our involvement.
Our government, I contend, should be exclusively focused on serving and protecting our people.
Nobody else's.
That's their only job.
It has no other job.
But events overseas can, of course, hypothetically affect us in direct and significant ways, forcing us to inject ourselves into the middle of something like this.
I mean, that's possible.
And so I ask, not rhetorically, why should we care about this?
How does the fate of the contested regions in Ukraine directly and personally impact my family and your family?
How is our security directly at stake here?
And as to whatever actions we're taking now or will take in the future, how do they make us safer and help us thrive?
I don't want to know how they make Ukrainians safer or help them thrive.
I don't really care about that.
I want to know about us.
Because that's what matters to me as an American.
It's a good question and one that the people in charge must answer.
If they can't answer it or won't answer it, then we have to draw our own conclusions.
As it happens, a reporter at the White House briefing yesterday did ask this very question.
He asked Jen Psaki why Americans should have to bear any cost for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty.
I mean, how do you make that sales pitch?
How do you tell American families who are already hurting from all of these things that they have to hurt more now for Ukrainian sovereignty?
What does that have to do with us?
Here was the answer.
Well, I think what hopefully the American people who are tuning into this or have been tuning into this will see is that the President of the United States and his entire national security apparatus have been rallying the world and standing up against the efforts of Russia to invade and carve out a chunk of another country for their own.
And that is the world is standing with the United States against the actions of President
Putin.
Now, why does that matter?
I realize that's what you're asking me.
Why does that matter to the American people?
That should matter because that is a fundamental value that we as a country stand up for, and
we stand up against that type of action.
That goes back to World War II, and we have repeatedly throughout history been leaders
in the world in rallying support for any efforts to seize territory from another country.
When the President spoke to the American people last week, it was very important to him to
be very direct and clear and straightforward with them about what this could mean as we
looked to what the impact of an invasion could mean, and also what the impact of sanctions
And the fact that standing up for values is not without cost, including in this case.
Well, there you have it.
The White House doesn't even pretend that American families are somehow at risk because of Putin's actions in Ukraine.
If that was the case, and if they could make that case, they would have made it.
That's the strongest case.
They don't even pretend that our involvement is to protect and defend our own people.
They say that this is about standing up for values, which is the same justification given for every bad and disastrous conflict we've involved ourselves in for the last several decades.
We have to stand for values.
But what values?
The value that says no country should ever invade another country?
How is that a value?
There are, again, invasions and incursions and conflicts all over the globe, everywhere, all the time.
Do our values stipulate that we have to play referee in all of those disputes?
And I have to ask, who appointed us referee anyway?
What right do we have to assume that role, especially since we've been known to do plenty of invading ourselves?
No, that can't be the value.
So what is it?
What values are we supposedly fighting for?
Is it the value of freedom?
Well, what is freedom?
Our government is run by people who think freedom includes the mass slaughter of infants.
To them, we have to kill 60 million babies for freedom.
That's freedom.
They think freedom must sometimes involve shutting down thousands of private businesses by force, closing up churches, forcing kids to wear muzzles for two years in a row.
That's their idea of freedom.
They believe in the kind of freedom that includes chemically castrating 11-year-old boys.
Freedom for them might also involve censoring unsafe political opinions.
They believe in the kind of freedom that has turned our cities into crime-infested wastelands.
Is that the kind of freedom that we now want to export overseas?
Is that what we're out there defending so valiantly?
See, the, uh, we-must-defend-our-values thing was always foolish, but now it's also foolish, but as well, incoherent.
Because how can we, quote-unquote, defend our, quote-unquote, values, when we don't share any values?
What's this our-values stuff?
Speak for yourself, Bisaki.
I don't have any of your values.
We have no values in common.
At all.
None.
The Biden administration just hired a drag queen BDSM dog fetishist to help run our energy policy.
Is that another of the values that we have to defend?
And now they want me and all the rest of us to go to war in defense of values that we detest?
They call for our loyalty and fidelity after years spent treating us like scum and labeling us domestic terrorists?
And they expect us to just go along?
Well, they're in for a rude awakening.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
And that's why you always got to stay on top of it.
And that's why we use a MyHouse Naturally It's Clean.
Did you know that you can get a hospital-grade cleaning product that won't leave harmful chemicals on all of your surfaces?
Introducing Naturally It's Clean, a home cleaning company dedicated to providing the most effective cleaning products for your home while reducing the use of harmful chemicals as well.
They're secret, powerful plant-based enzymes, nature solution to cleaning.
Naturally It's Clean has safer chemistry formulas to clean every area of your home, from the bathroom to your hardwood floors to your kitchen.
All of their products are manufactured right here in the USA, and they offer two-day free shipping direct to your door.
And they're also, again, safe, which is great, too, when you have kids, because they're constantly getting into everything.
And that's why you need this product.
Try them for yourself.
Right now, my listeners can get their hands on the Naturally It's Clean Daily Wire Essential Kit.
Well, I am fighting my own battle today, also courageously, fighting for my life because I have another cold that I'm dealing with.
and use promo code Matt, try out these incredible cleaning products in your home today for 15%
off by visiting naturallyitsclean.com/matt.
Matt, thanks for joining us.
But as always for me, my colds all concentrate in the throat.
These are the only symptoms I ever get, just a sore throat, which is great because I talk for a living.
But my kids are to blame for this, as always, because they're constantly bringing disease into the house.
They're just vectors of disease or little petri dishes that you have in your house all the time.
And that's one of the many reasons why I wasn't going to panic over COVID.
And never did, because I couldn't have panicked, even if I wanted to.
I don't know how any parent could.
Because kids are so disease-infested and germy that you just have to learn to live with it and accept it.
You get used to it.
They're going to be bringing all kinds of exotic diseases into the house, and you know it's going to happen, and you live with it.
There's no other way to function.
So this latest thing I got for my two-year-old, and I know the exact moment that I contracted it.
I know when I got it.
Because it was the moment that she leaned in to tell me a secret.
Like, leaned in directly face-to-face, and then proceeded to cough right in my face, point-blank range.
I could feel the particles, the cold virus particles, going up my nose and infecting me right in that moment.
And the secret, by the way, wasn't even a good secret.
And it never is with kids.
Because she came over and said, Daddy, a secret.
And I said, OK, what's your secret?
And then, first thing, right in my face.
And then, I saw a cow in my womb.
Room.
She saw a cow in her room.
That was the secret.
Which, first of all, if there was a cow in your room, why are we keeping it a secret?
And second, you're totally full of it.
I guarantee there was no cow.
Fact check on that.
Misleading.
More sources needed.
Not worth getting sick over.
All right, let's, before we move on from Ukraine, I wanted to check in, and I think this is worthy of being the top headline for us today in the five headlines, I want to check in with a voice of reason on the Ukraine subject, someone who I think we were all kind of waiting and like I've already said, you know, I don't know a whole lot about the issue myself and most people don't.
And so we're waiting for voices of authority, people who know what they're talking about and are very well read and have studied this subject.
We're waiting for them to kind of, you know, guide us, give us a little bit of guidance.
And finally yesterday we got that.
Listen to this.
The phone is not hacked, it's really me.
I actually want to say a lot of things but I'm just going to mind my business because sometimes I feel like I have such a big platform that if I don't say the right things I might get killed.
But I'm really not on NATO's side, I'm really not on Russian's side.
I'm actually on the citizens' side because at the end of the day the world is having a crisis right now.
There's inflation not only in America but everywhere in the world.
It's really hard to get, um, the economy back up.
There is so much shipments and embarkments backed up.
China's not really messing with us.
So a lot of things are behind.
A lot of goods are behind and this shit just made it way more complicated.
So I'm just really annoyed by this.
And I really wish that all world leaders right now just really come with a logical conclusion, but whatever.
Yeah.
I mean, she raises some good points.
As she says, so much shipments and embarkments backed up.
I don't know.
I'm not sure if those are even words.
And China's not really messing with us, she points out.
I mean, you could say that they are kind of messing with us and that they unleashed a virus on the world that killed five million people.
You know, they kind of messed with us that way.
But either way, that's her take.
And you know what?
That is what I'll say about it at least, is that it is at least as coherent and meaningful
as anything we've heard from the Biden administration about this issue.
That actually made more, I'm not going to say it made a lot of sense, but it made more
sense comparatively than the clip we played of Jen Psaki saying that we have to get involved
for our values.
So whose side are you going to take?
Cardi B or Jen Psaki?
Those are the only two sides available, I'm afraid.
Okay, this is from the Wall Street Journal.
It says, the Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider whether a Colorado website designer had a First Amendment right to refuse to produce same-sex wedding announcements, which is the latest clash between LGBT and religious rights.
Since its landmark 2015 decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, the high court has moved cautiously in carving out constitutional exemptions for organizations, business owners opposed to those rights.
Last June, the justice decided that a Catholic foster service agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination.
The decision was based, however, on the court's own reading of Philadelphia's Fair Practices Ordinances and its contract with Catholic social services rather than broad constitutional principles.
The court has yet to rule squarely as to whose rights the LGBT communities or religious conservatives must yield when they directly conflict.
The Colorado case granted Tuesday to be argued in the court's next term and likely decided by June 2023 suggests the justice may be ready to address that issue.
So there's also the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which was also out of Colorado.
And there's a reason why all these cases are coming out of Colorado,
because the Colorado, whatever they call it, their equal rights or
the Human Rights Commission, whatever Orwellian name they give to it.
But they've been on this campaign for years now to seek out any Christian
business owners in their state and punish them, put them out of business.
And it's oftentimes very targeted, very intentional.
Jack Phillips over at Masterpiece Cake Shop.
There's been this targeted effort to take him down.
We know for a fact.
I mean, there was a transgender person who went to Jack Phillips in Colorado a couple years ago and said he wanted a cake to celebrate his gender transition.
A gender transition cake, because that's a thing now.
Well, it's not really a thing, but this guy invented it.
Because he wanted to entrap Jack Phillips, and so that's the kind of thing going on.
Is that what happened here?
You know, I don't really know.
I'm not sure.
But one way or another, you know, same-sex couple wanted wedding announcements, and this web designer said, well, you know, I can't do that because That means that I'm, in some ways, I am directly promoting, I mean, I'm advertising a same-sex wedding, and that's against my religion.
I can't do it.
That's why this is very different, okay?
Although these sorts of things are always conflated, this is not the same thing as, say, a restaurant putting a sign out front saying, no gays allowed.
Okay, that's a different sort of refusing of service.
Not the same thing.
Because in this case, the web designer didn't say, oh, I can't do any work for gay people.
If you're a gay person, I can't be involved with you.
That's not what was said.
Okay, this is not a discrimination, quote-unquote, against individuals.
This is just a particular sort of service that I cannot provide.
I can make announcements for various different things, but an announcement for a same-sex wedding, that's just something that I don't provide.
I don't do that.
And really, her reasons for not doing it shouldn't even matter.
She's the business owner.
If she doesn't want to do this, if she doesn't want to associate herself with that, then that should be it.
This is not only a matter of free speech rights and also, of course, freedom of religion, but it's also a matter of freedom of association, which is the very freedom that the gay rights side has hinged, you know, the right to gay marriage on.
It's freedom of association.
Well, does a business owner not also have that same freedom to decide who they're going to associate with and particularly what services they want associated with them?
And you open up the floodgates and present a lot of extra questions.
If you say, oh yeah, we can force you to make wedding announcements for a same-sex wedding.
What if there's, you know, we could all think of all kinds of different types of events that a person, a business owner, might not want to be associated with for one reason or another.
Are they not allowed to make those kinds of determinations now?
Now in the Wall Street Journal article, it says that this is a case that the court has to rule on, where we're weighing the LGBT community's rights against religious conservatives' rights.
And as they put it, when these rights directly conflict, which rights have to yield to the other?
Well, this leads to the question of, just like we asked in the opening, When we talk about freedom, what do you mean by that?
That we have to go overseas and defend freedom?
Well, I need you to tell me what you mean.
What do you mean when you say freedom?
Because we are not working with shared definitions when it comes to any of these words.
That is very clear by now.
So the same question comes with rights.
What do you mean by rights, human rights?
Because if the idea of human rights means anything, if it's coherent at all, Then it would seem to me that they can't really conflict.
If there appears to be a conflict where you have one right claim against another right claim and one has to supersede the other, one has to yield so the other can be asserted, if that's happening, I think that's a pretty good indication that we have a misconception about what rights are.
And that one or both of these rights claims are false.
Because our human rights are supposed to be embedded.
They're supposed to be natural.
They're supposed to be inherent to us as human beings.
Which means that they should not constantly be bumping into each other and causing all these kinds of conflicts.
If there is this sort of conflict, then that would seem to indicate that we have a misapprehension about what rights are.
And that misapprehension is pretty obvious here.
Is this the LGBT community's rights up against religious conservatives' rights?
No.
Because as far as the LGBT community goes, their rights are not at stake here.
What right is at stake exactly?
What right is being infringed upon?
For the business owner, we know what the rights are.
It's pretty clear.
Freedom of speech.
You know, Kent, making a wedding announcement is a form of speech, so if that speech can be compelled by law, then it's hard to say you have freedom of speech, so your right to freedom of speech is at stake.
If you could be compelled by law to do something that directly conflicts with your religious beliefs, then your right to religious liberty is at stake.
And if you could be compelled by law to associate with something or with people you don't want to associate with, then your right to freedom of association is at stake.
So it's very clear on that side where the right claim comes in, but for the LGBT community, what right are we talking about?
Your right to wedding announcements.
And even if there was a right to wedding announcements, which, you know, I don't see that enumerated anywhere.
I don't know where that right comes from.
Is that a God-given right?
Did God imbue us all with the inherent natural right to wedding announcements?
But even if you have that right, somehow, well, By no means is that right being infringed upon or taken away or even significantly interfered with if one person, one business owner says, oh, I don't want to make those announcements.
Because there are dozens of other places you can go to get the exact same thing made.
And I guarantee for the same price, probably.
So if there is some sort of right to wedding announcements, that's not at stake here.
You can still go anywhere else.
And I think that's what a normal and decent person would do.
You know, if you want to get announcements made for some kind of event and a business owner says, hey, listen, I just, I don't believe in this and I'm sorry, but I can't make, I can't, I can't be a part of this.
As a, as a, just a decent adult, the correct response is, okay, well, I'll find somewhere else.
But then to go to the government and say, no, no, no, I want you to force them.
They don't want to be involved, but I want you to force them to be involved.
Well, why can't you go to any of these places over here?
No, no, because I want this person.
They said they don't want me and now I want them.
That makes you a child.
That's narcissism on steroids.
So there's no right.
What is the right exactly?
That's at stake for the LGBT community.
If the Supreme Court says that, oh yeah, this business owner has the right to not make those wedding announcements, does that mean that no same-sex couple ever again will be able to get wedding announcements made?
Are we worried about that happening?
If that is your concern, then I can just tell you that that is certainly not going to happen.
This is also one of the inherent contradictions on the gay rights side because on one hand, we are constantly told by LGBT activists that the kind of anti-gay marriage side, the belief in quote-unquote traditional marriage, Which I don't really like that qualification of traditional.
Because what you call traditional marriage, I just say that is marriage by definition.
But regardless, they would say that the belief in quote-unquote traditional marriage, you're like a dinosaur if you still stand by that.
You're far outnumbered, you're way on the fringes, you're a wacky fringe right-wing whatever.
That's what they said.
But then at the same time, they say that if the Supreme Court doesn't force Christian business owners to do business with same-sex couples for same-sex weddings, then next thing you know, no same-sex couple will ever be able to do business anywhere ever again.
Because although this is a fringe, wacky, dinosaur view, Apparently all the business owners in America are just waiting for the opportunity.
They're waiting for the Supreme Court to give them the go ahead so they can put the, you know, no gays allowed sign up on the window.
Well, which is it?
Choose a lane, is what I would say.
All right.
This is an update from the Washington Examiner.
I think a rather unfortunate update.
It says a Florida lawmaker withdrew a proposed amendment Tuesday that would require schools to notify parents of their children's sexual orientation as part of a larger and highly controversial bill that would bar schools from discussing sexual orientation with students.
Well, gender identity and sexual orientation with elementary school students is an important detail to add in there.
Joe Harding, a representative in the Florida State House, filed the amendment last week seeking to add it to the so-called Don't Say Gay Bill that has garnered significant national attention.
The amendment would have required school officials to inform a student's parents within six weeks if their child tells the school they have a non-straight sexual orientation.
But now it has been withdrawn.
Two lawsuits have been filed in recent months after two separate public schools orchestrated gender transitions for students who expressed gender dysphoria without notifying the student's parents.
And that, by the way, is one of the reasons why this amendment was added.
And it's a reason why the amendment should stay in there.
My only problem with the amendment, the only thing that makes it outrageous and offensive to me, is that the schools were given six weeks to tell the parents.
Now, I don't want, not six weeks, how about like six minutes?
There should be no time elapsing between when the school finds out some intimate detail about my children and they tell me.
That should be immediate.
Like, not six days, certainly not six weeks.
You tell me right away.
Because it's my right to know, because it's my child.
It's not your child, it's mine.
And that's why the amendment should stay in there.
So it's quite disappointing that it was that it was taken out and This kind of sends the message that oh, okay.
Well actually Schools do have the right to keep secrets with kids and not just not just any secrets but secrets of a sexual nature Schools are allowed to you know Just because the school knows this really important detail about your child doesn't mean they have to tell you and Because that's what we're talking about here again.
This is this was the amendment never required that schools sit down and Start interrogating the kids.
Okay, we're not talking about waterboarding or something to find out what their sexual orientation is No, the whole point of the bill is to say that we you should not be having those conversations with elementary school students It's none of your damn business.
It's not appropriate But If you do happen to find out some important information about a child, their parents ought to know.
There shouldn't be any information about a child, you know, about like a nine-year-old, that all of his friends in school know, and that even the adults in the school know, but the parents don't.
Really, there shouldn't be any information like that.
Nothing.
There should be no details like that.
Especially when it comes to anything of a sexual nature.
But that amendment was taken out, unfortunately.
All right, this is from the New York Post.
We've got to cover this because, you know, I like these stories.
Alien hunters were left stunned after a bulging triangle UFO was filmed lurking over a major city for two hours.
The unusual object was spotted prowling the skies of Islamabad in broad daylight by an extraterrestrial enthusiast.
So it was there for two hours.
Let's take a look at the video here.
We have the video.
It's just sitting there.
Does it zoom in at all?
Let's see.
Can we get a zoom in?
It looks like a smudge on the camera.
It's moving around a little bit.
It's definitely something.
There is something in the sky.
With my naked eye, I can hardly now see.
It's definitely something.
There is something in the sky.
There is some sort of object.
I can't see anything at all.
I should have looked at this footage before we played it on the show, should I?
Okay, well... Well, I'm convinced.
I mean, what else could that be besides... I mean, in fairness, I could think of like ten other things it could be, but... Going through the list of options... As I always say...
The alien option is, we have to agree, at least the most exciting.
Yep, definitely.
And the most interesting, so it's what I choose to believe.
Alright, that's enough of that.
Okay, I was expecting it to zoom in a little bit more.
I was expecting it to zoom in and then you see the little green hand poke out the window and wave.
That's what I was expecting.
Have yet to see footage that compelling, but still pretty good.
I mean, look.
Let's just summarize this.
There's an object in the sky.
No doubt about that.
Nobody knows what the, it's unidentified.
Therefore aliens.
I rest my case.
All right.
One other thing.
So a couple of days ago, a basketball game between Michigan and Wisconsin got a little bit heated.
Michigan was losing the game by a large margin, but towards the end, Michigan's coach, Juwan Howard, felt that the other team was kind of like running up the score and being unsportsmanlike.
I think they called, you know, they were winning, they were going to win the game, there's only a few seconds left, and then Wisconsin, they called a timeout, and so they're running up the score And so he's upset about that.
And his way of communicating his feelings was to slap one of the other coaches in the face.
I mean, it wasn't quite that direct.
There was an altercation.
There was an exchange of words.
And then Howard slapped the guy.
So we have the footage.
Let's play some of this footage here.
You see the one coach, you know, they're yelling at each other because he's saying, look, you're being mean to me.
I don't like you're being super mean.
And then the other guy jumps in, too.
Says, no, you're the mean one.
You're the mean one.
And then, oh, slap right in the face.
Yeah.
These are the coaches, by the way, acting that way.
So, look.
After that, Howard, the coach who slapped the other coach, was suspended just five games and given, I think, a $40,000 fine, which is relatively minor, you know, for these guys, a pretty light penalty.
And so I was initially torn on this, because on the one hand, you're a grown man, you're a coach, you're supposed to be a role model.
And your team is kids, basically.
I mean, college kids.
And so you're supposed to be setting a good example.
And here you are getting into a slap fight after the game.
On the other hand, I actually think we tend to get a little bit too bent out of shape about guys getting rough with each other, especially in the context of sports.
This is how dudes settle differences sometimes.
We tend to express our anger in a more physical way.
And I don't think that should be such a big deal.
A little tussle.
No reason for it to be a breaking news scandal.
Ultimately, though, I think you have to penalize him because, you know, when you balance everything out, he did get into a physical fight with another coach in the middle of the game.
But, so that's kind of my take on the whole situation.
But then the left-wing media got to work.
And here was the headline from Deadspin.
When it comes to Juwan Howard and Greg Gard, who's the other coach, why is the black coach the only one suspended when the white coach started it?
Now to be clear, the black coach smacked the guy and only was suspended for five games.
It's about as light as the penalty could really be.
I mean, five games?
You could easily make, if you want to take it here, which is not where I would take it, it's not my decision to take it in the racial direction, but if you're going to take it there, you could easily make the case that his race helped him, if anything.
Because just imagine for a second if the races were reversed.
I mean, imagine if the footage is a white coach slapping a black coach across the face.
I mean, Brian Flores would file a lawsuit over that and he's, he doesn't even play, he's not even in basketball.
In the NFL.
There'd be lawsuits over that, probably, and we'd hear all about the, you know, systemic racism and everything.
Imagine the deadspin.
I mean, they're able to make this kind of headline when it's the black coach slapping the white coach.
Now think about what the deadspin headline is if it's the white coach slapping the black coach.
But you almost have to admire it.
I mean, that's the thing about the left, is that they always stay on message, no matter what.
Black coach slaps a white coach.
In reality, race has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
These are just two guys who got, who got, you know, are taking the game way too seriously and they started fighting.
But on the left, they always stay on message.
Stay on the narrative.
You have to admire it.
Maybe not admire it, but respect it a little bit, I guess.
Let's get now to our comment section.
Who makes a Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage?
Who's to blame?
Alright, DeliWire.com slash Sweet Baby Comments.
If you want to leave a video comment, we've got a couple of those.
Let's start with clip 9.
Hey, what's up?
It's your boy Jibberish here.
Just witnessed a cart fly across the parking lot.
I'm at Target right now, but I'm not gonna go get it because I'm in Cleveland and you get robbed like every 10 minutes here if you step out of your car.
So yeah, that cart's on its own now.
If it hits someone, not a problem of mine.
I just put one away the other day.
I have a video of that.
But, yeah, that card's staying where it is.
So, not in Cleveland.
Not getting them there.
So, SPG for life, but I'm sure I'm banned.
So, thank you.
Well, you are banned, of course, and this is your guilty conscience.
Why else would you feel the need to let me know about this?
You're trying to justify something you know isn't right.
All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
Remember that, Gibberish.
Remember that.
Let's play the next one.
Okay, so that guy's supposed to look like me, I guess?
Is that the idea?
He's got a beard and glasses.
Like, every single person who has a beard and glasses now, I'm always told, oh, he looks just like you.
There's probably millions of people with beards and glasses.
It's not that distinctive of a trait.
I mean, I could see the resemblance.
You know what he looks like?
He is, um...
Try to put my finger on it.
He's like a combination of me and Roy from The Office.
If me and Roy from The Office, you know, Pam's boyfriend.
If me and Roy from The Office had a baby, it would be that guy.
So this is the origin story, maybe, of the sweet baby from the Sweet Baby Gang logo.
It's quite a horrifying origin story.
Not a movie you want to see, I guarantee you that.
Let's see, Scott Allison says, if I had a daughter at a science camp and a biological male identifying as they then shared a room, they would soon identify as patient 457 in ICU ward.
Well, that's the appropriate response, and as always with these kinds of stories, you have to ask the question of, where are the dads?
Even in the news clip that we played yesterday from this story, parents speaking out about the fact that they sent their 10-year-old daughters off to a science camp.
And then they come home and find out that adult male counselors were bunking with them, having slumber parties with these little girls.
And yeah, we were told parents were speaking out about it, except that all the parents in the news clip were all the moms.
Where are the dads exactly?
Very good question.
Danielle says, sexuality should not be discussed or taught at any age in school.
Now tolerance, acceptance, and non-bullying, no matter your sexual preference or gender identity, has been and is in force and should be, but that's completely different than actively teaching it.
Let kids be kids.
They should learn that there is much more to personality slash lifestyle than your gender slash sexuality.
I'm only going to disagree with you, Danielle, because I don't think that tolerance and acceptance should be taught or enforced either.
You know, because then the questions are like, what are we tolerating exactly?
Why are we tolerating that?
And acceptance is a whole other level.
Who decides what we're supposed to accept and why?
These are all moral claims and moral judgments.
And you as a public school teacher, that's not your job.
You know, to moralize and to kind of impose your own moral view of the world onto kids.
Now, it's not your job.
It's not why anybody sends their kids to public school.
Parents send their kids to public school naively thinking they're going to get just a basic academic education.
So it's not your job.
It is also inevitable that the lessons being taught to kids will be wrapped up in a moral worldview.
But that doesn't make it, okay.
All right, let's see what else we got.
Joshua says, I think you're wrong on Ukraine.
We should be willing for full-scale war.
We learned in the last two world wars, if you ignore dictators, they'll keep conquering until someone stops them.
Either we stop Russia now or we'll have World War III later.
You want a world war, ignoring this is how you get it.
Okay, Joshua, I appreciate at least that you're trying to make some kind of national security-based argument for why we should get involved.
So, you're on the right track.
You're trying to make the right kind of argument.
I just don't find the argument compelling, because it's actually not an argument, it's just an assertion.
What you're saying is, we let Putin take over Ukraine, next thing you know, World War III.
Well, you've got to connect those dots for me.
Okay, because it's like, step one, Putin takes over Ukraine, and then down here, like, step ten is World War III, but I need to know steps two through nine.
You gotta fill in that.
How does that work?
I mean, are you suggesting that Putin takes over Ukraine and then keeps going, and next thing you know, he's trying to invade the United States and take us over, too?
Is that your concern?
Well, I don't know, but you have to explain that to me.
Because I have heard this.
Diana says, I don't agree that parents have the right to know their child's sexual orientation.
They're still talking about we have to defend our values and so on and so forth
But when it comes to the peanut gallery online most of them, you know, you're hearing a lot about well
It's it'll be World War three He's gonna take over the world and all this kind of stuff
But you've got a got a flesh that out a little bit more because I don't find it terribly convincing
Diana says I don't agree that parents have the right to know their child's sexual orientation
That's creepy. And if the students who are outed do end up being abused or kicked out
That would be horrible.
So it's creepy for a parent to know their child?
You find that to be... I hope you're not a parent yourself, Diana, with that kind of attitude.
That's creepy?
You want to understand and know your child?
That's creepy.
If you're using some sort of mind-reading device to do it, then maybe I'll agree that that might be creepy, but no, in this case, it's just, you know what the mind-reading device is?
It's you should be told information about your child that other people already know.
So what we're talking about here is a child has quote-unquote come out at school and their friends know it and the teachers know it.
Everybody knows it.
But should the parents be the one group that does not know this information about the kid?
I would say the creepy thing is when everyone has this information about a child's sexuality and the parents do not.
They're the only ones that are cut out of it.
Here's a general rule of thumb.
There's never a good, non-creepy reason.
For an adult to want to keep these kinds of secrets with a child away from the parents.
Let's see, John says, You aren't giving the Animal Bill of Rights comments are a fair shake here.
Animals that are in captivity by humans aren't able to freely live however suits them best.
Non-pets on the streets are owed nothing because they aren't being forced into captivity.
Pets you force into your home are owed a life equal to the potential top quality they could achieve on their own.
Life on the streets is probably far more miserable than a mediocre pet owner offers their pets, but it's kind of a dumb straw man to make the comparison between the two in the way that you did.
Okay, so they're owed a life equal to the potential quality they could achieve on their own.
So you mean that they should eat once every four days?
Sleep out in the cold and the rain, be infested with ticks and parasites, live about six years and then die miserably, and their corpses are consumed by ants and crows?
Because that's the life they would lead on their own.
That's the life of a wild animal.
Forced into captivity?
That's how you think of domesticated dogs and cats?
No, it's not forced into captivity.
They're not our slaves.
They don't do anything.
This is not forced labor.
Most of these, they just sit around all day.
We have elevated these animals to the status of animal royalty, like animal celebrities.
So if a dog complains, that's like when Lady Gaga complained about being too famous.
It's just, it's not, especially compared to what everyone else is going through, compared to what other animals are going through, you got it easy.
You got it made in the shade, literally.
And this also raises the question, we go back to the question of rights, and we don't have time to get into all of it, but they have the right to do this.
Says who?
Where do animals derive their rights from exactly?
Where are those enumerated?
Philosophical question that we don't have time to get into right now.
You know, something about The Daily Wire is we're constantly getting bigger, we're constantly growing.
Every day we hire five new people, it seems like.
And you can see for yourself how much we're growing and how much we've got going on with our binge-worthy new docuseries, The Enemy Within, featuring acclaimed journalist and expert in national threats, Lee Smith.
Smith uncovers a political coup orchestrated by America's ruling elites to generate their own wealth and power at the expense of the American people's safety and freedom.
The second episode goes deep into the Biden family's ties to Chinese business and how Joe Biden, his administration, and his family have used their positions of power for personal gain at the expense of American security.
Here's the trailer.
Check it out.
What if everything we think we know about our leaders, our society, and our relations with the rest of the world is wrong?
America is facing two major challenges.
One is the Chinese Communist Party.
However, the most significant threat comes from within.
You're trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world.
Okay, Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.
We've already seen evidence of how the elites want to run the United States.
They're modeling themselves after Chinese autocracy.
For over a decade, the People's Republic of China has stood publicly accused of acts of cruelty and wickedness that match the cruelty and wickedness Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy as her driver.
We're not talking about one person infiltrating senior levels at the CIA or the White House.
We're talking about an entire elite class throughout the political, corporate, academic, cultural, and media establishment.
My name is Lee Smith.
I've been a journalist for more than 30 years.
This is the most astonishing espionage and infiltration operation in history.
What you're going to see in this series will shock you.
This is the Enemy Within.
[MUSIC]
Well, all episodes of the Enemy Within are streaming now exclusively at The Daily Wire.
So if you're not a member, now's the time to change that.
Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join us today.
You know, there's no better place for a grand meeting of the minds than sitting down over a cup of coffee and letting conversation flow, and nobody knows that better than Ben Shapiro.
In his new show, The Search, he'll be taking you to his favorite local spots to let you in on a secret.
Where the conversation goes when the camera isn't rolling.
The second episode of The Search will feature his very good friend, highly lauded historian, Niall Ferguson.
It's an excellent conversation and I highly recommend you check it out.
The episode releases tomorrow, Thursday the 24th.
It will be exclusive to DailyWire members, so if you're not currently a member, head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join today.
Well as my status within the LGBTQ community continues to grow, so does the cultural importance of my best-selling LGBTQ plus children's book, Johnny the Walrus.
This is why I was invited on to Dr. Phil as an expert in the field to discuss these most
important issues with other experts who were apparently not such experts because they couldn't
even tell me what a woman was.
But if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you check it out.
And even more importantly, if you have not picked up a copy of my bestselling children's
book, you should do so immediately.
It sold out in 48 hours when it was released.
But don't worry, more copies are on the way and they're going to ship very soon.
So reserve Johnny the Walrus now on Amazon.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well I felt like canceling feminists again today, one of my favorite pastimes.
And initially I thought I'd cancel them for this.
According to ESPN, quote, players from the United States women's national team have settled their class action equal pay lawsuit against the U.S.
Soccer Federation for a total of $24 million.
The USSF has also committed to providing an equal rate of pay going forward for the women's and men's national teams in all friendlies and tournaments, including the World Cup.
The issue of World Cup bonuses had long been a point of contention for the players.
Quote from Megan Rapinoe, she says, there's no real justice in this other than this never happening again.
With the settlement of the working conditions and this settlement, which is contingent upon a CBA that will have equal pay going forward, there's no other way to look at it than just a monumental win for women's sports and women's soccer in particular.
Okay, so female soccer players will now get equal pay.
Something that, if they didn't have it before, it was probably because nobody cares about women's soccer.
It's a simple economic explanation.
It's the same thing that explains why WNBA players make $3 an hour while NBA players make $3 million an hour.
I might be slightly exaggerating the pay scales there, but the point is that the NBA has lots of fans, whether it should or not, while nobody has ever actually seen a WNBA game.
Like, nobody has.
There's actually a lively philosophical debate about whether or not the WNBA even technically exists, given how little interest there is in it.
Women's soccer, for its part, has two strikes against it.
One, soccer.
Two, women's.
Although I suppose I should be grateful that female athletes have finally achieved equal pay right in time for the men to take over.
And that really is the greatest absurdity here, because these liberal female athletes are celebrating this great victory for women's sports, even as women's sports has effectively ceased to exist.
And that's, I think, worthy of its own cancellation, if not for this, at the 11th hour.
The Women's March has swooped in to claim the canceled title for itself, playing the gender card on a different topic, but just as absurdly.
The Women's March official account on Twitter tweeted this, quote, women hold $929 billion in student debt, two thirds of the nation's entire $1.7 trillion student debt load.
This is a gender justice issue.
POTUS, cancel student debt and put an end to this crisis.
Okay, where to begin?
First of all, $929 billion is not two-thirds of $1.7 trillion.
It's a little more than half, about 55%, give or take, which is considerably less than two-thirds.
If women are having trouble getting into college, I think we just discovered why.
Except, in fact, they aren't having trouble getting into college.
Women get into college more often than men.
They account for almost 60% of university enrollment.
If they also have the lion's share of debt, that would explain why.
More women in college equals more women with college debt.
Pretty logical.
But 60% enrollment against 55% of debt actually means that each individual woman, on average, is carrying less of the debt burden than each individual man.
Men are the ones paying more than their fair share, if that's how you want to look at it.
Although, it's not how you ought to look at it, because the only share that each should pay is the share they agreed to pay when they willingly took out their loans.
Does that make it a fair share?
Probably not.
I mean, not fair in any kind of objectively ethical sense.
The fact is that most people agree to pay way too much for an education that's worth way too little.
If you spent six figures on a degree in queer art history or whatever, thinking that it would somehow pay itself back in five years given the overwhelming market demand for queer art historians, I can't say that you paid a fair price.
The fair price would have been zero dollars.
Which is quite a bit less than what you're on the hook for.
But it's still your debt.
It isn't anybody else's.
It's yours.
So all this talk about relief and forgiveness, it obscures the point.
The government cannot snap its mighty fingers and make the debt go away.
That's not going to happen.
No plan has been presented that would or could accomplish such a thing.
Somebody has to pay your debts.
The debt you agreed to.
While purchasing the product you wanted and will keep has to be paid.
The only question is this.
Who should pay it?
You or someone else?
I don't see how you could offer any sound argument for the latter, even if you can convince me that the debt is unfair and predatory and you were taken advantage of.
I might agree with all of that, but it still seems clear that the fairest of the unfair remedies is for the person who took out the loan to pay it.
Because if it's unfair that you have to pay your loans, it's certainly many times more unfair that I should have to pay your loans or anybody else.
Besides, whatever possible argument could be made for loan forgiveness would clearly apply just as much to any other form of debt—mortgage, car, credit card, etc.
If you're struggling with student debt and you're handed a get-out-of-jail-free card, and I didn't go to college but I'm struggling to pay my mortgage, should I not be offered the same deal?
If your debt is a public emergency, why isn't my debt also a public emergency?
Now, it's true that I can file for bankruptcy, but bankruptcy isn't free, and it ain't fun, and I'm probably going to lose a lot of my stuff in the process.
You don't have to declare bankruptcy under any student loan forgiveness plan I've seen.
Why should I have to take that step?
What makes you special?
What happened to equality under the law?
You know, I really can't take any loan forgiveness plan seriously that doesn't require, at a minimum, the college grad who wants forgiveness must declare bankruptcy and also forfeit their college degree.
Nobody can take away what they learned, especially because most of them didn't learn anything.
But the degree can be rescinded, and that should be a necessary part of so-called forgiveness.
You didn't pay for it, you gotta give it back.
Call it a refund instead of forgiveness.
Now, I still wouldn't support even that plan, but it's at least a serious plan and makes some attempt at being fair.
But this is all academic.
Pun intended.
The feminists over at the Women's March aren't making a case for student loan forgiveness.
They're making a case for gender justice, whatever that is.
Only because they didn't pay attention in any of their math classes, they don't realize that the gender disparity on this issue, as with most other issues, cuts in their favor.
So, they're wrong about women being specially victimized by student loans, and they're wrong about the student loan issue in general.
They're wrong in every way, from every angle.
Other than that, ladies, great point.
Also, you're 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 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.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire.
On today's episode, the White House sanctions Russia for invading Ukraine, Biden narrows his list of Supreme Court nominees, and Washington state's controversial school policies on gender identity.
