Ep. 914 - The First Black Woman For The Supreme Court Doesn't Know What A Woman Is
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the “what is a woman” movement makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, as Judge Jackson reveals that though she wants to be on the Supreme Court, she cannot answer the most basic questions about reality. She also has a tenuous grasp of justice, as her lenient approach to child porn cases demonstrates. We’ll talk about all of this today. Plus, Governor DeSantis declares the real winner of the race that Lia Thomas won by cheating. ESPN is now woke on steroids. Harry’s, jealous of our success with Jeremy’s Razors, accuses the Daily Wire of hate speech. Kid Rock explains how to become uncancellable. And President Biden declares a new world order. Using those exact words.
Go to ihateharrys.com and place your first order for Jeremy’s razors today.
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
Join Third Thursday Book Club now to be a part of tonight’s Q&A: thirdthursdaybookclub.com
We’re exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL
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 What is a Woman movement makes it all the way to the Supreme Court as Judge Jackson reveals that though she wants to be on the Supreme Court, she cannot answer the most basic questions about reality.
She also has a tenuous grasp of justice as her lenient approach to child porn cases demonstrates.
Talk about all that today.
Governor DeSantis declares the real winner of the race that Leah Thomas won by cheating, ESPN is now woke on steroids, and Harry's jealous of our success with Jeremy's Razors accuses The Daily Wire of hate speech, plus Kid Rock explains how to become uncancellable, and President Biden declares a New World Order, using those exact words.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
With an Alto Crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and avoid or defer their taxes.
Get into investing in crypto and do it in a tax-advantaged retirement account.
They offer industry-leading security and trading 24-7 through Alto's integration with Coinbase.
There are 80-plus coins available, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cardano.
Altos Crypto IRA is the easy way to get crypto into an IRA.
Trade all you want without the tax headache.
Create an account with Alto Crypto IRA in just a few minutes
and invest with as little as $10.
Plus there's no setup charges, multiple ways to fund your account.
You can make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA
or roll over an old 401k.
Open an Alto Crypto IRA account with as little as $10.
Just go to altoira.com/mat.
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A.com/mat.
Go to altoira.com/mat.
The confirmation hearings for Kintanji Brown-Jackson took a shocking turn yesterday
when Republicans made the bold and controversial decision to ask the judge about her resume
and her judicial philosophy, her rulings, her fundamental beliefs.
Breaking from recent tradition, they, for whatever reason, did not ask Jackson how many beers she drank in college, nor did they inspect her high school yearbook for potential vulgarities.
Democrats claim that Jackson has been treated unfairly.
One can only assume that this is what they mean.
She's been treated like a judge seeking the highest judicial appointment in the land, and not like an alleged criminal on trial by a kangaroo court.
That's what essentially separates the way Republicans handle these sorts of things from the way Democrats handle them.
But of course, it's already known ahead of time that any line of questioning directed at Jackson will be out of bounds and racist.
At least any questioning outside of questions like, what's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
And have you always been this wonderful?
The left made that explicitly clear from the outset, though they didn't need to be explicit.
This is how the game is played, according to the long-established rules.
Yet, in spite of the inherent racism of demanding that a black woman explain herself when all she wants to do is become a Supreme Court justice, there is, based on her record and her worldview, quite a lot to explain.
Many of the questions about Jackson, and to her as well, have focused rightfully so on her lengthy history of leniency towards child sex predators, especially people who consume child pornography, who are also child sex predators, by definition.
The RNC research account lists several cases where Jackson passed down a sentence significantly below federal sentencing guidelines.
In fact, This is how she handled every child porn case she encountered, every single one.
She passed down a sentence below federal guidelines.
So, for example, in one case, a man who had images of eight-year-old children, pornographic images, was supposed to be sentenced to 10 years, according to the guidelines.
She gave him three months.
In another, a predator with 48 files of child porn on his computer was subject to 97 months in prison.
Jackson cut that into a third, giving him 28.
In still another case a pervert who posted a pornographic image of a five-year-old was given by Jackson
The lowest possible sentence allowed by the law just 60 months now one thing you might take away from this is
That the federal guidelines are far too lenient already I
I see no reason why child porn users and distributors should not be given mandatory life sentences.
This should be like a one-strike-and-you're-out kind of situation.
These are not people we need in society.
You do something like that, it should be, okay, we don't need you in society, you're gone, and you're never coming back.
And yet, the soft guidelines were still not soft enough for Jackson, who seems to have a soft spot in her heart for child sex perverts.
Now, what can she say for herself to justify this?
Well, to explain at least one of these cases, she said that the lenient sentence was due in part to the child predators' diplomas and certificates.
Listen.
He presented all of his diplomas and certificates and the things that he had done and argued, consistent with what I was seeing in the record, that this particular defendant had gotten into this in a way that was, I thought, inconsistent with some of the other cases that I had seen.
Part of what a judge is doing, as required by Congress, is thinking about this case, thinking about unwarranted sentencing disparities, that's in the statute, other cases, other determinations that a judge may have made about this.
I don't remember in detail this particular case, but I do recall it being unusual.
Now at another point she argued that her lighter touch on this issue has sometimes been due to the disparities in the system and the fact that the federal guidelines for child porn sentencing were first established back when child porn users had to obtain images through the mail and this for some reason is significant and it means that sometimes the sentence should be lighter than the guidelines allow.
Let's listen to that.
As you said, the guideline was based originally on a statutory scheme and on directives, specific directives by Congress at a time in which More serious child pornography offenders were identified based on the volume, based on the number of photographs that they received in the mail.
And that made total sense before when we didn't have the internet, when we didn't have distribution.
But the way that the guideline is now structured Based on that set of circumstances is leading to extreme disparities in the system because it's so easy for people to get volumes of this kind of material now by computers.
So it's not doing the work of differentiating who is a more serious offender in the way that it used to.
So the commission has taken that into account.
And perhaps even more importantly, courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the change circumstances.
But it says nothing about the court's view of the seriousness of this offense.
So the argument is that punishing someone for each image they obtain was fair back when they had to have the images mailed to them, but now that it's so easy to get hundreds of images at once, it's not fair.
That's the argument.
And it's a very, very bad argument.
And you know it's a bad argument because over on CNN, infamous public masturbator Jeffrey Toobin was agreeing with it.
It seems that Toobin, having already displayed his tube on a Zoom call, is now incapable of experiencing any further shame or embarrassment.
Either that or he enjoys it, the freak.
Whatever his reasons, Toobin, with his hands suspiciously out of view, said this.
Can I just add one point about these kiddie porn cases?
And this came up, I remember, when I was an assistant U.S.
attorney back in the 90s, is that when those sentencing guidelines were written for those cases, this was a time when the people who committed these crimes would order individual photos and then get them usually through email,
and then they would be sentenced based on the number of photos they possessed.
This was all pre-Internet.
So once the Internet came in and people got access to hundreds and then thousands of photos,
the sentencing guidelines would reflect hundreds and then thousands of photos.
Federal judges have been struggling with the issue of how do you create a fair system
that was designed pre-Internet, yet you have to sentence people post-Internet.
And what I thought Chairman Durbin pointed out is that judges across the country,
Including Republican-appointed judges have been saying, look, we can't apply the rules that were designed pre-internet for an internet society.
And many judges have been giving somewhat less sentences as a result.
Now, far be it for me to get into an argument with the sort of man who doesn't wear pants to a work meeting, especially when the argument is about pornography.
But, you know, I'm not convinced by this reasoning.
If anything, it seems clear to me the sentences should be harsher now because of the ease of access.
It's exactly the reason that they're calling for lighter sentences.
That's why there should be harsher sentences.
Because it necessitates a greater level of deterrence.
It means that we must make an even more drastic example out of each offender because of how easy this stuff is to obtain.
The message from society should be, we find a file of child porn on your computer and you're done forever.
Your life is over.
Yet both Jackson and Toobin believe that the more crime, the more that this crime proliferates, the more common it becomes, the less we should penalize it.
Now, one might wish that this is about as weird as things would get, but Judge Jackson is, at bottom, a leftist, and that means that the moral bewilderment and intellectual incoherence goes much deeper.
I mean, this is a woman who is tragically confused, not just about the concept of justice, already a troubling source of confusion for a judge, but also about the basic realities of life, including what life even is and when life begins.
And as to that question, here was her answer.
When does life begin, in your opinion?
Senator, um... I don't... know.
Now there's of course no excuse for not being able to answer that question.
The only sensible starting point for life is the moment when you come into existence as a distinct human entity, otherwise known as conception.
Any other starting point that you might choose will be necessarily arbitrary.
There's only one solid, firm, sensible starting point, which is conception.
But here's the thing.
If she really doesn't know when life begins, then that's all the more reason to be stridently pro-life and anti-abortion.
Because by Jackson's own words, as far as she knows, abortion might well be the murder of human life.
I mean, if she doesn't know when life begins, then she cannot say that abortion does not murder, destroy human life.
According to her, the abortion industry may well have murdered 60 million human lives since Roe v. Wade.
Now, I know for a fact, not that it may well have murdered 60 million human lives, but that it did.
But you don't even need, in order to get to the pro-life, anti-abortion conclusion, you don't even need to go that far.
The maybe, the might, the I don't know, if you're a rational and moral person, that should be enough to get you to the anti-abortion conclusion.
Because if it's possible, even, if it's even possible, That this mass genocide is happening.
If it's a 50-50 toss-up, as she seems to think, then the only moral and defensible position to take is one of treating the unborn child as human life.
To return to an analogy that I've made before, supporting abortion when you don't know when life begins is like tossing a live grenade into a room when you don't know if there's anybody in there or not.
It is, at best, morally incoherent to say, I don't know when life begins, but I support abortion anyway.
Speaking of incoherent, nothing, of course, can top this.
Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?
Senator, respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it's hard for me to I'd love to get your opinion on that, and you can submit that.
Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?
Again, because I don't know the case, I don't know how I interpret it.
I'd need to read the whole thing.
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Can I provide a definition?
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in this context.
I'm not a biologist.
Do you believe the meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me?
A definition?
Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes.
If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide.
I think we can officially now say that the What is a Woman movement has begun.
When I started asking this question years ago, I dreamed, I honestly dreamed of a moment just like this.
Where someone like this is asked a question like that, very simple, in this sort of context, because as we witnessed there, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down under the very meager weight of one extremely simple question.
And the irony here is so rich, so grand, that it's almost impossible to fully appreciate and wrap your arms around.
We've been breathlessly told that we should celebrate Jackson's nomination precisely because she's a black woman.
But Jackson herself can't even tell us what a woman is.
How can we celebrate the nomination of a woman if the people telling us to celebrate it can't define the word?
So they say, celebrate her!
Well, why?
Because she's a woman, dammit!
What's that?
Uh, I don't know.
Well, okay then, let me go get the champagne.
Of course, Jackson's dodge is that she's not a biologist.
But saying you can't define woman without a biology degree, it's like saying that you can't solve for 5 plus 5 without a degree in mathematics.
It's like saying you can't define the word car if you're not a mechanic, or fish if you're not a marine biologist.
It's like saying you have to be a world-class artist to explain what a crayon is.
This is all a bunch of unintelligible, irrational, rambling nonsense.
Now, is the fact that Jackson doesn't know what a woman is relevant to her job?
Well, yes.
I would think it's quite relevant to a Supreme Court justice and their job to know whether they have a basic grasp on reality.
And it's relevant for another reason.
Because we all know that obviously she knows what a woman is.
She knows the answer to the question.
She's not that stupid.
I mean, if she doesn't know, then she is, without a doubt, the dumbest Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States.
She is the dumbest person to ever even be considered for the job, and should be disqualified on those grounds alone.
But I'm going to give her more credit than that.
I don't think she's nearly that stupid.
There's no way that she could make it as far as she has being that stupid.
So no, she knows what a woman is.
She knows today.
She's always known.
She'll know tomorrow.
But she's so beholden to left-wing orthodoxy, so firmly embedded in that world, so committed to it, that she will pretend she doesn't know, humiliating herself on the national stage in the process.
That's what makes her dangerous on the Supreme Court.
And yet this question, as I've been insisting for years, is the question that single-handedly destroys gender ideology and reveals leftism for what it is.
And what is it?
It's a movement of moral and intellectual chaos.
It rejects truth categorically.
It's a form of madness, ideological madness, madness that you choose to buy into and adopt as your worldview.
Lunacy, It turned into a worldview, is what leftism is.
But most of all, it's flimsy.
It's hollow at its core.
Defeated by the most basic line of inquiry.
Destroyed by questions.
Questions that we just have to have the guts to ask, finally.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You know, when you look around at the world today and at our country,
which is collapsing into a heap before our very eyes, it can be difficult to sleep.
You know, you can toss and turn at night thinking about the collapse of human civilization.
But it's a little bit easier when you have Helix Sleep.
Helix Sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
Why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
With Helix, you're getting a mattress that you know will be perfect for the way you sleep.
Everybody's unique and Helix knows that, so they have several different mattress models to choose from.
They have soft, medium, and firm mattresses.
A mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains.
Helix It's just awesome, but you don't need to take my word for it.
Helix was awarded the number one best overall mattress pick of 2020 by GQ and Wired Magazine.
So just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
They have a 10-year warranty, and you can get it for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Helix has enough financing options and flexible payment plans so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
You can wake up in the morning and think again about how Alright, we'll start with this from Governor Ron DeSantis.
He tweeted, By allowing men to compete in women's sports, the NCAA is destroying opportunities for women, making a mockery of its championships, and perpetuating a fraud.
That's HelixSleep.com/Walsh for up to $200 off and two free pillows.
All right, we'll start with this from Governor Ron DeSantis.
He tweeted, "By allowing men to compete in women's sports, the NCAA is
destroying opportunities for women, making a mockery of its championships, and perpetuating a fraud. In Florida,
we reject these lies and recognize Sarasota's Emma Wyant as the best women's swimmer in the 500-yard freestyle."
And then he has his official declaration from the governor with the seal there.
Just reiterating again that Emma Wyatt, who came in quote-unquote second behind the male Leah Thomas, is in fact the winner of the race.
This is... I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but maybe I have a time or two.
That Governor Ron DeSantis needs to be our guy in 2024.
We want to lose as conservatives if we decide to throw him to the side and pick somebody else.
He's by far the most effective Republican governor in the country.
And the other thing, from a political perspective, he understands That something like this is a winning issue.
He knows what the winning issues are for Republicans.
I think more and more Republicans are awakening to this.
It took them long enough.
But Governor DeSantis has his finger on the pulse, as it were, and really understands it.
This is, by far and away, a winning move to say this.
And he also says, it's very important, the language is important.
He didn't say, because I think, you know, if another Republican had done a similar thing, and now that he's done this, I'm sure other Republicans will start doing it as well, but most Republicans, if they were to do something like this, they would probably say, if they would even go as far as this, they would say, by allowing trans women to compete in women's sports.
But he uses the word man, and that's very important.
Taking a stand, saying, no, this is a man, and that's it.
You know, as I've been saying for so long, this is a winning issue for Republicans.
It's an important issue.
And it's an issue that the Democrats, they don't want to have a conversation about it.
Now, they want to talk about it.
They want to talk at you about gender and about trans rights and about all these things.
So it's not to say they don't want to talk about it.
I mean, they obviously want to talk about it.
They talk about it all the time.
They're screaming in our faces about it all the time.
They want to march through the street, screaming about it into a bullhorn.
They love talking about it, but they don't want to have a conversation about it.
Now, you could point out that the Democrats don't really want to have a conversation about anything, and that's true, but especially with this.
It can't be a back-and-forth.
It's just, here's what we're saying about quote-unquote trans rights, and that's it.
They don't want any kind of back-and-forth at all.
They don't want to be asked questions about it.
Any questions.
I mean, we're going to get to a point where it's going to be almost inevitable, as much as the media doesn't want to have to do it.
You keep this issue at the forefront.
What is a woman?
You keep that at the forefront as well.
We're going to get to the debate season in midterms and presidential election where that question, what is a woman, is going to come up in the debates.
Again, it's not something that any moderator would want to ask because they're all on the side of the Democrats and they know how embarrassing the question is.
But it's going to be so much to the forefront.
If we keep pushing it there, you have to ask it.
And if the moderator doesn't ask it, then Republican, you ask it.
This is something that Ron DeSantis, if he was in a presidential debate, he would certainly do.
And that's a question they can't answer.
They don't want to answer any question about this.
And listen to me when I say this.
I mean any question.
When it comes to gender ideology, they don't want to and cannot answer literally any question on the subject.
And that's why our job is to ask those questions.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Florida—actually, no, this was in California, I guess—Disney employees had a walkout over the bill in Florida, the Don't Say Gay Bill, which they invented in their heads—the bill that doesn't exist.
It actually doesn't exist in Florida.
It doesn't exist anywhere.
It exists in their fevered imaginations.
And here's that walkout.
Let's take a listen.
Say gay!
Broke.
I mean, this is just heroism.
They're marching down in California shouting the word gay.
Say gay!
Say gay!
Haven't read the bill!
Haven't read the bill!
That's really what the chant should be.
Also Disney related more people who haven't read the bill ESPN yesterday now.
I know I talked about we talked about ESPN going woke.
It's like that's Happened a long time ago but they are They are not relenting.
I mean they have shown ESPN has chosen its path and Will not waver from it and is just going deeper and deeper into this madness.
So here was a long Twitter thread they posted yesterday Because you know If you like sports, then you follow ESPN on Twitter, right?
Supposedly.
Well, you're not going to get sports coverage.
Instead, you get this.
ESPN believes in inclusivity and denounces legislation and actions across the United States that infringe on any human rights.
We stand with our LGBTQIA plus colleagues, friends, families, and fans.
Don't you just love sports?
They continue, we'll continue to partner with organizations that support the LGBTQIA plus community, be accountable where we fall short of expectations, and never stop telling stories about LGBTQIA plus athletes like the ones we'll be sharing in this thread.
And then they go into a long list of examples.
Transgender kids in the U.S.
are stuck in the middle of the ongoing debate over science and assumption, sex and gender identity, politics and policy.
Uh, this is the story of Becky, Stephanie, and Chris, three athletes who say they just want to play.
And then there's an article that's titled, Why Some States Are Sending Transgender Athletes to the Sidelines.
That, of course, is not true.
For the umpteenth time.
There are no states that are doing that.
There are no states that are sending transgender athletes to the sideline.
There's no state that has passed any law saying that if you identify as quote-unquote transgender, you cannot compete in sports.
That doesn't exist.
Nowhere in America, at any point, has any quote-unquote trans person been told you're not allowed to compete in sports.
What has happened, and what is happening in certain states, is that they're saying to the trans people, you in fact are not special, so you're going to be subject to the same rules as everybody else.
And everybody else They're going to be divided up based on biological sex, determining which, you know, which league they compete in.
And so you're just, you are going to be subject to the same rules as everybody.
This is equality, which is what they say they want.
Well, I guess I'll correct myself.
It's not what they say they want anymore.
They've abandoned that.
Now they talk about equity.
And as we talked about, equity and equality are actually two entirely separate things.
All right, here's, let's move to this.
Joe Biden with an accidental, you get these every once in a while, and maybe increasingly so with Joe Biden, because he doesn't, partially due to the dimension and everything, he doesn't have the filter like a lot of politicians do.
So here's a moment of accidental honesty from Joe Biden.
Listen.
You know, we are at an inflection point, I believe, in the world economy.
Not just the world economy, in the world.
It occurs every three or four generations.
As one of the top military people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people died between 1900 and 1946.
And since then, we established a liberal world order, and that hadn't happened in a long while.
A lot of people died, but nowhere near the chaos.
And now is a time when things are shifting.
There's going to be a new world order out there, and we've got to lead it.
We've got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.
He doesn't just say it once, he says it, he repeats it.
This is a liberal world order, a new world order.
That's his own words.
If anybody else were to say that and accuse the left of wanting to establish a New World Order, then it's a great conspiracy theory and you'd probably get banned from Twitter and YouTube or whatever for saying it.
But here he is saying it himself.
Of course, the New World Order was never even a theory.
There might be a conspiracy.
There's certainly an element of conspiracy to it.
I think a lot of it is an unspoken conspiracy.
That's the thing about the so-called conspiracies on the left.
They are engaged in lots of conspiracies.
And all of the most powerful institutions in the country are, in a way, conspiring amongst themselves.
But they don't need to... Most of the time, they don't need to meet in smoky rooms and hatch their evil plans.
They're just all sort of on the same page automatically.
Their ideology puts them on the same page.
And they want the same things.
But the idea that they want to reshuffle the world order, of course they do.
That's incredibly obvious.
In fact, a new world order, if anything, it understates what they're trying to do.
They're not just trying to reorder things within the world, they're trying to change Reality itself.
They want a new reality order or something like that.
They want to fundamentally change the realities of the universe, which cannot be changed, but that's what they want to.
And if they cannot change the basic realities of life, then the next option is to indoctrinate a country full of people, and especially younger generations of people, who don't recognize basic realities.
So it's pretty clear that that's what they want to do.
All right.
Moving along pretty fast.
There's a lot to cover.
I want to get to as much of this as I can.
And I also have to mention this.
Yesterday we announced the unveiling of Jeremy's Razors, which is our response to Harry's Razors, which we used to advertise on all the shows, and then they got wind of the fact that Michael Knowles stated that men are men and women are women because one Twitter account with two followers said, hey, did you know that they believe this?
Meanwhile, it's like all of our shows talk about that all the time, and Harry's pretended that they had no idea, and then one Twitter account with two followers brings it up to them, and then they denounce us and say they want nothing to do with us.
We launched Jeremy's Razors, and here from the Daily Wire now, it says, In a statement given to Spy.com, Jeff Rader, co-founder and co-CEO of Harry's, maintained that they believed in free speech but were drawing the line at hate.
They said in a statement, we created Harry's to offer better shaving and grooming products for everyone.
We believe deeply in free speech, but draw the line at hate.
We'll continue to support our customers and community with kindness and compassion.
Spy.com added, a spokesperson from the brand continued by saying that Harry's does advertise across various media, including the conservative Fox News.
However, the brand does not associate with entities that engage in or endorse hate speech.
And the hate speech here, again, is just that men are men and women are women.
In fact, what it was specifically, I think, was Michael Knowles talking to, I believe he's on Candace Owens' show, he's talking with Candace, and was discussing the fact that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
I think that was the specific thing, which is all related to the fact that men are men and women are women.
And the idea that people who are deluded about this, who are confused about what sex they are, the idea that that's a mental illness, that was the psychiatric community's consensus.
If you care a lot, we always hear about the consensus of the scientific community.
Well, that was the consensus view of psychiatrists and the psychiatric community up until very recently, when all of a sudden they changed it.
And they said, oh, it's not a mental illness.
You know, the way that they flipped it around is that they said, okay, if somebody thinks that they're born in the wrong body, the problem is not their mental perception.
It's not that they're mentally deluded, because that's what they were saying before.
That's a mental illness if you think that you're born in the wrong body or you're a man but you think you're a woman.
For decades, it was, okay, that's a mental illness.
Now they say, well, the problem is just the feelings, the dysphoric feelings that you get from this mismatch between your, quote, gender identity and your sex.
And so we have to treat the feelings.
And so often the way that you treat the feelings, it turns out, is through hormones and through surgery and everything else.
So that's the switch that they made.
A very significant switch.
Really reversing course entirely.
But the interesting thing is that when they made this switch, there was never any scientific explanation given for it.
This was a political change.
And we've seen this from the psychiatric industry many times, where they make changes in the way that they approach certain proclivities and certain delusions and so forth, and they don't explain it on scientific grounds.
It's only on political grounds that they make the change.
But all this is hate speech now.
It's all hate speech, and he has no interest, and Harry's has no interest in anyone who believes anything that I'm saying right now.
Which is why you can get Jeremy's Razors instead.
Right, I also wanted to play this for you.
Kid Rock was interviewed by Tucker Carlson a few days ago, and he said something about cancel culture that I actually thought was pretty important.
So I want to play that for you.
Listen.
Why haven't you been canceled?
Like, people aren't allowed to say what they think you are.
I am uncancelable.
Why's that?
Because I don't give a f***.
And I'm not in bed with any big corporate things at the end of the day.
There's nobody I'm beholden to.
No record companies.
No corporate interests.
No nothing.
And you can't cancel me.
I love it when they try.
I'm like, yeah.
Why aren't there more artists like that?
Because they're in bed with record companies and corporate deals and structures at every level.
And if someone finds a way to get me a little bit here and there, I'll find another way around it.
You never see artists talk like that.
They seem very easy to intimidate.
At what point did you realize you're just not going to be intimidated?
Day one.
Really?
I think I crawled out of the womb with both middle fingers in the air.
So, he's right that there are, it's an important point, that there are two ways to get cancelled.
And it's really, there's really only two.
There are only two ways for it to happen.
Two kind of categories.
It's just, unfortunately, a great many people fall into one of these categories or both.
So, either, in order to be cancelled, you have to be beholden to corporate interests, As a great many people are.
I mean, if you work for a big giant corporation, then in that way you're beholden to them because you work for them.
Through no fault of your own.
I mean, you have to have a job.
So that's one way.
If you're kind of at the mercy of giant corporations, then that's one way to get cancelled.
The other way is if you care what the mob thinks about you.
And that's why we see people who wouldn't seem to really be beholden to anyone.
There's no reason why they need to be beholden.
Rich and famous people got all the money in the world.
And even if they get canceled by corporations, they're not really canceled.
They're still going to be rich.
They're still going to be famous.
They could go out on their own and do their own thing, but they still apologize and crumble and everything, because although they're not really beholden to corporate interests, or maybe they are a little bit, the bigger issue is that they care what the mob thinks.
So either you care what the mob thinks or you're beholden to corporate interests, or both.
For a lot of people it's both.
Especially a lot of celebrities and so on.
The answer is both there.
So if you want to be uncancellable, that's the way to do it.
Unfortunately, lots of people are not in the spot that Kid Rock is in, where you could be wealthy and all of that, and you don't need to go to any corporation or anyone looking for a job.
You can kind of do your own thing.
So not everyone's in that spot.
But at least one thing that everybody can adopt is the second part.
Which gives you some cover, anyway, in cancel culture, which is to stop caring what the mob thinks to begin with.
A lot of the cancellations that happen, it's really a self-cancellation.
The mob gives the gun to the cancelled person and just convinces them to pull the trigger against themselves, metaphorically.
And, you know, eventually we get to the point with cancel culture where it's not so metaphorical.
And that happens quite often.
So you got to get to a point where it just doesn't mean anything to you and you realize that first of all, all these labels that are thrown at you, anytime you're cancelled, it's always going to be under the guise of racism, sexism, transphobia, whatever.
And you get to the point where you realize that these labels don't mean anything at all.
I mean, after all, they're being thrown at you by people who, as we saw, even on the Supreme Court, or who want to be on the Supreme Court, can't define a word like woman.
So they certainly, an abstract kind of concept like transphobia, that doesn't mean anything.
That really doesn't mean anything.
So who cares if you're called that?
And most of the people in the mob who are coming after you and attacking you and insulting you, They don't actually care that much.
You don't mean anything to them.
This is all a game to them.
This is a power game, power struggle.
They want to impose their will on you.
Not much different from the bully in the playground.
You know, it's the playground bully mentality.
But nationwide, formed into a mob, ideologically driven.
All right, one other thing before we get to the comment section.
Maybe you've seen this clip already, but we've got to play it on this show.
Somehow I've skipped over it.
Over the last two days, I've skipped over it.
But, you know, Kamala Harris, she has these moments of real insight that I find personally inspiring.
And here was another one of those moments.
She's getting made fun of for this, but I think she really makes a good point.
Listen.
The governor and I, and we were all I'm doing a tour of the library here and I'm talking about the significance of the passage of time.
Right?
The significance of the passage of time.
So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs.
And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children.
The thing about the passage of time is that when time passes, it tends to pass.
And there is, in effect, a passage, which is of time.
And the time, what it's doing is it's passing, hence, therefore, the passage.
And when you think about it, when you think about it, the passage of time is really A passage of time in which there is a passage of time.
And the time is passing.
All the time.
Every time.
Great stuff from Camilla Harris.
I actually have a lot of respect, maybe I shouldn't, but the one thing that I do respect about some politicians anyway If you're a really good BS artist.
Because that's a talent in its own right.
To be a really good BS artist.
And the ability to stand up in front of people and say nothing at all, but sound like you're saying something, that is actually a skill.
And it's a skill that, unfortunately, can take you really far in life.
As we've seen, it can take you all the way to the White House.
But with Kamala Harris, she's a BS artist without the artist part of it.
It's just full BS.
She thinks that she's good at this, and she's not.
And that's what makes it so difficult to watch and listen to, but also hilarious.
Have you ever wanted to send your uncle a birthday greeting from one of his favorite conservative celebrities, or have your favorite freedom-loving comedian roast that one liberal cousin nobody likes in the family?
There's only one place to make that a reality, and it's a new app called ShoutOut.
The most popular personalities on the right are ready to make somebody's day with a personalized video.
Download ShoutOut now on the App Store and Google Play to get 20% off your first customized ShoutOut video from the likes of Steven Crowder, the Hodgetwins, JP Sears, Jason Whitlock, or Alex Jones, and many of your favorite conservatives, you can download the Shoutout app today.
Let's get to the comment section.
Okay, we'll do just one video comment, this one mercifully short.
♪ With rage ♪ ♪ Who's to blame ♪
♪ It's a sweet baby gang ♪ - Okay, we'll do just one video comment.
This one, mercifully short.
Let's play clip 23.
Hey Matt, I just saw you on Candace.
You're totally right.
All water tastes the same.
I drink tap water.
If I need a water bottle, I drink the Walmart brand because all water tastes the same.
Also, she said there at the very end of her show that you're often wrong and that we should think about that.
I know we previously declared war on Ben Shapiro for not swearing allegiance to the Sweet Baby Gang.
Is this war on Candace?
Sweet Baby Gang for life.
I mean, unfortunately it is, but this is not a war that I started.
I mean, she declared war on the Sweet Baby Gang by name.
And I have to say, look, I did talk about the show a couple days ago, the water taste challenge, that it was my idea.
I challenged Candice this because she, to her credit, was able to get Dasani water trending on Twitter over the weekend, talking about how terrible Dasani is, and then I discovered Much to my bewilderment that this is a common sentiment among people.
All kinds of people pretend that they feel very strongly that Dasani water tastes terrible.
It sparks this whole other conversation about, what's your favorite brand of bottled water?
And everyone's pretending to have a favorite brand, like they can tell the difference.
And my point all along was that actually all water tastes the same.
This is all psychosomatic.
It's a placebo effect.
You think you can tell the difference, but you can't actually.
And so that's why I challenged Candace Owens and said, let's have a taste test.
Blind taste test, and we'll see if you can actually tell the difference.
That's the best way to go about this.
And I did say initially that I want to meet in a neutral playing field, which is the break room, and we'll do this taste test and we'll see who wins.
And it ended up being on her show instead.
Okay, it's not exactly a neutral playing field, but I'll go along with it.
What I will say, this is all I'm going to say about it, this is all I'm going to say.
If you watched that segment on Candice's show, which you should, you should watch the whole show, but you should watch that segment as well at the very end.
I think the most important segment on her show and any show this week is what we did with the water tasting test.
But I did win without any question whatsoever.
It ended up being a somewhat longer segment than you might argue it needed to be.
There was quite a dispute that occurred.
Not all of that makes it into the final product because you've got to cut things down for time a little bit.
But all I'm going to say is that we did do at least one clean take here where we each try that we had five cups of water, and we didn't know what was in it, and we each tried it.
Of course, I always said all along, I can't tell the difference, so I couldn't tell the difference.
And then she guessed and she guessed wrong, and she wasn't able to tell the difference either.
So I did win.
Whatever camera tricks they come up with, I don't know, but I did win.
And so I'm waiting on my $100 from Candace Owens.
And I mean, gas is expensive.
I don't know how I'm going to get home today.
I need that $100 to put gas in my car.
I'm waiting on her to come through.
All right, this is from Justin Graham says, total boss moved by the Daily Wire to pull a David Hogg and try to beat the enemy at their own game.
But unlike Hogg, Jeremy's Razor's company will actually be successful given Daily Wire's track record.
Well, that understates it.
Yeah, David Hogg decided he wanted to start his own pillow company to compete with my pillow.
But I think with David Hogg, he never actually, he just announced that he wanted to do it and the pillow company collapsed before it even started.
So it was a failed He might be the first person in history to ever have a
failed pillow company that never existed to begin with.
This is, no, this is all, this is very real.
We actually did launch it and sold a whole bunch of razors, by the way.
So you can go to IHateHairies.com and get your own.
Let's see.
A Miller Time says, "Matt, last week my son came home from camp and said he made a new friend that he thought was a
boy, but it was a girl that liked to be called a boy.
What would your response be to your son?
For context, my son is nine, the girl's 11.
Well, I would be telling my son in a hurry, very, very, without using any clever language, being very upfront and direct and straightforward and saying, well, you said this is a girl that likes to be called a boy.
You say to your son, Um, that is a girl who is confused and we feel very sorry for her that she's confused, but she's a girl and we refer to her as a girl.
We treat her as a girl because that's what she is.
No matter what she says, unfortunately she's very confused.
And then the next thing that I would be doing, unfortunately you have to do this, is I would be doing everything I can to strongly discourage my child from spending a lot of time with this girl.
And the reason for that, nothing, you know, it's not an attack on the girl herself because I feel sorry for the girl.
She's only 11.
She's a victim in this scenario.
But we know and we've heard many times, and there's so many examples of this, this social contagion aspect with gender ideology and gender confusion, that it spreads like a physical virus.
And so you have to do everything you can as a parent to shield your kids from that.
Especially at this age, especially at the age of nine, you know, very prone at that age to confusion of all sorts.
And so I think you got to do everything you can to shield your kid, but also be very, very direct with them about, about the truth.
And, you know, and I certainly wouldn't get in, I wouldn't bother getting into anything about, oh, we got to be, be respectful.
And, you know, it's the most important thing here.
It's of dire importance to your child.
And to the rest of his life that you make 100% clear what the truth is and that that truth is not going to change no matter what anyone says.
Let's see.
Jennifer says, thank you, Matt, for articulating the fundamental issue with these so-called mental disease diagnoses.
Many people think they're clinically depressed due to a chemical imbalance, when in reality, they're clinically imbalanced due to embracing their depressive modes.
Get off the couch, get some sunshine, life is full of ups and downs.
Get over it.
Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, the get over it part, it is true.
You phrase it like that and you're going to feed into this thing that you're being dismissive or whatever and people aren't going to appreciate that.
It is true that someone who's in the grip of despair, which is what depression is, it's despair, it's never quite as simple as just get over it.
The rest of what you said before that, that's why I keep the get over it phrase out, because you don't need that.
Get off the couch, get some sunshine, get some exercise.
That part is also going to be seen as dismissive, but it is not, because that is actually true.
This is just a fact, that things like sunshine, things like exercise, movement, doing things, just getting out, try not to think about it as much, getting actively involved in life, that does make a huge difference.
Even to someone who's in the grip of unthinkable despair.
I'm not saying it's going to automatically... I'm not saying you walk outside and it's a sunny day and it immediately goes away, but it will make a big difference.
This is a psychological fact.
It's a scientific fact as well.
And the fact that we're not allowed to talk about this or acknowledge it.
Acknowledge that things like exercise help to cure depression.
It's just a fact, but we're not allowed to acknowledge it because it's seen somehow as, well, dismissive, which it isn't.
Max Winter says, when I was a kid, even my parents noticed that I had a lot of symptoms of ADHD.
I was easily distracted.
I had trouble completing things on my own.
I was always very active and had a very active imagination to the point where my parents thought I was on some part of the autism spectrum.
Yet they never chose to take me to a doctor and have me diagnosed with any of this since they knew this was just normal behavior for a child, especially a boy.
And they knew that whatever kind of help I would be given was just a medication.
That's it.
Well, I think your parents made the right Decision and you know the thing is you hear from parents talking about their own kids and with ADHD in kids it vast majority cases it is going to be boys and that's something that maybe we should stop and think about right there.
If this is a mental illness that's entirely in the brain and it's about chemical imbalances or whatever then why it seems really odd that it happens to afflict boys most of the time.
It just so happens to afflict the kinds of people who are naturally energetic, naturally have more trouble focusing, especially in a public school environment where they're being told to sit at a desk for seven hours a day and do busy work.
That's just not, that's actually not, it's not a natural environment that is conducive to children thriving, especially boys.
Um, but what you hear from parents is, uh, you know, when you say this kind of thing, they'll say, Oh, well, you don't understand because, um, you know, my son, yeah, he's energetic and he has trouble focusing, but it's, it's way worse than what you're talking about.
It's, it's, it's, it's like to another level.
And that's why his ADHD, first of all, how do you know?
I mean, you're just assuming this is, this is your one experience.
You know, you have maybe one son, maybe two or whatever, but, but, um, And you know with your child that he has a lot of trouble focusing, you're just kind of assuming that it's so much worse than what anybody else deals with.
I don't think there's any basis for that assumption.
And that's one of the fundamental problems with the ADHD thing.
You break it down, you're talking about attention deficit.
Someone has a deficit of attention.
Has a deficient ability to pay attention.
Well, in order to make that determination about someone, you first have to know how much attention they're supposed to have.
What's the baseline in order to know that they are deficient of it?
How in the world do you measure that?
And then it complicates matters when you realize that especially with kids and especially with boys and especially in the public school environment, the baseline for their attentional abilities is extremely low already.
That's the issue.
I have excellent news for you.
In a world of woke razors sold by men who cave to the demands of social justice warriors, you can now use a razor that pivots but does not cave to anyone.
And yes, I'm talking about the Daily Wire and our new razor company, Jeremy's Razors.
We launched a razor company yesterday and already the response has been enormous with razors.
Jeremy's Razors even trending on Twitter.
We're taking the power out of the hands of woke corporations like Harry's.
Instead of capitulating to corporations that hate us, we're building our own world.
We're already doing All of that with our news articles, our books, our movies and shows and so much more.
But this is your chance to join us.
Go to IHateHarriers.com and place your first order for Jeremy's Razors today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
The comedian Jeff Foxworthy was trending on social media last night after the release of his Netflix special called Good Old Days.
From what I understand, though I haven't watched the set, the humor is very safe, staying away from anything that might be considered political or topical.
Apparently, he doesn't even joke about rednecks anymore, according to reports anyway, which I hope are mistaken reports.
But for whatever reason, one brief and rather routine bit from the special was being discussed last night, and it made it onto my radar because I saw it on social media.
Anyway, take a listen.
But I had a great childhood.
You know, I got, I played every sport for the recreation center.
My parents didn't make me pick one sport because they thought I was going to play professional whatever.
I played every sport and it was weird back then because if you wanted a trophy, you had to finish in first place.
It was nuts.
Nah, it's pretty standard fare complaining about participation trophies.
It's cliché, but we've all done it, and for good reason.
You know, I can still remember the first participation trophy that I ever received at the age of like 7, 6 or 7, after a Little League season in which we didn't win a single game, and I'm not sure that we even had one base hit between us on the whole team.
And I was brought to the trophy ceremony, and I assumed that my team would be sitting there in shame, watching as the better teams are awarded for their achievements.
The best team in the league was very impressive.
They actually had four base hits that season.
So those MLB-caliber teams did all receive their trophies.
But then, confusingly, we were called to the stage also, and not to be locked in stockades so the better teams could throw tomatoes at us and mock us for our failures, as I first thought might happen, but to give us our own trophies.
The dreaded participation trophies.
We were awarded just for showing up, even though we barely did that.
I mean, the thing about baseball is that there's nothing about it which requires you to work hard.
It's not like completing a marathon.
I could almost agree with some form of participation trophy for completing a marathon, just because the mere act of doing it and finishing it is an achievement in its own right.
But in baseball, If you want, you can sit out in the outfield in a lawn chair and just watch the clouds go by, which is basically how I spent nine years of Little League, minus the lawn chair.
It's absurd to award us for participating in something so leisurely as that.
And I saw that even then, at the age of six or seven.
So I therefore understand why so many people, for so many years, have complained about participation trophies.
I also see how these trophies are symbolic in a bigger sort of way, representing the coddled, self-congratulatory, entitled, lazy, self-esteem-focused attitude that infects modern society.
And yet there's a point about all of this, and participation trophies specifically, which has always bothered me.
So now I'm using this one little Jeff Foxworthy joke as an excuse to make it.
Here's the point.
And it's very simple.
So often, boomers, like Foxworthy, are the ones complaining about participation trophies and labeling my generation, the millennials, the Participation Trophy Generation.
And yet, not to split hairs here, boomers, but, well, You're the ones who gave us the trophies.
You invented the concept, or at least popularized it.
It's not like we, at the age of seven, staged some sort of mutiny at the trophy ceremony and forced you to give us trophies at gunpoint.
No, you came up with the concept of participation trophies and gave them to us.
And then 20 years later, you look around and say, these damned kids and their participation trophies.
Do you see the problem here?
Why did the boomers give out participation trophies?
Well, I mean, why did they coddle their children in so many ways?
Why did they raise their kids to cherish self-regard and self-esteem above everything else?
Why did they tell us that we're all precious little diamonds who are perfect and above reproach in every way?
Well, before we talk about why, we just need to reiterate that this is what they did.
We didn't come up with any of this stuff ourselves.
As for why, Part of it is the collapse of meaning tied to the collapse of faith, which left a hole in the heart of our culture and in each individual, which for decades now we've been trying to fill with self-love, self-affirmation, our own quote-unquote truth.
But on a more psychological level, the boomers were also prolific divorcers.
They sparked an epidemic of divorce.
I mean, boomers are getting divorced.
You think it's bad now?
Talk about the height of the boomer divorce epidemic.
Tearing families apart, turning their children into latchkey kids who spent all day in government school, came home to empty houses while both parents worked, and were raised by the TV.
Much of the coddling and spoiling was out of guilt.
It was a form of overcompensation.
I went to school with a whole lot of kids from broken families, and almost all of them had nicer toys than I did.
Part of that is because their parents valued material wealth above everything else in life, and part of that is because their parents were constantly trying to buy their affection.
The point here is that whether you're talking about participation trophies or anything else, when you complain about your children's generation, you're complaining about yourself.
Because a new generation does not fall out of the sky.
They aren't actually delivered by storks.
They don't climb out of tombs like zombies or mummies.
They don't materialize out of thin air.
Despite how some people in my generation might physically appear, we're also not orcs dug out of the ground like in Lord of the Rings.
Generations are raised by the generation before them.
They're conditioned, for better or worse.
They enter into a world that they didn't create.
So much about them is ultimately decided by the people who came before them.
That's not an excuse.
It's just a simple, basic fact of human life.
And it's a fact that boomers, as a group, have never been willing to accept.
You rarely see boomers look around at their children and grandchildren and say, my God, where did we go wrong?
You rarely see that.
Instead, they talk about this like they had nothing to do with it.
Like, they in fact are victims of the culture that they created.
That level of introspection, saying, where did we go wrong, seems to exceed their grasp in many cases.
It also exceeds the grasp of my generation, just as it will for the generation after us, Generation Z, and the ones after them.
Self-introspection is a lost art.
Self-obsession we have, we're obsessed with ourselves, but actually thinking critically about ourselves and our own choices and our own lives, that's something that almost nobody in this country seems able to do.
And this is why we have to face these hard truths.
There is a generation of children right now who collectively, at the current rate, are doomed to become something really quite monstrous as they grow older.
There will be exceptions.
I'm determined that my own kids will be among the exceptions.
But as a group, the results are not going to be pretty unless there's a drastic cultural sea change right now, something I'm not holding my breath for.
And then when our kids' generation, the generation of kids right now, when they come of age, You know, those of us who are older, we're going to survey the damage and scratch our heads and say, how could this have happened?
Well, it happened because we happened.
That's how it happened.
Time to take ownership.
And for this reason, Jeff Foxworthy is canceled.
I had to cancel someone, so it comes back down around to a Jeff Foxworthy.
Kind of collateral damage in all of this, but what can I do?
We'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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, The 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.
Production manager, Pavel Vladovsky.
Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
And hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
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 CDC reduces the COVID death count, the Ukraine war takes a toll on the wheat supply, and the drought in California adds to the growing food crisis.
