Ep. 925 - The Groomers Circle The Wagons Around Disney
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left circles the wagons to defend poor 100 billion-dollar Disney from the mean conservatives criticizing it. Also, the governor of Texas ships illegal immigrants to DC. And Kim Kardashian runs to the defense of a woman who beat her two year old daughter to death. Another example of twisted left-wing “compassion” looks like. Plus, a pastor at a church in Iowa offers a prayer to the “God of pronouns.”
The latest, limited edition installment of my Patch Program is here! Get yours today: https://utm.io/uesdz.
The magic has left the kingdom. It’s time to build new things that we can believe in. Subscribe to The Daily Wire today with promo code BUILDTHEFUTURE for 45% off: https://utm.io/uesif .
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left circles the wagons to defend poor $100 billion Disney from the mean conservatives criticizing it.
Also, the governor of Texas ships illegal immigrants to D.C.
and Kim Kardashian runs to the defense of a woman who beat her two-year-old daughter to death.
Another example of twisted left-wing compassion and what it looks like.
Plus, a pastor at a church in Iowa offers a prayer to the, quote, God of pronouns.
Speaking of pronouns, the Republican governor of Utah is now introducing himself with his pronouns.
Once you sacrifice your dignity on the altar of leftist appeasement, you never get it back.
We'll discuss all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Now, I like to do research on my sponsors, and I only recommend brands to my listeners that I believe in.
I can say with full confidence that ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market.
Here's why.
First, ExpressVPN doesn't log your activity online.
Lots of cheap or free VPNs make money by selling your data to advertisers, but ExpressVPN does not do this.
They even developed a technology, Trusted Server, that makes their VPN servers incapable of storing any data at all.
Second, ExpressVPN is lightning fast.
I've tried many VPNs in the past and they can sometimes slow my connection, but ExpressVPN is always blazing fast.
It lets me stream videos in HD quality with zero buffering.
The last thing that really sets ExpressVPN apart is how easy it is to use.
You don't need any technical skills to get it set up.
Trust me, if you did, I wouldn't be able to do it.
You just fire up the app, Tap one button to connect and that's it.
Even your grandparents could do it.
So protect yourself with the VPN that I use and trust.
Use my link expressvpn.com slash Walsh today.
Get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
So there's no doubt in my mind that conservatives right now are making progress in the culture war.
It hasn't been an easy romp by any means, and these recent victories come after about four or five decades of near constant defeat.
We have a whole lot of territory still left to recover, and it will take a very long time to win it all back.
If we do, we're gaining ground fitfully and with difficulty, but we are gaining it.
There's no guarantee that the trend continues. We do have quite a lot stacked against us still.
We're advancing and then that's obviously a very good thing.
The question is why is this happening and how? I think it's worth reflecting on that. It's not as
though we've witnessed any sort of mass defection with leftists leaving their degenerate
worldview and satanic philosophies behind in droves and experiencing some kind of mass
conversion of hearts and mind.
There have been some examples of that kind of thing, but it's still relatively rare.
Overall, I'm guessing that if you polled an average sampling of Americans on most of the big social issues, the percentages would break down about the same today as they did last year or the year before that.
The progress on the right has not been so far in convincing huge numbers of people on the other side to come over here.
Rather, it has been in convincing And motivating our own side to get engaged and focus on what matters.
You know, they say that you shouldn't preach to the choir, but I've always hated that expression.
Oh, you're preaching to the choir.
Because in fact, the people in the choir are the first ones you need to preach to.
If they aren't on your side, if you don't have the choir on your side, then it's going to be hard to reach anybody else in the congregation, not to mention people outside of the congregation.
And so our recent victories have mostly been due to rallying our own side, I think, awakening ourselves from our own self-imposed stupor.
At the beginning of the year, it was the school board movement.
Now, it's not that most parents prior to this past year were in favor of the schools racially and sexually indoctrinating their kids.
It's just that so many of them weren't paying enough attention, or any attention.
They weren't focusing on it.
Year after year, millions of kids were sent into government education facilities for seven hours a day, their parents hoping that they'd receive a competent education, certainly opposing, in theory, the left-wing brainwashing that happened within the system, but not really mobilized or motivated to do anything about it.
And that changed this year.
Parents weren't suddenly convinced to oppose the brainwashing of their children.
Most of them always opposed that, hypothetically, but they were emboldened to finally show up and make a scene and make their voices heard.
And the system was so caught off guard and terrified by this sudden mobilization that they labeled us all domestic terrorists.
The system was running scared, and still is, and it should be.
I think we're seeing something similar With the anti-grooming laws and the backlash against Disney, all these things, of course, related.
Yesterday, there was a protest outside of Disney headquarters in Burbank, California.
A Disney employee actually addressed the crowd outside Disney headquarters.
Listen to this.
And I'm a cast member here at the, well, for Disneyland actually.
I've been with them for quite a long time and it's gotten very political and it's gotten very hard to be who you are.
It's gotten very hard to be someone who has conservative values, someone who believes in the right to choose, somebody who believes that it's okay to stand up for righteousness.
It is okay to stand up for righteousness.
Any Disney cast members that are afraid to be bold, that are afraid to be courageous, stand up.
It's okay, you're not alone.
And you look at the crowd, by the way, I think it's worth noting that it's not just a bunch of
Old people, nothing against old people, but for a long time, I can remember even my grandmother used to write letters to Disney when she was concerned about the messaging in some of the Disney films.
She was ahead of her time.
For a long time, there have always been conservatives complaining about Disney and noticing the messaging there.
But for a long time, at least the stereotype, it was mostly older people and grandparents who were worried about Disney.
What you see here is a whole bunch of young people in that crowd as well.
Who have awakened to this issue.
And you've got a Disney employee addressing this crowd of protesters outside Disney headquarters and urging them to stand up for righteousness.
That's not the kind of scene I thought we would see at the beginning of this year.
It's also not a scene the left and the media ever anticipated.
And just like they did with the school board movement, they're once again running scared.
They're panicking, flailing about.
Articles and cable news segments vacillate between mocking conservatives for criticizing Disney and then also accusing us of participating in cancel culture against the company.
That's one of the big lines right now is that this is cancel culture against Disney.
Now as to that claim, just to be clear about this, it is by definition not possible for a multinational megacorporation to be the victim of cancel culture.
Cancel culture is a tool of such institutions.
Cancel culture is an institutional tool.
You can't really cancel someone without the power of the institutions on your side.
The institutions cannot be the target of cancel culture, as much as I might wish that they could be.
They can, however, be criticized, and protested, and boycotted.
And that's what's happening here, and for good reason.
But the institutions protect their own, which is why the media is running to Disney's defense.
Here's Humpty Dumpty on CNN, valiantly coming to the defense of the poor, persecuted, multi-billion dollar corporation.
Let's listen to that.
In the United States, we're seeing a theme of the midterm elections emerging.
It's the way you can see a wave start to form far from shore before it breaks on the beach.
The theme, the talking point on the right, is about protecting kids from the dangers of the Walt Disney Company.
Really.
But Disney is just a stand-in.
It's just a symbol for something bigger.
A conservative backlash to growing acceptance of gay and transgender people.
A conservative fear that traditional beliefs are being trampled on.
And there are entire networks that program to this fear, and many politicians that react to it.
That's the story here.
As this CNN.com reporting says, three months into the new year, lawmakers in dozens of states have introduced a slew of bills that could limit the rights of LGBTQ Americans.
Some of those bills are framed as parental rights bills.
Opponents say they're really actually anti-gay bills, and it's easy to picture this battle continuing right through the midterm elections.
But for folks who aren't partisan warriors, this battle is incredibly disheartening.
I spoke with a Disney executive who's caught in the middle of it right now, and they said, you know, Disney's brand for decades has been family-friendly and has been gay-friendly, and that hasn't been in conflict.
That need not be in conflict.
But the media organs that profit from conflict are on a crusade now, working overtime to demonize Disney, claiming the company is indoctrinating and sexualizing children through movies and TV shows.
Now you notice the text on the screen right there.
It says, focus on parental rights, chips away at gay rights.
The left is now positioning parental rights and gay rights as two opposite competing things.
That's how they're positioning it.
Now this is, without question, the most suicidal and self-destructive kind of political messaging that LGBT activists could ever possibly devise.
I mean, they shout, you have to choose between your precious parental rights and my gay rights.
Choose, I say.
Well, I guess I'll just take my parental rights in that case.
I mean, if you insist on me choosing, it's got to be one or the other.
Yeah, I'll take the parental rights.
Sure.
For sure.
No question.
Especially since you apparently believe that you have the gay right to sexually indoctrinate my kids.
So that's not a difficult choice for me to make.
As for Disney, keep in mind, That while the media throw up their hands and say, why do you care so much about Disney?
Leave Disney alone!
What did they ever do to you?
Ah, you silly conservatives making such a big deal out of Disney.
They were the ones who brought Disney into this to begin with.
They insisted that Disney take a stand on the Florida parental rights bill.
Conservatives didn't insist on that.
I don't remember a single conservative Before Disney said anything, there were no conservatives insisting that Disney support the bill.
Nobody on the right was saying, where's Disney on this?
Why aren't they supporting the parental rights bill?
We were fine with Disney saying nothing at all about the subject.
In fact, I would have preferred that.
The left demanded it.
And when they got what they wanted, and Disney came out fully in favor of the sexual indoctrination and grooming of preschoolers, we reacted with appropriate levels of disgust.
And we now say that if Disney is committed to this path, then we obviously can't allow the company anywhere near our children.
Considering that Disney has been committed to ideologically brainwashing kids for many years, we should have come to this conclusion sooner as conservatives, but better late than never, I suppose.
The left can, of course, mock us for caring so much about Disney, even though they were the ones who spent months insisting that Disney's opinion on the Florida bill is of utmost importance.
And now they switch course and they say the opposite.
This is all part of the... We're used to this trend.
This is a common trend I remark on all the time with the left, where they demand that we care about a certain thing.
They shove it in our face.
They scream about it.
You must care about this!
Disney's opinion on the Florida bill, this is really important.
And then we say, okay, well, we care.
But we've reached the opposite conclusion from you.
And then suddenly they say, well, why do you care so much?
It doesn't matter.
They're actually scrambling.
What they're really worried about is that they know we're over the target, just as we were with the school boards.
For years, we allowed entertainment companies like Disney, we allowed them open and non-stop access to our kids, allowed our kids to consume their content, and I say our and we, you know, in a universal sense.
Some of us were a little bit more discerning about it, but generally speaking, Parents allowed their kids to just sit there and consume Disney content all day without scrutinizing the messages that the content contained.
And that was an incredibly valuable tool for the left.
Now they see that we're finally awake, and it's not going to be quite so easy anymore to indoctrinate our kids.
And that terrifies them.
And again, it should.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
We're going to start right off the bat with this.
Governor Greg Abbott in Texas, I think with perhaps the highlight of his tenure in Texas.
I just, I love everything about this personally.
Let's listen to him first.
Crossing the border from Mexico into Texas.
And at this time I'm going to sign my directive to Colonel McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public
Safety, to get that project underway immediately for the zero
tolerance and the inspections that will be taking place.
Second, to help local officials whose communities are being overwhelmed by hordes of illegal immigrants who are being dropped off by the Biden administration, Texas is providing charter buses to send these illegal immigrants who have been dropped off by the Biden administration to Washington, D.C.
We are sending them to the United States Capitol, where the Biden administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border.
To get that going, I'm going to send a letter to Chief Nim Kibb with the Texas Division of Emergency Management, who
will be in charge of this operation.
Together, and to recap on these.
What Colonel McCraw is charged to do is, in this letter I say that I hereby direct the Texas Department of Public Safety to conduct enhanced safety inspections of vehicles as they cross international points of entry into Texas.
This is great.
I mean, I think this is a wonderful idea.
It's the kind of thing that in previous years you might talk about, and it wouldn't be nice if they would just load up all the illegals and dump them right in D.C., right on the laps of all the politicians who have devised these open border laws to begin with.
You talk about it, and then you don't expect that it's actually going to happen, because usually the Republican Party doesn't have the guts to do anything like that, not nearly bold enough.
So, that's exactly what Governor Abbott's going to do.
Now, of course, obviously this is being criticized on the left, and even some people on the right, some people even that I respect on the right, who I wouldn't call milquetoast by any means, I've seen a few criticizing this, saying, well, you're using people as pawns here, I'm a little uncomfortable with it.
But I think you gotta get over that.
First of all, this is not Greg Abbott using Illegal immigrants as pawns.
That's the Democrat Party.
That's Joe Biden.
That has been the official Democrat policy for years.
To use illegal immigrants, to open up the floodgates, allow them in.
They have political reasons to do it.
They, of course, don't care about the humanity of these people.
They don't care about their safety or well-being.
If they did, they wouldn't be implicitly and often explicitly encouraging them to embark on this dangerous journey across the desert in the first place, if they actually cared about their safety and well-being.
So I think for Greg Abbott, it's pretty simple.
You people in the Biden administration, you want them coming in, so we're going to send them up to you.
You figure out what to do with them.
Why should this be our problem?
See, this is supposed to be your job in the federal government to protect the borders.
If you're not doing it, then the consequences should be felt by you, not by us.
And at any rate, if you're on the left, you should totally support a plan like this because Texas is a red state.
That means it's systemically racist.
Well, the whole country really is, but especially in Texas of all places, right?
So wouldn't you want the illegals to be rescued from Texas and sent up to the warm embrace of Washington, D.C., where everything is perfect and safe and wonderful?
The people advocating for open borders, this has always been the case.
You know, just like with abortion, as Ronald Reagan famously pointed out, all the people who support abortion happen to be alive, right?
So it doesn't affect them.
They already made it through the gauntlet of the modern womb, and they managed to survive.
And now they're turning back around and, you know, in effect, like, pulling the ladder up behind them and saying, oh, all the rest of those babies you can kill.
And a similar thing with the open borders.
The people who advocate for open borders and who have these open border policies in place, they, for the most part, don't live anywhere near the border.
Washington, D.C.
is, if you're familiar with the geography of the United States, not anywhere near the southern border.
So they don't feel the effects of it.
They're also politicians.
I mean, they work in industries where they don't have to worry about their jobs and opportunities being taken by illegals.
So they don't feel the effect of it at all.
They're able to sit on their comfortable perch and let everybody else suffer because of their policies.
That's leftist leadership in a nutshell.
So, here, all he's saying is, this is your problem, you created it, you want these people to come in, in the first place, unfettered, unvetted, you deal with it.
I like it.
I think it's a great idea.
I don't like this though.
Kim Kardashian has been on a campaign to free the worst people in the world from prison.
Or at least to free them from the full consequences of their crimes, especially if the consequence is the death penalty.
Because that is a consequence in at least still some states in the Union.
And if you live in one of those states, you know that or you ought to know that.
You know, before you choose to commit a brutal crime, you know what you're getting yourself into.
You know what the consequence is.
You commit the crime, and now you have to pay the price for it.
It's really something that you chose.
That's the thing about the death penalty, is that you, the individual who chooses to commit, if they didn't choose to commit the crime, I mean, if they're, if it's decided this person's completely insane, doesn't have free will, then we already That already is the policy that those people are not going to be executed.
So if they chose, if they choose to commit it, they also chose the consequence.
They chose the punishment because they knew what it was going to be.
Kim Kardashian doesn't like that though.
And so this has been her, this has been her hobby horse for a while now.
And look, she has not done anything important or useful or good in her life, and she's decided to make this her thing.
This is like her charitable endeavor, defending the worst scum on planet Earth.
But what we have to remember is that, of course, this is all about her.
So here she is in an interview recently talking about how the recent execution of a criminal impacted her personally.
Because again, it's all about her.
Listen.
I was working on the Brandon Bernard case and he was in fact executed and I remember crying and feeling so helpless because it was his last phone call and he was telling me like, don't cry, it's going to be okay.
You know, hearing that he was worried that he would be claustrophobic in the chair.
And then on his last call, when he was in the execution room, said, please tell Kim I'm not claustrophobic.
It's okay.
And like moments like that, I'm like, if only someone could see my day, I'm like hysterically crying, calling every governor that I could possibly imagine to try to stop someone's execution.
And then I have to run into, you know, a skim's fitting and I'm fitting and I'm crying and I'm can't really get my work done.
Oh, it was tough because she had to go to a skims fitting.
The other guy was being executed, but she was crying at her skims fitting.
The level of narcissism required to make somebody else's execution about you is, I mean, it's off the charts.
And now she's back at it.
So she tweeted this week, this is what she tweeted.
I recently just read about the case of Melissa Lucio and wanted to share her story with you.
So remember, she just read about the case.
Just read about it.
And already she's decided.
She has passed her own verdict.
She says she's been on death row for over 14 years for her daughter's death that was a tragic accident.
Just found out about it.
You know, probably read the Wikipedia article or something and has already decided that Melissa Lucio, who was convicted of murdering her two-year-old daughter, actually was a tragic accident.
Kardashian goes on to say that Lucio's two-year-old daughter died from falling down the steps.
That's the claim, anyway.
Actually, died two days after falling down the steps, allegedly.
But nobody ever sought medical attention for her.
But it was all a terrible misunderstanding and an accident.
Kim Kardashian actually deleted this tweet.
Sort of confusingly deleted it, but is still openly advocating for Lucio and defending her.
Hasn't really explained why she deleted tweets.
Here are the facts though, and Kardashian is not the only person coming to Melissa Lucio's defense and saying that she's, you know, she's really the victim here and it would be a terrible injustice to execute her.
So here's what happened.
I'll just break it down, quick summary.
Her two-year-old child was found dead.
In her home, two days after this supposed fall.
Now, already this raises some questions, like, your child fell down the steps and was, it turns out, fatally wounded, and you never sought medical attention for her.
That raises some serious questions.
Then you get some answers to those questions when you find out that there was bruising all over her body, clumps of hair pulled out of her head, and bite marks on her body as well, and a broken arm.
The physician at the hospital said it was the worst case of abuse he'd ever seen in his life.
The pathologist looked at the autopsy, said the autopsy showed that she died from abuse.
She did not die from, you know, a fall down the steps.
Also keep in mind that she fell down the steps, quote unquote, that's like the classic abuser rationalization.
That's the excuse that, I don't know, every abuser in history has given.
Or at least 90% of them fell down the steps.
How often have we heard that one?
And falling down the steps, how does that result in bite marks?
How does that result in your hair falling out?
And once again, even if somehow, in some unbelievable coincidence, the child happened to fall down the steps in such a way as to cause all of these injuries, I don't know how that could even possibly be the case, but then she would have been very visibly and grievously injured.
So why didn't you seek medical attention?
There's no explanation for this.
And then you find out that Lucio actually confessed under interrogation that she's responsible for the death of her child.
Now, yes, this interrogation, this confession is being used by Lucio's defenders to say that the whole thing was invalid because she confessed under, it was like five, she was being interrogated for several hours, like five, six hours.
And she denied it.
Many times before she finally admitted it.
And so her defenders are saying, well, it was five hours of interrogation, and then she confessed.
Well, that's what an interrogation is.
That's why you call it an interrogation.
How do you think an interrogation is supposed to work?
Are the cops supposed to just like, you've got a dead child here with all of these wounds on her body.
And you bring in the mother and you sit her down and you say, uh, did you kill your child?
And she says, no.
And then you just say, oh, okay, well, nevermind then.
No, obviously they had, especially when the, when the, when the, the physician at the hospital tells you that this is the worst case of physical abuse of a child he's ever seen in his life.
And then given all the other circumstances, that's going to make you as a police officer, as an investigator, very, very suspicious about this woman.
And so of course you're going to interrogate her for five hours.
Interrogate her for 15 hours!
Until you get an explanation that makes sense.
I don't even understand this whole thing about, this is so common that we hear as well, the person only confessed after X number of hours of interrogation.
That's the point of the interrogation!
Are you suggesting that the cops should just take the first answer they get?
She killed her child and obviously she didn't want to admit to it right away.
She would prefer not to admit to it.
She doesn't want to go and be in jail for the rest of her life or get executed.
So part of the interrogation is breaking through those initial psychological defenses to try to get to the truth.
That's the point.
So to me, this is very this is very clear-cut but Kim Kardashian You know spent spent five six seconds reading about the issue and decided that Melissa Lucio is is really the victim here a woman convicted of Brutally beating her two-year-old to death is the person we're supposed to feel sorry for Sorry, that's just, I don't have that in me.
And it's not because I'm callous.
I think the callousness is all on the other side.
You know, this is misdirected sympathy.
This is this kind of twisted form of compassion that you get from the left, you get from people like Kim Kardashian.
And it's, among other things, it's an easy kind of compassion because she doesn't feel, like, If you're a morally decent person, you should feel this intense, unbridled revulsion and anger at this kind of violence against a child.
I mean, you should have a rage boiling inside you at the idea that a child was beaten to death.
And that's what a morally healthy person experiences.
That's the hatred we talked about a couple days ago.
If you're a loving and compassionate person, you should have hatred in your heart for things like this.
The brutal victimization of a child.
You should hate that.
You should hate that with every fiber of your being.
Now, by all appearances, Kim Kardashian doesn't have that in her.
She doesn't really feel much about the victims and the terrible things that were done to them.
And so it's easy for her to have, quote, compassion for the For the criminals.
Because she doesn't feel any anger about what they did.
She doesn't feel any righteous, justified anger.
That's where the compassion comes from.
You know where it comes from?
It comes from indifference.
It's not compassion, it's indifference.
And we tend to confuse those two things a lot in this culture.
There are a whole lot of people who are very indifferent to injustice, and they get away with positioning that indifference as compassion.
All right, I gotta play this for you.
This is a Presbyterian church in Iowa, female pastor, no coincidence there, giving her version of a prayer.
And just listen to this.
Oh God of pronouns, we give praise to the great one, the one who is identifiable as God.
I am what I am, you say, the great they.
The incarnate he and she, the god of trans being.
Impregnating Mary, fathering God, breastfeeding God of many breasts, you shatter all stereotypes, making every single person male and female.
Male and female, intersex, non-binary, in your image.
Exactly in your image.
Spectrum, Rainbow God, who put your promise for nonviolence in the symbol for queer love, before humanity knew, because you knew.
Who had Joseph, who could not sleep with a woman, in a beautiful lady's cloak, perhaps of rainbow colors, before we knew, you knew.
God of pronouns who said you can call me he or she or they, whatever makes you feel closest to me.
The great they.
That's how she refers to God.
The God of pronouns.
First of all, it's actually not a coincidence that this is a female pastor saying all of this.
Not to suggest that the bad pastors are always female.
There's a lot of bad men leading churches as well in this country and across the West and across the world.
But it's also not a coincidence that the craziest and most heretical stuff Usually happens at churches with female pastors.
That is not a coincidence.
And the reason it's not a coincidence is that churches that have already bought into feminism were destined to continue the slide into what we're seeing now.
That's the connection there.
And what we see there is what we've seen in many churches, again, across the West, just this is a very One of the more shocking examples of it, but this is God made in the image of man, rather than man made in the image of God.
That's the way.
She, in this church, she is trying to remake God in her own image, in the image of what she thinks humanity is.
It's a complete inversion.
of the actual message of the Bible.
How the Bible begins.
Male and female, he created them.
And she even says that.
Talk about shocking.
There's one surprising moment where she says, you made them male and female, and you stop and say, well, hold on a second, you're admitting that much at least?
And then she continues, and intersex, and non-binary.
No, actually, that's not in the scripture at all.
In fact, it says that male and female he created them.
There are no other categories provided.
And that's not just in the beginning of the Bible, that's all throughout the Bible.
There are many exhortations given to men and to women, and there's never a third, there's never a time where, oh yeah, in the third category over here, here's what you should do.
So we see her in real time rewriting the Bible and trying to rewrite God, remake God in her own twisted self-image.
Speaking of twisted, I gotta play this for you too.
Sean Penn appeared on Hannity this week, and talk about things you may not have expected in the past.
There was a time when this combination would be somewhat unthinkable, having Sean Penn and Sean Hannity getting along.
But he appeared on Hannity this week to complain that countries are not more willing to use nuclear weapons.
The Ukrainians we saw and talked to, whether they were in uniform, out of uniform, school teachers, even children, this extraordinary courage that's come up and it was in his eyes and it is clear to me that the Ukrainians will win this.
The question is, at what cost?
Did they have, in those early hours, I know that Trump gave them javelins, I know that they had some defenses, but if you go back to the Budapest Agreement, they were at the time the third largest nuclear power in the world.
And they made an agreement that they'd give those weapons to Russia to be destroyed in exchange for protection from Russia, Great Britain, and the U.S.
Lesson to be learned here, don't give up your nuclear weapons if you have them, because you can't believe people like Vladimir Putin.
Well, even countries that have nuclear weapons can remain intimidated to use them.
And we're seeing that now with our own country.
And I fear what that legacy is going to be.
No one wants to see a nuclear conflict.
I don't want to see one.
Nobody does.
At the same time, if only one bully is going to be able to use those weapons as a threat, we've got to rethink what we're doing.
Just to be clear here, this is Sean Penn who pretends to want world peace and all of that and global harmony.
He's disappointed, he's disappointed that Western countries are not more eager to use nuclear weapons.
This is him, he's openly saying, he thinks that we should nuke Russia, that's what he's saying.
And he's given a platform to say that.
Absolute madness.
Speaking of madness, one other thing before we get to the comment section.
This is from Travel and Leisure.
I saw this article making the rounds yesterday and I was quite unsettled by it.
It says, in the middle of a sweltering summer, you can bet that pretty much everyone has their air conditioners running as cold as possible.
However, according to Consumer Reports, most of us are probably running our air conditioners at the wrong temperature, which wastes energy and causes our utility bills to soar.
Energy Star came out with recommendations for setting your air conditioner so that you can save money and use energy efficiently.
Now, and then they went and they talked to experts, because we need experts to tell us what our thermostat should say.
We need experts to tell us what is most comfortable for us.
And it says that, according to experts, it's recommended that you set your air conditioning at 78 degrees when you're home and awake.
And it gets worse.
If you leave your home, set your unit to 85 degrees.
When you're asleep, set it to 82 degrees, the experts say.
Now the experts have been disproven and invalidated and shamed and humiliated in many different ways over the last few years especially.
But I can think of no example more stark than this one.
When they're telling us to set our air conditioning at 82 degrees when you're sleeping?
This is actually, I'm the expert on this and I'll tell you where your thermostat should be.
Throughout the day, basically your house should never be, especially if I'm coming over to visit, your house should never be warmer than 68 degrees.
That's the baseline all the time.
It should never get more than 68 degrees.
It doesn't matter the season.
When you're sleeping, though, it should be, it's gotta be as cold as it'll possibly, it should be, it should be so cold that if your blankets come off in the middle of the night, you might, you might die of hypothermia in your sleep.
That's how cold it should be.
Get it as cold as it could possibly be.
That's, that is the correct answer.
Take it from me, not these so-called experts.
Alright, let's get into the comment section.
[Music]
Elizabeth Ball says, "The definition of a groomer is someone who uses subtle techniques to prepare/guide a child
towards something later."
If they don't think that they're grooming kids to see gender and sex as fluid and to see all kinds of sex as good sex, what do they think they're doing?
Of course.
Why do I even ask?
They don't think about what they're doing at all.
They simply comply with the silent commands of their masters below.
No, they know that grooming is exactly what they're doing.
Now, that's probably not the language they would choose to use.
That's not what they call it amongst themselves.
They use euphemisms for it.
That's what we always have to keep in mind about the left, is that everything they do, they cover in euphemisms.
And so they're going to use a lot of euphemisms here.
One would be just education, they would probably call it.
But when you are... Here's grooming, okay?
When you are indoctrinating children, you know, inducting them into a certain sexual view of life and a certain sexual lifestyle, and not only are you doing that, but you're doing it without their parent's consent, and while telling, in fact, oftentimes telling the kids, don't tell your parents about this, that's grooming.
I mean, any time, there is almost never going to be an occasion where it's going to be appropriate for you as an adult to go to a child and have a conversation with them that you don't want their parents to know about.
Now, the only time I can conceive of when that would be appropriate is if the child is the victim of abuse at home and is coming to you.
And then you're going to get the authorities involved.
Anything outside of that is already grooming.
It's already going to be inappropriate at best.
But talk about euphemisms and justifications.
What I just said about the kind of the abuse exception here, which I think we would all agree.
If a child is abused, obviously that is a time when you want to be able to talk to the child without having the parent involved.
If the parent is the guilty party in the abuse.
Now, that's another way that the left kind of do an end-run around this issue, is that they'll say that, well, you know, if a six-year-old is really trans and their parents aren't accepting of it, then that six-year-old's a victim of abuse.
And so we have to rescue him from that abuse.
That's the way they get around it.
That's the way they dress it up.
That's the way they dress it up in public and probably in their own minds to rationalize what they're doing.
But there's no question that it is grooming and indoctrination.
And it is a form of sexual abuse, by the way.
Brandon Summit says, I love Matt's play-by-play of Biden's social awkwardness.
I've been there before.
It's especially bad when you arrive to a party before your core group of people arrive.
Yeah, that's a problem.
Or if you're at the social function and you have your core group of people and you have your circle, but they keep fanning out and mingling with others.
Like you found your people and this is what you're going to, you know, it's like, this is how we're going to get through this together.
And then they betray you by going and talking to other people, forcing you to also mingle?
That's another problem.
So again, that's the one time I've ever felt bad or really I guess because I could relate to Biden with that footage of him being left all on his own while everyone fawns over Obama.
Let's see, James says, quote, hey, I bet I can get everyone to celebrate a fake holiday for a fake sexuality of self-obsessed single people justifying their loneliness.
Hashtag international asexuality day.
Well, I'm glad you brought that up, James, because I did forget to mention that yesterday, and I apologize to all the asexuals out there, which is a category that really doesn't exist.
But yesterday was, we had Trans Day of Visibility, yesterday was the Asexual Day of Visibility.
International Asexuality Day.
So, if you celebrated, then happy Asexuality Day.
If you didn't, then I guess we'll get to it next year.
Well, the latest limited edition, highly sought after installment of my patch program is here
already featuring the embroidery of two crossed banjos on a strident orange face.
April's Patches, reminiscent of one of my set's former hallmarks.
You may not have won the giveaway back when I relinquished my prized banjo,
and now all I have is this phantom banjo, which lives on the bedsheet that I do my show in front of.
But now's your chance to claim a memento honoring my virtuous, virtuistic, virtuosic.
Why would you put a word like that in a, in a copy that I have to read?
Virtuosic.
Is that even a word?
Virtuosic.
I don't think that's a word.
Virtuosic.
Yeah, that probably is a word.
Anyway, my virtuosic prowess plucking the beloved instrument.
So go to dailywire.com slash shop to secure your piece of my patch program or any of the other products featured in my vast and rapidly growing collection today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So we must return to a well that we just recently visited.
Quite a shallow well, it turns out, but there's a reason to come back here today.
Last week, we cancelled Jon Stewart after he focused an episode of his show on airing the dirty laundry of his own personal white guilt.
Now, nobody knew that he had done this, because nobody knew that he had a show, until the clips went viral online, where he rants about the sins of white America, the evils of the white man, etc.
And now we must cancel him again for a similar reason, though with a slightly different theme.
Stewart is continuing his white guilt tour, this time appearing on somebody's show, or maybe they're appearing on his, who knows.
But during the conversation, he said this, listen.
The literal interpretation of the American dream is that, is it doesn't matter where you were born or how you were born or who you are, that in this country, you can rise up and go beyond that.
And it turns out to be a fallacy.
But I wonder, you know, when we say, oh, in 2040 or 2050, when the demographics change, we won't know what will happen.
I feel like we know what will happen because it's, it's what's happened from the very beginning.
And I would say.
Yeah.
The formation of the Union, the compromise that was made with the Southern states that black slaves would count as three-fifths, but they can't vote, but you can count them.
There has always been a redistribution of power to the white elite.
The American Dream is a fallacy, says the man with a net worth of $120 million.
He says it's a fallacy that anyone, no matter where you were born, can rise up and go beyond that.
He says it's fallacious because there is a white elite who are constantly redistributing wealth and power to themselves.
And his example of, and proof of, this systemic sort of rigging is the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was put in place in the 1700s and was recently repealed and abolished.
And by recently, I mean over 150 years ago.
You know, once the United States became its own official country, slavery as an institution only survived about 90 years, as opposed to many other countries in the world, especially countries in Asia and Africa, which had slavery for centuries.
And kept the institution in place for, in some cases, over a century longer than the U.S.
China had slavery for, I don't know, about 3,000 years.
Didn't officially abolish it as a legal institution until the early 20th century.
But even after it was abolished officially, it continued and still continues to this day unofficially.
But this sort of historical context eludes Jon Stewart.
He judges up the sins of our distant past, all the way back to our nation's very infancy, and uses it as his canvas to paint a bleak picture of America today.
Now, as far as that goes, it's one thing for him to do the usual song and dance about America being a racist country, etc.
and so forth, and that's bad enough.
But I find it especially galling when he, standing on his lofty, luxurious perch, waves his hand dismissively and declares that the American dream is an impossibility for millions of Americans.
A fallacy, he says.
Now, this is just not true.
It's certainly true that some people have it easier than others.
Some people start out life with advantages that other people don't have.
Jon Stewart's children, for example, have many privileges that other people's children don't have.
Yes, they're more privileged than black children in the inner city.
They're also more privileged than white children living in a drug-infested trailer park in Appalachia somewhere.
Nobody is claiming that every person has an equal shot at having success in life, whatever success might mean.
If you're born in squalor, that will negatively impact your chances.
And then, whatever your socioeconomic situation, some people have better natural tools than others.
Some people are smarter, better learners, more gifted, more suited for success in certain areas.
LeBron James had to work hard to have success in the NBA, but he certainly started off with a better chance at that kind of success than, say, I did.
There's no way to give everyone an absolutely equal playing field, given that everyone is different, everyone's situation is different, and the playing fields we want to play on are all also different.
Not to mention we make different choices, we have different priorities, etc.
The question for our purposes right now is whether there's a system in place to grant better opportunities to white people based purely on their skin color.
As to that, the answer is clearly no.
In fact, all of the systems that grant opportunity based on skin color cut against whites, not in favor of them.
Moreover, a simple Google search confirms that, what I think most people have just observed anecdotally, white people are not, on average, the most financially successful group in the United States.
Not even close, actually.
If the system is built to put us ahead, it seems to be massively malfunctioning at the moment.
So the median household income for Asian Americans is $20,000 higher than the median income for whites.
Whites are $20,000 higher than blacks, and Asians are doubly as financially successful as blacks.
A simple narrative of white privilege doesn't seem sufficient to explain this disparity, especially when you break Asian down into its different distinct ethnic groups.
So, the median household income for Indian Americans is $126,000.
That's the median.
That's nearly double the number for whites.
Filipinos are $100,000.
Same for Taiwanese.
Indonesians clock in at $93,000.
Pakistanis, $87,000.
Chinese, $85,000.
Many of these ethnic groups hail from poor countries.
Many of these are Americans, you know, who are excelling to such an degree, and they're second- or even first-generation immigrants.
They just got here, and they're already enjoying enormous success.
How could that happen in a country that is racist against non-whites, and especially, as we're told, racist against non-white immigrants?
Well, the answer is that the racism narrative is false.
Once we put that to the side, I think, we can have a more adult conversation about how we might explain the incredible and inspiring success of Asian immigrants in this country.
And we might be able to explain the contrast between their success and the struggles of other groups.
The explanation is perhaps not simple, has many layers, but I think two factors immediately spring to the foreground.
First, Asians are more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced.
Than pretty much any other group.
Second, as a general rule, these various ethnicities come from cultures that put a high premium on hard work.
So, to review, they have stable families and they work hard.
In their home countries, that formula very often did not result in financial success, which is why they came here.
In this country, it almost always does, to one degree or another.
Now, homing in on just the first point here.
A very interesting correlation comes into view.
As you go down the median income ladder from Asian to white to black, you notice that the broken and fatherless home rates go up.
So it's almost as if the more broken homes you have in your community, the more poverty you have in your community.
Fortunately, we don't need to speculate about whether there is a connection here.
In fact, literally every study ever done on the subject proves that there is a direct causal link between the state of the family and poverty.
There has never been any credible study, to my knowledge, indicating that marriage and family are irrelevant or neutral factors when it comes to financial and economic stability.
That's how clear-cut this is.
Now, this connection obviously blows Stewart's simplistic racial narrative out of the water.
Any ethnic group can have wild success in this country if they keep their family unit together.
The evidence for that is incontrovertible.
But is he still correct that the American Dream is a fallacy?
Whether it's because of racism or not, and it's not, the fact is that lots of people, as already acknowledged, are born into disadvantaged situations.
It'll be harder for them to climb to the top, whatever and wherever the top is for them, depending on what their goals are.
Does this call into question the American Dream?
No, it doesn't.
Here we have to rely more on experience and observation and anecdote because it's a very difficult thing to quantify on a bar graph.
But if you look through any of those lenses, you will see example after example of people in America starting at the dirt bottom, beneath the bottom, starting in a hole in many cases, and yet climbing their way out and beyond, far beyond, through determination and hard work.
That's not some kind of myth or cliche.
It actually happens all the time.
It's more than possible.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you work hard, barring an act of God, like a disaster or an illness of some kind, if you work hard, you are virtually guaranteed to move up from where you started.
Doesn't mean everyone's going to be billionaires.
Almost none of us ever will be billionaires.
But hard work is absolutely one of the most crucial and decisive factors which determines whether a person climbs up in life or stays stagnant or regresses.
It's not the only one.
And it's not easy.
I mean, nobody said it was easy.
That's why we call it hard work.
But hard work does matter.
Now I can speak from my own experience.
Every person I know or who I've ever met in my life who has achieved their goals and found success has been a very hard worker.
I've never met an exception to that.
This can't be a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence.
Which is why, rather than the racial stuff, what we should be talking about is why so many, especially young people in our culture today, young people of all races, seem so much to lack drive, ambition, a willingness to put in the work, This is more than just the classic complaint about kids today that every adult in history has always had about the next generation.
This is something realer than that, I think.
There is, without question, a palpable malaise and sense of despair, a pervasive lack of vision and ambition which has gripped hold of our society, especially younger people.
Being stuck in that kind of stupor will certainly affect your ability to succeed.
It will destroy it, in fact.
It will essentially guarantee failure and disappointment.
But the causes of this cancer aren't systemic racism.
It's rooted much more deeply than that.
That's a conversation we could have.
But the Jon Stewarts of the world make that impossible by distracting us and taking us off track with their incessant evil white man narrative.
And that's why Jon Stewart is, again, for the second time in two weeks, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
but 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, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, 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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Barack Obama returns to lie about his actions on Ukraine.
Cracker Jack becomes Cracker Jill.
And Joe Biden's Health and Human Services Secretary says he'd love to use federal dollars for transgender surgeries on minors.
