Ep. 946 - The Left Temporarily Rediscovers Biology
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left continues to struggle to find a compromise between their feminist pro-abortion talking points and their trans talking points. Also, the White House refuses to condemn “protesters” who are planning to hunt down conservative Supreme Court Justices and show up at their houses. The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard drama continues, but I think the lesson in this story is one that most people are ignoring. Trump allegedly suggested missile strikes against drug cartels. Sounds like a fine plan to me. Plus, the guy who physically assaulted Dave Chapelle on stage during a comedy show will not face felony charges, despite the fact that he was carrying a deadly weapon at the time. It’s almost like they want this kind of thing to happen more often.
Join the Daily Wire and get 20% off your new membership with code WALSH: https://utm.io/uewvd.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. Get their book "What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion": https://utm.io/uex0P
Convert your videotapes, camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures to perfectly preserved digital files with Legacybox. Visit www.Legacybox.com/WALSH for an incredible deal on your order.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left continues to struggle to find a compromise between their feminist pro-abortion talking points and their trans talking points.
Also, the White House refuses to condemn protesters, quote unquote, who are planning to hunt down conservative Supreme Court justices and show up at their houses.
The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard drama continues, but I think the lesson in this story is one that most people are ignoring so far.
And Trump allegedly suggests missile strikes against drug cartels.
Sounds like a fine plan to me.
Plus, the guy who physically assaulted Dave Chappelle on stage during a comedy show, Will not face felony charges, despite the fact that he was carrying a deadly weapon at the time.
It's almost like they want this kind of thing to happen more often.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wohl Show.
As you know, there are very few social events I will actually go to, let alone enjoy myself at.
But Backstage Live happens to be one of the ones that I actually enjoy.
And if it's good enough for me to attend, it's definitely good enough for you.
So here's your chance to join me and The Daily Wire for Backstage Live on June 29th at the historic Ryman Auditorium in downtown Nashville, Tennessee.
We've been on a huge winning streak from suing the federal government to stop their tyrannical vaccine mandate, to announcing our $100 million challenge to woke Disney DW kids.
That makes this the perfect time to get together and celebrate.
Another thing that we, as also is our best-selling children's book, we should mention as well.
It should be in the copy.
So come sit and listen and marvel at me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavin, Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring for our biggest live event of the year.
I need the Sweet Baby Gang to be representing there.
I need you there.
I need your support.
So tickets, and especially because if I give a shout out to Sweet Baby Gang on stage this time, which I didn't last time, my greatest regret, I need to make sure that there's a response.
Otherwise, it's gonna be very embarrassing.
So tickets go on sale Thursday, May 12th at 10 a.m.
Central Time for Daily Wire.
All-access members only and 12 hours later for the general public.
If you're not an all-access member, don't miss out.
Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and become an all-access member today.
Daily Wire backstage live at the Ryman in Nashville on June 29th.
See you there.
So this has been a difficult week, to say the least, for the left.
In fact, there have been several difficult weeks in a row.
A few weeks ago, Elon Musk bought Twitter, ushering in a troubling new era where people can use social media to do dangerous things like, you know, share their viewpoints and say their opinions.
And then the next week after that, my book, Johnny the Walrus, became the number one bestseller in the country, causing deep trauma to Amazon employees and to leftists across the nation.
Speaking of which, I should mention here that BookScan, the company that tracks all book sales, released their official list for the previous week, for last week, and we can confirm now that Johnny the Walrus outsold every book in every category last week.
In spite of this, of course, it was left off of the New York Times bestseller list.
It makes sense, I suppose, just because it was Literally the best-selling book out of all books.
That doesn't mean that it qualifies as a bestseller.
Why?
Well, I suppose because the New York Times, and they don't, you know, they don't tell you exactly what their algorithm is for how they track these things, and they don't tell you that because they want to give themselves the excuse to leave books like this off of it, but I think what it is is that they subtract one book sale for every leftist that your book traumatizes, which means that by that accounting method, I actually sold like negative a million books, I guess.
All of that trauma, though, was mere appetizer for the main course, which, of course, was served this week with news that Roe v. Wade is about to be aborted.
The prospect of fewer babies being killed, even if the decrease will be relatively minimal as the majority of abortions are already performed in states that will not outlaw them just because Roe is overturned, but the prospect is still devastating.
For the reasons that we've covered on the show, leftism is the worship of self.
Through abortion, a mother kills her child, sacrificing him on the altar of the self, and thus declaring herself to be an autonomous, independent being.
It's all a mirage.
Of course, she's just consigned herself to a life of regret and despair without knowing it.
But this is the doctrine of the leftist religion, and it's why abortion is its highest sacrament, a sort of satanic parody of baptism.
The other thing that has made this news so difficult is that it comes at a time when the left has been busy trying to convince us that biological sex doesn't exist and men can get pregnant.
So the Roe news has sparked mass confusion, really, on the left.
Some have retreated back to the standard feminist, no uterus, no opinion talking point, which, even though that's now defunct, they're still going with it.
Others have tried to cut a path between that and the trans agenda.
So, for example, The AP yesterday put out new style guidance, and this is the style guidance that they're giving.
They say, quote, phrasing like pregnant people or people seeking an abortion seeks to include people who have those experiences but do not identify as women, such as transgender men and non-binary people.
Such phrasing should be confined to stories that specifically address the experiences of people who do not identify as women.
So this is their attempt to come to a compromise.
According to the AP, you can still say things like, overturning Roe is an attack on women because you only need to acknowledge the fictional existence of pregnant men when you're specifically talking about pregnant men.
This is how the AP seeks to have its cake and eat it too, and they give it a good shot.
But ultimately the attempt fails.
Either women exclusively give birth or not, and if not, then it doesn't make any sense to say that abolishing Roe is an attack on women.
Now, it doesn't make any sense, first of all, because it's not an attack on women, but even if it was, the claim is incoherent if men can also get pregnant.
I mean, you might as well say that abolishing Roe is an attack on people with blonde hair, or an attack on people who are 5'7".
You would be confusingly and arbitrarily limiting the conversation in a way that makes no logical sense.
There's no way around it.
If pregnant men exist, then all of the standard feminist talking points are out the window.
They are all neutralized, outdated, transphobic.
You have to choose one path or another.
Choose the path with pregnant men and penis-bearing women, or choose the path of reality.
You cannot live in unreality and reality at the same time.
At least you can't for now.
Not until Mark Zuckerberg hooks us all up to the Matrix anyway, then maybe that'll change.
But Democrats have never been troubled by their own incoherence, which is why so many are forging ahead with their standard feminist claptrap.
And we've heard many examples of this over the last few days.
I want to play one more because it unintentionally raises, I think, an important point.
So here's Senator Mazie Hirono, perhaps the dumbest member of Congress, and that's saying quite a bit, giving her take on all this.
I am just gobsmacked.
I hardly know where to begin.
But fundamentally, Republicans don't give a rip about women.
They are more angry, incensed, and, whatever words, outraged by the leaks than they are by the fact that women in this country are going to wake up one morning and realize they no longer control their own bodies.
I share the sentiments of my colleagues standing here and all the people out there who are outraged by what the Supreme Court, well, the radical right-wing justices of the Supreme Court are about to do.
So I ask the question, is there anything we can do to men that even comes close to forcing a woman to have a baby?
I tweeted that out and there are all kinds of really interesting reactions.
Go to that tweet and you'll find out what's happening out there.
Yes, go to that tweet and find out what's happening out there, she says.
Like I said, a very, very stupid woman.
And they're not all stupid on the left or in the Democratic Party.
There are some of them that are quite smart and very evil, but for Maisie Rona, just a very dumb person.
And she says, what can we do to men that comes close to forcing a woman to have a baby?
Well, again, according to your own party, we can force men to have babies too.
I mean, you know, that's because according to you, that's possible.
But putting that aside, I mean, putting aside the fact that everything you said contradicts everything else you say, we have to clarify two things.
First, I know these people aren't big on definitions, but by definition, Women who get abortions already have babies.
If they didn't have babies, then there would be nothing to abort.
Now, yeah, we might use the word have to mean give birth, but even after a woman has a baby, she still now has a baby.
So when I say I have children, I don't mean that I am now in the process of giving birth to them or that I ever did give birth to them, though I could have given birth to them, according to Maisie Hirono's party.
The point is simply that the child already exists Once the abortion occurs and nobody is in favor of forcing women to bring children into existence, that's not what anyone is saying.
But once the baby does exist, which happens at conception, nobody should be able to kill him.
That's all.
The other part of her claim is what raises, I think, the important point, which is she says that we don't do anything to men that comes close to forcing women to have babies.
Well, I'll tell you something we do to men.
By the current law, a woman can legally kill a man's child without his consent.
Men are in the unique position of having absolutely no legal power to prevent the murder of their own children in the womb.
And what makes this even more outrageous, if it could possibly get more morally outrageous than that, is that though the man has no legal power and no say at all, As soon as the child is born, I mean the second the child is born, he can be legally required to financially care for the child for the next 18 years.
Now, I'm in favor, personally, of forcing men to take care of their own children.
But I am not in favor of a dynamic where in one instance, in one incident rather, the man goes from totally irrelevant, utterly powerless to prevent the child's execution, to on the hook and responsible for the child for the next 18 years.
And there are a lot of problems with this dynamic.
One of them is that the message that you're sending to men, when the child is in the womb, is that you have no power, no say.
It's not even really yours.
And it's just an it.
It's not even a child.
It has no worth, no value, nothing.
And it can be killed and it shouldn't matter to you at all.
And then as soon as the child is born, now you want the father to feel responsible for this being which for the last nine months you have told him isn't even human.
The whole thing makes no sense.
And this is a type of injustice suffered by men and by men alone.
No woman in this country will ever be in the position of having to sit by powerlessly while someone else legally murders her child.
Now, sure, there are lots of men where this goes the other way, and they are pressuring women to get abortions, and that's a horrible thing, too.
But many, many cases go in the other way.
And it's a part of the abortion conversation which is almost always ignored.
Abortion is, along with an attack on basic human rights and the dignity of the unborn, also an attack on men's rights.
Abolishing abortion does not interfere with women's rights because it simply puts women on an even playing field with men.
Without abortion, nobody of either sex is entitled legally to murder anybody.
With abortion, women possess this power solely.
They are judge, jury, and executioner.
The left is not seeking to preserve women's rights, but rather women's privileges.
And this is a privilege that nobody should have.
A privilege that even the person who exercises it is harmed by.
A privilege that destroys everybody involved.
A privilege that is, in the end, more of a curse.
And that ultimately is why abortion, though it grants this evil power to women alone, it is also an attack on women as well, because it invites a woman to come and be destroyed.
It invites her to give up what is the best and most beautiful thing, and it makes all kinds of promises that turn out to be lies.
That's what abortion is in the end.
An attack on everyone.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, as we've just talked about, and we've been talking about a lot this week, of course,
and we've talked about a lot this week, of course, with all this news about Roe v. Wade,
with all this news about Roe v Wade, the left is, I wanna say more enraged than ever.
the left is, I wanna say, more enraged than ever, but I don't know, they're just in a constant state
But I don't know, they're just in a constant state of panic and
of panic and outrage all the time, but certainly when their highest sacrament
outrage all the time.
But certainly, when their highest sacrament is being - Well, as we've just talked about,
is being threatened, that brings out a whole new side, if that's even possible.
That's why it's such a good time to tell you about a book that our friends at 40 Days for Life wrote.
It's the number two Amazon Christian bestseller, "What to Say When," the complete new guide
to discussing abortion, how to change minds and convert hearts in a brave new world.
40 Days for Life is based in Texas.
It's one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world.
They have one million volunteers in 1,000 cities in 64 countries, holding peaceful 40-day vigils
outside of abortion facilities to save lives and help abortion workers leave their jobs.
That's why you gotta get the book, "What to Say When,"
today and I should also note, there's a lot of great stuff
in the book, but right there at the very beginning is a foreword written by, in fact,
a bestselling children's author, which is yours truly, so that's in the book as well.
It covers the old arguments and the new ones that you might be hearing at work or with family, so get it now and check out 40daysforlife.com to help end abortion wherever you live.
So on this topic of men and how they supposedly Benefit from abortion and all the rest of it allegedly.
I also wanted to, here's another thing I want to read quickly.
This is Jill Filopovich.
She's a feminist writer and she just tweeted this out.
She says, there are millions of men whose lives would have been much worse without abortion.
Men who wouldn't have found their big loves, wouldn't have their kids.
I'm sorry, what?
Men who wouldn't have their kids if there was no abortion.
So the kids exist because of abortion.
Try to figure that one out.
You're in the mind of a leftist.
It's impossible to understand.
Wouldn't have been as successful.
Wouldn't have taken big risks.
Many of them don't think about it.
Some don't even know it.
How many men are sitting in elected office, running companies, caring for their much-loved kids, going on big adventures, working their way up, making their art, writing their books, appearing on your television screen because they didn't become fathers before they were ready?
Now, you know, the problem, there are many problems.
One of them is that, once again, she's ignoring the fact that they were already fathers, and then the child was killed, and so they didn't, that's, it's not that they didn't become, not becoming a father before you're ready, that's a good idea.
But that means not conceiving a child, once the child is conceived, then you are now a father.
And when she paints this kind of rosy picture, she, as always, they ignore, they pretend that regret, guilt doesn't exist.
It's the same exact thing they do with people who get, quote-unquote, gender affirmation surgeries, you know, genital mutilation, where they say, oh, they got that and everything was happily ever after, rode off into the sunset.
Just completely pretending that the regret doesn't exist.
When in fact millions of people, especially when it comes to abortion, millions of people are wracked by guilt and regret.
And those voices are totally silenced in this conversation.
But the other thing about this that I noted was that she says, you know, since Roe v. Wade there are so many men who they found the loves of their lives and they got married and they had kids and they've been successful because of abortion somehow.
And yet, if you look at the trajectory of these things, what you find is that since Roe v. Wade, actually there are many fewer men who are doing those things.
Fewer men, statistically, over the last 50 years, have found their true loves, you know, have had kids, have been, have found success in life.
The rates of divorce, fatherless homes, especially for men, suicide, depression, despair, homelessness, drug abuse, incarceration, all of that over the last 50 years since Roe v. Wade has skyrocketed.
Now, is that all because of Roe v. Wade?
No, obviously not.
It's a multifaceted problem, and there are many things behind it.
I think Roe v. Wade is part of the discussion, though.
It certainly, for one thing, helps to engender this feeling of despair, this feeling for everybody that life is essentially meaningless and worthless.
Because if that's the statement that you make about life at its earliest stages, that it's meaningless, worthless, you can destroy it and throw it away, it doesn't mean anything, that tends to seep into people's psyches in ways that they don't at first notice.
But whatever connection there is between Roe v. Wade and abortion and the ways that men have suffered over the last 50 years, the fact is that there is no evidence going in the other direction.
Despite what this Jill Filopovich might want to claim.
Also on the same topic here, you know, the last few days some people who are considered right-wing but really aren't, you know, they're just, they're hated by the left anyway, but they're not really right-wing and I don't think I've ever called themselves that.
Some in that, some prominent people in that category have spoken out against overturning Roe v. Wade.
Joe Rogan was one.
He said, he took a kind of more moderate sort of tenuous stance on it, and he questioned whether we
should be aborting babies when they're more developed, but he did make it clear that the government shouldn't be
getting involved in people. And then also Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports.
There's a clip that kind of went viral. Let's listen to what he has to say about it.
If that is an issue, I vote Democrat.
So it's a great f***ing ploy.
I don't understand, and I thought this in my head too, it's like theoretically Republicans are like less government, small government.
So, like, shouldn't Republicans be pro-choice?
Because let the person... Now, I know the argument.
Yeah, you don't want the federal government making the laws.
You want the state.
But overall, the less government is just let a f***ing woman do what she wants with her body.
Keep the government out of it.
That's, to me, what that is.
It's like, yeah, you can't ban it.
If a woman wants it, great.
She doesn't want it, great.
Her choice.
No government.
Less government.
Less government.
That, whatever.
It's a crazy thing.
It has to be said.
I'm sure some people are like, that's not your thing.
They're gonna be mad.
It's a super sensitive issue.
I don't care.
Certain issues, you have to be like, what the f*** are you talking about?
This is one of them.
So he's saying that he would vote with people who hate his guts.
Also people that have tried unfairly to destroy him with various different witch hunts.
But I think when you listen to Portnoy or anyone kind of in that sort of ideological If you look at this category, and you listen to them talk about abortion, it kind of goes to show what I said a few days ago, which is, despite the fact that we're told that this is a great issue for Democrats, and that this is going to create a blue wave around the midterms, and this is going to backfire on Republicans, despite that claim, it's actually not true, because they do not want to talk about this.
This is not a conversation they want to have, which is why they're always trying to change the subject to something else.
Let's talk about, let's pretend that this is an issue of, you know, interracial marriage, as Eric Swalwell said, or Joe Biden said yesterday, next thing we're going to be segregating gay kids from straight kids in the classroom or something because of Roe v. Wade.
Doesn't make any sense.
But they're just, they're desperately trying to, it's like when Roe v. Wade comes up, when abortion comes up, they fall into this hole and they're just clamoring on the sides of the hole to climb out of it because they don't want to talk about it.
Why don't they want to talk about it?
Well, because their position is hideously immoral and terrible, but also because they rely on kind of what you just heard there, which is, you know, what you hear from Dave Portnoy, it's pretty clear to me that he just hasn't thought about this issue hardly at all.
This is not someone who's given it a lot of thought.
And so what you hear from him on abortion, it's kind of like the same talking points that you hear from high schoolers on a topic like this.
And that's what they want.
That's what the pro-aborts want.
That's what Democrats, that's what the left wants.
They know that they're in a good position, and the best thing for them is when you just don't think about the issue very much.
Which is why they don't want to spend multiple news cycles, or even one news cycle, talking about it, because when you talk about it, it forces people to think about it.
For Dave Portnoy, it's pretty clear, and he kind of indicates that, that this is, you know, it's not his issue, he hasn't thought about it, but like, since it came up, here's his thoughts, just kind of off the cuff.
And they're very, they are very undercooked, let's just say.
And that is what they depend on.
When you look at the polling results of 70% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, well, most of them are in kind of that category.
They just don't understand the issue.
They don't think about it.
And that's where the left wants you.
They want you not thinking about it.
Because when you do think about it, for just a few minutes, you start to see how absurd this kind of claim is.
That, well, the government shouldn't control what people do.
Of course the government controls what people do sometimes.
I mean, there are things that people want to do that they should not be allowed to do, that we should try to prevent them from doing.
And if they do it, they should be punished for doing it.
So that talking point just doesn't make any sense.
Let women do what they want to do.
Well, no, of course we're not going to just let women do anything they want to do.
There are lots of things that a woman or a man might want to do that any normal person, any civilized society would say, you can't do those things.
Theft, rape.
Now, of course, in many cities in America, you can do a lot of those things, especially theft.
They're not going to punish you for it, but again, most normal people look at that and say, well, that's crazy.
You got to do something to stop that.
Another one of those things is murder.
We don't allow people to murder other people.
Should we make an exception if you're murdering your own child?
Not only should we not make an exception, but that's actually the worst kind of murder.
Which, again, if you think about it for like two minutes, just spend two minutes thinking about the issue, that will become very clear to you.
Which is why they'd not want you thinking about it for even two minutes.
Instead, they want half-baked thoughts, they want you to be emotional, and they want you to be angry.
And that was especially clear yesterday at the White House press conference.
Jen Psaki, who, I think this was her last day, she introduced her replacement, and she has now gone off to become an MSNBC analyst.
Again, no conflict of interest there.
She's been doing this job while also working out a gig where she'd become co-workers and colleagues with the very people who are supposed to be holding her to account, so no conflict of interest.
But I think she's gone now.
This is her last press conference, and she was asked about quote-unquote protesters.
Who are tracking down the home addresses of the conservative Supreme Court justices to go to their homes to intimidate them.
Is Jen Psaki, speaking for the White House, willing to come out and clearly denounce that kind of thing?
Well, what do you think?
Let's listen.
These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices.
Is that the kind of thing this president wants?
To help your side make their point?
Look, I think the President's view is that there's a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.
We obviously want people's privacy to be respected.
We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest.
That is certainly what the President's view would be.
So he doesn't care if they're protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside someone's private residence.
I don't have an official U.S.
government position on where people protest.
We want it, of course, to be peaceful.
We have no official government position on whether you should be going to the homes of Supreme Court justices to try to intimidate them to change their opinion on a case.
She has no position on that.
When, in fact, really what that means is that she does have a position, and the position is, yes, please go do that.
Because, and, but this is, remember, if you, you know, January 6th was the worst day in American history.
It was like 15 9-11s and seven Pearl Harbors all rolled into one.
And here she is, refusing to denounce, refusing to tell people, hey, no, do not do this.
And in fact, if you do it, we're gonna arrest and prosecute you.
Because she wants them to do it.
I told you when this news first came out, they will, on the left, and this is generally the case for anything they want, but especially when it comes to this, they will do anything.
They will do anything.
And look, when you send people to Supreme Court Justice, when you first of all, because let's follow the steps here.
First, you tell people that overturning Roe v. Wade is an attack on their very existence.
It's an attack on their lives, on their basic fundamental human rights.
Okay, it's going to turn women into slaves.
So you tell them that.
And then they get the addresses for Supreme Court justices, and they go to the home where these people live, and all you say about it is, hey, protest however you want.
You are all but inviting people to, not just intimidate, but to violently physically attack Supreme Court justices.
And the thing is, if someone takes all of this very seriously, I mean, what if somebody really believes?
They actually believe that overturning Roe v. Wade means the enslavement of women.
They really believe that.
Well, then they would feel totally justified in actually just assassinating, murdering the justices who are about to enslave women.
I mean, think about it.
If it was actually true that there were people in positions of authority who were about to enslave half of the population, then pretty much any... You could be morally justified in pretty much any means necessary to stop that from happening.
To stop the enslavement of half the population?
Well, it would be hard to go too far in stopping that from happening.
So you tell people that, send them off to the house where the Supreme Court justices live.
I mean, you know what you're doing.
And if one of these justices are actually killed, I guarantee you no one in the Democrat Party, none of them, are going to have any regret.
They'll be perfectly fine with that.
And I'll tell you something else.
They would actually be hesitant to even denounce that.
I mean, Justice Alito could be killed by an angry mob, and the Democrat Party would be very hesitant in even denouncing that.
Because that's what a lot of these people want.
Just do whatever it takes to make sure that we can still have abortions anywhere we want.
That's how important it is to them.
I mean, it's pure, unadulterated evil, is what it is.
All right, let's move to this.
A lot of people tracking this Amber Heard, Johnny Depp situation.
Johnny Depp suing for defamation.
Yesterday, Amber Heard, I guess two days ago, she took the stand to, you know, respond and in her own defense against the defamation charge.
And here's one clip that's been making the rounds online.
You know, a lot of people think that Amber Heard is kind of overacting and they don't find her to be a credible witness.
So let's watch some of this.
We get in an argument and I shove past him, just stomp off.
And he grabs me.
We have an argument about me walking away and am I walking out of this?
And in my head, I was like, I, I would, I actually wasn't thinking of leaving yet, but that would later be going through my mind.
We had a, a brief interaction and I don't, I don't remember the exact sequence of things.
I wish I did.
I have a lot of flashes.
It gets a little bit more confusing from my ability to recall everything in a linear way a little later on as things got crazier.
But for this part, the first night, what I distinctly remember Is at one point, I don't think I had gotten very far, maybe I came back into the room, but when he shoved me, I went flying across these parakeet floors.
I mean, just skidding across these floors.
And I remember thinking, it just looked so easy for him to throw me around like that, you know?
I just slid, screeching my skin against this, like, Beautiful wooden floor.
That's an interesting thing to note when you're telling the story that the floors were beautiful.
Now keep in mind that we also have Johnny Depp on his defense had audio of Amber Heard admitting on tape that she had attacked him and actually admitting that she'd hit him and then calling him a baby for complaining about it.
So it's hard to square those two things.
On one hand, she paints this picture of this violent, monstrous guy who's throwing her around like a ragdoll.
But on the other hand, we have her on tape admitting that she smacked him around and then making fun of him and calling him a whiny baby.
Is that what you would do if somebody had so much more strength than you and they were prone to these violent outbursts?
It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
A lot of this doesn't make any sense.
And she also, there's kind of an interesting thing where there are things that she remembers, like little, little details she remembers very vividly, and then other things that you would think are pretty big details that she can't remember.
And then a lot of...
Would appear to sometimes be on the stand, some acting going on.
But here's my point.
This is what I said before.
I just want to re-emphasize this once again.
Having tracked this just a little bit, do I think that Amber Heard is the good guy in this scenario?
Obviously not.
I think it's pretty clearly not.
We know enough about her, we've heard enough, and there's enough evidence to know that she's not the good guy.
Does that make Johnny Depp the good guy though?
And the answer is no.
Okay?
What this is, is that this is a, this is a, these are two Hollywood, two self-centered, egotistical Hollywood dirtbags who found each other and frankly like richly deserve each other.
There's no good guy, there's no real side to take here.
That's what I don't understand, is the people that are... I'm on Johnny Depp's side, I'm on Amber Heard's side.
If you have tracked this at all, paid attention to it at all, how can you listen to any of this and come away feeling that either of them are sympathetic characters?
Makes no sense to me.
You know what the lesson here is?
Look, Johnny Depp was married to a woman.
Left that marriage, and then was with a succession of different women, and I think he was engaged a few times, and then broke that off, and then he had kids with a woman, and he left that.
I'm not sure if he ever actually got married, but he left the mother of his kids and landed on Amber Heard, and we know how that worked out.
And so what is the lesson here, among maybe many other lessons?
One of them is that when you keep Trading in a partner or romantic partner for another, a newer model, you're not going to find that the quality of the newer model improves over time.
Usually it's going to go the other direction.
And ultimately for Johnny Depp, you know, especially if you, if you've left marriages, you've left your kids, you've done this and that.
The woman that you end up with at the end of that whole succession is going to be the sort of woman who is willing to be with a man who's done all of that.
And that's not going to be a high-quality woman.
And especially if you're older and rich, then she's going to have other intentions in mind.
So maybe that's the lesson in all of this.
Maybe you find... something we could all consider doing.
Take this as a word of warning here.
Take this as an example of what not to do.
Instead, find one person, and you get married to them, and you have a family, and you stay with them.
Because once you leave that person and embark on this journey, you're not going to land on somebody better.
It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse as you go.
I think that's what I would take away from this.
Not that Johnny Depp is, you know, the innocent victim in all of this, because that's not how I see it at all.
Let's see, what else do we have?
This is from Fox13.
No surprise here, unfortunately.
A man accused of attacking comedian Dave Chappelle on the stage of the Hollywood Bowl Tuesday evening will not face felony charges, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The 23-year-old man was originally arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after rushing the stage.
Authorities told the Los Angeles Times that the man did not brandish the weapon during the assault.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has forwarded the case to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, which handles misdemeanor crimes within the city.
Chappelle was performing on stage for a Netflix comedy special when he was assailed.
It did not appear he was injured by the assault.
So, this is someone who rushed on stage in the middle of this comedy festival.
And tackled Dave Chappelle to the ground and had a deadly weapon on him.
He had a knife that was, oddly enough, hidden inside a replica gun.
That part I don't understand.
Well, I do understand it.
This guy's a lunatic.
So this is a lunatic who physically attacked Dave Chappelle on stage, had a knife on him, and the Los Angeles District Attorney desperately looking for any reason, you know, to, um, Let a violent criminal off the hook.
What they're saying is, well, he didn't technically brandish the weapon.
He just had it on him.
And who knows if he intended to use it?
You know, this is a crazy guy who rushed the stage during this comedy special, tackled somebody on the ground, had a knife on him.
Oh, but we don't know if he was going to use it.
He maybe had the knife.
Who knows?
Maybe he was just before that, he was cutting apples.
And that's why he had the knife.
For a snack.
He was slicing cheese and apples.
So that's a misdemeanor charge.
If you're wondering why our cities are plagued by crime, this is the reason why.
You don't do that.
You don't let somebody like that off the hook with a misdemeanor.
Twisting yourself into logical pretzels here to justify making that a misdemeanor crime, you don't do that unless you want more crime.
Which, in the end, is what these people actually want.
And I think they also want, I think especially on the radical leftists, they are especially happy with a scenario where comedians on stage now have to worry, especially if you're in California, you know, you have to worry about what you're saying because if you say anything, if you tell a joke somebody doesn't like, they could just rush the stage and assault you.
Because now we have two high-profile examples of that happening, of a comedian, in the span of just a few weeks.
A comedian being assaulted, physically assaulted on stage, and in one case, there were no criminal charges.
In the other case, maybe a misdemeanor, although they haven't even confirmed that there will be a misdemeanor charge.
There might be no charge at all.
So again, you don't do that unless you actually want more of that kind of behavior, which is what you're going to get.
Telling people words are violence, jokes are harmful, and then also letting them know, you know, with a wink and a nudge that, hey, if you assault a comedian on stage, maybe you'll get a fine at most.
All right, one other quick thing.
This is a headline from Forbes.
I'm just going to read the headline.
It says, Trump wanted to secretly launch missiles into Mexico to blow up drug labs, according to ex-defense secretary who reportedly made this claim.
This is something people were upset about.
It's supposed to show that Trump is a crazy person.
I guess they wanted to launch the missiles and blow up cartel labs in Mexico.
I think it sounds like a pretty good idea.
Although, Trump should know that we don't launch missiles and blow up drug cartels.
We don't do that in America.
We would never.
I mean, launching—this is—some of the people that were outraged online yesterday were saying, oh, Trump wanted to launch a missile into a sovereign nation?
What kind of president would do that?
Oh, I don't know.
Every president we've had for the last several decades has been launching missiles into sovereign nations.
Obama loved that.
Drone strikes, missile strikes.
He couldn't get enough of it.
But what Trump should know is that, no, we don't blow up, and this is a lesson we learned from Biden and from other past presidents, we don't blow up drug cartels.
Instead, we launch missiles into Middle Eastern countries and we blow up innocent families, which is exactly what Biden did.
And of course, no one held accountable for that either.
Well, it's Mother's Day just around the corner.
It's time to start thinking about what you want to do to make your mom feel special.
And, in fact, you probably should have started thinking about that way before this moment right here on Friday.
But, you know, I've been trying to think about what I want to give my mom this Mother's Day season.
All I can think about is the time where I refused to fix her VHS player over this past holiday season.
Of course, I don't apologize for that because, really, I was doing my mom a favor.
I'm trying to tell her, like, you know, let's get into somewhere within this century at least.
Uh, but that's why I want to give my mom something that she'll be thanking me for instead.
I'm gonna give her a reason to throw away that VHS player once and for all with Legacybox.
Legacybox is the best company out there when it comes to digitally preserving all of your sentimental, uh, but outdated belongings.
That's why they've helped millions of people digitize their belongings over the past decade.
Just send Legacybox all your videotapes, film reels, photos.
And their team of over 200 trained technicians will hand digitize everything.
You can track their progress along with their online tracking system, and once they're done, they'll send you all of your original copies along with digital copies stored on a thumb drive, the cloud, or DVD.
Now my mom won't have to worry about having a working VHS player anymore, and she can show all my embarrassing photos and videos to my wife easily over the holidays.
You could do the same for your mom this Mother's Day by visiting LegacyBox.com slash Walsh right now to get 60% off your order.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Walsh.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Caleb says, in reference to the opening topic yesterday, to be fair,
young children are asexual, but that changes around puberty, which brings us back to the first question, why would you
discuss this with kids?
Yeah, a few people in the comments made this point.
Somebody asked, you know, why would I have a problem with kids identifying as asexual as at least one of the kids in that groomer art teacher's class did because he made an asexual pride flag to represent himself.
And I pointed that out yesterday on the show and said that that's Another disturbing element of this that there's a kid, you know, kids identifying as non-binary and then kids identifying as asexual.
What's the problem with that?
Because as you point out, well, especially a young kid before puberty, that's essentially, yeah, it's true that kids should be, in effect, at least through the early stage of their life, asexual.
That is, like, not thinking much about sex.
But here's the point.
That's not an actual identity, okay?
It's not a label that you want them to take on.
I don't want my kids to go around actually saying, I am asexual, and they have an asexual pride flag.
That's extremely disturbing.
That's not what you want, kids.
And you especially don't want them to adopt asexual as an identity that belongs under the LGBT umbrella, because putting it there, it doesn't make any sense anyway.
What we've done is we have sexualized asexuality by including it in the LGBT club.
So the whole thing is absurd.
But that's not what we want for our kids.
I don't want my kids to identify as asexual, marching under an asexual pride flag.
This is my identity!
I'm proud of it!
No, no, no, no.
I just want them at this age to not think about that stuff at all.
I want that to not be a part of their lives right now.
It need not be.
And for generations and generations of kids through the whole history of human civilization, it wasn't until now.
Not because you had like nine-year-olds back in the 50s who were all identifying as asexual, not at all.
You just didn't think about it.
It was not part of their life.
So I do not consider that an improvement at all.
Gayle Bishop says, I love it when you talked about someone having a road to Damascus moment and seeing the light.
However, it also made me sad to think, given the lack of religion and faith in today's world, how many people heard these comments and then scratched their heads and said, huh, what did that mean?
Well, it's also the consequence of, and I think about that every time I make a biblical analogy or reference or, you know, even if it's something as, should be as well known and famous as a road to Damascus moment, it's also a consequence of not teaching the Bible in schools.
Which obviously, it should be obvious anyway, the Bible should be taught in schools, including in public schools, not just in private Christian schools.
It should be taught because it's the most influential, along with being, I would say as a Christian, holy scripture.
Along with that, it's also the most influential piece of literature ever written, hands down, nothing even comes close.
And there's just so much in other kinds of literature that you can't understand, in other stories, in language, in metaphor, there's just so much you can't understand until you have some familiarity with the Bible.
Let's see.
I have to disagree.
Virginia says, I have to disagree with Matt on the idea that we don't need God or the Bible to be pro-life.
Human life at any stage is only valuable because God said so.
If there's no God, then we're all accidents and life is meaningless.
If there is no God, then there's no afterlife, so there's no pressure to do right because the time you have on earth is short and there'd be no God to answer to.
The pro-life argument has to be built on the foundation of God.
Any other is not sound enough.
Yeah, it's true that When you go deeper into the pro-life argument, you are eventually going to get, of course, to the reality of God.
That's true in any conversation.
I mean, literally anything you talk about, if you go deeper into it and you dive all the way down, at the bottom of everything, you're going to find the reality of God.
So that's true.
The question, though, is whether if we're having this discussion, you know, on a With a sort of general audience, do you lead with that?
Do you lead with, abortion is wrong because God says so?
And I would say absolutely no, that is not what you lead with.
You get there, like first you have to get them on your side, on abortion, and that life has inherent value, that it's wrong to kill people.
Because if you start with, well, God says so, well, then that brings you, if this is someone who doesn't believe in God, well, okay, now we're taking a detour, and first we have to argue about, because that's not going to mean anything.
If they don't believe in God, that means nothing to them.
Absolutely nothing.
So if you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in God or hasn't really thought about it, whatever, and you say, abortion's wrong because God says so, okay, now the conversation becomes, is there a God?
And so now we've gotten away from abortion, which is a very winnable argument, and now we've gone over to God, which is also a winnable argument, but it's a much more complicated argument, and now you have to get them on your side with that, and then you can circle back to abortion.
So you've just taken this huge detour.
And basically, I think, let the pro-aborts off the hook.
So, that doesn't need to be your starting point.
And if this is someone who believes, for example, that it's wrong to murder innocent people, as almost every person in the world, at least in theory, believes that, then that can be your starting point.
And you build from there.
Well, great news!
To reiterate, my LGBTQ Plus masterpiece of a book, Johnny the Walrus, was the number one best-selling book in America last week.
This means I am not just a very important voice in the transgender conversation, but a very important voice in America.
Its first printing saw it sell out in less than 24 hours, and seeing how obsessed the left has been with its existence, I'm sure it will serve as an inspiration for the entire LGBTQ Plus community for centuries to come, especially as we get next month into LGBT Pride Month.
That's going to be a time especially Well, and I think it's going to be good to have this book in circulation.
So if you haven't gotten your copy yet, now is the time.
Head to johnnythewalrus.com to buy your copy right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we turn to the Huffington Post, which, for one thing, still exists.
That's the first bit of news.
And the second is an editorial on the site, which has been making the rounds online over the past week or so.
It's written by somebody named Kelsey Smoot, who's a man, I believe.
Bit of a shot in the dark, I'm not sure, but he provides us with this bio.
Kelsey, they-them-theirs, is a PhD candidate in American Studies.
Their work and writings explore the process of identity formation at the nexus of race, gender, and sexuality.
They are a cultural and gender theorist, a writer, an advocate, and a poet.
Having grown up bi-coastal and spending the majority of their adult life in a state of transience, they drew from their eclectic life experiences both deep fear and great optimism regarding what people are capable of.
Now I should give you a pretty good idea about where this is headed.
Though I must acknowledge some gratitude to Kelsey for exploring the nexus of race, gender, and sexuality.
Very few people have the vision and courage to really dive in and study the intersection of race, gender, and sexuality.
When I say very few people, I mean, you know, it's only him and every other college student in the Western world.
I mean, students in China are all becoming math geniuses and rocket scientists.
Our students are all getting their PhDs in queer theory.
All that to say, we certainly needed one more person to think and talk about race, gender, and sexuality.
So I'm grateful he was up to the task.
And he clearly applied all of this expertise while writing the HuffPo article in question titled, If You Think My Pronouns Are Optional, We Can't Keep Being Friends.
Now, I'm tempted here to simply say, okay, great, bye.
But that would make this segment a little bit too short, so we'll trudge on.
He wrote, "Lately I've been embroiled in what feels like constant conversations about pronouns,
the wrong ones, the right ones, the preferred ones. Hint, that third category is defunct."
Yes, please update your rulebook.
The term preferred pronouns, which has been shoved down your throat relentlessly, is now defunct.
Not only defunct, but offensive.
The very people who invented the term and demanded that you use it are now demanding that you not use it because it's offensive.
They've suddenly decided.
Why is preferred pronoun offensive?
Well, presumably because the qualifier preferred doesn't carry the weight that they want it to.
It makes the pronoun sound optional.
But as the title of the piece declares, pronouns are not optional.
They are utterly necessary.
If you don't use somebody's pronouns, you'll kill them.
They will die right there on the spot.
They'll shrivel up and melt away like the Wicked Witch.
Pronouns are no mere preference.
They are necessities, like food, water, oxygen.
Pronouns are the very air they breathe.
This is the claim, anyway, and it puts into context the rest of what we're going to read here.
Continuing.
As a non-binary trans person who uses they, them, theirs pronouns as my terms of address, I suppose I should be celebrating this influx of discourse on the proper usage of pronouns.
Truthfully, I'm exhausted.
Okay, we're going to leave aside the fact that non-binary trans makes no sense.
I mean, these labels individually don't really make sense, but combined they somehow make even less than zero sense.
Also note how Kelsey declares himself to be exhausted.
Common theme on the LGBT left.
You remember that college student last week who said he was exhausted because I was giving a speech on campus?
People who've never exerted themselves, who have lived coddled lives of unending comfort, who've never even attempted to achieve anything of significance, are somehow exhausted.
Not that I doubt their exhaustion by any means.
I fully believe that it's exhausting to go through life so utterly self-absorbed, to think that everything revolves around you, to constantly be on the lookout for slights and offenses, to be offended all the time by everything and everyone everywhere.
This is extremely exhausting.
Of that I have no doubt.
Indeed, this is one of the reasons I could never be a raging narcissist.
I just don't have the energy for it.
Continuing.
In the six years since I've come out, I've witnessed the concept of pronoun inclusivity shift from fundamentally Martian to hotly contested.
On the macro level, pronouns have become a cultural battlefield, an email garnish, a token signifier of righteousness for organizations who want to rebrand themselves as politically savvy and inclusive.
He's right about that part.
Personally, within the several of my closest relationships, the fact that I require ungendered pronouns when referring to me in the third person has become the source of deep strain and disappointment.
I feel duped by some of the positive reactions from my friends and loved ones when I initially came out as trans, masc, slash, non-binary.
In retrospect, that was the easy part.
I was the only one changing.
In the years since, I've come to find that I'm in constant competition with my past.
For a while, I flinched when I was misgendered, but said nothing.
Then I began giving gentle reminders, followed by long-winded overtures of understanding.
I felt guilty and embarrassed, and made sure to emphasize that effort was all that mattered to me.
Recently, though, I've begun pushing back.
You'll have to do better, is my new refrain.
Now, of course, the proper response to somebody who says, you'll have to do better regarding their pronouns would be words to the effect of, oh yeah, well, you'll have to kiss my ass, you smug little cretin.
But unfortunately, Kelsey has not been given the gift of that sort of honesty.
Instead, those closest to him have apparently tried to accommodate his demands and even apologized profusely for the times they slip up and accidentally use proper grammar.
That's not good enough, Kelsey says.
He demands absolute perfect compliance from everyone, 100% of the time, or else he'll stop associating with them.
Which, of course, sounds more like a promise than a threat to me.
But reading a bit more here, he says, As I think more critically about these conversations, I feel regret about the moments wherein I have avoided asking the hard questions that cut clear through the facade of language.
The resulting friction from these interactions has had negative consequences in my relationships.
I feel myself withdrawing from people I love, avoiding interactions that might lead to misgendering, and shrinking in conversations that once felt safe and enjoyable.
Inversely, I've been told that spending time with me feels more cumbersome now.
Shocking.
In addition to long-standing relationships, new connections are often marked with a similar tension regarding my pronouns.
The idea of having to lose some of the people closest to me, the folks who have helped to shape me into the person I am, is devastating.
However, I consider having access to me, my time, and my company to be a gift, not a given, for anyone in my sphere.
I'm clear of my inherent worth as a person, despite all the ways in which society at large devalues me.
To be frank, this process of change requires concerted effort.
To be franker, I think that trans and non-binary people are worth the effort.
Well, if I could be frank myself, Kelsey, allow me to say this.
No, you are not worth the effort.
At all.
I mean, your unbridled, untamed, unwielding narcissism, unyielding and unwieldy narcissism, has turned you into a burden, a strain on everyone you know.
You're not nearly smart or interesting enough to make dealing with you and your nonsense worth that kind of effort.
You're an irritating, tedious bore who compounds the problem by also being psychotically self-centered.
But I'm grateful, at least, that you have so convincingly illustrated and proven a point that I've made many times in the past, which is that this whole preferred pronoun thing is nothing more than passive-aggressive manipulation, a power play by attention-starved egomaniacs like yourself.
You want to be affirmed, alright, but you want to be affirmed as the center of the universe, the main character in this production called life.
You demand to be affirmed as the central figure in everybody else's lives.
You can't simply be around somebody, talk to them, spend time with them.
You need to be constantly reminded, and you need them to constantly remind themselves, that you are better, and superior, and more important, and more interesting.
That's what the pronoun game is all about.
And that's why I hope to God one day we cross paths so that I can perhaps be the first person you've ever met to look you in the eye and tell you, I don't give a damn about your pronouns.
I will use whatever words I want to use.
I will refer to you however I want to.
If you could believe it.
I will call you anything I want to.
And there's not a single thing you could do about it.
Because you have no power over me anyway.
Also, of course, you're cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, 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.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
