Ep. 950 - If Only Babies Had The Same Rights As Sea Turtles
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats attempt to legalize abortion through every stage of pregnancy up until birth, nationwide. Meanwhile, people are getting sent to prison for killing bald eagles and harassing turtle eggs. Our law — and Democrat policies — literally place animals and bugs above human beings. We’ll discuss. Plus, Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers show up at Amy Coney Barrett’s house and proceed to embarrass themselves. Because what else could they possibly do? And a Republican senate candidate is caught on a tape in shocking video claiming that the gender pay gap is a myth. This is a huge scandal. He’s also completely right. For our Daily Cancellation, we will attempt to make sense of the latest gender innovation: cake gender.
The Daily Wire will take a wrecking ball to all the lies the abortion industry is built upon. Become a member and tune in to our documentary on abortion “Choosing Death: The Legacy of Roe”: https://utm.io/uezgd
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Mention offer code WALSH when you call 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats attempt to legalize abortion through every stage of pregnancy up until birth nationwide.
Meanwhile, people are getting sent to prison for killing bald eagles and harassing turtle eggs.
Our law and Democrat policies literally place animals and bugs above human beings.
We'll discuss.
Plus, Handmaid's Tale cosplayers show up at Amy Coney Barrett's house and proceed to embarrass themselves because what else could they possibly do?
And a Republican Senate candidate is caught on tape in shocking video claiming that the gender pay gap is a myth.
Huge scandal.
He's also completely right.
We'll talk about that.
For our daily cancellation, we will attempt to make sense of the latest gender innovation, which is called Cake Gender.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Did you know that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers,
you're helping these left-leaning companies donate to pro-choice, pro-abortion causes and candidates?
Common question I get from listeners is, what can I do to help turn the tides in the culture war?
Here's a great first step.
Defund the abortionists.
Don't let them take your money and use it to further policies that you don't believe in.
Switch now to Charity Mobile today, and they'll send 5% of your monthly plan price to a pro-life charity of your choice.
Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones with no device or service contracts, plus great nationwide coverage.
That sounds like a hassle to make the switch.
I assure you it is not.
Charity Mobile makes switching from your current carrier painless and easy.
Their live customer service is exceptional.
They'll guide you through the process.
You can keep your number.
You also can keep your phone, in most cases, if you want.
Or you can take advantage of my special offer and get a free cell phone with free activation.
All you got to do is call 1-877-474-8000.
3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
Mention offer code Walsh to redeem the free cell phone offer.
That's charitymobile.com.
Mention offer code Walsh and join the fight today for the lives of children by switching to Charity Mobile.
Last year, two guys named Bruce Wayne Bivens and Carl Lawrence Cobb were sentenced to seven months in federal prison for the crime of harming, or potentially harming, turtle embryos.
Florida Fish and Wildlife investigators who were surveilling the area at the time caught Bivens and Cobb red-handed digging sea turtle eggs out of the sand in the middle of the night.
And then the two dastardly crooks stashed their ill-begotten gains in a bag, and they jumped into a truck, and they drove away, but law enforcement were hot on their heels.
It was like an action movie.
And they made the stop, and they confiscated the sea turtle eggs, and then they arrested both men.
And the sea turtle community was made a little safer for seven months at least as these dangerous predators were taken off the street and put behind bars.
Now, Bivens and Cobb are far from the first or only people to be prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act and sentenced to prison and hit with hefty fines as well.
Only a few years before that, three men were sentenced to prison for drunkenly jumping into a swimming hole in Nevada, or what they thought was a swimming hole anyway, and then they inadvertently smushed the eggs and larvae of the endangered pupfish, which is native to the region.
And you gotta be very careful if you're in Nevada swimming, because there are pupfish around, and if you hurt one, then you could go to prison.
One of the culprits spent a year in the federal penitentiary for that crime.
He was lucky to get off so easy, given that he was guilty of mass murder.
I mean, he killed dozens of these pupfish eggs.
But you don't have to kill an endangered species to provoke the wrath of the legal system.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits even the harassment of protected species, which is why a construction worker back in 2001 was sentenced to jail time, plus 200 hours of community service, and a fine for relocating 64 California red-legged frogs and also 500 tadpoles from his construction site to what he thought was a safer location.
He was actually trying To help the frogs out, because he was, like, building something, and the frogs were there, and he said, well, let me, like, relocate them.
He didn't realize that this constitutes frog harassment, which is a federal crime, and he paid dearly for his ignorance.
Now, if they had been another kind of frog, he would have been fine, but these are the red-legged frogs, and everybody knows that you cannot touch a red-legged frog without going to jail.
This is a legal pitfall that people in the construction business are particularly susceptible to.
Entire construction projects are frequently shut down, and sometimes the people involved find or sentence to jail time if they inadvertently disturb or irritate a protected species.
In 2016, a $48 million road construction project was put on hold because it threatened the habitat of a 3-inch long fish called an Okaloosa Darter.
Now, it would obviously be a great tragedy if the Okaloosa darter was inconvenienced, which means that human beings must be inconvenienced instead, right?
Like, we can choose between the Okaloosa darter having to, you know, accommodate us, or we can accommodate them, and of course, we choose them every time.
As it happens, a few years later, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service removed the fish from the endangered species list anyway.
So, now you're entitled to harass the little bastards all you want, but at the time, they were on the list, and that means you can't do it.
Now, I thought about these kinds of cases, and again, there are many hundreds more that I could mention.
When I heard yesterday about the Democrats' failed attempt to pass the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would have legalized abortion through every stage of pregnancy, for any reason, up until birth, all across the country.
Every Democrat, except for one, Joe Manchin, voted for the bill.
Now, it failed anyway, which led to lots of hand-wringing from the Baby Killer Squad.
For example, here's Kamala Harris's reaction.
Listen to this.
I just presided over the Women's Health Protective Act vote, and sadly, the Senate failed to stand in defense of a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.
And let's be clear, the majority of the American people Believe in defending a woman's right, her choice to decide what happens to her own body and this vote clearly suggests that the Senate is not where the majority of Americans are on this issue.
It also makes clear that a priority for all who care about this issue A priority should be to elect pro-choice leaders at the local, the state, and the federal level.
Because what we are seeing around this country are extremist Republican leaders who are seeking to criminalize and punish women for making decisions about their own body.
God forbid criminalizing the destruction of human life.
I mean, human life is not a sea turtle.
Let's get a grip here.
Now, in fact, the majority of the American people do not agree with the Democrats, despite what Kamala Harris says.
They don't agree with the Democrats that it should be legal to jam a vacuum tube into the base of a baby's skull in the eighth month of pregnancy and suck his brains out of his head.
The majority of Americans do not agree with Democrats that it should be legal to rip a fully developed infant apart limb from limb.
That's what Democrats believe and want, and have already put these laws into place in many of our most populated states.
And even where they have not fully gotten their way, it is still the case that abortion, for now anyway, and for the past 40 plus years, is still legal in every state.
Which means that humans in the womb have fewer rights have less legal worth, fewer protections than sea turtles, or California red-legged frogs, or the blessed Okaloosa darter.
There are indeed hundreds of species on the protected list, which means hundreds of species have greater legal protections in the United States of America than human babies.
And this includes insects, plants.
There are several different types of beetles, which, if you were to step on them, intentionally or unintentionally, you could do a stint in federal prison for it.
There are trees whose branches you cannot break without risking your freedom.
There are snakes and snails and clams which all enjoy a legal status above that of a human child.
And to make matters all the more grotesque and insane, the fetal and embryonic stages of all of these animals are also protected.
The law draws no distinction between an embryonic sea turtle and an adult sea turtle.
When it comes to sea turtles, there is never a time when they're considered just a useless clump of cells.
Only human beings are considered totally worthless in their earliest stages of development.
Think about that for a second.
In this country, only human beings are legally worthless in their earliest stages of development.
A beetle egg Or a bee larvae enjoys a higher status than a human being at any point in his gestation.
This does not just apply to endangered species either, by the way.
Bald eagles are not endangered.
They've been off the endangered list for 15 years.
And yet federal law prescribes two years in prison for anyone who kills, harasses, annoys, insults, or breathes too close to a bald eagle or its offspring.
A few months ago, a man in Louisiana, this was this year, was sentenced to prison after being found in the possession of a bald eagle feather.
And they found him with a feather and then they interrogated him, okay?
They brought this guy in and they interrogated him for having a bald eagle feather.
Where'd you get the feather?
Where did you get it?
And he admitted under interrogation that he had hunted and killed the bird.
Oh dear God.
Dear God, not the bald eagle.
U.S.
Attorney Brandon Brown, who was on the case, explained why they had to throw the book at the eagle killer.
He said, It's a symbol of our freedom, so we're going to send you to jail.
We're going to send you to jail for not respecting freedom.
This defendant did not take this symbol seriously, nor the laws that prohibit anyone from killing or possessing even a
feather of a bald eagle.
It's a symbol of our freedom, so we're going to send you to jail.
We're going to send you to jail for not respecting freedom.
You're going to sit in this jail cell and think about why freedom is important.
Now, what does, um, that's what a bald eagle symbolizes, okay?
Okay.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
What does a human child symbolize?
Nothing, apparently.
Or he symbolizes, if anything, a burden, an inconvenience, an obstacle to be avoided or destroyed.
According to federal law, you cannot so much as touch a bald eagle feather because of the eagle's great symbolic significance.
That is in the law.
That's what the law is.
But babies can be killed, harvested for their parts, the rest of them discarded as medical waste.
Think again about this for a moment.
We have not just given greater legal worth to animals, but greater symbolic worth also.
And that symbolic worth is so important to us that it's codified into law.
There is no reason, really, why the bald eagle should be considered inherently special.
I mean, I like bald eagles as much as anybody else.
I think they're very nice and pretty, but why is a bald eagle any better than any other kind of bird?
The difference is that we feel a personal attachment to the bald eagle.
We see the bald eagle as especially beautiful and majestic, and that's reason enough to protect it under the law.
Apparently.
And yet, a human child?
Is there no personal attachment there?
No beauty or mystery or majesty that we recognize?
Not according to Democrats.
Now, pro-abortion people will usually offer some sort of defense of this insane dichotomy by insisting that, well, human beings aren't endangered and thus don't require the same protections.
I mean, I've heard this many times.
I brought this whole thing up on Twitter yesterday, and this is the response I got, you know, dozens of times.
Well, you moron!
Humans aren't endangered.
Now, this ignores the fact that, as just established, not every specially protected animal is endangered.
But leaving that aside, this kind of logic would, for one thing, justify the legalization of the murder of humans at any phase of life.
If humans are expendable because they aren't endangered, then why can't I walk up to my neighbor and shoot him in the head?
He's not part of a protected, endangered species.
The answer, of course, is that my neighbor's inherent value, his legal and moral worth, is not contingent on the laws of scarcity.
He's not some kind of object, an item on a shelf, a product whose value fluctuates according to supply and demand.
It would be a moral outrage and a legal crime for me to murder my neighbor today, and it would be no less of an outrage if I waited until there were 8 billion people on Earth instead of 7.
You know, I can't, even right now, I can't murder my neighbor and then say, what's the big deal?
There's seven billion other people on earth.
What do we need that guy for?
I can't argue that.
And we can see the logic with born people.
We can see why it doesn't work that way with born people.
We can see it for now anyway.
It's only with the unborn where it becomes somehow, for some, confusing.
But the tragic reality is that in treating the unborn as expendable, as literally less valuable than insects and lizards, we have, whether we mean to or not, devalued all human life.
If human life is totally worthless at its earliest stages, then it has no inherent worth.
Because inherent means that it belongs to a thing by its very nature.
Belongs to a thing, in other words, as soon as that thing comes into existence.
And if that's the case, if it has no value by its very nature, no inherent worth, then we don't have inherent worth either.
Our laws have put us lower on the totem pole than bugs and beasts.
And this is the consequence of living in a culture dominated by, run by, defined by an anti-human death cult.
All human life is cheapened and degraded as we bow to inferior species.
And you know, while performing this act of humiliating self-debasement, placing ourselves on a rung of the ladder somewhere below toads and crayfish—yes, there are federally protected crayfish, by the way—as we do this, ironically, we end up devaluing even the animals we have seemingly valued above ourselves.
The entire ladder topples over.
Because if we can't identify any reason why we as human beings have inherent value, then there's no discernible reason why any form of life should have inherent value.
And if you don't believe me, just ask a pro-abortion person to explain why trees and butterflies have value, and you'll see what I mean.
They can't explain it.
Or the best they can do at explaining it is to describe their own subjective experience of those other things.
Let's say the bald eagle is beautiful, the tree is beautiful.
That's your subjective experience of the tree.
So what you're saying is that the tree's value, it really hinges on your own experience of it.
But hold on a second.
If the value of these things all comes back to the fact that we personally find them beautiful or whatever, but we have no value, then how can the value that we assign to things mean anything?
They can't explain this.
The elevation of animal life over human life ends up being something of an illusion, actually.
Legally, it's very real.
I mean, the law literally, on paper, puts animal life over human life, puts a tadpole over an unborn baby.
But philosophically, we're all just tumbling into the nihilistic abyss, where nothing means anything.
Nobody's worth anything.
And nothing has any actual value at all.
But other than that, things are going great.
Let's get now to our five headlines.
All right, a little bit more on this vote yesterday by the Democrats,
as Democrats are very, very upset that they were not able to get this law through and on the books,
which once again, to emphasize, reemphasize, what they were trying to do is legalize abortion for
any reason through every stage of pregnancy up until the moment of birth.
The moment of birth, like the moment when the baby is coming out of the womb anyway, And either the child's going to come out of the birth canal dead or alive.
But one way or another, it's happening.
And what the Democrats say is that you can kill it, right?
Kill the child right before it comes out.
And of course, obviously, there is just no difference scientifically, morally, philosophically, At all, between killing a child five seconds before he's born and killing him five seconds after he's born, or indeed five years after he's born.
But as they're reacting to this, I want to play this clip from Katie Porter.
She's a Democrat representative and she was on MSNBC yesterday explaining how, you know, we really need to get a law like this passed and have the abortions, you know, keep churning out the abortions because one thing is that it will help solve inflation.
Listen.
President Biden has said that inflation is the number one priority for the Biden White House to try to get under control right now.
As you're out there in California talking to constituents during this re-election year for Congress, how does inflation compare to this newly important, in the sense of the Supreme Court decision pending, abortion issue?
How do those two issues compare?
Well, I don't think they compare.
I think they actually reinforce each other.
So the fact that things like inflation can happen and it can become more expensive to feed your kids and to fuel your car is exactly why people need to be able to be in charge of how many mouths they're going to have to feed.
So I think the fact that we're seeing this jump in expenses, that we're seeing people having to pay more in the grocery store, pay more at the pump, pay more for housing, is a reason that people are saying, I need to be able to make my own decisions about when and if to start a family.
So I don't think we're going to see them.
I don't think it's about comparing them or contrasting them.
I think they reinforce for people just how big of a responsibility it is to take care of a family.
Yes, we've got to kill the babies because otherwise it's just more mouths to feed, and so this is the same argument we've heard over and over again.
We heard it yesterday from Janet Yellen, the Secretary of Treasury, and this is the argument.
But once again, relating it back to the opening there, you'll never hear an argument like this when it comes to animals.
Similar to, by the way, climate change.
We need abortion because it'll keep the carbon emissions down because there's fewer people.
Well, I mean, animals also give off carbon emissions, so maybe we should start killing some of them off for the sake of that.
And also, what about the expense?
I mean, the enormous expense that we've had to undertake.
To keep these animals around.
How much money are we spending?
The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce all these laws, send them through the court system.
We're talking over the years, easily billions, easily billions of dollars.
You know, at what point is it too much?
At what point is it too much to protect the reticulated flatwood salamander?
Which is, I'm just looking at the list of endangered species protected by the law.
And there are, again, I mean there are hundreds you can go through.
I got spiders on here.
The spruce fir moss spider.
There's a bunch of spiders on here also.
So at what point is it too much money to spend on these animals?
Well, what we'll hear from people like Katie Porter is that, oh, it can't possibly be too much.
To protect the red-necked parrot, Or is it?
Wait a second, what is it?
The ash-breasted tit tyrant.
That's the name of a bird.
I mean, I know it sounds like someone you might meet at the women's march, but the ash-breasted tit tyrant is a bird.
So, what Katie Porter would tell us is that there's no amount of money.
I mean, if we have to spend billions more, trillions, to keep the ash-breasted tit tyrant around, then it's worth it, because that is life.
Damn it.
But human life is an entirely different deal.
Who cares?
Now when it comes to human life, let's start looking at the dollars and cents.
Let's figure this out.
You know, if there was a different situation now with inflation and with the deficit and everything, maybe we could afford to have more people.
But we really gotta, you know, we gotta start rationing.
We gotta start rationing human life according to what we can afford to keep around.
And it is only human life that we take that approach with.
Not the ash-breasted tit tyrant.
And I'm going to continue to try to find ways to work that into this show as we continue along.
Speaking of ash-breasted tit-tyrants, the Handmaid's Tale protesters showed up at Amy Coney Barrett's house yesterday.
So they've been hunting down all the Supreme Court justices, and they finally made their way to Amy Coney Barrett.
And Fox News was there, and they interviewed one of the protesters, and I thought what they had to say was pretty unintentionally hilarious.
Listen to this.
This is Catholic.
Catholic is letting their religious doctrine interfere with their ability to write sound legal doctrine.
It's also possible that the fact that she is an adopted mother is influencing her inability to see what it's like to carry a pregnancy to term.
No, she's had five kids by herself.
Not everybody wants to have five kids, or four kids, or one kid.
So, her first response, you just see how they, they just go with the flow.
Like, it doesn't matter, they're never taken, they don't lose a step, right?
When they say something that's completely wrong, and then you tell them, oh, but that's, you're completely wrong about that.
They don't lose a step, they just keep charging forward.
Oh, well, that line of attack didn't work.
I'll just switch over to this one.
Which, even though this one completely contradicts what I just said.
So, she begins by saying, well, this woman doesn't even know what it's like to carry a child to term.
Oh, but actually, she's carried five children to term?
Well, not everybody wants to have five children.
But she thinks because she has five children that everybody should have it.
You see, it's two completely different talking points.
On one hand, it's, oh, well, she's only in favor of abortion because she's never had to go through this.
And then we switch to, oh well she's gone through this a bunch of times, it's just she thinks everyone else should.
This is once again the advantage of being not just a soulless wench, but also being a moral relativist.
And those two things come hand-in-hand almost all the time.
But this is the advantage of being a relativist, is that the truth doesn't matter at all, you're not troubled by it, and you're just simply going to say what you think You know, whatever is the most useful in the moment, whatever talking point is the most useful, you're going to use that one.
And if it turns out not to be true, then, you know, you'll switch to something else.
Doesn't matter.
And, uh, but you notice something, too.
They're showing up there in their costumes and their, and everything at Amy Coney Barrett's house.
Uh, there's, there's only a handful of them, though.
And that's kind of the dirty little secret here that the Democrats don't want you to notice.
Is that they are not getting the national backlash and outrage that they expected or wanted.
Like, they didn't want just five weirdos in Handmaid's Tale costumes that they got at the Halloween store.
They don't want just them showing up.
They thought and wanted and hoped for a thousand people outside of Amy Coney Barrett with actual pitchforks and torches.
And instead they get five weird Middle-aged cat ladies in red robes walking around.
And because they thought that that's the kind, they thought it would be national explosions of outrage over the possibility and what it seems like the near certainty at this point that Roe v. Wade is overturned.
And they're not getting it, actually.
And now they're panicking even more.
Which is why they have already basically changed the subject.
Now they've got the Women's March coming up this weekend, they've got another big Women's March, and they'll get a big crowd for that because they've got, you know, they pretend this is all grassroots, it's all astroturfed and everything, they've got a lot of money behind it, a lot of paid protesters and everything, and they're gonna, you know, they're gonna put all their money into getting a big, I'm sure there'll be a big scene in D.C.
and in, you know, Los Angeles and Austin and other liberal cities.
But after that, it's gonna kind of be the end of the activism, that's my prediction.
Because people just are not nearly as upset about Roe v. Wade being overturned as the Democrats thought they would be and hoped for.
All right, I want to go to this now.
The Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary.
We know that it's kind of come down, there are, you know, there's three or four people that are in the race still, but it's really kind of come down to Kathy Barnett versus Dr. Oz.
And Kathy Barnett sort of exploded onto the scene last week when she took Dr. Oz to task for his support of abortion in the past.
And she had a very powerful, you know, some very powerful words from her own experience and why she's pro-life.
And now the so-called conservatives, who have become Dr. Oz shills for some reason, have set out, especially over the last couple of days, it has been an onslaught to try to destroy this woman, Kathy Barnett.
And they're taking out-of-context, clipped things, and they're making montages and putting it online.
They're digging through her tweets.
This is what conservatives are doing.
Digging through tweets from like nine years ago.
To try to find offensive things to take this person down.
But what they're actually finding is that they're really working against themselves, because as they dig through her tweets, what they find is that, oh, back in 2014, she was pro-life.
She was socially conservative.
As opposed to Dr. Oz, who, back 10 years ago, as we played on the show a few weeks ago, 10 years ago, he was pushing puberty blockers for trans kids.
So-called, quote-unquote, trans kids.
Now what you have to understand about Dr. Oz when it comes to the gender ideology issue in particular is he was on the forefront of pushing gender ideology on the kids.
I mean this was a, he did a segment, his first segment on it was 2010-2011.
So he didn't even, he didn't jump on the bandwagon, he was driving the bandwagon.
To push puberty blockers and gender confusion and gender transition onto kids.
Now, that's all we need to know about him, actually.
That's enough that should disqualify him forever.
And more than that, anybody on the right who's shilling for him is also, as far as I'm concerned, disqualified forever from having any kind of credibility.
Someone who was pushing gender transition onto kids, no.
Period.
Like, I don't care what else you've done in your life.
I don't care if, outside of that, you've been a war hero.
I don't care what else you've done.
You do that, you're disqualified.
That's what happened with Dr. Oz, though.
This is just one in a parade of leftist radicalism that we've seen from him.
He's pro-abortion.
While Kathy Barnett, even six, seven, eight years ago, was speaking out to protect the unborn, six, seven, eight years ago, Dr. Oz was pro-abortion.
Two years ago, he was pro-abortion.
Pro gun control.
You know, he was talking about systemic racism.
And then only, this is less than two years ago, about a year and a half ago, this was a segment on Dr. Oz's show about the Jacob Blake case.
Let's watch this here.
Shot seven times in the back.
Family of Jacob Blake speaks out.
He was trying to kill my son.
This was not 20 years ago.
This was in 2020.
And he was pushing the Jacob Blake false narrative.
again. Then, behind the horrifying death of Daniel Prude. A mental health crisis gone
terribly wrong. I called for help and that was the help they gave me. They don't even
treat animals like that. Next Oz. This was not 20 years ago, this was in 2020. And he
was pushing the Jacob Blake false narrative. And I don't want to hear any excuses about
well, we didn't know at the time. If you're an honest and rational person, you knew immediately
that the narrative over Jacob Blake was false.
I knew immediately.
First time I saw the video.
Before we even knew all the other details.
I mean, I didn't know initially that Jacob Blake, for example, you know, allegedly broke into this woman's house and raped her and then stole her credit cards and her car and all that.
And then he showed back up at her house and she called the cops and that's what precipitated all this.
Like, I didn't know that backstory.
I wasn't surprised by it when I did learn it.
But just watching the video, it was clear enough.
That he was fighting with the cops, he was at least trying to steal a car, he was reaching into a car, he had a knife.
I mean, you could see all that in the video.
And this is why the police officer in that case was not charged with any crime, because... because...
He didn't do anything wrong.
Jacob Blake was a thousand percent in the wrong.
So this was Dr. Oz back in 2020, less than two years ago, pushing, you know, the radical BLM agenda and a false anti-police narrative coming to the defense of Jacob Blake, who was an utter, total, woman-abusing, predator scumbag.
And now there are conservatives who want him to be in the Senate as a Republican?
Like this guy, he has zero record of anything remotely conservative.
His entire record, his entire public career has been spent pushing leftism in its most radical forms.
And he doesn't even live in Pennsylvania.
He's a Turkish citizen.
So a Turkish citizen and New Jersey resident Leftist is running for the Senate as a Republican in Pennsylvania.
And he's being pushed and promoted by very prominent people on the right to include President Trump.
All right, here's someone who actually deserves, this is a Republican running for Senate who deserves some promotion.
Blake Masters is running for Senate in Arizona.
He's a Republican, which you already know that based on the fact that MSNBC is going after him.
And they, in fact, are trying to expose him now.
So they've obtained video, and I'll play you this segment.
They've obtained secret video that they found from a public campaign event.
I don't know why it's secret video, where he says this, listen.
There's a new video that we just obtained, actually, out of Arizona.
Another Senate race that we are going to be looking at that is still crowded.
Trump has yet to endorse in this race, but one of the candidates who has already made a trip to Mar-a-Lago is Blake Masters, the other Peter Thiel candidate, along with J.D.
Vance, who has been heavily financed by the billionaire.
I want to let you listen here.
This is the first time we are airing this.
Anybody is hearing this.
This was Blake Masters back in February when he was asked the question about the future of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Take a listen.
Women are not paid less in America than men.
It's a left-wing narrative, this gender pay gap.
When you control for the occupations, when you control for people taking time out to, you know, birth children, things are actually pretty equal.
And men do the most dangerous jobs.
Men are the ones who are the police officers.
Not all of it, but, you know, 80% of it in this country.
Men are the ones who are doing risky, you know, fishing, crab fishing in Alaska.
And sometimes those jobs pay more.
Sometimes those jobs pay more, and so I think we've got to push back on the fake left-wing narrative that women don't have equal rights in this country.
I want women to have equal rights, but we don't need an equal rights amendment that would actually just be a Trojan horse to give the government more power to implement Kamala Harris's national gender strategy, right?
This is what the left does, and we have to resist it.
Now, Chuck, in this video here, this is what we're talking about when we're talking about the new Republican Party of today.
And there's much we could tackle here around what you just heard from Blake Masters.
But one of them, I think it's important to pair, is to note there is a gender pay gap here in America.
The reporter's name is Vaughn Hilliard, which is just perfect somehow.
Perfect name for him.
So Vaughn, he's very impressed with himself, too.
When you cut out of that clip, you get back to him.
He's just kind of standing there.
You see that?
I got the goods on this guy.
I'm a good reporter.
Meanwhile, it's at a, again, a public campaign event.
He's on stage in front of a crowd.
Like, he's not embarrassed about this getting out there.
In fact, Blake Masters himself tweeted this video out because he's proud of it, and he should be, because what he's saying is 100% correct.
And not only is it 100% correct, but it just shows you how in touch with things MSNBC is.
It's 100% correct, and it's something that conservatives have been arguing in the mainstream for years.
This is a totally normal thing that many of us have said many, many times.
And they hear it over on MSNBC, and they're shocked by it.
Who would ever say this?
I don't know, who would say it?
Any conservative would say that?
With the exception of maybe the establishment of the Republican Party?
Maybe they're not going to say it.
Because they're a bunch of milquetoast cowards, but anybody outside of that will.
And it is, again, 1000% true.
The gender pay gap is a myth.
Now, the way that they come up with the whatever it is, and it kind of changes, but now it's $0.75 on the dollar, $0.77, whatever it is.
The way they come up with that is, number one, there's just an element of straight-up fabrication that goes into it.
And then for the rest of it, they do it by taking all of the women who are working, you know, who are in the professional world, in the working world, and taking all of the men and just comparing them.
But of course, you can't do that.
And this is how we, you know, this is how statistics This is how you end up with damned lies and statistics.
You can lie with statistics.
Because you can't do that.
That's not a relevant comparison.
Because when you do that, then you're taking, for example, an airline pilot, and most airline pilots are men.
So when you're just comparing all men to all women, that means that you are taking an airline pilot And comparing him against a hairdresser.
And comparing their salaries.
Can't do that.
What you have to do is take, first of all, take it profession by profession, and then find people of both sexes with similar levels of experience, similar levels of skill, Seniority, putting in the same amount of hours, etc., etc., etc.
Narrow it down, narrow it down, narrow it down, and so that you have a valid comparison, and then compare them.
So you need to show me that a man and a woman in the same industry, doing the same job, with the same levels of seniority, same numbers of years of experience, Same skill level.
Same responsibilities.
Show me the disparity there.
And when you narrow it down that way, the gender pay gap basically disappears.
And the thing is, even if you did find just a random anecdotal example of that, which I'm sure you could find, of course, I could also find anecdotal examples of that situation where the man is paid less, but if you found me an anecdotal example of the reverse, that in and of itself still does not prove the theory That the woman is paid less because she's a woman.
The next thing I'm going to ask is, well, has the woman asked to be paid more?
You know, it could be.
This is one of the secrets of working a job, if you didn't know this, is if you want to be paid more, if you think you deserve more, the first thing you have to do, probably, is go to your boss and ask for more.
Doesn't mean you're going to get it, but you might.
See, a lot of times bosses, they're not going to pay you more if you don't even ask for it.
If you appear to be satisfied with your current level of pay, and you're not scheduled for a raise or whatever, they're not necessarily going to call you in and say, no, I'm going to give you some more money.
I mean, the good bosses will, but, you know, there are plenty of bosses who won't.
So that's why you got to go in and ask for more.
And not just for a raise too, but during the salary negotiation process.
See, one thing that men are more likely to do is they're more likely to assert their own, you know, interests, ask for more money.
They're gonna drive a harder bargain during the negotiation process.
Men are more likely to do that, so they're gonna get paid more.
But even with all that in mind, still, when you narrow it down and you come up with comparable, you know, you have an actual comparable situation, the gender pay gap goes away.
Now, Why is it that women often end up in industries that generally pay less?
Well, because that's what they choose.
Like, there are a lot more women who are hairdressers, a lot more men who are airline pilots.
It's just because women are more likely to want to do that kind of job.
Perfectly fine.
And also, as Blake Masters points out, there's a matter of priorities.
A woman is more likely to prioritize Her family life, home life, having more free time, which is also great.
That's actually a good thing to prioritize.
Men are more likely to prioritize just going to work and working all the hours.
And you can go too far on that end of things.
I know from experience.
But that's why the great thing between men and women is that there's a little bit of a balance there.
All right.
I guess we've got to get now to the comment section.
All right, Scott says, I guess this is our chance to ask, why doesn't Biden just solve world hunger instead of sending all that money to Ukraine?
That's a good point.
The $40 billion that we sent to Ukraine, and we just heard because Elon Musk is paying $44 billion.
For Twitter, and we were told that with that money you could have solved world hunger, so that's an excellent point, Scott.
Thank you for bringing that up.
Yeah, if that amount of money could solve world hunger, then why haven't we done it?
We chose to give that money to the Ukrainian government.
We're going to line the pockets of Ukrainian bureaucrats and defense contractors rather than solve world hunger?
Because it's apparently that easy to do?
Let's see.
Melanie says, Matt has not researched the Britney Spears issue enough.
It could be that she's a bit crazy, but why is she?
These are subjects that he needs to research more.
Well, I don't need to research it more because I have, of all the things going on in my life and issues that I care about, I'm just not going to spend a lot of time researching Britney Spears.
What do you mean research?
I mean, it's like, so what?
I guess I'm going to sit down at night.
I'm going to have all books open and, you know, I've got the pencil in my ear.
I'm taking notes.
Researching the Britney Spears situation?
I don't care that much.
I admit that.
And so I also admit that my take on the issue is really kind of a gut-level reaction, but I think it turns out to be correct.
My gut-level reaction from the very beginning is that I don't know a lot about the situation, but I do know that she's under a conservatorship, she's had public mental breakdowns, she lost custody of her kids as a woman, as a rich, famous woman in California.
I know all of that.
I don't know much else, but I know that.
And so it stands to reason, probably, if I'm a betting man, I'm gonna bet that she's crazy and a danger to herself and others, and that's why she's under the conservatorship, and should probably still be under one.
And I think her behavior after being released and freed has only further proved that point.
And I also think, tragically, unfortunately, that the point is going to be proven finally Five, ten years down the line, because I just don't see her living that long on the path that she's on.
As someone with a history of being self-destructive, suddenly freed, you know, and sent out into the wild open world because of a hashtag campaign, basically.
I just don't see that ending well, sadly.
So, let's see what else we got.
Matt, Jimmy says, Matt, did you see that Taylor Lorenz sets her apartment to 87 degrees?
Explains so much.
I did see that.
So that was on Twitter.
Apparently, Taylor Lorenz, she's the Washington Post reporter who docks the libs of TikTok, remember?
While crying about being traumatized because people criticize her.
So on Twitter, apparently, and she has me blocked, but I saw the screenshots.
She first said that she drinks three gallons of water a day.
Which just seems like way too much.
You're going to overwhelm your internal organs with that much water.
But also, and she explained why.
She says that her apartment is 87 degrees.
That's what she sets her apartment at.
So she lives... I mean, it does explain a lot, I guess.
She's a lizard.
Taylor Lorenz is a lizard.
She just hangs out under a heat lamp on a rock.
She's either a lizard or maybe a different endangered species, like, for example, the ash-breasted tit-tyrant.
Mike Deben says, Matt, men don't wear sandals with or without socks.
That's how the breakdown of our culture got started, normalizing men wearing sandals.
So Jesus wasn't a man?
The Vikings weren't men?
William Wallace wasn't a man?
I mean, I would say, on the contrary, all of the greatest men in history have worn sandals.
Jessica says, we officially need to get Matt to 1 million subscribers.
Walsh interpretive dance motions, preferably through the aisles of a theater, may be the only thing that sustains us until the November elections.
M says, the SPG needs to choreograph an interpretive dance for Matt when he gets to 1 million subs.
Justin says, I pay for the Daily Wire but jumped on YouTube to subscribe to help the cause and get a dance out of Walsh.
Joshua says, everyone hold Matt to the promise of an interpretive dance at 1 million subscribers.
Jonathan says, looking forward to your interpretive dance, Matt.
This should be reserved for those who subscribe to DW.
Now listen, just hold on a second.
I know people are very excited, a lot of comments about me doing interpretive dance because I did technically promise that, but let's just stop and think about this for a minute.
Not every promise that a person makes, like things can happen, that's all I'm saying.
I'm just filled with so much regret right now.
I don't know why I said that.
Talk about an unforced error.
There was no reason why I had to promise.
I don't even remember now why I said it.
It was a fit of insanity.
And I just promised an interpretive dance.
And now people are messaging me and telling me that they're making YouTube accounts just so they can subscribe to see the interpretive dance.
You people are going to regret it, first of all.
Do you understand what me dancing would look like?
I don't even know what that would look like.
I've never done it.
But I guarantee it'd be deeply disturbing.
It's the kind of thing you will not be able to erase from your minds.
So that's just my warning.
You have been warned.
Well, it's the most infamous Supreme Court case in memory and the deadliest decision in history, but even 50 years after Roe v. Wade, few know the full gruesome truth behind the landmark decision to decision that's enabled the destruction of over 64 million babies since 1971.
Well, tomorrow, May 13th, The Daily Wire will take a wrecking ball to the four big lies the abortion industry has built upon.
Tune in to the world premiere of our original documentary, Choosing Death, The Legacy of Roe, and uncover the inside story of how Roe v. Wade came to pass and why it needs to pass away.
You'll hear the facts and stories the abortion regime has suppressed for generations and get a clear-eyed view at the brutal reality they desperately don't want you to see.
Some of this content is hard to take in, but few subjects, if any, are more important than this.
Check out the trailer.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Many times when we did this.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
As we started, patients would begin crying and protesting.
But once we had begun dilating the cervix and passing instruments into the uterus, it was too late to stop.
I was handing hush money to women who we had left pieces of their baby.
We had put these women's lives in jeopardy.
We had put their lives at risk.
And we were literally giving them a check for $800.
for $800, and for a poor woman, $800 is a lot of money.
I mean, there have been so many moments in the last decade plus of going undercover
in abortion clinics myself and seeing just heartbreaking things.
Women vomiting in the hallway of an abortion clinic, crying out in pain.
The late-term abortionists talking casually about how they would literally leave a born alive baby to die.
Or if you deliver the baby in the toilet, then you pick it up and stuff it in a plastic bag and bring it to us.
Babies are being born alive and the backs of their necks are being slid.
They are being drowned.
Their necks are being snapped.
It's happening more often than people want to think about.
These abortion facilities, these abortion providers, these doctors, they don't care about these women.
And you're just, you're realizing you're watching in front of your own eyes play out
America's greatest horror story, which is how we butcher children in the name of choice.
[MUSIC]
So please help us expose the truth.
Tell your friends to watch, and if you're not already, become a Daily Wire member and tune in Friday to our documentary on abortion, Choosing Death, the Legacy of Roe.
Go to dailywire.com slash choosing and join the fight today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, in recent times, we've encountered so many new, fake, made-up genders that you may think you can no longer be surprised by the latest innovations in the gender market.
And perhaps this one will not surprise you, but it does point us towards some insights that are worth reflecting on.
Libs of TikTok brings this to our attention, the hottest thing going on right now, fresh out of the oven.
It's called Cake Gender.
Listen.
Okay, I would describe xenogenders as a gender that could not typically be described with terms such as masculinity, femininity, neutrality, androgyny, things like that.
It's more of not how you relate to a particular gender experience, but more of how you relate to things.
For example, cake gender.
I know a few people who personally use this.
It's typically described as them feeling light and fluffy or sweet and warm and it's not something that you could typically describe with the terms masculine, feminine, androgynous, etc.
Another example of cake gender would be if someone feels like they have different layers or flavors to their particular gender.
Cake gender.
Now, I have no idea why, first of all, if you're going to choose a pastry-related gender, you would identify as cake, which is by far the most overrated and most frequently disappointing dessert item.
I could see maybe pie gender, cookie gender, brownie gender.
That last one may be problematic, you know, from a racial perspective, I don't know.
Then again, those other genders I just made up probably already exist.
I mean, exist inside some troubled TikToker's head, at least.
These are, as she tells us, examples of xenogender.
And I'm told by nonbinary.wiki that xenogender is a, quote, nonbinary gender identity that cannot be contained by human understandings of gender.
More concerned with crafting other methods of gender categorization and hierarchy, such as those relating to animals, plants, or other creatures slash things.
Yes, someone who is xenogender, a term invented by somebody on Tumblr in 2014, by the way, is so complex and deep and poetic that they can't be contained by human understandings.
They transcend thought and reality and coherence.
The xenogendered individual cannot even relate to mere mortal human beings like you and I. She is beyond them, above them, like a goddess floating in the clouds.
She cannot be compared to any gender.
Instead, she can be compared to cake.
Now, if you're wondering about the pronouns for someone who is cake gender, they are, and I looked this up, cake, cakes, and cake self.
So, Here's an example sentence.
Cake went by cake-self to the bakery to get a cake to celebrate cake's gender transition to cake after the doctor replaced cake's genitals with cake so that now cake can live as cake and eat cake while being cake.
Hopefully that clarifies things.
Of course, I'm being unfair.
I mean, I'm making cake-gender people seem very extremely insane when they're merely just extremely insane.
After all, the lady on TikTok says that a cake-gendered individual does not necessarily identify as a cake, but rather identifies with cake.
She says that someone who's cake gender, and she knows a few people, more than one, who identify this way, it's really someone who feels that they're light and fluffy and warm and sweet.
Now this is confusing to me because the times when I feel fluffy, like I did last night after eating too much Indian food, those are precisely the times when I do not feel light at all.
So I don't really understand that.
Be that as it may, this actually reveals something quite clarifying and important about the pronoun phenomenon, I think.
What it shows is that when these people talk about gender and pronouns, what they're really talking about, if they're talking about anything at all, is personality.
Now, I'm skeptical that anybody who identifies as a baked good could really be warm and inviting, but if they are, that's their personality.
It's personality, not gender.
Personality.
Your personality is not your gender.
It's just your personality.
You don't need a pronoun to describe your personality.
That's not what pronouns do.
You don't need a gender to describe your personality.
That's not what a gender is.
These are all three separate categories of things.
Now, if I were to identify myself with a food item that encapsulates my personality, I suppose I'd have to identify as, like, the shoe leather that you would be forced to consume if you'd been stranded at sea for seven months and your food stores have run out.
But rather than claiming that I am shoe leather gender, it'd make more sense to just say that I have a rigid, tough, distasteful, and unpleasant personality.
And that would make a lot more sense and also be true.
Now, when you come to understand this fact about the gender and pronoun mania gripping our culture, it begins to make a little more sense.
Still not very much sense, but a little bit more.
As we've covered many times, much of this is born from sheer narcissism.
These are people who spend far too much time thinking about themselves, analyzing themselves, inspecting themselves, categorizing themselves, explaining themselves to themselves.
They've kind of rolled their eyes all the way back into their heads, and now they've spent their whole lives looking back into the caverns of their mostly empty minds.
That's one important element of this.
But the other is that these people suffer from confusion.
I mean, all sorts of confusion, obviously, but especially category confusion.
They've conflated the personality category with gender.
And in so doing, they've essentially erased personality entirely.
I mean, now there is no personality.
No variation within types.
That's why these people, you notice they never talk about their personalities?
They only talk about their genders.
Their gender type.
Because there are only types.
They see gender as a filing cabinet with a thousand drawers and each part of them goes into a different drawer, each part is catalogued and labelled and categorised.
And when they're done divvying themselves up, there's nothing left.
There's no room for personality.
Ironically, in their obsession with identity, they've left no space for an actual identity.
They've not only categorized themselves to death, but they also have turned each part of themselves into a gimmick, a costume.
Everything authentic has been lost.
I mean, if you're a woman who also happens to be sweet, warm, and inviting, that's a wonderful thing.
I mean, you should be that sort of person.
We need people with that personality in the world.
There are too few of them right now.
But the moment you turn that into its own gender, you've just made your sweet, authentic personality into a weird, fetishistic charade.
You've made a parody of yourself.
And you've lost the thing that would have made you distinct and interesting and valuable to society.
This is the consequence of the genderification of everything.
We lose what was distinct and personal and good and unique.
And we end up with cake gender.
And that's why cake gender, along with cakes themselves actually, are today 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.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, inflation remains near record highs as Joe Biden fails to change course.
Democrats try and fail to pass a law enshrining abortion until birth.
And Joe Biden's SEC is reportedly targeting Elon Musk.
