Ep. 970 - Fox News Celebrates Pride Month By Pushing Extreme Trans Propaganda
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Fox News airs far left extreme trans propaganda. What is going on over at Fox, and how should we respond? We’ll talk about it. Also, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate agree on their new gun control plan which includes “red flag laws.” What could go wrong with red flag laws? I’ll explain. Plus, Justin Trudeau announces that Canadians no longer have a right to self-protection. His words exactly. In our Daily Cancellation, Rolling Stone publishes a hit piece on my film What Is A Woman. But did the writer of the piece actually watch the movie? The answer will shock you.
Join us tomorrow, June 14th, at 9pm ET for the world premiere of our Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie”: https://utm.io/ueFok
Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Download the FREE Upside app with promo code 'WALSH' and earn 25¢ or more CASH BACK on your first tank.
Protect your identity with LifeLock. Save up to 25% OFF Your First Year at
www.LifeLock.com/WALSH.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Fox News airs far-left extreme trans propaganda.
What is going on over at Fox and how should we respond?
We'll talk about it.
Also, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate agree on their new gun control plan, which includes red flag laws.
What could possibly go wrong with red flag laws?
I'll explain.
Plus, Justin Trudeau announces that Canadians no longer have a right to self-protection.
His words, exactly.
In our daily cancellation, Rolling Stone publishes a hit piece on my film, What Is A Woman, but did the writer of the piece actually watch the movie?
The answer will shock you.
No, it won't, but we'll talk about it.
All that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
You might be thinking there's no relief or help coming at the pump for us.
And that's certainly the case if you're waiting for Joe Biden to help you out.
But there is an incredible app that can give you some relief.
It's called Upside.
My listeners are earning cash back for every gallon of gas, every time they fill up.
Just download the free Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
Use promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first fill-up.
Cash back.
Don't pay full price at the pump anymore.
Get cash back using Upside.
Just download the app for free and use promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first tank.
And it's not just for gas, by the way.
You can earn cash back at grocery stores, restaurants, takeout, many different areas.
You can cash out anytime to your bank account or an e-gift card for select retailers and brands.
Just download the app for free.
It's the Upside app.
Use promo code WALSH to get 25 cents per gallon or more cash back on your first tank.
And this again, this is, you got the pump, you're spending all this money on gas.
And you're waiting for the prices to go back down.
That's probably not going to happen anytime soon, especially as we get into the summer.
You can earn cash back with the Upside app.
Just use promo code Walsh now.
That's code Walsh.
Cities all across the country held their Pride marches this weekend.
Pride marches are, of course, events made for and by people who just want to be left alone and who simply want to be able to love each other and who really, truly only want privacy and whose sex lives are just none of our business.
And their way of communicating those feelings to us is to prance down the street in bondage gear and assless chaps and twerk in front of crowds of strangers, including children.
You know, that's their way of communicating.
Their sex lives are so private and so completely none of our business that they throw parades nationwide to advertise and celebrate their sex lives.
This is obviously what anyone would do when they want something to be private.
It's why, you know, I've published my email password on a Times Square billboard, because I don't want anyone to see it.
And so that's what you do when you want something to be private.
You just show everybody.
Seems like the best strategy.
And that's why a half-naked guy in drag might shout, you know, mind your own business as he dry humps the pavement in the middle of the street at two o'clock in the afternoon.
When we're expected to ignore the contradiction.
We're also expected to ignore all the many ways in which children are directly and intentionally involved in this sort of thing.
There were many videos circulating on social media this weekend of kids, very young kids, toddlers in some cases, standing along these parade routes with their abusive parents, and the kids always look simultaneously confused, bored, and traumatized by what they're witnessing at a pride parade in California.
Two little girls could be seen watching with befuddled expressions as a morbidly obese drag queen rolled by on a rainbow pride float while shouting about lube into a megaphone.
Watch.
Bandanas and lube, I think.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Ursula said there, up on the float.
It could be worse.
I mean, they could have been forced to witness a group of men in bondage gear with their asses exposed, whipping each other as they walked down the street.
That's the hideous sight that one toddler was subjected to.
Here it is.
And then you can see the kids there.
There's that little kid.
The kid is what?
Looks like he's two, three years old?
And look at his mom.
His mom is there.
She's so proud.
She's taking a picture.
She wants to get her toddler and the guys in bondage gear in the same picture together.
She's trying to get the right angle.
Now, let me correct myself.
These two videos were taken at the same pride parade, I believe.
So the little girls who saw the fat drag queen shouting about lube also probably had to see the bondage-clad groomers acting out their sexual fetishes in front of the public.
As I said, there are many videos like this.
I can't play most of them on this show, especially the footage that made the rounds of a topless trans person in a thong bending over and twerking in front of a crowd that once again included small children.
I'll just leave that up to your imagination, though you probably would prefer not to imagine it.
Now, leftists, as we know, are determined to induct children into the LGBT cult as early as possible and by any means at their disposal.
That's why we must be totally determined and dedicated to protecting children from this abuse.
And that's also all the more reason why it was so dispiriting and really, frankly, tragic on Friday, a day before the Sodom and Gomorrah festivities kicked off, to see Fox News jump on the LGBT grooming bandwagon.
Actually, Fox didn't just join the bandwagon.
They skipped all the way to the front of it.
They ran out in front of the bandwagon so they could be, you know, leading it.
During their America's Newsroom broadcast, Fox ran a package by reporter Brian Yanus promoting and celebrating the transing of children.
This was not a report reporting on this controversy, but no, celebrating it, promoting it actively.
The propaganda was so radical, so far to the left, that I would have honestly been surprised to see it on CNN or even MSNBC.
But even those outlets have not quite gone as far to the left on the trans issue as Fox apparently has, at least with this report.
That's how bad it is.
It's certainly bad enough that I have to call them out.
I appear on Fox News often.
I've benefited from the platform, from the visibility that they've given me.
It's quite possible that by attacking them publicly, I've now ruined that relationship.
So be it in that case.
They really left us no choice.
The segment was that bad.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's go through this and kind of watch it together, just so we can see how bad this really is.
Here it is.
Walking down the street, you wouldn't think anything different.
14-year-old Ryland Whittington is a typical Southern California teenager.
And the Whittingtons, along with mom Hillary, dad Jeff, and sister Brinley, are a typical family.
The only difference, though, in Ryland's eyes, is what this family can mean to the tens of thousands of kids under 18 who identify as transgender.
We put our story out there so people could See that like there's another family out there that is going through what we're going through or there's another family who's proud of who they are.
Before Ryland could even speak, he managed to tell his parents that he is a boy.
I could just see it.
It wasn't him trying to be And unlike some trans kids, when Ryland came out at age 5 a few years later, he had the full support of his parents.
Before the girl could speak, she was communicating that she's a boy.
Before she could speak.
Fox wants us to believe that babies can choose their own gender.
Children so young that they don't yet have the ability to communicate in words can still, according to Fox, consent to begin a gender transition.
And on what basis?
Where is the evidence for this wild assertion?
How do we know that babies have a concept of quote-unquote gender identity?
Well, because here's why.
Because this baby didn't want to wear dresses.
That's it.
That's the whole story.
I mean, that's the whole story.
By this logic, of course, almost every baby girl is really a boy.
There are no girls left in the world, it turns out.
Because almost every young girl in the world, and that has ever existed in the world, has gone through at least a phase where they didn't want to wear the clothes their parents put them in.
Every boy has also gone through this phase.
So maybe every boy is really a girl, and every girl is really a boy.
We'll just trade places.
We'll make it simple.
There are no girls left in the world except boys.
The only girls left in the world are boys, and the only boys left are girls.
This is the utter irredeemable madness that flows from the kind of demented, half-baked, incomprehensible pseudo-logic you just heard from Fox.
Never mind the fact that, once again, the trans activists are rigidly enforcing gender roles.
While claiming that they want to break down gender roles, they are rigidly enforcing them.
The idea that the girl, you know, just might be a girl who doesn't like quote-unquote girly things, that never even occurs to these parents, or to any trans activist.
Well, she's two years old, she doesn't want to wear a dress.
Maybe she just doesn't like the dresses.
Not to mention the fact that the one dress that we saw there was, like, hideously ugly, so we can hardly blame her for not wanting to wear that one.
I mean, that could be it.
If your two-year-old daughter doesn't want to wear the dress, it could just be, like, she just is two and doesn't want to wear a dress right now.
Or she could really be a boy.
Oh yeah, that must be it.
She's a boy.
So, according to the trans activists, and to the left, and now to Fox News, Girls must like girly things, and if they don't, then they're boys.
So good news, ladies.
You can be anything you want to be.
You have self-determination.
Nobody can tell you what to do.
You are your own person.
Be yourself.
Unless you don't like the color pink, or if you prefer not to wear dresses, and then you can't even be a girl anymore.
You're now a boy.
Here are some injections to sterilize you and permanently alter your voice.
Oh, we'll also have to remove your breasts.
You're not going to be needing those ever in your whole life.
We've decided.
Because you don't like wearing dresses.
You don't like wearing dresses, so we're going to chop your breasts off and you'll never have that bodily function ever again.
This is the deranged, dangerous insanity that Fox News is selling.
And it gets worse.
Listen.
Initially there was some pushback from us in trying to understand this.
We were confused like most people are.
We thought that gender and sexuality were the same thing.
It took us a while to figure out that those two things are different and that children actually do recognize their gender identity very young.
Some of them, not all.
But they listened to Ryland and to Hillary's conservative faith.
For me, it's just a deep spiritual belief that you believe in God and he, you know, created us the way he wanted us.
Well, then, yes, he created Ryland just the way he is.
And they listened to families they met in support groups.
There was a father who was sitting across the table.
He says, you have no idea how lucky you are to be here, which kind of took me back.
I didn't at that point consider myself lucky to be there.
And he said, you know, our child had displayed This gender dysphoria or this gender misalignment at the same age that Rylan has, and we didn't listen, and we pushed back.
That pushback led that child to turn to self-harm as a teenager, which 60% of trans and non-binary kids engage in, according to the Trevor Project.
More than 50% consider suicide.
That, for me, was the turning point.
I didn't want to see Rylan to go through that.
I'd rather have a living son than a dead daughter.
Like I told you, this is actually worse, more radical, more extreme than anything we've heard on MSNBC at this point, up to this point, on this subject.
They're packing all of the most extreme and nonsensical trans agenda talking points into one piece of propaganda.
We've already heard that a girl chose her own gender when she was a toddler and then came out when she was five.
That's an actual sentence that was uttered on the air on Fox News.
When she came out when she was five, she's been on the earth for only five years.
She has almost no understanding of the world or herself or human biology.
She's not going to be a legal adult for another 13 years.
Her brain won't be fully developed for another 20 years.
And yet she was able to make this decision for herself.
And then we're told that the parents' conservative faith is what drove them.
Mommy Munchausen says that God doesn't make mistakes, and she's right about that.
Yet her conviction that God doesn't make mistakes is what led her to the conclusion that her daughter was born in the wrong body, and was really supposed to be her son, and the only way to fix it is with drugs and surgery?
On the contrary, it turns out that according to her, God does make mistakes.
He makes pretty big ones, it turns out.
There are some major screw-ups on the heavenly assembly line, and somehow boy souls are put into girl bodies, and vice versa.
And this seems to be happening a lot more recently, too, somehow.
Must be new management up at the factory.
Probably should review their training protocols, I don't know.
No, by Mami Munchausen's telling, God is a bumbling fool, an idiot, whose work needs to be checked and corrected with the help of the pharmaceutical industry.
That's what she thinks.
Next, we're given a few alleged facts and figures from the far-left propagandist organization, The Trevor Project, which claims that alleged trans kids will kill themselves if they're not allowed to transition their gender.
I'd rather have a living son than a dead daughter, Mommy Munchausen tells us.
This is the macabre bumper sticker slogan that has served to justify the butchery of thousands of children.
There's no data to back it up.
Nothing.
In fact, as we discussed last week, the data shows that gender transition does not decrease the suicide rate.
In fact, the data shows that it increases it.
Suicidality is highest a decade after transition.
That's what the data shows.
The suicide claim from trans activists is nothing but emotional blackmail.
In the case of these horrendous evil parents, it's simply a rationale, it's self-justification to legitimize their choices after the fact.
Speaking of legitimizing choices after the fact, nobody at Fox has explained how this toxic nonsense ended up on the airwaves.
I know for a fact that many of the people who work at Fox do not agree with this, do not want to be associated with it, but a decision was made by somebody to do this report and air it.
All the parties involved should explain themselves, and then they should be fired also.
Oh, are you promoting cancel culture?
You want to cancel these people?
Absolutely, I want to cancel them.
Yes.
They should be fired for sure.
Named, shamed, and fired.
When you put dishonest, trans, you know, militant trans propaganda on the airwaves, That's going to do and is doing immeasurable harm to thousands of kids, then yeah, you should be fired for that.
Fox speaks largely to a conservative audience and nobody in the audience wants any part of this.
Of all the people that were watching Fox on that Friday when that report aired, how many of them wanted that?
So this is propaganda made by and for an audience that doesn't watch Fox, and hates Fox, And especially hates Fox's actual audience.
But forget about conservative for a moment, okay?
Put that aside.
If Fox News wants to call itself news, then it cannot put insane falsehoods and radical far-left lies and propaganda on the air if you want to be a news organization.
Especially this kind of propaganda, worst of all.
Propaganda which aims to exploit and destroy children.
So, Fox's audience has to call the network to account.
I mean, nothing less than a full retraction and apology should be accepted here.
It's up to the audience to demand that.
So the audience can decide whether they just want to let this slide as Fox News celebrates Pride Month, putting up trans propaganda that, again, would not be aired by any other major network on TV right now.
A lot of them would go close to what you just saw from Fox, but they wouldn't even go that far.
Suggesting that a toddler can choose her own gender.
When you hear that from the left, but even on CNN, they would say, ah, it's a little too far.
Maybe in a year or two, we'll be at a point where we can put that out there and not have any blowback.
Now, Fox's audience should have zero tolerance policy.
For propaganda of any kind, especially trans propaganda.
And you need to make sure that Fox gets that memo.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
So far, there has been over 400 recorded data compromises that have happened in 2020.
Okay, that's 400.
That's a big number if you didn't know.
This is an increase of 14% from last year, impacting more than 20 million Americans.
Some of the most lucrative pieces of data cyber thieves want to steal are social security numbers, Gmail login and passwords, even driver's licenses.
And that's why it's so important to understand how cyber crime and identity theft are affecting our lives, and they are affecting our lives every day.
Your personal information gets exposed so often, making it dangerously easy for a cyber criminal to steal your identity.
Protecting your identity, then, has never been more important, but it also has never been easier than it is now with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats, like things that you might not be able to spot on your own if you're Social security numbers for sale on the dark web, things like that.
And if you do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist will work to help you fix it.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock by Norden.
Identity theft protection starts here.
Join now and save 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
Well, since we're on the subject of betrayals, I think this is a good segue here.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, a bipartisan group of U.S.
senators announced Sunday that they had agreed to a framework to implement new gun control measures following the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, late last month.
The group of 20 senators said in a statement, today we're announcing a common sense bipartisan proposal to protect America's children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country.
Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are educated as mentally ill, adjudicated rather, can't purchase weapons.
And then there are nine points of focus, they're saying, in this proposed legislation.
And then we go through the nine points.
The first one is support for state crisis intervention orders.
And that's provides resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.
So that's red flag laws in other words, that's what those are.
And then they say they're going to invest in children and family mental health services.
They're going to have protections for victims of domestic violence, funding for school-based mental health and supportive services, funding for school safety resources, and that says invest in programs to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools, support school violence prevention efforts, and provide training to school personnel and students.
And then some stuff under 21 enhanced review process for buyers under 21 years of age requires an investigative period to review juvenile and mental health records including checks with state databases and local law enforcement so as I go through this Penalties for straw purchasing crackdown on criminals who illegally straw purchase and traffic guns as I go through this I'm looking for first of all The measures that would have actually prevented the shooting in Uvalde, Texas or the Buffalo, the massacre in Buffalo.
And I know that the first thing we're going to be told is that, well, you know, point number one would have prevented both of those things, red flag laws.
Right, because both of these shooters were mentally disturbed.
They had histories of violence.
They were known to be, you know, a threat to themselves and others, and yet they were able to get their hands on weapons.
Well, the problem is that in New York, they already have red flag laws.
And those laws did nothing to prevent the shooting in Buffalo.
So, there's really no evidence that these laws work at all.
We already see, there are already versions of these kinds of measures in place in many states across the country, and they don't appear to be doing very much.
By the way, it says, so a bunch of Republicans are on board for this, of course.
And, as I said, just another example of betrayal, of course, from conservatives.
What we have to understand, if we don't already, is that we cannot trust any of these institutional powers that are supposed to be representing conservative interests.
And as Fox News has revealed, that's the case for them, and that's the case, of course, for Republicans in Congress.
As for the red flag laws especially, I think there are two really important points about this.
The first is that, again, they don't work.
We've already seen.
At least they don't work to actually prevent these kinds of shootings.
If they did, then Buffalo never would have happened.
And yet it did happen.
And the second point is that you're giving power over to the state to determine ahead of time who is, you know, who can be trusted with a firearm and who can't.
And that could work.
I mean, that's fine if you can trust the state.
But we know that we can't.
So these kinds of measures, they're just begging to be used by the left to prevent their ideological opponents from getting their hands on weapons.
I mean, you have to ask, like, what qualifies as a red flag?
Well, a red flag means that you're a danger to the public, right?
Okay.
Well, on the surface, that seems to make sense.
And I would agree that if somebody is actually a physical danger to the public, then they shouldn't be able to get their hands on a weapon.
Like the guy down in Uvalde, Texas.
Or the shooter in Buffalo.
In Texas, he was, again, known to everybody around him to be mentally unstable.
There's videos of him abusing animals and all this kind of stuff.
So we have them on video being violent and everything else.
So if that's what you mean by a danger to the public, then sure.
I think everyone can agree that you got to do everything you can within the bounds of the law to stop actually physically dangerous people from acquiring the tools to act out in this kind of way.
But what does the left mean when they call someone a danger to the public?
Remember, for the last two weeks, they've been saying that I myself, yours truly, I'm a danger.
I'm genocidal.
I'm actually guilty of genocide, they've said, just for making a movie they don't like.
So we know that this is kind of the ground that they've laid ahead of time.
That they've established that you're a danger to the public, you're a physical danger to people's lives if you have certain opinions, certain viewpoints that they don't like.
And if you think I'm exaggerating or this seems like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, oh, they're not going to use red flag laws to disarm conservatives on ideological or political grounds.
They would never do that.
That's crazy.
That's, come on.
That's conspiracy theory stuff.
Well, There's a tweet from 2019, representative Eric Swalwell, it's kind of making the rounds online again today, responding to and about Ben Shapiro.
So Jason Campbell over at Media Matters back in 2019 tweeted a tweet.
A video of Ben Shapiro talking about, he says, Ben Shapiro warns that if politicians try to mandate LGBTQ indoctrination at all schools, then he will pick up a gun.
Further adding, Beto O'Rourke does not get to raise my child, and if he tries, I will meet him at the door with a gun.
So, obviously, Media Matters doing their thing, taking a clip from a Daily Wire show, which this is what they love to do, it's their favorite thing, take the clip, take it wildly out of context.
Obviously, Ben here is talking about Um, you know, oppression by the state, tyranny by the state, and how we can, the Second Amendment exists to protect us from tyranny from the state.
Pretty, pretty standard.
Most people understand that.
Eric Swallow responds to that and says, about Ben Shapiro, please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun.
Reason 1578 why America needs red flag laws.
So this is a guy in Congress who's already said that if there are red flag laws, one of the first people he wants to disarm is Ben Shapiro.
Now, I admit I haven't checked Ben's criminal record, but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have any felony arrests for any violent crimes or any other crimes at all.
I'm guessing he probably doesn't have any misdemeanors.
So this is based on something that he said on his podcast that Media Matters didn't like.
And so Media Matters highlights this and then the state comes along and says, oh, that's a red flag.
I don't know about this guy.
He's a danger.
And it doesn't have to be about guns specifically.
As I said, my documentary had nothing to do with guns, but it's genocidal.
If you disagree with transing five-year-old kids, everything I said to start the show, if you disagree with that Fox News segment, then you're genocidal, you're a threat to the public, you're causing suicide, you are directly killing people.
And you don't even have to say anything.
Silence is also violence, keep in mind.
So it's a red flag if you say something they don't like, it makes you a danger.
And even if you don't say something where they think you ought to be saying something, that's violent.
You could be killing somebody doing that, they say.
Another red flag.
So this is always the problem you run into with any gun control legislation and the reasons that they get behind it.
Before you could even begin to take these proposals seriously and take them into consideration, if you were tempted to do that, You have to start by asking yourself, do I trust these people?
Whatever it is that they're proposing, before we can even analyze the pluses and minuses, right?
Do I trust them to enforce this fairly and objectively?
Or is this a Trojan horse to try to, you know, punish their political opponents?
And in this case, they've been very clear that that's the case.
And there are other gun grabbers who are even more clear, I think.
If you want to know what the gun-grabbing crowd is really up to, Justin Trudeau, in an interview last week, I think this was on some kind of podcast, he comes out, and this is another mask-off moment.
We get a lot of these from Justin Trudeau.
Just listen to this.
And there are debates.
And we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada.
And there are lots of gun owners and they're mostly law respecting and law abiding.
But you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
That's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
If you try and buy a gun and say it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that.
You get it for hunting, you can get it for sport shooting, take it to the range, no problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks.
But there's a difference around the culture and one of the things that we're seeing with the debate in the States is you get more and more of the American style, you know, right to carry, self-defense arguments filtering up through the usual more right-wing communications channels.
You don't get to have a gun for self-defense in Canada.
That's what he said.
Once again, If you had predicted this as a conservative, and many did for years leading up to this, that was a slippery slope fallacy.
Oh, that's ridiculous.
It's never gonna come to that.
Of course you can use a gun for self-defense.
And now we have Justin Trudeau saying, no, you don't have that right to use a gun in self-defense.
I don't think this is an exaggeration to say this is one of the worst things we've ever heard.
A political leader, say, in the Western world.
I mean, ever.
It's one of the most demented and frankly terrifying things we've ever heard from somebody leading a country in the Western world.
You don't get to use a gun for self-defense.
And he was very clear about that.
You don't have that right.
You do not have the right to self-protection, to preserve your own life.
You don't have that right.
Who has that right?
Well, the state has it.
What does that mean?
The state will decide if you're worthy of continuing your existence or not.
And so, if you're in Canada, this is what Justice Trudeau was saying, this is not me extrapolating, this is what he just said, that if you're in Canada and you find yourself confronted by a bad guy with a gun, because the bad guys are still going to have them, right?
Because the bad guys, they don't care about the law.
And you could pass 50 laws saying the same thing over and over again.
You ban guns and then pass another law banning them again and again and again.
And you know the thing about the lawbreakers is that they're going to look at all 50 and just say, I don't care.
In fact, they're quite happy about it because it just means that there's going to be less resistance.
Fewer of the good guys are going to have guns.
Fewer of the law-abiding citizens are going to have guns.
In fact, none of the law-abiding citizens are going to have guns, because by definition, if you're law-abiding, then you're abiding this law, you don't have a gun.
So, in Canada, there still are and still will be, forever, criminals with guns.
And what Justice Trudeau is saying is that when the criminal comes up and points a gun at you, and is going to shoot you, it is your responsibility to die.
That's your responsibility.
To be a good member of the state, To be a good, subservient vassal of the state, your responsibility in that moment, the most noble thing you can do, is to simply die.
And the bad guy with the gun, he could point it at you and tell you, I'm gonna kill you.
And all you could do is just fall to your knees and say, alright, well that's it for me, my life is over.
Your wife and your children are there too, who's gonna kill your whole family?
Well, then they have to die.
That's their responsibility too.
Justin Trudeau was saying.
Like I said, one of the worst things we've ever heard from a Western political leader.
One of the worst.
It's mind-blowing.
Even though we expected it.
Even though we, those of us with common sense, saw where the gun-grabbing Agenda was headed, and we said this was coming, but even so, this is the situation we're in all the time as conservatives, right?
Where we see something coming, we predict it, and then it comes, and we're still... It still kind of takes your breath away, to actually see it in real life and hear that.
You don't have the right to self-protection.
My God.
But maybe you'll luck out.
Maybe the cops will show up.
Maybe an agent of the state will show up in time to protect you.
Because why is it?
The state, what's this all about really?
The state is what confers, the state confers that right.
So when you're confronted by the bad guy with a gun, you yourself inherently don't necessarily have the right to continue existing.
That's not a right that you have.
The state confers it.
And so if you can call 911, if you could tell the bad guy who's about to shoot you, hang on one second, let me get on the horn, call 911.
Maybe he'll be nice about it.
You know, he might be a good sport and say, all right, I'll let you call.
I'll give them three minutes to show up.
They don't get here in time, I'm going to kill you.
You could try that.
Police show up in time.
Maybe you can continue existing.
Of course, one of the other doctrinal points in leftism is that the cops are all murderous, racist bastards.
And they are now the ones who are going to be solely responsible for preserving and protecting your life.
The murderous, soulless, racist bastards.
So, that's the way it goes on the left.
Alright, a couple other things on this.
So there was a protest over the weekend in the United States, across the country.
This was, I guess, in tandem with the Pride marches.
So they had the Pride marches going on, and the BDSM guys with the whips and everything.
And then down the street, they also had people marching to end gun violence, as their signs say.
Because that's how, you know, that's how you stop gun violence.
Again, going back to the criminals with guns, the bad guys who are doing all this.
The next potential mass shooter.
You know, if he sees whoever that is, if he sees the march and he sees somebody holding a sign saying end gun violence, maybe he'll say, you know what?
You're right.
This isn't the way to be.
Drop his gun and be reformed.
It's possible.
I want to play a little bit of the Reuters report about this march in D.C.
DC because there's a point that I want to make about it, but let's listen to it.
Tens of thousands of demonstrators took part in rallies across the United States on Saturday
to demand that lawmakers pass legislation aimed at curbing gun violence following last
month's massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
In the nation's capital, organizers with March for Our Lives estimated that 40,000 people assembled at the National Mall.
How many ways can we say it?
Gun violence does not discriminate!
It happens everywhere and all the time!
It has been happening everywhere all the time!
Because you, Congress, have done nothing to prevent it!
March for Our Lives, the gun safety group founded by student survivors of the 2018 massacre at a Parkland, Florida, high school, said it had planned hundreds of rallies nationwide for Saturday, including in New York City, where 9th grader Anya Bigg said she believed the country was close to becoming totally numb to the violence.
I think we're reaching a national tipping point, especially, well I'm in 9th grade, but as I've seen over the past few years, the amount of gun violence that has happened, I think we're reaching a tipping point where we're about to hit desensitization to gun violence.
Okay, so we got the ninth grader there giving her take on the direction of society.
She thinks we're reaching a tipping point.
So that's the point I wanted to make about this because especially with these end gun violence protests, March for Our Lives and everything, a lot of very young kids are involved.
They like to get the young kids, well at least the young kids are out in front because they're used like as political pawns.
People actually organizing these events and You know, who kind of organize these things and are actually behind the scenes.
They're not kids, but they put the kids out front and center.
And especially when it comes to an issue like this, and climate change is the other one.
So climate change and gun violence, those are the two subjects in particular where we're supposed to listen to what the kids are telling us about it.
Right?
And the left says that.
While also saying that, you know, of course kids can choose their own gender and all the rest of it.
So this is the, these are the responsibilities that they're imposing, conferring to kids.
Meanwhile, in reality, I think, I think those of us in common sense world, we have a, we're pretty consistent about this.
It's like kids are just kids.
Okay, I'm not too interested.
The declarations a 5-year-old makes about their gender, that doesn't interest me, because that's just a 5-year-old babbling, just being a kid.
And so, let the 5-year-old be a kid.
Doesn't want to wear a dress?
Fine, he doesn't have to wear a dress.
Maybe a 5-year-old has to wear a dress for church for an hour, but that's it, it's fine.
So you let the kid be a kid.
Same also for ninth graders who are marching to end gun violence and are imparting their wisdom about weighing all of the, well, you've got Second Amendment rights versus this, and we're supposed to listen to what they have to say about it?
Why?
It's like listening to a 14-year-old tell us about climate change and all the ways that human society has to be reorganized And we're supposed to listen to teenagers tell us about that?
And take their ideas seriously?
No, I don't take their ideas seriously.
Because number one, I was a teenager once.
And I remember it.
And number two, for their own sake, I don't take them seriously.
That is a responsibility that kids shouldn't have.
Like, no kid should be made the front and center of any movement at all.
That's not what being a kid's about.
And they don't have the wisdom for it, or they have no experience at all, hardly, in the world.
So, because I have common sense, and also for their own sake, when I hear kids going on about any subject, I say, I really don't care.
I don't care what you think about this.
It doesn't really make a difference.
You don't know what you're talking about, and that's fine.
I didn't either when I was your age.
All right, one other thing.
Oh, we gotta play this too.
Okay, so at the March for Our Lives protest there in DC, somebody during one of the speeches, apparently someone yelled out gunshot.
There was no gunshot.
There was no, it wasn't even any loud bang or anything, but somebody yelled out gunshot.
And then here's how the crowd responded.
Watch this.
We fight every day for our- And then, >> Running for the, now look, okay.
Do not run, freeze, do not run, there is no issue.
There is no issue here!
Do not run!
These are, first of all, wow, these are very compliant people.
Paranoid, on edge, very compliant though, because all they, they thought that someone was shooting, and then the woman on stage says, freeze, don't run, and they all stop.
It's like a game of Simon Says or something.
Maybe that's what was happening there.
But you notice, if you're watching the video and if you're listening to audio, you should go just on Twitter or something and find that video.
It's all over the place.
But it's quite revealing.
It illustrates something, I think, about this crowd in general.
That there are, I mean, there are literally, like, elderly women in the back of the crowd near the fence line.
Somebody yells out, gunshot, and all of these younger people are trampling old women, throwing them to the ground to get away from this phantom gunshot.
Which really does kind of tell you something, doesn't it?
Because they're all there pretending to, you know, it's their concern for humanity, for people's lives.
March for our lives is what they pretend to care about.
But it's really my life that they care about.
Not the life of this old woman, because I heard a loud noise and I'm scared.
I'm gonna throw her to the ground, hop a fence, and I'm out of there.
Real cowardice on display there.
All right.
AOC was on one of the cable news channels, doesn't matter, asked about supporting, oh, this is CNN.
Okay, CNN.
She was asked whether she's going to support Biden's re-election, if he does run for re-election.
And her answer was not yes.
Her answer was definitely not yes.
Let's listen to that.
I just want to ask about President Biden.
He is saying he's going to run again in 2024.
Will you support him?
You know, if the president chooses to run again in 2024, I mean, first of all, I'm focused on winning this majority right now and preserving a majority this year in 2022.
So we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
But but I think if if the president has a vision and that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes.
That's not a yes.
Yeah, you know, I think we should endorse when we get to it.
But I believe that the president's been doing a very good job so far.
And, you know, should he run again?
I think that I you know, I think it's it's we'll take a look at it.
Right now, we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election.
Well, that is quite an endorsement.
I mean, look, he's doing a great job.
And if he runs again, we'll We'll take a look at it.
If he runs, we'll look at him running.
If he was running, that'd be fascinating to see him run.
Because I didn't even know he could physically do that anymore.
So if he's running, I'll definitely take a look.
If Joe Biden was running, let me know and I'll run down there to see him running.
So yeah, for sure.
She's not the smartest.
Smartest person in the world and not the quickest on her feet, so She's trying to find a way around she what she didn't want to say was I'd be happy if he ran again He should run again He's doing a great job, but I'm not gonna say that.
I actually want him to run again and of course they don't They know that this is that there's there's just no way even the Democrats know that you know facing reality is not their specialty and But even they realize this guy is, he's going to turn 80, right?
He's turning 80 this year.
So 2024, he'll be 82.
He's going to run again and he's going to have to tell the American people that, yeah, I'll be your guy until I'm 86.
Even the Democrats know it just, it can't happen.
It's not tenable.
I don't make a lot of political predictions because the few that I do make are almost always wrong, but this is one I've made from the beginning, and I will reiterate again.
There's no way that this guy, he might want to run again, but the Democrat Party, they can't allow it.
They know it.
They just can't.
It's not possible.
Especially when, there was a report yesterday, or this last week, about All indications are that Pope Francis is mercifully, thank God, looking at retiring.
Which is actually going to put the Catholic Church in a really unprecedented position of having two retired popes who are now kind of like sitting around in a retirement home.
The makings of a really interesting sitcom or something.
So, he hasn't done it yet, obviously, you would have heard about it, but reports suggest that Pope Francis probably will retire just as Pope Benedict retired before him.
So, you've got popes who are saying, look, I'm too old for this.
I can't do this as pope.
And yet we're going to have a president who still wants to be president in his mid-80s?
Not tenable.
Can't do it.
it.
All right, let's get to our comment section.
He's hit a million subscribers.
Let's see that interpretive dance, Matt.
Well, I did say I'd do an interpretive dance when we hit a million, but right now we're at one point, I think we're at 1.0, we're like at 1.03 million, I think.
So, because we hit a million over the weekend.
So technically, like it's, we're past that point, technically.
Because now we're at a different, we're not at a million anymore, is what I'm trying to say.
Also, I never said when the dance would happen.
I didn't say that.
So I'm not saying I'm not going to do it.
I'm just, I'm just saying I never said when I would do it.
Okay?
If I look at the bylaws and the fine print, I never said when.
Maybe I need to practice for 10 years and we do it, you know, maybe this is the way we ring in the 2030s.
We'll see.
Karsodian the Great says, Matt, this isn't, Yuvaldi, talking about Yuvaldi, isn't the biggest law enforcement scandal of all time.
Waco is.
That's true.
Also in Texas, of course.
And certainly when you look at the body count and everything else that went into it, you're probably correct in that.
But it's in the conversation.
Yuvaldi is.
I don't think we've seen anything quite like it before.
And hopefully never again.
Fuzzy Friends says, As a life and relationship coach, every woman I've ever talked to secretly confided in me that they wanted to nest-slash-nurture and that they wished they could be a housewife.
Unfortunately, the employment market is so saturated, men no longer earn an $80,000 per year salary with full benefits for their family.
It now takes two incomes of non- or low-benefit $35,000-a-year jobs to survive.
Women can't be women anymore in today's world.
Well, I don't want to disagree with a life and relationship coach, but probably not every woman secretly wants that, but it is true that this is a natural desire that lots of women have.
They want to settle down with a man.
They want to be a homemaker.
But it's shameful, so you're not allowed to talk about that.
Just like if you're a man and you want to have A wife and you want to be the breadwinner and you want to care for your kids and have that kind of quote-unquote traditional life.
It's also, it's considered shameful now, so you're not allowed to talk about that either.
It's another thing that makes the dating world, it's like reason number one million why I'm so glad I'm not in the dating world anymore.
Another thing that makes it impossible is that people feel like they can't even be honest about what their goals are, what they want out of life.
You had another reason.
Okay, Derek says, I have to argue a point.
You're okay going after social media platforms.
How is that different from people suing gun companies for gun violence?
Well, it's different because not everything is the same.
I don't know how else to put it.
Not all things are analogous.
Some things are different from other things.
So a gun is not the same thing as a social media platform.
It's like two entirely different categories of things.
Is how I would explain it.
Also, when we talk about guns, we're talking about constitutional rights or Second Amendment rights.
So, it's an entirely different category.
And the other point is that when we talk about going after social media platforms, the discussion last week was about social media platforms and the way that they inflict real harm on kids in a very intentional way.
They're marketing themselves to young kids Okay, gun manufacturers are not marking themselves to 12-year-olds.
They're not allowed to do that.
They're already not allowed to do that.
Social media platforms are.
And they're doing it in a way to hook these kids in.
And why do they want to harm kids?
Is it because they're a bunch of, like, sinister supervillains and they want to harm kids just for the sake of it?
Maybe some of them do, but mostly it's just because it's money.
You get kids hooked on the product, then that's a lot of money for you.
And when you have generations of kids who are hooked on the product,
whether it's TikTok or any other social media platform, that's billions and billions of dollars.
So there's a profit motive there. And I think that they, that,
that's why we should hold them to account.
Let's see, GY says, Matt, parents screw up.
I know we did.
Hindsight being 20-20 and all that, we thought we were doing everything right.
We bought a limited phone for our oldest daughter when she was 13 because at that time she was coming home from school and we would be alone for two hours until I came home from picking up my husband from work.
He's now disabled.
We wanted to have GPS tracking in case something bad happened and put very strong parental controls to lock the internet and everything else.
She broke through every single restriction we put on the phone with help from her friends.
Her last phone, a few months ago, we cancelled because the tracking system didn't work and she still managed to get around the no internet thing by hacking the phone that was supposed to not have access to data at all.
Now she has no phone at all and she's 16, but the damage was already done.
First musically, now TikTok.
Between that and the bullying she went through when we finally put her in public school, and now we have a child who is thoroughly depressed and questioning her gender, her teachers all support her desire to be called Max.
Every well-vetted therapist we've talked to about CPTSD she has from bullying lies to our face about supporting our views and makes things worse.
It happened to us.
Conservative Catholics like yourself, we did everything we could do and we thought was right, but the culture is insidious and circumstances can suck.
If we had known then what we know now, this would be a totally different story I'm telling you now, but give us some grace here.
We don't deserve it, but we need it.
We've done everything we can do.
We're another statistic.
Well, I'm Sorry to hear all that.
I mean, I've heard this story so many times, and it's always terrible.
And it's terrifying for me also, as a parent of younger kids, okay?
And I've fully realized that, and I've acknowledged it, I think, many times, that there are challenges to having younger kids.
The challenges change as the kids get older.
But there are certain aspects of this that we haven't had to fully deal with yet.
Right now, it's pretty easy.
Our kids don't have phones.
They've asked about it before, and we just say, no, we're not giving you a phone.
And that's the end of the discussion.
That's not going to be as easy as they get older.
We realize that.
So, giving grace to parents.
I do give grace to parents.
In fact, in particular, parents of adolescent kids and teenagers, especially as you're going through and struggling through, when a kid comes home from school, And says, oh, I'm a different gender now, something they picked up, this social contagion thing.
That's completely different, in my mind, from the parents that we heard in the Fox News segment who said, oh, my two-year-old chose their gender.
No, that's you as a parent doing that to your kid, if they're two or three or four or five.
If your kid's 14 or 15, coming home from school with this, then that's, that's, you could have done everything right, or that you thought was right, you know, trying your best, and now you have to deal with this too.
So I totally understand that.
But the point with the phone is, you say yourself, if you'd known If you knew then what you know now, you would have made different choices.
And so that's why I try to, that's why I'm always hammering on this point about the phones.
I'm not saying it's always going to be easy as kids get older to stop them from using the phones.
And if you give them a phone with parental locks, kids are, they're like little ninjas when it comes to that kind of thing.
They're like little Houdini's when it comes to breaking around parental controls.
And that's why it's just, you've got to draw, for any parents who have not had to go through this yet, draw the line in the sand.
It's worth it to avoid, you know, situations like this.
So tomorrow, June 14th, it's the premiere of The Daily Wire's next great film, Terror on the Prairie, which I personally have been looking forward to as a big Western fan.
You remember when Hollywood and Disney tried to cancel Gina Carano?
Two days after Gina was canceled, Daily Wire announced that she would be starring in and producing our next original film.
And tomorrow, June 14th, you'll see the fruit of all that labor.
We'll be celebrating the premiere of her brand new film with The Daily Wire, Terror on the Prairie.
Terror on the Prairie is a gritty Western ingenious personal redemption story, shines through in her leading role.
She doesn't pull any punches as a frontier woman fighting for survival in the brutal American West.
I'm really excited for everyone to see this film.
I'm excited to see it myself.
It's a good old-fashioned Western without the wokeness, and we need more movies like that, I think, in the world.
Plus, it's produced by our friend Dallas Saunier, who brought you Bone Tomahawk with Kurt Russell, so you know it's gonna be gripping, authentic, it's gonna have some edge to it as well.
Go to dailywire.com slash Gina and tune in tomorrow at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern for the pre-show, 9 p.m.
Eastern for the world premiere of the film, and stick around for a Q&A following the film.
Head to dailywire.com slash Gina right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, Rolling Stone is not exactly known for its journalistic integrity.
This is, after all, the outlet that published a rape hoax and once put the Boston Bomber on its cover.
Now, I wasn't expecting exactly fair or objective treatment when I found out that they had written about my film, What Is A Woman?
And it's clear in the first sentence of their piece that there is no pretense of actual journalism here.
The author of the piece, Moises Mendez, writes, quote, "For years, right-wing commentator,
Daily Wire host, and all-around sh*tty provocateur Matt Walsh has used his platform to go after trans
people. So it's not surprising that this essentialist ideology has become the centerpiece
of his new documentary, 'What is a Woman?'" Now, I take exception to this on a number of levels.
First of all, I am not a sh**ty provocateur.
I think I'm a pretty decent provocateur.
Though, of course, these are, you know, ideal cultural conditions for being a provocateur.
It's a bit of a bull market for provoking, considering you can provoke by simply asking people to define words they're using.
It'd be a lot more difficult to be a provocateur in a sane society.
I realize that.
That's not a challenge I have to deal with, though.
And you can't hold that against me.
I'm just playing the hand I was dealt here.
Anyway, the real motive behind this Rolling Stone piece becomes immediately obvious.
The outlet would seem to be, at first, sort of breaking ranks with their corporate media counterparts by actually acknowledging that my film exists, even if only to dump on it.
So why take this risk?
Why risk giving me more publicity?
Part of the reason is that nobody reads Rolling Stone or even knows that it still exists, so the publicity factor is negligible.
I'm sure that sort of factored into their decision.
The other reason is that they want to pressure social media platforms to ban me.
Going back to the article, it says, Now the Daily Wire has bought ads on major social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram to promote the film.
And so far, even though the documentary seems to violate TikTok and Meta's policies against hate speech, though the platforms prohibit dehumanizing, mocking, and or hateful speech about transgender people, the ads have been allowed to stay.
Okay, so this film is hate speech.
It dehumanizes and mocks.
Don't just take Rolling Stone's word for it.
They also spoke to GLAAD, the gay activist organization, and GLAAD agrees.
Quote, "National LGBTQ organization GLAAD feels that it's contradictory for these platforms to allow these sorts of
ads, especially during a time when they claim to be uplifting
and highlighting queer content."
Quote, "Social media companies are in the midst of honoring Pride Month by loudly sharing how they support LGBTQ people,
while simultaneously profiting off of ads for a video project that is built off of lies and misinformation about
our community."
These platforms can and must do more to take action and enforce their own rules regarding content that violates their own standards of accuracy and safety.
Oh, it's unsafe content, remember.
Red flag.
This is quite a rap sheet they've compiled for my film.
The movie is hateful, dehumanizing, built off of lies and misinformation.
It's so bad that we shouldn't be allowed to advertise it on any major social media platform.
The writer Moises must have really watched the movie closely and thought long and hard about it before arriving at these damning conclusions.
I mean, these are some serious indictments.
I can't imagine the research that Moises must have poured into this.
His editors also must have sat down and really watched the film carefully and, you know, if they're going to publish something like this, they sat down, they watched it.
Did a lot of research, I assume.
Well, maybe not.
See, we sent screeners to Rolling Stone because we thought they might be interested in writing about the film.
Turns out they were.
You know, they were interested in writing about it.
But our mistake was in thinking that they might want to watch the film before writing about it.
Though Moises Mendez and his editor Elizabeth Garber-Paul apparently didn't realize this, we can actually see how much of the film was viewed on each individual screener that we send out, which means that we can see clear as day that the editor, Elizabeth Garber-Paul, she watched a whole 11% of the movie before publishing this piece.
And the author, I mean the guy who actually wrote this searing indictment of what is a woman, calling it transphobic, hateful, misinformation, etc.
He watched exactly 0% of the movie.
We can see that.
You see it right there.
0%.
He didn't watch one second of it before offering his review of the work.
Moises Mendez, he's like a food critic who walks by a restaurant, doesn't even go in, glances through the window, and then writes a detailed review panning the food.
Now, you might think that Rolling Stone was aware that we would know they didn't watch the film before reviewing it, and that perhaps they just didn't care.
Maybe they were defiantly flaunting their own closed-mindedness.
But that theory is contradicted by the fact that Moises locked down his Twitter account within three minutes of me publishing the screenshot showing that he didn't watch the movie.
Rolling Stone soon followed suit by putting the article behind their paywall.
They clearly weren't planning on getting called out, and didn't think they would be.
That's a theme consistent with what you find in the movie itself, if you were to actually, you know, watch it.
People on the left aren't prepared to be held accountable.
And that's somewhat understandable, to be fair.
In their privilege bubble, there is no accountability.
They're not familiar with the concept.
They don't know how to react when it happens.
Now, I'm not naive.
I know that nobody at Rolling Stone is engaging in any self-reflection today.
I'm sure Moises Mendez did not even take a second to pause and ask himself, wait, am I nothing but a half-witted propagandist?
Is that what I've become?
He's not thinking about that.
Instead, he's no doubt hiding behind his locked account, crying that all the scary right-wingers are being mean to him.
Yet, even if we cannot get these people to ever look in the mirror and see themselves for who and what they are, we can at least see them more clearly.
And we can know that they must never be taken seriously.
Nothing they say means anything.
They are not interested in truth or accuracy or anything related to it.
So, we shouldn't be interested in anything that they ever say.
About anything.
Instead, we should say to Moises Mendez and all the Moises Mendezes of the world, you are all 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.
Nancy Pelosi claims that transvestitism is what America is all about.
Fox News.
Fox News encourages parents to trans their kids.
I'm not joking.
And Justin Trudeau bans guns for self-defense in Canada.
