Today on the Matt Walsh Show, conservatives celebrate as the women’s swimming federation officially disqualifies men like Lia Thomas from competition in the future. Does this mark a return to sanity in our culture? Actually no, and I’ll explain why. Also, the new woke Toy Story film bombs at the box office and the media is perplexed. The governor of New York not so subtly encourages more violence against pro-lifers in the lead up to the Roe decision. A court declares that elephants are not people. Why was that necessary to establish? And a CNN comedian records a father’s day PSA pushing abortion. What does that have to do with father’s day?
Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com, and pick up your copy of the “What Is A Woman?” book here: https://utm.io/ueFMe
Watch our Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie” with Gina Carano: https://utm.io/ueFOe
Join us for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
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.
Download the FREE Upside app with promo code 'WALSH' and earn 25¢ or more CASH BACK on your first tank.
Helix Mattresses are made to match your unique sleep preferences. Go to HelixSleep.com/WALSH and get up to $200 OFF + 2 FREE pillows with all mattress orders!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, conservatives celebrate as the Women's Swimming Federation officially disqualifies men like Leah Thomas from competition in the future.
Does this mark a return to sanity in our culture?
Actually, no, it doesn't, and I'll explain why.
Also, the new woke Toy Story film bombs the box office, and the media is just perplexed by this.
The governor of New York not-so-subtly encourages more violence against pro-lifers in the lead-up to the Roe decision.
A court declares that elephants are not people.
Why was that necessary to establish?
And a CNN comedian records a Father's Day PSA pushing abortion.
What does that have to do with Father's Day?
We'll find out about that and much more today on The Matt Wall Show.
A common question I get from my 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 you don't believe in.
Switch to Charity Mobile today, and they will spend 5% of your monthly plan price
to any pro-life charity of your choice.
Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones with no devices or service contracts,
plus great nationwide coverage.
This sounds like a hassle, I assure you it really isn't.
Charity Mobile makes switching from your current carrier painless.
Their live customer service is exceptional, and they'll guide you through the process
every step of the way.
You can keep your number in most cases, you can even keep your phone, or if you want,
take advantage of my special offer and get a free cell phone with free activation.
All you gotta do is call 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com and mention OfferCodeWalsh to redeem the free cell phone offer.
That's CharityMobile.com, mention OfferCodeWalsh and join the fight for life by switching to CharityMobile today.
I was quite excited this weekend to hear the good news trumpeted by conservatives across social media that reason and sanity had prevailed in women's sports.
FINA, which is the International Swimming Federation, has, according to the headlines anyway, banned biological males from competing against women in elite aquatics competitions.
The new rules passed down on Sunday mean that Leah Thomas's swimming career is effectively
over tragically.
He could, of course, go back to competing against the men, but chances are that he'll
now be even less competitive against his male counterparts than he was two years ago before
he began his quote unquote transition.
FINA's new guidelines do provide for an open category where I guess trans athletes who
don't meet the eligibility requirements to swim against women can compete in the open
So Thomas can perhaps go there and race against himself where he's sure to once again dominate.
But something tells me that he's not going to see that as a sufficient compromise.
As noted, most conservatives have been celebrating the news, seeing it as a harbinger of things to come.
The beginning of a movement towards sanity.
The New York Post headline declares as much, saying, Other headlines and outlets like The Daily Caller, Breitbart, OutKick echo this same theme.
Sanity is making a comeback, we're told.
The tide is turning.
One battle has now been won.
Now we march onward.
That's the general feeling, I guess.
Which is why it must fall to me, as always, to be the storm cloud raining on everybody's parade.
I hate doing it.
Actually, I kind of enjoy doing it, but not in this case.
I wish I didn't have to.
I do, though.
The devil, as they say, is in the details, and sometimes that is quite literally the case.
And when dealing with the left, You always have to keep this in mind.
You always have to dig below the surface to understand what's really going on.
These people did not achieve total cultural dominance by being stupid.
So, what's happening here?
Well, if you go to the organization's website and you read the new rules for yourself, you'll notice a few things.
First, under the competitive opportunities within and outside of men's and women's categories header, we're told, quote, male to female transgender athletes, transgender women, And athletes who have a 46XY DSD and a female legal gender and or gender identity are eligible to compete in the women's category in FINA competitions and to set FINA world records in the women's category at FINA competitions and other events recognized by FINA if they meet applicable eligibility conditions.
So we see right off the bat, they're not simply banning men from women swimming.
There's more to it than that.
A lot more to it, it turns out.
In fact, the new guidelines are nearly 8,000 words long.
If it was as simple as establishing, or rather re-establishing, that only females compete against females and males against males, the policy could be described in like one sentence.
But they take considerably more than one sentence, because only certain males, it turns out, are banned from competing against females.
So, what does that mean?
Well, the policy explains.
Quote, male-to-female transgender athletes, transgender women, and athletes with 46XY DSD, whose legal gender and or gender identity is female, are eligible to compete in the women's category in FINA competitions and to set FINA world records in the women's category in FINA competitions and in other events recognized by FINA.
If they can establish to FEMA's comfortable satisfaction that they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later.
Specifically, the athlete must produce evidence establishing that They have complete androgen insensitivity and therefore could not experience male puberty, or they are androgen sensitive but had male puberty suppressed beginning at 10 or stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later, and they have since continuously maintained their testosterone levels in serum or plasma below 2.5 NMOOLL.
Okay.
So, the problem, says Fina, is not maleness per se, but male puberty.
If a male wants to compete against females, he must transition before puberty so to block some of the advantages that maleness would otherwise afford him.
Now, this rule does indeed mean that Leah Thomas is out on his ass.
Probably means that elite women swimming will be male-free for the foreseeable future.
In fact, It's hard to imagine anyone who transitions before the age of 12 ever becoming an elite athlete in any sport, given the disastrous effects the drugs have on the developing human body.
The integrity of women's swimming has thus been, at least for now, effectively restored.
So, why isn't it a big win, like everyone thinks it is?
Because the International Swimming Federation is not at all affirming the binary reality of human sex.
They are not declaring that there's any inherent problem with categorizing a male as a female.
No, they said that they would do that.
They're happy to do that.
They've declared puberty and testosterone the enemy.
According to them, some women happen to have experienced male puberty and those women have an unfair advantage.
And so we make a separate category for them.
The solution, they say, is to block male puberty from ever taking hold in the first place.
It shouldn't be difficult to see where this leads.
You don't need a crystal ball to see 30 minutes into the future when this will be used as further justification for transitioning children earlier.
The International Swimming Federation has said, if you want to participate fully as a woman, you need to become one much earlier.
To the trans activists, that simply means that boys who are supposedly questioning their gender have to be put on the medical path even sooner than they already are.
The rules encourage and validate childhood transitions.
Many conservatives, you know, are celebrating this, not thinking about what they're doing, and they're even saying, I've heard from a lot of people, they're hopeful that FINA's policy will become a blueprint for other organizations to follow.
Well, I certainly hope that isn't the case.
Because that will be just more fuel for the childhood transition fire.
It'll be more fodder for the trans activists.
You see, they'll declare, we can't afford to wait.
If your son likes the color pink and plays with dolls, get him transitioned right away.
Otherwise, he'll never be fully accepted as the woman he truly is inside.
This is not pure speculation on my part.
As you heard on the show just last week, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health lowered their age range guideline to now recommend drugs and surgery for even younger kids.
They now advise surgical sex changes for 15-year-old kids.
And that age has been dropping precipitously for years.
It's only going to continue to drop, helped along by institutions who declare early transition as a prerequisite for full recognition of a person's chosen gender identity.
So this is not a win of any kind.
Certainly not a win for sanity.
A win for sanity would be a rule which simply and clearly declares that only women compete against women and only men against men.
Period.
End of discussion.
No further explanation needed.
Anything beyond that, any additional considerations, Any complications added to the mix, any nuances, any caveats, only affirm and reinforce that this is somehow a complicated question.
But it isn't.
And this is exactly why I've always been uncomfortable with the way that conservatives often argue for fairness in women's sports.
Many of them argue for it as though their primary concern is simply fairness in women's sports.
You know, they argue over women's sports as if what they really care about is just women's sports for its own sake.
Like they really care deeply about competitive women's swimming itself.
And their greatest mission in life is to ensure that competitive women's swimming remains fair and equitable.
But that's not why I argue for fairness in women's sports.
I argue for it because women's sports is but one battleground in the overall war for truth and reason.
And if you win a battle, but you weaken your position in the larger war in the process, you didn't really win anything.
And here we won something that looks like fairness in women's swimming, but at the expense of validating and encouraging the further abuse and exploitation of children.
Meanwhile, the underlying premise of gender ideology remains fully intact.
In fact, these rules, and by extension those celebrating them, have reinforced the underlying premise by agreeing that maleness and male puberty are two entirely separate things which can and often should be divorced from one another.
This is exactly what happens when you try to cut down a tree by just, like, cutting away at a few of the branches.
You're not really doing any damage to the tree.
And in fact, you may be helping it, as pruning a tree encourages growth, plant health, flower production in the long run.
That's what the right is unwittingly doing now with gender ideology.
They're just sort of pruning away at it.
They're getting it into a better shape, making it more palatable for people.
You know, as long as we have this gender ideology madness in our culture, as long as it exists, as long as children are being indoctrinated into it, then it's probably for the best that we have the absurd spectacle of men, you know, dominating women's sports.
That forces people to confront it and to see it for the absurdity that it is.
It's actually the best thing for the trans activists.
Whether they'll say this out loud or not, the best thing for them is that those more public displays of the absurdity of their position go away, but the thing itself remains.
So if they can more quietly sort of be transitioning quote-unquote children, indoctrinating kids into this, but we don't have any more Leah Thomases, that's the best for them.
That's good for them.
No, I say as long as this exists and we're imposing it on children, then there ought to be Liam Thomases.
In fact, it doesn't even make any sense.
If we're going to, as a society, abandon the difference between men and women, it doesn't make any sense to have the integrity of women's sports preserved.
We don't have a right to women's sports in a society where we pretend that men and women are the same, or interchangeable, or fluid, or whatever.
No, what we should be doing is drawing a clear line and saying to society, we have to choose.
Okay?
Either men and women are the same and all these things are fluid or not.
It's one or the other.
You can't have it both ways.
If you want to kill the tree, you have to attack it at its roots.
And if you really want to restore sanity in this country, that's the only way to do it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
One of my great joys in life is going to bed each night, which is kind of pathetic.
But that's the reality of being an adult.
And it's all the better because of my Helix mattress.
If you don't have a Helix mattress yet, then you gotta get one, and it's very easy.
Helix Sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete, and it matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
Why would you buy a mattress that was made for somebody else?
With Helix, you're getting a mattress that you know will be perfect for the way that you sleep, because you customize it yourself.
Everybody's unique, and Helix knows that.
So, they have several different mattress models to choose from.
They have soft, medium, and firm mattresses.
Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains.
And even a Helix Plus mattress for obese sleepers as well.
So, if you're looking for a mattress, you need to take the quiz.
You order the mattress that is matched to you, and the mattress comes right to your door.
Shipped for free.
You don't ever need to go to a mattress store again.
Just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life, guaranteed for a limited time.
Helix is offering up to $350 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
This is their best offer yet.
So hurry over to helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
All right, we start with actually some movie news from Deadline.
There might be more important things happening in the country, but I just thought that this was... Here's some actual good news.
A little something that we can celebrate.
And this is Deadline.
This is obviously a left-wing rag, and this is how they report on this.
They say, blame the fact that it doesn't appeal to girls, blame Disney Plus for stealing family moviegoers, blame the lack of an ensemble Toy Story cast.
Heck, blame everything, as Disney Pixar's Lightyear didn't do its magic by internal studio or industry standards this weekend, with $51 million, close to a third below its $70 million pre-release projection.
It says, this is an opening more in the vicinity of Pixar's original fare, so it could still leg out to $200 million.
However, given how this IP was built on the back of the Toy Story brand, it's clear many were expecting significantly more.
Lightyear overall was down in its global start, $85.6 million versus the top-end $135 million estimate we reported.
And it was beat by Jurassic World at the box office, and the long and short of it is that this new Toy Story movie, this offshoot, Lightyear, which, again, this was a film about the backstory of the toy Buzz Lightyear in the world, in the Toy Story world.
And it's doing incredibly poorly at the box office, way below projections.
It's basically a box office dud.
Now, you know, for a lot of other movies, $51 million would not be anything close to a dud, but given that this is Toy Story, it's part of the franchise, it's Disney, all of the marketing and media and press that went into this, $51 million is pathetic.
And if you look at some of the headlines in entertainment media today, a lot of the headlines like this and Deadline, they're all trying to figure out, what the heck went wrong?
How could this have happened?
This is a Toy Story brand movie.
They're supposed to do $100 million.
What's going on?
It's a mystery.
Who could possibly explain this?
Well, it's actually not a mystery at all.
I think there are a couple of potential explanations here.
Not potential, but You know, absolute.
One of them is, before we get to the political part of it, one of them is actually that I think there reaches a point where even the standard moviegoer with his famously low standards is just kind of sick and tired of the same old thing.
Just the same thing over and over and over again.
You're just trying to shovel the same Garbage into his mouth over and over and over again?
Making a franchise out of everything?
Like, the first Toy Story movie was just, it was a cute little movie about toys that come to life.
And that was, what, 20 years ago?
And 20 years later, they're still making these same things over and over again.
So I think there's some exhaustion there on the part of the movie going public, as well there should be.
But even more than that, is the fact that this is the woke toy story.
And that's how it was advertised.
And that's what the press was saying.
That's the media attention it was getting.
And people don't want that.
Now, I haven't watched the movie.
I'm not gonna watch it.
As far as I know, the only woke part of the film is that they put this lesbian kiss scene in there between two characters.
I don't know if they're toys or not.
Well, no, these are real people in the Toy Story universe.
So these are, like, real people, but cartoons.
Okay.
So they're not toys, but there's a lesbian kiss scene.
And the media's made much ado about that.
In a positive way.
They're celebrating it.
And we know that Disney, they put that lesbian kiss scene in because, or they put it back in.
Originally, they had it in the story.
They took it out because they figured it didn't really help the story move along.
They needed to cut it for time.
They put it back in after the anti-grooming laws in Florida as a political statement.
And the movie going public wants nothing to do with that.
You know, lots of parents, they don't want to bring their kids to a cartoon movie.
Where there's a lesbian kiss scene.
And they also don't want entertainment that has a political or ideological message.
They're just sick and tired of it.
Now, on Hollywood's part, they can complain about that and say that, oh, we should have an unending, insatiable appetite for this kind of thing.
We should want this content in all of our movies.
If we were truly virtuous people, well, I disagree with that, but even if it was true, it's too bad.
People don't want it.
They especially don't want it from their kids' entertainment.
Okay, there's not a lot of parents out there who want to take their kids to a movie and then leave the movie, and that movie is now an opportunity to have a discussion about LGBT issues.
There aren't very many parents who are looking for that from their entertainment.
So that's why it didn't do well.
Which is why I would say to Hollywood, continue doing this all you want, because it's just total self-destruction.
You're making yourself more and more irrelevant.
As I've said before, I think that you can find kind of a parallel.
This is sort of the bizarro world version of what Christian entertainment has done for so long.
The difference is that with so-called Christian movies, the Christian-branded entertainment, they put, just like woke Hollywood does now, they put the message before anything.
The message is the most important thing.
The difference is that with Christian entertainment, the message is actually good, so that's the good part.
But story comes second.
Plot, writing, acting, all these things are just afterthoughts.
The actual entertainment quality of the thing itself is an afterthought.
And the idea among the Christian people in the Christian entertainment industry is that as long as the message is there, then sort of we've done our job.
But you haven't really.
Because what you should be trying to do is create great entertainment that also has the positive message.
Which maybe means the message could be a little bit more subtle.
Woke Hollywood's doing the same thing.
Taking the message, Only this time it's a bad message.
But the mistake they're making, strategically, is they make the message front and center.
They especially did that with this Lightyear movie.
That's all of the discussion about the Lightyear movie.
It was all about the lesbian kissing.
Nothing to do with the story.
And they're paying the price for it.
Meanwhile, and of course they're not learning their lesson, so Star Wars, we know that the Star Wars franchise in general has gone woke, has arguably been woke from the beginning you might even say, but their Twitter account in particular is very woke.
So they were responding over the weekend to some random Twitter user who said to them, don't make Star Wars political.
And then the Star Wars account responded and said, number one, queer characters existing isn't political.
Number two, Star Wars is literally in our name.
Not exactly sure what they're going for with point two, but number one, they say queer characters existing isn't political.
Well, it is though.
And you've, you've decided that.
So you use the quote unquote queer characters to make political points.
That's exactly what Disney did with, with the light year film.
So, no, that's exactly the case.
You use these characters to make political statements.
That was your decision, not ours.
People have noticed, and they just want no interest.
They have no interest in it.
They want no part of it.
All right, let's go to this from the Daily Wire.
It says, following a slew of violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers, New York Governor Kathy Hochul is inexplicably amping up the rhetoric against pro-lifers, calling them Neanderthals.
Hawk Gill on Monday signed legislation to boost abortion, quote, rights and empower abortion providers in the Empire State.
She said, this is the United States of America where freedom and liberty are supposed to mean something.
It's the rock upon which we were founded.
It is supposed to mean something, except in the eyes of some Neanderthals who say women are not entitled to those rights.
Now, in the article in the Daily Wire, it says it's inexplicable why she's doing this, but I don't think it's actually inexplicable at all.
We have these terrorist attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers, and she is coming in behind that and saying, well, these are a bunch of Neanderthals.
Obviously, the idea is to encourage more of those attacks.
Primarily by dehumanizing, in a very literal sense.
I think the word Neanderthals here was chosen very carefully.
In a very literal sense, to dehumanize pro-lifers.
And we know if you dehumanize people, then you make it easier for the militants and radicals and terrorists in your ranks to justify violent attacks against them.
And I don't want to... People have been predicting this for weeks and have turned out to be wrong, but my prediction is probably this week we're going to finally get the Roe v. Wade decision.
And we know that pro-abortion terrorists have openly been threatening that once this decision comes down, they're going to go all out in their attacks on pro-lifers.
They already have been over the last month or two.
And it doesn't matter how bad it gets.
There is just no universe where people like Kathy Hochul And other pro-abortion people are going to come out and condemn the attacks and tell their own side to calm down and let's be peaceful.
It's not going to happen.
There's no amount of violence that would propel them to do that.
And we saw this, of course, with the BLM riots in 2020.
All right, we'll move to this from the Daily Mail.
It says, President Joe Biden hopped out of church Saturday evening to prove he wasn't injured after falling over on his bike during a ride near his Rehoboth Beach home earlier in the morning.
He's in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware with Jill to mark their 45th wedding anniversary and also to mark Juneteenth weekend.
So he's putting all that together.
So he's got his wedding anniversary, Father's Day, Juneteenth, and he decided to celebrate all those things by going for a nice bike ride.
I'm sure you've seen this footage a million times already, but let's watch it together, you and I, anyway.
So let's see Joe Biden on his bike.
And then he takes a tumble there.
So it looks like he got his foot caught on the pedal, I guess.
But he was sitting still on the bike and he fell over.
And I've seen people on social media trying to justify this and say, hey, people fall over on their bikes all the time.
Do they really?
I mean, I haven't fallen over on a bike since I was like seven.
Granted, I haven't really been on a bike since I was seven, but still.
And do they typically fall over?
So he's got one, okay, if you look at the footage there, he's got one foot on the ground.
And he's standing still, and he just falls over.
That doesn't happen very often.
Even my kids, you don't see that.
And you know how frustrating this has to be for Biden's handlers, because they had this whole thing planned.
The only reason he went for a bike ride was for the purposes of the camera, to prove that he's still spry and young and healthy and everything else.
It was just last week that That the new White House press secretary, Gene Pear, was on CNN and was actually being asked skeptical questions on CNN about Biden's health and his fitness for office.
And they saw how this is now making its way into the left-wing media and they said, well, we got to do something to prove that this guy, okay, he's got another term in him.
That's how healthy he is and energetic.
So they thought, well, what can Biden actually do What can the president do to prove that he's still physically fit?
We know he can't walk up steps.
We know, in fact, just walking in general is a little bit complicated for him.
So they said, look, we'll put him on a bicycle.
That's a good idea.
And they had this whole, the media, everybody was there, all kinds of cameras all around.
They had it all planned out.
Everything is going great.
All of Biden's handlers are thinking, well, this is a great plan.
This is working out great.
We're gonna get a lot of good press off of this.
We're gonna have all this footage of Biden on a bicycle.
We can use it during the campaign.
This will be an ad during the campaign for his re-election.
We could just show Biden on a bicycle and say, look, he can still ride a bike.
Vote for him again.
And everything's going great.
And then he stops and just falls over.
And it ruins the entire publicity campaign.
Why does that happen?
Well, because he's 79 years old.
Losing his mind, not even able to walk, and you have him on a bicycle.
Maybe next time try a stationary bike.
Have him go to Planet Fitness or something and bring all the media along and just have him on a stationary bicycle in the gym for like five minutes and get the footage that way.
Well, even that wouldn't work because that bike was stationary and he still fell off of it.
And I have to say again, you know, there are people laughing about this and then other people saying, well, we shouldn't laugh about an old guy falling off a bicycle.
Um, I disagree.
I'm firmly in the let's laugh about it camp because number one, it's funny.
Okay.
This is just a fact of life.
Watching somebody fall off a bicycle will never not be funny.
It is always funny.
I'm sorry.
But number two, I must remind you that Joe Biden did this to himself.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that laughing at an elderly person as they lose their mental and physical faculties is a cruel thing to do, and I would never ever do that.
I'm not going to go to a nursing home or retirement home and just start pointing and laughing at people.
But he put himself in this position intentionally.
Because of his lust for power.
So it was his own lust for power, his own narcissism, his own greed, which drove him to run for office at the age of 78.
And now he's reaping the consequences of that.
Okay, reap what you sow.
That's what's happening here.
This is all on him.
And he has it all coming, as far as I'm concerned.
All right, let's see what else here.
This is from the post-millennial.
Over the weekend, it was revealed that Uvalde police officers didn't attempt to open the door to the classroom, to the two classrooms where children were trapped during a May 24th shooting that left 19 children and two teachers dead.
Okay, did not attempt to open the door.
Didn't even try to open it.
A law enforcement source close to the investigation told the San Antonio Express News that due to a possible malfunction with door locks inside the building, the doors to the classrooms where shooters Salvador Ramos killed nearly two dozen people may have been unlocked the entire time officers were inside the building, and that officers didn't try to open the door earlier in the standoff.
Surveillance footage from inside the building revealed that officers did not attempt to make an entrance into the door, And Ramos proceeded to classrooms 111 and 112 which are connected with a door in between.
Investigators believe the shooter didn't lock the doors to these classrooms from the inside and that they were likely unlocked the whole time due to a malfunction.
There was also, I'm trying to scan for here, there was also a revelation about Apparently, an officer had a chance to shoot Ramos as he was going into the school or into the classroom, but didn't take the shot because he was afraid that he would miss and shoot somebody else.
And then Ramos goes into the classroom and is in there slowly executing children for an hour, and they didn't even attempt to open the door.
Now, you remember one of the excuses we heard For these officers early on, is that they weren't able to get into the classroom.
They just weren't able to get in.
And that always seems strange to me.
Because, as I said when this first happened, you know, usually a simple locked door is not enough to keep police officers out.
If they think that there's drug money in there, they're gonna bring out the battering ram and just knock the door down.
Use a crowbar.
I mean, there are ways of getting inside a door.
Usually you can't just lock a door and the police officers will say, well, never mind, we can't get in, the door's locked.
So you would think, okay, unless they're in, unless this is Fort Knox or something, or he's trapped inside a bank vault, you would think that they would have a way of easily getting in the door.
But it turns out it's even worse than we thought.
I mean, I figured the door was at least locked and they didn't make any great attempt to get in.
No, they never even turned the knob.
And every few days we get another revelation about this.
More information comes out.
It gets more and more damning for the police officers.
And I suspect that's just going to continue because we still don't know, even now.
You start to kind of piece the puzzle together.
There's still a lot we don't know.
And I think we could probably assume that this trajectory is going to continue.
Or it just gets more and more damning for the police officers as we go along.
But in some ways, it's a pretty simple story.
They were afraid for their lives, and so they didn't go in.
And the officer had a chance to take them out, was afraid you'd miss, then you're going to be held responsible for that.
So just a lot of fear and cowardice.
A very simple story in some ways, but also a...
An enormous, unbelievable scandal also.
All right, this is from last week and I wanted to get a chance to talk about this a little bit.
This is from dnyuz.
It says, an Asian elephant named Happy that has been at the Bronx Zoo for more than 40 years will remain there after New York's highest court ruled on Tuesday that she is not a person in a legal sense and therefore not entitled to a fundamental human right.
By a vote of 5 to 2, the Court of Appeals rejected an animal advocacy organization's argument that Happy was being illegally detained at the zoo and should be transferred to a more natural environment.
The dispute hinged on whether the cornerstone legal principle of habeas corpus, which people assert to protect their bodily liberty and to contest illegal confinement, should be extended to autonomous, cognitively complex animals like elephants.
But the court said no.
Chief Judge wrote, quote, While no one disputes the impressive capabilities of elephants, we reject petitioner's arguments that it is entitled to seek the remedy of habeas corpus on Happy's behalf.
Habeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not non-human animals.
This is where we are in America.
We actually needed a court to declare that Happy the elephant is an elephant and not a person.
And this is actually a complicated... To you and I, it seems pretty simple.
We don't need to take this to court.
You don't need to read the entire opinion written by this court.
I haven't read the entire opinion.
And you probably think you don't need to, because it's... Well, it's... Okay, is the elephant a person?
Well, no.
How do you know that?
Well, because you just said it's an elephant, and elephants and people are two different things.
So, to you and I, it seems simple.
But then again, to you and I, the question of, what does a woman seem simple, turns out that's not so simple to a lot of people, in a lot of people's minds.
And this especially is not simple on the left, and that's why, when this decision came down, lots of people on the left were upset about it, and angry about it, because they think that, yeah, the elephant should have personhood rights.
An elephant should have personhood rights, a child in the womb should not.
How do you make sense of that?
Well, because on the left, the word person, the label person, has nothing to do with being a human.
Just as we have this artificial kind of separation, this bifurcation of sex and gender, well, they've done the exact same thing with human being and person.
And it's the same answer.
Sex and gender, oh, those are two different things.
Well, no, they're not.
They're actually the same.
They're synonyms.
Human being and person are not two separate things.
They are the same.
They're just synonyms.
They're two words for the same thing.
But that's what the left has done, and this is necessary in order to support their position on abortion.
Now, a person is not necessarily a human being, they say.
And a human being is not necessarily a person.
Well, then you have the question, what is a person?
They can't define it.
You know, maybe that should be the follow-up to What is a Woman?
We have a film, What is a Person?
And that, to the left, is going to seem even more complicated.
I mean, just a woman, a person who is a woman, that sentence alone, that's a very complicated sentence.
Every word in that little short sentence is very complicated and impossible to define.
But if they were to try to break it down, they would say that being a person has something to do with cognitive ability, something to do with self-awareness, something to do with your faculties.
Your intelligence, IQ, you know, they would wrap all that up in the personhood title, and then that raises all kinds of questions.
And if that's the case, then okay, then you've just made an elephant a person, but obviously unborn children are not.
That's what you intended.
What about newborn babies?
What about elderly people with dementia?
What about Joe Biden?
I mean, all these questions are none of them people.
You end up with confusion.
And that, of course, is the whole idea.
It's just to take something that once had a solid, understandable meaning and make it confused, arbitrary, impossible to define.
And once you've done that, it's very easy because they can come along and they get to decide, on a case-by-case basis, who these labels apply to.
And that, of course, is the whole point.
Well, we all get heartburn at the pump these days, and it seems like there's no relief in sight, especially if you're waiting around for the Biden administration to make things easier for you.
That's not going to happen.
But here's the good news.
out there in the free market, there are people coming up with innovations that do make it easier.
And one of them is the great app that if you don't have yet, you need to get, 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 you can go to Google Play.
Use promo code Walsh for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first fill up.
That's all cash back.
Very simple, easy.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore.
Get cash back using Upside.
Just download the app for free.
Use promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first tank.
And by the way, it's not just for gas.
You can earn cash back at grocery stores, restaurants, takeout food, and you can cash out anytime to your bank account or you can get an e-gift card for select retailers and brands.
Just download the free Upside app.
Go there right now.
Use promo code WALSH to get 25 cents per gallon or more cash back on your first tank.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Lego David says, you know, we hear so much these days about women's rights, gay rights, trans rights, etc.
We barely hear anything about children's rights.
Children have some fundamental rights that need to be protected, and most people on the left couldn't care any less about them, except for the part where they indoctrinate them.
Matt Walsh is a true hero, one of the very few defenders of children's rights.
I don't know about the hero bit, but the rest of it, you're exactly right.
You know, we take this idea of rights, and then we assign it to different groups of people, so we have different labels, different types of rights.
As you say, trans rights, women's rights, all these different rights.
When really, there's only supposed to be, if the word rights has any meaning at all, it's just supposed to be human rights, and anyone who's a human being has those rights.
But when the left talks about rights, they don't really mean rights anymore, they mean privileges.
Okay?
They mean special accommodations, is what they really mean.
But if we're going to play this game and break people down into categories and then say, well, here are the rights you have if you're in this category.
Here are the rights you have in this category.
Yeah, you would think that we would do that with children.
We would be talking about, well, maybe we should have a children's bill of rights.
I wouldn't necessarily support that.
I don't think we should need that because, again, the bill of rights that applies to children should just be the bill of rights.
We shouldn't need to have a separate one.
But they don't do that with children.
And why is that?
Because, well, because as we've seen, they hate children.
I think it's as simple as that.
Virginia House says, OK, I do consider myself a firm mom.
That being said, everything you said about kids is so true and much, much more.
I have three children, had three children.
The relationship and bond of parent and child is so indescribable.
The love and pride of someone that you Either brought into this world or even adopted is amazing and at times overwhelming.
This is just the beginning of parental feelings.
As much as I love my animals, there's no comparison to how I feel about my children.
I have lost pets and it's heartbreaking.
It hurts very badly, but there's no hurt in this world that compares to losing a child.
No pain, no depth of grief comes close.
I very much disapprove of anybody using the fur mom or fur dad or fur parent label, as I explained on the show, because you're not actually the parent of your pet.
But if you're going to do it, then at least you should be able to demonstrate that you understand the hierarchy of these things and that you don't actually class your fur child in the same category as your actual children.
So I'm glad that you don't, at least.
But the way that many pet owners talk about their pets and treat their pets, it really does seem as though they would put their dog on the same footing as their actual child.
Mark says, I like the idea of comparing drag to blackface.
Can we start calling it dragface?
It really has a good ring to it.
I think womanface works perfectly fine.
I think that's what we should call it, actually.
Cat is Table says, I practically never comment on videos, but I had to say, in all honesty, the description of the experience of parenthood has me pumped to one day be a father.
Thank you.
Well, you should be pumped about it.
It's an exciting thing to be a parent.
Let's see.
LK23 says, Matt, why are you so uncomfortable with birthdays?
It's so weird.
Who hurt you as a child?
Because I don't...
There are some human things that I can't understand and relate to.
I'm like Spock, I guess, and birthdays is one of them.
I just don't understand why that should be celebrated.
So I've existed for another year on Earth.
Okay, great.
Now, if you did something during that year, that is worthy of celebration if you achieve something,
then let's celebrate that.
I'm all about celebrating achievements is my point.
So celebrating an achievement is great, but simply existing for another year on Earth
is not in and of itself an achievement.
Now, if you survived some sort of life-threatening calamity in the meantime,
if you went to war, if you got over a severe illness, if you cancer went into remission or something like that,
Well, then surviving another year is an achievement, but then we're just celebrating that.
We're celebrating the achievement.
So I reject on principle that we should All be celebrated simply for existing another year.
That's my point about birthdays.
Augusto says two points.
One, I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Pelosi's statement.
Private beliefs are private beliefs, but they should not dictate policy.
That is not a contradictory position to hold.
And two, Israel drafts women into the military, albeit for two years instead of three, and not into combat roles.
A society can exist in a democratic sense and employ that policy.
Well, to your second point, I don't care what policies other countries have.
Some countries draft children into war.
My point is that for us, submitting to the drafting of our daughters into battle would represent, I think, just a sort of full-scale surrender as a society.
To your first point, you say private beliefs shouldn't dictate policy.
Very similar to the people who say you should never legislate morality, right?
Very similar idea.
And just like that idea, what you're saying here makes no sense at all.
Private beliefs don't dictate policy.
Okay, well, let me ask you.
What does dictate the policies that a politician supports, if not their private beliefs?
Do you want them to support policies they don't believe in?
Do you want them to support policies that they think other people believe in, but they don't?
But even then, they would be supporting policies based on their belief that the beliefs of the public matter.
So, no matter what they're doing, of course they're going to be motivated by their own private beliefs.
Just like every law that is passed is a law that legislates morality.
It may be legislating morality wrongly.
It may be legislating morality ineffectively.
It may be legislating the wrong morality entirely, but every single law that is passed, it is passed because the people passing it believe that it's right, that it's good, that this is what we should be doing.
You know, if we pass a law making something illegal, it's because we believe that the thing we're making illegal is wrong, you shouldn't do it, it's harmful, whatever.
So it always comes down to morality, just like it always comes down to personal beliefs.
So your point makes no sense.
But otherwise, thanks for listening and for leaving the comment.
Big things are happening here at the Daily Wire. We've got the most talked about documentary in America
What is a woman if you've seen the movie now's your chance to read the book which came out last week and is available
on Amazon or wherever you buy books and we also have the
summer movie terror on the prairie starring Gina Carano Disney tried to cancel her but we uncancel her and now you
can see her like you've never seen her before in this riveting Western that will keep you on the edge of your seat
There has never been a better time to become a Daily Wire member.
Every time you subscribe, you not only make a leftist cry, which is the best part, but you also invest in the future of conservative entertainment and documentaries that challenge the woke narrative.
Not only that, but your membership means you can access our entire library of content, including What Is A Woman?, Tara on the Prairie, and so much more.
Head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join us today.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Also, speaking of exciting things, I have to tell you, my dearest sweet babies, though you are well aware that I am the most generous of the theocratic fascist dictators out there, you may still be surprised by this announcement.
We are releasing a bonus installment in my patch program for the month of June.
You heard that right.
I'm giving you yet another reason to send me your money over at dailywire.com slash shop.
And so I geniusly, if that's even a word, dreamed up a few episodes back the Virtue Signal patch And it's here.
I said we need to make it, and just like with a wave of my hand, it materialized just like that, the Virtue Signal Patch.
Whether it's a BLM fist, Ukraine, or the Pride flag, the Virtue Signal Patch will help you maintain the moral high ground over the rest of society.
You don't have to worry about keeping up with the current thing, because you've got the Virtue Signal Patch and your Virtue Signaling, and that covers all of it, okay?
It's a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And you're good to go.
If you ask me, it's a sound investment because the pride flag alone changes too often to justify purchasing.
But no matter the cost, this patch will help you stay one step ahead of the flock by showing your support for the current thing.
So get your VirtueSignal patch over at the Daily Wire shop right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
The comedian W. Kamau Bell is one of those interesting sorts of comedians who has made the bold choice to never be funny.
Like so many other comedians today, Bell calls himself a comedian and yet has never made anyone laugh ever in his life.
He's never been involved in a funny joke.
Unless his career itself is the joke.
In fact, Bell is so relentlessly unfunny and uninteresting that he received the most damning professional indictment imaginable, which is a show on CNN.
He's the host of United Shades of America, where he preaches about race.
I assume.
I haven't seen it, and neither has anybody else, so we can only speculate.
Bell was also hired as a spokesman for something called the Abortion Access Fund, where he produced a Father's Day PSA encouraging men to celebrate Father's Day by supporting women by becoming pro-abortion feminists, because that's how you support women, he says.
Now, we'll play the thing in a minute, and this is not my main objection that I would raise to this PSA.
We'll get to those in a moment.
But we should note how this is yet another Father's Day message that isn't really for or about fathers.
For whatever reason, we're not allowed to simply just celebrate fathers in this country.
All of the marketing and messaging around Mother's Day is about how wonderful mothers are.
But for Father's Day, we talk about the things that fathers are doing wrong.
Father's Day is mostly an afterthought, like a participation trophy we give to dads after all the over-the-top festivities for Mother's Day.
And when it is acknowledged, it's usually to lecture men about their failures.
So we give fathers the gift of nagging for Father's Day, as if they didn't already have an endless supply of that readily on hand.
But that's neither here nor there, as the problem with this pro-abortion Father's Day message goes way beyond the issues I just raised.
See for yourself.
Check it out.
Dad does so much for the family.
This Father's Day, give him what he really needs.
Not a home-brewing kit, not socks.
Give him safe and legal access to abortion.
Hello, I'm noted male feminist W. Kamau Bell.
Do you know how much I've spent on birth control in my life?
$213, mostly on condoms that expire to my wallet.
Do you know how much my wife has spent?
$17,530.
[cash register sound]
Dads, if you've ever had sex and not had a kid, it's likely birth control or abortion played a role.
Okay, we have to stop it already, because Bell has proven that he can't talk about issues related to the female body without descending into these amateurish misconceptions in about 40 seconds.
The left, you know, because they have no other rebuttal, they like to accuse pro-life men of being sexless incels who don't know anything about women.
I've always found this charge interesting, given that I have a wife and four children, but it turns out Not surprisingly, that pro-abortion men are the ones who understand very little about the female body.
The ones who've actually enjoyed the company of a woman, because they managed to find one with low enough standards to accommodate them, seem to view birth control and abortion as magical elixirs that simply make babies, and thus their responsibilities, simply disappear.
They imagine, apparently, that without birth control, a baby would materialize after every sexual encounter.
That's why Bell says that if a man has ever had sex and not had a baby, it's because of birth control or abortion.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that women are not fertile every day of the month.
In fact, they aren't fertile most days of the month.
A woman's body works in cycles, and she's only capable of conceiving a child for a certain short period during that cycle, usually about six days.
Which means that most of the times you've had sex and not had a baby, it has nothing to do with birth control or abortion.
In fact, there are couples, if you can believe it, who don't use birth control at all, and have sex frequently, and don't end up with 900 kids.
That's not a miracle of science, it's just science.
And you might want to learn a thing or two about it before recording another PSA on the subject.
Let's continue.
You're used to not having to worry about it.
But nobody ever got pregnant from a vibrator.
For that you need... A spoon and an egg!
A spoon and an egg!
That's right.
See, the majority of people seeking abortions are already parents.
They know what's right for their families.
They would know if having another kid would send them spiraling into poverty.
It definitely would.
Oh my God.
Funny you should mention God, because there's literally no mention of the word abortion in here.
Just like in here, there's no mention of how the state is going to help these families if they're forced to bury these children.
It's almost like this is just a way for a few fragile men to use religion to control our bodies.
So remember the rule here.
If somebody is bringing up religion in the context of the abortion debate, it's almost always going to be a leftist.
In this case, Bell pulls out the Bible to make the case for abortion, and then in the next sentence, accuses pro-lifers of doing the same.
He says that abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, except that it is, plain as day, right in the Ten Commandments.
Thou shalt not kill is the injunction, quite famously.
Actually, correctly translated, the commandment is to, quote, do no murder.
This is how Jesus quotes the passage in Matthew 19, 18.
Do no murder.
Thou shalt not murder.
There are, of course, many different forms of murder and many different ways that people are murdered, and the Bible doesn't bother itself with listing every single potential version of the crime because there's no need to.
If you're killing an innocent and defenseless human being, you are committing murder and therefore running afoul of God's commandment.
Abortion kills an innocent and defenseless human being, and so it is murder.
Therefore, abortion is mentioned in the Bible.
Now, this is not how I would choose to argue my case if I'm talking to a secular person.
My first point would not be that the Bible forbids it, but since he brought it up, I feel the need to correct the record.
Speaking of things that aren't mentioned in places, do you know what the Bill of Rights never mentions?
Abortion.
In fact, it never mentions abortion or anything related to abortion or anything that could be remotely interpreted as having something to do with abortion.
The word abortion never appears anywhere in the Constitution.
Abortion is not a constitutional right, but rather a right invented by nine people in robes in 1973.
All of those people, by the way, were men.
Alright, now for some reason we're going to continue watching this, so let's keep going.
Daddy's doing a PSA.
Okay.
Ask any parent.
Parenting is a job.
A wonderful, very difficult job.
And since when does America force anybody to do a job against their will without paying them by controlling their bodies?
So as we celebrate Father's Day, let's also celebrate birth control, abortion, and bodily autonomy, because man have we benefited from those.
So enjoy your day, guys, and welcome to the fight.
We've been waiting for you.
Happy Father's Day!
I got you some.
Parenting is a difficult job, he says, which is why parents should have the option to kill their children instead.
And this is the argument the man is making while holding his own daughter.
It's almost as if pro-abortion activists are soulless psychopaths.
I don't know.
He also draws a parallel between the pro-life position and slavery, claiming that we enslave women by, quote, forcing them to do a job against their will.
The problem with this comparison is that being a parent is not merely a job, okay?
Any more than being a son or a daughter is merely a job.
Parent describes a natural biological relationship.
This is my whole argument for why you shouldn't call yourself the parent of your dog.
Slavery, on the other hand, describes an unnatural, oppressive, man-made construct.
If you're a parent, it means that you have conceived a human being.
And that alone makes you a parent by definition.
The job part describes the legal and moral responsibilities that come with this relationship.
Slaves have no natural responsibility to their owners, which is what makes slavery a horrible injustice.
Parents do have natural responsibilities to their children, which is why nearly all societies in history, including our own, legally require parents to care for their children or else find somebody else who will.
The only question is whether that responsibility should begin at the moment when the child comes into being at conception or at some arbitrary point thereafter.
Pro-abortion people favor the arbitrary point.
In favoring the arbitrary point, they reject the personhood of children before the point they've decided and arbitrarily rejecting a human being's personhood so as to deprive that person of basic human rights and of their dignity.
is exactly what happened with slavery.
So, Bell is right to make the slavery comparison.
He just forgot that, in this analogy, he's on the side of the slave owners.
The video ends with men being encouraged to celebrate abortion, birth control, and bodily autonomy, lumping all these things together in one category.
You may recall that the left used to passionately deny that abortion is used as birth control, and now they seem to have dropped the act entirely.
And now he's putting them together.
It's the same thing.
The relative honesty is at least one positive thing in this video, we can say.
But it's not enough to save it and W. Kamau Bell from being 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.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
