Ep. 981 - Biden Administration Rants About 'Women's Rights' While Erasing Women
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it went largely unnoticed but last week the Biden Administration officially proposed changes to Title IX that would legally erase women. They did this even as they scream about alleged attacks on women’s rights. Also, horror at the border as 50 people are left to die in the back of a truck after being smuggled across the border. This is what “compassionate” open borders policies gets you. And Kamala Harris launches into a transphobic rant in response to Roe. You have to hear this to believe it. Plus, more celebrities threaten us with a good time by promising to leave the country. And in our Daily Cancellation, we review the work of acclaimed best selling Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman.
Become a Daily Wire member to watch summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie”, the most talked about documentary in America “What Is A Woman”, and so much more. Use code WALSH for 25% off your new membership: https://utm.io/ueHMh
Stream Backstage Live at the Ryman tomorrow at 7pm CST! DailyWire.com/Ryman
—
Today’s Sponsors:
American Financing empowers families with personalized mortgage solutions. From lower rates to shorter terms, and even debt consolidation, their mortgage consultants can do it all! Call (866) 569-4711 for a FREE mortgage review, or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "WALSH" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.
Reliefband® is the #1 FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband. Get 20% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at reliefband.com.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, it went largely unnoticed, but last week the Biden administration officially proposed changes to Title IX that would legally erase women.
And they did this even as they scream about alleged attacks on women's rights.
We'll talk about that.
Also, horror at the border as 50 people are left to die in the back of a truck after being smuggled across the border.
This is what compassionate open borders policies gets you.
And Kamala Harris launches into a transphobic rant in response to Roe.
You have to hear this to believe it.
Awful stuff.
Plus, more celebrities threaten us with a good time by promising to leave the country because Roe was overturned.
In our daily cancellation, we review the work of acclaimed best-selling poet laureate Amanda Gorman.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
That summer vacation that you've planned is expensive on its own.
But now let's add in the higher cost of gas and credit card fees,
which are already close to 19%, are expected to rise again soon.
It's becoming impossible to save any money to enjoy some time away after all your hard work this year.
Don't let all those expenses ruin all of your plans.
Instead, save some money and get a free mortgage review from our friends at American Financing.
Let a salary-based mortgage consultant talk to you about custom loans that can fit your budget better.
I mean it.
From your home loans, your equity, and even your high-interest debt, they'll review all of it with you, and they will do everything they can to help you save up to $1,000 a month.
Those are huge savings, and it could help you afford that dream summer vacation and afford so much else.
If you're ready to save up to $1,000 a month, all you gotta do is pick up the phone and give them a call.
If you start soon, you could skip two payments and may close in as fast as 10 days.
Just call 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net, NMLS 182334, NMLSconsumeraccess.org.
While the left can take solace in the fact that the recent sanity and restraint of the
Supreme Court will be counteracted by the recklessness, lunacy, and blatant criminality
of the Dementia administration.
In fact, Biden's HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra announced yesterday that the White House will likely start providing tax-funded transportation To people seeking out-of-state abortions.
Now, is that actually legal?
Is it legal for the federal government to use tax money to pay to ship people across state lines to get abortions because it's illegal in their state?
Well, the legality of it is a small detail of course, but here was Becerra's answer.
Listen to this.
What are you doing concretely in response to the court's decision to try to help women?
Well, we're working with centers like Planned Parenthood, so we are restoring funding for Title 10 family planning services.
We are working with supporters on the ground to make sure that we are providing services to women where we can.
We are looking into everything including assisting in transportation, something that HHS doesn't typically do.
Can you do that legally?
Talk to me later.
I mean, that's a big question, right?
I always tell my team at HHS, if you've done your homework, then we have no right to do mild.
And so we're going to be aggressive and go all the way.
And I would tell you if you're recording, so I won't tell you.
This is all on the record, Mr. Secretary.
We are looking at every option, and among those is transportation.
Say that again?
We are looking at every option, and among those is transportation.
Transporting women to other states.
Hilarious.
Let's all have a nice laugh at the government official openly declaring his intention to break the law.
Now, it's guaranteed that everyone in the audience, plus the two people on stage, have frequently claimed that Trump, Donald Trump, was undermining and destroying our democracy through illegal activity that nobody could ever exactly specify or prove.
But the Biden administration can make a joke out of their criminality, and the same people simply laugh.
This is what happens when party loyalty eats your brain.
Now, speaking of breaking the law, amid all of the celebration last week, the Biden administration did something else.
Rather, amid the conservative celebrating, the rightful conservative celebrating, there's something the Biden administration did amid all of that that should attract much more notice than it has so far.
The day before the Roe decision was announced, only 24 hours before the left dissolved into apoplectic rage, screaming that women were being murdered and so on, the Biden administration proposed illegal changes to the law with the intention of officially erasing women.
They erased women, and then a day later were accusing the other side of erasing women by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Now, the law is Title IX.
And before we can talk about what Biden is doing to Title IX and with it today, we need to backtrack a bit, I think, and lay some groundwork.
So, Title IX has been really, in many ways, destructive and intentionally confusing since its inception.
As it originally appears in the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX simply states that, quote, No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Now that sounds clear enough, right?
And it's hard to argue with the underlying principle.
A public, federally funded institution should be open to everybody and nobody should be excluded based simply on their sex.
Sounds simple, but then again, a statement like, uh, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also sounds pretty clear and straightforward and simple, and yet politicians and bureaucrats have found ways of obscuring that point.
And the same happened with Title IX, and it happened almost immediately.
The first consequence, intended or unintended, was that under the guise of Title IX, men's athletic programs across the country were shut down, hundreds of them at a time.
It was decided that the prohibition on excluding people on the basis of sex meant somehow that every university must have an equal number of men's and women's sports teams and an equal number of male and female athletes.
And this absurd quota system was codified into law, well, codified bureaucratically anyway, as presidential administrations just began adding to Title IX legislation, even though adding to or amending legislation is supposed to be a power reserved for the legislative branch.
And by the time of the Clinton administration, the assault on men's sports, we got to women's sports, the assault on women's sports later, but originally it was an assault on men's sports.
And by the time we got to the Clinton administration in the 90s, this assault was well underway.
Universities that could not conjure up enough female athletes to match the number of male athletes had to start shutting down male sports teams for the sake of compliance.
Of course, what these quota systems never took into account is that men tend to be more interested in sports than women, and people in general, right, tend to be more interested in watching men's sports than in watching women's sports.
And all of this adds up to a perfectly rational, non-discriminatory, non-sexist reason for colleges to have more male athletes and to spend more money on male sports.
But, too bad, said the bean counters.
Make it equal, make it 50-50, no matter what it takes.
At the same time, the issue of sexual harassment got tangled up in the Title IX enforcement web.
Now, once again, in principle, everyone agrees that sexual harassment is bad and should be punished.
Seems pretty simple.
But Title IX says nothing at all about sexual harassment or sexual assault.
The law simply doesn't, you know, it's not meant to deal with that problem because not every law can deal with every problem simultaneously.
You need separate laws to handle separate issues.
But not so, said the bureaucrats.
If a school is not doing enough, according to the bureaucrats, to root out and punish sexual harassers, then they're discriminating based on sex and they're out of compliance with Title IX.
It was decided.
But what is sexual harassment exactly?
How do you define it?
And how should schools be punishing it?
If we're talking about criminal harassment, shouldn't this be left to law enforcement and the criminal courts to adjudicate?
Lots of ambiguity was created, and totalitarian bureaucrats, as we know, love nothing more than ambiguity.
Soon, sexual harassment had become a category encompassing a wide range of speech, and the alleged sexual harassers were being tried and convicted in these Title IX kangaroo courts and these extrajudicial tribunals.
Without any opportunity to defend themselves or face their accusers, there was no evidentiary burden put on the accusers.
Someone is just accused, the kangaroo court says you're guilty, and then their life is ruined.
That was until the Trump administration.
As an article in the Wall Street Journal notes, quote, the high court has been clear that most speech does not rise to the level of unlawful sexual harassment.
Unfortunately, before 2020, many universities routinely used Title IX as a club against protected speech, with Northwestern University famously initiating a Title IX investigation against a professor merely for publishing an article that offended some students.
In 2020, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tried to right the ship by issuing a regulation that reiterated the legal boundary between protected speech and sexual harassment as determined by the Supreme Court in Davis-First Monroe County Board of Education.
In that 1999 decision, the court held that a Title IX violation occurs only when the behavior is, quote, so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive as to deny the victim access to education on the basis of sex.
The DeVos regulation sought to enforce that legal principle.
But now, the Biden administration has leaped into action.
Sensing another area of existence where they could wreak havoc and another avenue through which to inject more misery and confusion into American life, Joe Biden has, as of last week, Officially proposed changes to Title IX.
Again, changes that he by no means has any legal power to actually enact, but what does that matter?
Here's the Wall Street Journal on Biden's proposed Title IX adjustments, and this was the official proposal that was issued just last week.
It says, the Biden administration's promise to repeal the 2020 rule and broaden the definition of harassment would effectively overturn a Supreme Court ruling by administrative fiat, ushering in the return of unconstitutional speech codes designed to silence dissent.
The Biden rules are also likely to roll back due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.
In the American legal system, accused persons have a right to receive timely notice of the accusations against them, view evidence, and present their side of the story to an impartial arbiter.
But in the years before the DeVos regulation, many students had their lives ruined by campus kangaroo courts in which the mere accusation of misconduct was sufficient for punishment.
Nearly 200 of these students sued their universities for violating their rights and received favorable court rulings.
The DeVos regulation required schools to comply with these legal rulings.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is set to give a federal seal of approval back to these college star chambers.
But that's not all.
Not even close.
The proposed change, delivered by the Department of Education on the 50th anniversary of Title IX, would also finally and officially erase the whole entire original point of Title IX by legally erasing women from existence, essentially.
The new rule would also, quote, pretend—this is reading from the rule now— It would protect LGBTQI plus students from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.
So yes, gender identity would be a protected category under Title IX.
So this piece of legislation that was written to protect people against discrimination based on sex will be changed By the executive branch just by declaring it to add gender identity into it.
Now, needless to say, the original wording of Title IX makes no mention of gender identity.
And that's probably because at the time of the higher education amendments of 1972, the concept of gender identity had only just been invented by the pedophile John Money a few years before.
None of the people involved with creating Title IX had heard of gender identity.
Hardly anyone in the world had heard of it.
John Money had only recently plucked this concept out of his fevered, degenerate imagination and was still at the time in the process of attempting to verify it through a years-long sexually abusive experiment on two young boys who were both driven to suicide.
Now, 50 years later, this incoherent, nonsensical concept invented by the sexologist equivalent of Joseph Mangala is, or will be soon, a matter of federal law.
And the effect is that now the very accommodations and facilities for women, which Title IX was meant to establish and protect, will be taken away.
Because now, according to Biden, a man's gender identity as a woman, that is, his perception of himself as a woman, is as valid, as legally legitimate, as legally protected as a woman's actual physical identity as a woman.
Now, the Department of Education explained in a statement, quote, The proposed regulations will advance Title IX's goal of ensuring that no person experiences sex discrimination, sex-based harassment, or sexual violence in education.
As the Supreme Court wrote in Bostock v. Clayton County, it is impossible to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity without discriminating against the individual based on sex.
The regulations will require that all students receive appropriate support in accessing all aspects of education.
Now that doesn't make any sense, even on the left's own terms.
Of course, they can't really explain what gender identity is exactly, because the idea itself makes no sense.
They also can't explain what sex is, or what a woman is, or what anything is anymore.
But to the extent that they can say anything semi-intelligible about gender identity, they are the ones who always insisted that gender identity is not the same as sex.
These are two different things, they claimed.
Yet now we're told that it's impossible to discriminate on the basis of gender identity without discriminating on the basis of sex?
How so, if the two things are totally different and separate?
Well, the answer is that they're not separate things, not anymore.
They were for years when it was useful for them to be.
They were back when this whole thing was invented by John Money.
But now the cause of LGBT rights demands that gender identity and sex be put on the exact same footing.
A man who says he's a woman must be seen as a woman in every sense, including in the biological sense.
It would hurt his feelings if any difference at all was acknowledged.
This was a move made by activists a while ago.
They have long since collapsed the very sex versus gender distinction that they engineered.
But now, through this Title IX change, it'll become a matter of law.
Women will be officially, completely, finally erased as a distinct legal category.
And so will men.
I mean, neither group exists anymore.
We're all squished together in this hazy, indistinguishable muddle.
All of this for the sake of the LGBT lobby.
They've been given everything they want for years.
And now they want to erase women officially, legally.
Just the entire category out the window.
And if Biden has anything to say about it, they'll be given that too.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, did you know that one out of three Americans regularly suffer from nausea?
If nausea is getting in the way of enjoying life's important moments for you, I've got some good news.
You gotta check out Reliefband.
Reliefband is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that's been clinically proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
How it works is relief band stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls nausea, then it blocks the signal your brain is sending to your stomach telling you that you're sick.
So it's just like the name says, it's legitimately a band you wear on your wrist to give you relief from nausea, and you can change the intensity depending on how you're feeling and how sick you're feeling.
You can make it stronger or weaker, whatever you want.
It's just that simple.
Plus the product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, and provides all-natural, long-lasting relief with zero side effects.
I've been using ReliefBand for years now to deal with the car sickness that I have and everyone knows I don't go anywhere without my trusty ReliefBand by my side and in fact on my wrist.
So, if you're finally taking that summer trip that's been on your calendar since 2020, I've got good news for you.
Right now you can join the over 100,000 ReliefBand users with an exclusive offer just for Matt Walsh listeners.
If you go to ReliefBand.com, And use promo code Walsh, you'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked 30 day money back guarantee.
Remember, it's better to have a relief band and not need it than to need it and not have it.
So head to R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com and use promo code Walsh for 20% off plus free shipping.
All right, we begin with something completely horrifying, unfortunately.
This is the latest from CNN.
It says, 50 migrants are believed to have died after they and others were found in sweltering conditions in a semi-truck in San Antonio.
A federal law enforcement official said on Tuesday in a scene that the mayor called a horrific human tragedy.
The death toll, which the city's fire chief gave Monday as 46, includes migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, according to officials.
Their discovery Monday comes as U.S.
federal authorities have launched an unprecedented operation to disrupt human smuggling networks amid an influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
So, these were, and there's still a lot that isn't known about this, including, at least according to the latest report I read, how exactly these people died.
It would seem apparent that they were just Left locked in the back of this truck and just kind of left and abandoned there.
To die, I mean, an unthinkable death.
And there are many children who are also a part of the death toll here.
Now, why did this happen?
Like, who's responsible for it?
Well, the first person responsible for it is whoever did it, like the human smugglers who brought these people across and then just left them to cook to death in the back of a truck.
That individual or those people are responsible for their own actions, obviously.
But can you point the finger anywhere else?
Well, yes, you obviously can.
You can point it at the Biden administration.
You can point it at the left.
You can point it at the Democrat Party.
For their open borders policies, That empower and enable human smugglers.
And encourage, like enticing human smugglers to do exactly this.
This is what your compassionate, your so-called compassionate open borders policies, this is what it gets you.
This is what it leads to.
Certainly these 46 or 50 people are not the first, far from the first.
I mean hundreds, thousands of people have died due to these kinds of policies.
And we're talking about illegal immigrants who have died in the process of being smuggled across.
We're talking about American citizens who have died at the hands of some of the people who have been able to come across.
So here's what it comes down to, I think.
If you want to avoid these kinds of unimaginable human tragedies, here's what it comes down to.
You have two options, okay, when it comes to immigration.
One, Is to completely open the borders, have actual open borders, like officially, and just announce, we don't have borders anymore, they don't exist, and so anyone can come, and you don't have to even worry about being a citizen, none of that exists anymore.
Maybe stop issuing birth certificates.
Birth certificates are transphobic anyway most of the time because they say male or female on them.
Stop issuing birth certificates, stop issuing social security cards, stop issuing anything like that.
Nobody has official identification and the country, we all just exist on this plot of land and there is no actual country anymore.
So that's one thing you could do.
And if you do that, now I said that these are options that would avoid and mitigate these human tragedies, there'd be a lot of terrible tragedies that would happen as a result of that, but you wouldn't have human smugglers because there'd be no reason to smuggle people across because there is no border to smuggle them across.
So that's one option.
The only other option to avoid this particular problem of human smugglers murdering people is to strictly enforce the borders.
So either you just have none at all, or you strictly enforce them.
Anything in between those two options, you're going to have this.
So then, which one should we have?
Because if you're going to have borders, then you have to enforce them.
And if you're not going to enforce them, the worst possible, like the worst of all worlds, is to have the border but not enforce it.
So which one should you go with?
Seems pretty obvious to me, and not just to me, but to pretty much everyone who's ever existed, and every country that's ever existed, that the latter option is the one you go with.
You have borders and you enforce them.
There's never been a country in history that has just had no borders at all, and not worried about having any kind of national identity or national sovereignty at all.
There's never been a country that's just given up on that, because there can't be.
Because the moment you give up on that, then you cease to exist as a country.
You're not even a country anymore.
And if you're not a country anymore, then there's no reason for anyone to come.
You can't offer refuge to anyone, even if you wanted to.
So having complete open borders and essentially no country at all just doesn't make any sense.
That's the end of the country.
That doesn't make any sense.
And if you're worried about helping immigrants, you're certainly not going to do that if you simply give up on the country, on having a country.
Which leaves us with the option of you have borders and you enforce them strictly.
You enforce them with men with guns.
That's what almost every other country in the world does.
They have borders and they have men with guns enforcing those borders.
Patrolling those borders.
And that's what we should have.
And you do that and you're not going to have 50 immigrants who are left to cook to death in the back of a truck.
Like you send the message out to the human smugglers, don't even try it.
Okay, you try it and we're gonna catch you, we're gonna make your life a nightmare.
I mean, if you're really serious about it, you know what you would do?
One thing you would do is you would have a mandatory sentence, capital punishment, execution for human smugglers.
You really want to get serious about it, that's what you would do.
You try to smuggle people across the border.
Given that human smugglers are some of the worst human beings on earth, and obviously a clear and present danger to innocent people, women, and children, then you send the message, we catch you smuggling people across, we're going to convict you of the crime, and then we're going to execute you.
In short order.
That would actually be the compassionate thing.
You really care about people, that's the compassionate policy.
All right, let's move to this.
The left right now is having a hard time deciding where to direct their rage and hysteria.
As we talked about yesterday, the Supreme Court issued another wildly correct and necessary ruling on Monday reaffirming the existence of the First Amendment, which is good, and the First Amendment gives As we found out in this case, it gives a football coach the right to pray on the field with whichever players volunteer to participate.
That's the actual exercise and expression of religion.
And you have that right in the First Amendment.
And as we established yesterday, when a coach kneels on a football field and prays, he is not a member of Congress enacting legislation to establish a state religion.
Just because a coach is praying on the field, that doesn't mean that's the state religion and everyone has to do it.
So he has the right to do that.
And that came, of course, on the heels of the Dobbs decision, which came directly on the heels of the decision affirming our Second Amendment rights.
So there's a lot of outrage to go around for the left, and they're taking sort of a machine gun approach and spraying these talking points all over the place just to see if it hits any target.
One talking point they've settled on for the religious liberty case is this.
And we have a few examples of it, so here just from Twitter, a few examples, and this talking point is all over the place.
Nancy Armour says, this is, and reacting to the Supreme Court decision about the coach praying on the field, this is, to put it politely, BS.
If he was a Muslim or Jewish coach, you can be sure the ruling would have been different.
And then what else do we have?
There's a bunch of them.
Michelle Fate says, in case you were not convinced already that we're living in a theocracy, you know this would not have gone down this way if the coach was Muslim or Jewish or Catholic.
Holy S, Supreme Court sides with coach who sought to pray after the game.
Okay, so there's another one.
It wouldn't have happened.
This is an interesting, this is a political cartoon in the Washington Post.
And it says, if you're okay with this, and then you see a picture of a coach praying on the field, then you should be okay with this.
And then it's a picture of, this is a Satanist coach who's not praying, but he set up satanic iconography and candles and stuff on the field.
So if you're okay with having The coach pray, then you should also be okay with like a satanic ritual in the middle of the football field.
So that's a similar talking point.
Jamil Hill always has a great insight to offer.
He says, the issue wasn't about him praying, but that he was pressuring other students to join him.
Please let a Muslim coach try this and see what happens.
Okay, so you get the idea.
Now, Ben Wexler, who I think is a comedian, allegedly says, I bet this ruling wouldn't have gone this way had it been Muslims or Jews.
Okay, so we get the idea.
If this was Muslims, if this coach was Jewish, totally different thing.
Supreme Court would have ruled against him.
Conservatives would be rooting against him.
Now, this line is monumentally stupid for a number of reasons.
One of those reasons is that in the decision on Monday, in the actual decision itself, if you read the decision, they actually specifically mention the religious rights of Muslims.
They mention and affirm the religious rights of Muslims in the language of the decision.
Also, the court has, in the last few years, in an opinion I believe that was written by Scalia, an 8-1 decision, just a few years ago, defended the religious rights of Muslims.
Saying in that case that a Muslim woman was discriminated against because she wasn't allowed to wear her hijab at work.
She was working at Abercrombie & Fitch because Abercrombie & Fitch apparently still exists.
So, we know that that's false because we have a recent example of the Supreme Court ruling in a case that had to do with the religious rights of Muslims.
And in that case, rather than a 6-3 decision, it was an 8-1 decision in favor of her.
So actually, the truth is the other way around.
Because it was a Christian, this was a 6 to 3 decision.
If it was a Muslim, recent history shows us it would be a unanimous, or at a minimum, an 8 to 1 decision.
So, that's one reason why this talking point is really stupid.
The other reason is that Once again, the left shows that they simply do not understand their opposition.
And as we've talked about recently, they don't understand us, they assume that we're like them, in that we see everything through a racial and ethnic lens, we judge everything through, you know, we also have this intersectional identity politics thing of our own, and that's how we judge everything.
And before we decide, Whether someone is right or wrong in behaving a certain way, we need to know their skin color, their specific religion, their ethnic background, their sexual orientation, all that kind of stuff.
No, that's not how we operate.
It's just not.
That's not how we see the world.
In fact, the reason we have these stark divisions, one of the main reasons in this country, is that we don't see the world that way.
So you've got two sides who, it's not just that they disagree on the issues, they see the world, they view the world through dramatically different lenses.
So in fact, they may shock the left to discover this, but we actually care about religious liberty.
We actually just believe in it, that's all.
We believe that if you are a member of a religion, that you have the right to practice that religion.
And yes, you can do it on a football field, because why couldn't you?
Would I be okay with a Muslim praying on a football field?
Yes.
Why wouldn't I be okay with that?
I assume that this has already happened.
I assume that there are plenty of Muslim athletes out there at every level of sports, and in every sport, and I assume that they probably pray on the field or on the court.
Great!
Why would I care about that?
That's it.
We believe that people have the right to express their religions.
I think the other thing is that on the left, there are so many euphemisms, and whatever they're saying on any given issue, It's like they don't actually believe what they're saying.
They decide what they believe based on the circumstances.
And this is a consequence of being a relativist.
That there is no real objective truth or anything like that.
There's certainly no objective morality or anything approaching that.
And so what is true and what is factually true and what is morally correct changes depending on the circumstance.
And so that's another reason why they look at us talking about religious liberty, and they simply cannot believe that we actually just believe in religious liberty, no matter who is the one enjoying that right.
But we do.
We actually do.
All right, Kamala Harris gave her first interview after the Roe decision, and she was as eloquent as you might expect.
Let's listen to that.
I couldn't believe it, because they actually did it.
And here's what they did.
The court actually took a constitutional right that has been recognized for half a century and took it from the women of America.
That's shocking.
When you think about it, in terms of what that means, in terms of democratic principles, in terms of the ideals upon which we were founded, about liberty, about freedom, you know, I thought about it as, you know, a parent.
We have two children who are in their twenties, a son and a daughter.
I thought about it as a godparent of teenagers.
I thought of it as an aunt of preschool children.
And a woman yourself.
And a woman myself.
And the daughter of a woman.
And a granddaughter of a woman.
And, you know, my husband and I are actually talking about it.
We have a 23-year-old, and my mother-in-law is in her 80s.
Our daughter will not know the rights for the amount of time that my mother-in-law knew these rights.
Which is the right!
That should be well settled.
That a woman should have to make decisions about her own body.
And when we think about it, everyone has something at risk on this.
I have never heard such a shocking and appalling transphobic rant from someone in the White House.
from the Vice President of the United States to sit there and simply erase pregnant men.
The most marginalized community in the world are pregnant men, and she erases them from existence.
I'm appalled, and I really hope that members of the trans community Members of the LGBT community, such as myself as an LGBT children's author, of course, I hope that we can all remind Kamala Harris, the vice president, that everything she just said, that's gone now.
That is done.
That's finished.
All of that is done.
So you need to recalibrate here.
I know this is the way that you're used to talking about this issue, but that is done now on your side anyway.
So you gotta figure out a different way of approaching this.
I mean, that she would have the gumption to sit there and say, I mean, not only is she saying that this is an issue that only affects women because only women get pregnant, which is nothing but transphobic.
It is a transphobic conspiracy theory that only women get pregnant, number one.
But for her to even say so casually that she's a woman, Well, as a woman myself, how do you know you're a woman?
How do you know that?
I mean, the way these things are defined these days, in fact, they're not defined at all.
I find that to be quite shocking.
In fact, lots of famous and semi-famous people have been chiming in about this.
We have another one.
If you're ready for some comedy, it's been a little heavy so far in the show, so let's do some comedy.
I think a little bit of a comedic relief.
Wanda Sykes, who's a famous comedian, she was on with Stephen Colbert, another famous comedian.
They're doing a late night show.
This is a time to just, you watch the late night shows, you kick back, you relax, you have a good laugh is all.
And so here is a little bit, some more great comedy from Stephen Colbert.
How are you doing?
I'm a black gay woman and I have a daughter, so I'm not doing so well right now.
I'm a little salty.
You're a little salty?
I'm a little salty right now.
Okay.
Yeah.
We'll sprinkle a little salt.
Let's put some flavor on here.
It just sucks, man.
It really does.
I mean, you know, it's like the country, it's no longer a democracy, right?
I mean, it's no longer majority rule.
No, certainly not in the Senate, certainly not in the representation of the Supreme Court.
It's not.
It's no longer majority rule.
And I mean, it's like these judges, they just, they basically lied when they were, you know, during their confirmation hearings, right?
Especially Kavanaugh.
Yeah.
So how can you be a Supreme Court justice and you're just lying?
You know what, they had their fingers crossed or something or what?
It's just a bunch of horse s***, it really is.
[laughter]
[applause]
Last stand.
Go ahead.
No, please ma'am.
No, well to me it's like, the problem is that middle stuff.
It's those states in the middle, that red stuff.
Why do they get to tell us what to do, when the majority of us live out, you know, New York, California, and we're paying for all this crap, really, I mean, right?
Great comedy, as always, from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
I mean, in a certain way it is great comedy, and also it gives us some more insight into the mindset of the elitist liberal, because everything you just heard there was confused, garbled.
Here is where we find this mix, this very potent mixture of Rampant stupidity mixed with this snobby dismissal, you know, this self-important dismissal of the majority of the country.
So, on one hand, she's saying, oh, the red stuff.
She's talking about human beings, by the way.
Those are human beings.
If you disagree with her, if you're a conservative, then you're just red stuff.
Just get rid of it.
Sweep it away.
Whatever.
Maybe just send in the troops, you know, just get rid of them.
Ship them off somewhere.
That's how she views most of the country.
Red stuff.
And while she's saying that, she's also revealing that she does not understand at all how our system of government actually works.
She's saying, it's like, what is it?
What happened to majority rule?
This is a Supreme Court decision, Wanda.
It's majority rule on the court.
Okay, but that's not how the Supreme Court, they don't take a poll of Americans and then decide based on that.
That's just not how the Supreme Court works.
And by the way, just so you know, if things were decided that way, We would not have what you want, which is abortion from, you know, legal abortion from moment of conception all the way till birth.
Because it's only a very small sliver of the most deranged and bloodthirsty and morally debased Americans, like Wanda Sykes and others, who favor that.
So you wouldn't actually want majority rule in the first place.
But either way, that's not how the Supreme Court makes decisions.
But as we know, when institutions, like we talked about a couple days ago, institutions are broken.
They don't work anymore.
They need to be reformed or destroyed, incinerated and rebuilt when they stop doing what the left wants.
The moment they fall out of line, out of step, With what the left demands, they're broken.
That means they're broken now, and they have to be.
We have to get rid of them.
Throw them in the wood chipper.
That's the attitude.
Okay, I want to play one other thing for you.
Actually, a couple of things before we get to the comment section.
So again, we've got, you know, women, especially famous women, in this case a nominally famous woman, telling their abortion stories in response to Roe.
So here's Ireland Baldwin, who's the daughter of famous gunman Alec Baldwin, telling her own story.
And she starts, for some reason, talking about the time she was raped.
And she did not conceive a child during the rape.
So the rape had nothing to do with the abortion whatsoever, but she starts by talking about that.
And then eventually she gets around to talking about the time she actually conceived through consensual sex
and then decided to abort.
And I want you to listen to the reason that she gives.
Listen.
Flash forward to another point in my life when I did have a boyfriend and I did become pregnant.
At that point in time, I would say we were very unhappy together and he made it pretty clear that he never wanted
kids or marriage.
He barely wanted to be in a serious relationship.
I chose to get an abortion because I know exactly what it felt like to be born between two people who hated each other.
Could I have had that baby and put that baby up for adoption?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But choosing to raise a baby without my own financial security, without a loving and supportive partner, that wasn't going to work for me.
I chose me and I would choose me again.
It's your life.
It's your choice.
No, this is great.
I mean, the reasoning, everything you heard there is not great, but the fact that she's saying this is great, and I want more feminists and pro-abortion women to be honest and say this kind of stuff out loud, because people need to hear it.
You know, the vast majority, vast, vast majority of abortions in this country, they have nothing to do with rape, nothing to do with life of the mother, anything like that.
These very rare cases like that, it's nothing, it's just exactly what you heard there.
It's someone who had consensual sex, got pregnant, and, you know, could I put it up for adoption?
Eh, maybe, maybe not.
What do you mean maybe, maybe not?
Of course you could have put the child up for adoption.
Yeah, I just didn't feel like it.
I didn't feel like it.
That's what she said.
I didn't feel like giving birth to the child and going through the process of putting him up for adoption, and so I just killed the child because I chose me.
And that is the pro-abortion argument.
Okay, you whittle everything else away, get rid of all the euphemisms, everything else, all the talking points, all the propaganda, cut all of that BS away, and what you're left with is exactly what you just heard there.
I chose me.
And there's quite a bit of incoherence mixed in, because she also says, well, I know what it's like to be born to parents who don't want me.
Okay, well that's terrible that you lived in that situation as a child, and it sounds like your parents are pretty awful.
In fact, we know that they're awful people.
But you're happy that you're alive though, right?
So you were born into a terrible situation.
But you're still living.
I mean, you haven't killed yourself, thank God.
And so, clearly, you're happy to be alive.
And not only are you happy to be alive, but your life is, as you attest, your life is extremely important.
In fact, you believe that your life is more important than anything else.
Your life is so important that it comes above the life of your own child.
Your life, according to you, is so important that you could kill your own child just to protect your own convenience and your own lifestyle.
And that is in spite of the fact that you were essentially, as you say, an unwanted child.
Tragically.
So what does that tell us?
It tells us that even if a child is born into a situation like this, they are still worth something.
They're not worth something.
They have infinite value because it's a human life all the same.
Can't expect her to connect those dots, though.
All right, one other thing.
Billy Joe Armstrong, who apparently still leads the band Green Day, he's like 50 years old.
I can see him right there.
Oh, that's a sad sight.
So he's this out-of-shape 50-year-old dude, still wearing eye makeup and hair dye, still singing angsty breakup songs that he wrote when he was, you know, 17.
And anyway, he announced during a show, I think this is in the UK, he announced that he's renouncing his citizenship because of the Roe decision, and he's given up on America.
Let's listen to that.
F*** America, and I'm f***ing renouncing my citizenship.
citizenship. I'm f***ing coming here.
[Cheering]
[Cheering]
I just have too much f***ing stupid in the world.
Hmm.
Now, you know, the great thing is that Armstrong lives in California,
which has no abortion restrictions at all.
So now in protest, he's going to move to the UK, I guess.
So in protest, he's going to move from a place where there are zero abortion restrictions to a place that has abortion restrictions.
Makes a lot of sense.
But never mind that.
I'm just devastated that he's leaving.
Just like I was devastated yesterday by the Twitch streamer who I forgot her name already, but... Oh, Pokimane.
First, Pokimane leaves.
You know, you wake up one morning, and Pokimane is nowhere to be found.
She has left all of us behind.
In the dark, in the cold, crying out.
And then the next day you find out that Billy Joe Armstrong is also leaving.
Think about... I want you to really think about this, because you might think it's a joke, but it's not.
Think about all the great music that he's made in the last 25 years, let's say.
And now we're going to be deprived of that in this country.
Think about all the great songs that Green Day has made in the last 25 years.
So many great songs.
Like, um... Well, you know.
There are a lot of them.
I'll think more about that and we'll get to the comment section.
Do you know that name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
You know, with the ever increasing number of makes and models that are out there,
it's impossible to stock all the car parts that you need in a traditional chain storefront.
Why endure often pointless or intimidating, frankly terrifying questions that you may hear from the counterman If you go to the auto parts store, why deal with any of that?
You could just go to rockauto.com at home, or you could just pull your phone out of your pocket and go to rockauto.com.
It's as simple as that.
Rockauto.com is a family business.
They've been serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
So why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Remember, as always, to write Walsh in their how-did-you-hear-about-us box so they know that I sent you.
The Free J says, that interpretive dancer they hired to play Matt is pretty impressive.
A lot of Comments like this.
So there is this Speaking of conspiracy theories.
There's this conspiracy theory that has Started in the comment section, you know on among the sweet baby gang who I thought were above this sort of thing but the conspiracy theory is that For the interpretive dance that I performed for you yesterday in celebration of having a million subscribers on YouTube that it wasn't actually me So, what do you what do you think you think we Hired an interpretive dancer to hide behind this screen right here, and then I just walked out and he performed the dance while I hid behind the screen.
You think... That would be such a weird, bizarre thing to do.
And, uh, no.
That's... That is a dance that... I'm not even gonna say that I choreographed it, because there was no choreograph.
It was me in a pure, ecstatic, spontaneous moment of joy, expressing myself through the power of dance.
And for you to disregard that and claim that it wasn't even me dancing is deeply offensive to me and hurtful.
Rob says, damn, Matt can dance like an angel.
Absolutely majestic.
And anyone who thinks this isn't him is a bigot.
Thank you, Rob.
Eathman says, "Matt's dance was so good, "it caused him to lose his beard."
Another part of the conspiracy theory.
So every time there's a conspiracy theory, right?
You have people, they're picking up little, what they think are breadcrumbs here and there,
and they're kind of stitching it together, pattern, kind of doing this pattern matching thing.
And so part of the conspiracy theory is that while I was dancing, I didn't have a beard,
and then, but, you know, but I do have a beard.
And I think, I can't explain, you know, there are a lot of weird optical illusions that happen.
I can't explain it.
But I what I like to think is that my dance was so beautiful that I was almost transformed in that moment to appear to be almost an entirely different person.
That's how I explain it.
Bijan says, I really like your views on some subjects, but you have no right to determine what's right for a woman, though.
If you have a daughter and she got raped, then pregnant, you think that's a gift from Sky Daddy.
Okay, of course, as always, the pro-abortion person going right to make it as personal as possible and going right to the hardest possible cases.
So the first thing I would say to you is, why are you going right there?
Like, before we talk about the 1% of cases, can we talk about the 99%?
What about the 99% of cases where there is a consensual activity that results in a child and then the child is killed as a form of birth control?
Why don't you want to talk about that?
And as for the cases of rape, once again, you know, do you believe that a person should be punished to the point of death for the manner in which they were conceived?
So a child is conceived in rape, and we're going to dole out punishments.
Sounds great to me.
Punish the rapist.
But you want to punish the child for the manner of that child's conception, which he had no choice in.
That, to me, is what doesn't make any sense.
Andrina says, Matt, you're such a role model for what I hope my sons grow up to be like.
So you want your sons to grow up to be professional interpretive dancers, apparently, which I think is a great goal for any child.
The Best Backpacker says, Matt is losing touch.
There are several Tremors sequels.
Get with it, Matt.
Yeah, I didn't say anything that would suggest otherwise.
In fact, I actually think, I was thinking about this the other day, it just so happens, I was thinking about Tremors, and there are very few movies where the sequel is better than the original.
I actually think that Tremors 2 is better than the original.
You're not going to outdo me in a discussion about tremors, okay?
I've seen the whole series and we could talk about it.
If you really want to talk about it, we can.
Victor says, how did Matt say dick's head without skipping a beat or cracking a smile?
Pure professional.
I'm a lesser man.
I don't know what you're talking about.
There was no joke meant there at all.
I was talking about the dick's head.
It was the CEO of The company dicks.
That's all I was trying to say.
Tomorrow night, June 29th, is Backstage Live.
It's our biggest live event of the year.
Once again, we're at the historic Ryman Auditorium in Nashville for what will be a historic night for sure.
And if you didn't see last year's event, well, just check out.
This is a nice preview for what's to come.
Watch.
Welcome to the Daily Wire backstage live at the famous Ryman Auditorium.
It was amazing.
We were in the presence of greatness.
The energy of having everyone on the same page was amazing.
If your family member is still waiting for Fauci to give them permission to leave their house, it might be time to cut that off.
I'm actually pretty excited to meet all of them.
I love everybody's opinion individually.
I don't have a favorite.
I like them all.
I found out a way to make football players cry in high school.
My high school experience has been a lot better.
I'm just excited to be here and be surrounded by like-minded people and to just, you know, feel that energy.
Who should we remove from office?
One politician, the most powerful politician in the country, Dr. Fauci!
What are you talking about?
We're doing culture here.
I'm so thrilled to see this happening.
If they say to half of the country, you can't, that half of the country needs to say, screw you, we will!
Tune in to the live stream tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Eastern at dailywire.com slash Ryman to join me, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and God King Jeremy Boring as we dig into the political and cultural issues of the day.
We have some big wins this year with projects like my documentary, What Is A Woman?, that exposed how dark the gender-affirming movement really is.
And there's also our new Western thriller, Terror on the Prairie, starring Gina Carano.
But these wins are only possible because people like you have joined us in the fight.
So go to dailywire.com slash Walsh to get 25% off your new membership today.
And don't forget to tune in to Backstage Live at the Ryman tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Eastern to find out what's next here at The Daily Wire.
You don't want to miss it.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, if you want to know the shape of a culture, all you need to do is look at its art.
And we know that by this metric, just as by, you know, literally any other metric, the shape of our culture is less a shape and more an oozing, decaying lump of putrid sludge.
You could come to this determination, of course, by witnessing the art, quote-unquote, produced by the music industry or Hollywood, But perhaps that would be unfair, because modern pop music is god-awful and stupid and ugly and bad, the auditory equivalent of the stuff that leaks out of an overflowing septic tank.
But then again, it's not really trying to be anything more than that.
Pop music barely qualifies as music, just as Hollywood cinema barely qualifies as cinema.
So maybe for a fairer and more accurate test, we should look at the sort of art that's actually applauded and hailed and promoted as art.
What art do we celebrate and hold up as especially beautiful and meaningful?
Well, we already know that if we look at the sorts of modern art exhibits and paintings which attract crowds to art museums and sell for millions of dollars to wealthy people who want to look intelligent or simply launder money or both, the situation doesn't improve very much.
Anybody could vomit onto a canvas and call the piece Vomit on a Canvas and sell it for 86 million dollars.
That's the state of modern art.
So then perhaps, maybe we leave that sort of art to the side and forget about pop music or Hollywood and all that.
And look instead to poetry.
You know, that's a very pure art form.
And maybe this will be our bright spot.
Or maybe not.
Because, unfortunately, with all due respect to my guys Tekashi69 and PooshEisty, our most famous living poet in America is a woman by the name of Amanda Gorman.
Now, in 2017, Gorman was named the first-ever National Youth Poet Laureate of the United States.
A couple years later, she was invited to deliver a poem at Joe Biden's inauguration.
Then she became the first poet to ever perform during the Super Bowl.
And shortly after that, she released a book of poetry called The Hill We Climb, which I think is also the name of a Miley Cyrus song, as it just so happens.
Or I could be wrong about that, but anyway.
And then she became the first poet ever in history to debut as a number one bestseller, at least on USA Today, but I think across the board.
Now, this is all in spite of the fact that she is really, really, really bad at poetry.
Her award-winning, best-selling, nationally applauded and recognized poetry sounds like something that a bored and angsty seventh-grade girl might scribble on the dividers in her three-ring binder during algebra class or something.
If kids still use three-ring binders anyway, I don't know.
Gorman writes, a bit like Dr. Seuss, if Dr. Seuss was a female and a feminist and had a fraction of his charm, intelligence, and creativity, So maybe she doesn't write like Dr. Seuss at all on Second Thought.
The better analogy might be a woke, self-important fortune cookie.
And her Twitter page with 1.6 million followers is just pockmarked with cringey, half-rhymed cliches.
For example, on June 24th, the Poet Laureate tweeted, quote, It's more important than ever that we come together.
Wow.
Amazing.
You know, some aspiring poets might be influenced by Shakespeare or Edgar Allan Poe or John Milton, but Amanda Gorman seems to primarily be drawing her inspiration from the inspirational slogans on gift shop keychains.
And back on June 1st, she had some more stunning insight when she tweeted, quote, This may be how things have been, but not how they have to be.
The only question that one raises is whether Amanda Gorman is influencing Kamala Harris, or is it the other way around?
Yet none of these gems come close to the great heights that Gorman reaches when composing poetic odes to infanticide.
Gorman, in keeping with her poetry style, seems to choose the ugliest and dumbest side of every issue, which of course means that she's rabidly pro-abortion.
And in the lead-up to Roe being overturned, Gorman went viral with a pro-abortion rant that I can only speculate is supposed to sound a little bit like poetry.
Let's listen to a bit of that.
Eight reasons to stand up today against abortion bans in the United States.
One.
Let's get this straight.
When the penalty for rape is less than the penalty for abortion after the rape, you know this isn't about caring for women and girls.
It's about controlling them.
Two.
Through forcing them into motherhood before they're ready, these bans steadily sustain the patriarchy, but also chain families in poverty and maintain economic inequality.
Three.
Pregnancy is a private And personal decision.
It should not require the permission of any politician.
For, for all time, regardless of whether it's a crime, women have and will always seek their own reproductive destinies.
Now, it may sound like she's simply plagiarizing from the pro-abortion talking points she found in the comments section of a feminist blog, but it counts as poetry because she moves her hands around a lot when she says it.
So I could... Actually, every monologue on this show could be... I could be my... I could be Poet Laureate.
Delivering poetry every day just by moving my hands a lot as I'm delivering the monologue.
Now, as for the substance of her claims, to the extent that we can use the word substance to describe anything that she says or does, it should simply go without saying that she's making things up.
It's not true that the penalty for abortion is worse than the penalty for rape.
At the time she said that, there was no penalty for abortion because Roe had not yet been overturned.
Now that it has been, there still will be no penalty in many states.
And in the states where abortion will be banned, I'm not aware of a single one that plans to instate harsher penalties on women who get abortions than they do on rapists.
And if this fictional scenario were to ever come to fruition, the way to correct it would be to make the punishments for convicted rapists more severe.
Personally, you couldn't make them too severe for my taste.
Either way, the crucial point here is that there should be no penalty for being conceived by a rapist.
Least of all, should it carry the penalty of death.
Punish the rapist, don't punish the baby.
But that's not all that Gorman had to say about this topic.
On the day Ro was overturned, she published this masterpiece, which has been clearly something she's been working on for many months, honing and crafting, though she still forgot to run it through spellcheck before posting it.
But here's the poem.
We will not be delayed.
We will not masquerade to the tale of a handmaid.
We will not let Ro V Wade slowly fade.
Because when we show up today, we're already standing up with the tomorrow we made.
I made it a little better with the hand movements.
She spells handmade the way that you spell it if you were referring to a sweater that your grandmother knitted for you.
Now, it's possible that she meant it that way.
Like, maybe she's talking about This has something to do with Etsy.
I don't know, but I think we can assume that she was trying to refer to the Handmaid's Tale.
And that's obviously the most trite, cliched, overplayed, and boring thing to do when discussing abortion, so we can be sure that Gorman intended to do just that.
Of course, the line, we will not be masquerade to the tail of a handmaid, no matter how you spell handmaid, makes no sense at all.
I'm not sure that Gorman understands what the word masquerade even means.
Never mind also that Roe v. Wade didn't slowly fade, but in fact was dispatched all at once through one glorious Supreme Court decision.
I understand that she chose all these words because they rhyme, Not because they're true or make sense, but as unintelligible as her word salad is, it could never be less coherent or explicable than her status as an acclaimed poet in the first place.
A status which is now, I must say, summarily stripped from her because she is cancelled.
I will 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 Jeff Tomlin.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Democrats search for answers after Roe vs. Wade is overturned, Generation Z reconsiders a life of promiscuity and hedonism to the media's consternation, and the Supreme Court upholds religious freedom.
