Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the LGBT cult is not satisfied to simply indoctrinate everyone living on the Earth today. Now they are setting out to posthumously recruit the dead. We’ll talk about that today. Also, Liz Cheney goes down in flames and humiliates herself. Dr. Oz goes to the grocery store and humiliates himself. The IRS trains agents to use deadly force, but based on the footage from this training session, I don’t think we have much to worry about. In our Daily Cancellation, Serena Williams announces her retirement and of course whines about sexism on the way out the door.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at ihateharrys.com.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Call at 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com Mention offer code: WALSH
Protect your identity with LifeLock. Save up to 25% OFF Your First Year at www.LifeLock.com/WALSH.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the LGBT cult is not satisfied to simply indoctrinate everybody living on Earth today.
Now they are setting out to posthumously recruit the dead.
We'll talk about that today.
Also, Liz Cheney goes down in flames and humiliates herself in the process.
Dr. Oz goes to the grocery store and humiliates himself in the process.
The IRS trains agents to use deadly force.
But based on the footage from this training session, I don't think we have much to worry about.
In our daily cancellation, Serena Williams announces her retirement and, of course, whines about sexism on the way out the door.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Many companies are bowing to the woke mob by donating to pro-choice causes and candidates or reimbursing their employees' travel expenses so that if they live and work in a pro-life state, they can travel to a pro-abortion state and get an abortion and be back at work on Monday.
Well, what if I told you That if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you might be supporting these companies and their pro-abortion agendas with your monthly phone bill.
Don't let abortionists use your money to fund policies you don't believe in.
Switch to Charity Mobile instead.
Charity Mobile is a pro-life, pro-family cell phone company that sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the pro-life charity of your choice.
You don't have to compromise on values or good phone service either.
Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones, no device or service contracts, great nationwide coverage, and live customer service based right here in the USA.
The fight for the right to life continues, and pro-life causes need your support more now than ever.
You can help by simply switching your phone service to Charity Mobile today.
Call 1-877-474-3662 or chat with them online at charitymobile.com.
Mention offer code Walsh to redeem a free cell phone offer.
That's charitymobile.com and mention code Walsh.
Last week, the Globe Theatre in London announced a new play called I, Joan, about the legendary 15th century saint, Joan of Arc.
But this play is not really about Joan of Arc, the actual historical person who led a French army to major military victories before being captured and burned alive at the stake at the age of 19.
This play is about a fictionalized, non-binary version of the saint.
The Globe explained in an announcement on Twitter, Quote, our new play, I, Joan, shows Joan as a legendary leader who uses the pronouns they-them.
We are not the first to present Joan in this way, and we will not be the last.
We can't wait to share this production with everyone and discover this cultural icon.
So, first of all, shouldn't the play be called We, Joan, if it's they-them pronouns?
But of course, grammatical consistency is the least of the problems that we have here.
Accompanying the announcement is a promotional image showing Joan of Arc frail, dirty, sullen, and wearing a chest binder.
On their website, The Globe continues its defense of the portrayal, claiming, quote, Regardless, theaters do not deal with historical reality.
Joan in this way and we will not be the last. Regarding the use of pronouns they
to refer to a singular person has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary
to as early as 1375 years before Joan was even born.
Regardless theaters do not deal with historical reality. Theaters produce plays and in
plays anything can be possible. Now it's true that they has often been used
through the centuries to refer to a singular person that's true.
But that's only when you're talking about a singular person in the abstract, or hypothetically, or if you don't know the individual's sex.
So for example, Somebody cuts you off in traffic and all you see is their back bumper and you don't know who it is.
You might remark that they are an a-hole.
Or if you're more dedicated like me, you might speed up so you can get a good look at the person and then cuss them out with more specificity.
But if you're speaking about a specific known individual, the pronoun they makes no sense and serves no intelligible purpose.
There is no precedent in the English language, or any other language, of using they to refer to a specific man or a specific woman, instead of just saying he, him, her, or her.
And there is certainly no precedent of individuals selecting their own pronouns for themselves and demanding that others abide by that preference.
There is no precedent for that.
That has never existed anywhere in the world, and it certainly did not exist in medieval France.
Now the theater takes refuge in the fact that theatrical productions don't have to deal strictly with historical reality.
And yes, there is indeed a long tradition of events and people from history being partially or totally fictionalized for the sake of telling a story.
But in this case, they're fictionalizing Joan of Arc in a way That completely negates nearly everything that made Joan of Arc significant to begin with.
The whole point of the Joan of Arc story, the reason she's remembered by history and has been revered down the centuries, the reason that she's a patron saint of France, the reason that she's beloved as one of the great Catholic saints, is that she did all that she did as a woman.
To erase her womanhood is to erase her.
This really isn't very much different from reimagining Frederick Douglass or Martin Luther King Jr.
as white men.
And something tells me that this theater, nor any other theater in the world, would be quite so artistically open-minded as to host a stage production depicting a black civil rights leader as a white dude.
You know, the appetite to fictionalize history, the appetite for fictionalized retellings of historical events, seems to be rather selective, shall we say.
But the greater problem is that the people pushing this stuff aren't actually willing to admit that their fictionalization is merely a fictionalization.
Over the past few days, various academics and historians have come out of the woodwork to try and vindicate the queerified Joan of Arc.
The gay news site Pink News featured an article written by alleged historian Florence Scott claiming that, quote, gendering Joan of Arc isn't that straightforward.
She writes, "Joan is a particularly elusive and complicated historical figure.
We cannot possibly access Joan's understanding of her own gender or how she related to the gender roles of her day.
We can only look at the available source material and interpret how she expressed herself.
The picture is complex."
Gender, as something that is constructed, evolves over time.
That means any role we ascribe to a historical figure, man, woman, or non-binary, is anachronistic, muddied by modern conceptions of gender.
That doesn't mean we can't relate to Joan's experience of gender, just that there's a whole spectrum of ways to relate.
Women have a right to be inspired by Joan as a strong woman, acting in defiance of a patriarchal society.
But those of us who are queer or non-binary, should also be able to see ourselves reflected in her transgression of gender roles and refusal to conform.
In taking such inspiration from medieval figures, we need to be aware we are placing our modern experiences and values on someone who didn't share them.
Whether we conceive of Joan as a woman, non-binary, or even trans-masculine, and I think all three are valid historical readings, we must remember that we cannot define her.
We can only interpret her.
Well, actually, no, we can define her.
We can define her in many ways.
Okay, define means, like, if someone says, who is Joan of Arc, or who was Joan of Arc, we can give an answer to that question.
We can define her.
We can say that she was born in France.
We can say that she was martyred on May 30th, 1431.
We can say many objective things about who she was and what she did in between those dates.
We can say that she was a human being, and we can say that she was a woman.
There is nothing complicated about any of that.
But as always, the MO of the LGBT propagandist is to make murky even the clearest water.
It is to create fog and confusion wherever they find clarity.
It is to unload a dump truck full of meaningless jargon right into the middle of every conversation.
And it's also to rewrite not only our current day reality, but history as well.
And that effort to rewrite history is now in full swing.
Over the last few days, other academics and historians have come out to argue that Joan of Arc may not have been non-binary, but she was at least non-binary adjacent.
Or maybe she was non-binary, because this is how it goes, right?
First they say, oh no, we're not claiming that Joan of Arc was actually non-binary.
Oh no, actually we are claiming that.
How quickly we make that transition.
And not satisfied to simply desecrate Joan of Arc's memory by trying to posthumously recruit her into the LGBT cult, they've now moved on to other historical figures.
Because this is the other thing that we know the left always does, right?
They always double down.
And so, when they come along and say, well, we're going to portray Joan of Arc as non-binary, people are upset about that.
Their response isn't to back off, it's to say, oh, you know what?
Just because you're saying that, not only was Joan of Arc non-binary, but all these other historical figures were too.
The Daily Mail reports, an academic writing for the Shakespeare's Globe Theater has argued that Queen Elizabeth I may have been non-binary too.
In an essay on the Globe's website, trans awareness trainer, Dr. Kit Hyamin, or Hyam.
That's not really what's important.
What's important is trans awareness trainer is a job title.
And this person referred to the Virgin Queen with they-them pronouns, saying, Elizabeth I described themself regularly in speeches as King, Queen, and Prince.
The essay was published on Monday, August 8, and was published in defense of the portrayal, and said that a common portrayal of the story as pragmatic gender nonconformity in a patriarchal world denies historical existences of trans experience.
The Leeds-based Dr. Haim ...whose pronouns are they, them, or he, him, compared Queen Elizabeth I to 10th century English ruler Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, who ruled Mercia, what is now approximately the West Midlands, after the death of her husband.
Dr. Hyam said Æthelflæd was later described as conducting armies as if she had changed her sex to take on a male-coded military, which was, in some sense, for Æthelflæd to become male.
The writer and academic says that Elizabeth I chose to strategically emphasize their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points.
Now essentially, just to clarify as much as we possibly can, what these academics are arguing is that because these women of history did things not traditionally associated with women, or not traditionally expected of women, they must not have been women.
As always, the trans cult works to rigidly and fanatically reinforce the very gender binary that they pretend to be breaking down.
In their world, it's impossible that a woman might simply elect to do masculine things.
Because if a woman does act in such a way, then she's a man.
Or at least she's non-binary.
Either way, to sacrifice her femininity, even to the smallest degree, is, according to the trans activists, to sacrifice her very womanhood.
Now, we can easily see why they're so desperate to find historical analogs for all of the gender identities they've made up over the past 12 seconds.
They're desperate because they claim they didn't make any of this up.
They claim that people are born trans, born non-binary, that these identities are deeply ingrained inside a person.
And if that's their claim, it becomes a rather significant problem that these deeply ingrained and inherent identities never made an appearance anywhere on Earth for the whole history of the human species up until just now.
It's not just a problem.
In fact, history alone completely delegitimizes their entire worldview.
All of history testifies against them.
Their solution, therefore, is to retcon their worldview back into history.
It's to start draping rainbow flags over the tombs of our ancestors.
In some kind of perverse act of ideological necrophilia, they violate the dead, dragging them into their sexual cult.
Their war on reality is not just, therefore, happening in the present.
It's also happening, all the more so, in the past.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
The Marriott International Hotel Group announced that 20 gigabytes of sensitive data, including guest credit cards and information, was stolen this past June.
It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives.
Your personal information gets exposed so often that it's dangerously easy for a cybercriminal to steal your identity.
You can protect your identity then.
And you can do it easily with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats that you may not be able to spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name, for example.
If you do become a victim of identity theft, there's a dedicated US-based restoration specialist that will work to fix it for you.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses all the time, but it's easy to help protect yourself today with LifeLock.
Identity theft protection starts here.
Join now and save 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
Let's start with a little bit of political news.
Liz Cheney, it's hard to even call this news.
I think everyone was expecting this.
Liz Cheney lost her primary race by a large margin.
I have the margin in front of me.
It was big.
Everyone saw this coming.
And we have her speech afterwards where she, well, first she compared herself to Abraham Lincoln.
And then this, I think, is the clip where she moves on to other Civil War figures and continues this quite humble comparison.
Let's listen.
In May of 1864, after years of war and a string of reluctant Union generals, Ulysses S. Grant met General Lee's forces at the Battle of the Wilderness.
In two days of heavy fighting, the Union suffered over 17,000 casualties.
At the end of that battle, General Grant faced a choice.
Most assumed he would do what previous Union generals had done and retreat.
On the evening of May 7th, Grant began to move.
As the fires of the battle still smoldered, Grant rode to the head of the column.
He rode to the intersection of Brock Road and Orange Plank Road.
And there, as the men of his army watched and waited, instead of turning north back towards Washington and safety, Grant turned his horse south toward Richmond and the heart of Lee's army.
Refusing to retreat, he pressed on to victory.
Lincoln and Grant, and all who fought in our nation's tragic Civil War, including my own great-great-grandfathers, saved our Union.
Their courage saved freedom.
Shut up, Liz.
This is one of the reasons that she lost, by the way, is that she is, on top of everything else, just, I could not think of someone more lacking in any kind of charisma.
Incredibly boring, you know.
And I think that actually is an important point here, because now it's the question of, well, why did she lose?
And the narrative on the left, and even on the right in some cases, in many cases really, is that Liz Cheney lost because she's a Trump critic.
And that's why she lost, is that she was going after Trump, and now she's gone because you can't attack Trump in the Republican Party.
And again, on the left, that's the narrative that they want, so that they can paint all Everybody on the right, and all conservatives, they can say that, well, the entire conservative movement is really just about Trump.
And if you say anything about him, then, because it's one big cult, and if you say anything about him, then you're out.
And there are some people on the right who seem to want to reinforce that perception.
But I actually don't think that's true.
Now I can speak for myself, I personally don't really care if a Republican criticizes Trump or not.
Okay?
That's not the litmus test for me.
The litmus test for me when it comes to a conservative, a supposed alleged conservative, is not their opinion about some other dude.
And I don't care who the other dude is.
And everybody knows I'm a supporter of Ron DeSantis.
I hope that he runs in 2024.
But if there was a conservative out there who doesn't like Ron DeSantis, and there are conservatives out there who don't, I'm not going to say, well, evict them.
No, you have to be on board with Ron DeSantis.
I might not agree with the criticism of DeSantis, but that's not the litmus test for me.
It's not your affinity or fealty to some other person, no matter who the person is.
The issue with Liz Cheney is not merely being a Trump critic.
The issue is, and the reason that she lost, is because she aligned herself completely with the left and all of its narratives on every subject, including Trump.
Now, most prominently, we know that she was helping to lead the absurd multiple charges towards impeachment and everything else, and we know everything that she's done with the January 6th theater.
That's part and parcel of Liz Cheney's entire career, which is to align herself, while calling herself a conservative and a Republican, to align herself with the left.
Her voting record also speaks to that.
And that is why she's out on her ass, deservedly so.
Because she serves no purpose.
She's not representing our interests.
She's not even trying to.
Now, the way that Trump becomes a central figure in that is that, and I don't think this is the case for Liz Cheney.
Liz Cheney has never actually been a conservative at any point.
There have been other conservatives, of course, who, at least for a while, pretended to be conservative, and then lost their minds because of Trump, because they hate him so much, and have basically, just to spite him, have now adopted all of the left's talking points on every subject.
Even talking points that they, in some cases, spent their entire career trying to rebut.
And now, just because of Trump, they've gone completely over to the other side.
But that is the issue again.
It's not just about criticizing Trump.
It's about, are you aligning yourself with the left's false narratives or not?
Or are you standing against them?
Speaking of aligning with the left, Dr. Oz is getting a lot of grief for this video.
We played what I think is the worst, still think, will endure as maybe the worst political attack ad ever put out by a major campaign.
We played that yesterday from Oz going after Federman.
And this was a video from a few days before that.
And he's still getting a lot of grief for this.
This is his attempt, I guess, to relate to the common man, but I don't know.
Things didn't exactly work out.
Let's watch first.
I thought I'd do some grocery shopping.
I'm at Wegner's, and my wife wants some vegetables.
You're aware now?
For crudités, right?
So, here's a broccoli.
For what now?
That's two bucks.
That's a ton of broccoli there.
Here's some asparagus.
That's four dollars.
Carrots.
Why don't you have a shopping cart?
That's four more dollars.
That's ten dollars of vegetables there.
We need some guacamole.
Who just stacks everything in their arms like that?
And who buys store-bought guacamole?
Must be a shortage of salsa.
Guys, that's $20 for crouton.
This doesn't include the tequila.
I mean, that's outrageous.
We got Joe Biden to thank for this.
Okay, first of all, the salsa is expensive because you're going for the expensive salsa over in the produce section.
Just go over to the Mexican food section with the salsa that comes in the glass jars, and it'll be like half the price.
I think it actually tastes better than that kind of salsa, because the salsa in the produce section is always under-seasoned, in my opinion, and not nearly spicy enough.
And I guess I've always known that there are freaks out there who buy the store-made, pre-packaged guacamole.
I don't know who those freaks were, but now we know.
Like, Dr. Oz is that guy.
You're in the produce section, go pick up a couple of avocados.
You know how easy it is to make guacamole?
And it's cheaper too.
You're gonna spend six dollars on that little, like a little shot glass size of guacamole.
Go get a couple avocados and some cilantro.
You should have, you should have most of the stuff already at your house.
A couple limes and you're good to go.
Now he's at, he says he's at Wegner's, which I don't, I, you know, this, I don't think that's an actual grocery store.
I think that he's, so that's a combination of what?
Wegman's and another grocery store.
And he's, and he's trying to make, what is it?
Crudite?
I don't even know what crudité is.
Actually, let me look that up.
I don't know how to spell it.
I want to look it up to see what we're dealing with, but crudité.
Okay, here it is.
Assorted raw vegetables served typically with a sauce into which they may be dipped.
So, a vegetable platter.
That's what normal people call it.
No one calls it, oh, we're having some crudité.
So, you're making a vegetable platter.
And you're going to dip it in salt?
You're going to dip, what, carrots in salsa?
That doesn't even make any sense.
You can tell this guy hasn't been to a grocery store in, like, three decades.
And he's so out of touch that this is what he thinks people do.
He thinks that people go to the produce section to make crudités.
You couldn't have chosen a more, like, common dish?
How about, I want to go make a salad, so I'm in the grocery store to make a salad.
But this is who we got in Pennsylvania.
That's your guy if you're Republican, right?
Supposedly.
Alright, NBC has this report.
It says, Boston's Children's Hospital has warned employees about mounting threats and is coordinating with law enforcement after far-right activists on social media began targeting the hospital with false claims about its treatment of young transgender people.
It's the most recent in a series of attempts to target hospitals for their work with trans youth, adding to an ongoing wave of anti-LGBTQ sentiment that has hit libraries, schools, and even a trans-inclusive Los Angeles spa.
The Public Relations Office at Boston Children's Hospital sent an email to employees with guidance on how to respond to harassment and threats earlier this week, citing an increase of threatening and aggressive phone calls and emails sent to the hospital commenting on treatment of transgender patients.
The email was confirmed to NBC News by a current employee.
Just a sidebar here.
Always keep in mind, when they claim that threats are coming in, that they're being threatened, you can never take that claim at face value.
Of course, they're not above simply lying.
And what's more, we know what they consider a threat to be.
Right?
Any criticism is a threat.
It is, what was the word of the day that we learned yesterday?
It is stochastic terrorism is what it is.
So we already know that any criticism is an act of terrorism.
And so when you hear all of these news reports now lamenting the threats that are coming in against Boston Children's Hospital, always keep that in mind.
It continues, Boston Children's Hospital first became the target of activists in recent weeks when well-followed social media accounts such as Libs of TikTok, which is often promoted, the groomers discourse that falsely linked LGBTQ teachers and parents to pedophilia began to make a variety of false claims.
But we have to start there, stop there again.
First of all, the groomer, the so-called groomers discourse links Teachers and many other people on the left to grooming specifically Okay, it links them to conditioning and sexualizing and grooming So when we accuse someone of being a groomer, that's what we're accusing them of now as far as actual pedophilia and the sexual abuse and rape of children
Well, yeah, there is a connection between, in fact, a large number of teachers and that.
And that's not a connection that we're drawing or making up.
That's an actual epidemic in the school system of the sexual abuse of children by school staff.
The Department of Education did their own report about it decades ago and found that there are tens of thousands of victims in the school system.
Of sexual abuse by school staff and teachers.
That was back in, what was that?
2004, 2005.
Do we think it's gotten better since then?
Do these problems ever get better on their own if they're not addressed?
If it is revealed that there is an epidemic of sexual abuse within an institution and there are not serious, far-reaching steps taken to address the epidemic, does it just go away or does it continue to fester and get worse?
I think we know.
So, but both of those things, whether it's teachers grooming their students and bragging about it publicly, or the actual sexual abuse of students, this is not something Libs of TikTok invented.
I didn't invent it.
This is just a fact.
Continuance says, one allegation said that the hospital offered gender-affirming hysterectomies to children under 18 years old.
Conservative influencers with millions of followers pushed similar false talking points and fanned the flames further.
And then it goes on, the article goes on, quoting from the hospital, saying that this is a false narrative, it doesn't happen.
Here's a quote, it says, in response to commentary last week, critical of our gender multi-specialty service, Boston Children's Hospital has been the target of a large volume of hostile internet activity, phone calls, and harassing emails, including threats of violence towards our clinicians and staff.
This was Boston Children's Hospital, they just sent this out in an email.
We are deeply concerned by these attacks on our clinicians and staff fueled by misinformation and a lack of understanding and a respect for our transgender community.
Boston Children's is proud to be home to the first pediatric and adolescent transgender health program in the United States.
Well, as we talked about yesterday, this is nothing but obfuscation on their part.
Right, they're homing in on this one... There were dozens of videos that Boston Children's Hospital published themselves.
They put the videos out there.
And all that any conservative on social media did was just take the videos and say, hey guys, look at these videos.
Look at what they're saying in the videos.
Only one of the videos dealt with so-called gender-affirming hysterectomies.
But that's all they're responding to.
Because they feel safe there.
They can say, oh, we don't do that.
We wait until you're 18, because that's perfectly fine, to do it on an 18-year-old.
What they're ignoring and not addressing is that almost all of these other procedures they inflict on children, including top surgery, double mastectomies, which are performed on girls all the way down to the 12 and 13 across the country, in many different hospitals and clinics.
But here's the point.
Again, I'm not going to accept on face value that there are actual threats.
You know, that there's a rash of actual, like people saying, oh, we're going to blow up the hospital and that sort of thing.
Because that's when they say threat, that's what they want you to imagine, whether that's actually happening or not.
So putting that to the side, the alleged threats, what I do know that Boston Children's Hospital is receiving is an avalanche of Angry emails and calls from people who are disgusted by what they're doing to children.
Okay, there are a lot of very angry people who are calling them out and calling them to account and demanding that they explain themselves and, you know, justify, not that they possibly could.
And that is exactly what should happen.
Okay, the fact that Boston Children's Hospital is bragging about mutilating and drugging kids and now has to face this enormous nationwide backlash, that's not a sign that we're collapsing as a society.
The fact that Boston Children's Hospital is doing this to kids, that's the sign that we're falling apart as a society.
But people responding angrily to that, that's a sign of societal health.
In a healthy society, it wouldn't just be Boston Children's Hospital.
That's the real problem here.
It's not that Boston Children's Hospital is the target of anger from us.
It's that all these other hospitals have so far gotten off scot-free.
In a healthy society, When kids are being drugged and mutilated and castrated and sterilized, the people that are doing this are going to hear about it.
And they're going to be the subject of, at a minimum, enormous anger from the public.
That's the way that it should be.
And you know what?
There's a real simple solution.
Here's the good news.
If you're at Boston Children's Hospital, or if you work at a gender-affirming clinic anywhere in the country, and you're worried that people are going to start sending you angry emails and calling you and calling you out on social media and everything else, here's the good news.
There's a real easy solution.
And that is a stop doing that to the kids.
Stop hurting kids.
And this problem for you goes away.
Stop hurting kids.
It's the same thing for the teachers who are bragging about sexually indoctrinating their students.
And now they're fretting and saying, well, when I brag about sexually indoctrinating my students, everyone's mad at me.
What do I do?
This is terrible.
I'm a victim.
Well, stop sexually indoctrinating your students.
And you wouldn't have this issue.
Okay?
We are reacting in a normal and healthy way to what you are confessing What you are admitting to doing.
So stop doing that, and this wouldn't be a problem.
Moving on to this, we know that there's a fleet of new IRS agents coming down the pike here.
87,000 to be specific.
And recently, the job listing for these new agents went viral with some troubling details.
In fact, the IRS is looking for, apparently, agents who will carry a gun and use deadly force.
So, if you forgot to, I don't know, claim your kid's lemonade stand income last year, or if you had a garage sale, if you had a yard sale and sold some old pairs of jeans, like an old toaster, and you didn't claim it, well...
Watch out, because they're empowered to use deadly force.
Now, this recruitment ad, this job listing went viral.
Of course, the media is running cover for them with some important context.
Here's MarketWatch saying with the headline, yes, the IRS is hiring criminal investigators empowered to use deadly force.
But here's some important context.
What is the context?
They say the Internal Revenue Service's operations are catching heat as the tax agency is in line for an $80 billion budget boost under the Democrats' proposed spending plan.
And now there's intense attention being focused on IRS workers who actually pack heat.
It started as criticism from Republican leaders that the tax-collecting agency would bring on 87,000 new employees to target regular everyday Americans, quote-unquote, with the $80 billion earmarked for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act reconciliation bill, which looks poised to become law.
But that's a misleading claim, according to the Associated Press.
The bill passed in a 220-207 vote of the House of Representatives, so on and so forth.
What I'm looking for is the, where's the important context?
So we've got a lot of information here and a lot of claims, but we're supposed to be getting important context that makes it less terrifying that they're recruiting IRS agents to use deadly force against Americans.
So I'm skimming through.
Okay.
Here we go.
It says, "Though the job is really about sniffing out..."
So this is the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.
"Though the job is really about sniffing out income and accounting irregularities to build legal cases,
one of the potential duties is conducting or participating in surveillance, armed escorts,
dignitary protection, undercover operations, execution of search and arrest warrants, seizures, etc."
There are 300 vacancies for that role, which pays between $50,000 and about $90,000 annually, according to the list.
Though the job listing drew new attention this week, requiring some IRS agents to potentially use deadly force is nothing new, an IRS criminal investigation spokeswoman confirmed.
Okay.
Well, I'm glad we could finally get to that.
So that is the missing context.
That's the important information that we need.
That makes this all better.
It's like, no, no, no.
The IRS, they've been shooting and killing people for a long time.
This is not new.
We've already been doing this.
So everything's fine.
Oh, okay.
Well, I guess that makes it okay.
No, actually, it is still terrifying.
Until, here's the encouraging part.
Depending on how you look at it, maybe this is encouraging.
Representative Thomas Massey published some photos that he found from the IRS's recruitment class.
And this is, these are the people that they're bringing in and recruiting to be in their criminal investigation division.
And these are the people that are going to be equipped to use deadly force.
So we've got the tweet here and you can look at, do we have the individual photos?
You can, you can, you can look at, okay, let's, okay, stop right there for a second.
So, here we go.
First of all, all right.
Where to begin?
And what am I allowed to say here without getting banned?
That's the real question.
So these are the people that they're equipping with deadly force.
These are going to be the IRS warriors.
So we've got four women and an individual in a wheelchair.
And apparently, And the individual in the wheelchair, he's having a great time and that's fine because having fun is the most important thing.
They tell you at the IRS, that's the first thing they tell you, is the most important thing is to have fun while you're shooting delinquent taxpayers.
And apparently they're training the IRS agents to shoot people in the back.
So he's pointing the gun right at somebody's back whose hands are behind his back.
And then you've got the other women in the back who are just kind of standing around and I guess they figure, well, hey, this is already taken care of.
We're going to take this guy out.
That's what you get for discrepancies on your W-2.
And then, but the more concerning picture is, can we go to the next picture?
Dear God.
Again, it's a question of where do we even begin?
We've got, this is kind of a fun game here to go through and like point out all of the gun safety violations that you can find in this picture.
Not very good trigger discipline.
My main problem is with the the girl right up front there, the way that she's holding the firearm.
Now, I don't claim to be an expert.
You know, I'm a firearm.
I'm a gun owner myself, and I have taken some classes, but I don't claim to be an expert on this.
And yet, I look at that and immediately I think, well, that is not proper form for holding a firearm.
That is how you hold like a cup of hot cocoa.
That's how you hold a venti latte at At Starbucks.
That's not how you hold a gun.
Here's what's going to happen.
She's going to fire.
If that was a real gun, and she's pointing it at somebody's back because they didn't claim something on their taxes, she's going to fire it, and then the recoil, especially because this is a small, kind of frail woman, you know, she's going to fire.
The recoil is going to go right back into her face.
That's what's going to happen.
And then you've got Charlie's Angels in the back there.
She's holding the gun up.
She's ready to go.
And then you've got the woman all the way in the back, on the back of the wall there.
She appears to be pointing the gun at the woman in front who's holding the gun the wrong way.
Is that the penalty for bad form when holding a firearm?
Is that you just get shot on the spot at the IRS?
So maybe this is the good news.
And then we have one more.
Well, these are obviously physically fit.
I mean, these are warriors right here.
So maybe this is, here's the good news, maybe, that if the IRS comes to your house, they're going to end up shooting each other before they can shoot you.
Not good news for your carpet and your furniture and all the cleanup you're going to have to do, but I don't think you have to worry about these people exactly.
All right, let's get to our comment section.
[MUSIC]
Andre says, Matt, on the work from home issue, I wanna raise you two points you haven't brought up.
One, work-from-home enables city dwellers like myself with tech jobs to finally move out and to the countryside.
And two, homeschooling.
Even for kids that attend public-slash-private schools, investing the time you would otherwise spend on a commute into your children, I see that benefit outweighing the cons.
I agree with you on both counts.
That's what I was saying yesterday about the work from home issue.
Again, as someone who did work from home for years, there are definitely potentially benefits for it.
But all of the benefits really come from the free time.
Because in a typical office environment, you are potentially wasting a lot of time.
And that's not just the commute, but all the pointless meetings and everything.
In a lot of offices, there are There are people that are constantly looking to justify their jobs, and so they're calling meetings that aren't necessary, and they're just wasting everyone's time.
And yeah, to be able to avoid that and yet still do your job, I can see the benefit, and then you're freeing up all that extra time.
But then it becomes a question of what are you using the extra time for?
And I think the unfortunate reality is that for so many of us, whether we work from home or not, Because of modern luxuries and conveniences, we can free up a lot of time, but then we end up just giving that time back to the very technology that freed it up for us.
So that's the thing about the technology.
The technology is self-interested, right?
It's very selfish.
It's like, it doesn't want to help you just for you.
It wants to help you so that you have more time to give to it.
And I think that becomes a problem.
Alright.
Another comment says, one thing I liked about working from home during the COVID lockdown is that I could listen to Sweet Daddy Walsh ruthlessly cancel people and throw down truth bombs during the workday.
It's torture to have to wait till after work hours during the drive from home.
That is a good point.
That is, and I should have mentioned that, that is obviously the number one advantage from working from home.
That does cancel out all the other potential negatives, is that you can listen to the show whenever you want.
Jillian says, I've been a longtime viewer and Matt Walsh is my favorite commentator.
I am child free and I'm aware that it's a minority in conservative groups.
The biggest reason that we don't want to take the term childless is because those who are child free usually haven't had miscarriages.
The term childless refers to those who have tried and haven't been able to carry the term or had a stillborn.
The usage of childfree is not malicious.
We just don't want to take the word childless because we've made a conscious decision to not have children and the term childless should belong to those who wanted them and grieve that they haven't been able to.
It's not malicious intent.
Childfree folks also do not hate children, at least the majority of us don't, and we just don't want any of our own.
Also, most child-free are that way due to financial reasons.
I'm a big advocate for making sure you're in a stable place before forcing someone into existence.
A baby shouldn't be relied on to fix all of your problems in marriage, etc.
They're a huge, huge commitment beyond infancy, and so many don't even see that.
They just think, I want a cute baby, and don't think about how much work goes into it.
It's a life commitment.
Okay.
Obviously, I agree with you that it's a lifelong commitment.
You say that the child-free community is not anti-child or doesn't hate children.
I believe that that's the case for you, but just go to any so-called child-free forum.
And the thing is, I can't spend a lot of time on those forums.
I haven't looked at them before.
And that's, like, all you see is just people who despise kids and really do see them as a disease.
I understand your distinction between childless and child-free, but that's the reason why most people use the term child-free, is because they want to look at it as a pause.
I am free of the burden of children.
That's what it means, right?
I'm child-free.
I think the fact that it has a similar ring to cancer-free is not a coincidence.
And also, just once again, the fact that You know, if you don't end up having kids for whatever reason, you know, that's one thing.
That's always happened in history.
There have always been people who don't end up having children, of course.
But when it becomes part of your identity, I'm not saying that's the case for you, but the very fact that there is something called the child-free community, and they have forums, and they have, you know, like, you're defining yourself by your lack of something.
That, I think, is the most troubling thing.
Let's see.
Evan says, I'm a pretentious, effet, former academic.
So I can tell you that some of the jargon these people use in the academic sense, stochastic literally means something that may or may not happen.
No, seriously, that's what it means.
It doesn't even mean that something is statistically probable.
It just means that it's possible.
That's actually a really important point, too, because when I originally heard this term, stochastic terrorism, the first thing that I did was, I admit, I'd never heard the term stochastic before.
I'd never come across it, no one had ever used it in my presence, and so I looked up stochastic, and that's what I found.
Stochastic actually means, as you say, according to the dictionary, something that's random, just like it could happen, maybe it won't, but maybe it won't.
Yet stochastic terrorism Means that you're demonizing someone leading to potentially violence.
And so that's where, yeah, the term stochastic is actually important.
Because what they're saying is that if you say something that could or could not compel someone to violence, then you're a terrorist.
But obviously by design here, Well then, that means that, like, everyone's a terrorist.
Because it's possible, it's theoretically possible that anything you say at all could drive some maniac to go do something.
It's theoretically possible.
And so they give themselves the framework to just paint us all as terrorists, which obviously is the point.
Are you still giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values and see masculinity as toxic and think that you should teach your daughter to shave her beard?
Well, there is a better way.
Jeremy's razors are 100% real and 100% woke free.
The premium matte tungsten handle has more heft than the left.
The razor head pivots without caving and has six blades that are sharper than truth.
Those other razor companies keep virtue signaling to the totalitarian left and using your money to do it at the same time, but you don't have to let them.
When you buy Jeremy's Razors, you aren't just making Jeremy richer, you're making the woke left poorer, which is even more important.
75,000 people have already made the switch.
You can too.
Visit IHateHairies.com to get your Founders Series Shave Kit today.
That's IHateHairies.com.
Jeremy's Razors, shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Recently, Serena Williams retired from tennis.
And for most athletes, you know, after a long and successful career, retirement is a time for bittersweet reflection.
It's a time for gratitude.
But gratitude has never quite been the Serena Williams way, I suppose.
Neither has maturity, nor dignity, nor likability.
And so Serena, staying true to form, is riding into the sunset with her $260 million net worth and whining the whole way out.
In fact, she says that her retirement is not prompted by her age, but by sexism.
CNBC reports, tennis legend Serena Williams has been a fierce advocate for gender equality both on and off the court, and when she announced her retirement from the sport Tuesday morning, she made an important point about the unique sacrifices women must make in their careers.
In a Vogue article, Williams, who turns 41 next month, said that she will retire after the U.S.
Open, which begins in late August.
The win at the tournament would tie her with Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slam titles.
Quote, I have never liked the word retirement, Williams wrote in the article, which was transcribed from her conversation with Vogue contributor Rob Haskell.
Maybe the best word to describe what I'm up to is evolution.
I'm here to tell you that I'm evolving away from tennis toward other things that are important to me.
Okay, well, so far so good, right?
That's all fine, I guess.
Almost.
I mean, the whole, uh, I'm-not-retiring-I'm-evolving bit is pretty annoying and pretentious, but I'm willing to overlook it.
And actually, I looked up the full quote.
Serena Williams actually said that she would describe herself as in the middle of a transition, but she doesn't want to use that word because she doesn't want to appropriate it from trans people.
That's what she said.
But we're going to let that go, because we have other problems to deal with.
The article continues, Williams cited her family as the main reason why she'll step away from the sport, writing that her four-year-old daughter, Olympia, wants to be a big sister.
Williams has been married to Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian since 2017.
The desire to expand her family, however, wouldn't be a career-ending move if she were a man, Williams points out.
Believe me.
I never wanted to have to choose between tennis and a family, she wrote.
I don't think it's fair.
If I were a guy, I wouldn't be writing this because I'd be out there playing and winning while my wife was doing the physical labor of expanding our family.
Maybe I'd be more of a Tom Brady if I had that opportunity.
Okay.
So there's the problem.
It's difficult to know exactly how to respond to that because it's so crushingly stupid and incoherent.
It's also self-contradictory, as she was just worried about being sensitive to trans people, and now here she is making the transphobic claim that men don't have babies, and that's very problematic.
But that aside, it's not clear what her complaint is exactly.
Like, she whines that men don't have to do the physical labor of expanding the family, but what does that mean?
Is she referring to the fact that women are more likely to be the primary caretakers of children?
Well, that can't be it, because she has hundreds of millions of dollars and certainly already has an army of nannies and various other servants on standby.
She's not home every day raising her current four-year-old daughter.
She's obviously made arrangements there, so why couldn't she do the same thing for the next child?
When you've got $200 million in the bank, there's no reason why, if you don't want it to, there's no reason why having a kid would stop you from doing anything you want to do.
If you have no problem with having a nanny raise them.
Or is she, when she says physical labor, is she actually referring to the labor of labor?
Is she talking about the fact that women are the ones who physically bear and deliver children?
Well, we can only assume that that's what she meant, and if so, her complaint is less petty and selfish than it is just insane.
I mean, it's not fair that women are the ones who give birth?
What?
What do you mean, not fair?
Who are you registering this complaint with, exactly?
Nature?
God?
Or do you imagine that human reproduction is a patriarchal conspiracy, as if sinister white men in smoky rooms conspired to set things up this way?
Calling a woman's role in human reproduction unfair is like saying it's unfair that birds can fly and we can't, or it's unfair that gumdrops don't fall from the sky when it rains.
It's unfair that there isn't actually a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
An unfair thing is a thing that happens outside of the rules or not in accordance with the principles of justice.
That's what's unfair.
So what rule, what principle of justice is violated by the nature of human reproduction?
Any claim of unfairness is an appeal to some higher authority or principle.
So again, who or what is being appealed to here?
To top it all off, Serena is bitterly complaining about a pregnancy that hasn't happened yet.
She's going to try to get pregnant, potentially having to use medical assistance given her age, and yet she's complaining the whole way, as if the thing she's planning to do in the future and says she wants to do is nonetheless going to happen against her will.
It makes no sense.
Well, that's not exactly true.
I can make some sense of this.
Serena Williams, like any sufficiently modern and progressive Western person, She hates herself, and she rejects herself.
See, the way she sees it is that her femaleness is somehow apart from her true self.
Right?
Like, there's herself, there's her, and then there's her femaleness.
And her femaleness intrudes on her true self, causing inconveniences and interfering with her tennis career.
She does not see herself as a completely integrated whole.
And that's because nobody on the left does.
They divide themselves into pieces and put aspects of themselves at war with other aspects of themselves.
They become bitter and sullen, feeling somehow persecuted by nature itself.
Though they can't explain how, and they don't know who to complain to about it.
And the great shame in Serena's case, and in the case of so many leftist women, is that while she's doing all this complaining, you know, she's failing to see the blessing.
She sees as a curse what is really a blessing.
A woman's ability to conceive, to harbor and bring forth new life onto the earth is a beautiful, miraculous gift.
And you know what?
It's something far more significant and important than swinging a tennis racket around.
So it's not just that she's complaining and whining about it.
Why do I have to be the one to give birth?
Well, that's one way of looking at it, I guess.
But the healthier way of looking at it, the way that has more gratitude and will make you a happier person, that also makes a lot more sense, is to say, I get to be the one.
You know, I have been blessed with this enormous gift and also power.
That men don't have.
But as we already discussed, gratitude is unfortunately far outside the reach of people like Serena Williams.
And that is why she is today, on the cusp of her retirement, cancelled.
And we will not leave it there for today.
We, in fact, will go now to our next segment, our members-only segment.
