Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we know that children’s hospitals across the country are drugging and mutilating kids. And now we’re seeing the lengths they’ll go to cover up this fact. Also, Lizzo wins big at the VMAs and uses the opportunity to complain about her oppression. The geniuses in Los Angeles have invented a new way to destroy their city: require expensive hotels to house the homeless. Apple TV has a new show coming out that will make you beg for the sweet release of death. Heterosexuals march for straight pride in California. And a TikToker explains why frolicking in the rain is, you guessed it, racist.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”, streaming exclusively on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSX1
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Get 10% OFF Your Will! Use Promo Code ‘WALSH’ at EpicWill.com
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.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we know that children's hospitals across the country are drugging and mutilating kids, and now we're starting to see the lengths they'll go to cover up this fact.
Also, Lizzo wins big at the VMAs and uses the opportunity to complain about her oppression.
The geniuses in Los Angeles have invented a new way to destroy their city, require expensive hotels to house the homeless.
Apple TV has a new show coming out that will make you beg for the sweet release of death, heterosexuals march for straight pride in California, and a TikToker explains why frolicking in the rain is, you guessed it, racist.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
As a parent, you may be doing everything you can to protect your child from the left's not-so-secret agenda, but if you don't have a will in place designating who will take over as parental guardian should something happen to you, When the state will intervene.
If you're watching this show, I'll wager a bet that you don't want the state making those decisions for you, which is why you need to check out Epic Will.
Epic Will is an online will platform that costs less than your next trip to the store.
They can set you up with a will in as little as five minutes, starting at just $119.
Plus, you can save 10% when you go to epicwill.com and use code WALSH.
A will does so much more than protect your assets.
It gives you the power to say who will raise your kids should something happen to you.
It allows you to appoint a healthcare and financial power of attorney.
A living will slash advanced directive allows you to predetermine big decisions concerning life support so your loved ones won't have to, you know, carry that burden of deciding.
Take five minutes tonight to write a will ensuring that your kids will be raised the way you've intended in the event that something should happen to you.
Go to epicwill.com.
Use my code Walsh today to save 10% today.
Well the good news is that the bad guys are up against the ropes.
The bad news is that they own everything and they set the rules everywhere and they have most of the power but no soul to go along with it and so they can do almost anything and are willing to do literally anything to punish those who oppose them and win back whatever ground They've lost.
This is the volatile situation we find ourselves in, and here's the latest from that front.
So last week, we played for you the audio obtained by Shia Rychik, who's the woman who runs the Libsit TikTok account, when she called the Children's National Hospital in D.C., posing as a mother inquiring about obtaining a gender-affirming hysterectomy, quote-unquote, for her 16-year-old daughter.
Now, she was told in no uncertain terms that the hospital will, in fact, perform that particular procedure on a child that age.
So, you may recall this footage.
We'll play again a little piece of this exchange to refresh your memories.
Here it is.
Thank you for calling National Hospital.
Your call may be recorded for quality assurance.
I was calling for information about gender-affirming hysterectomies.
Okay, so gender-affirming hysterectomies.
I've been in touch with quite a few hospitals, and a lot of them, well, they said they won't do it for my 16-year-old, and then I was told that this hospital might, and I also saw it on your website, so if you guys do do it for a 16-year-old, I would be happy for, you know, to come for a consultation or whatever it takes.
Let me get you over to the operator, and I hate to transfer you.
I just, I just need to want to know if you guys do service at age, you know, before, obviously, before coming, you know, coming all the way for an in-person consult and going through all the paperwork and everything.
Well, yeah, it depends.
Each department's different.
Some departments cut off at 18.
How old is your patient?
16.
Okay, alright, so they're in the clear.
Well, that was the first hospital employee who unambiguously confirmed that the hospital will rip the uterus out of a gender-confused child for a sizable fee, of course.
Shia was then transferred to a second employee who once again confirmed it, but that's not the only confirmation she received.
The hospital's own website stated, in no uncertain terms, that these hysterectomies are performed on minors.
So, to review, that's two people at the hospital and the website.
All saying this.
Now, if you just woke up from a decade-long coma and were encountering this story, you'd be very confused and horrified and probably wish that you didn't wake up.
But, you know, you would probably think that the scandal here, the massive, earth-shattering scandal, is that a hospital, by its own testimony, is cutting the reproductive organs out of healthy young girls.
This is sadism and brutality that would make Josef Mengele cringe.
And yet, it's happening right here in the United States, in our nation's capital, no less.
But if you've been awake and semi-conscious, at least, over the last, you know, few years, you know that the scandal is never the evil itself.
That's never the scandal.
But rather, the fact that the evil was exposed.
David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress learned this the hard way when they went undercover a few years ago to reveal Planned Parenthood's business of selling the body parts of aborted children.
The media, as you recall, showed absolutely no interest in the crimes that were actually captured on tape.
Instead, they focused all of their wrath on the man who captured them.
Like, all they cared about is, well, not what was revealed in the tape.
They want to know, how did you reveal it?
That's the real story.
A similar thing is happening now.
The media circled the wagons around Children's National Hospital, just as it had around Boston Children's, which had information on its website to go along with a lengthy series of videos, all confirming that it performs various gender-affirming quote-unquote procedures on children.
And once this was exposed, that information was scrubbed, you know, from all the places, the websites and everything, and the media dutifully pretended that it never existed.
The same is the case here.
The Washington Post, shortly after this recording was released, published a lengthy article accusing her of sending violent mobs after the hospital and also accusing her of misinformation for simply reporting what the hospital itself explicitly said.
WAPO reports in their article, quote, Children's National Hospital has been inundated with threatening emails and phone calls after an influential right-wing Twitter account published a recording that falsely suggested that the hospital is performing hysterectomies on transgender children, a hospital spokeswoman said.
The torrent of harassment was accompanied by social media posts suggesting that Children's be bombed and its doctors be placed in a wood chipper.
The recording made by Libs of TikTok founder Shia Rychik features two telephone operators at the renowned DC medical facility stating, in response to Rychik's questions, that a 16-year-old trans boy would be eligible for a hysterectomy at the hospital's gender development clinic.
Children's has not disputed the authenticity of the recording, but said the employees provided inaccurate information.
Quote, none of the people who were secretly recorded by this activist group deliver care to our patients.
Hospital spokeswoman Ariana Amadi Perez said, "We do not and have never performed gender-affirming hysterectomies
for anyone under the age of 18."
Now once again, the spin from the hospital's public relations department is
being reported as absolute fact, as if it's inconceivable that a PR department could maybe lie or, you
know, deflect.
Thank you.
The Washington Post is not at all curious about the fact that two hospital employees and the website all said these procedures are done.
The hospital's allowed to rewrite history out in the open.
And we're supposed to pretend that, you know, we don't notice.
As for Libs of TikTok, the account was summarily suspended from Twitter for, quote-unquote, hateful conduct, though no offending tweet or specific rule violation has been given.
Now, we're accustomed to these kinds of manipulations from big tech and the media, but that shouldn't prevent us from just appreciating how egregious and evil this is.
Shia Raitchik has been branded a peddler of misinformation and kicked off of a major social media platform simply for accurately reporting exactly what a hospital said word for word.
Not even reporting it, just showing us, letting us hear the recording for ourselves.
The system would probably prefer not to be so blatant and out in the open when it does this sort of thing, but it has decided that it has no choice.
People are beginning to see just how hideous and brutal and dangerous the trans agenda is, but they can't be allowed to see it.
The truth must be concealed, no matter the cost.
And whether we like it or not, and I certainly don't like it, it is still the case that children's hospitals are very much a part of this conspiracy.
Children's hospitals across the country are not only drugging and mutilating kids, that's a fact, But it's another fact that they are conspiring to conceal that from us now.
How could you say this about children's hospitals?
I don't know, because it's what's happening?
It's what they're doing?
Take this report from Jason Rantz last week.
Reading now, it says, A University of Washington study, in partnership with Seattle Children's Hospital, claimed that gender-affirming care via puberty blockers leads to positive mental health outcomes for transgender teen patients.
That characterization, however, was false, forcing substantial edits to the materials used to promote the study and prompting UW to cease promoting the research.
Despite all that, the UW communications staff chose not to proactively respond to, quote, some pretty concerning claims about the study because it had already received glowing media coverage, according to emails exclusively obtained by the Jason Rantz show on KTTH.
In fact, the UW Medicine Communications staff never reached out to media outlets that offered incorrect coverage based on the faulty press materials.
Now, worse than not reaching out, they actively covered up the truth.
Reading on here, it says, Fourth-year UW Medicine student Erin Collin and UW Epidemiology PhD candidate Diana Tordoff tracked the mental health of 104 transgender patients aged 13 to 20 for a year.
The patients received gender-affirming care, which the researcher defined as taking either leuproloid testosterone or estradiol, using the data collected from patient experiences.
The researchers and UW Medicine claimed in a press release, That gender-affirming care dramatically reduces depression, calling it life-saving care.
The study was published in JAMA Open Network in a March 11th press release titled, Gender-Affirming Care Dramatically Reduces Depression for Transgender Teens, Study Finds.
UW Medicine claimed that researchers recently found that gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary adolescents caused rates of depression to plummet.
Okay, but that's not what the study showed.
The study actually showed no improvements in mental health for the patients receiving this form of care.
No improvement.
Now, be that as it may, the study, well, the version of the study prepared for press releases, received lots of, as I said, glowing coverage.
Mainstream media was over the moon about it.
Finally, we have a study confirming what we've been claiming for years.
Finally!
But it didn't exist.
It was a lie.
A journalist named Jesse Singal noticed some discrepancies between the PR materials about the study and the study itself and reached out to one of the study's authors for more information.
But the study's author stopped responding once Singal asked to see the actual raw data from the study.
That's when they stopped and didn't say anything else.
He contacted UW Medicine and was stonewalled there too.
Eventually, he wrote a report detailing his concerns, which led to lots of frantic scheming by officials at UW Medicine and Seattle Children's.
And we know about that because now we have the internal emails between those institutions.
Reading more from Rantz's report, it says, internal emails between UW Medicine and Seattle Children's acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations.
It was so concerning that Laura East, Department of Epidemiology spokesperson, wrote in an email that she wouldn't promote the study.
Quote, the article resulting from the inquiry was recently posted on the author's substack and includes some pretty concerning claims.
UW Epidemiology, UW SPH, UW News will not be including this article in our media tracking slash or otherwise driving traffic to this piece.
East email communication colleagues at UW Medicine and Seattle Children's.
Now, even after acknowledging all of this privately, that the claims were concerning and they went on and there are more emails back and forth, Acknowledging that what was claimed publicly does not match up with what the study actually says.
And despite them all agreeing to that privately, the decision was made between Laura East and other officials not to publicly correct the record.
This is an explicit agreement they made in their emails back and forth.
We are not going to reach out to the media and tell them that what they're saying about the study is wrong.
And they also said they're not going to respond to any of the outlets that had reached out to them.
And they felt comfortable taking that position because only conservative outlets had shown any interest in getting to the truth about the study.
Now, every other media outlet took the study, the PR version of it, like what was presented to them in the press release, and just put it in the headlines and that was it.
They didn't even look, they didn't even look at the raw data.
They just went with what they were told by the PR departments.
You're seeing a theme here emerge.
Whatever the PR department tells them, that's the story.
No curiosity about what lies underneath it.
The only outlets that had any interest in knowing about the actual information were conservative outlets.
And you can tell in the emails back and forth between the, you know, PR communications teams at these hospitals, that they're very aware of that.
They're very, you know, cognizant of the fact that it's only conservative outlets that are reaching out, and so they feel comfortable just ignoring them.
Now, finally, they did make corrections to the study, but they did so quietly, hoping nobody would notice.
And it didn't matter anyway.
They already got the headlines they wanted, and that's all that matters to them.
Now the fact remains that no credible long-term study has ever confirmed the wild claims the left makes about the benefits of gender-affirming care for kids.
They have no studies to back them up.
None.
So they have to lie about the studies they do have.
But they also realize that this lack of scientific evidentiary basis for what they're doing to kids is a problem.
Not a moral problem, as they see it, as they're soulless demons who couldn't care less about the morality of it, but it's a PR problem.
Which is why, mark my words on this, eventually, They will simply fabricate an entire study out of whole cloth.
Eventually, we're going to hear about a long-term study done over years with thousands of patients that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that these procedures, drugging and mutilating kids, is really good for them.
I mean, we already hear those claims.
Then you look at the study and you see that the claims don't match up with what the study actually says.
Eventually, they're going to just make up a study so that the claims do match up with what the study says.
They will get the evidence they need one way or another.
And they know they can get away with something like that because the entire system has their back.
And anyone who opposes or exposes them is simply shamed and silenced.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Cars with internal combustion engines will only be able to get license plates if they were built before the end of the 2020s, which means that people are going to keep repairing and driving their old cars for generations.
It also means You better go to rockauto.com right now and order all the parts to properly maintain and repair your car.
Your great-grandkids might be driving that car someday.
Rockauto.com has been in the auto parts business for 20 years.
Family-owned, their goal is to make auto parts available and affordable to keep you safe on the road.
Rockauto.com's online parts catalog is incredibly easy to use.
You can search all the parts available for your specific car.
SUV, truck, whatever you have with photos, specs, and installation tips.
Not only will they have the part you need, but they're usually going to have several
trusted brands to choose from.
Rock Auto's kits are also popular because they bundle together all the parts you need
for successful repair.
So go to rockauto.com and get brakes, shocks, carpets, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers,
lug nuts, or any other part you need.
Rockauto.com.
Be sure to write Walsh in their "How did you hear about us?"
box so they know that I sent you.
All right.
Well, we have to start here, obviously, with the biggest news, that the VMAs were last
Nobody knows exactly why, but they happen, they keep happening, no one can explain it, nobody understands, but they keep on having the VMAs.
And all I know is that Lizzo was there, my good friend Liz, obviously a big fan of hers, as you know.
First of all, she dazzled on the red carpet in this outfit.
We'll just take a look at this outfit.
Looking like, there it is.
She looks like a, you know, like a giant trash bag.
And I say that not in a negative way.
I mean, it's a glam... Here's what I'll say for this.
It's the most glamorous trash bag I have ever seen in my life, hands down.
Either that or she looks like some sort of sea creature, like maybe Ursula from Little Mermaid.
Or maybe more like a slightly misshapen lava cake.
Again, I say all that in as positive a way as you possibly can.
Anyway, she did win an award for something, and she got up there and she had a message.
She had changed her outfit, maybe for the best, but she had a message, an inspiring message, and this was all over social media last night.
People were very inspired by this.
Let's listen to it.
I don't know what music video for good means, but I do know what your vote means.
And that's a f***ing lot.
Your vote means everything to me.
It means everything to making a change in this country.
So remember when you're voting for your favorite artists, vote to change some of these laws that are oppressing us.
[Cheering]
[Laughter]
[Shh]
I don't know.
Someone should probably have told her that before she went on.
Okay, I'm confused.
I'm actually confused by a few things here.
First of all, she seems to indicate that she won for best music video for the song Good, but there is no music video?
She said she doesn't know what best music video for Good means, which leads me to believe that she won best music video, but the music video doesn't exist.
Am I correct here?
And then she goes on to say that, well, when you're voting for your favorite artist, remember to vote to change the laws.
First, do people vote for the VMAs?
Is that open to the public?
I didn't think it was.
But even if it is, what relation does that have to the laws?
Does she think that when you vote for who your favorite artist is at the VMAs, that somehow that has some kind of legal impact?
I don't know.
I'm very much confused by what she's saying there.
All I know is that what we got there at the end is that, well, we got to change the laws that are oppressing us.
So she's not sure how to change the law.
She has no idea.
She thinks that by voting for the VMAs, which I don't even think you vote for, you can change the law.
She's confused about that.
But all she knows is that there are laws oppressing us.
And of course, when she says us, she doesn't mean me as a white guy.
She's not talking about me.
She means her.
Like, laws are oppressing her.
But she can't stipulate or specify what laws she's talking about that are oppressing her because, and there's a reason for that, because there are no laws at all oppressing her.
She is a member of several different privileged classes, and so there are no laws oppressing her whatsoever.
And in fact, even some of the laws that ostensibly apply to everyone and restrict all of our behavior, she gets to effectively be exempt from.
So there are no laws.
There's no oppression whatsoever.
But I do appreciate it all the same.
Because it's always a clarifying moment, and she's obviously not the first one.
But it's always a clarifying moment when you get some wealthy celebrity at an award show wearing an outfit that costs more than most people's cars, you know, up at the award show talking about how they're oppressed.
I'm oppressed.
Well, if this is what oppression looks like to you, then words cannot describe how blessed your life is.
All right, let's move to this report from the Daily Wire.
Brittany, so we've got fake Heroism from a celebrity there.
Pretending to be heroic, speaking out against oppression, but she can't, but there is no oppression.
There's no oppression against her anyway.
There is plenty of oppression in this country.
It's just that she's exempt from almost all of it.
That's the fake courage.
Let's get to some real courage from a celebrity.
Daily Wire reports, Britney Aldean, the wife of country music star Jason Aldean, is fighting back after receiving attacks from liberal country singers over an Instagram post criticizing the transgender movement's focus on children.
Though most celebrities are reluctant to express any sort of right-wing views, Britney, 34, and her husband have become increasingly vocal about being conservative and supporters of former President Donald Trump.
She said, I really like to thank my parents for not changing my gender when I went through my tomboy phase.
She said, I love this girly life.
And then, that's what she originally posted.
And this is, by the way, a sentiment that is very common.
You hear this from people all the time, from adults, especially from women.
Because it's pretty common to go through a, you know, so-called tomboy phase, a little bit more of a masculine phase.
And I hear this from women all the time.
Like, thank God this stuff basically didn't exist when I was a kid.
Because I would be chopped into pieces right now.
They would have done it to me too.
So what she's expressing here is very normal.
It's the kind of thing normal people say all the time when they look at the gender madness in our country.
They look and they say, well, thank God this didn't exist when I was a kid.
But, you know, if you're in the public eye, you're not allowed to say normal things, especially not on this subject.
And so there were a lot of Supportive comments, but not from other people in the country music world.
Most of them just fell silent.
Maybe there's been a few countries, I think there's been a few country stars that have come out in support of her, but most of them are just silent.
They're not going to say anything about it.
And then others have come out against her.
So, some in country music attacked Britney for the comments and called her names.
The Voice winner and country star Cassidy Pope wrote via Twitter, You'd think celebs with beauty brands would see the positive in including LGBTQ plus people in their messaging.
But instead, here we are, hearing someone compare their tomboy phase to someone wanting to transition.
Real nice.
There's more criticism like that.
But Brittany Aldean didn't back down, posting a lengthy response of her own online.
She says, "Advocating for the genital mutilation of children under the disguise of love and
calling it gender-affirming care is one of the worst evils.
I will always support my children and do what I can to protect their innocence."
Some parents want to be accepted by society so badly that they're willing to make life-altering
decisions for their children who aren't old enough to fully comprehend the consequences
of those actions.
Love is protecting your child until they're mature enough as an adult to make their own life decisions.
Thankful my parents allowed me to go through my tomboy phase without changing my gender.
Until then, leave children alone.
Well, obviously she couldn't be more correct about all that.
And you think about where we are as a society that it actually takes courage.
I mean, what is she saying in this post?
All she's saying is don't chop the body parts off of healthy children, don't drug and castrate them, and let them be kids.
Just let them live their lives as children.
Let them go through phases.
It's a normal thing.
And yet a message like that actually takes a significant amount of courage for someone in her position to say.
And so far she hasn't backed down.
Which is why it's important, you know, I always, the celebrities that people with platforms who say something correct and then they get some backlash and immediately back down, I'm always quick to...
Uh, castigate those, those cowards, and deservedly so.
But the very few who say the correct and truthful and right and important thing, but then stick by it, I think we should also support them and give them some credit.
Um, and this is what we need.
We need people in the mainstream to start speaking out against this.
As someone like me, you know, I'm, I'm a conservative commentator.
That's what I am to most people.
I like to think there's some good that can be done by me speaking out against these things, and I will continue to do so.
But I also realize that it just goes with the territory, do what I do for a living, that the impact you can have is, you know, you're somewhat handicapped going into any kind of fight because you're seen as a political figure.
So of course you're going to talk about those things.
It's important for us to continue to, those of us who live in this world, to continue talking about it.
But what we need are people who are not seen primarily as political opinion people to speak out.
And they should be, because we know that almost everyone, almost everyone across the spectrum, looks at this kind of stuff.
They hear about hospitals, Who profess themselves that they do gender-affirming hysterectomies.
They hear about that and almost everyone knows that it is horrifying and insane.
And one of the most frustrating things, and tragic things, and disgraceful things, is that if everyone who recognized how horrifying this is, all the people who recognize it, if they all would just simply say so, If everyone would speak up, everyone who knows the truth, which is almost everyone, if they would all simply say so, most of this stuff would go away.
Because at a certain point, even though the left owns all the systems and the institutions, at a certain point, the public pressure becomes too much.
All right.
Axios has a report about another utopian city of the future.
And I bring this up for a reason, which I'll get to in a second.
But you remember the line in Saudi Arabia that we talked about a couple weeks ago?
That's the utopian futuristic city concept where everybody will live inside a giant wall stretching through a desolate wasteland.
Because we know the Libs, they don't want to build a wall on the southern border, but they will build a wall and live inside it.
So here's the new idea.
Billionaire Mark Lohr is fleshing out his plan to build a utopian city called Tulosa for 5 million people in the American desert.
And he's not the only one with such ambitions.
There are about a dozen projects worldwide to create sustainable, hyper-modern cities from scratch.
While they may never come to fruition, the proposals themselves hint at what cities of the future might look like.
Tolosa is set to be built on 150,000 acres in either Nevada, Utah, or Arizona, and 50,000 diverse people, is what they're saying.
Diverse people will call it home by 2030, according to newly released details from Lore, a serial entrepreneur who sold Jet.com to Walmart for $3.3 billion.
So there's going to be a lot of diverse people, and it's going to be sustainable, and all these great things will be very futuristic, whatever.
I don't think you need all the details.
Here's the point.
One of the many reasons why these utopian city ideas don't work and can't work, because if you look at the pictures from these, you know, the speculation about the artist's rendition of what this might look like, what do you always see?
These immaculate cities, clean, everything is peaceful, everyone's walking around smiling.
And that's the problem, right?
Yeah, you could build an immaculate, peaceful, clean city if nobody lives in it.
But once you start introducing people, then you have to take human nature into account.
And that's where things fall apart.
Because even if they build these futuristic, wonderful cities, they're going to put people in them, and then they're going to run the cities just like they run our current cities.
Not enforcing the law, not doing anything about homelessness.
You know, people are doing drugs, laying all over the street doing drugs and having overdoses.
That's what it's going to become.
So you're going to have a really nice futuristic city that is just covered in trash and filth and racked by crime.
Because they do not account for human nature.
One of the ways we know they don't account for human nature, aside from just looking at the state of any city in the country, another way we know is because these are the same people coming up with ideas like this.
In California, here's the latest idea, where they've decided they want to take homeless people and move them into hotels.
Real simple solution, right?
Because they look at homeless people and they think, well, the problem here is that the people don't have homes.
And so we could solve the problem by just putting them in a building.
This is because this is how you think if you're a leftist or if you're a child.
I can remember having this conversation with my own kids when they were five years old and they would see homeless people and say, Daddy, if they're homeless, why don't we just give them homes?
And that's a very good question for a five year old.
But if you're an adult, you should realize that the homeless problem is not, you know, it's not simply a problem that they don't have homes.
That's certainly not where the problem begins.
Like, there's a reason why these people don't have homes.
But tell that to the people that are proposing this law.
Let's watch a little bit of the CNN report here.
In Los Angeles County, more than 60,000 people are homeless on the average night.
And more than 20,000 hotel rooms lie empty on the average night.
See where this might be going?
It's insane.
It isn't going to solve the problem.
We think this is one part of the solution.
By no means do we think this solves the homelessness crisis.
But do hotels have a role to play?
Of course they do.
So, the union he leads, which reps hotel workers, gathered enough signatures and Angelenos will vote on a bill that would force every hotel in town to report vacancies at 2pm every day, then welcome homeless people into those vacant rooms.
Honestly, would you check into a hotel knowing that the chance of your neighbour, to the left or right, is a homeless individual?
Manoj Patel voluntarily rents some rooms to homeless people who are vetted and paid for by a local church, but he's against this bill that would make that mandatory.
We barely are surviving, number one.
Number two, we have to think of the safety of our staff.
And number three, we're not professionally or any otherwise equipped with any of the supporting mechanism that the homeless guest would require.
What services would be provided remains unclear.
Also unclear the funding and hotels would be paid fair market rate.
Brilliant.
Just a brilliant idea.
Can you imagine you pay $900 a night to stay at the Ritz-Carlton or something and there's a homeless meth addict next door?
Like, you're walking to your room, and they wouldn't even, I say next door, that assumes they'd be in the room, which they wouldn't even be.
You're walking to your room, and you're paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a night, and you're stepping over a homeless guy defecating in the hallway.
That's what they want to set up.
And the great thing here is, one of the voices of reason in this report is an actual homeless guy who says, uh, no, don't do this.
Let's watch the rest of it.
First of all, it's a blessing.
It's a great room.
room key. The pandemic era program now winding down that inspired this bill by
placing more than 10,000 people in hotels that volunteered.
Sean Bigdeli among them. Well first of all it's a blessing it's a it's a
great room the technology is not up to par but you know what technologies
you have in a tent.
This bill would also force developers to replace housing demolished to make way for new hotels, and hotel permits would be introduced, as well as making every hotel from a Super 8 to the Biltmore accept homeless people as guests.
I don't think that's a good idea.
Why not?
Maybe for some, but, you know, there's a lot of people with untreated mental health and some people do some damage to these poor buildings, man.
This happened in Manoj Patel's motel.
And she marked all walls.
Curtains she burnt.
Thank God there was no fire.
Even marked the ceiling.
Opponents of housing the homeless in hotels fear this and fear tourists could be put off from even coming to L.A.
Yeah, you think so?
I mean, if they haven't already been put off.
Like, if you're going to Los Angeles, right now at least, you might think that, yeah, it's an apocalyptic wasteland out there and there's just homeless people and drug addicts and criminals everywhere, but at least I'll be safe inside the hotel room.
You take that away and there's no reason to go.
So, you know what?
Just let them do it.
These idiots, they are determined.
To just destroy their cities.
They are determined to do it.
They want to destroy their cities and live in the wreckage of it.
And you know what?
Go ahead and do it.
You do something like this, it is the end of the hospitality and hotel industry in the city.
And then thus, it's the end of the tourist industry as well.
Because those two things go hand in hand.
So go ahead and do it.
I mean, why not?
Go ahead.
What's the point of even arguing against it?
Reasonable people trying to save you maniacs from yourselves.
But just for the record, this again is what, if you are not a child, if you're over the age of five, my children, my nine-year-olds, we had this conversation when they were five, they now understand some things about the homeless problem that even adult leftists don't understand.
And one of the most fundamental things here, Is that again, there's a reason why homeless people are homeless.
Because, you know, if everything else was normal, if these are just like normal, mentally healthy people, don't have drug abuse problems, there's no reason why they'd be homeless, okay?
If you don't have a drug abuse problem, and you're not crazy, and especially if you're physically, you know, able, You can at least walk around, then there's no reason why you would end up on the street for any length of time.
Because there's always some kind of housing option.
It might not be great, but you can get some kind of job and afford some kind of house.
It might not be great, it might not be nice, but you won't be on the street.
Which is why almost every homeless person you see on the street Has severe mental health problems, okay, and or is addicted to drugs.
And for a lot of them, it's both.
And the two feed off of each other.
You know, when you're doing meth and heroin and all that, it's not great for your brain.
And so you could give them money, you could put them in a house, but it goes right into the drugs.
It's all they care about.
And that's how they end up on the street in the first place.
So to just like leapfrog over the underlying problems, mental illness, drug abuse, we're going to leap over that and just take these people as they currently are and put them in a house, put them in a room.
There's zero chance that that results in anything but total disaster.
But whatever, why even explain it?
Go ahead.
Destroy your city.
Go ahead and do it.
Please, please do.
Have at it.
Alright, one other thing, a little bit of entertainment news.
This is from Screen Rant.
It says, The Terminal List Season 2 gets a hopeful update as lead star Chris Pratt begins contract negotiations.
Debuting on Amazon Prime Video in July, the action-thriller follows Lieutenant Commander James Reese, a Navy SEAL, seeking to avenge the murder of his family.
Though it received largely negative reviews, The Terminal List made a big splash with audiences.
Landing the number one spot on Amazon Prime's list within two weeks of its premiere.
It also was watched for 1.6 billion minutes across its eight episodes per Nielsen's data.
Now, I bring this up because my wife and I just finished a terminal list this weekend, and I can report with confidence that, among other things, The Terminal List is yet another argument for never taking critics seriously ever about anything.
Because they have, as I mentioned in the article, totally panned this show.
Annihilated it.
It has like a 39% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Abysmally bad ratings, which is absurd.
Because I watched it, and I discovered, of course, that it's a very solid, very effective show.
It's a revenge thriller.
It's really dark.
I'm warning you ahead of time if you haven't seen it.
It's brutal.
It does not compromise, which I appreciate.
I mean, this is a show that doesn't pull any punches at all.
Like, it doesn't take you up to the brink and then pull back.
It goes right over, okay?
But it's effective, and it's suspenseful, and the performances, especially Chris Pratt's performance, are terrific. I think Chris Pratt's performance in this is
his best work as an actor hands down.
And to make the critical reaction even more absurd, there's another Amazon show
that's very similar in tone and plot called Reacher, about, you know, Jack Reacher, which
Tom Cruise did the film version of this character, and then most people think that the TV version is much
closer to the source material.
But that show has over 90% of Rotten Tomatoes.
It's also a revenge thriller.
It's also pretty violent.
The only difference is that Terminalist is better.
The performances are much better.
It remains gripping from the first moment to the last.
There's not a lot of lag time.
It doesn't slow down very much, whereas Reacher kind of drags in the middle like most shows do.
So why did Terminalist get panned?
It's because, well, it stars Chris Pratt, for one, and it's been decided that Chris Pratt is some kind of conservative Christian, which means that you can never favorably review anything that he stars in anymore.
Even though that's not true.
He's not a conservative Christian, but that's how he's painted.
And also, the film is about badass, tough dudes.
That's what it's about.
It doesn't compromise there either.
It's about, you know, tough, violent men.
They don't try to shoehorn any tough, kick-ass women into it.
There are women in the film who play crucial roles in the overall plot.
But you don't see them punching guys and knocking them out.
Nothing like that happens.
And the show doesn't worry about filling any diversity quotas either.
Although obviously there are non-white people in the show.
You just don't get the sense that they're in the show for diversity reasons primarily.
They're just there to tell the story.
And it's the story that matters.
And that's why critics hate it.
Not a perfect show by any means.
There are elements of it, decisions that were made, especially towards the end, that I didn't really care for.
But overall, very good show.
No show is perfect.
Or few are, anyway.
But it's a good, solid, effective show worth watching.
And it's better, at least, than a show featuring Kim Kardashian, Hillary Clinton, and Meghan the Stallion.
And also Gloria Steinem.
Which is what Apple has coming out.
And this is a show, play a little bit of the preview for you.
So Terminal List has a 39%.
This show is going to be, we already know that this is a 100% rave review, before it even comes out.
We don't even, it doesn't need to come out.
No one needs to see it.
This is critically acclaimed already from the beginning, but here's the preview.
Okay, here we go.
We're hitting the road to shine a light on women who inspire us to be bolder and braver.
Leadership doesn't look one way.
It's a giant rainbow.
You're not gonna break me down.
You'll get worn out before I do.
Women who push us outside our comfort zone.
You got this!
And make us laugh.
I'm in deep Georgia and they might have never met a Muslim.
Or they don't know they have.
Or they don't know they have because we walk among you.
You have a marriage that has been on public display since the beginning.
You said the gutsiest thing you ever did was stay in your marriage.
That doesn't mean that's right for everybody.
To throw someone's life away when people really do make changes.
I just believe in second chances.
My mother needed rehabilitation, not prison.
Your survival is your power.
Someone say to me, you're not good enough because you have melanin.
How dare you?
I have a master's in whites.
I just want whites to get a GED in blacks.
Every single person makes some impact on the planet every single day.
We can choose what sort of difference we make.
Speak truth to power.
You know, there's a movie called The Misery, a Stephen King movie that came out, you know, years ago, with Kathy Bates, and she plays this insane sociopath who takes this guy prisoner, and at one point she puts a 2x4 between his legs, at the ankles, and then takes a sledgehammer and hammers his feet so that they're pointing at each other diagonally, like hobbling him so he can't go anywhere.
And I bring that up because Hillary Clinton reminds me a lot of Kathy Bates in that film, but also because I'd rather have that happen to me than watch one episode of that show.
I don't want to see it, is what I'm trying to say.
It looks terrible.
And it's not only a terrible show, but it continues to cheapen the idea of courage, which is maybe the worst thing about it, because the show is called Gutsy.
And then it's called gutsy.
We've got Hillary Clinton, Kim Kardashian, Meghan Thee Stallion.
Few of these women have ever displayed courage in their lives.
Least of all Hillary Clinton.
And then we're told in the film, the gutsiest moment of her life was when she chose to stay with Bill Clinton, presumably after the Lewinsky affair.
But she also stayed with him after he raped Juanita Broderick.
Allegedly.
And when he was accused of sexual assault and harassment many other times.
And when he was jet-setting with Jeffrey Epstein, hanging out on Sex Slave Island.
She stayed through all of that.
Didn't just stay, but she actually slandered and silenced and intimidated her rapist husband's accusers.
And then had Jeffrey Epstein murdered.
Allegedly.
So is that courage?
I mean, is that what that is?
Or is that being a heartless, soulless, power-hungry, demonic old witch?
I mean, tomato, tomato, I suppose.
Let's get to the comment section.
I'm in California and feel lonely a lot politically, but knowing that only 12 shows from The Daily Wire ends up at number six in the entire lineup really does make me happy.
Let's go, team.
Yeah, well, you're not alone.
You're increasingly alone in California.
I do have to tell you that, so you might want to think about it if you can.
Move.
Yeah, across the country, you're not alone at all.
And as I said, it's actually, you know, 12 shows.
They counted us 12 active shows, and we're number, I think, six overall in downloads, but only about half of those shows are daily shows.
So really, it's even more impressive than that.
If I do say so myself.
Bubblehead says Matt, I hope you can cover the issues regarding the VA in Canada
casually recommending euthanasia to a veteran with PTSD That is an issue that I was totally unaware of until I read
this comment just right before it went on the air and I Did look into it briefly and yeah
I don't know enough yet to give you a full analysis of it other than to say that that's obviously horrifying and evil
and wrong But that apparently is exactly what happened
There was a veteran that called the VA, suffering from PTSD, didn't have any terminal illness, although even if he did, that still would be horrifying and wrong to suggest that he killed himself, but didn't.
Struggling, right, mentally and emotionally with Trauma related to combat and everything else.
And it was suggested casually by the person on the phone, oh well you might think about killing yourself.
Now there wasn't, maybe it wasn't put that way exactly, but that's what was said.
And that is something that already happens in other parts of the world and other parts of Europe.
They, you know, euthanasia is somewhat common for people who do not suffer from terminal illnesses.
And we're going to start to see that more and more on this side of the Atlantic.
And I've been warning about that.
This is one of the reasons why we should oppose euthanasia across the board, period.
Because hopefully everyone sees by now, when it comes to the left, and it comes to their anti-human death cult agenda, when you open the door to them, even a crack, right, then you've let them in.
You cannot open the door even a crack.
You got to keep that door shut.
And the problem is that all of these doors, to all of these terrible things, we've opened all the doors.
And then we've opened them a little bit and said, oh no, this is as far as we want to open it.
It's too late now.
So with euthanasia, with the idea of like doctors killing somebody as a form of medical treatment, that is a door we should have kept shut, but we didn't.
The20Bandit1 says, I'm loving this season of Matt Walsh.
The giant walrus plot is epic.
Is it?
I feel like we're stretching it a bit.
I feel like that plot is a little bit stretched.
I don't know.
That's just me.
Not that it's not important to me.
It is very important to me.
Don't get me wrong.
Leor says, can we please be told what it is we're missing out on on the members only section?
Maybe it's when Matt gets all cheery and soft-hearted and starts talking about his hidden admiration and love for pandas.
We won't tell you.
This is for, and I made it clear with the Daily Wire members, that they're my favorites, and the conversations that we have are just between us.
Okay?
So if you want to be in that club, you have to sign up.
Tie My Shoe says, we need Matt on Rogan.
Well, I agree.
I'd love to go on Joe Rogan.
Maybe reach out to Joe Rogan and suggest it if you're a fan of his show, as am I. I know he's a big fan of the film, What is a Woman?
He talks about it all the time, which I really appreciate.
I'd love to go on and talk about the film with him.
Hint, hint.
Let's get to the daily cancellation.
You know, when I was a kid many years ago, it was thought that the left, who we perhaps erroneously called liberals at the time, mainly wanted to break down boundaries and establish a free, less rigid, more open society.
Now, I didn't think that about the left.
Even when I was like eight years old, I knew better.
But lots of people did think it.
In recent years, however, even the most naive and oblivious among us have finally begun to understand the truth.
Leftists on the whole are not only uninterested in freedom and openness, but are in fact primarily focused on establishing boundaries.
That's their main thing.
This is the defining characteristic of the modern leftist.
He wants more rules, more ordinances and mandates, more fencing to contain and control people.
It's just that the boundaries he seeks to set are arbitrary and capricious and often psychotically petty.
And he himself is always, of course, exempt from them.
Just the last few days have given us a couple of examples of this sort of thing.
We start here in Modesto, California, a quote, straight pride march, quote, devolved into violence, as the New York Post puts it in their report, when counter-protesters clashed with the marchers outside of an abortion clinic.
Now, it's generally agreed by the media, and by the counter-protesters who showed up at the march, and seemingly by most people on social media, that a straight pride march is not only absurd, but also inherently bigoted.
And yet, the very same people who will categorize a straight pride march in that way will also insist that gay pride marches are noble and important.
So here we see the arbitrary boundary being put in place.
Gays can march, you know, and they should be celebrated for doing so.
Heterosexuals who march are bigots and morons.
That's the boundary.
But it makes no sense.
There is no intelligible reason That anyone's ever given, or could ever give, why it's acceptable to march and express your pride in every sexual orientation under the sun except heterosexuality.
Just as there is no intelligible, coherent reason why it should be considered good and healthy for every race and ethnicity to express pride in themselves and their heritage except white people.
The left has attempted to build this fortress around the concept of pride and declared that no white straight people should ever be allowed inside, yet they can't really justify that.
Everyone everywhere is allowed to be proud of who they are, the left says, except white, straight people.
They're the only ones who can.
In fact, for them, such pride is unthinkably, brutally racist and bigoted.
And this is the rule they've established, and for whatever reason, most people are happy to follow it without asking any questions about it.
Now, in reality, I think it's ludicrous for anyone to take pride in their sexual orientation.
Being attracted a certain way is not in itself an achievement.
Now, I take pride in my beautiful wife and my children, my family, none of which I would have if I wasn't heterosexual, but it would feel rather reductive and silly to call my pride in my family straight pride.
Actually, rather than a straight pride march, I'd be in favor of a family march.
How about that?
Perhaps we should have a march celebrating the family.
Celebrating the nuclear family, that's what the march should be.
Don't call it a straight pride march, call it a family pride march.
Not a bad idea, the more I think about it.
In any case, the point is that however silly a straight pride march might be, it cannot possibly be any sillier than a gay pride march.
And that, I'm guessing, is the primary point that the people in the Straight Pride march are trying to make.
You don't get to make rules for us.
You don't get to grant yourself special privileges.
It doesn't work that way.
If you get to march, then so do we.
That's the point, and it's perfectly valid.
The left's boundaries that they set up should be broken down just simply for the sake of breaking them down.
And this is especially true as the boundaries become more bizarre and constricting and trivial.
Which brings us to our second example.
There's a TikTok user who goes by the handle amushroomblackly, and she went viral over the last few days with her reaction to a Drew Barrymore video where Barrymore runs laughing through the rain.
Now, a Mushroom Blackley has decided that it's racist for a white person to frolic in the rain.
Now, I can think of many reasons to oppose adults doing any kind of frolicking at all, but she's making it racial, and she's saying that the problem is that if you do this, then you're racist against black people, though she's not really able to explain why.
Let's listen.
(laughing)
You and I both know that you are capable of enjoying the rain and frolicking freely
without filming it and then posting it to TikTok.
You know what? I'm going to go get a drink of water.
Now, you've just cosigned, okay?
You've just cosigned at least 3 million 8.5 by 11 front and back people who just go out of their way To disrespect and dismiss the boundaries that black creators have set.
And now you're one of those people.
So... I guess my question would be... Why?
Why is it so important to all of you to treat us like we don't matter?
Now, it's hard to know exactly where to begin here.
She makes clear that black TikTok creators have set a boundary which forbids white people from publicly enjoying themselves in the rain.
We may do so privately, perhaps in our own backyards where no one can see us, but we may not make a spectacle of this enjoyment.
And if we do, then we're not only racist, but we're sending a message that black people don't matter.
So if you watch that video of Drew Barrymore laughing in the rain, She's laughing about the fact, this is like an evil laughter.
She's laughing about how much she hates black people.
Apparently.
Yet, it's not explained why this is racist, or how frolicking in the rain could send a message like that, or why these boundaries were set, or perhaps more importantly, why anyone should give the slightest damn about the boundaries she has set up for us.
Now, fortunately, she did post a follow-up video with more information, so maybe we'll get a little bit more clarity here.
Why is it an issue for me to stand firm in what I believe?
Male black creators frolicked in the grass.
Female black creators started frolicking in the rain.
Okay?
Oh, poor Drew had a hard childhood.
Says the white woman to the black woman in America.
I'm not picking.
Nobody is picking on her.
I pointed out the obvious, but what y'all really are not catching is the reactions.
Like, okay, say that was a complete and total stretch, right?
Y'all still went out of your way to demean me, put me down, call me out my name.
Dismiss my opinion on my own TikTok.
But defend Drew and her hard childhood?
Because she's the only one who ever had a hard childhood.
Well, we went out of our way to dismiss your opinion and demean you because you're stupid.
That's why.
It's a perfectly logical response.
But it all makes sense now.
Well, it doesn't make sense, but at least now I understand what sort of nonsense we're dealing with.
A Mushroom Blackley believes that white people cannot engage in any form of frolicking, not just frolicking in the rain, but even frolicking in the grasses out of bounds, because black people on TikTok frolicked before us.
Apparently, there are black people on TikTok frolicking.
This is a thing, I guess.
But they invented it.
And having invented it, nobody with lighter skin is allowed to engage in it, therefore.
So what Drew Barrymore has done here is a form of frolic-based plagiarism.
This is the claim.
And it is, of course, mind-numbingly stupid.
Though I actually appreciate it in a certain way, because Mushroom Blackley has inadvertently illustrated the absurdity of the appropriation charge. Now this might be the most
absurd version of appropriation, but it kind of shows it's symptomatic of pretty much all
appropriation claims. Because obviously, black people did not invent frolicking. They weren't the
first ones to do it in general, nor to film it.
And even if they did, which they didn't, that still would not give a certain race ownership over the practice of frolicking.
Frolicking is open to all races.
I myself frolic through fields of daffodils on a weekly basis and will continue to do so.
It's how I get my cardio.
But this is how the appropriation claim usually works.
A white person is accused of stealing something that, first of all, was absolutely not invented by the race they're accused of stealing it from, and second of all, cannot be stolen anyway because it cannot be possessed in the first place.
But this is almost beside the point.
The boundaries are not meant to be logical or defensible or morally coherent.
They exist simply to be abided by.
The left erects these fences and walls and the rest of us are meant to just live within them.
As the boundaries get closer and closer together, and more and more things become suddenly off-limits, and more and more things that you enjoy doing, and I enjoy doing, like frolicking, all of a sudden, you're not allowed to do anymore.
It's a game of power and control.
And the only way to win the game is to refuse to play it.
So, march for straight pride if you want.
Frolic in the rain.
You can even frolic for straight pride.
Though that may send mixed messages.
Do whatever you want, because the people who set these arbitrary, ridiculous boundaries are today cancelled.
And that will do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members block, hope to see you over there.
