Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we will discuss the latest example proving that there is a full fledged war on childhood innocence in our culture. Also, senile Biden continues screaming dementedly into cameras. The Seattle teachers union prepares to go on strike. The mayor of Chicago recoils in horror as busloads of illegal immigrants show up in her city. And Men’s Health magazine declares that heterosexuality is a shameful, offensive fetish.
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at jeremysrazors.com.
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
Check out our daily news podcast Morning Wire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, DailyWire+ or wherever you listen to podcasts.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Skip the grocery store & choose Good Ranchers for 100% American meat. $30 OFF your order + FREE Shipping! GoodRanchers.com/WALSH or use code: WALSH at checkout!
Hallow is the #1 Christian Prayer App in the US. Get a 3-month free trial at hallow.com/mattwalsh.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Wall Show, we will discuss the latest example proving that there is a full-fledged war on childhood innocence in our culture.
Also, senile Biden continues screaming dementedly into cameras.
The Seattle Teachers Union prepares to go on strike.
The mayor of Chicago recoils in horror as busloads of illegal immigrants show up in her city.
And Men's Health Magazine declares that heterosexuality is a shameful, offensive, disgusting fetish.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Regardless of what the administration defines as a recession, Americans are worried.
That's the fact.
Food and gas prices are higher than I've ever seen in my lifetime, which is why I'm so grateful for my favorite meat delivery service, Good Ranchers.
While grocery store meat prices continue to rise, Good Ranchers' inflation-proof model locks you in on the price that you subscribe to on the day that you subscribe for the life of your subscription.
It does not change.
Plus, you can pause your subscription for up to 90 days or cancel anytime you want.
But, trust me, you won't want to.
Good Ranchers ships 100% American meat, born, raised, and harvested in the U.S.
right to your door.
All of their beef is prime or upper choice, the two highest grades available, superior steakhouse quality.
Good Ranchers not only supports American agriculture, they're also big fans of The Daily Wire.
They sponsor all of our shows.
That's good enough reason, I think, to go check them out.
And the other reason is that the food is just delicious.
So go to GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh and use code WALSH at checkout.
You'll get $30 off plus free shipping.
You can subscribe to lock in your price and recession-proof your meats for life.
You gotta do that right now.
That's goodranchers.com slash Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout.
Well, it was a very gender-stereotypical weekend in my family, much like every other weekend, I suppose, but even more so this time, because I took my sons for a boys' trip, and my wife took the girls for a girls' trip, and the girls apparently spent the long weekend eating at nice restaurants and shopping, and they even on Saturday dressed up real fancy-like and went to a tea time, which is something that exists in the modern United States, evidently.
I had no idea.
For our part, you know, the boys went to a lake house in Kentucky.
Now, originally, I mentioned in the show, I wanted to rent a dilapidated shack in the woods that I found on Airbnb, but my wife was concerned about the serial killer factor.
We went back and forth about it, ultimately.
Unsurprisingly, she won that argument, so we settled on the lake house instead, and we spent our time kayaking and fishing and hiking and collecting interesting rocks and bones that we found along the shoreline and so on.
We ate hot dogs that we cooked over a fire.
We didn't bathe, of course, the whole weekend.
At night, we watched Westerns.
We had a lot of interesting conversations, too, many of them centered around dinosaurs.
My boys are finally going through a dinosaur phase, and I'm grateful for that because I love dinosaurs, and for years I haven't had anyone to talk to about them, and that finally is changing.
It was a good time, all told.
And the sort of childhood experience that I want the boys to remember as they get older, most importantly, I want them to actually have a childhood.
My wife and I want that desperately for all of our children, and we have organized much of our lives around this goal, because that's what you have to do now as a parent.
If you want your child to have a childhood, you have to be very intentional about it.
A fun weekend is nice, but these days parents have to work nearly constantly to protect and nurture their children's childhoods.
Kids can't do it themselves and they don't realize how precious it is anyway.
That's not the kind of thing you realize until it's gone and it's too late.
The other thing kids don't realize, and a lot of parents unfortunately don't realize either until it's also too late, is that we live in a culture which has dedicated itself to destroying childhood.
So it requires the active protection and preservation of us as parents because there are so many forces actively engaged in an effort to demolish it.
Our culture sees the innocence of childhood as a thing to be exploited and eradicated.
But the innocence of childhood is childhood.
Innocence is what makes it childhood.
It's the thing that we look back on fondly as adults and mourn having lost.
Innocence is also what adds sort of a bittersweet tinge to every wholesome moment that we have with our kids.
Because as parents, we look at our kids and we know something they don't know.
We know that this isn't going to last.
We know that one day they'll be jaded and weary, just like us.
And it hurts us to think about that, but it's the truth.
Yet, if we aren't diligent, then the loss of innocence happens much sooner than it should, and at a time when our kids aren't ready for it.
When I got home on Monday night and started the often...
Slightly or even extremely depressing process of prepping for my show the following day.
The first thing that I saw was this video, highlighted by Chris Ruffo and originally produced by Laurie Children's Hospital.
Now, this is another one of those materials which was published by a children's hospital, but which you and I are not allowed to notice and certainly not allowed to talk about, lest we be terrorists.
So, terrorists we will be, I guess, because here's the video.
Alright, so you want to talk about gender today?
Yes.
So what do you, what is gender to you?
Like my birth parents said that I was a girl but they made a mistake.
Yeah, us too.
Yeah.
Right?
So your mommy and I, we assumed that you were a girl.
But then when did you set us straight?
Well, I was at least like five or six.
But it started before that.
You kept sending us signals.
Right?
You'd say sometimes.
I want to be a boy.
Yeah.
Sometimes I want to be a girl.
Something just doesn't seem right here.
Well, I wasn't a girl or a boy.
Ah, so what are you?
Non-binary.
Right.
And how do you feel about being non-binary?
Good.
Your mom and I have tried our best to support you and make that, like, something that's celebrated in our household.
Have you ever spoken to your class about your gender?
Yeah.
What did you tell them?
I told them my pronouns and also my name.
And why are your pronouns important to you?
It'd be like if I just was like, I can't remember your name.
I'm just going to call you Susie.
Wait, what?
Yeah, that wouldn't be so cool, would it?
Well, if you ever forget someone's name, you can ask them.
Yeah, if you forgot their name, you can ask them.
Or if you don't know somebody's pronouns, you can ask them, right?
Yeah.
So asking is very important.
Yeah.
It represents you, right?
Yeah.
How did it feel to be able to share your story?
It felt really, really, really good.
It felt really good.
Lord, I hate these people.
I really do.
The woman in that, I just despise them and everything they stand for.
I despise it so much.
And we're supposed to buy that as some sort of organic conversation while the child is obviously repeating what has been rehearsed.
Now, I watched that video, and I immediately think of my boys running down the shoreline, excitedly picking up rocks.
They spent hours doing this, by the way.
I mean, just like, they could spend hours picking up rocks.
Even though the child in the video is about the same age as my kids, what she's talking about, rather being forced to talk about, you know, the lines that she's being coerced into repeating, are so far outside of the world that my kids live in.
They are 10 million miles away from all of that.
They've never heard the phrase non-binary.
They don't know what gender identity is.
They spend 0% of their time thinking about pronouns.
They don't think about sex either.
Because kids at that age shouldn't be thinking about sex at all or anything related to it.
And they won't think about it or talk about it unless the adults suggest it.
No child thinks about any of this stuff or wants to think about it.
This has to be imposed from the outside.
Their innocence is ripped away and this is put in its place.
Now, whenever we talk about this, the war on childhood innocence, and we've talked about it many times, we've arrived at the, I think, correct conclusion that much of this is driven by the left's desire to exploit the ignorance of childhood.
You know, we see innocence, they see ignorance.
And, you know, ignorance and innocence go hand in hand.
They're peas in a pod, as it were.
But that's what the left homes in on, the ignorance part of that.
Because then that means that this is something they can exploit.
Much of what they profess as leftists is so self-evidently absurd that they have to recruit people at an age when they lack the mental capacity to notice absurdity or distinguish fantasy from reality.
Children are easy prey, and if they're brainwashed young enough and in large enough numbers, the entire generation eventually becomes an ideological army for the left.
So that's part of the story, and that's the part of the story that we talk about a lot.
That's kind of the plan, the plot, concocted and put into effect by powerful people and institutions.
But on an individual level, however, the war on innocence is also largely a product of just narcissistic adults whose self-absorption is like a black hole that sucks everything into itself.
So, not all of them necessarily say to themselves explicitly, I'm going to corrupt this child because it will help my cause ideologically and politically.
Lots of them are that intentional about it, obviously, but in many other cases, they barely even see the child.
They barely see anything at all.
Because whenever they look at anything or anyone, they only see themselves reflected back.
The girl in that video.
gets sucked into this world by sheer gravitational pull.
Now, it's obvious there's a lot of intentionality there, too, because the mother has taken this poor child and put her on display.
But even if she didn't, the girl hardly stands a chance with a mother like that.
She was cursed with this self-obsessed egomaniac.
Now, to protect a child And her innocence requires you to see outside of yourself.
It requires you to value something greater than yourself.
It requires you to have the capacity for sacrifice.
For love.
You know, you see a child, the innocence of childhood, and you say, this is a wonderful, joyful thing.
That is good for a child, and I'm going to not only let them have that innocence, but I'm going to protect it.
Not for me, not because it's going to help me, but just for them, for their own sake.
That's it.
But to say that to yourself, to do that, requires love.
It requires you to see outside of yourself.
And these people cannot do that.
It is beyond their grasp.
And so children are made to pay the price.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
In a society rife with anti-religious ideologies like the ones we hear from
the left on a daily basis, it can be incredibly challenging to ground oneself
in what we know to be true and good.
To keep from descending into distrust, frustration, or even hatred.
That's why I find God's peace every day through prayer and meditation with Howl.o.
Howl.o is the number one Christian prayer app in the US and the number one Catholic app in the entire world.
It's rooted in Catholic tradition, but it's an amazing resource for any Christian
looking to dive deeper into their prayer life, which is something we should all be looking to do
all the time.
Howl.o has prayers and meditations to guide you throughout your entire day, morning to night.
And Howl.o is launching its exclusive athlete prayers as well.
You can join some of the best Christian athletes in the world like Brett Favre for some motivational
and inspirational meditations to help you get off your lazy butt and get to the gym
or train for a race or sport or whatever it is.
Howl.o not only will help your spiritual health, but also your physical health as well.
Let Howl.o help you find your peace and strength throughout the day.
Try it for three months free at howl.com/mattwalsh That's hallow.com slash Matt Walsh or text PRAY to 1-855-944-5684 for three months free.
Reclaim your peace in this crazy world.
all short texts, pray to 1-855-944-5684 for three months free.
Reclaim your peace in this crazy world.
Download HALO today.
All right, so Biden has passed fully into his grumpy old man phase, his grumpy old man
shouting phase, which I guess makes it sound less grumpy.
Less sinister than it is, Biden is a grumpy old dementia riddled man who also happens to be president and is part of a system, notice I didn't say controls a system because he doesn't control it, but is part of a system that seeks to obliterate our fundamental human rights and destroy our civilization and eat our children alive spiritually and mentally and also in many ways physically.
So anyway, with that specified, Biden was campaigning yesterday when he launched into a rant about Big Pharma.
And made some rather dubious claims.
Listen.
For the last several decades, many of us have been trying to fix the problem.
But for decades, Big Pharma tried to block giving lower drug prices for those on Medicare or anywhere else.
For decades, Big Pharma won, year in, year out, because they owned chunks of the Congress.
Because they had to help, like your senior senator, Ron Johnson, who said, No, I want to say what he said.
He said he opposed lowering drug costs because it would result in punishing the pharmaceutical industry.
Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.
I mean, come on, man.
Not this year.
We beat pharma this year.
We beat pharma this year, and it mattered.
We're going to change people's lives.
We finally beat pharma.
Now Medicare will have the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.
We can guarantee no senior, no senior will have to pay more than $2,000 out of pocket for their drugs for the entire year, no matter whether the bill is $50,000.
No more than $2,000.
Period.
It almost seems like there's a jump cut there or something, where he transitions so suddenly from the, come on man, to we beat Pharma!
Screaming and pointing at the camera.
But putting that aside for a second, listen to the claim that he's actually making.
You beat Big Pharma.
Beat them?
You?
I mean, and you say we, you mean like the Democrats, right?
Your regime.
Well, this is like the McDonald's marketing team bragging that they beat McDonald's.
It's not just that it's not correct.
The claim doesn't make sense.
You're all part of the same thing, the same institution, the same mechanism.
What do you mean you beat them?
The Democrat Party and Big Pharma are practically inseparable entities.
The Democrats are like the marketing arm of Big Pharma.
Which I guess in some ways doesn't quite work as an analogy because most marketing departments, though they wish they did have the capacity, in fact do not have the capacity to literally force people to use the product.
If they could, they would, but they can't, so that's why they market.
But the Democrats did exactly that when they forced millions of Americans to use Big Pharma's vaccine product.
So this is how you beat Big Pharma?
By putting billions of dollars into their pocket?
That's how you beat them?
That's how you defeat them?
I mean, if only I could be defeated that way.
So we defeated Big Pharma by putting billions of dollars in their pocket over the last few years.
And when they're not forcing people to use the product, they're funneling millions of kids into Big Pharma's clutches and getting them on puberty blockers and hormones and all the rest of it.
In fact, Big Pharma, and there are many examples that reveal this to be the case, but of all the examples, Big Pharma most convincingly proves that everything the Democrats say about being anti-corporation, they don't like millionaires and billionaires, proves all that to be false.
Because of Big Pharma.
This multi-billion dollar industry and the Democrats, their entire machine, just funneling people into its arms.
Its welcoming, greedy arms.
Constantly.
Of course, by the way, you know, I say Democrats, and it's not like the Republicans are much better on this front.
They're really, of the two parties, neither one of them are doing much of anything to curtail Big Pharma or to actually beat them, whatever exactly that would mean.
And there are things that could be done that you would think there could be some actual bipartisan agreement about.
Obviously, if the Republicans make serious efforts to stop Big Pharma from shoving hormones and everything into children, If they do that, which Republicans really haven't made any serious effort on that front, but we know Democrats are going to oppose that.
But there are other things that could be done to actually regulate and control Big Pharma and to help weaken their grasp on the American public.
One of them, like we talked about before, is banning direct-to-consumer advertisements.
That's something that there's no immediately obvious reason why you couldn't have bipartisan agreement on that.
Doesn't appear to be a partisan thing.
But Big Pharma basically owns both parties and that's why there is not agreement on that.
Speaking of angry old men, I wanted to play this to you by the way.
The lead singer of Dropkick Murphys, which used to be a punk band and now is just a bunch of old dudes towing the party line.
Here he is, this went viral yesterday, here he is at a concert railing against conservatives.
Let's listen.
If you were part of a union of working class people who were allowed to build a better life in the middle class in America, you'd f***ing listen to us!
Because if you're out there buying those f***ing hats, these swindlers are selling at that f***ing fair!
I'm sorry kids, I know there's kids here.
Then you're part of the problem, and I'll tell you why.
Because you're being duped by the greatest swindler in the history of the world.
You're being duped by a bunch of grifters and billionaires who don't give a s*** about you or your family.
They care about their f***ing tax breaks and the money they can put in their pocket.
If you consider yourself a patriot and you're spouting off that election-denying s***, I will fight your ass outside if you want to.
Wake the f*** up!
We're working class people!
These people are the f***ing rich!
The billionaires and they don't give a s***!
Thank you for listening.
Someone get grandpa his meds.
I love this, don't you?
I love going to a concert, hoping to hear some music, and instead a 55-year-old pudgy guy screams MSNBC talking points.
That's exactly what you're looking for when you buy a ticket for a concert.
First of all, the Democrats are, as we just discussed, he's here again pretending the Democrats are the party of the working class.
Now, they are the party of millionaires and billionaires, which is why nearly every major corporation in the country is run by leftists and has an overt leftist agenda, every single one.
So party of the working class, that entire talking point is out the window.
You can still keep saying it, but it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Second, I just think it's interesting.
These aging rock stars, and a bit generous, I guess, of a description for the Dropkick Murphy guy to say he was ever a rock star, but whatever.
He's aging anyway.
These aging rock stars, They want to act like they're still rebelling against the system, but they represent the system.
They're raging for the system now.
There may have been a time when it was actually true that they were rebelling against something, I suppose, but now they're a part of the ideology that owns the system.
And you're left with pathetic displays just like that.
All right, this is from the Seattle Times.
It says, more than 100 Seattle educators gathered on Labor Day at Judkins Park, stapling and taping signs to wooden pickets in preparation for a potential strike.
One sign read, liberation through public education.
On Tuesday, Seattle teachers will find out if they have enough votes to authorize a strike.
Then it comes down to whether the Seattle Education Association and Seattle Public Schools can strike a deal before Wednesday, which is the expected first day of classes.
If the impasse remains, Seattle could be the second large K-12 school district in the area to be mired in a strike.
The Kent School District was supposed to start classes on August 25th.
But a strike stretches on as the Kent Education Association demands more pay, smaller class sizes, a more manageable staff-to-student ratio in special education and English language learner programs, as well as more staffing for student mental health support.
Kent School District officials and the Teachers Association met with a mediator on Labor Day, but still did not reach an agreement.
There's also a video from, this is a, I believe an elementary school teacher in Seattle, Explaining why she supports going on strike.
Let's listen.
My name is Heather Barker and I'm an educator at Sanislo Elementary.
And I voted yes for the strike authorization vote.
And I did that because I think that we need to have a contract that shows us respect and shows us respect as the experts that we are.
That we know our children and we know how to best support them and to give them the world-class education that we know that they deserve and that they can get here in Seattle Public Schools.
We are fighting to ensure that we have reasonable workloads so that we are available to support our kids.
We are fighting to make sure that we have a workable special education model to keep all of our kids safe and to keep our staff safe.
We are fighting to to make sure that we have access to the mental health care that our kids need because we have a lot of needs coming out of this pandemic and we just need to be there to support our kids and we need to have contract language that lays that out for us so that we know that we can be delivering the best possible education and learning experience for all of our kids.
I'm standing with Seattle Education Association Yeah, I bet you are.
I mean, I'm so sick of public school teachers.
I really am.
And yeah, I'm going to, yes, all of the qualifiers, right, that there are exceptions, there are still some good ones.
I know that because I've met some good ones and I know that they're increasingly in, you know, it's like they're working behind enemy lines.
I have a lot of respect for that.
So there are exceptions to what I'm going to say.
Now I've established the exceptions.
So now I'm going to continue.
In general, I can't stand these people.
I don't think that there's any group in America that hates working as much as public school teachers do.
They just hate it.
They get, like, two months off a year.
They get every single holiday off.
They get nice breaks for—I was going to say Christmas break.
We don't call it that, right?
They get a nice winter break.
They get a nice—they get a smaller spring, but they still get a spring break.
They get multiple months in the summer.
Oh, well, but we still have to prepare for classes, and we got to come in for teacher days or whatever.
Yeah, you still get—you get multiple months in the summer basically off.
No one else gets that.
And then COVID rolls around, schools are shut down for over a year in some cases, and it's still too much work.
They're still complaining about the workload.
Now they go on strike.
What do you want exactly?
Do you think that being a teacher should require no work at all?
And every time I bring this up, I'm always told, oh, no, this is a misconception.
The teachers get a lot of time off.
No, it's not.
We can all see it.
We're not stupid.
They shut down the schools for, like, during, from out of 12 months, multiple months, cumulative, the schools are shut down.
So we can all see that.
They get all this time off.
It's still not enough.
But even putting that aside, I'll tell you what really frustrates me the most when I especially want to hear stuff like this from that teacher.
First of all, it's the pretending that you're doing this for the kids.
Well, this is really about providing the best experience to the kids.
This is all about the kids.
I want a higher salary for the kids.
Are you sharing your salary with the kids?
Are you giving them like a cut?
Are they getting a commission?
No, at least have the honesty to admit it's for you.
You want more money for yourself.
Now, on its own, that's understandable.
Everybody wants more money.
Okay, so just say that.
That's what I would want.
You want to make a video explaining why you're going on strike?
At least admit, I'm going on strike because this is a way we can hold the kids hostage.
This is a power that we have.
Okay, we have control over kids' educations.
And lots of parents depend on us as de facto babysitters, basically.
Because they gotta go to work, and they gotta send the kids to school.
And so this is power that we have, and I can use that power to get more money for myself.
And so that's what I'm doing, because I want more money.
I could respect the honesty, at least, if you would just say that.
But when you pretend that you want more benefits, and more time off, and more luxuries, and more this, and a greater salary, for the kids' sake, It insults our intelligence.
And then also, this is a common complaint we hear from the public school teachers, that the class sizes are too big.
Well, you know what?
I agree with you.
I totally agree.
Class sizes are way too big.
This is one of my fundamental complaints about the public school system.
Is that it's a factory assembly line approach to education.
And you take hundreds of kids and just throw them on the assembly line and you turn the lever and they just go down, you know, they go from one place to the next.
And even if they're not ready to move on to the next phase in the assembly process, they're going to move on anyway because the most important thing is to spit them out the other end on schedule.
Yeah, I don't like that either.
And when you've got like 30 kids in a classroom, or even 20 kids, there's just no way that those kids are going to get the individualized, personalized attention that they need.
Because although we have the factory assembly line approach to education in this country, education is not really something that can be done that way.
Real education has to be personalized, because every person is different.
And they all have different brains, and they're on different levels.
And they grasp certain subjects a lot quicker than other subjects.
And so, in an ideal scenario, we would be able to... This is what homeschooling is all about.
You come up with a curriculum and an approach that works for the kid.
So, yeah.
All that, I'm with you.
Except that the public school system steadfastly resists any effort to actually address the class size problem.
Because how do you end up with smaller class sizes?
Let's do a little bit of math if you're a public school teacher.
You've got class sizes that are too big.
What does that tell you?
It tells you there's too many kids in the school.
So how do we solve that problem?
By having fewer kids in the school.
And how do we do that?
School choice.
Homeschooling.
Like actually promoting homeschooling as a valid option for parents to explore.
That's how you reduce the size of the classroom.
And then you have many fewer kids in the class, and you have some hope of giving them something close to a personalized education.
At least you can personalize it a lot more than you can now when you've got 30 kids in the classroom.
But, you know, the woman in the video, I don't know anything about her, but I do know she's a Seattle public school teacher, so I'm going to assume, now wild speculation here, she is not a homeschool advocate, and she's not a school choice advocate.
So you want to reduce the size of the classroom, but you resist anything that would actually accomplish that goal.
And accomplish it quickly.
And cheaply.
And efficiently.
Why?
Because it's not about the size of the class.
It's about money.
It's about power.
And it's also that you're just lazy and you don't want to work.
That's what a lot of this is about.
And we gotta, you know, let's be honest about it.
Like I said.
Alright.
What do we got next here?
So this is from Fox.
It says, More migrants arrived in Chicago from Texas on Sunday, and Democrat Mayor Lori Lightfoot once again slammed Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, saying he's using them as human pawns.
The migrants arrived in the Windy City after Abbott sent two buses carrying migrants to Chicago last week.
Abbott said he'll continue to bus migrants to sanctuary cities until the federal government secures the southern border.
Lightfoot said that while she welcomes new residents, she has a problem with Abbott busing the migrants to her city.
She said at a press conference, my frustration comes from the actions of the governor of Texas.
There could be a level of coordination, cooperation, but he chooses to do none of those things.
Instead, he chooses to send human beings across the country to an uncertain destination.
That's unacceptable.
Yeah, unacceptable to, you know, allow human beings to go across the country to an uncertain destination.
Unacceptable.
Well, once again, I agree with her there.
Here's more of Lori Lightfoot on this issue.
Governor Abbott's racist and xenophobic practices of expulsion have only amplified the challenges many of these migrants have experienced on their journey to find a safe place.
The governor's actions are not just inhumane, they are unpatriotic.
He is a man without any morals, humanity, or shame.
I gotta say, Greg Abbott, credit where credit's due.
I've been critical of Governor Abbott in Texas, you know, for different reasons over the years.
But what he's doing here is, I mean, it's one of the most brilliant things that we've seen a Republican governor do.
And it's brilliant in its simplicity.
And he's put these Democrat, you know, and it also, it's not just like a political ploy.
It's not, it's not just political gamesmanship.
It is that too.
And it's very, it's very effective strategy as far as that goes, but it also solves a problem for him.
We've got all these illegal immigrants.
You got the federal government not securing the border, trying to stop us from deporting them, and so instead, all right, fine, we'll just send them to the states that claim that they want them, run by governors who are constantly saying all these wonderful things about open borders that we should accept, right?
Quoting the inscription on the Statue of Liberty about accepting people from all across the world, you know, the weary and the tired and all the rest of it.
Well, they say that, so let's just, okay, here you go.
And it puts them in this position where they look absolutely absurd.
The Democrat governors are being given the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and they're practically in tears about it.
This is racist and xenophobic.
It's racist?
How is it racist?
You say you want illegals in the country, so here you go.
I don't know.
Well, no, because you want them coming in, but you don't want them with you.
You want it to be Texas's problem.
You want them down on the border states.
You want them in the red states.
And why do you?
Why is that?
Because this is another unspeakable thing, right?
But why do they?
So they want the illegal immigrants to come into the country.
They don't want to secure the border.
That's wrong.
We don't build walls, right?
Build bridges, not walls.
We don't have walls separating us.
It's a terrible thing.
So you want them to come in, but you don't want them in your state, and you have a blue state.
You don't want them there, but you want them in the red state.
Why is that?
I mean, it's almost as if you're trying to import voters, like you're trying to replace You're trying to replace Republican voters with Democrat voters.
You're trying to replace red states, turn them into blue states.
It's almost like there's a replacement, like a... On the scale of it, you might even say a great... It's like there's a great replacement happening.
You might say that.
Oh no, that's racist and xenophobic too.
Just to talk about it is racist and xenophobic.
And yet these blue state governors don't want the illegals in their backyard.
Brilliant by Governor Abbott there.
All right, what else we got?
Okay, I wanted to mention this too, if I can find it on my list of stories.
Here it is.
Killing time.
Where is it?
Oh, there it is.
Okay.
This is from the Daily Beast.
It's good that I spent time really trying to find this story, because this is an important one.
Britney Spears lashed out Monday at her son Jaden Federline, who recently criticized her in an interview and said that he will see her again when she's better mentally.
In an Instagram recording, the singer accused Jaden, 15, and his brother Preston, 16, of abandoning her, saying that they always ended their visits early and spent the time together sleeping or playing piano.
Spears says, it saddens me that not one of you has valued me as a person.
She's talking to her own children here, on social media, by the way.
It said, Spears, who's been locked in a very public battle with her parents, sister, ex-husband, and other family members since she convinced the court to end a conservatorship that stripped her of her rights.
She says, quote, I don't believe in God anymore because of the way my children and my family have treated me.
I'm an atheist, y'all.
Now, I mention this because I vaguely sort of follow the Britney Spears saga, and not because I'm interested in Britney Spears, but because I'm interested in what all of this says about people in general.
And it says a lot about people that Britney Spears can claim that her entire family, including her children, are victimizing her.
This is what she's claiming.
Everyone around her.
It's like every week there's another headline of another member of Britney Spears' family or friend or something that she's attacking and the media's attacking too.
How dare you be so mean to poor Britney?
The media eats it up.
The public buys it, seems like.
And does this even though it's extremely clear that she's a mentally unstable narcissist and she's the common denominator in all of these situations?
So this is the fascinating thing to me, when I see all these people who buy into the Britney Spears story, she's a victim and all the rest of it.
Well, have you people not met people?
I don't understand, this is what boggles my mind, is when you come across people who don't seem to know how people work, but you are a person.
And so, As a person, having lived a human life, have you not noticed that every single time when there's someone who claims that everyone around them is victimizing them and is horrible and mean and oppressing them, in every single case, it turns out that that person is the problem.
Okay, if you can't maintain a relationship with anyone in your life, including your own children, You gotta start looking for the common denominator, which is you.
Now, look, there are exceptions to every rule, so maybe there's an exception here.
There might be a few people out there who go around claiming that everyone's out to get them, and that they're oppressed by everyone, and their whole family, and it's actually true.
Like, there may be cases like that.
Maybe.
In theory.
But, if you don't know much about the situation, and we don't know much about the situation here, because we don't know any of these people.
All you read is the headlines.
And so you have to make assumptions based on what you know about how people work.
And the safest assumption here is that she's just like this miserable, narcissistic, frankly pretty horrible person.
Not much of an assumption either because when you're calling out your own minor children on social media, that alone pretty good indication that there are problems and the problems are mainly with you.
Now, I say all of this, but I'm starting to realize maybe part of the problem here is that those people who are constantly claiming that everyone around them is out to get them, they don't realize that they are that sort of person.
So maybe all the people that are rallying around Bernie Spears, they are also that sort of person.
They also think that everyone in their life is out to get them.
And all the problems they have in their many relationships, all the many problems they have in all of their relationships are always the fault of the other person.
Never them.
Maybe that explains it.
I don't know.
It's possible.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
First of all, I wanna say just to address one thing, there's been a lot of consternation.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Perhaps even anguish, maybe I could say, over my change of wardrobe recently.
And there have been accusations that I sold out by putting on a sports jacket.
Because the bar for selling out where I'm concerned is extremely low.
I'm not given a lot of room here.
All I have to do is shower and comb my hair and dress business casual.
People start acting like I'm driving a Lamborghini and I have a butler and I drink caviar smoothies for breakfast or something.
And I have to be honest that at first when the SPG started complaining about the move away from the flannels, I was defensive and I said, my body, my choice, all right?
Okay, don't try to control me.
How dare you tell me what to wear?
I'm a strong, independent woman, damn it.
But now I've seen just how seriously you guys take that.
Like, one of our DW superfans, NoSoupForNoles on Twitter, started a poll yesterday on Twitter on the subject of my wardrobe.
Should I wear blazers or flannels?
I did not ask for this poll.
I didn't actually put it up for a vote, but it's been put up for a vote anyway, and I just looked at it.
The poll has over 5,000 responses, and 70% of the respondents are demanding a return Of the flannels.
And I will say again, my wardrobe not up for a vote.
Unless the results are really lopsided.
In which case I'll, you know, I don't want to make everyone that mad.
I'm a man of principle.
So I've taken it into advisement.
That's all I'll say.
I hear the outcry of the people.
I hear it.
I hear you.
I understand you.
And that's where we'll leave it for now.
Sierra says, I really pride myself on the fact that at the end of every one of Matt's opening monologues, I can perfectly time his, now let's get to our five headlines and recite it along with him, nailing his inflection.
You're saying that I'm predictable.
If that's an insult, you're banned from the show.
Luke Hanson says, hey Matt, I'm one of the BYU students that co-wrote the BYU story.
You would unfortunately not be surprised that many people were scared to talk to us just to give a statement that they did not hear anything at the game.
Some were willing to give statements and were told by either a lawyer, parent, or coach not to be involved.
Well, it's good that you guys are chasing down this story.
You should, you know, continue to do that.
But really, even if nobody talked to you, that actually tells us all that we need to know.
It's like the silence in this case answers the question because certainly if anyone actually did hear the n-word being shouted at this game, which is what was claimed, if anyone actually heard it, they would be eager to come out and say so.
Because they'd be greeted as a hero by the media.
They'd be on ESPN and everything.
So the fact that nobody has come out and said, I heard that, tells us that it didn't happen.
Because if it was being shouted, as was originally claimed, originally, remember, it was claimed that the N-word was being shouted at the black volleyball player, not once, but throughout the match, constantly being shouted, and nobody heard it.
Well, that's it.
Simon says, Fee-fi-fo-fum.
After all these years, I just realized that the Giant was probably just telling Jack his pronouns.
That is a terrible joke.
Really bad.
And I liked it.
Thank you.
Sally says, I'm always on your side when it comes to nonsense, but not when it comes to abortion.
A woman can decide by herself.
So you're always on my side when it comes to nonsense.
Except apparently when it comes to the nonsense that you just said in the very next sentence.
A woman can decide by herself.
Well, I know that a woman physically can decide that, to kill her child.
I'm fully aware of that.
Women and men, after a child is born, can also physically kill their children, and many have.
So I'm aware that that's a decision that can be made.
The question is whether it's the right decision.
Is it the right thing to do, to kill your child?
And I assume that you would say, in the case of a child born outside of the womb, that's born and is outside the womb, that the answer is no.
And so, what you have to reflect on is whether that no should still hold in the womb.
And if not, why not?
And also, I always find it interesting when I hear from people who say, well, Matt, I agree with you on everything, except this one fundamental issue, where we're on opposite sides.
Now, that's fine.
We don't have to agree on every single issue.
Okay?
I'm not saying you have to agree with me on everything.
But, you know, my... I have kind of a worldview that's coherent, and I don't decide my stance on issues at random.
Like, I have certain underlying fundamental beliefs, and one of them is about the inherent value and dignity of human beings.
And that underlying belief informs everything that I say about every social and political issue.
So I'm not even sure, if you reject my underlying belief in the inherent value and dignity of human beings, which you must reject if you disagree with me on abortion, then how can you agree with me on everything else?
Because, for me, everything else grows from that root.
The value and dignity of human life.
So what are you rooted in?
What's your fundamental belief?
Something to think about.
And finally, Whiskey Tango says, the solution to a lost sock problem is just have all of your socks look the same.
I'm not saying you're limited to one design or color, but the more variables can just add more problems.
Now you're trying to control what socks I wear too.
Can I decide on anything for myself?
Trying to take my autonomy from me, even when it comes to my socks.
Just back off, alright?
Are you still giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values, see masculinity as toxic, and think that you should teach your daughter to shave her beard?
I mean, if she does have a beard, then she probably should shave it, but anyway.
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, Then truth.
Those other razor companies keep virtue signaling to the totalitarian left and using your money to do it, 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 the most important thing.
75,000 people have already made the switch.
You can too.
Visit jeremysrazors.com to get your Founders Series shave kit today.
That's jeremysrazors.com.
Jeremy's Razors.
Shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
But perhaps the better comparison is with the magazine Scientific American, which, as we saw a couple weeks ago, has completely abandoned science and replaced it with delusional LGBT propaganda.
Men's Health has undergone a similar process of devolution, as evidenced by its advice column Sexplainit, written by a guy named Zachary Zane.
Now, Zach, Whose picture we'll put up on the screen for reference Describes himself in his bio as a sex writer author and ethical boy slut
Now, Zach had to add the word ethical there because he had decided that the term boy slut was somehow not stupid and embarrassing enough on its own.
This is, of course, the one skill that most leftists still possess.
They are always finding increasingly inane ways of describing themselves.
And just when you think that they've come up with a label so bizarre and asinine that it could not possibly be topped, they come along and drop ethical boy slut.
So Zach goes on explaining that in his bio he says, over the years I've had my fair share of sexual experiences dating and sleeping with hundreds of people of all genders and orientations.
In doing so I've learned a thing or two about navigating issues in the bedroom and a bunch of other places.
TBH.
I'm here to answer your most pressing sex questions with thorough actionable advice.
There's no doubt, of course, that he has learned how to navigate certain issues in the bedroom.
For example, I'm sure he could tell us which topical ointment is best for treating monkeypox sores.
But outside of managing the side effects of the many dozens of diseases this man has most likely contracted over the years, it's not clear what advice he really has to offer.
Or what anyone would, uh, why anybody would try to solicit it in the first place.
And yet some people do, allegedly, like the guy who sent in this question for the most recent edition of his Sexplainit column.
So someone going by the moniker LabelsAreHard writes, quote, Dear Sexplainit, if I'm sexually attracted to people AFAB, which stands for assigned female at birth, because of anatomy, does that make me pansexual?
My whole life, I've identified as a straight man because I'm sexually attracted to women's bodies.
But if I'm attracted to someone AFAB, who comes out as a trans man, but doesn't choose surgery, does that make me pan or bi?
I'm not attracted to people AMAB, assigned male at birth, but I am to certain trans men and NBs, which means non-binary, by the way.
If I change my sexual orientation, I feel bad, as if I'm just pretending, so I can encompass their gender identity to be with them.
Now, before we get to Zach's answer, it's worth noting that the person who wrote this question, just a small detail here, almost certainly doesn't exist.
And I know that because advice columnists frequently invent questions, and also because no straight man in the world feels guilty about being straight, first of all, as this person seems to, nor would any straight man feel that his orientation and sexual behavior requires the blessing of a gay guy in a mesh t-shirt.
There is just no heterosexual in existence who's ever said to himself, you know, I think it's okay that I'm attracted to the female form, but I better check with an ethical boy slut first.
No, this is a question that Mr. Zane has come up with because he has some thoroughly unsolicited advice that he wants to offer on the subject, and here's what he says.
Quote.
Your attractions technically meet the definition of bisexuality, since you're attracted to vulva owners of multiple genders.
But I don't think you're really struggling with how you personally identify.
It sounds like you know you might be fetishizing people with a vulva, and you're wondering how to do that without offending people, especially potential partners who are trans or non-binary.
Good!
This is something you should care about.
Did you get that?
If you're attracted to somebody, if you're attracted to one sex, Then you're bisexual.
One has become two.
Bad news for all the circus performers who have been training on the unicycle their whole lives.
It was all a waste of time, because every unicycle is now a bicycle.
Words have no meaning.
Numbers have no meaning.
Zach continues, "There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for a certain body part.
I, for example, have a fetish for huge asses.
But it's offensive to reduce a person to that sole body part, in this case, their vulva,
unless the person is explicitly open to being fetishized in that way.
I love when I find a person who wants me to 'worship their ass' or wants me to use them,
because, as the gay boys say, 'I'm just a hole, sir.'"
The real key here isn't picking the right label for your orientation.
If you list yourself with bi and start matching with trans men and enbies, you can't go around asking them if they have a penis or a vulva down there.
That's not only rude but also potentially triggering for people with gender and body dysmorphia.
So go ahead and call yourself bisexual to expand your pool of potential partners, but you must also make it crystal clear in your dating app bio that you're only looking for people with a vulva.
This way, you know, the people who swipe right on you are clearly okay with your preferences, and the people who aren't can safely swipe left.
I hope you find someone who gets just as turned on by you reducing them to their vulva, but I'll be real with you.
The majority of people, cis and trans, aren't down to be fetishized.
Your search will be slow going, but at least you won't have to feel bad about pretending anymore.
So, to review.
People attracted to one sex are bisexual, women are mere vulva owners, heterosexuality is a potentially offensive fetish, and straight men are ethically bound to announce themselves because there are some people who may not be okay with that preference.
This is all so demented and ridiculous that it may seem unworthy of any response at all, and perhaps it is.
But on the other hand, conservatives have made the mistake of not responding to lots of demented things over the years until one day they realize that they probably should have offered some sort of response earlier, and now it's too late.
So on that note, I will make a couple of observations here.
First, we see here again the resentment and hatred that the LGBT left has for women.
Never mind that the phrase, Volvo owner, doesn't even make sense, because your body parts are not objects that you own.
Okay?
They are the things that physically comprise you.
They're part of you.
They are you.
Right?
Like, my hand, it's not just this thing that I went and bought at a store.
Hey, if you cut my hand off, I wouldn't say, hey, don't take that, I own that.
No, that's me.
That's my body.
That's who I am.
Now the greater point here is that they insist that women shouldn't be reduced to their genitals, even as they do exactly that.
As always, they're the ones doing the thing they accuse everyone else of doing.
Projection.
That's all they do.
So the boy slut here says that if a man is attracted to women, he must be attracted solely for her genitals.
And that's because Zack himself sees women as nothing but genitals, like with a body and brain attached.
But in reality, a man is attracted to a female's body, That's true, and it's a good thing that he is because without that attraction the human species wouldn't exist.
A Zack himself would not exist if it wasn't for a long line of men before him who were, according to him, volva fetishes.
But that's not the full story.
A man is attracted to a female's body, but he's also attracted to everything else about her.
Right?
Her personality, just the way she is, the way she carries herself, the way she speaks, the way she sounds, the totality of her feminine presence.
We see women as much more than reproductive organs, and we are drawn in by the whole experience, the whole package.
The LGBT left, on the other hand, denies that there is anything more to a woman than her genitals, and then says that even the genitals don't matter.
And they do all of this simply so that men can partake in and appropriate womanhood.
They reduce women, and ultimately erase them, and then accuse us of doing exactly what they have just done themselves.
Second, get ready here for another shift, right?
Because living in a society run by the left means that you're standing on cultural tectonic plates that are constantly moving around, shifting, jostling, often creating huge earthquakes that can, all at once, completely change the landscape.
So here it is happening again.
For decades, the left worked to remove the stigma from fetishes and normalize all sexual proclivities
and preferences.
They said that nobody should feel ashamed of who they love or who they're attracted to.
And they largely succeeded in this project and created exactly the sort of profligate,
shameless society they wanted. But now they've changed their minds.
Because now they say actually a fetish is shameful and unnatural.
It turns out that not all sexual proclivities are acceptable.
It's just that heterosexuality, that is, the preference, quote-unquote, that sustains human life, and upon which human civilization depends, is the shameful, unacceptable fetish.
Victorian prudishness is rapidly coming back into style, except in this kind of deranged, demonic form.
It is exactly what is natural and healthy and life-sustaining which is now stigmatized.
They insisted that the doors be flung open in the name of inclusion.
And they got their way.
And they were invited inside.
And then they immediately proceeded to kick everybody else out and shut and lock the very doors that they were just demanding be opened.
Inclusiveness is the ultimate Trojan horse.
If only everybody else would stop falling for it.
And also stop reading Men's Health Magazine.
If anyone actually does read it, which I kind of doubt.
