Ep. 1016 - Innocent Victims Sacrificed On The Altar Of ‘Criminal Justice Reform’
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, recent tragedies both here and in Canada reveal the utter insanity of left wing “criminal justice reform” policies. Also, the White House Press Secretary is publicly called out for her own past comments questioning the integrity of our elections. A “gender affirming” doctor admits that kids who are put on puberty blockers will never have proper sexual function as adults. The media says that if you don’t like the new Lord of the Rings series it’s because you’re racist. And Jennifer Lawrence is worth 160 million dollars and lives in a mansion in Beverly Hills but, as she explained in an interview, that doesn’t mean she isn’t oppressed.
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”, streaming exclusively on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSX1
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
—
Today’s Sponsors:
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Get 10% OFF Your Will! Use Promo Code ‘WALSH’ at EpicWill.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, recent tragedies both here and in Canada reveal the utter insanity of left-wing so-called criminal justice reform policies.
Also, the White House press secretary is publicly called out for her own past comments questioning the integrity of our elections.
How dare she?
A gender-affirming doctor so-called admits that kids who are put on puberty blockers will never have proper sexual function as adults.
Never.
The media says that if you don't like the new Lord of the Rings series, it's because you are, of course, racist.
And Jennifer Lawrence is worth $160 million, lives in a mansion in Beverly Hills, but as she explained in an interview, that doesn't mean she isn't oppressed.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Some states now have laws that say as early as the 2030 model year,
new vehicles will have to be electric in order to be registered.
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'd 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, so you better take care of it.
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 drive
with photo specs and installation tips.
Not only will they have the part you need, but they'll usually give you several trusted brands
to choose from so you get a great selection as well.
Rockauto's kits are popular because they bundle together all the parts you need for a successful repair.
You don't get halfway through installing a timing belt only to discover that you need another pulley.
Professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers always pay the same price, which are reliably low for everyone.
So go to rockauto.com right now and get brakes, shocks, carpets, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, lug nuts, anything you need at rockauto.com.
And be sure to write Walsh in their How-Did-You-Hear-About-Us box so they know that I sent you.
At age 14, Miles Sanderson of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan started doing cocaine.
And as the parole board would later put it, his criminal offending began at about that time and continued with, quote, no significant breaks for nearly two decades.
As an adult, Sanderson would go on to rack up 59 criminal convictions.
Many of these convictions were for violent crimes, like in 2017 when he burst into his ex-girlfriend's home, making threats and forcing the children and his ex-girlfriend to flee to an upstairs bathroom while he beat on the door and put holes in it.
And then he went outside and threw a cement block through a windshield.
About six months later, he got drunk and stabbed two guys and then beat another one unconscious and left him in a ditch.
A couple of days later, he made threats against an employee at a store and said that he would murder the guy and burn down his parents' house.
Two months after that, he got into a violent standoff with police, assaulting one of the cops by punching and kicking him in the head, even after he'd been detained and cuffed.
These are just a few of the crimes that he committed.
He had over 50 other convictions for crimes ranging from assault, to assault with a weapon, to robbery, and everything in between.
Eventually, he wound up in prison, where he spent time in the prison's, quote, healing lodge, and was quickly granted parole in the summer of 2021.
Immediately, he violated the terms of his parole, and after only four months on the outside, found himself back behind bars.
In February of this year, He appeared before the parole board again, and he asked them to reverse their decision to put him back in prison.
Sanderson, along with already having violated his parole, was also officially classified as a high-risk offender.
Specifically, it was determined that he was a high risk to commit domestic violence and violent crime in general.
Sanderson's parole supervisor, for this reason, recommended that he remain behind bars.
But the members of the parole board said that they were impressed with the fact that Sanderson had, quote, made progress on his healing journey.
And they were happy that he had, quote, made arrangements for a therapist.
And they were optimistic that he could, quote, make the journey towards a pro-social life.
Moreover, they determined that his life of crime was not really his fault.
It was due to trauma that he'd suffered from, quote, the intergenerational impacts of residential schools, neglect, exposure to familial and community substance abuse, your own substance abuse issues, exposure to slash experiencing domestic violence during your childhood, family fragmentation, lack of education, and loss of culture slash spirituality.
They determined that he did not therefore present an undue risk to society and they declared,
quote, "The board is satisfied that your risk is manageable in the community if you live with your
redacted, so live with a certain family member, maintain sobriety and employment and continue with
developing supports including getting therapy." So Sanderson was released. He immediately
violated his parole, again stopped reporting to his parole officer and next thing you know he's
He's off the radar completely for four months, until this past weekend when he popped up again, along with his brother Damien Sanderson, and went on a stabbing spree, murdering 10 people and wounding 18 others.
And he's still on the run as we speak.
His brother Damien was found dead after the stabbing spree, possibly murdered by Miles himself.
If Miles is caught, caught alive and arrested again, which they think he probably committed suicide, but if he is caught and alive and arrested again, under Canadian law, he will automatically be eligible for parole after 25 years.
He's only 32.
That puts him out in the street before he turns 60.
In Canada, you can murder 10 people and still be released back into society.
It is impossible to get a life sentence for any crime in Canada, no matter what you do.
As Miles proved, it's nearly impossible to get even a moderate sentence.
I mean, he committed 59 crimes and still hadn't earned more than a comparative slap on the wrist.
Now, 10 people are dead at the hands of a man who, we were told by the parole board, Presented no undue risk to society.
Now this story is not getting very much attention in the American press, as you might expect, and that's not because it happened in Canada.
It's rather because the whole saga, every bit of it, from start to finish, exposes every left-wing narrative about crime.
Exposes and invalidates.
Reveals the absurdity of these narratives.
Here we have a repeat violent offender, From a supposedly oppressed minority group, because he has indigenous heritage.
Which, by the way, in Canada, that is also according to the criminal code in Canada.
They have to take that into account.
So, if an indigenous person commits a violent crime, then they have to take into account that he's indigenous, and oftentimes he'll get a lighter sentence because, well, he's indigenous, so it's okay.
So, repeat offender.
Oppressed minority groups, supposedly, given chance after chance after chance, and yet utterly determined to inflict as much damage on society as possible.
And finally, he goes on a mass killing spree and does this in a country where guns are illegal.
Because apparently you don't need a gun to kill mass amounts of people.
Miles and Damien didn't need guns anyway.
Their victims certainly could have used them, but the victims were disarmed.
In fact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had just declared a couple of months earlier, you might remember this clip, a couple months earlier, he said that self-defense is not a human right.
If you're attacked by a violent scumbag in Canada, it is your responsibility to simply die.
And ten people fulfilled their duty in that respect, as Justin Trudeau demanded.
Now, Canada's gun laws and criminal justice laws are totally insane.
I mean, they're literally designed to get innocent people killed.
And they have succeeded in that regard.
But our situation down here in the States isn't much better, as we get closer to Canadian-level madness every single day.
Innocent people die in our country every single day for the sake of giving brutal dirtbags their second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh chances.
Speaking of which, a young woman named Eliza Fletcher is one of the most recent human sacrifices to be offered up on the altar of compassion for criminals.
Fletcher was 34 years old, a mother of two small children, a kindergarten teacher.
On Friday morning, she went jogging and never returned.
Two nights ago, so a couple nights after she went, she went missing.
Her body was found dead, brutalized, lying in the yard of an abandoned home.
Her clothes had been removed and discarded in a plastic garbage bag nearby.
A man named Cleotha Abston has been charged with abducting and killing Fletcher, and it will not surprise you to learn that Abston, like Sanderson, is a career criminal with convictions for assault, robbery, rape, all of that on his record.
In fact, in the year 2000, he was sent to prison for 24 years for kidnapping and aggravated robbery.
So he had done exactly this thing before.
Now, you might be doing the math in your head and saying, well, 24 years since 2000, why is he out of prison?
Well, he was actually released in 2020.
He was released four years early.
Another criminal who, according to the parole board, I guess, didn't, you know, present an undue threat to society.
Well, he made it two years after being let out of jail, before he committed the exact same crime again.
Only this time adding murder and possibly, given the fact that the victim's clothes were removed, other unspeakable acts as well, though that hasn't been confirmed yet.
Cleotha Abston was given another chance.
Actually given a lot of chances.
And now two young children will grow up without a mother because of that.
This is happening all across the country at an increasing rate.
In all, over 75% of criminals released from prison end up back in prison after committing more crimes.
75%.
Which means that any time a criminal is released from jail, it is statistically almost certain there's at least a three-quarters chance that this person's gonna commit another crime, victimize another person, end up back in jail.
Has this led to a decrease in the rate at which these parasites are unleashed back onto society?
No.
In fact, it's been the exact opposite.
As more and more innocent people fall victim to these repeat offenders, the powers that be have doubled down, promising to fill our communities with even more of these crooks and delinquents.
John Fetterman, for example, has called for the mass release of convicts who are serving life sentences in prison.
And by the way, life sentences in prison, this is not one of those we always hear about the mythological people that are in prison because they, you know, had a little bit of weed or something, and the next thing you know, they get 10 years in prison, supposedly.
You get a life sentence.
It's not for weed, we can tell you that.
But he wants to release a lot of them.
Let's listen to that.
We have a catastrophic bottleneck in our prisons of over 5,000 men and women condemned to die in prison.
And many of them, I believe, personally, are deserving of a second chance.
Catastrophic bottleneck, he says.
In fact, John Fetterman has been more specific talking about this and has said that he wants to release up to one-third of the prisoners who are serving life sentences because of the bottleneck.
There are too many people who've done things so horrible that they earned life sentences because of it, and the solution, says Fetterman, and also says nearly every other elected Democrat in the country, is to release these people back into our communities, and so that, you know, the catastrophe in our prison can become a catastrophe right outside our front doors.
And that's exactly what's happened, with violent crime rates rising rapidly all across the country.
Now, what makes this crisis so especially infuriating is that, unlike other problems we face as a society, I mean, there are some problems that are complicated and difficult, and there is not an easy solution.
This is not one of those problems.
There's actually an easy, simple solution.
And it's a solution that almost nobody is talking about among our elected officials, and that's on the right and the left.
Okay, because keep in mind, this is not just the Democrats.
Now, we talk about the Democrats, I just said Democrats, but it's also Republicans.
There are lots of Republicans, including the last Republican administration, who were all on board for prison reform, which means taking more people out of prison and putting them on the streets.
There are very few Republicans offering the real solution, which is this.
Arrest violent criminals, put them in prison, and keep them there.
Now, if there are concerns about the sustainability of such a system, if there's concerns about overcrowding and bottlenecks, well, there's a solution for that, too.
Here's what it is.
You take the worst of the bunch, the most violent and despicable, guys like Cleotha Abstin, and what you do is, again, it's very, very simple.
You take them out of their prison cells, and you bring them up onto a platform, and you put a rope around their necks, And then you hang them from it until they're dead.
And then you take their bodies, and you bury them in a grave marked only by their inmate number, and you let society forget that they ever existed.
Because when you do things like this, you don't even get to be remembered by society.
We bury you in the ground and try to forget about you.
Now, this is called capital punishment, of course.
You may have heard of it.
It's still used in some states, but should be used in every state, and it should be used much more often than it is.
A society with a strong sense of justice, a clear understanding of right versus wrong, and a society which values innocent lives, like Eliza Fletcher, will necessarily treat violent crime with this kind of severity.
It is not bloodlust or vengeance.
It is justice.
It's also realism, as it acknowledges that some people, through their own behavior, have become an undue burden on society.
And they've given us no choice but to relieve ourselves of the burden through the only means available.
I mean, if you're such a burden on society that we can't even put you in prison, then there's only one other solution.
The point we have to understand here, and the way that we should be framing this discussion and talking about it, is that releasing violent criminals or giving them lenient sentences is not a decision made in a vacuum.
Everything in life is a trade-off.
And that's especially the case here.
So, when somebody like Abstin or Sanderson is sent back into the free world, again and again and again and again and again, the system that released those men is making a trade.
It's not just, they're not just doing it.
There's a trade here.
They are trading Eliza Fletcher's safety, your safety, my safety, my children's safety, your children's safety, for the sake of this person's freedom.
That's what they're saying.
I mean, think about the phrasing that they used for Sanderson.
It's not an undue risk to society.
Well, it's not the same thing as saying that it's not a risk.
It's just not an undue risk.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that the parole board, the system, has declared that, yeah, he's a risk.
I mean, he's a high risk, actually.
So, think about it.
How could he be a high risk offender and yet not an undue risk?
How could he be classified as both at the same time?
Well, because he's a high risk, but it's a due risk.
Like, it's a risk worth taking, is what they're saying, in other words.
Yeah, there's a high risk that he's going to kill a bunch of people, which he did, but it was a risk worth taking for his freedom.
That's what they're saying.
The system declares that it is worth the risk to your children's lives in order to give a heinous monster his 9th or 10th or 11th chance.
But the people who make this trade on our behalf, a trade that none of us agree to or want, are never made to defend the decision.
Or explain how they've arrived at this moral calculation.
They can't defend it.
Because all of this is, in the worst way, indefensible.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
All right. This has really gone out of hand, folks.
The Sweet Baby Gang has now started a petition calling for a return to the flannels, and there's an actual change.org petition.
Next thing you know, there's going to be a march on Washington.
But this is really difficult for me, you have to understand, because I'm being torn in different directions.
I'm helplessly caught in the middle, okay?
I am utterly helpless here.
Like, yesterday after the show, I had like a 30-minute conversation with my producers, Sean and McKenna, who are both very pro-Blazer and anti-flannel, I'll tell you.
Sean had like a whole PowerPoint presentation about the Blazer.
But then I go home, And I find out that my wife is on team plaid and she's like, she's actually very, everyone is very serious about this and taking it very seriously.
She is like emotional about it.
And she actually said, this is what she said, I'm not making this up.
She said that, you know, you know, it's getting to be fall now.
And so I go out and I see people wearing plaid and I see them wearing flannel and it makes me sad remembering when you used to wear flannel.
And I'm like, I'm not dead.
I'm still, I'm sitting right across from you.
I can still wear flannels.
It's just about the show.
Then she tells me that she actually sent a text to our wardrobe person about this issue.
So she has entered into the discussion.
And meanwhile, I'm sitting here, I don't have strong feelings about it.
Like, I have strong feelings about almost everything, including things that don't matter at all.
But in terms of what I wear, I don't care that much.
Which is the whole reason I wear flannel to begin with.
It's just because, like, it's something you can throw on and you don't need to iron it as much.
It doesn't get as wrinkly, at least as obviously wrinkly.
So that's why I was wearing it to begin with.
So I'm sort of stuck in the middle.
It's like the one thing I don't care that much about.
Everyone is sort of in my ear about it.
So here's what I'll say.
Start a GoFundMe, raise $50,000 for me personally to go in my pocket, and then I'll start wearing the flannel again.
That's the solution.
Just kidding.
Don't do that.
Forget I said that, because they'll actually do it.
Don't do it.
That was a joke.
I still haven't decided what the answer is.
Okay.
Karen Jean Payer, she might have an answer to this.
Maybe someone should ask her.
That's what we need.
We need a statement from the White House on this issue.
She was called out at the White House press conference yesterday for her own past comments questioning the integrity of our elections.
You know, this is something that you could do, this is, you could take any Democrat on the national stage and put them on the spot like this because all of them, of course, when Donald Trump was elected in 2016, all of them were out there saying that this is not legitimate, this is not right, this is, you know, we gotta abolish the electoral college, this is Russia, it's everything.
Election interference, all of them were saying that, every single one.
Karen Jean Payer was among them and here's how she responded to that question.
The new attention on the Mag of Republicans.
You tweeted in 2016, Trump stole an election.
I was waiting, Peter, when you were going to ask me that question.
Well, here we go.
You tweeted Trump stole an election.
You tweeted Brian Kemp stole an election.
Denying election results is extreme now.
Let's be really clear.
That comparison that you made is just ridiculous.
You're asking me a question.
Let me answer it.
I was talking specifically at that time of what was happening with voting rights and what was in danger of voting rights.
That's what I was speaking to at the time.
Well, of course, that's always their answer.
This is ridiculous!
Are you saying that I should be held accountable for my own words?
Are you suggesting that I should hold myself to the same standard that I hold my political opponents?
That's absurd!
And the thing is, that's not a put-on, that's not an act.
She really thinks it's ridiculous.
For people on the left, it is actually absurd to them.
The very idea that they should be held to the same standard that they hold the rest of us, it's ludicrous.
It doesn't even compute.
Well, of course it's different.
It's me saying this.
As opposed to you.
And actually, we say this goes back to 2016 with them questioning elections.
And it wasn't just the presidential election.
I mean, they also, we know that Stacey Abrams is currently the governor of Georgia, according to them.
But it goes back before 2016.
I mean, they've been questioning the integrity of every election they lost since at least 2000.
I mean, since at least the first Bush term.
They've been questioning the integrity of every election they lose.
And it's not even just elections.
It's whenever they lose anything, they question the integrity of the system that produced that loss for them.
Supreme Court.
You know, they could get 50 Supreme Court decisions in a row that go their way.
Then they get one that doesn't, and it's, well, the whole thing is rigged.
The whole system needs to be changed.
Abolish the Supreme Court.
Get rid of it.
That's what they do.
That, of course, is always the game.
But to them, it's not, as I'm always reminding people, it's not a, it is not really a double standard.
It is one standard, which is, you know, they get to do what they want.
And for us, it's something different.
So it's kind of, it is in a way, one consistent standard where they, they are the privileged and they can act a certain way, but that doesn't apply to us.
All right, this is from The Daily Wire, an interesting poll result here, although to me it's kind of up in the air, whether you interpret this in a positive or negative way, I don't know.
It says, nearly one in four Democratic voters believe men can get pregnant, according to a new poll.
The online survey conducted by WPA Intelligence from August 22nd through the 25th found 22% of Democrats agreed with the statement, some men can get pregnant.
The percentage rose when only including women and a whopping 36% of white college-educated female Democrats concurred.
Overall, few Americans think that men can get pregnant, but this is quoting from the firm that did the poll, but with 36% of a core Democrat constituency and one out of five Democrat voters believing this, one can see why Democratic leaders coddle the radical gender theory movement.
The poll underscores the left's growing embrace of a radical gender theory that biological sex does not dictate gender.
Now, I've sort of seen, this poll just came out this morning, and Daily Wire reported on it, we looked at some of the reaction, and I've seen some people on the right kind of taking this in a positive way and saying, well, so the majority of even Democrats don't believe that men can get pregnant, so that's a good sign, I guess.
I'm not sure I quite see it that way.
Still, 22% will agree with the statement that some men can get pregnant.
That is a, given the statement that they're agreeing to, okay, if this was 22% of Democrats, you know, only 22% of Democrats think that abortion should be legal with no exceptions or something.
Well, that I would say, well, that would be a very good sign.
22% agree with the statement that some men can get pregnant.
And one of the things about polls like this is that you can't, you can't, you can't go back 10 years, 20 years and check what the polls were saying back then because nobody was polling this, this topic at all.
Which actually tells you everything you need to know.
It was, it didn't occur to anyone to even ask the question until, you know, five seconds ago.
But I think we could be pretty certain that if this question was asked, I mean, 10 years ago, it gets a little dicey.
15 years ago, 20 years ago, you ask this question and every single person is saying, can men get pregnant?
No, of course not.
And then, what an even greater shame for the Democrats, and female Democrats in particular, that there are more women on the Democrat side that will agree with that statement than men.
It's like women on the left are more on board with being erased than the men are.
College-educated female Democrats in particular, which kind of shows you what a college education does for you these days.
I mean, you've got people that go through four years of college or even, I mean, how many of these are grad students?
I'd like to break it down that far.
I wanna see this poll again, but now show me, so we got college-educated Democrats, and then narrow it down to grad students.
I want those with master's degrees and PhDs.
How many of them say that men can get pregnant?
I bet you then it gets over 50%.
So you could spend four, six, eight, however many years in higher education, supposedly, and come out on the other end With six-figure debt, but less of a grasp on basic biology than my kids have.
Here's, kind of on the same subject, here's a pediatrician with a familiar line about puberty blockers.
This is on another pediatrician on TikTok.
Now, once again, obviously, goes without saying, for me to take this video and show it to you is an act of terrorism and incitement.
How dare I?
But here's what she said.
Puberty blockers are used once puberty has started, but not when you're too far along.
And what they do is they just pause your puberty where it's at.
And that gives you time to further explore your gender identity without the extra pressure of developing in a gender In which you might not feel comfortable.
And then if you continue those puberty blockers long enough, then you can start replacement therapy with the gender identity hormone of your choice when you reach usually around 15 or so or once you've been on that puberty blocker for at least a couple of years.
Hope that answers your question.
Yeah, that's it.
The account is called Ask The Doctor or Ask A Doctor.
So, you know, if you have any medical questions, you can go and ask this doctor and she will simply lie to your face with delusional, insane, dangerous nonsense like what you just heard there.
But it's familiar nonsense at this point, especially if you've seen my film, What Is A Woman, which you can go to whatisawoman.com if you haven't seen it and watch it there.
You are familiar with this nonsense because it's the same thing that I heard from from several so-called experts that, well, you could just pause, just pause it, just put it on pause.
A total lie, of course, and it reveals again on the left, and we see this with a lot of what they say about climate change and environmentalism too, we see it, you know, a slightly less malignant form of it, but still pretty malignant, which is this total lack of respect for nature.
As much as they talk about nature, a total lack of respect for it, for the power of nature.
And that includes human nature, that includes biology.
So, you're treating the process of human development, it's like a game that you're talking about.
The analogy that one of the people I talked to in What Is A Woman used is it's like, it's music.
You could just pause it and then pick up the next note of the song.
But really, they're talking about it like it is a game, like it's a video game.
You just hit the pause button, and you can freeze it right there, and then come back to it any time, and pick up right where you left off.
That's not how nature works.
You're talking about a system, in human beings anyway, that's been in place for millions of years, and you think you can You can circumvent it like that?
That easily?
Just pop a pill?
Circumvent this process without any downside whatsoever?
No side effects?
You could take a pill and put someone, kind of freeze someone at the exact moment of development they're currently at and keep them there indefinitely.
By the way, if this was true, would this not be the key to, like, immortality, basically?
If that's true, that you could just take a pill and freeze your physical development in place and then resume it some other time, then, I mean, I guess you could take puberty blockers, you know, someone could take puberty blockers for 60 years.
And then when they're technically in their 70s, they could pick up with development again and end up living in, you know, until they're, like, in their mid-100s.
If that's how it worked, but that is not how it works at all.
I mean, what you can do is you can, essentially by poisoning these kids, and when you're using the drugs this way, off-label, in a way that they're not meant to be used, you're poisoning them, and you can stunt their growth, and you can mess with the biological processes, But there are significant side effects.
And we can't even really call them side effects because they are just, they're the effects, they're really the intended effects.
So here is a report in the Postmillennial with another name that might be familiar to you if you've seen What is a Woman?
It says that a recent talk at Duke University on trans and gender diverse policies, care practices, and well-being Surgeon and trans-affirming doctor, quote-unquote, Marcy Bowers, who transitioned at the age of 38, admitted that children who undergo transition before puberty will never have adult sexual function or experience orgasm.
Never.
Bowers said, an observation that I had, every single child who was, or adolescent, who was truly blocked at Tanner Stage 2, which is the beginning of physical development, when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood, has never experienced orgasm.
I mean, it's really zero, Bauer says.
This raises huge and glaring red flags about the concept of informed consent, reading now from Postmillennial, for children and teens who are ushered in transition.
Bowers proudly advertises the fact that she, actually it's a he, this is a male, has both delivered 2,000 babies and performed 2,000 castrations on biological men who identifies transgender performing vaginoplasties and is recognized as a pioneer in the field of gender-affirming surgery.
So, Like I said, we talked to Marcy Bowers in What Is A Woman, and this is the person who, when we, there were many disturbing parts of that conversation, but it's also the person we talked, when I asked him about the social contagion.
Is there a social contagion element to this?
The fact that we've got so many kids all of a sudden who are identifying as trans, when before it was almost non-existent, comparatively speaking, is that an indication of social contagion?
And I think the exact quote was maybe a teensy bit, just a little bit.
But here's Bowers admitting, That when you give these drugs to a child, you are forfeiting for the child, permanently, adult sexual function.
And that does raise a question about consent.
I mean, it doesn't simply raise a question about consent, it reveals that there cannot be consent here.
Because how can a child consent to forgoing something like that?
You're talking to a prepubescent child.
How can they possibly consent to foregoing adult sexual function?
They're foregoing something they've never experienced, they don't understand, and they're consenting to never having it ever in their lives?
Same question with a 14-year-old girl who supposedly consents to having her breasts removed and thereby consents supposedly to Never being able to breastfeed a child.
Yeah, maybe when you're talking to a 14-year-old girl it doesn't sound like a big deal because being a mother is nowhere on her radar.
Especially when she's in the midst of all this gender confusion that's been imposed on her in many ways.
So how can she consent?
How could she know what she's giving up?
She can't.
This is a decision that is being made for these children that the adult versions of those children will have to live with.
And by the way, the people that are actually making decisions, they don't have to live with the consequences.
They're putting that on the child to deal with.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, Elon Musk is weighing in on the new Amazon series, The Lord of the Rings, The Rings of Power, and it sounds like the billionaire Tesla CEO is not a fan.
Tolkien is turning in his grave, Musk tweeted Monday in response to the series, which just released episodes on, two episodes last Thursday.
Almost every male character so far is a coward, a jerk, or both.
Only Galadriel is, I guess that's a Lord of the Rings character, is brave, smart, and nice.
Now this is part of an overall kind of backlash, I guess, against the Lord of the Rings series.
Daily Wire also has this report.
There's been a lot of hype leading up to Amazon's Lord of the Rings adaptation, The Rings of Power, but now some fans are saying it's a huge flop.
The series premiered the first two episodes.
Thursday currently has an 84% critic rating and a 36% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
This certainly isn't the first time critics and viewers disagreed on whether a show was a triumph or a fail.
But some reviewers are accusing fans of being racist for their one-star reviews.
Of course, we knew that was going to happen.
A writer for The Hollywood Reporter likened these reviewers to miserable little trolls who were review-bombing the series simply because casting directors chose to add black actors into it.
So this is the narrative now that we're getting from the media.
I haven't watched this show.
I have no interest in watching it.
And I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings, actually.
But it's because I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings that I'm not going to watch Amazon's version of it.
And I said this from the very beginning the first time they announced this series.
I was warning everyone.
It's going to be a disappointment.
It is going to disappoint you.
Because Hollywood in the year 2022 does not have the ability.
I mean, it would be, in any era, it would be very difficult To make a Lord of the Rings series, which, yes, maybe it's based on some of Tolkien's work, but you're basically telling your own story, and now we're going to stack it up against one of the classic fantasy novels of all time, fantasy series of all time.
So, in any era of Hollywood, that's a lot to ask.
I mean, you're almost doomed to fail already.
But especially in this era, it's just, it's impossible that the series can be good.
They don't have the capacity to tell these kinds of stories anymore.
And when I say capacity, I don't mean from a financial perspective.
They got all the money in the world.
They spent a billion dollars on this series.
Which, by the way, you don't hear a lot of complaints from the left about that.
You know, they say about, like, Elon Musk, when he made an offer for Twitter, they said, well, you could have taken that money and solved world hunger.
Amazon spent a billion dollars on a TV show.
How much of world hunger could they have solved with that?
But they've got the money, but there's not the spiritual capacity to tell stories like this anymore in Hollywood.
But the narrative is that people don't like the show because there are some black actors in it.
And of course, because, you know, the people that are watching Lord of the Rings, it's the first time they've seen a black actor in a show, and they're all racist, and so that's why they have a problem with it.
Then you go and you read the audience reviews, and what you see, not surprisingly, is that almost all of them don't like the show because they think it's boring, they don't like how it's written, and all of those things.
I looked at some of the reviews.
I didn't see one person complain about the fact that there's a black actor.
Now, with that said, Audiences at this point have a very low tolerance for anything that even smells woke.
Like the minute there's a hint of wokeness, and of course just having a black actor doesn't mean that you're trying to do something woke, but the minute there's a hint of it, like if there's a hint that they put a character in the show just for no reason, not because it advances a story, but just for diversity concerns, The minute there's even a hint of that, audiences are repelled, and for good reason, because we're sick of it.
Though I don't think that's the primary complaint here.
Alright, before we get to the comment section, here's the latest from TikTok.
This is an anti-white racist who went viral with this temper tantrum about white people.
Let's listen.
I don't call y'all white people for what I see, y'all.
Y'all are devils.
Y'all are parasites.
Y'all are mosquitoes.
And when you look at a mosquito, you see that mosquitoes latch on to other life forms, drain the blood from that life form to get nutrients so it can power itself.
That's exactly what y'all are because every single thing that y'all do is to drain the life out of everything.
And when we look at the advent of y'all devils, since the moment y'all were created, y'all have caused destruction, chaos, and deception on our earth.
When we welcomed y'all in to our kingdoms, our lands, as eternal people, what did y'all do?
Y'all came in, y'all caused destruction, y'all caused altercations amongst us as a people and amongst our civilization.
Therefore, we banished y'all, we exiled y'all from the kingdom.
This is the true story of the Garden of Eden.
Oh, it's a true story, huh?
Yeah, white people caused altercations, but there were no altercations in In Africa, prior to white people showing up, there were no altercations in the Americas before the Europeans showed up.
There were no altercations at all.
Because when those cultures were killing and enslaving each other, which they all were, they did it, I guess, in a peaceful way.
It wasn't, you know, kind of like a mostly peaceful BLM riot.
It wasn't.
There was no altercation involved.
I'm not sure exactly how that works.
By the way, Not to get too technical here, but I'm pretty sure that only female mosquitoes bite and suck blood.
So this also strikes me as a sexist complaint from this guy.
And white people though, he says, are a parasitic life form, basically, that have brought only misery to the world.
Which I guess you could see why he would say that.
You know, white people are parasites who brought misery to the world by inventing antibiotics, Inventing electricity.
Inventing space travel.
The printing press.
Modern plumbing.
Computers.
Almost all of modern medicine.
All of the technology that this guy uses to complain about white people.
Invented by white people, so.
Here's my challenge.
And this is serious.
This is a real challenge here.
For any anti-white racist like this guy, and there are a lot of them out there.
Here's my challenge.
If you're an anti-white racist, I challenge you to go one single day, I mean even an hour of a day, I would be impressed if you could do that, but let's be ambitious.
Go one day without using anything that was given to you by the race of people you despise.
One day.
Can you do it?
I don't think you can, but prove me wrong.
Now let's get to our comment section.
Okay, I have to do something here before we get to the comments, and hopefully you'll bear with me.
I'm in a bind, alright?
A bind even worse than the flannel predicament.
So a couple of weeks ago, I happened to show you a picture That my five-year-old son drew of me.
Maybe you remember that, and I showed it to you because he made me look like a character from Nightmare Before Christmas, which he hasn't even seen the movie.
And I thought that was cool, so, you know, I showed you the picture.
Well, last night I happened to mention to my son that I showed that picture that he drew of me on my show.
My kids obviously don't watch my show.
They have very little idea of what I do for a living.
They've got very little concept of it.
All they know is that Daddy is on TV and also that random stranger sometimes stopped Daddy to take pictures with him.
That's the only thing they know.
So, he was surprised by that when I told him.
That I showed the picture.
He was shocked.
And he was thrilled.
And he was very proud of himself, rightfully so.
And then, and I didn't know he was doing this at the time, but he ran off and he began furiously drawing more pictures.
Three more pictures in total.
And he came and he put them in my bag, my briefcase.
And he asked me to bring those to work and to show everyone those pictures too.
And he said that those pictures are even better and he wants everyone to see them to know what a good artist he is.
So he says this to me, and it's like, what am I going to say to that?
He's so excited and so proud.
And so I said, yeah, sure, buddy.
I could do that at some point.
And he said, well, no, can you do it tomorrow?
And I said, well, we'll see.
And he said, dad, when you get home, can you show me the video of you showing the drawing so I know you did it?
And I said, yeah, sure, I could do that.
Great.
So he backed me into a corner, folks, which is why—and here's the clip that I'm going to—this is where the—this is the part of the clip I'm going to show him.
This is why I have to show you these amazing drawings that my son made for me.
We'll put them up on the screen so you can see them.
You can see there's a picture of me fishing, there's another one of me and him, and then there's another one of me.
I think we can all agree, sweet baby gang, that this kid is truly a phenomenal artist.
And what's even better, I think, is that he has a knack for choosing great subjects for his drawings.
Mainly because the subject is almost always me.
So, there you are.
There are the drawings.
Each one better than the last.
Can't we all agree?
Let's get to the comments.
Cody says, I am saddened, Matt, to hear that you have not had anyone to talk about dinosaurs for so long.
Happy that your boys have grown enough to discuss the fascinating creatures with you.
If you ever need someone else to talk to about them, I love dinosaurs and am here for you.
Well, I appreciate that, Cody.
Bentley says, Matt bans multiple people from the show for telling him how to dress and groom himself, and he says he's a man of principle, and then immediately proceeds to tell us what razor we should be using.
The hypocrisy.
In fairness to me, I'm just doing as I'm told there.
I mean, it's not, they are great razors, but as you know, it's not like I can really offer my personal endorsement of them, but I do hear they're great.
Let's see, Tie My Shoes says, Matt needs to add that red lighting during his daily cancellation segment.
A couple of walruses in the background.
Oh, the red lighting from Biden's speech.
That's actually a really good idea.
I hadn't thought about that, but that is, that lighting is terrible for a presidential speech, as has been established.
Would be really good for a daily cancellation.
I do agree with you.
Question Everything says, I'm 65 and I did not know what non-binary is.
I thought it was computer talk.
Not to mention, I'm a great-grandmother, and my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren have never talked this way until their school attempted to indoctrinate them into this insanity.
Well, you know, I'm happy to hear this response from someone in their 60s, because of course, like, you lived You know, your whole life without anyone ever talking about non-binary because that concept didn't exist until it was invented 15 seconds ago.
And I have to tell you, going back to my film, What Is A Woman, when we were out doing our Man on the Street interviews, at first I really expected, like I thought that we would stop a bunch of younger people and people my age, I don't know if they count as younger, and we would get a lot of people who are just confused and talking about non-binary and pansexual and the rest of it.
I thought, though, That if we get anyone over the age of like 50, and certainly people in their 60s and 70s, and we stop them and talk to them about this stuff, they're going to have your reaction.
They'll say, what is this?
This is crazy.
But it was quite depressing to find that the confusion spans all age groups, largely.
With some exceptions, like in your case.
SS says, I'm probably going to get roasted here, but I'm going to say this anyway because I think it's true and I hope Matt can be challenged by it.
I agree with a lot of what Matt Walsh says, a lot of it, most of it.
Here comes the but.
But the way in which he says it is very often self-defeating if his goal is to do anything other than preach to the choir.
A case in point from this episode.
Matt says, I hate these people.
And only a few minutes later runs an ad for a Christian app that is listed among other aims reducing the sinful temptation to hatred.
I know the typical rejoinder here is something along the lines of, these people don't deserve kindness because they're threatening our very way of life and so on.
I've heard all that and I don't buy it.
The reason is that Jesus did not respond this way to people.
And yes, I'm aware that he had harsh things to say, but go back and read them.
And you'll find that they are not spoken to, those blinded by the world's sinfulness and enslaved to it, but to the religious leaders of his day whose failure to abide by God's revealed path denigrated God's name.
What Jesus said explicitly is to love your enemies and forgive those who persecute you.
I accept most of that.
The forgiveness part, not so much.
Because, is it up to me?
Now, what was I referring to yesterday when I said that?
I was referring to adults who sexually indoctrinate kids, who mutilate and drug kids.
That's what I said when I said I hate these people.
It's not up to me to forgive them.
Okay, now you could say, I forgive them as a Christian.
That's worthless.
That is worthless forgiveness.
Because you are not the person harmed.
This sin was not committed against you, so you could forgive them all day long.
What does that even mean?
I mean, what does it mean to forgive someone of a sin they didn't commit against you, but against someone else, namely a child?
So forgiveness is a Christian virtue.
It is very important.
But you can only forgive someone for things they've done to you.
Things that you are affected by.
If you're not affected, then forgiveness is...
You know, forgiveness is something that happens again to people if you are affected by it.
Now, that said, does that let me off the hook entirely?
No, it doesn't.
You are correct.
We were called to love our enemies.
We shouldn't go around saying we hate people.
I'm with you on that.
But I'm also being honest with you about how I feel about it.
Because I do have hatred for them.
I really do.
And I'm just being totally honest.
Not defending it, being honest with you.
That hatred is born from my love for the children who are being harmed.
That's where it comes from.
If you are able to regulate that, do a better job of regulating within yourself, then that's very good.
And you should be commended for that.
However, my fear is that, and I'm not saying this is the case for you, because I don't know if it is or not.
I can't see inside your heart.
But I have noticed there are a lot of Christians who preach, well, we should love our enemies, and we should love the people who do horrible things to children.
And yet, for many of them, it's not really love.
Or at the very least, it's kind of a cheap love that they have.
Because it's more indifference.
Like, they don't really care that much about it.
And so, they don't feel that rage within their souls about the horrible things that are being done to kids and to others.
They don't feel that rage and anger.
They don't feel it.
And so, it's very easy for them to say, oh no, we shouldn't lash out in anger.
We should just be loving.
It's only worth something if you feel the anger.
I mean, if you understand just how hideously, horribly evil this is.
And if you feel that and understand it, and yet are still able to regulate yourself spiritually and emotionally, then, again, I commend you.
I can learn something from you.
But there's a lot of so-called Christian love in our culture that, to me, seems a lot like indifference.
Which is why you get this from a lot of churches, and you hear priests and pastors get up there, and they talk about Christian love all day long.
They never even mention any of these things.
They don't even acknowledge it.
Because they don't care, and they're indifferent to it.
And so it's really easy for them to say, oh, love our enemies.
Well, you don't even care about what our enemies are doing to these kids.
So, you had a caution for me?
I accept that.
I have a caution for you as well, something to think about.
Well, football season is upon us, and my colleagues bordering on friends over at Crane & Company are hosting their first-ever fantasy football draft party tonight.
If you're an anti-woke sports fan and you haven't watched Crane & Company on The Daily Wire yet, then I suggest you do so, not just because it's a great sports show that refuses to virtue-signal leftist politics, but because I will be competing All season long.
To add DailyWire Fantasy Football Champion to my Twitter bio as well.
I've got many accolades.
This one is going to be the next that I add.
Every week I'll be going head-to-head with the Crane guys, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Clavin, Morning Wire's John Bickley, and even Michael Knowles, whose sum of sports knowledge is the New York Yankees in the 90s.
So I think we're good there.
Make sure to follow our DailyWire Fantasy League throughout the season by watching Crane & Company Mondays through Fridays.
And I better not blow the draft because the loser of this league This is real.
We're actually doing this.
If you lose, the punishment is you have to sit courtside at a WNBA game and actually watch the entire thing.
By the way, I have to tell you also that I, for some reason, because this punishment is so funny, I fought for it, like, behind the scenes.
I'm like, this has to be it.
We have to do this.
And it only occurred to me after the fact that I'll probably be the one who loses because I'm terrible at fantasy football.
So, that's what's on the line here.
That's why you need to tune in to watch the draft party.
You can catch all the draft action tonight over on Crane & Company's YouTube channel at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we cancel Jennifer Lawrence, who's a Hollywood actress been mostly out of the spotlight since starring in a series of flops over the last several years.
Now she's attempting to get back into the spotlight again in the run-up to the release of her latest film.
And having scrupulously studied other Hollywood actresses, Lawrence knows that the best way to get the attention back on yourself is, of course, to play the victim card.
The fact that she has a net worth of like 160 million dollars does not at all hinder her in her access to the victim card.
It's quite the opposite, in fact, as we will see.
In an interview with Vogue magazine, Lawrence runs through her list of woes.
Now, she begins with something that truly is tragic and terrible, and yet she manages to find the least sympathetic possible way to talk about it.
So, she says that she's suffered miscarriages.
Miscarriages are an awful thing.
We've been through that in my family as well.
But then she quickly adds that she was planning to abort the first miscarriage anyway.
In fact, she frames the whole conversation around the Dobbs decision, explaining that the recent birth of her first child somehow has made her even more steadfast in her support for abortion.
She says, "I remember a million times thinking about it while I was pregnant,
thinking about the things that were happening to my body.
And I had a great pregnancy. I had a very fortunate pregnancy.
But every single second of my life was difficult, or rather different.
And it would occur to me sometimes, 'What if I was forced to do this?'"
Now, it's really hard to even fathom the derangement in a statement like this.
Lawrence was pregnant with a child that she said she wanted, and yet took solace in the fact that she had the option to
kill him.
It's just the sort of thing that a person should not feel comfortable saying out loud, but many such things are said out loud in a culture devoid of shame.
Lawrence then goes on to attack her own family, speaking of being shameless.
Reading from the report in Variety, it says, according to Vogue, much of Lawrence's disappointment over Roe v. Wade began being overturned as, quote, Directed at certain relatives back in Louisville, Kentucky, where she'd grown up, including her father.
The actor had been trying to repair the family rift after giving birth, and then the Supreme Court ruling was made official in complicated matters.
Lawrence processed her family drama in therapy.
Quote, I just worked so hard in the last five years to forgive my dad and my family and try to understand it's different.
The information they're getting is different.
Their life is different.
Lauren said.
I've tried to get over it, and I really can't.
I just can't.
I'm sorry.
I'm just unleashing.
But I can't F with people who aren't political anymore.
You live in the United States of America.
You have to be political.
It's too dire.
Politics are killing people.
She says, I don't want to disparage my family, but I know that a lot of people are in a similar position with their families.
How could you raise a daughter from birth and believe that she doesn't deserve equality?
How?
She doesn't want to disparage her family, but she will.
This already tells you all you need to know about this person.
I mean, we don't value loyalty very highly in this culture, mainly because we don't value anything of value in this culture.
But that doesn't let Lawrence off the hook.
I mean, if you will attack your own family in public, over political disagreements of all things, That tells us that you are a self-absorbed, backstabbing brat.
But she isn't done.
She also reveals that she has sought therapy over a recurring nightmare that she has involving Tucker Carlson.
And in the same interview, she for some reason confesses that she had her first political awakening moment by watching 30 Rock.
And finally, following the script of every self-victimizing woman in Hollywood, the filthy rich Jennifer Lawrence complains about her salary, obviously.
She says, inequality is something—rather, this is reading from Vogue again, a variety— inequality is something Lawrence has had to contend with in Hollywood, too, where she has often been paid lower than her male co-stars.
The Sony hack revealed that she made far less than the likes of her male co-stars on American Hustle, while reports reveal in 2021 that she earned $5 million less than Leonardo DiCaprio on Don't Look Up, despite sharing top billing with him.
Lawrence told Vogue that all actors are often overpaid, but that doesn't make the pay gap any less frustrating.
She added, quote, it doesn't matter how much I do.
I'm still not going to get paid as much as that guy because of my vagina.
Well, no, Jennifer.
It's not because of your vagina.
It's because people are more likely to see a movie for Leonardo DiCaprio than for you.
People will actually pay for a ticket because they want to see DiCaprio in a film.
People will do that.
I'm not sure anyone has ever purchased a ticket just because they want to see Jennifer Lawrence in a film.
And I think she's a talented actress.
I just don't think people are going to the movies to see her.
Now, technically, her films have grossed billions of dollars at the box office, but that's almost entirely due to Hunger Games and X-Men.
And those are both franchises that would have had the same success with literally anyone else in her roles.
That's the beauty of franchise films as far as movie studios are concerned.
Just, like, plug anybody in, and they'll make a billion dollars.
Now, we should also note that Vogue conducted this interview with her, first at an exclusive spa in Santa Monica, And they had a follow-up at Lawrence's mansion in Beverly Hills.
So this is the perfect picture of modern victimhood.
You have a rich and famous actress lounging in her mansion, wearing a bathrobe, which was what she was wearing for the interview apparently, while complaining that she's oppressed by the patriarchy because one of the top actors in the business made a few million dollars more than her on a film that wasn't any good anyway.
I think there is actually, for the rest of us though, an important lesson in this.
Now, we know that spoiled and pampered people like to claim victimhood for themselves.
And we know they do this partially to virtue signal, partially for political points, partially because it's simply an internal reflex that they barely understand themselves.
But at a deeper level, I think the constant self-victimization of extremely comfortable people who live luxurious lives only goes to show that hardship and struggle are really necessary components of a full and healthy life.
They're so necessary that when a person is insulated from hardship, they begin to, like, desire it.
They want it.
They make almost a fetish out of it.
A life of unending comfort seems meaningless to them, and so they find ways of convincing themselves that they're persecuted.
And they do this, of course, without actually sacrificing any of the comfort, because they could give up all the comfort and then really experience the hardship, but they don't want to do that.
Their commitment to suffering only goes so far.
But it does go to show that perhaps real hardship is not always something to be avoided, because the people who succeed in avoiding it entirely only end up wishing that they still had it.
And then they end up embarrassing themselves, as Jennifer Lawrence has done here.
And it's why she is, today, finally cancelled.
And that'll do it for us for this portion of the show as we move to the Members Block.
I'll get used to ending the show somehow, eventually, this way.
We move over to the Members Block and we'll see you there.
