Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Chuck Schumer says that American birth rates are too low and the only solution is to import workers from the third world to replace declining populations. That sounds an awful lot like a certain theory we aren't supposed to talk about. Also, 12 republican senators officially get on board with the federal government codifying same sex marriage. What use are Republicans if this is what they do for us? And a church in Canada comes up with a prayer to bless and encourage assisted suicide. And San Francisco now has a guaranteed income program for trans people. I looked at the application form for this program and it's even crazier than you think.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
The Daily Wire is looking to hire a content coordinator. For more information and to apply, click here: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life - Check out 40 Days for Life – locations, podcast, and free magazine: https://www.40daysforlife.com/en/
Black Rifle Coffee - Get 10% off your first order or Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
Relief Band - Get 20% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Chuck Schumer says that American birth rates are too low and the only solution is to import workers from the third world to replace declining populations.
That sounds an awful lot like a certain theory we aren't supposed to talk about.
Also, 12 Republican senators officially get on board with the federal government codifying same-sex marriage.
What use are Republicans if this is what they're going to do for us?
And a church in Canada comes up with a prayer to bless and encourage assisted suicide.
And San Francisco now has a guaranteed income program for trans people.
I looked at the application form for this program and it's even crazier than you might think.
We thank all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
Roe v. Wade has been overturned and this battle is now finally leaving DC.
and going to the grassroots.
No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life.
With a million volunteers and 1,000 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
They have a larger presence in blue states, with California being their largest state.
Some former abortion facility directors say these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which, needless to say, is detrimental to their abortion business.
These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America.
Nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities where abortion will remain legal, including closures in San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle.
40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.
You can check out their locations, podcasts, and their free magazine at 40daysforlife.com.
And remember, this fight is not over, especially after what happened in the midterms.
It's more important than ever.
to stay engaged in the fight and if you want more information about it you can go to 40 days for life at 40daysforlife.com So we hit a major milestone this week, and by we, I mean everyone in the whole world.
Congratulations.
The global population officially crossed the 8 billion mark.
So there are now 8 billion people on the planet.
It took humanity until the 1800s to hit 1 billion, but only 200 more years to multiply that number by 8.
This, of course, has led to, as you might expect, lots of frantic and feeble hand-wringing about the mythical threat of overpopulation, quote-unquote.
Tip over on its axis and we'll all slide off like dishes on an overturned table.
Infamously, there was once an elected Democrat who expressed a concern not far from that.
Slightly less delusional, though still plenty delusional, is the fear that we will run out of resources or habitable land for people to live on.
I mean, none of these scenarios are realistic.
There is more than enough land, more than enough resources to feed and house numbers even greater than 8 billion.
If the land or resources are misallocated, or not properly utilized, or if people choose to huddle together in massive, smelly urban bundles, that's a different problem entirely that cannot be blamed on sheer numbers, and also cannot be solved by reducing the numbers.
In fact, it's not just that overpopulation is a myth.
One invented and propagated by nihilists and eugenicists and Bill Gates, but I repeat myself.
It's that the actual crisis we face as a globe, as a world, as a planet, the real apocalyptic cataclysm on the horizon, is quite the opposite of overpopulation.
Our problem is not that there are too many babies being born.
But that there are too few being born.
The world's population is getting older.
The average age of a human on Earth is a decade older now than it was in even the 1970s.
Now, sure, that's partly a product of modern medicine, which is good.
People are living longer.
But it's also a product of an aging population that isn't having enough babies.
And when the median age gets high enough, society becomes top-heavy with more elderly people than there are younger people to care for them.
This is a problem that developed countries like Japan are already dealing with.
Many others will soon join them.
The whole world is trending in that direction.
For all the talk about overpopulation, the population is actually projected to start declining by the 2060s, as global fertility rates dip below replacement level.
Understand this.
Global populations have never declined due to declining fertility.
We've never seen a decline in the global population because of fertility, or lack thereof.
The last decline was during the Black Plague 700 years ago, and that was because of a pandemic that wiped out a quarter of human life on the planet.
A decline due to people simply not having babies is an entirely different matter, and it's never happened before through the whole history of the human race.
And it's not a good sign.
Older, slower, top-heavy populations cannot thrive, and after a while, they cannot survive.
They can't sustain themselves.
Human civilization is right now essentially giving up on itself, throwing in the towel.
And this, again, is not a positive development.
In the U.S., we're ahead of the population decline curve.
We fell below replacement-level fertility a couple of years ago.
Actually, farther ago than that, and we've been notching record low birth rates every year since.
Or almost.
I mean, birth rates hit another record low in 2020, falling 4% below the previous year.
However, in 2021, there was a slight uptick of 1%, which is still 3% below 2019.
It was the first increase in the birth rate since 2014, but that was likely only a function of the fact that the year before that was so low.
Overall, the U.S.
has been below replacement level, actually, for the most part, and there have been, you know, there are peaks and valleys and everything, but for the most part, it's been below replacement since really the early 1970s.
And even with the occasional blip on the radar screen, a spike here and there, we are trending in the wrong direction, and fast.
Senator Chuck Schumer, of all people, has noticed this problem, and he made note of it yesterday to reporters when he was giving a press conference.
Given that Democrats despise the human species, and especially those members of the species who are residents of their same country, those are the humans that Democrats hate the most, we don't usually hear them lamenting declining birth rates.
In fact, they are engineering the decline.
So, what has awakened Schumer to this issue?
Why does he care about all of a sudden?
Well, that becomes obvious pretty quickly when you hear what he had to say and why.
Here it is.
Now more than ever, we're short of workers.
We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to.
The only way we're going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the dreamers, and all of them.
Because our ultimate goal is to help the dreamers, but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.
Ah, so, there you go.
That explains it.
The American population is declining.
We are short of workers.
The senator is concerned, of course, that there won't be enough people available to mow his lawn and clean his pool and dust his fireplace mantles.
And his solution is to import a peasant class.
To import them, rather than attempt to raise them organically the old-fashioned way.
He seeks to replace the American population with illegal immigrants.
He wants to replace them, replace us.
He wants to replace them on a very large scale.
Replace them on a large scale.
Even, you might say, you know, a large, another synonym would be great.
He wants to replace the declining American population on a great scale.
Replace, great, replace on a great scale.
So, a great replacement, you might say.
That thing that we're not allowed to notice or mention, that's the thing that Chuck Schumer is explicitly advocating for.
And by the way, not for nothing, I should also say, 11 million.
We keep hearing 11 million.
There are 11 million illegals or undocumented immigrants, as they put it.
They've been telling us about the 11 million undocumented immigrants since I was in high school, okay?
That number now is much higher than 11 million.
We don't know exactly what it is, but probably closer to 50 million or higher.
In any case, there are, of course, other ways to reverse the trend of population decline.
And the most simple strategy, and frankly the most enjoyable, is for us American citizens to get down to business and have babies.
Lots of babies.
Not to brag, but I am already pulling more than my fair share of the weight in this arena now that I have six kids, and my wife and I have, in our family at least, tripled the replacement rate.
And if you really want to encourage more people to have babies, and if you want those babies to have the greatest chance of success in life, That entails more people getting married and getting married younger.
So we could create a society that encourages marriage and incentivizes people to start families and to have children.
But that is not what we have done.
Thanks to Chuck Schumer and his ilk, we've gone exactly the opposite direction.
To start with, we kill our babies in the womb.
60 million babies have been killed in the past 50 years or so.
That means we've erased not just 60 million human beings, I mean, we've erased 60 million to begin with, but actually we've erased hundreds of millions of potential humans.
A large portion of those babies, after all, would have grown up and had kids of their own, and soon the kids of those kids would start having kids.
Entire family trees have been uprooted and tossed into the incinerator.
The loss of human potential is absolutely staggering.
And yet Schumer and his party support, fund, and facilitate all of this, even as he laments or pretends to lament the declining populations.
Not only that, but Schumer and his party have attacked the nuclear family.
They've encouraged sexual perversion and sexual dysfunction.
They have invented a human right to subsidized birth control.
I mean, they want to give up birth control in middle schools now.
They've created an economy that forces millions of women out of the home and into the workplace.
Now they're even castrating and sterilizing people, including children, in the name of gender ideology.
This is all part of a deliberate plan.
There's no escaping that conclusion.
And that's to say nothing of the drug epidemic killing millions of Americans by, or, you know, killing Americans by the thousands every single year.
Violent crime, which is doing exactly the same.
They are obviously aware that their policies are wreaking havoc on the birth rate while eliminating en masse those who have managed to be born.
They're aware that this creates a crisis situation for the country.
And here they are at the ready with the solution, which is to import Democrat voters from the third world.
Send in the replacements.
I mean, they're right.
The Great Replacement Theory is outrageous.
It's outrageous to talk about the Great Replacement Theory.
And that's because there is no theory here.
It's just a fact.
Right in front of our faces.
Now let's get to the five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Do you have a coffee lover on your holiday shopping list?
Black Rifle has all the best brewing gear, thermoses, mugs, and apparel designed for folks who love country and coffee.
Black Rifle sources the most exotic roasts from around the globe.
All coffee is roasted here in the U.S.
by veteran-led teams of coffee experts.
Stuff your Christmas stockings with the latest from America's coffee for 10% off with my code WALSH.
Better yet, you can sign your secret Santa up for a coffee club subscription Imagine the joy of a pre-scheduled coffee delivery, your favorite roasts, when you need them most.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
It's all from Black Rifle.
Black Rifle Coffee Company is veteran-founded and operated.
They take pride in serving coffee and culture to people who love America.
Every purchase you make with Black Rifle helps support veteran and first responder causes.
So you can go to BlackRifleCoffee.com, use promo code WALSH for 10% off, coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or anything else when you
sign up for a new Coffee Club subscription.
That's BlackRifleCoffee.com with promo code Walsh for 10% off Black Rifle Coffee, supporting
veterans and America's coffee.
Well, we'll start here.
Daily Wire reports a bill that would codify same-sex marriage protections into law passed a procedural vote with the support of 12 Republican senators on Wednesday, despite concerns that it would infringe on religious freedoms.
The Respect for Marriage Act would, ironically named, would repeal the Defense of
Marriage Act, which is a 1996 law that legally defined marriages between one man and one woman,
and permitted states to not recognize same-sex marriage from other states.
The RMA would make it so that any person acting under color of state law must fully recognize
a marriage between two people in another state.
It also makes it so that the federal government must recognize marriages if they were valid in the state where the marriage took place.
The procedural vote passed 62 to 37.
The Republican senators who voted to advance the bill were Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Morcapito, Susan Collins, no surprise there,
Todd Young, Joni Ernst, also no surprise, Cynthia Loomis, Lisa Murkowski, another no surprise,
Rob Portman, same, Mitt Romney, same, Dan Sullivan, and Tom Tillis.
Those are the senators who jumped on board with the federal government redefining marriage.
Greg Baylor, the senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Daily Wire,
quote, "That the original version of the bill "created serious threats to religious liberty."
The changes to the bill did virtually nothing to address those threats.
The amendments to the bill that purport to protect religious liberty are mere window dressing.
Okay, let's review just a few things here.
First of all, the bill is, to begin with, completely unnecessary.
At least if it really has the goal as stated, which is to protect same-sex marriage, completely unnecessary.
Even if you're an advocate of same-sex marriage, you must see that it is unnecessary.
Because the Supreme Court is not going to overturn Obergefell.
It's not going to happen.
There aren't the votes to overturn it.
They don't even have the votes to take a case up.
And there aren't any cases to take up on the subject.
A case could only make it to the Supreme Court if some state somewhere challenges the decision by trying to ban same-sex marriage.
None of that is happening, or would happen.
Simple as that.
So, my point is, even from the perspective of an advocate of same-sex marriage, which obviously I am not one, but from your perspective, it's still the case that this is, like, at least unnecessary.
And I am...
I am on principle opposed to all unnecessary laws.
I don't like the idea of politicians taking time up, wasting taxpayer money to pass laws that are unnecessary.
And one of the reasons for that is that, like, if a law, if the stated reason for a law doesn't make any sense, oh, we're protecting same-sex marriage so the Supreme Court doesn't, that doesn't make any sense because that's not happening.
Well, that will cause you to suspect that there's something else going on here.
So what's the real point then?
Why are they doing this?
Well, one is just sort of the principle of it, to codify same-sex marriage on the federal level, to do it simply because they can, to use the bully pulpit of the federal government to send the message that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bigot, etc.
That's part of the point, and that's enough reason to oppose it.
But the other point is to, yes, attack religious liberty.
Listen to the language in the bill that supposedly protects religious liberty, and this is what allegedly convinced Mitt Romney and others to jump on board with it.
Here's what the bill actually says.
I'm going to read the language of the bill.
It says, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, non-profit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, non-denominational ministries, inter-denominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, non-profit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employees of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
So that's what it says.
And this is supposed to be the thing that protects religious liberty.
Even though we already have the First Amendment, which protects religious liberty.
And even though this bill also codifies same-sex marriage on the federal level.
Look at who they're mentioning here, okay?
They mention a bunch of people and they say that, okay, these faith-based organizations, and then they list a bunch of things that count as faith-based organizations, which also means, by the way, that the government is claiming the responsibility and the power to decide what counts as a faith-based organization.
But it says, if you're a faith-based organization, you won't be required to provide services, facilities, etc.
for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
Again, however they define solemnization or celebration of marriage.
But do you know who this wouldn't help?
I mean, it wouldn't help the people who have actually been under attack, whose religious liberties have actually been threatened by the LGBT mob coming after them on this subject.
Somebody like Jack Phillips, for example, the baker in Colorado.
Now, he runs a bakery.
That's not a faith-based organization.
At least not according to the law.
So it's just a private business, but he's a Christian, and he has the right, according to the First Amendment, to run his business according to his beliefs, to practice his religion.
Even in the context of his business.
But this part of the law here, this language, specifically excludes people like him.
Which is a big signal to the left and to the LGBT activists that you can keep going after the Jack Phillipses of the world.
Because you only have religious liberty, according to this law, you only have religious liberty and you only have the right to not participate in or approve of a same-sex marriage if you are directly affiliated with a faith-based organization.
Religious liberty, that's something that belongs in the churches, they're saying.
It doesn't belong in your bakery.
But that's not what religious liberty means.
It's not religious liberty if you can only practice it when you're inside the walls of a church.
Because that's not the only time when you have your faith and you have your religion.
At least it shouldn't be.
If Christians are not able to live by their faith and practice it in every context, then they don't have religious liberty.
It doesn't exist.
You can practice your religious liberty inside the walls of this building.
That's just another way of saying you don't have religious liberty.
It's like the farce of a college campus having a free speech zone.
Yeah, you have free speech, but we're gonna draw a circle and chalk on the ground here, and you gotta be inside that circle.
Then you have all the free speech you want.
Well, it's limited to being inside the circle, which means that it's not free.
And that's obviously the case here.
And there's another point, too, that What they're trying to do here, although this is an assault on religious liberty, the other goal is to send the message that you could only ever oppose same-sex marriage or have a problem with it if you are religious, which isn't true.
That's just not true.
This is part of what the conversation with Joe Rogan was about.
Yes, it is accurate that if you're a faithful Christian, for example, or a member of any of the Abrahamic faiths, or many other religions, you cannot be an advocate for same-sex marriage because your religion forbids it.
But it's also true that you don't actually need to be an adherent to an Abrahamic religion to see that same-sex marriage doesn't make any sense, to oppose it fundamentally.
Because there is a logical, definitional argument here.
Which is that, as I've tried to explain, the relationship between a man and a woman, that sort of relationship, in principle, is different from, it's different in kind, it's different in function, from the relationship between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.
Because of the capacity that it has.
Because of the potential that it has.
Because of its procreative capacity.
And because it has that capacity, it is a different sort of thing and should be called something different and should be protected by society and given a pride of place and incentivized, especially if you want to reverse the population decline, incentivized in a way that none of these other relationships should be or need to be.
There's no argument, there is no rational argument for legally recognizing The love that a same-sex couple has for each other. Why
does that need to be legally recognized?
Why do you why do you need a piece of paper or contract or anything that recognizes that on a legal level?
It's easy to understand why you need those sorts of protections
for man-woman Relationships because they are pro-creative they create
babies they they they are the the fountain that from which the
the nuclear family springs which lies at the foundation of human civilization.
So that's why it's different.
And although it may be true that religious people are more likely to see this reality, You don't actually need to be religious to see it.
And the other thing too is that this is all being done on dishonest grounds.
And you know that if you listen to the people who push this.
So here's Senator Tammy Baldwin on the floor of the Senate making her pitch for this bill before it passed the procedural vote.
And listen to what she says.
Millions of Americans, our family members, our neighbors, our congressional staff members, and certainly our constituents, are scared.
Scared that the rights they rely upon to protect their families could be taken away.
And they are scared for good reason.
The same legal arguments that the Supreme Court rested upon to reverse Roe v. Wade could
just as easily be applied to reverse numerous other cases related to families, related to
intimate relations, to contraception, and marriage.
The Supreme Court should not be in a position to undermine the stability of families with
a stroke of the pen.
So now Congress must act.
With the Respect for Marriage Act, we can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away.
By passing this bill, we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, So you hear what she says, and of course we've heard this the whole time, but she mentions interracial couples probably, I don't know, three or four times just in that clip alone.
And every time she says same-sex couple, she makes sure to include same-sex couples and interracial couples.
When there has just been no con- there is no one who wants to
abolish interracial marriages,
That argument isn't being made by anyone.
I mean, there also, again, is no actual political threat to same-sex marriage, because no states are going to do that, the Supreme Court wouldn't do that, and the Republican Party, unfortunately, does not have the wherewithal to make this argument at all.
They refuse to make it.
That's the case for same-sex marriages.
Interracial couples, there's just, no one's talking about that except on the left.
Because again, an interracial coupling does, obviously does not at all challenge the fundamental definition of marriage.
You know, a black man and a white woman, in principle, can create babies, have procreative potential, just like two members of the same race.
And one other point about that too, I say that nobody's criticizing interracial couples and no one has a problem with that.
It's actually not exactly true.
You could go online and see people complaining maybe about that.
But they're almost always going to be on the left.
It's on the left.
It's the race hustlers on the left.
It's the proponents of critical race theory and so on.
If anyone is going to criticize, in the year 2022, interracial couples, it's almost certainly going to be someone on the left approaching it from that perspective.
So, the challenge to interracial couplings, if it exists at all, is coming from inside the House, if you're on the Democratic side.
All right.
Daily Wire has this report.
As Canada prepares to loosen laws related to medical assistance in dying, Prayers published by the United Church of Canada designed to help sick and disabled people follow through with the lethal procedure are drawing criticism and shock.
So this is a church, quote-unquote, that has come up with prayers encouraging people to kill themselves.
Alright.
Although euthanasia has been available to many Canadians for the past six years, the nation's parliament considered amendments to the Criminal Code last year that would expand the availability of the practice.
Among other changes, a citizen possessing only a mental illness can now request euthanasia starting next spring, whereas the practice was originally limited to individuals with serious physical illnesses or disabilities.
And we've been talking about this on this show, that in Canada, You know, euthanasia is threatening to become, it already is one of the leading causes of death in some provinces in Canada, as they are taking this, what they call the MAID law, the MAID Act, medical assistance in dying, and they are progressively expanding it to include more and more types of people.
So long gone are the days when the euthanasia conversation revolved only around people who are already on their deathbed, who are terminally ill, who are going to die anyway within the next few weeks.
Long gone are the days when that is what the euthanasia conversation is about.
And even then, even when it was just focused on that population of people, I opposed it.
And this is one of the reasons why I opposed it.
Because everything is a slippery slope on the left.
This, of course, is no exception.
If we are saying that suicide, you know, that killing someone can be a valid medical treatment, if that's what we're saying, then it's only a matter of time before that is applied far beyond terminally ill people.
The whole logic behind euthanasia for terminally ill is that they're suffering, they don't want to live anymore, there's no point in living when they're suffering so much, and so the best way to treat that suffering is just to kill them.
Well, it's not that far of a jump at all.
In fact, it's not even a jump.
It's just a step.
To see how, well, if that's the truth for terminally ill people, then yeah, why not someone who's depressed?
Why not someone who's struggling with mental illness?
They're suffering too.
As far as they can see it, there's no end of the suffering.
Life is suffering.
And so this is how we will treat the suffering.
Anyway, back to the United Church of Canada.
It's called The Prayer in the Midst of Fear, which is co-authored by a United Church of Canada minister and the former co-president of Dying with Dignity, an advocacy group which supported the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada.
It can be described as an exercise in radical autonomy.
The supplication centers upon asking God that family members would accept their loved one's decision to kill themselves with the aid of medical professionals.
Making no mention of eternal life secured through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the prayer attempts to embrace an uncertainty about death So here's part of the prayer.
Again, this was devised by the United Church of Canada.
It says, I am afraid.
I feel fear penetrating my mind and my heart.
I feel fear in my gut.
I am afraid to die.
I do not know what lies beyond the barrier of death.
I am afraid to release myself to the great unknown.
I am heartbroken and afraid to leave my family.
I am still needed.
I have let go of hope and healing.
I hold on to hope for the next life.
I'm afraid that my family and loved ones, children and grandchildren will be troubled when I tell them I plan to die using medical aid and dying.
But in the midst of my fear, I have hope that my family and loved ones, children and grandchildren will understand the choice to end my suffering.
I hope they will be proud of my decision and will understand that maid is consistent with the love and compassion of Jesus.
And then I go, I can't even keep reading this.
I mean, this is obviously not a Christian prayer.
This is a demonic incantation.
This is a mockery of Christianity.
This is Christianity turned on its head.
Because Christianity is hope.
It is a religion, a faith of hope.
And this is the abandonment of hope.
It says, I hope that my family will be proud.
That they'll be proud that I killed myself.
Because I don't want to suffer anymore.
This is what happens when you put... We talked about the slippery slope.
When you put doctors in charge of killing people, when you say to doctors that this is now a valid treatment that could be available to some people, this is where it leads.
And it was entirely predictable.
All right, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has some thoughts about trans rights.
Let's listen to that.
Is that the same folks who tell us and told us that COVID's just a flu, that climate change isn't real, that January 6th was nothing but a tourist visit, are now trying to tell us that transgender people are not real.
Much of that is correct.
Climate change is a hoax.
Well, what we're told about climate change by the left, much of that is a hoax.
That's correct.
January 6th is a tourist visit.
Well, no, it was a riot.
But it was closer to a tourist visit than it was to an insurrection that threatened to overturn the government of the United States.
If everything's on a spectrum, then it would be closer to the tourist expedition end of that spectrum than an insurrection that would have overturned the government.
And trans people are not real.
This is what we keep hearing from the left.
They're claiming that what we're saying is that trans people aren't real.
It depends what you mean by that.
We all agree that there are people in the country who identify themselves as trans.
So those people certainly exist.
There are people who are walking around and saying, I'm transgender.
Yes, we all agree.
That's not a figment of our imagination.
We're not hallucinating it.
We all agree that's the case, that those people exist.
However, the question is whether the claim that they're making about themselves is true.
And then the second question is, related to the first, is it actually possible for a person to be transgender?
Is that a valid, a legitimate, a coherent kind of human identity?
Transgender.
Trans.
It means beyond gender.
You're beyond it.
You're something past it.
Beyond it.
Is it possible to be that?
The answer is no.
No one is beyond it.
Because we're human beings and there are two options, male and female, and nobody exists beyond that.
So in that sense, you know, trans, if that's the sense that you mean, that in
that sense trans people don't exist in the sense that there are no people who actually exist
beyond the gender binary because the gender binary is real and we all are in it on one side of it or
the other. And yet the people who are confused about this, yes they certainly do exist and if
they didn't then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Speaking of people who are confused, here's
something that's been making the rounds on Reddit. This is posted by an account called Males of Reddit.
And it's a screenshot of someone on the trans forum, the male-to-female trans forum on Reddit.
And here's what they posted.
They said, I have successfully breastfed my child.
This is a male, again, by the way.
My kiddo was born last week and I was the first to breastfeed her.
My partner and I gave her, well, they've They are recognizing the sex of their daughter, so that's something at least.
You gotta look for the glimmers of hope where you can find them, especially in a situation like this.
My partner and I gave her 40 hours of continuous skin-to-skin after she was born, but after months of preparation and trying, I was able to breastfeed my own kiddo from my breast.
It's a wild feeling and made me over-the-moon happy.
She's a cutie.
And then there's screenshots of a bunch of comments saying that, you know, how wonderful all this is.
Now it should go without saying, but I feel that I must say it anyway.
It is not possible for a man to breastfeed a child.
Okay?
That's not something that can actually be done.
You cannot sustain a child that way.
Now, what is possible, and what has apparently happened in this case, is that if you're a man, and you take a whole bunch of hormones, and you drug yourself up this way, that after a while, you may start secreting some, there may be some secretions that come out of your nipples.
Which is disgusting, but that may actually happen.
So these are going to be secretions, hormone laced with artificial hormones, That are now being ingested by the child.
Could that possibly be remotely healthy for a newborn child to be ingesting that?
Whatever that is, okay, and we're not going to call, it's not the mother's milk, it's certainly not that.
Whatever you want to call that mucus, those secretions, is it healthy for a child to be ingesting it?
Is there any reason to think that it would be?
Obviously not.
But as always, it's not about the child.
This is certainly extremely physically unhealthy for the child, not to mention the psychological damage being done, even at such a young age.
But that doesn't matter.
It's not about the child.
It's about this guy.
This is a fetish.
For him, this is a desire that he has and that he has now forced a newborn child to participate in.
I also want to play this clip for you.
MSNBC appears to be maybe turning on Ukraine ever so slightly.
I thought this was an interesting clip.
Let's play this.
Such an important point.
The reason, if this was in fact a Ukrainian defense missile that engaged in an accident, the reason they're firing those up is because Russia is attacking Ukraine deep in its own territory near the Polish border, going after infrastructure and civilian targets.
Just a couple of minutes ago, Richard, the Polish president, President Duda, called this an unfortunate accident and not an intentional attack.
This never made sense to you, even yesterday, that it was a Russian attack?
No, as Admiral Stavridis said, if you're going to do an intentional attack, if you're Russia, then you're going to risk taking on NATO.
And by the way, Russia can't defeat Ukraine.
Why in the world would they take on NATO?
It just makes zero, zero sense.
So yeah, it's...
Just, there was no way this, I thought, could have been an intentional Russian attack.
I think the polls look studied, measured, which is what you want to look here.
NATO looks good.
Ukraine looks a little bit too hot.
The idea that Ukraine's saying this has to be a Russian, it almost looks as if they wanted this to be something more.
So I think that's unfortunate, and that won't help their credibility.
So, look, I think this, the only other lesson I take from this is anytime you've got a hot war, Stuff happens to use Mr. Rumsfeld's comment the danger of escalation is somehow implicit the danger of accidents and again It's it's the reason you you don't want to fly off the handle when stuff happens Just just get the facts and make sure you're responding to something that was actual and if possible intentional You don't want to have inadvertent escalation here.
So there's a little bit of a lesson when something hot is going on I said ever so slightly.
That's probably turning on Ukraine is an overstatement.
But he does acknowledge, yeah, Ukraine, it's almost like, he says they were too hot.
It's almost like they wanted it to be a Russian attack.
When the missile hit Poland and killed two people, and Ukraine, we immediately heard from Ukraine and Zelensky, Russians did it.
It's almost like they wanted it to be the case.
Yeah, you think so?
It's not that they... They're the ones who launched the missile.
So it's not that they wanted that.
They wanted us to think that.
They're the ones who launched it.
The only question about this is whether this was a false flag operation, that they launched it intentionally so that they could blame Russia and draw Western governments into a world war with Russia, or if this was an accident and then Zelensky turned around with bad intel because he wanted it to be a certain way and he just told the world that.
I mean, again, either way, it's really bad for Zelensky and Ukraine.
You know, when someone makes a mistake that would work out really well for them, then I tend to think that's not a coincidence.
So it seems pretty clear to me that this was intentional.
They were trying to hoax us into a world war.
And although we might be hearing from the media now, now they're saying, oh yeah, I never thought it was, of course it wasn't Russia.
That's not what they were saying on Tuesday, when this news first came down.
I mean, on Tuesday, every corporate media outlet was ready for world war.
Not even stopping to think about it.
Why would Russia, why would they even do this?
I guess if they're the comic book villains, and so they're just launching missiles for no reason.
But in the real world, Russia in this conflict with Ukraine, why would they just randomly attack Poland?
It never made any sense, but...
It's not just that Ukraine wanted it to be a certain thing, it's that the media wanted it to be that too.
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
It's clinically proven to quickly and effectively prevent or relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, and chemotherapy.
So whether you need everyday nausea relief or just an occasional cure, ReliefBand is the way to go because it's got patented technology that makes feeling sick a thing of the past.
Like the name says, ReliefBand is legitimately just a band that you wear on your wrist.
to give you relief from nausea. You can even change the intensity depending on how you're feeling.
Relief Band has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and over 100,000 satisfied
customers. If you want the band that actually works to relieve your nausea, check out Relief
Band right now. I've worked out an exclusive offer just for my listeners as well. If you
go to reliefband.com, use promo code Walsh, you'll get 20% off plus free shipping and a
no questions asked, 30-day money back guarantee.
You get all of that, but you got to go to the website.
Go to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com.
Use promo code WALSH for 20% off plus free shipping.
The Spirit of Traj says, the fact that girl wasn't forced off the stage immediately, but rather clapped for, says everything.
Yeah, it was the girl that was insulting and attacking her own father at his funeral during the eulogy.
Yeah, it's bad enough that they clapped, but really somebody should have walked up onto the stage during that and just escorted her off the stage.
I think in many ways we need to become a more confrontational culture than we are.
More confrontational.
What we usually hear is it's the opposite.
It's too confrontational, too divisive, and we all need to turn down.
The temperature quite a bit.
That might be the case on the internet.
Okay, yeah, everyone is really confrontational on the internet, and if you say one thing that they don't like, they're gonna tell you that they hope you die of cancer and all that kind of stuff.
But in real life, it's really the opposite.
Because people are hiding behind, and they're kind of venting all their frustrations behind the comfort of their keyboards.
In real life, all of these people are a bunch of fainting little flowers.
And so you could see something like this happen and a bunch of people just standing by and watching it.
Because although they might be eager to confront on the internet, most people don't want to confront in person.
We could actually use a lot more of that.
CoolPapaJMagic says, I would so love to hear Matt call this woman anti-white, which is what she is.
The go-free lexicon is spreading, so it's just a matter of time.
When have I ever hesitated to call someone anti-white if they're anti-white?
Yeah, she's anti-white, obviously.
I've talked about anti-white racism using that term many, many times.
I always find it funny when I hear this from people in the audience.
Well, Matt never talks about this.
It's like, I talk about that all the time.
I maybe haven't talked about it in the last, I don't know, 48 hours, but that's not the same thing as never talking about it.
Owen says, I have a bad relationship with my father, but I have family members who do have a good relationship with him and I respect that.
There's no possible way that anyone could convince me to do what she did.
Absolutely disgraceful.
And that's a good point too.
It's not just about, you know, the funeral is not just about honoring The dead.
It's also about the living.
People will say the funeral is only for the living.
I disagree with that.
I think it also is about the dead.
It's about honoring the dead.
But the funeral is indeed in part for the living.
And so even if you didn't have a good relationship with this person, think about all the other people who are there who don't feel that way and who for them it's going to help them grieve to be able to honor this person.
And you're just throwing a hand grenade into the middle of that because it would make you feel better.
Delta9 says, that chick's eulogy could have come right out of Mao's Cultural Revolution.
I suppose she'd probably take that as a compliment.
Well, she wouldn't because she wouldn't know what Mao's Cultural Revolution is, even though she's participating in it.
Let's see.
Majed says, Matt, I think it actually is in the best interest of some random American sitting on his dinner table that Russia is punished, i.e.
had its global presence diminished, because then the U.S.
will directly benefit from weakening one of its main competitors on the global stage, and that may translate into an improvement in terms of well-being for an average American.
Well, that's your assertion, I understand, and you have reasserted it, but how exactly does it help?
So you're asserting that it would improve the well-being of the average American citizen if we are to punish Russia.
So that's your assertion, that's what you're claiming.
How exactly?
Walk me through that.
Give me the step-by-step process.
Okay, you need to connect those dots for me because I'm not being facetious, I don't see it.
Tyler says, sounds like Matt is that guy who's just losing his mind in my rearview mirror because myself and the four cars in front of me are only going 7 miles per hour over the speed limit.
I am absolutely that guy.
How dare you go only 7 miles?
If you're going 7 miles over the limit, you're going at least 10 miles per hour too slow.
That's my driving safety recommendation.
Let's see.
Nikki says, I agree about people who drive too slow in the fast lane, but the worst highway offenders are people who try to jump ahead in traffic by driving all the way to the end of the merge lane slash ramp and then cutting in at the last moment.
But you could not be more wrong, Nikki, I'm afraid to say.
You couldn't possibly be wronger.
You have gone as far from correct as you could possibly go.
You have reached the absolute zero of wrongness.
The merge lane, the ramp, okay, it's there for a reason.
You're supposed to use it.
And if there's a lot of traffic...
Especially.
I always take the on-ramp all the way to the end before I cut in.
Because that's my lane, and I have every right to it, and I'm going to use it.
And if I'm coming onto the highway, I have a right to that lane, and I will use it all the way to the end.
I'll leap in front of 50 cars, cut right in at the last minute.
And I will do it without causing any other car to break their stride or slam their brakes.
I will do it with surgical precision and you will look on in jealousy, but that's not my problem.
So you're sitting in traffic and you're just jealous of the people that are on the on-ramp and you see them whizzing by you and cutting in front.
But your jealousy is not my issue.
No, the real problem with merging is, I think we've talked about this before, it's when, and this is a big issue in Nashville.
I think Nashville is the capital of this and I'm not exactly sure why, but the real problem is when people are, they're merging onto the highway.
And there's a lot of traffic, and for some reason they just kind of panic and they get afraid.
And so they come to a complete stop in the middle of the merge lane and sit there with their dumb little blinker on like an idiot, waiting to cut into the traffic.
Meanwhile, there's still like a hundred feet of runway in front of them that they refuse to use.
And so they're causing all the other cars that are coming on the on-ramp to have to slam on their brakes.
That's the real issue.
You know, something smells over at my swag shack.
Something like Sweet Baby Spirit.
That's right.
Fuel Tea to the SPG is in bloom this holiday season, so come as you are and get yourself the Sweet Baby Album Tea.
It's the perfect gift to yourself and everyone you know, because there's just something in the way they put my bearded infant self on a t-shirt that no one can resist.
If you want to take part in this and help us to exploit your millennia nostalgia, head over to my collection over at dailywire.com slash shop and get the Sweet Baby Gang album t-shirt or any of the other amazing holiday offerings at the new and improved Daily Wire Plus shop, like free shipping for orders over $75 and a free Leftist Tears tumbler with all orders over $100.
Get your shirt today and everything else.
These are already closed to selling out.
Again, go to dailywire.com slash shop and get yours before they're gone.
Also, if you follow The Daily Wire on social media, you've surely seen the excellent work of our skilled content coordinators, most notably the work featuring me and all of my heroic exploits.
Well, we're currently looking to add one more coordinator to the team.
So if you have experience in social media marketing or content creation, we want to hear from you.
This is a Nashville, Tennessee-based position where people actually come into the office, put on their shoes.
You better put them on if you want to come to the office and do real work instead of attending struggle sessions on Zoom all day.
If you want more information or if you want to apply, visit dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, we flew into San Francisco yesterday for my speech at Berkeley tonight.
We had to drive downtown from the airport to get to our hotel.
The GPS, it wasn't working, but fortunately we were able to follow the stench of weed and feces, and it led us right into the city.
Truly, San Francisco is a godforsaken wasteland.
It is like something out of Mad Max, but way gayer.
If you didn't know any better, you might think that the whole city is like some kind of penal colony.
If I had to choose between going to prison or moving to San Francisco, it would be a flip of the coin at least, because there is no discernible difference between the two.
This is what a leftist utopia looks like and what it smells like, like urine and garbage and despair.
So what I'm trying to say is that I'm not a big fan of this city, and so it should come as no surprise that I am cancelling the city today, though my reason for cancelling has nothing to do with the trauma that I suffer every time I'm forced to come here.
It's really a coincidence, perhaps providence, that I happen to be in the city on the day when its reason for cancellation has presented itself.
And here is that reason.
It's a report from the local ABC affiliate in San Francisco.
It says, San Francisco Mayor London Breed announced the launch of a new guaranteed income program for the city's transgender community on Wednesday.
The Guaranteed Income for Trans People, GIFT program, will provide Low-income transgender residents with $1,200 each month up to 18 months to help address financial insecurity within the community.
In a statement, the city of San Francisco said, "GIFT is one of several programs the city is
developing, implementing, and evaluating to identify how to best support San Francisco
residents and promote economic stability and recovery." The city also said that the new
pilot program is the first guaranteed income initiative to focus solely on trans people
and will provide 55 eligible participants with temporary income.
Additionally, the city said it will provide the same individuals with wraparound direct services such as gender-affirming medical and mental health care, case management, specialty care services, and financial coaching.
Now, we're told the reason for this program is that trans people are disproportionately impacted by poverty.
We already know that trans people are disproportionately impacted by everything, really.
If there was a giant tsunami that obliterated the whole city, not to get your hopes up, and everyone was washed away in the process, we would still be told that trans people were disproportionately impacted.
If a volcano erupted on an island in the Pacific and incinerated a small village of 600 people, and there were no trans people in the village at all, we would still be told that trans people were disproportionately impacted somehow.
As for poverty, the article says this, quote, We know that our trans communities experience much higher rates of poverty and discrimination, so this program will target support to lift individuals in this community up.
We will keep building on programs like this to provide those in the greatest need with the financial resources and services to help them thrive, said Mayor London Breed in a statement.
Transgender communities experience poverty and economic instability at disproportionately high rates, according to the city.
The U.S.
Transgender Survey, which is the only large-scale study of trans people in the U.S., in 2015 found that 33% of trans people in California were living in poverty.
All right.
So we're supposed to assume that the higher rates of poverty in the trans community are due to discrimination, transphobia, whatever.
Even in a place like San Francisco, where trans people are literally worshipped as deities.
Even here, the high rates of poverty are because of bigotry.
Yet, even the left will acknowledge that trans people also have higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse issues.
That would seem to explain why they're more likely to have trouble holding down a job.
And it's hard to see how handing them a check for $1,200 will solve that.
And by the way, if we're providing financial advantages to groups that are more likely to be homeless and impoverished, why not set up a program giving a monthly stipend to men?
Quote, cisgender men specifically.
After all, men, as compared to women, suffer much higher rates of homelessness and similar conditions.
So why not give them a program?
But no such program would or ever could exist, because the disproportionate impact game is rigged.
In any case, we still haven't gotten to the reason for this cancellation.
Obviously, handing out free money to the gender-confused is an insane idea that will not solve any problem and will only make the existing problems even worse.
But if San Francisco wants to continue its march into insanity and oblivion, it is more than welcome to do so.
I have no interest in talking sense into them, nor could I even do that anyway.
That's why my focus is not on the program itself, but on the form you have to fill out in order to be eligible for it.
So if you want to take advantage of GIFT, you must complete a 10-page form which is available online in PDF form, so you can go see it.
And the reason why, you might think like 10 pages, that's a lot of pages, why do you have to fill out 10 pages?
Well, the reason that it's 10 pages, that becomes immediately obvious when you skim through it.
For instance, you're asked to provide your pronouns, and the form gives you 15 options, including ko-ko-koes, zee-zim-ziz, purr-purr-purrs, and vee-vir-viz.
Now, these may sound like characters in a Dr. Seuss book, but instead they are, in fact, made-up pronouns.
Now, what is a vee-vir exactly, and how is it distinguished from a zee-zim or a purr-purrs?
Nobody knows.
Nobody can say.
And of course, if 15 options are enough, you can also check not listed as an option.
Yet the list of pronouns seems downright limited compared to the section for gender identity.
There are, according to Libs of TikTok, we took the time to count them all.
God bless her.
There are 97 provided options for gender identity.
97 genders.
Now, in fairness, they've padded the stats here quite a bit.
There will be, in many cases, four or five different ways to phrase the exact same thing, such as transgender woman, woman of trans experience, woman with a history of gender transition, or trans feminine.
These are treated as discrete and distinct identities, yet they're all the same brand of nonsense rephrased in various different ways.
Other gender options include sister girl, feminine of center, brother boy, xenogender, gender outlaw is an option, you can be a gender outlaw, multigender, omnigender, Novy gender.
If you really love the month of November, I guess, you're a novy gender.
And also, there's a gender called aggressive.
That's the gender.
Aggressive.
Aggressiveness is its own gender now.
And if somehow none of those work for you, you can always check, I don't use labels or not listed.
And then what about sexual orientation?
Well, here there are a quaint 17 options, a number inflated by the fact that non-monogamous, pansexual, and polyamorous are all listed as separate options.
Another sexual orientation option on the list, and I'm just telling you this, okay, this is what's on the list, this is what this government form says, this is a valid label according to the form, and the label is faggot.
That is on the sexual orientation checklist.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I'm telling you what the form says.
That is now a sexual orientation that you can claim and then get $1,200 from San Francisco if you do.
I've often said that many of these new gender and sexual orientation labels are not really genders orientations, but actually personalities.
And there are others who say that they're not genders, sexual orientations, or personalities, but really are mental illnesses.
And I think both are the case, you know?
You don't have to choose between the two.
But there's something else, too.
In many cases, take someone who identifies as a pansexual, multigender, demiboy with AM pronouns.
I think you'd be almost making too much of it to call it a personality or a mental illness.
It's almost giving it too much credit.
Because this is actually just nothing at all.
It doesn't mean anything.
In so many cases, genders and pronouns now are like hobbies these days.
It's a recreational activity.
People who have nothing better to do, just sit around, coming up with and collecting new labels for themselves.
It's like this generation's Pokemon cards.
Except it comes with an extra side of identity crisis.
And maybe, this is partly why San Francisco has so many homeless people.
People who can't get jobs.
Because the entire city is sitting around, thinking about its pronouns and gender identities.
These are the kinds of things they're thinking about.
Don't have the time to think about or worry about anything else, like getting a job or housing, for example.
I think there may be more to that theory than you think, but we're not going to flesh it all out now.
For now, suffice it to say that San Francisco is, for this reason and so many countless others, cancelled.
And that'll do it for the show today.
I'll be at Berkeley tonight, so that'll be interesting.
And if I don't see you there, I'll talk to you tomorrow.
