Ep. 1124 - Now The Groomers Are Holding R-Rated Drag Shows For Babies
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the drag queen groomers are only getting more brazen as footage emerges of a R-rated drag show targeting babies and toddlers. As I'll explain today, we need a federal nationwide ban on this evil. Also, Attorney General Garland gives an absurd excuse for why he's failed to make any arrests of anyone involved in attacking pro-life pregnancy centers. The Tennessee female cop who had sex with five of her co-workers now says that she was the victim of "grooming." Another inclusivity workshop tries to tackle the "what is a woman" question." And in our Daily Cancellation, many members of Gen Z do not know how to speak the English language, even though it's the only language they know.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
LifeLock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh
- - -
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, the drag queen groomers are only getting more brazen as footage emerges of an R-rated drag show targeting babies and toddlers.
As I'll explain today, we need a federal nationwide ban on this evil.
It's the only way.
Also, Attorney General Garland gives an absurd excuse for why he's failed to make any arrests of anyone involved in attacking pro-life pregnancy centers.
The Tennessee female cop who had sex with five of her co-workers now says that she was the victim of grooming.
Another inclusivity workshop tries to tackle the what-is-a-woman question, and in our daily cancellation, many members of Gen Z do not know how to speak the English language, even though it's the only language they know.
We'll talk about this rather serious problem and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
If you ever landed on a website that wasn't secure or didn't seem legitimate because of
spelling errors, unfamiliar colors or fonts, or just gave you a bad feeling, this may be
part of a cyber attack.
This tactic involves cyber thieves installing malicious code on your computer that sends you to bogus websites where they can steal your personal information.
It's important to understand how cyber crime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Your personal information It's exposed so often that it's dangerously easy for a cyber criminal to steal your identity.
But protecting your identity can be easy with LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats you may not be able to spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name.
If you do become a victim of identity threat, a dedicated US-based restoration specialist will work to fix it.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions.
Last week, the Tennessee legislature passed its bill banning drag shows for children.
Actually, it bans all sexual performances in front of children.
Join now and save 25% off your first year at lifelock.com/walsh.
That's lifelock.com/walsh for 25% off.
Last week, the Tennessee legislature passed its bill banning drag shows for children.
Actually, it bans all sexual performances in front of children.
The bill uses the phrase "adult cabaret" and drag is not especially singled out or
even specifically mentioned.
Drag queens have felt personally targeted simply because they happen to be the only
ones who want to perform sexually for children.
The law forbids anyone and everyone from engaging in sexualized displays in the sight of minors.
We are all equally restricted in that area now in Tennessee.
But the difference is that the rest of us have no desire to do such a thing.
We are repulsed by the very thought of it.
Many drag queens apparently do have this desire, and so they complain that they're being especially oppressed by this prohibition.
Now, the day since the bill's passing, the media has published one sob story after another telling us about the horrible plight of Tennessee drag queens who fear that they may never be able to perform a striptease for elementary schoolers ever again.
And that really, really is a tragic thing for them.
Business Insider just published an interview with local drag queen, Bella DuBall.
And this is the same man who, as we heard last week, gave a speech at a recent drag event,
threatening violence and riots if the ban on child sexualization is passed.
He insinuated that if he's not able to sexually perform in front of a child,
then he might start smashing people with bricks.
That's how important it is to him that he's able to do this.
Now that it is passed, um, even though he was the one threatening violence, he now says that he fears for his life.
Here's the Insider Report.
In an interview with Insider, Dubal called the bill terrifying and said she's personally afraid for her own safety.
Notice the female pronouns, by the way, that we're using for drag queens, who don't even say that they identify as women.
But are, you know, putting on a character and so they're referring to the character as if the character exists in real life in the article.
It's like if there was an interview with Joaquin Phoenix and the interviewer referred to him as the Joker in the article.
The bill specifies that a second offense would be considered a Class C felony which carries a jail sentence of up to six years.
Quote, I could go to prison for six years for appearing in a public pride parade, the ball said.
I'm scared that if I'm wearing gender non-conforming clothing in Kroger and someone has their kids and they clutch them tight and call the cops, I could get arrested just for presenting that way in my daily life.
Quote, there has never once been a child who has been sexually assaulted or harmed at a drag show or a pride performance.
If there had been, it would be a poster image for their campaign.
We would see it everywhere.
Now, of course, as we know, these people lie about everything all the time, and he's lying here.
The law would not result in him getting carted away in handcuffs if he cross-dressed at Kroger.
As much as that thought might be pleasing to some of us, that's not what would actually happen.
This law specifically outlaws sexual performances.
So unless he's in the produce section twerking on the avocados, he probably doesn't have much to worry about in that regard.
Now as for the claim that no child has ever been assaulted or harmed at a drag show, what he means is that there's been no video of a child being physically molested by a drag queen on camera during the performance.
Because anything outside of that doesn't count as assault or harm, apparently, according to him.
Which is an interesting claim coming from a guy who would certainly insist that grown adults are both assaulted and harmed when someone, say, quote-unquote, misgenders them.
Words, pronouns, can be a form of assault.
Yet, for a child, there is, by this man's telling, nothing he can say to them or do in front of them that would count as harmful.
We see once again how the most fragile adults who have ever walked the face of the earth, the people who collapse into tears and scream genocide if you say words they don't like, these same adults seem to have somehow an unshakable faith in the ability of small children to endure and process any image or idea or experience.
The adult needs to be protected from pronouns that scare him.
The child doesn't need to be protected from even R-rated sex shows, according to this guy.
This is the way these people see it, and they want us to see it that way.
But it is, of course, totally wrong.
In fact, there is video evidence of children being harmed at drag shows.
Every single child who's ever attended one has been harmed.
They are all abuse victims.
This is abusive inherently by its nature to involve children and something like this.
And the abusers are only becoming more brazen about it.
Case in point, footage has gone viral this week of a show called Cabba Babba Rave.
Now this is a, as you might pick up from the name, a cabaret rave.
Yes, babies.
It is a touring show that goes from place to place, performing sexual cabaret for babies and toddlers.
Here's an article on the British website called The Mank, advertising one of these shows from a few months ago, because this has been going on for a while.
Quote, a cabaret rave sensory experience, especially for babies and toddlers, is coming to Manchester later this year, and tickets are now on sale.
Our city region may never be short of unique events and interesting things to be getting up to, but Cabababarave is gearing up to be unlike anything else on offer for little Manx and their parents, as it's bringing the experience of a big London night out to a popular social club this October.
It's described as being a little slice of afternoon delight that provides show-stopping cabaret interspersed with baby sensory moments.
And if that all wasn't captivating enough as it is, each session ends in a rave.
Cabababarave is hosted by Lizzie and Gemma, two performers turned moms, who are constantly looking to be entertained whilst holding a baby in one hand and a pint in another.
Yes, baby sensory moments is the euphemism that they're using here.
And if you're hearing about all this and you're thinking to yourself, well, wait a minute.
No way.
We must be missing something.
There's just no way that this can be what it sounds like.
I refuse to believe that something like this exists.
A cabaret rave for babies?
Well, the footage of one of these events should wake you up to the horrifying reality.
It is very real.
And as you can see, as I put the images up on the screen, there are parents sitting around with their babies and toddlers.
Watching as men in bondage gear swing around on ropes.
There's another man wearing a thong and nothing else.
And doing a handstand and spreading his legs.
Doing all of this for babies and toddlers.
There are half-naked adults.
Adults twerking.
This is a full-on R-rated sex show targeted at children 3 and under.
That's what it is.
And it's, as I said, been going on for a while.
Cabba Babba Rave has been hosting sold-out shows for months, at least, without anyone objecting.
Or at least, without the sorts of people who would object finding out about it.
Now that we have found out about it, the groomers behind Cabba Babba Rave have locked everything down.
They've gone into hiding, basically, at least, you know, in cyberspace.
The website has been taken down, the Instagram, Facebook page, all that has been turned to private.
And this happened the moment that these images, the footage, emerged on social media and people, like normal people, saw this.
They shut everything down.
The organizers put out this statement.
"Just to let our followers know, we've turned our profile to private for a while.
We've been subject to a pretty horrific trolling attack, and it just keeps coming.
As mothers with young toddlers and one of us heavily pregnant,
this has become more stress than we're able to deal with right now.
These trolls specifically have a problem with drag artists and non-binary performers performing for children,
which is exceptionally sad, as those of us who have been to our event
will know how much joy, love, and happiness our shows bring.
Oh, they are the victims, of course, they think.
What a surprise.
Now, why is this happening?
I mean, what is the motivation for the adults involved?
Well, there's a lot going on.
We can assume that the performers are perverts who get a sexual thrill out of exposing themselves to children.
The parents are sick, twisted freaks who signal their allegiance to the woke religion by offering up their children in this way, making a sacrifice of their children's innocence.
For some of them, it might also be, as well, more of a selfish disregard.
I mean, a selfish disregard across the board, but they're also parents who personally want to attend these kinds of performances, and they bring their kids along because they don't really care what effect it will have on the kids.
And then for all the above, there's also the overarching intention to desensitize and confuse children.
To induct them into the left's sexual pathologies and obsessions from a very young age.
To groom them, in other words.
So there are varied motivations for all these adults, but one thing that they have in common is that they should all be sitting in a prison cell right now.
And we will know that we have restored some semblance of sanity and dignity in our culture When, but not until, we start seeing law enforcement officers swarming these kinds of events, handcuffing every adult in the room, and frog marching them out of the building and into a prison cell.
Okay, you could take the drag perverts in their thongs and just throw them right into jail.
We'll see how sexually expressive they want to be in that environment.
And then you take the kids away from the parents, and you throw the parents into jail right alongside them.
That's how we have to respond.
Because these perverts are not going to stop on their own.
They will only get more brazen.
We have to stop them aggressively, by force, by law.
And that's why we need every Republican presidential candidate in 2024 to promise a federal ban on these child drag shows.
Kids in Tennessee are protected now, but all children deserve the same protection.
We cannot be satisfied with a few legislative victories in a few states.
Those are very good.
Those are good things.
That's a step, but it's only a step in the process.
And just as the ban on child gender transitions must go federal, so must the law against this kind of degeneracy.
The other side, they're only getting more bold, more brazen, more extreme.
We have to meet them with that same energy.
An absolute zero-tolerance policy for groomers That's the only way forward.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in front of a Judiciary Committee yesterday and a couple of clips that are worth Here he is talking to Senator Mike Lee about, rather trying to explain, his failure to prosecute any of the people who have attacked pro-life pregnancy centers.
No one has been prosecuted for this, even though it is a federal crime, as he acknowledges.
But let's watch him try to explain his way out of this.
There have been over 81 reported attacks on pregnancy centers, 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and only two individuals have been charged.
So how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what's happening there?
The FACE Act applies equally to efforts to damage, blockade clinics, whether they are a pregnancy resource center or whether they are an abortion center.
It applies equally in both cases and we apply the law equally.
I will say you are quite right, there are many more prosecutions with respect to the blocking of the of the abortion centers, but that is generally because those actions are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight, and seeing the person who did it is quite easy.
Those who are attacking the pregnancy resources centers, which is a horrid thing to do, are doing this at night in the dark.
We have put full resources on this.
We have put rewards out for this.
The Justice Department and the FBI have made outreach to Catholic and other organizations to ask for their help in identifying the people who are doing this.
We will prosecute every case against the Pregnancy Resource Center that we can make.
But these people who are doing this are clever and are doing it in secret.
And I'm convinced that the FBI is trying to find them with urgency.
Every time I see a video of this guy, just like almost any other bureaucrat, he is so aggressively unimpressive.
I mean, along with being a leftist stooge and all that kind of stuff, is just such an unimpressive man.
The way that he sits there and is, well, it's not good that they do this.
We don't like it.
We wish that they would not.
But the people who do this, they do it at night.
That's actually what he's doing.
His excuse for not prosecuting the attacks on the Parliamentary Fighting Center is that they happen at night.
And so we can't see them.
They're doing it at night.
We don't know who it is.
What are we supposed to do?
They're criminal masterminds and they've thought that they could do this at night and they won't be seen.
And there's nothing we can do.
We can't get past that barrier.
Well, I guess there it is then.
If you want to commit a federal crime, just do it at night.
And the feds will say, well, we're out of luck.
Nothing we can do.
Now, of course, they have not prosecuted any of these attacks on pro-life pregnancies, which have happened all across the country.
And there's actually a group, you know, there's a group that has claimed credit for this.
Like, there's a group, a terrorist cell, that has claimed credit for this, and it's, you know, threatened to do it, carried it out, and we're supposed to believe the federal government has their hands with it?
No way.
They can't figure it out.
No way to crack the case.
Yeah, well, you're not going to crack the case if you're not trying, and they have no interest in it.
They have no interest in it because the abortion industry owns the federal government, certainly owns the Democrat Party.
The abortion industry owns the Democrat Party.
And so the abortion industry will send, you know, if you do anything to interfere with their business, then they're going to have their goons in the government come after you.
But attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers, they're obviously quite happy about that.
Speaking of not charging people, Garland also hasn't charged anyone who, quote-unquote, protested outside of a Supreme Court justice's home during the, you know, after the Roe decision and before it.
Even though that is a federal crime, okay, to show up outside of a Supreme Court justice's home and in an obvious attempt to intimidate them and to sway their decision-making That is a crime, and here Garland admits that it is a federal crime.
Listen.
General Garland, is it a federal crime to protest outside of a judge's home with the intent of influencing that judge as to a pending case?
The answer to that is yes, but I also want to at least respond to your characterization of the department, which I vigorously disagree with.
So he admits it's a crime, then he goes on to Justify the lack of prosecution just as he did, in a way that is not any more persuasive than what you heard in his attempts to justify the lack of prosecution of people that have been attacking pregnancy centers.
And what he says is that, well, we sent, you know, we tried to protect the homes, we sent law enforcement officers out.
Yeah, but you didn't arrest anybody.
Is the same problem there?
They're doing it at night?
I mean, he even says that there are cops on the scene.
He wants credit for that.
It's what?
The cops are not able to see the people because it's dark?
No, they choose not to make the arrests because, again, they don't actually have any problem with what these people are doing.
All right.
Here's a horrific story that we have to talk about, unfortunately.
Fox News article.
St.
Louis, Missouri police arrested a man on Monday who was allegedly captured on video executing a man in broad daylight.
Police told Fox News Digital that officers responded to a call for a shooting just after 10 a.m.
on Monday.
When they arrived, they found the victim lying on the sidewalk and suffering from a wound to the head.
Preliminary investigation found the victim and a male suspect engaged in a fight at a nearby Shell gas station just before the shooting.
But, there might have been some sort of fight before the shooting, that wasn't caught on video, but this shooting did not happen in the midst of a fight, it was not a crime of passion sort of situation.
In fact, the victim was sitting on the curb, on the sidewalk, just sitting there, while the guy, the shooter, was standing behind him, taking about 45 seconds to get his gun loaded, and then he just executes him right there.
And we know about that because this was all caught on video, and we have the video, We'll play at least up until the moment when the shot is fired.
It's not graphic, you know, in that sense, but it is extremely upsetting to see this.
But here's the video that's made the rounds.
It sounded like a ****.
I said that was a gunshot.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I didn't hear it.
Maybe a good shot.
It seems fine.
It's a no-blunt.
Yeah, hit-- there it goes.
[INAUDIBLE]
No, he just put a magazine in it.
He's still trying to load it.
(whooshing)
All right, so there's a couple of things.
First, this obviously is what our cities have become.
We're finding out more about the suspect.
It's hard to even call him a suspect.
He's on video doing this.
Identified as Deshaun Thomas, 23.
Police said Thomas was in possession of a firearm and shell case at the time of his apprehension.
Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's office charged Thomas with first-degree murder and armed criminal action.
And more will come out about this to Sean Thomas scumbag It's it's if this already has this if this hasn't been
revealed already It's almost certain that we're going to find out that he's
got a rap sheet You know mile long has already been arrested a bunch of
other times because this is this is what happens This is what our city has become you have these
These soulless
Monsters who it's to call them simply criminals doesn't quite capture
They are that but there's something even deeper than that.
These are soulless monsters who simply do not
Value human life at all what makes that video?
One of the things that makes it so disturbing is that it wasn't this this was not like he was enraged like a some
sort of Road rage type incident where someone just loses it and
kills somebody as terrible as that is is.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
This is just calm, it was like there's no reason to do it, but I just killed him for no reason, just because.
That's why I've been saying for a long time that as much as we hear about the alleged scourge of hate crimes and how terrible it is to have crimes that are motivated by hate, I think crimes of indifference are even worse and also a much greater plague on our culture and on our cities.
Many of the violent crimes that you see, they're not even motivated by hate or anger necessarily.
They're motivated by the fact that the people committing the crimes have no, they're totally empty inside.
They have no, they don't value human life.
They don't care about human life.
And they commit these crimes for the sake of it.
You know, there was another video that went viral that I'm not going to play for you
last week. It's like, you know, all these videos end up kind of
jumbled together in your mind because we see so many of them. But in this video,
and I forget which city it happened in, but it's a video of a guy robbing a gas station,
and he shoots the guy behind the cash register.
Just shoots him.
He's already got what he wants, what he came for.
Shoots him anyway.
And then the cashier's lying there on the ground bleeding and he comes back and shoots him some more.
No reason to do that at all.
But decided to kill him for the sake of it.
So this is what's plaguing our city are these crimes of indifference.
But speaking of indifference.
You know, we talked a few days ago about that terrible video of an elderly man being mauled by pit bulls.
This is also something that goes on for several minutes, and this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and there are people all around.
There's somebody filming it.
People all around.
Nobody steps up to try to stop this, steps up to try to, you know, protect this man, save him from this horrific fate.
They're all watching, and there's somebody filming it, and it's the same deal here.
You've got people that are filming this as it happens and before it happens, nobody tries to intervene and nobody even yells to the guy that's sitting on the curb and to say, run away, he's going to shoot you.
Hey, there's someone behind you loading a gun, run away.
Nobody does that.
They sit back and just film it.
Totally detached.
As if they're, you know, filming a nature documentary or something like that.
They're, you know, filming a lion hunting a gazelle.
Passive observers.
That's the approach they take to this.
But these are human beings and they're watching a violent crime about to play out and they don't do anything to stop it.
Now, as I said a few days ago, I know that we can't It's not fair to expect people to act heroically.
You want people to act heroically, you hope that they will, but you can't expect that of people.
That's why we call it heroism.
It's above and beyond what you would normally expect.
And you also can't say for sure whether you would act heroically in that case.
So a heroic action would be somebody running out there and tackling this guy before he shoots his victim.
That would be a heroic action.
It would be heroic, but also someone could have easily done that because it took him 45 seconds to get the gun loaded.
But even so, that's heroic.
We can't condemn people necessarily for not doing that, even though we wish that they would.
We can't say for sure that we would do that if we were in that position, unless we've been in that position before and have acted that way.
But how about something that wouldn't even qualify as heroic, but at least shows concern?
Like I said, yelling to the guy, get up and run away.
That doesn't even require heroism.
That just requires you to care a little bit about this person's life.
Instead, they sit around and film it.
So the indifference, you know, this plague of indifference that I'm talking about, it's not just among the violent criminals.
It's also among the general population.
Who are perfectly fine to stand around and watch these things happen, as long as they can get it on video.
All right, here's another one of these that we always enjoy.
Yaf again has it.
Asiato Lawian, a black queer neurodivergent life coach, was invited to speak on intersectionalism at Wheaton College and struggled with Matt Walsh's what is a woman question.
Saying, womanhood is a social construct.
It's definitive based on time and culture.
So it's another attempt.
We've seen a few of these now, these workshops and inclusivity seminars at colleges where this question, where they have a chance to wrestle with this what is a woman question.
And here's the latest.
What is a valid response to the question of what is a woman?
Womanhood is a social construct.
It's definitive based on time and culture.
So people always argue like, Oh, womanhood is not a social construct, but what womanhood is based on, you know, our past versus now has changed versus, you know, what womanhood is for us versus other cultures.
So case in point, the color blue wasn't associated with men.
And so in, I think the forties, um, and men wore pink.
For a while as well and so the fact that like it's just so fluid within history and different cultures is the testament to the fact that it's a social construct and being a social construct means that it is very much individualized, that it's not stagnant.
So I guess I would start there and also that like womanhood can't even be defined because gender is a social construct and gender Currently, it's defined by white-dominant culture of the binary.
Any binary in and of itself, but especially gender, it's all colonization.
Like, it's the erasure of everybody else.
Like, even sex is a spectrum.
There's very little in human behavior that's absolute, or black and white.
No pun intended.
So, why should that be limited?
So, yeah.
That's basically the entire answer.
You could cut everything else out.
So, yeah.
You know, whatever.
She has no answer, obviously.
What she's saying...
Just to be clear, the color blue wasn't associated with men until the 40s.
I don't know where she's getting that from.
There's no reason to think that's based on anything but her own imagination.
Well, let's go with that for a minute.
The color blue began to be associated with men in the 40s.
Fine.
Whatever.
Doesn't matter.
Because what you're talking about there are the things that we associate with the sexes.
So, you're making an argument that the things society associates with the sexes are a social construct.
So, the associations are a social construct.
And to a certain extent, that's true.
Okay, so for example, the fashion kind of clothing that men and women wear in different cultures, that's going to change by culture.
And as the people on this side love to point out, there are cultures where it's considered masculine for men to wear things that would appear to us to be like skirts or dresses.
You know, maybe in another culture, tribal culture, men wear sort of robes and they wear kilts, you know, in Scotland.
Even though it's not the same thing as a skirt, but that's fine.
That's a social construct.
The fashion that we associate with each sex.
But the sex itself is not a social construct.
It can't be.
Because in order for these associations to be drawn in the first place, the thing it's being associated to needs to exist.
You can't even make the statement that, well, the color blue is only associated with men because of a social construct.
You can't say that unless you know what a man is to begin with.
It's a social construct that blue is associated with men.
Okay, but what is that?
Associated with who?
What are those?
So it's very easy to pick all this apart, but that's why they prefer to have these conversations.
They're going to talk about this at all and engage with this question at all.
They're going to do it in their safe environment, their safe spaces, because they don't want anyone to start to pull at any of these threads that are very obvious and hanging there to be pulled.
What they want to be able to say is just to throw the buzzwords out, the buzz phrases.
Social construct.
And then move on.
And that's what they're able to do there.
Another quick thing here.
Tennessee, this is the headline from the New York Post.
Tennessee sex cop Megan Hall claims she was sexually groomed in new lawsuit.
Tennessee sex cops.
Kind of sounds like a band name.
But in this case, the article is, "The Tennessee cop fired over her numerous sexual romps with
other officers claims in a new federal lawsuit that superiors in her department sexually groomed
her for the risque escapades. Megan Hall, 26, who blamed a troubled marriage for her randy affairs,
claims she felt trapped and exploited in the midst of the all-male ranks of the Laverne
Police Department, according to her 51-page federal complaint filed on Monday."
The lawsuit says where Ms.
Hall sought role models at her new job, she instead found predators, a place of offering professional development whose supervisors and the chief of police groomed her for sexual exploitation.
They colluded in using their authority to systematically disarm her, resistance, and entrap her in degrading and abusive sexual relationships, even sharing tips on the best ways to manipulate and exploit her.
The suit claims Hall, who had a history of mental illness, felt trapped, and in an attempt to escape, she nearly killed herself.
Hall was fired in January after word of the steamy sexcapades with five other cops became public, with those officers also terminated from the department.
In an interview during an internal investigation, the young cop admitted she performed sex acts on duty and on police property and had a threesome with one cop and his wife.
He told the investigator that, uh, Hall told the investigator that she got stupid and got desperate in the midst of a divorce.
In her federal lawsuit, Hall, who was 24 when she first applied for the job on the force of 2020 claims that she first became sexually involved with Sergeant, uh, Lewis Powell early last year.
And, um, And then Powell learned that she was going through a trying time in her relationship.
Sergeant Powell positioned himself as a reliable source of companionship and advice regarding Ms.
Hall's career and her marriage.
And eventually, Ms.
Hall gave in to Sergeant Powell's requests for sexual favors.
So this is what they're calling grooming.
So, she's not claiming that she was raped.
You know, this is some kind of violent, forcible rape that happened to her.
No, these are sexual relationships that she consented to and that she decided to get involved in as a grown adult woman.
But now, after getting fired for it, she of course is the victim.
She was being groomed.
A couple of questions immediately come to mind.
One of them is that now we're being told by her lawyers that she's mentally ill, incredibly vulnerable and susceptible, Because she's so vulnerable and susceptible mentally that she was able to be, quote, groomed by five men.
By the way, you know, there have been other women who've worked jobs where there may have been men who also worked with them who were sexually attracted to those women and would have liked to be sexually involved with them, and yet many of these women are able to not end up having sex with five of their co-workers.
In fact, most women are able to do that.
But yet, this woman, she says, is so mentally ill and just susceptible and not in control of her own actions that she had no choice.
She couldn't control herself.
She was having sex all the time with all the men that she worked with.
Okay, well, how did you become a cop then?
So, what we're being told is the police department hired a 24-year-old mentally ill woman to become a police officer.
And if you lived in that town and you had to call 9-1-1 emergency, you might have had this 24-year-old mentally ill woman who has no control over her own actions, according to her, show up to, you know, protect and defend and save you.
That doesn't make me feel very safe, I have to say.
But also it's interesting to me that, as we talked about in the opening, children are being actually groomed in drag shows and the rest of it.
But we're not allowed to call that grooming.
Child being taken to a drag show, not allowed to call that grooming.
Kids in elementary school sitting down for classes being told about gender identity and gender fluidity and trans and all this other stuff, not allowed to call that grooming.
And yet a woman has sex with five, a grown adult woman chooses to have sex with five men, and that we call grooming?
No, that's not grooming.
You are an adult.
You are a grown adult.
Who made decisions.
There's no grooming here.
But of course, we'll play the victim card.
It's no surprise there.
And it will probably work.
Sad to say.
Let's get now to the comment section.
I used to never share my opinions because I thought I wasn't intelligent or qualified enough to do so.
Matt has helped me realize that you don't need a degree to understand and defend basic truth, and you can do plenty of research for things outside an academic setting.
With this knowledge, I've been able to stand up for myself and my beliefs more confidently than I ever have before.
I deeply appreciate Matt and all his efforts to stand up for children.
Yeah, this is one of the, there are a lot of disadvantages of living in the so-called information age, a lot of disadvantages, cultural disadvantages, and downsides to the internet, but it's here, we have it, so we might as well exploit one of the upsides, which is that you have access to pretty much the sum total of human knowledge you carry around in your pocket, which means that we're all capable of doing research and learning things.
Doesn't mean that most people actually use the technology for that purpose, but you can use it, and you should.
should. Cassie says Matt you should seriously give some consideration to
running for office. Someone said this to me yesterday and here's the way I
would put it that I would rather be thrown into a volcano than run
for political office.
That to me would be a more appealing prospect than running for political office.
It seems like the worst thing in the world is to run for political office.
And there are a lot of people that would also rather me be thrown into a volcano than run for political office, though perhaps for different reasons.
There's nothing that's even remotely appealing about it to me at this point.
Like, if someone said that they could snap their fingers and make me president, I wouldn't want it.
I'd say, no, thank you.
Who'd want to be president?
Now, if you could snap your fingers and make me dictator over the entire globe, then obviously I would take that.
But president?
No.
Seventh Warlord says, I used to work at, and that's one of the problems, by the way, is that you, to even want to run for higher office in the first place, You almost have to be psychotic to begin with, to even want that.
And that's the catch-22 that's embedded in the system, that most of the people who would want to be president shouldn't be president because they want it.
And so what you're looking for is someone who can somehow thread that needle.
Where they're running for president, and they really are, they're not running because they desperately want that position for themselves.
That's most of the people who run, that's why they're doing it, because they desperately want it for themselves.
What you want is someone who's running because they actually feel called to it.
They don't even really want it, but they feel like they must because this is their vocation and their calling.
It's what God has called them to do.
That's the attitude you're looking for.
Of course, every person running for office will pretend that that's what they're motivated by.
We're looking for the very, very small percentage of people who actually are motivated that way.
And rarely do we find them.
Seventh Warlord says, I used to work at Lowe's and the dog's welcome policy was a hindrance to customers.
The dog waste and the terrified customers were bad enough, but people took this to mean that they could bring in bobcats, reptiles, and monkeys.
Bobcats into Lowe's Home Improvement.
I've never seen that.
You know, I would actually prefer that.
If we're going to do the thing where every store and every plane turns into a zoo, then I'd actually prefer to have some, like, you might as well be an interesting animal if you're going to bring your animals on board, make it something interesting, not your golden retriever.
I've seen a million of those.
Margo says, Matt, I love you.
Perhaps they should be selective with what student loans are forgiven.
I think nurses, plumbers, electricians, trade workers should be forgiven.
This is a compromise and might stimulate more people to get into those fields.
I worked really hard to become a nurse and I paid every cent off my loan.
Yeah, well that's...
At least a better proposal than I've heard from most of the people that are calling for student loan forgiveness.
I don't think that we should forgive any student loans.
I think that if you made this promise to pay it back, then you should pay it back.
I think that you should fulfill your own financial obligations.
But it's very telling that the plan you described is not the plan that any of these people are actually calling for.
You know, the ones that are out on the steps of the Supreme Court this week, ranting and raving about how they want student loan forgiveness.
They're not saying, well, let's do this for blue-collar workers, people in the trades, and others.
Let's do it for them, people that are actually low-income, middle-class.
They're not.
No, they want it for, they might include the lower-income people, but they want it for themselves.
What they especially want, actually, is student loan forgiveness for higher-income earners, because that's them, that includes them, the ones who are calling for this.
Which I think is very telling.
All right, finally, okay, this is not a comment on YouTube, but I did speak at, I have to play this clip, I spoke at Stanford yesterday, and it was a good event, and once again, there were no leftists who wanted to get up in the Q&A and actually really argue with me, but there was one moment, an important conversation that someone that we had, I was challenged a little bit by someone who got up and had a question that had nothing to do with gender ideology, but that was okay, because it's still a very important question, And let's listen to that.
I want to ask you one fun question for my sake, and maybe people will laugh at this, but I know you're into UFOs and the whole possibility of aliens, which to me, I think at this point you're kind of, excuse my language, but I think you're kind of stupid to not believe in aliens.
Now, my question to you is, what are your thoughts on Bigfoot?
How much time do we have?
Because I could go on for a while here.
Here's what I'll say to that, okay?
Now, I, so, so, you and I, we're, we're, we're compatriots on the, on the UFO thing.
And when the aliens do land, I think you and I will be safe because we have already stated our belief in the aliens and we don't reject them the way all these other people do.
So they can be vaporized first and not us.
But you have also, I think, disrespected aliens by lumping them in with Bigfoot.
I don't know why.
It's like, everyone thinks, well, it's ghosts, Bigfoot, and aliens, as if they're all the same kind of thing.
These are all three different categories here.
And you can have, you don't have to put them all in the same basket.
So my whole argument, I told you I could go on about this, my argument about aliens hinges on the vastness of the universe and the fact that there are trillions of planets, hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and planets, trillions of planets, and so The idea that there is no intelligent life on any of them, that the entire universe is totally empty except for us, I find to be absurd.
But it works in the opposite when it comes to Bigfoot, because now we're talking about, what, a race of intelligent ape- man apes that have lived, like, in the woods?
They've lived like in the woods in the back of your house for centuries and no one has ever got a good footage of them, no one has ever found a campsite, no one's ever found bones, a corpse, nothing.
So... That's okay, let them...
Thank you, Matt.
I do believe Bigfoot is real.
I do think, however, that they are separate in separate categories.
But anyways, that was a fun question from me to you.
Thank you for answering.
That was a fun question.
It was an important question.
Glad that we could talk about that.
My wife saw that clip and couldn't stop laughing about the fact that while I was rambling about ghosts and aliens and Bigfoot, the guy was looking at his phone.
Which I think that he was looking up more Bigfoot facts because he was thinking about arguing with me.
But it's possible that he just got bored in the middle of the answer that I was giving to the question.
No, I think he was...
He was looking up Bigfoot ammo.
I think what happened is that I mentioned the point, which is true, that no one's ever, we've never, if there's a Bigfoot, why haven't, there's never been any physical evidence or anything like that, burial site, and I think he was Googling to see if he could find evidence of such a thing, and he didn't see it, and then he gave up.
So, I won that argument.
Matt Walsh destroys Bigfoot believer.
Put that in the YouTube video.
It seems that almost everywhere you turn, the world wants to make you woke.
But our good friend Dennis Prager is on a mission to make you wise instead.
And thankfully, Dennis Prager has created a brand new series with Daily Wire Plus called The Master's Program to do just that.
We've had a long-standing relationship with Dennis Prager, and for good reason.
He's been leading the charge against stupidity for longer than I've been alive with content like PragerU's five-minute videos.
The master's program takes 40 years worth of wisdom and experience from one of the most influential conservative thinkers in America today, and it distills it all down in a way that is relevant and accessible.
Episodes explore topics like, is human nature basically good?
I think we can say for certain that I'm obviously good, but I can't speak for everybody else.
The series also covers the consequences of secularism, which, by the way, are so dire, we needed two episodes to explore it.
The first five episodes of PragerU's Master's program are available to stream right now, but only on Daily Wire+.
So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member and watch PragerU's Master's program and more.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Along with many other people on social media, I recently became aware of a livestream dating podcast on the whatever YouTube channel, whatever is the name of the channel.
And this appeared on my radar thanks to a truly delightful clip where a young lady becomes enraged and storms out of the room after a man on the panel says that he doesn't want to sleep with other men.
And this is the sort of statement expressing a desire to not engage in homosexual activity that counts as provocative.
Outrageous in our culture today.
I thought the man handles the exchange quite well.
Let's take a look.
Chase, would you rather smash the hottest trans woman in the world or the oldest woman in the world?
Honestly, bro?
The oldest woman in the world, because then I wouldn't be gay.
What?
You really just want me to just rip you a f***ing new one.
I swear to God.
Chase, how dare you be transphobic?
Yes, actually.
What the f*** do you mean?
Yes, that was so unnecessary.
Because if I had sex with a trans woman, I'd be having sex with a biological man.
And I don't want to do that.
That's not what you said, though.
That's fine.
Because I'd be gay if I had sex with a biological man.
That's not gay.
I don't even care if you're doing this for, like, whatever, but, like, shut the f*** up, actually.
Why don't you make me shut the f*** up?
Because I have an opinion that differs from yours.
She's right.
I mean, that's really hateful, bro.
She's not.
It would technically be homosexual.
A trans woman is a biological man.
Sue me.
It's not f***ed up.
It's real.
It's true.
It's factual.
That's his though.
That's his sexuality.
I'm not allowed to say that?
I'm not allowed to say that?
A biological woman who doesn't even have any trans friends?
That was too f*cking far.
A man of God who doesn't judge a Christian?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know what God said?
He made the man and woman gay.
I just told you I'm not gay.
I'll pass on that.
Thanks though.
That's too far, she says.
Not wanting to have sexual relations with a man is too far.
His heterosexuality is simply a bridge too far for this young lady who, along with her friend, has no choice but to flee the room in disgust.
We must admit, though, that she made a compelling argument.
To quote her, she says, That's the kind of quote that would make Mark Twain proud.
Such incredible wit and insight and all of it communicated with such efficiency.
Now, we can't blame her, really, for not being able to intelligently articulate her objection to this man's point of view on this subject.
It is an unintelligible objection rooted in her unthinking allegiance to gender ideology, which is also unintelligible.
The problem is that every clip that circulates from this show, which seems to feature a different group of young women and sometimes young men each episode talking about their experiences in the dating world, every clip is just as mind-numbing and displays an equally tenuous grasp on the English language.
So here's one that attracted widespread attention yesterday.
Watch.
I think like the biggest thing that like annoys me in like the whole dating world is like talking stages like that's so annoying like the whole like and just like the inconsistency in them like I literally like hate that like so much but I think that's like my biggest thing is just like what what specifically just like the fact of just like you like I don't know how to word this.
Like, in, like, talking stages, and it's just, like, you're, like, labeled that, and it's, like, people, like, are considered, like, you can't, like, you're just, like, confused, and, like, most of the time, like, the girl gets, like, attached or something, and they, like, see it, like, it's gonna lead to a relationship, and it's always not, and it's just, like, that's, like, my biggest thing, is, like, I just hate the whole, like, how, like, talking stages are so, like, normalized.
Like, traditional dating does not exist in this generation.
I'm informed by others who have endured the clip and who had more time on their hands that she used the word like 27 times in the span of about 48 seconds.
I haven't checked their math, but it sounds right.
I suppose it's no wonder that the girl doesn't like the talking stage, given that she seems to have so much trouble talking.
The unfortunate thing is that what she's trying to express is actually important.
It's an important insight that she is trying to get across.
It's just that it gets crushed under the weight of a million likes.
She's making the point, or sort of verbally gesturing towards the point, that the total banishment of labels and traditions and concepts like chivalry from the dating scene Has left everyone feeling paralyzed and confused.
It means that most single people end up in a kind of stasis, a limbo, not knowing whether they're in a relationship, or what to do if they are in one, or what to call it.
And nobody knows what to call anything.
The fear of commitment that permeates our culture, the aggressive sort of casualness of everything,
the insistence on approaching all matters, especially matters relating to love and
relationships in a way that diametrically opposes how our grandparents approached it.
All of these factors have made the dating scene not simply difficult,
but effectively non-existent. People don't date, they just sort of float along on the
cultural current hoping that they bump into another piece of debris before moving on to
the next. There's no sense of purpose or meaning. Certainly there's no clear direction.
I think that's what she was trying to say, but instead she said like that like it's all like so
like you know like so weird like whatever like.
She doesn't fully understand her own feelings on the subject, nor does she have the ability to communicate those feelings.
She knows about ten words total and can only arrange and rearrange them until she ends up with a sequence that gets the closest to whatever half-formed thought she wants to express.
Now, it's not my intention to pick on this poor girl.
She's not a unique or extreme case.
That's exactly why it's worth talking about.
She is rather a typical product of her generation.
As nearly every older person has noted, Americans seem to be less articulate with each passing generation.
And we're now at a point where some people in Gen Z aren't even proficient in the one and only language they know.
They're not bilingual, they're not even monolingual, they are non-lingual, effectively.
This is not the same as the familiar old person complaint about youth slaying, right?
That's not what this is.
The issue is not slaying.
It isn't what words they've added to the English language, but rather what words they've removed from it, which is most of them.
We are rapidly running out of words, as several generations in a row have taken part in this piecemeal destruction of the English language.
The Millennials complain about how Gen Z speaks, just as boomers did about Millennials, just as their parents did about them.
And all of the complaints were valid, and only becoming more valid as time goes on.
We are, as a culture, progressively losing the ability to express ourselves through language.
And this is a rather significant problem, given that language is one of the necessary cornerstones of any functioning civilization.
As I've observed in the past, if you really want to see just how much our communication skills, if not our communication technology, I mean, our technology is getting better.
Our communication technology is getting better as our communication skills, you know, are falling apart.
But if you really want to see how it has deteriorated, all you have to do is go and go to like a Civil War battlefield museum somewhere and read some of the letters that average young men, often with little to no formal education, Wrote home to their families to describe their experiences.
The National Park Service keeps an online database.
Actually, I don't need to go to a museum.
And they have a database of some letters that were sent from Antietam.
And before and after the Battle of Antietam.
So I'll read just the first.
This is the first one.
If you go to this website, the first one that pops up on the page is this.
And it's from an infantry private.
This is what he writes.
He writes, On the 8th, we struck up the refrain of Maryland, my Maryland, and camped in an apple orchard.
We went hungry for six days.
Not a morsel of bread or meat had gone in our stomachs, and our menu consisted of apple and corn.
We toasted, we burned, we stewed, we boiled, we roasted these two together, and singly, until there was not a man whose form had not caved in, and who had not a bad attack of diarrhea.
Our underclothes were foul and hanging in strips, our socks worn out, and half of the men were barefooted.
Many were lame and were sent to the rear.
Others of sterner stuff hobbled along and managed to keep up, while gangs from every company went off in the surrounding country looking for food.
Many became ill from exposure and starvation and were left on the road.
The ambulances were full, and the whole route was marked with a sick, lame, limping lot that straggled to the farmhouses that lined the way, and who, in all cases, suckered and cared for them.
Okay, so this is a normal guy, not even intending to write something that would become a matter of the historical record, simply describing his experiences.
And he does so in a way that is so elegant and descriptive that even if you didn't have any context, you would immediately know that it could not have been written in this century.
Now imagine the girl from the podcast trying to convey the same experience.
So like we hadn't eaten and like so like it was it was kind of like I don't know how to say it.
I guess like we were hungry and honestly like it was kind of gross and like literally we didn't even have shoes.
I probably already made the point but there's one more letter written by a private JD Hicks of the Pennsylvania Volunteers and he's trying to describe the horror of finding a boy dead on the battlefield.
This is how he puts it.
Under the dark shade of a towering oak near the Dunker church lay the lifeless form of a drummer boy, apparently not more than 17 years of age, flaxen hair and eyes of blue and form of delicate mold.
As I approached him, I stooped down, and as I did so, I perceived a bloody mark upon his forehead.
It showed where the leaden messenger of death had produced the wound that caused his death.
His lips were compressed, his eyes half open, a bright smile played upon his countenance.
By his side lay his tenor drum, never to be tapped again.
So this is an utterly haunting, poignant, downright poetic account dashed off in a letter from some young guy who couldn't have been much older than the drummer boy.
In fact, this guy was 18 years old when he wrote that.
This is how people used to communicate.
And you can also find plenty of Civil War letters where the spelling is horrendous and the punctuation is nonexistent.
Because oftentimes, again, these were young men and boys that did have formal schooling.
But even in those cases, still, the language is... there's a wide vocabulary that's evident and the language is often very evocative and vivid and descriptive in a way that people just aren't capable of anymore.
That's how people used to communicate.
Vividly, descriptively, with words that sufficiently captured the ideas they wanted to convey and the experiences that they wished to recount.
We are a bunch of mumbling, inarticulate cows by comparison.
Why?
Well, for many reasons.
People don't read books anymore, and so they aren't exposed to a wide vocabulary.
They spend most of their time overstimulated by screens and videos.
They communicate mainly in internet shorthand, relying heavily on little pictures, emojis, to convey tone and emotion, because they don't know how to do it through actual language.
When I complain about emojis, people always think that I'm joking, and it's a silly thing to complain about.
It actually is damaging our ability to communicate.
You hear people say, well, I've got to use an emoji because otherwise no one knows my tone.
They don't know if I'm happy.
They don't know the tone that I'm using.
Well, you're supposed to be able to communicate that with language.
You're supposed to be able to, if you're writing a message to someone, use words that convey whether you're happy or angry or sad or whatever.
The fact that you need the emoji to do that shows a troubling limitation on our language abilities.
And on top of all that, and partially because of it, IQ scores have been declining for years.
That's how we got here.
Which, on the plus side, also gives us a roadmap for getting out of this situation.
And how you get out of it is do the reverse, basically.
Do the reverse of all that.
Put down the screen, pick up a book, Use words to communicate.
Real, complete words and sentences.
We'll probably never write as well as a 19th century farm boy on a Civil War battlefield, okay?
Most of us will never write that well.
But we can improve.
I hope we can at least.
Even that girl in the podcast.
Even she can improve.
But for now, because I have to cancel someone at the end of this, that is the requirement of the segment, then I must say that she is sadly, today, cancelled.
