Ep. 1147 - Why All Of The Left’s Heroes Are Cosplaying Phonies
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it seems that every week the Left invents a new hero that we're all supposed to worship and admire. But their latest heroes -- the so-called Tennessee Three -- are performance artists nearly as phony and fraudulent as Dylan Mulvaney. A viral video reveals just how fake these people are. Also, the governor of Tennessee pushes for "red flag" laws. I'll explain why red flag laws are a horrible idea. And Bud Light takes a 4 billion dollar hit after it endorsed transgenderism. Plus, a new report suggests that over 60 thousand babies will be saved this year after the overturn of Roe. Yet the Left treats this as bad news. Even worse, some on the Right seem to agree with them.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
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:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month with promo code WALSH: https://www.puretalk.com/landing/WALSH
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.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, it seems that every week the left invents a new hero that we're all supposed to worship and admire, but their latest heroes, the so-called Tennessee Three, are performance artists nearly as phony and fraudulent as Dylan Mulvaney.
A viral video reveals just how fake these people actually are.
Also, the governor of Tennessee pushes for so-called red flag laws.
I'll explain why red flag laws are a horrible idea.
And Bud Light takes a $4 billion hit after it endorsed transgenderism.
Plus, a new report suggests that over 60,000 babies will be saved this year because of the overturn of Roe.
Yet the left treats this as bad news.
Even worse, some on the right seem to agree with them.
We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Wohl Show.
With busy schedules and on-the-go lifestyles, it's easy to overlook the importance of these nutrient-packed foods.
However, eating fruits and vegetables is crucial for maintaining good health and well-being, even when life gets hectic.
And that's why I'm a huge fan of Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature fruits and vegetables are a great way to make sure you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Their capsules are packed with 100% whole food.
You can take it anytime.
Balance of Nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural antioxidants in
16 whole fruits and 15 whole vegetables and encapsulates them for easy consumption.
Fruits and vegetables are loaded with vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants that are
essential for your health.
They can help boost your immune system, improve digestion, reduce inflammation, and lower
the risk of chronic disease such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
So make fruits and vegetables a part of your daily diet with Balance of Nature.
Your body will thank you.
Right now, Balance of Nature is offering 35% off with your first preferred order.
Go to balanceofnature.com.
Use promo code WALSH for 35% off.
That's balanceofnature.com.
Promo code WALSH.
As we've seen, the left is very good at creating heroes.
And that's not to say that leftism as an ideology drives people to engage in heroic acts or inspires them towards heroic virtue.
Obviously, that's not the case.
Quite the opposite.
Rather, they're adept at inventing heroes, making them, fabricating them out of whole cloth.
They can simply assign somebody the role of hero, put them on a platform, and instruct the rest of us to praise and admire them.
You know, every society needs its heroes, its champions, its martyrs, but our traditional heroes in our culture have all been torn down, literally, in many cases, as statues and monuments have been toppled.
And now they're replaced by these new constructions.
And the trouble with our new heroes, the ones that the left constructs for us, is that they are shallow, contrived, empty, usually morally repulsive. So one one relevant example from
this week, Megan Rapinoe, speaking of repulsive, female soccer player, has
long been elevated to the position of hero. She's courageous because when she's
not being beaten on the field by high school boys, she's busy fighting for
women's rights, or so we're She's a big proponent of equal pay.
You know, she spent many years raising awareness about the plight of underpaid female soccer players.
Rapinoe herself is wealthy, but she could be a little more wealthy if only she was paid the same as male soccer stars.
Now granted, male soccer stars make more money because they bring in more money
because the public is just more interested in seeing men play soccer and male sports in general
because they're more fun to watch because the athletes are better.
But this argument was not acceptable to Rapp, who insisted that her pay as a soccer player
should be not at all tied to her financial worth as a soccer player.
And eventually that argument won out and the men's and women's US national teams
signed an agreement that agreed that there would be equal pay,
which really just means that the men's team will have to be essentially the sugar daddies
for the women's team, subsidizing and keeping this equal pay scheme afloat
because that's what female empowerment is all about apparently.
But of course.
The real threat facing women's sports is not that athletes are underpaid, it's that if the left has its way, women's sports will effectively cease to exist as a category in the first place.
You're not going to make any money as a female athlete because there won't be female sports.
And this is where the actual heroes are needed to speak up and stand against the intrusion of males into women's sports.
Yet, faced with this actual threat to women's sports, and the rights of women generally, the heroic Rapinoe surrendered immediately without even pretending to put up a fight.
Just like most other athletes did.
This week, Rapinoe joined a number of other professional athletes in signing a letter condemning legislation that's been proposed by Republicans in Congress that would ban males from competing in female sports.
Sports Illustrated reports, quote, a group of 40 professional Olympic and Paralympic athletes signed a letter regarding recent anti-trans sports bans sent to the House of Representative Legislative Directors on Monday.
The athletes include Megan Rapinoe, recently retired WNBA star Sue Bird, And USWNT star Becky Sauerbrunn.
The remaining athletes who signed the letter, organized by the LGBTQ advocacy group Athlete Ally, compete in various sports such as soccer, hockey, and rugby.
The letter calls out the Republican-led Protection of Girls and Women in Sports Act, H.R.
734, which would ban transgender intersex girls and women from competing in sports across the country.
If the bill passes, it will become part of the Title IX legislation.
In explaining her stance, Rapinoe tweeted, quote, Today, politicians in D.C.
are claiming to protect women's sports by pushing a trans and intersex sports ban.
Call your congressional rep today to say women's sports needs protection from unequal pay, sexual abuse, and lack of resources, not from trans kids.
Now, needless to say, the claims made here are total nonsense.
There are no bills that would ban trans-identified people from competing in sports.
There are certainly no bills that would ban intersex people, people with genital defects, from competing in sports.
Not one piece of proposed federal legislation, not one bill passed or proposed in any state has ever had any language that would prohibit anyone from competing in sports based on their so-called quote-unquote gender identity.
I wouldn't support such legislation if it was introduced, although it never would be.
Because I don't see any particular reason why a man who sees himself as a woman should be prevented from playing football or basketball or running on the track team or whatever if he wants, but his quote-unquote gender identity should not be some kind of special token that he can use to gain access to whatever team he prefers.
Males should compete against males, females against females, and that's what these bills guarantee.
Trans-identified people Can still compete, but they have to compete against their own sex, same as everyone else.
That's what equal under the law actually means.
Megan Rapinoe, the supposed champion of women's sports, opposes this policy, which means that she supports the erosion and eventual demise of women's sports entirely.
And that's not because she actually believes that male athletes who identify as women really are women.
And should be allowed on women's sports.
She doesn't really believe that.
She doesn't think that.
She almost certainly doesn't believe it, because almost nobody born before the year, say, 2005, sincerely believes that trans ideology is true.
Few of us were brainwashed early enough to actually believe it.
If you want to get someone to believe something that insane, you have to get to them when they're very young, which is why the left is so focused on getting to the kids when they're very young with this stuff.
But rap, you know, like, Every other leftist goes along with it because she thinks that it helps further her overall ideological agenda and also because she lacks the courage it would require to take a stand in this case.
It would legitimately be heroic for somebody in her position to defend common sense and reality.
In this case.
Shouldn't require heroism, but it would, because she'd be ripped apart for it, excoriated, she'd lose all of her friends and clout and media praise, and she's not going to be invited on late night shows, she's not going to be on any red carpets anymore.
It takes heroism to make that kind of sacrifice.
And if there's one thing that this hero lacks, it's heroism.
But there are other fake leftist heroes in the news this week.
In fact, just in the last couple of weeks, we've watched as three new ones have been invented in real time, so very efficiently.
The quote-unquote Tennessee Three, as the media has dubbed them, have been celebrated Basically deified after getting kicked out of the Tennessee State House for staging an insurrection in the Capitol building.
On Monday, one of them, Justin Jones, was sworn back in after the Nashville Metropolitan Council did an end run around Republicans in the legislature by voting to reinstate him as now an interim representative for the 52nd District.
So he's back in the House.
Which means that, by the way, Republicans now have no choice really but to pass a law banning anyone who's expelled from the House from serving again in state government.
They could pass that law, and they need to, and then once it's passed, expel him again.
They have to play hardball here, or else take the loss.
And taking the loss can never be an option.
It would be a big, it's a big, you're taking a big loss if you take it here.
Because then you will have given this guy all this attention, turned him into a martyr, only to have him back in the legislature anyway at the end of it.
Can't allow that.
Can't allow it.
But even if they're both reinstated, one of them was never expelled to begin with, that's not going to change their status as heroes and martyrs as far as the left is concerned.
Once the left has deemed you as such, as a hero and a martyr, you cannot lose that title.
By taking a position they disagree with.
And there's little chance of that happening with this crew.
One of the Tennessee Three, former representative Justin Pearson, has especially embraced his newfound fake hero status.
In fact, Pearson has reinvented himself totally, in both look and speech, as some sort of 1960s era civil rights figure.
That is, A civil rights figure from the 1960s who happens to speak the gibberish of 21st century leftism.
So, for example, here is Pearson just last week delivering a sermon at a Memphis Unitarian Universalist church.
And in case you aren't familiar, maybe you don't know all the denominations of Christianity, what you should know about Unitarian Universalist is that it is not a denomination of Christianity.
It's just a fancy way of saying Satanist, as you can clearly see in this clip.
Watch.
Well, y'all, I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the house of the Lord.
I'm so glad to be in the house of the Lord with you this morning.
Would you mind going ahead and praying with me now?
Mother God, Creator God, Loving God, Holy God, take this your servant made from dust.
And connected with the raw materials of stardust to speak in this moment, to say something that brings forward the word you've placed into my heart.
I accept my unworthiness for such a task as bold as this, and I seek your guidance as you use me and speak through me.
To the ancestor preachers who made sermons from hymns, moans, and groans, and spirituals from the bondage of slavery, speak now through this your descendant.
Yeah, it's very interesting because he begins by trying to speak, you know, like a biblical prophet in the King James Version of the Old Testament, but then he quickly transitions from biblical prophet to a middle-aged white woman reading tarot cards, babbling about Mother God and saying something about how we're all connected by the raw material of stardust.
Essentially, it's like if a yoga instructor from San Francisco went back in time to the year 85 BC, this is what he would sound like.
It's bizarre, and it's unintentionally hilarious, but we do have to cut Pearson some slack here.
After all, he just invented this persona recently.
He's still working out the kinks.
He hasn't learned all the lines yet, and it's not fair for any actor to just expect them to drop them into a role and they're going to nail it on the first try.
It takes some practice, and he's still practicing.
And we know that this is a recent persona forum because there's a video comparison that maybe you've seen if you haven't I'll show it to you.
It's been making the rounds on social media.
I don't know who first put this together, but it's brilliant because it just shows you It illustrates how fraudulent these people are.
So we see in the video Justin Pearson of 2016 when he was a young, eager college student.
And then we can compare him to Justin Pearson of last week.
Here's what that comparison sounds like.
I'm Dustin J. Pearson, and I'm running for president of BSG.
There are a few reasons that we're running this campaign this year.
One has to do with representation.
How can we represent all voices in a conversation?
I want to do this by partnering with organizations from the voting Democrats to the voting Republicans.
I want to bring together different voices, dissenting voices, voices that may be more liberal or more conservative, in order that we can reach a point of sort of the radical middle.
But oh, that was good news for us!
I don't know how long this Saturday in the state of Tennessee might last, but oh, we have good news, folks!
We've got good news that Sunday always comes!
You know, he doesn't really sound like a 1960s civil rights figure.
Which is what he's trying to sound like and look like.
He sounds like he's doing a parody of one.
You know, this is the worst case of blackface that we've seen since Justin Trudeau.
Except that Pearson's actually black.
And he's still doing blackface.
Nevertheless, he is performing.
And we know he's performing because now we know what he sounded like before the performance started.
It's not at all a convincing performance, of course.
In fact, I didn't think I'd see a performance less convincing than Dylan Mulvaney's portrayal of womanhood until Pearson came along.
Pearson's really given him a run for his money.
This is what the left promotes and encourages.
Empty performance, taken to comical, almost surreal extremes.
You know, they give us heroes and leaders who are cartoons.
Who are hollow and paper-thin.
Who are, it always turns out, conniving cowards, gutless frauds, and self-aggrandizing performance artists.
That's what all these people are.
And yet, we're meant to applaud these people.
But the only appropriate response is to laugh in their faces and dismiss everything they say.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
It's proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team, and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks.
Here's a look at what a future without Pure Talk would look like for you.
For those of you who can't see what's playing out on the screen right now, I am currently texting with my producer, Sean, on a phone that's serviced by one of the big three wireless networks.
Sean says, have you seen the post about the left trying to cancel you again?
To which I reply in this very real conversation, they're always trying to silence me and it's never going to work.
Because that's the kind of thing that I would say in a text message, you know, in real life.
I would text that to someone.
When are people going to accept that men are men and women are women?
Only Autocorrect changes men to MXN and women to WOMXN, if you can believe it.
This is what you get with woke wireless.
Uninvited lessons in political correctness.
If there's anyone I trust to not only give me the best service for my money, but also not try to force their politics on me, it's Pure Talk.
No contracts, no hassle, and they respect their politics.
Right now, you can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $30 a month.
Keep your phone, keep your number, or choose from the latest iPhones and Androids.
Go to puretalk.com and enter promo code WALSH to save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com, promo code WALSH.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Report from the Daily Wire.
Governor Bill Lee called for Tennessee's Republican majority legislature to pass a red flag law Tuesday after signing an executive order strengthening the state's background checks on firearm buyers.
The new push comes two weeks after three children and three adults were murdered at the Covenant School in Nashville when a trans-identifying shooter made her way into the Christian school and gunned down students and staff.
Lee told the Tennessean that he's asking the General Assembly to bring forward an order of protection law, also known as a red flag law, which would enable the government to take firearms away from those who are found to be at risk to themselves or others.
The governor said, quote, a new strong order of protection law will provide the broader population cover safety from those who are a danger to themselves or the population.
This is our moment to lead and to give the people of Tennessee what they deserve.
Lee's executive order creates a 72-hour period for any new criminal activity and court mental health information to be reported on the Tennessee Instant Check System, the background check system used by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
Under the order, the TBI is required to tell Lee's office and the General Assembly within two months of any barriers to complete accurate and timely reporting of information that is accessible to the TICS.
Red flag laws, which are on the books in 19 states, including Republican-led states like Indiana and Florida, specifically target those deemed to have mental health issues and allow a state court to issue an order for law enforcement to confiscate weapons from those ruled to be at risk.
The 28-year-old Covenant school shooter who stockpiled seven firearms was receiving treatment for an emotional disorder.
According to Nashville police and her parents did not want her to own guns, but she did.
Opponents of red flag laws say that they pose a threat to Second Amendment rights and due process and do not prevent criminal acts.
Yeah, well, count me among the opponents, very much so.
I don't like red flag laws at all.
I understand the idea behind them.
I understand the logic.
You know, the logic is, well, you've got crazy people with guns, you've got to take their guns away.
But I think it's bad logic, for a few reasons.
The first is, it's the constitutional issue, the constitutional rights that are at stake here.
And it's not first the Second Amendment that goes because of red flag laws.
It's due process.
It's our constitutional right to due process that goes out the window with red flag laws, and then the Second Amendment is next.
So both of them are put in jeopardy in a big way.
Because according to the rights we're guaranteed in the Constitution, you can't deprive somebody Of their rights, you can't deprive them of their property without due process of law.
And so, yes, if somebody's convicted of a violent crime, then, well, they should be in prison, so of course they're not going to have any guns.
So if there's someone who's done something which would warrant that, then you charge and convict them of it.
That's what the law is supposed to be.
Yeah, almost all of our rights can be taken away.
When you go to prison, almost every right that you have has now been, at the very least, constricted to a great degree.
Because you've committed a crime and you've proven yourself to be a criminal.
A member of society that we can't trust to be out in society, and so we got to put you in a cage.
And so that means a lot of the rights that the rest of us enjoy, you're not going to enjoy.
One of them, obviously, is the Second Amendment.
You're not going to bring a gun into prison.
But you have to actually convict somebody of the crime first.
And the reason why this is so important is just due process in general is very important.
It's one of the most essential legal rights that we have.
But also, I don't trust the system.
To decide who is mentally fit to carry firearms.
I don't trust them to decide that.
We're leaving it up to the system to say, well yeah, this person hasn't committed a crime yet.
So now it's like a minority report, you know, pre-crime thing.
Hasn't committed a crime yet, but we think based on certain mental red flags, psychiatric red flags, we think that they will.
Well, to support something like that displays an awful lot of trust in the system.
Trust their judgment.
Trust that they're not ever going to abuse this power.
Trust that there's going to be somehow wide agreement about what constitutes a psychiatric red flag.
And I don't trust that at all.
I mean, look, they've already set the stage.
They will tell you outright, okay, the left will tell you outright that if you oppose them on really anything, but in particular if you oppose them on quote-unquote trans rights or anything, you know, anything having to do with LGBT, if you oppose that, then you're wrong, you're genocidal, you're violent, like these are violent.
Just to have that point of view is an act of violence.
To quote-unquote misgender someone is an act of violence.
So, that's what they consider the red flags to be.
It's not gonna be long before some judge somewhere says, well, this person's a transphobe, and that's in effect a mental illness, and they're already engaging in violence, and there's a very good chance that they're gonna, you know, go out and try to kill trans people, and we know that based on the fact that they're misgendering all the time, we gotta take their guns away.
It will not be long until something like that happens.
And actually, again, if you ask the left, I bet they'll tell you that.
Ask any leftist.
What do you think?
Do you think transphobes should be allowed to have Second Amendment rights?
Almost every single one of them would say, of course not.
And then also, this is happening in the context of a society where we've got this psychiatric industry that's turning everything into a mental illness.
We're seeing that happen right now.
Everything is being turned.
The Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders expands with each new edition.
And they're constantly finding, you know, labeling new aspects of the human condition as mental illnesses.
And already, pretty much any emotion, thought, behavior, could be a symptom of a mental illness.
Anyone, I mean literally anyone, can be diagnosed with a mental illness.
You know, anyone can go.
There's not anyone alive who would not be labeled mentally ill in about seven different ways, according to the DSM, as it stands right now.
So, are we comfortable with that?
As they catalog the entire human condition as, you know, nothing but a series of mental illness symptoms, are we comfortable saying that also, if you have a mental illness, they can take your guns away?
I'm certainly not.
Another report from the Daily Wire and more bad news, unfortunately, in Tennessee says well over 100 Tennessee residents flooded the city of Franklin late Tuesday afternoon ahead of a city board meeting over approval of a gay pride festival.
In a vote of five to four, the Franklin City Board voted to allow a pride festival to proceed after a marathon board meeting that lasted nearly five hours.
The board was split with a vote of four to four, but Franklin Mayor Ken Moore cast the deciding vote even after acknowledging that the event last year was not family-friendly.
His decision was met with cheers from outside the boardroom.
For the past two years, Franklin, a city just south of Nashville, has hosted a Pride Festival, which residents and city board members say has exposed children to inappropriate drag performances and other indecencies.
One drag queen present at the 2022 festival went by the name Blair B****, which is, when it comes to drag queens and the names that they choose themselves, that's on the tamer end of the spectrum, because very often they choose names that are very sexually explicit, because the whole thing is supposed to be sexual.
Dozens of people crammed into a small hearing room with a good number of individuals wearing stickers that read protect all children while others wore rainbow-themed shirts.
And there were people speaking on both sides of it.
One student from Spring Hill who said that she identified as transgender claimed that trans-identified people were being hunted on a national level.
So a lot of that sort of thing.
And that argument won out.
You know, we keep hearing from the LGBT left that Banning them from sexualizing children, banning them from prancing around half-naked in front of children, is the same as banning their very existence.
And that's what they keep telling us.
You pass laws that say you can't do this in front of children, you can't expose children to this kind of inappropriate content.
If you do that, we're told, we're banning them.
We're trying to erase them as LGBT people.
And I'm just wondering, at what point Do we simply believe these people?
I mean, at what point do we take their word for it?
Take them at their word.
They are the ones telling us that if you pass a law prohibiting children from being involved in sexually explicit activities, that it will be a burden on them, because according to them, apparently, sexualizing children is a big, you know, is a big part of being an LGBT activist.
That's what they are saying.
And if they didn't believe that about themselves, then they would simply say, you know, they would simply say, oh, we can't have drag shows for kids.
We can't, we can't have kids sit and watch male cabaret performers or female.
You know, we can't have kids go up and give them money like they're at a strip club.
We can't invite children to gay clubs.
Okay.
No problem.
Obviously we don't want to do that.
Okay.
No, no issue.
I mean, we're offended that you think you even need a law like that.
They could say that.
That's what they could say.
But they don't.
Instead, they say, what?
We can't dance half-naked in front of kids?
Well, that means we can't have any gay pride celebrations at all!
It's such a big part of what we do!
Well, okay, guys.
If that's what it means, if you're saying that's what it means, then that's what it means.
But it is you saying that.
Maybe you should stop and think about that.
You know?
Because the law here in Tennessee and other places that have passed similar laws None of them single out LGBT.
They don't even single out drag, specifically.
They just say, look, you can't, sexual content, sexual activities in front of kids, not appropriate, you can't do that.
It's wrong.
You know, and that applies to everyone, but everybody else, have you noticed this if you're an LGBT activist?
Have you noticed that everyone else in society, when we hear this and there are rules and laws passed, all the rest of us are like, yeah, fine, of course.
That's not, you're not cramping our style at all with laws like that.
We have no interest in engaging in that activity.
You are the ones who recoil in horror at the thought that children can't be sexualized.
So, you know, maybe you should think about that.
Now, of course, in Franklin, they can still go forward with these kinds of activities because of the cowardice of the city board, which is the story there.
Here's another episode of Headline vs. Reality.
Here's the headline.
And this is a headline from, let's see, this is a headline from Forbes, I think.
Idaho becomes the first state to restrict interstate travel for abortion.
Now, you've probably seen headlines like this circulating.
Every news organization has a version of this story about Idaho, that Idaho is preventing people from leaving the state for abortions.
But here's the reality, though.
And you'll see the reality.
If you actually click on the link to any of these articles and you read the article, then they will tell you the rest of the story.
But they know that most people don't read the articles.
Most people don't click on the links.
All they see is the headlines.
So you can effectively bury something.
You can bury it and report it at the same time.
And these news organizations know that.
Because they could put something in the article and then say, well, what do you mean?
We didn't bury it, we put it right there.
Yeah, but you knew that no one's gonna read it.
So you made a misleading headline that has the rest of it in the story, but no one reads the rest of the story.
Well, if you read the rest of the story, here's what it says.
Idaho's governor signed a law this week making it illegal for an adult to transport a minor to get an abortion without their parents' consent, making Idaho the first state to limit interstate travel for abortion.
Oh.
Okay, so it's illegal, To bring a child across state lines for an abortion without their parents' consent.
So, in other words, you cannot secretly traffic a child to an out-of-state abortion clinic without even telling the parents.
You can't do that.
Who could possibly oppose a law like that?
Well, I know people who are demonic, which unfortunately describes Essentially one half of the political ideological spectrum at this point.
But you would have to be demonic to oppose something like that.
Because what's the other?
So you actually think?
So you think that it should be legal for some adult to take a child without telling their parents to another state for an abortion, which even You would call, if you're a pro-abortion, you'd call abortion a medical procedure, which it isn't, because medical procedures, by definition, are meant to treat and heal, cure, you know, that's what medical procedures do.
They treat illnesses and diseases and injuries.
Well, pregnancy is not an illness, a disease, or an injury.
So it's not a medical treatment.
But let's just go with that fantasy world for a second, where it's a medical treatment.
Would that even be appropriate?
An adult, so this is not your child, you're bringing someone else's child to another state for a quote-unquote medical treatment without telling the parents.
I mean, I can't think of a scenario where it would be appropriate for an adult to bring a child across state lines without the parent's consent for anything.
I don't care what you're doing.
I don't care if you're taking them across state lines to go to Arby's.
There's no scenario where that would be okay if the parents don't know about it.
Or in fact have said no.
Even if the parents said, no, you can't bring my kids to Arby's.
You know, you can't drive down to Minnesota to go to Arby's.
Well, to go anyway, that's like kidnapping.
And that's if you're just going to Arby's.
But in this case, we're not talking about that, are we?
So this is something that even if you supported the murder of children, You should still support a law like this because to not support it is to say that it's okay for adults to bring kids or not their kids to other states without without with while the parents either don't know or are actively objecting to it.
Staying on this topic for just a second, Bloomberg has this report.
In the six months since the U.S.
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there were 5,377 fewer abortions on average per month, according to a new report.
The average number of terminations from July through December was 77,000, a 7% drop from the average in April and May, according to a Tuesday report from the Society of Family Planning.
So, that works out to over 60,000 babies that were saved.
You know, that's over 60,000 babies who are going to be born rather than killed.
And like we talked about a minute ago, you know, needing to look at yourself in the mirror and think about your own positions and what kind of person you've become.
Well, this is another occasion for that, because if you hear that 60,000 babies were not killed and are going to be born instead, and you're sad about that, if what I just read to you, if that to you is a sad headline, Then that should tell you something very troubling about yourself and the state of your own soul.
And this should also show us people on the right, too, because there have been conservatives that have lamented, really, that Roe was overturned and that these laws are being passed in states because they think that it hurts Republicans at the ballot box.
They think it hurts them politically.
They think it hurts on an electoral level.
And I'm not fully convinced by that, first of all.
That's a separate discussion.
We don't even need to talk about that, because let's just say, for the sake of argument, let's agree that there is an electoral price that's being paid because of this.
As all of the baby murder enthusiasts are just driven insane in their satanic rage, and they're driven to go to the polls and vote against Republicans who want to save babies.
So let's just say that's the case.
Is it not worth the price?
Do we even have to talk about this?
Saving already 60,000 babies, is that not worth it?
If we're saying it's not worth it, then what the hell are we doing?
Is the end goal simply political power for its own sake, just to have it?
The whole point of political power is to do something with it.
Okay, I'm not impressed.
It doesn't make me sleep easy at night just to know that there are Republicans in power.
At least people with ours next to their name are in power.
I don't care about that.
I want them to use the power.
The only reason I want Republicans in power is on the faint hope that they'll do something with it.
But you have conservatives who apparently their position is, um, we can't have Republicans do anything to enact their agenda because then that means they won't be elected.
Uh, and we really want them to get elected, but we don't want them to do anything when they are.
Well then what the hell is the point?
This to me, call me crazy, but saving 60,000 babies in a year.
Yeah, that's worth, that's worth taking a dip in the polls, I would say.
All right, a couple other things.
So I want to mention this.
We've had some bad news.
Here's some good news.
Well, what we just read was really good news.
So we've had two pieces of bad news, then one good news.
Here's another piece of good news.
American beer brand Bud Light knocked $4 billion off of its parent company Anheuser-Busch's market cap this past week following a pro-transgender advertisement featuring the biological male known as Dylan Mulvaney.
On March 31st, Anheuser-Busch had a market capitalization of $132.38 billion.
By April 10th, that figure had dropped to $128.4 billion, with signs that the stock market will continue to fall.
And we know that this is all happening after they had this endorsement deal with Dillon Mulvaney, and some conservatives spoke out against it.
And this is great.
This is a great thing, and we need to keep it up.
The only negative here is the possibility that we won't keep it up, that this will just be a blip on the radar screen, and then conservatives will just go back to buying Bud Light again.
As long as we don't make that mistake, then this is a big win.
As long as we stick with it, it's not hard to do.
Like, you cut Bud Light out of your life in a second, And it requires no effort and you'll be fine.
Like even if you like that kind of terrible beer, there are other types that are just as cheap
and that you can choose instead.
You know, I see conservatives sometimes complaining that, and this has been a big thing on Twitter and on social media, you have some conservatives complaining that the right shouldn't have focused on this Bud Light thing as much.
It's a distraction, they say.
And in general, they say we shouldn't be talking about Dylan Mulvaney because, you know, by talking about him, we've quote-unquote made him famous, right?
Like, he is a monster of our own making, is the logic.
But that's a really lazy take, and it's obtuse, and it's not correct.
Just like we talked about in the open.
The left appoints their own heroes, their champions.
This is what they do.
The left selected Mulvaney as their mascot for transgenderism, their new mascot.
He's going to be famous no matter what we did.
That's how this works, if you haven't noticed by now.
The left doesn't need our help to make someone famous.
They can do that all on their own.
They own all of the institutions that bestow fame in the first place.
So you think they need us to go along with it?
We could never say a word about someone and they'd still be made into a star.
I mean, look at Stacey Abrams, for example.
The right has never had any kind of obsession with Stacey Abrams.
We've never found her particularly interesting or talked about her very much.
I mean, she runs for office, obviously, but I don't think anyone could accuse anyone on the right of having a Stacey Abrams obsession.
And also, she has no charisma.
She has no star power.
She's just like a big nothing.
And yet the left selected her.
They said, you're one of our mascots.
You're one of ours now.
You're a star.
one of our mascots, you're one of ours now, you're a star.
We've decided that you're a star."
And the next thing you know, she's doing TV cameos and she's on all the late night shows,
she's on red carpet, she's going to award shows, she's hanging out with celebrities.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And all of that happened without any of us on the right contributing to it.
Because, again, they own all the institutions that bestow fame.
So when Mulvaney comes along, we can either nod and go along silently, While the next woman-faced minstrel show star is appointed, or we can speak up and we can state what is true and obvious.
Remember, Bill Mulvaney, that thing in New York, the Day 365 of the big gala celebration, Day 365 of quote-unquote girlhood, and again, celebrities were there.
Well, remember, he started planning that six months into his girlhood shtick.
So he started planning that.
That was in the cards before most people on the right even took note of this guy.
He already had all this funding and support and this was already planned, all of it.
And so when they parade another man around and say, this is the woman, look how great, this is the new woman of the year.
We have two choices on the right.
We can either just look the other way Or we can speak up and say, no, this is absurd, this is wrong, here's why.
Some of us chose the latter, and the latter is the better choice.
Now here's the thing.
We can't make Dylan Mulvaney unfamous.
Once the left has decided to do that with someone, we can't stop it.
We don't own Hollywood.
We don't own the media.
But we can.
Make someone a much more toxic and divisive figure than he otherwise would have been.
And that's what we did with Dylan Mulvaney.
And it was well-deserved.
We can't make him unfamous.
We can, to use a leftist term, problematize him.
This is a term the left uses.
To literally, like, to make, to take something that's not seen as a problem and make it a problem.
A similar thing was successfully achieved with the Hershey's dude a few weeks ago.
It's a necessary tactic in the culture war.
It's very necessary.
And the tactic in this case is simply to say what is true.
But we are problematizing by pointing to an actual problem.
The left problematizes by making something a problem that isn't a problem.
But we're taking something that is a problem, which in this case is the degradation and appropriation of womanhood, and we're pointing out that, no, this is a problem.
Here's why.
And because of that, you know, Bud Light took a major hit.
And again, if we go back on it, then it doesn't mean anything.
It's not a win.
But if we stick with it, then I guarantee you the next corporation that serves a similar customer base to what Bud Light serves will think twice Before doing an endorsement with Dylan Mulvaney or anybody like that.
They'll think twice about it.
They might still do it, but we've given them something to think about.
Is it really worth it?
All right.
Finally, NBC News has this report.
President Joe Biden has chosen Chicago as the site of the 2024 Democratic National Convention, staking a claim in the Midwest as Republicans plan to host theirs in Milwaukee.
I'm only bringing this up because Chicago is not only a crime-ridden city, so therefore a great spot for the DNC, the convention.
Their policies made Chicago into the hellhole that it is, so that makes sense.
But I'm also bringing it up because the DNC in Chicago brings back to our memory one of the most traumatic events of the 90s that those of you who didn't live in the 90s won't remember, maybe you're not aware of.
But here's what happened.
The last time the Democrat convention was in Chicago.
Watch.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I am not trying to do anything.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
You know, on second thought, I don't--
That's actually not... That's because this has become an infamous clip of the Democrats all doing the Macarena.
Or someone with a gay pride flag.
Hillary Clinton's doing the Macarena.
And I don't know, you know, maybe that's the last time that any elected Democrat was even remotely charming, on second thought.
It's a little...
You know, it's a little charming in its innocence, I think.
This was the 90s, kids.
This is what it was like, okay?
We danced the Macarena.
And you don't understand the Macarena craze if you didn't live in the 90s.
But just out of nowhere, for about six and a half weeks, this dance was everywhere.
People were dancing on their rooftops.
They were dancing at work.
There'd be traffic jams and people getting out of their cars on the highway and doing the Macarena.
It was just everywhere.
And nobody knew what was happening.
Nobody understood.
Nobody knew Where the Macarena came from or why, but it was just, it was there.
This happened a lot in the 90s.
Like these fads and trends would come in and they'd be there for six weeks and no one knows why.
No one knows why we're doing this.
And then we would just stop doing it.
And it was good also.
The Macarena was a good dance because it's a dance you could dance if you didn't know how to dance.
And we had those in the 90s.
We weren't twerking on TikTok, okay?
We were wearing our jean shorts and we were doing the Macarena.
And then one day, the Macarena went away as quickly as it came.
And we all moved on to the next trend, which I think, if I remember correctly, the chronology of this was, I think it was Pogs.
Pogs were the next thing.
You don't understand Pogs either.
That's a whole other thing.
I'm not even going to try to explain it.
It was an innocent time.
It was good.
We were a country then.
We were a country.
We were a nation with our Pogs and our Tamagotchis and our Yo-Yos.
Okay?
There was a time where we would carry our Yo-Yos around in our pockets.
And we would be playing with the yo-yos.
Yo-yos would get confiscated at school because all the kids were bringing yo-yos in.
That was a thing.
Our Blockbuster video rentals and our Macarena.
That was a country.
Not whatever this poor excuse for a nation is now.
Let's get to the comment section.
♪ Who makes a Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage ♪
♪ Who's to blame ♪ ♪ It's a sweet baby gang ♪
Do you want a better way to simplify your business finances across expenses,
vendor payments, and accounting?
If so, RAMP could be a complete game changer for your business.
RAMP is a corporate card and expense management software designed to help you save time and money.
With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions.
You can automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to.
The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
Businesses that use RAMP save an average of 3.5% within the first year.
RAMP is easy to use.
You can get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000, doesn't matter.
And right now, you can get $250 when you join RAMP.
So just go to ramp.com slash Walsh.
That's R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Numbers FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
Chev says, Matt, I'm a 17-year-old girl who was diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety when I was 10 and was put on medicine ever since.
After I started listening to your show last year, I asked my psychiatrist why I never got a brain scan and why she decided I have ADHD.
She couldn't give me a valid answer, so I stopped all the meds and I went to therapy to learn skills instead.
I learned how to deal with my ADHD in a healthy way instead of shoving it down.
Another thing no one talks about is that most of the ADHD meds also shove down your personality, making you a flat person.
Therapy and learning skills have been way more helpful in one year than meds were in six.
Thanks for speaking about this because most people don't.
I love to hear that.
That's a very encouraging thing for me to hear that you were inspired to make that Really healthy choice, I think, that has obviously worked out well for you.
Because that's what it is.
When I say ADHD doesn't exist, I don't mean that the people who are diagnosed exist.
The behaviors that fall under the ADHD umbrella, those behaviors exist.
Those kind of tendencies and personality traits, all those exist.
I know that because I have all those tendencies and personality traits.
I could be diagnosed ADHD in a heartbeat if I wanted to be, but no thank you.
I'm not really interested in taking methamphetamines, so no thanks.
So these are behaviors and personality traits and all that.
But it's not wrong.
It's not disordered.
It's just, it's how you are.
And it might make it hard in certain circumstances.
And so you have to learn how to, as you say, manage.
But really it's, you know, manage is one, but I think, I think a better way of putting it is harness.
How do you harness that?
Okay.
But my, my sons, my two, two older sons are, could easily be diagnosed as well.
I mean, they're, they're full of energy.
They can't sit still for, for anything very long.
All that kind of stuff.
And so we think about, well, how can we harness all of that energy that they have?
The fact that they don't do as well learning when they're sitting still and just like regurgitating information and trying to memorize stuff.
I mean, you do have to do some of that, you know, even in a homeschool environment.
That is a skill you have to learn.
So we want to teach them that.
But we also think about how can we teach them in more active ways?
How can we teach them in ways that actually work with their personality rather than trying to suppress their personality in order to fit it into this, you know, box that we need to fit it into for our own convenience?
And I think that that's just a much better approach.
Nate G says, I absolutely agree with not assigning homework.
We homeschool our boys and we utilize our time three to four hours a day and no more.
They're already far ahead of the kids in schools.
That's all that's needed.
That's one of the misconceptions about homeschooling when you hear that homeschool families and hear them say, oh, you know, we do three hours of school a day.
And then that's misconstrued as, oh, we're not really teaching them.
They're not really getting an education.
No, that's all you need.
And kids that go to public school, at most, they're getting three hours of actual academic instruction.
At most.
Sometimes they don't even get that.
Sometimes they don't get any.
But there is so much wasted time.
There's so much superfluous stuff that has nothing to do with educating them.
And there's a lot of busy work and all of that.
And if you cut all of that out, And he cut out things like gym class.
You don't need gym class because the kids' lives outside of school should be gym class.
I don't need my nine-year-old son to go 45 minutes into the gymnasium.
That's his whole life.
He's constantly outside running around and climbing trees and building forts and doing all that.
We don't need to schedule that into the academic day.
So cut out all that nonsense, and what are you left with?
You're left with, you know, two, three, four hours at most of actual academic instruction.
Another one, this is a comment from someone with a username in Chinese letters, so I can't really tell you what to say, but, Matt, homework is important at school.
Merely learn.
Learning alone is not enough.
It's like downloading a file and doing nothing with it.
You have to spend time and do stuff on your own to check if you actually understood what was taught and can apply the knowledge.
That is when you realize what you know.
Except that homework is an application.
You know, you're not applying it with homework.
Homework is, oftentimes it's busy work, but it's just memorization and regurgitation.
That's not application.
That's not the same thing.
And whatever you're doing with homework, you can do that at school is the point.
So even if it is application, there's no reason, whatever assignment they give you for homework, you can do that at school.
There's no reason why you have to do it at home.
If the schools would just utilize that six to seven hour chunk they've been given, which is a lot of time, use the time better.
Don't send the kids home and then try to tell me that I got to give more of my time with my own child over to you because you don't know how to do your jobs and you can't figure out how to educate children when they're there for six, seven hours a day.
You wanted to waste time putting movies on for them to watch and send them to gym class and all the rest of it, and talking about diversity and a bunch of nonsense.
You're wasting time on that?
And then that's my problem as a parent?
Now I gotta make up for the work that you didn't do?
No.
Let's see.
Another comment.
At first I was angry about Johnny, but I feel like you gave your kids a good lesson about sometimes you have to put an animal down, and I'm glad you used every last piece of him like the good Native American that you are.
Oney says, "Mourn Johnny's passing as befits a walrus of his standing. He gave light, love, and joy to all, even
those who didn't love him back. Truly, the Sweet Baby Gang has lost one of its best."
Another one, "We are gathered here to say goodbye to sweet, innocent, stuffed soul."
To a sweet, innocent, stuffed soul.
He was friend to all, was never afraid to put a flipper on our shoulders and give us comfort.
If Johnny were here, he would say, don't worry about me, I'm in a better place, and I'm glad my presence is not causing division in my family anymore.
Rest in pieces, our beloved Johnny the Walrus.
Just Ray says, rest in peace, Johnny the Walrus.
He gave us nothing but love, but this world was just too turbulent to accept it.
Then Aaron says, The fact that Matt just admitted to murdering a mascot of the SPG, I think he must be punished.
This is a dark day for the SPG.
My heart is hurting more than ever.
R.I.P.
Johnny."
Well, I appreciate the words of sympathy and mourning from some of you.
Those of you like Aaron who have tried to victim blame me are, of course, all banned from the show.
I should go without saying.
I didn't murder Johnny.
Yes, I chopped him to pieces.
My children harvested his parts like a black market human organ traffickers, but it was I was only doing what I had to do.
It was a mercy killing.
That's what it was.
Johnny, it turned out, was too good for this world.
He was too pure.
He was too generous.
He was too kind.
And so I cut his head off and I threw him in the trash.
That's what happened.
It's difficult to talk about it.
I don't want to talk about it anymore.
There's a scripture from Proverbs that says, where there is no vision, the people perish.
And that's certainly true today.
We've turned away from God, not just at our own personal expense, but the expense of society as a whole.
And that's what Dr. Douglas Hedley points out in the latest episode of Exodus with Jordan Peterson.
Check it out.
The vision of God is a necessary condition of the flourishing of society.
And without that vision, a people perishes.
Well, there's technical reasons for that, I would say, that we know biologically now, too.
Almost all enthusiasm, and so that is to be filled with the Spirit of God, that's positive emotion.
And all positive emotion, of the most intense sort, I don't mean satiation and satisfaction, I mean hope and enthusiasm, that moves you forward, is tied to a vision.
Because all positive emotion signals movement towards a valued goal.
In addition to Douglas Hedley, Jordan is joined by a roundtable group of scholars, theologians, and artists to discuss one of the most seminal books in the Bible, and it's as illuminating and thought-provoking as you would expect.
New episodes are coming online every week, and you don't want to miss any of them, but you've got to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
So join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch Exodus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation we turn to a sadly familiar story, one that has played out in almost identical fashion countless times on college campuses across the country.
This time it's the College of New Jersey.
Daily Wire reports on the story of a male college student who was investigated by the school for sexual assault Three years after a sexual encounter that he says was entirely consensual, Reading Out says the male student, whom the Daily Wire will call John Doe, was a freshman at TCNJ in the fall of 2017.
Throughout the school year, a female student, referred to in court documents as Jane Roe, regularly came over to John's dorm to spend time with his roommate, her ex-boyfriend with whom she was still friends.
According to the lawsuit John filed after TCNJ punished him, He didn't interact with Jane outside of her visits to his dorm room.
On September 30th, 2017, not long into his freshman year, John, Jane, and John's roommate were all hanging out together in John's dorm room.
At some point, John's roommate left for the night, and John and Jane remained alone together to continue talking into the night, which John says turned into consensual kissing that lasted for a few minutes.
John asked Jane to perform oral sex on him, and she agreed.
After Jane voluntarily and willingly engaged in oral sex with John, the two fell asleep in John's bed, according to the lawsuit.
The next morning, John asked Jane if she wanted to have sex.
College teaches students that they must ask first to engage in any kind of sexual activity.
Jane agreed, and the two engaged in what John described as consensual sexual intercourse.
Afterward, Jane left John's dorm room.
And from there, you know, we're told that John and Jane maintained a friendly relationship as acquaintances.
They made small talk when they saw each other on campus.
They even apparently worked on a calculus assignment together.
I have no idea how you work on a calculus.
How do you do calculus with someone?
I don't know.
I don't know how to do calculus at all, so it's a mystery to me.
But in any case, everything seemed fine.
Everything seemed normal, according to John, until a month later when Jane started dating a different guy at the school.
And this is when Jane first started telling the story of the alleged sexual assault that she supposedly suffered at the hands of John.
It's nearly another year that passes.
And then finally, after another year, Jane reports this alleged crime to the school's Title IX department.
John himself was never told, apparently, about the complaint.
And he was never questioned, he was never given a chance to tell the side of the story, he didn't even know about it.
And then a few weeks after opening the case, Jane told the Title IX department that she wanted to close it.
That's back to the Daily Wire report.
But three years later, now almost four years since the encounter, Jane asked the Title IX office to reopen her case.
On May 4, 2021, Jane filed a formal complaint against John, which required the school to notify him of the allegations.
The complaint alleged that John sexually assaulted Jane and made sexually harassing comments to her during the calculus class in the second semester of their relationship.
Freshman year, John was informed that an alternative resolution agreement, A.R.A., was being sought without telling him the implications of such an agreement.
John obtained legal counsel and was sent the A.R.A., which required him to perform 90 hours of community service and take online classes.
John declined to accept the A.R.A., saying that he felt it was an unreasonable punishment for something he didn't do, according to the lawsuit.
Since John didn't accept the A.R.A., Jane told the Title IX office that she wanted to pursue the formal resolution process Which required a hearing.
At this point, however, John had already graduated from TCNJ and left campus, yet the school pursued the process anyway.
So now the case was fully in the hands of the school's kangaroo court, where all of the normal constitutional rights and protections, like due process, which are also, you know, going out the window everywhere else too, but all of that doesn't apply.
More from the report, it says, John's legal counsel at the time, or at least they act as though it doesn't apply, I should say.
John's legal counsel at the time advised him not to speak during the grievance process because anything he said could be used against him if Jane decided to file criminal charges.
Even though TCNJ's policies say the burden of proof is on the school and not the accused, the school reportedly only pursued evidence that pointed to John's guilt.
The school spoke to Jane's boyfriend and her friend, who gave inconsistent statements.
The school also allowed what John describes as prejudicial hearsay statements to be presented to the administrators overseeing the hearing.
And while the school allowed Jane to submit hearsay statements regarding her mental state, John was not allowed to rebut her statements or present evidence of his own mental state.
John's counsel at the time also advised him not to attend the hearing on November 5th, 2021.
He was informed that he had been found responsible, would be suspended for two years, even though he didn't go to school anymore, and a note would appear on his school transcript saying that he was found responsible for sexual assault.
So we're told that John obtained new counsel and tried to get a new hearing, but he was denied, and finally John filed a lawsuit against the school.
As it stands right now, the school tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but that motion was itself dismissed or was denied.
It's not certain where this goes from here, but...
At least the cases in, you know, a real court where a guy in John's situation is still in a has a huge built-in disadvantage.
It's just a slightly less huge built-in disadvantage.
Now here's the point about all this, two points actually.
First, we don't know what really happened between the people that we're calling John and Jane.
We do know that Jane acted every step of the way like someone who was not actually assaulted.
She waited a month to tell anybody about the alleged incident, a year to file a complaint, then she dropped it, then she reopened it, three years later.
It doesn't seem likely that a real victim would handle it this way.
And regardless, three years is just, it's far too late.
To prove anything about an encounter that occurred in a dorm room between two people with no witnesses.
I mean, no matter what actually happened, how could either of them possibly prove anything one way or another three years after the fact?
Of course, in a legitimate legal setting, only the accuser has to prove something.
So it's not what can either of them prove.
There's only one person has to prove anything.
That's the way it works.
One of the most fundamental principles of our legal system is that the accused, no matter the crime, doesn't have to prove his innocence.
But these Title IX university tribunals, they don't recognize these principles and they don't respect these basic human rights.
A student, even a former student in this case, is presumed guilty of sexual assault the moment he's accused of it.
And if he cannot come up with overwhelming evidence that he didn't do what he's accused of doing three years ago in private, in a room with the door shut and nobody else present, if he can't prove that, which I don't know how you possibly could, then he'll be branded a rapist.
So the whole process that these universities go through is a total farce.
It's exactly why schools should not be in a position of adjudicating these cases in the first place.
If a crime was allegedly committed, it should be handled by the criminal court system.
If a student is actually sexually assaulted, which obviously does happen, then she's a victim of a crime, not merely a Title IX infringement, and she should go to the police, not the university Title IX department.
Second, if John was falsely accused, then he's the real victim.
And so I don't mean to victim blame when I say this, but it needs to be said, this is yet another reason why casual sex is a very bad idea.
According to his version of events, which to me seems the more credible version, he had oral sex and then intercourse with a girl who could barely be described as an acquaintance.
And she regretted, according to his account, you know, we can assume she regretted the consensual counter later and used it against him to try and ruin his life.
There's not much he can do now to fully clear his name, especially when he's in the hands of the university kangaroo courts.
But the next potential false accusation victim can do much to keep his life and reputation intact by not having casual sex with strangers.
That's not a 100% foolproof guarantee.
You could still be accused of something, even if you were never in the same room as somebody.
Anyone could accuse anyone of anything.
But you certainly are putting yourself in a much stronger position.
You know, it turns out there's a reason why those prudish social conservatives have always recommended that sex be saved for the bonds of marriage, and this is one of those reasons.
Sex is obviously the most intimate and personal physical interaction that you can have with another human being.
If you engage in this act with someone you don't know, someone you have no tie to, no commitment to, someone you have made no promise or vows to, you have put yourself in an incredibly vulnerable situation in many ways.
This is true for the man and the woman equally.
A woman who casually engages in the reproductive act with some random dude could find that the act had exactly the reproductive result that it was designed to have, and now she's in the position of carrying a child whose father she barely knows.
A man, for his part, could easily find himself in the position that John is in.
You know, if the woman decides that she regrets the encounter, and if she has no integrity, Then she could make a false claim against him.
But of course the man has no idea whether she's this sort of woman, whether she has integrity or not, because he doesn't know her, and yet had sex with her anyway.
Even if there are no false accusations and no pregnancies and no other consequences of that sort, still, both people involved will be left with the emotional and spiritual damage of having given themselves physically to a stranger.
They allowed themselves to be used as an object.
And this, I believe, is where many of the false accusations come from.
In the cases of false accusations, in many cases, I think, You know, the woman wakes up the next morning, feels used, you know, and she was used, except that it was consensual and it was mutual.
She used the man as much as he used her.
That's what all casual sex is.
That's what hookup culture is.
They were both dehumanized and they were both diminished by the encounter, but they participated in it if it was consensual.
They weren't assaulted, they aren't victims, but they were harmed, both of them.
In ways that they may or may not come to understand.
It turns out that you can engage in something consensually and it can still harm you.
It could still be bad.
So this can all be avoided by simply putting the horse in front of the cart instead of the other way around.
You know, sex is meant to be an expression of love between a man and a woman who actually love each other and are devoted and committed to each other.
So, take care of the devotion and commitment first, and then you get to the sex.
And then you don't have to worry about this stuff anymore.
And that is why, in the end, after all this, it is hookup culture that we must once again cancel.
