Ep. 1219 - Tyrannical Leftist Woman Tries To Abolish The Second Amendment
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the governor of New Mexico attempts to suspend the Second Amendment under the guise of a "public health emergency." This is the next phase in our bureaucratic tyranny, but the stage has been set for a long time. I'll explain. Also, a mayor in California goes to a drag show and gets spanked. And speaking of California, a new law would give courts the right to take custody away from parents who don't "affirm" their child's "gender identity."
Ep.1219
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Express VPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
Renewal by Anderson - Get your FREE Consultation, Text WALSH to 200-300
American Financing - Call (866) 569-4711 for a FREE mortgage review, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net/.
- - -
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
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the governor of New Mexico attempts to suspend the Second Amendment under the guise of a public health emergency.
This is the next phase in our bureaucratic tyranny, but the stage has been set for a long time.
I'll explain.
Also, a mayor in California goes to a drag show and gets spanked.
And speaking of California, a new law would give courts the right to take custody away from parents who don't affirm their child's, quote, gender identity.
All of that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Using the internet without ExpressVPN, it's like walking your dog in public
without securing it on a leash.
Most of the time you'll probably be fine, but what if one day your dog runs away or gets dog-napped?
It's better to be careful, especially when it's as simple as using ExpressVPN.
Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, airports, etc., Your online data is not secured.
Any hacker on the same network can gain access to and steal your personal data.
ExpressVPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet so that they can't do that.
It'd take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption.
ExpressVPN works on all my devices, phones, laptops, tablets, and even on my smart TV.
It's so easy to use.
Just fire up the app, click one button, and get protected that way.
Get an extra three months of ExpressVPN free at expressvpn.com/walsh.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com/walsh to get protected today.
Expressvpn.com/walsh.
If you were creating a shortlist of luminaries in the field of public health,
you wouldn't think that someone named Michelle Lujan Grisham would appear on that list.
At no point in her life did Grisham receive any training in medicine or science.
Instead, she has a Bachelor of Arts degree in something called University Studies.
for the uninitiated, a degree in university studies is what people get when they don't want to study
in a university.
Then Grisham earned a law degree, which of course also has nothing to do with public health.
And afterwards, for several years, Grisham worked at a state department
dealing with aging and long-term services.
And she eventually directed that same department.
Those were Michelle Lujan Grisham's credentials when in 2004, she became the highest ranking
public health official in the state of New Mexico.
Presumably, the fact that she came from a prominent political family in the state didn't hurt her chances of getting the job.
But whatever the case, Grisham's tenure as the state's Secretary of Health was unremarkable.
She only had the post for a couple of years before moving on.
Many years later, in 2020, the incoming Biden administration took a very close look at Michelle Lujan Grisham.
For reasons that remain unknown, the Biden administration apparently believed that Grisham's limited experience in the field of public health from more than a decade ago qualified her to run the Department of Health and Human Services at the federal level.
This is the department that oversees all public health issues in the entire country.
Biden's aides publicly courted her for the job.
They said that she was under careful consideration.
Ultimately, though, Grisham decided to remain as governor of New Mexico, so she didn't want the job.
Now, in that capacity, from the beginning, Grisham has governed less like a politician and more like a public health bureaucrat with limitless power.
For the past three years, Grisham has ruled the state under an indefinite public health emergency protocol.
As recently as late last year, when most of the country had moved on from COVID, Grisham was issuing orders requiring that state workers and hospital employees wear masks and take a regular schedule of COVID shots.
Grisham often cited experts like herself to justify these unlawful and increasingly untenable mandates.
But by March of this year, the people of New Mexico finally had enough.
Grisham, lacking the political will to sustain yet another extension of her public health powers, formally ended the COVID-19 emergency in the state.
Now, it took long enough, but Grisham's authority to issue unilateral edicts was finally gone at that point.
Now, put yourself in Michelle Lujan Grisham's position at that very moment.
How would you handle the reality that you can no longer rule your state like a dictator?
Now, if you're a well-adjusted person who cares about your constitutional oath of office, you'd probably be thankful that the emergency is over, even if it was fake to begin with.
You wouldn't want to assert arbitrary extra-legal powers.
Well, suffice it to say that that was not Michelle Grisham's reaction.
Instead, she immediately began ruminating about other ways that she could expand her emergency powers.
In May, in a conversation that didn't receive any attention from the media, Grisham spoke to Johns Hopkins University's School of Public Health about her plan to expand the field of quote-unquote public health to encompass everything.
Every imaginable policy issue would fall under public health.
And she announced this publicly.
This is footage that should have set off a lot of alarm bells, but nobody even noticed it or talked about it.
Here it is.
Watch.
Everything is a public health issue.
Gun violence is a public health issue.
Poverty is a public health issue.
Environmental consequences from energy is a public health issue.
All of these disenfranchised populations, all of the equity barriers, are all public health issues.
And when we address those, our economy is better, our families are stronger, our risks are fewer.
If we want to save the planet, and we want to make families independent, we want to eradicate poverty and injustice, it's going to take a whole new class of young, dedicated professionals.
We're ready to take on the mantle.
So I'm thrilled that they're watching and listening, and I'm ready to have you work in New Mexico.
And there are many other states, including your own home states, who deserve you and need you.
Let's go fix the world.
Everything is a public health issue, says Michelle Lujan Grisham.
She says poverty, climate change, gun violence, all public health.
Let's go fix the world, Grisham says, as the Johns Hopkins lady sitting there, public health lady, nods and grins along.
Yes, let's fix the world.
That's something we can do.
Let's fix it.
Now, you might be wondering when it became the goal of the public health industry to, quote, fix the world.
Wasn't their gig supposed to be to, you know, just to make sure the public is healthy?
Public health, make sure the public is healthy.
That's what I assumed.
Not anymore, apparently.
In fact, that hasn't been the goal since COVID.
You might remember it was a Johns Hopkins public health expert, quote-unquote, named Jennifer Nuzzo, who stated that it's a bad idea to riot during the public, during the COVID pandemic, unless you're rioting for George Floyd and BLM, in which case, go for it.
So public health is not the goal anymore.
Now the goal is to pursue social justice, which is what they mean when they talk about fixing the world.
Now the goal is to correct every problem with the world, and the people who identify the problems are Governor Grisham and other left-wing bureaucrats like her.
Now you can think of a variety of terms to describe what's going on here.
Mission creep comes to mind.
It's also incoherent because if every problem is a public health problem, then public health has outlived its usefulness as a distinct category, because it's not a distinct category.
If everything is a public health issue, then nothing is a public health issue.
Whatever you call this phenomenon we're seeing, it's obvious what Grisham is doing and why she's doing it.
Like the rest of the public health establishment, she has realized that she can assume totalitarian powers as long as she can claim that she's addressing some public health matter.
The solution is to label everything a public health matter, and then she can do whatever she wants.
And if she manages to get away with that, then she gets to control everything.
That was her approach, and she said it out loud in front of a friendly audience back in May, not even trying to hide it.
A couple of days ago, as you may have seen, Grisham put the next stage of her plan into motion.
She announced a public health order, quote-unquote, that prohibits residents in so-called high-crime areas, including New Mexico's biggest city, from possessing firearms outside of their homes.
And in making this announcement, Grisham admits that criminals are not going to follow the law.
The people that are actually committing the gun crime, they're not going to follow this.
She admits that.
She also acknowledges that she's probably going to get overturned in the courts because she doesn't really have the constitutional authority to do this.
But she doesn't care.
Watch.
But your point is valid.
You took an oath to the Constitution.
Isn't it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise your carry license?
With one exception.
And that is, if there's an emergency, and I've declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers.
No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.
There are restrictions on free speech.
There are restrictions on my freedoms.
In this emergency, this 11-year-old and all these parents who have lost all these children,
they deserve my attention to have the debate about whether or not in an emergency we can
create a safer environment.
Because what about their constitutional rights?
I took an oath to uphold those too.
And if we ignore this growing problem, without being bold, I've said to every other New Mexican, your rights are subjugated to theirs.
And they are not, in my view.
Wait a minute, you're saying about crimes, there are already laws against the crimes, so how are there rights?
I got it, but again, if I'm unsafe, who's standing up for that right?
If this climate is so out of control, somebody should do something.
I'm doing as much as I know to do.
Do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days?
Uh, no.
But here's what I do think.
It's a pretty resounding message.
Somebody should do something.
Someone should do something, she says.
That has been the justification for pretty much every tyrannical power grab in recent history.
It's always under the guise of, just do something.
That was all of COVID, right?
It was just do, it doesn't matter what we're doing, we're scared.
So just do something, something.
And she's doing something.
Will it achieve anything at all?
I mean, before we get to the question of whether she has the authority to do it, she doesn't.
Will it even achieve anything?
Even according to her?
She seems skeptical of that.
But she says that it sends a resounding message.
She's not even pretending that there's any legal merit to this.
She doesn't even suggest that criminals will obey it.
It's all about the message.
But what is that message exactly?
Superficially, what Grisham is saying is that no right is absolute, in her words.
And, you know, that part of it, just isolated on its own, no right is absolute, that's basically true, of course.
That's why there's a legal process for removing rights.
If you are a convicted murderer, you lose your right to carry a gun, for example, and most people have no issue with that.
Certainly, everyone agrees that you can't bring your gun with you into prison.
When you go into prison, you lose basically all of your constitutional rights, or most of them.
And most people, again, have no issue with that.
The problem is that Grisham is attempting to strip everyone's basic constitutional rights all at once by the stroke of a pen.
Basically treating everyone in the city like they are convicted murderers.
And her reasoning to justify that dramatic expansion of her authority is ludicrous.
I mean, there's always been gun crime.
What exactly makes it a special emergency now?
In that clip, you heard Grisham allude to something approaching an explanation, at least in her view.
She says that an 11-year-old child was just shot and killed in a road rage incident near a baseball stadium in Albuquerque, which is a terrible travesty, of course.
Someone shot 17 times at a moving vehicle, killing the child and critically injuring a woman inside the car.
Therefore, Grisham says, because of this emotionally charged episode, we need to punish every law-abiding gun owner in the entire state.
Or at least in that city and maybe eventually the entire state.
We need to turn them all into criminals or treat them like they are.
Now, if road rage is the issue, then you think that she would ban cars.
I mean, you could say that, well, that never would have happened if not for guns.
Never would have happened without cars.
But I guess she doesn't think that she can get away with banning cars yet.
So she's settling just for the guns.
Interestingly enough, Grisham doesn't display any curiosity about the assailant in that shooting.
At the moment that Grisham issued that order ending the Second Amendment in New Mexico, because this 11-year-old was killed, authorities didn't know the identity of the suspect.
They didn't know anything about it.
They didn't know a single thing about him.
That's more than a little strange, if you think about it.
You have to wonder, what kind of person shoots a moving vehicle 17 times due to road rage?
Are we talking about a law-abiding gun owner?
Is that what we're talking about?
It's possible.
Or are we talking about somebody with a criminal history, perhaps?
Maybe somebody on probation?
Could it be that we're not even talking about an American citizen at all?
Those are questions that Grisham very badly doesn't want you to think about.
But they're reasonable questions.
Especially if you're familiar with the numbers on how many felons and illegal aliens are shooting up the streets in New Mexico right now.
There's a lot of them.
And thanks in large part to policies that Grisham and her fellow Democrats have enacted.
Nearly half of all federal crimes in the entire country are committed in states like New Mexico that sit along the Mexican border.
And there's a reason for that.
It's not a coincidence.
The reason is called open borders.
But Democrats in the state haven't done anything about it.
In fact, during the Trump administration, Grisham refused to call the border crisis an emergency.
So that is not an emergency, but now the Second Amendment is an emergency.
And it's not the criminals in our state who are shooting people, they're not the emergency, it's the Second Amendment itself.
So, where is this leading exactly?
Again, Grisham knows her order is going to get overturned eventually, which is probably why she limits it to 30 days.
She's hoping the courts will take longer than 30 days to strike this down.
So, what's the real agenda here?
Is this order just a trial balloon to introduce this idea to the public so that down the line these kinds of emergency orders are more palatable?
Reading between the lines, you can see that the Democrat Party probably views it that way.
Following Grisham's order, to the surprise of many conservatives, Democratic Senator Ted Lieu, along with the deeply neurotic anti-gun Harvard kid David Hogg, came out and actually criticized the order as unconstitutional.
And they used almost precisely the same language, which tells you that a memo went out somewhere to coordinate left-wing messaging on this topic.
So here's what Lieu wrote, quote, I support gun safety laws, however, No state in the union can suspend the federal constitution.
There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S.
Constitution.
Hogg wrote basically the same thing, quote, I support gun safety, but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S.
Constitution.
Now, first of all, notice how creepy it is that a Harvard brat and a U.S.
senator are sourcing their talking points from the same mysterious higher power.
And we know that these are talking points.
They're saying exactly the same thing.
Those posts did not come from Ted Lieu's office or the brilliant mind of David Hogg.
They probably came from the DNC, which is providing messaging on how to handle this.
And for that reason, it's worth parsing the messages very carefully.
Both messages say that there's no state exception to the U.S.
Constitution that allows for public health emergencies to supersede constitutional rights.
And that sounds good, but of course it doesn't go far enough, not even close.
There's a reason they say state, because they're deliberately leaving open the possibility that the federal government might be able to step in and create such public health exemptions to constitutional rights.
They're reserving that power for Congress at some point in the future, even as they say that states can't do it on their own.
That's a big deal, because if you think back to COVID, some of the biggest infringements on civil liberties came from the federal government's assertion of emergency powers.
The CDC, we all forget, nationalized the country's rental properties.
Unilaterally, on their own, they did this.
They made it illegal for landlords to evict tenants, even if the tenants weren't paying rent.
Nothing like that has ever happened in this country before, but a so-called public health agency did it on their own.
And of course, the Biden administration fired service members who didn't take the shot.
In fact, they tried to have more than 100 million workers and private companies fired unless they took the shot or submitted to regular COVID testing.
Over and over again, the Fed set the blueprint for COVID totalitarianism and the states followed.
So is that what they're planning for the next emergency?
Quote-unquote.
Will the federal government attempt to use emergency powers to supersede the Second Amendment as they superseded all of our rights during COVID?
Now for the moment, thankfully, it doesn't appear that this attempt to unilaterally end the Second Amendment in New Mexico will succeed.
For one thing, several law enforcement officials in New Mexico have already come out and said that they're not going to enforce the order.
And yesterday, as journalist Ford Fisher documented, protesters, many of them openly caring, showed up in Albuquerque and the police didn't know anything about it.
And on one hand, this is obviously encouraging.
It shows why we have the Second Amendment in the first place.
It's a self-reinforcing amendment, essentially.
When everybody's armed, it's awfully difficult for police to disarm everyone without violence, and that's violence that no politician wants to be responsible for, at least not yet.
But at the same time, this is all still profoundly distressing.
It shouldn't fall on American citizens to go out in public and risk arrest or civil penalties, or worse, to enjoy a constitutional right.
The simple fact that this kind of demonstration is even necessary is a huge win for the left.
This is a win for the partisans who want to chip away at our constitutional rights bit by bit until they're gone.
And we know that because Grisham, the governor, should be in prison right now.
She is conspiring to undermine the federal rights of American citizens, which according to the precedent set by the Trump prosecutions, is supposed to be a very serious crime.
And unlike Trump, Grisham is openly admitting that she intends to subvert Americans' constitutional rights.
She's admitting it.
In fact, as of last night, Grisham was openly bragging about all this on Twitter.
So why isn't every DA in New Mexico bringing charges against Grisham tonight?
Where are the RICO charges?
Where are the raids on her mansion?
Why isn't she being frog-marched down the street in handcuffs?
Why aren't they trying to throw her in prison for the rest of her life?
That's what she deserves.
It's what the left would obviously do if she was on the other side.
Imagine if a Republican governor tried to, I don't know, unilaterally suspend the 19th Amendment, arguing that women voters are a threat to the country and our way of life.
How do we think Democrats would respond to that?
They'd be saying, bring the federal government and put that person in jail right now.
Remove them from power today because of that.
That's not what's happening to Grisham.
So if this order was a trial balloon, the response from the right has been woefully insufficient.
Tyrants have always used emergencies, whether real or imaginary, to justify their power grabs.
COVID was the pivotal moment when most of the country laid down and allowed the government to suspend essentially all of our rights for the sake of protecting us against a cold.
Career bureaucrats like Governor Grisham, they took note of that.
And now she's taking it to the next level.
And she's getting really only minimal pushback.
It's not hard to imagine where this goes next.
As we showed you in that video from Johns Hopkins, Grisham herself has already outlined the plan from here.
So we can probably expect a climate change emergency to justify banning cars, a transphobia emergency to shut down non-affirming speech, a racism emergency to ram through a federal reparations plan, a poverty emergency to redistribute wealth, The possibilities are endless.
And unless public health autocrats like Michelle Lujan Grisham experience real consequences for what they're doing, then these nation-ending possibilities will become reality.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
But despite this, the pro-life efforts are still booming.
You heard that, right?
Despite the narrative that pro-lifers, that you hear about pro-lifers, they have not gone away.
They've increased in number.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one's in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion in each state in a post-Roe America.
40 Days for Life is changing hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
They've had a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they grew in both volunteers and locations.
With about 1 million volunteers in 1,500 cities, they hold peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
You can help them fight the ongoing legal battles by protecting free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
So we begin the five headlines, unfortunately, with something very strange and disturbing.
So no change of pace there, I suppose.
Libs of TikTok has the report today about Burbank Mayor Constantine Anthony, who attended a drag show last week.
And there was a time when that would be enough of a scandal on its own, right?
A public health—a public official, rather, elected official going to a drag show.
would be considered gross and outrageous enough to be disqualifying.
But that's not the case anymore, so we have to add in two other details.
First, this was a drag show where kids were invited, and we'll have more on that in just a moment.
And while at the drag show, Constantine stood up in front of the crowd and volunteered to be spanked by the drag queen.
Here's what that looked like, if you're curious.
Or even if you're not, here it is anyway.
Let's watch.
Okay, so.
First of all, you know that I firmly believe that sex is biological.
It's innate.
A man is a man and nothing can ever make him not a man.
But if it were possible, if it were possible for a man to lose his manhood completely, then that's how it would happen.
Then you just watched it happen.
Getting spanked in public by a drag queen.
You may still be a man, technically, biologically, after that, but you certainly have now had your man card permanently revoked, and there is nothing that can ever reverse that decision.
Now, liveswithtiktok called this out, saying that the mayor of Burbank was spanked by a drag queen at an event involving children.
And the mayor responded to that by tweeting this.
He said, actually, there weren't any children at this private 21 plus event, but of course,
lying is totally on brand for you. Well, lives of TikTok then posted the advertisement that the
drag queen had previously, the drag queen you just saw there had previously posted
the advertisement, the poster to Instagram, I think.
And here's what the advertisement says.
I want you to pay close attention to the wording, okay?
Drag queen bingo with Roxy Wood.
September 9th, 6 to 8.30 p.m.
Admission $50.
$50.
People are paying 50 bucks for that.
It's at least...
That's at least one movie ticket these days.
That's like half a movie ticket, but still, way too much.
Drink ticket, $7.
Raffle ticket, $5.
Here's the part.
Ages 15 and over, event not suitable for children.
Okay, so the mayor says there were no children there.
It was an adult event.
The ad does say not suitable for children, but it also says ages 15 and over.
So what that means, apparently, is that the mayor and the people who put on this drag show do not consider 15-year-olds to be children.
And of course, we already knew this about them.
I mean, after all, the left continues to claim, they will still claim with a straight face, that children aren't getting gender transition surgeries, even though 15-year-old girls are getting cosmetic double mastectomies all the time.
So the implications are obvious.
What they're saying is that, yeah, well, that's not a child.
And even more obvious is the fact that including kids, including 15-year-olds, in something like this, in a drag event, is depraved and evil.
Now, with that said, I want to make one other point.
And this is a broader point, but it applies to this situation, certainly, specifically, so just using this as an example.
I think we make a mistake.
When something like this happens, we make a mistake when we focus entirely on the question of whether children were there.
The mayor says there were no kids.
The poster seems to suggest otherwise.
Was somebody under the age of 18 actually in attendance for this event or not?
I mean, I don't know.
I have no idea.
If so, if there was a minor there, then it's grotesque and everyone involved should be in prison.
But let's just say that there was no one under the age of 18 at this event.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, let's just say that.
Is that the end of the conversation, then?
Do we move on?
Is there no scandal here?
Is there nothing else to say about it?
When you see an event like that with the mayor getting spanked by a drag queen, is our only question, were there any kids there?
And if they say no, then we say, okay, well, no problem.
No, I don't think that's the end of the conversation.
I don't think we move on.
I think that there is still a scandal, even if there were no children present.
You know, this is the same thing that I say with the gender transition industry.
Obviously, we have to protect kids.
Obviously, that's the most important thing.
Obviously, mutilating a child is unthinkably, horrifically evil.
But that doesn't mean that everything else that happens, everything else that doesn't involve children is automatically okay.
So I don't want to make the mistake of implying that all of this stuff is fine as long as there are no kids there.
It's a lot worse when there are kids there, but even with none there, we still have a problem.
Right?
My point is that it should be a scandal.
It should be disqualifying for a public official, an elected official, a mayor, To go to a perverted show like this and get spanked by a drag queen.
That in and of itself, no matter who else is in attendance, is disqualifying.
Why?
You might say, well, there's no kids there.
It's consenting adults.
It's still degenerate.
It's morally disgusting.
It's depraved behavior.
And we should be opposed to depraved behavior from everyone, especially public officials.
But many on the right have long ago adopted this, like, libertarian belief that, well, as long as they're consenting adults and, you know, even if it's depraved, disgusting, outrageous, still, we shouldn't criticize it.
Think about Sam Brinton, you know, before he revealed himself to be a serial luggage thief.
Before that, back when he was appointed to his position in the Department of Energy, We still knew that he was a BDSM pervert weirdo who liked to have sex with men dressed like dogs.
Now, as far as we know, thank God, no children were involved in any of that.
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out otherwise.
But as far as we know, there was only adults involved in that with Sam Britton.
But I still would have said, and I still did say, that Britton never should have been given that job in government.
His personal behavior, his personal life should have disqualified him.
Yes, it was all consenting adults as far as we know.
Okay.
The adults were consenting to doing something disgusting and depraved and demented.
How is that not justification enough to, you know, for certain consequences like being disqualified from public office or positions in government?
And again, you know, it wasn't all that long ago when everything I'm saying would have been totally obvious.
When a mayor shows up at a drag show and gets spanked by a drag queen, it's like he's getting run out of office the next day automatically.
Because we all realize that there are certain standards you have to hold people to, especially public officials.
So, the question about whether or not there are kids with these things, again, very important question.
We have to talk about that.
That's not the end of the conversation, or at least it shouldn't be.
Kamala Harris was pressed this weekend about her position on abortion, specifically when the cutoff should be, right?
When does a baby go from being a meaningless clump of cells to being a person with rights?
That was the question, and here is her answer, or her non-answer, as the case may be.
What is it that you believe?
I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?
We need to restore the protections of Roe versus Wade.
We're not trying to do something new.
Well, that was nebulous because it was about viability, which could be anywhere between 20 to 24 weeks.
No, no, no, no.
Let me be very clear.
That was in the Women's Health Protection Act that the White House also endures.
Let me be very clear.
From day one, the President has been clear.
I have been clear.
We need to put back the protections that are enroveyed into law.
Since the Supreme Court took it, Congress has the power and ability to pass legislation to put those protections back in law and Joe Biden will sign that bill.
So that is what we want.
But does it need to be specific in terms of defining And where that guarantee goes up to?
And where it does not?
At which week of pregnancy?
We need to put back in place the protections of Roe vs Wade.
You know why I'm asking you this question though?
Because... We're not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year.
It wasn't crafted into law.
And that's why I'm asking you for the specifics, because Republicans say the lack of a precise date in cutting it off.
You know this.
They say that allows Democrats to perform abortions up until, you know, birth.
Which is ridiculous.
Statistically not accurate.
And it's ridiculous, and it's a mischaracterization of the point.
No, the point is, the point is we have to... I am being precise.
We need to put I am being precise.
I'm precisely avoiding answering anything remotely resembling that question, she says.
That's ridiculous.
That's my favorite part of that exchange there.
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous that anyone wants abortion up until birth, she says.
And yet she also won't say that she doesn't want abortion up until birth.
So this is always the way these people play the game.
When you say, oh, you're okay with abortion up until birth.
That's absurd!
Okay, so you don't want abortion up until birth?
Well, that's besides the point.
No, that's the whole point.
And if we can all agree, like, if you didn't know any better, and you watched that clip, you would think, well, I guess we all agree that, apparently, that abortion, you know, aborting children up until birth is insane.
You've got fully developed infants who can survive outside the womb.
Obviously, this is a person.
Like, we can all agree on that.
And if we can all agree on that, and you would think we can based on the way she responded, that's ridiculous!
Then where is the cutoff?
If the cutoff is not birth, where is it?
And she can't answer that.
Or she won't answer it.
Because her cutoff is, in fact, Earth.
That is the cutoff.
For all of these people.
If not a little bit after that.
That is the cutoff.
And they won't say it.
They won't say it because they realize how terrible it sounds and is.
It sounds terrible because it is terrible.
But that is their cutoff.
All of them.
And it has to be.
You know, this is always the point when it comes to the abortion debate.
Obviously, there has to be a cutoff somewhere.
There's a point.
You've got an unborn child.
You've got an unborn child here.
Over here, you've got a 30-year-old man.
Everyone agrees the 30-year-old man is a person.
I don't know if the left would agree with that.
We have a 30-year-old woman over here.
Everyone agrees that the 30-year-old woman is a person, and yet they raise questions about the fetus.
Not really a person.
the fetus, not really a person.
Well, at what point, if this quote unquote fetus is not a person and
third year woman is a person, then at what, and that third year woman used to be a quote unquote fetus in
her past, at what point did she become a person with rights?
You have to be able to answer that.
You have to be able to.
The analogy I've used before is if you can't answer that, if you can't answer it, If you're going to do the Barack Obama dodge, his infamous dodge of, oh, it's above my pay grade when personal.
If that's what you're saying, then you more than anyone really should be opposed to abortion.
Because then what you're saying is, well, abortion might be killing a person.
I don't know.
And then an abortion, that's like, it's like, it's like firing a gun into a dark room.
You might hit somebody and kill someone, you might not, you don't know.
But if you fire a gun into a dark room without knowing if there's anybody in there, and you kill someone, you're going to jail.
That's murder, or at least manslaughter.
Because you knew that there could be a person there, and you fired the gun anyway.
So if you're not willing to answer the question, when does personal begin, or if you're saying you don't know, you can't.
Then what you're saying is that we might be killing a person.
So that just doesn't work.
You have to be able to answer the question.
And what we find out is that when it comes to personhood, there's only two cutoffs that make any sense.
There's only two options that make any logical sense.
Really, there's only one.
There's only one, which is conception.
Because that is when that 30-year-old woman, we trace her history back, we go back and back and back.
What we're going to find is there's a certain moment when that person, who's now a 30-year-old woman, came into existence, and that was conception.
So there's this unbroken chain.
We trace it back, back, back, back, back, even when she was in the womb.
We find there was one moment when she came into existence, and it only makes logical sense to say that she was a person in that moment.
If you're not going to say that, then the only other kind of, like, at least tangible cutoff would be birth.
But then you're claiming that something magical, so that's a tangible cutoff that we can all understand, but it doesn't make any sense because now you're saying that something magical happens as the child emerges from the birth canal.
All that's happening is the child is moving locations from the womb to the hospital room.
And something magical happens in that moment to imbue the baby with personhood.
That doesn't make any sense either.
So that cutoff doesn't work, and then we're back at conception.
And that's where this conversation always leads.
As pro-lifers, we're the only ones.
You might not like the answer of when personhood begins.
We're the only ones who can answer it.
We're the only ones who have a defensible, coherent, cogent answer.
No one else does.
If you're not going to say conception, then you're left with something completely arbitrary that you've just come up with on your own.
Even if you say something like, well, let's say 15 weeks.
Why is that it?
So 14 and a half weeks, not a person.
At 15 weeks, magically you are?
Doesn't make any sense.
So she knows all that, but here's the real answer from these people.
And this is true of pretty much everyone who supports abortion.
And this is also why this conversation never goes anywhere.
It can't go anywhere.
It can't go anywhere because you can't have a fruitful dialogue when there's one side of the discussion that isn't being honest about what their position actually is.
I can't engage with your position or refute it if you won't say what your position is.
And what Kamala Harris's position actually is, is that Unborn babies are people, and we should be able to kill them.
That's their position.
Every pro-abortion person, that is actually their position.
That, yeah, obviously they're human beings, they're people, and we should be able to kill them.
We should be able to kill babies.
That's their actual position.
They won't say it out loud.
They know they can't say that out loud.
So they're left flailing around like Kamala Harris was there.
All right, briefly I want to mention this too.
The Hill has this report.
GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said Friday that he would deport the children of undocumented immigrants with their families despite them already being U.S.
citizens.
Quote, after a town hall in Iowa, Ramaswamy said, there are legally contested questions under the 14th Amendment of whether the child of an illegal immigrant is indeed a child who enjoys birthright citizenship or not.
Ramaswamy is not the only GOP candidate to question U.S.
citizenship rules.
Former President Trump announced in late May that on his first day back in office, he would seek to end birthright citizenship by way of an executive order.
Despite the GOP candidate's plans, a majority of Americans said the U.S.
should continue to provide birthright citizenship in a poll following Trump's announcement.
Only a quarter of those surveyed said that it should end, with 15 percent saying they were not sure.
Governor Ron Sanders has also pledged to end birthright citizenship.
You know, this to me is, this is treated, so the fact that Ramaswamy said this is getting a lot of headlines.
The media is outraged, of course, and it's being treated like some kind of big deal, some sort of extreme position.
But it's, like we talked about with abortion, you've got to look for just, you know, coherent cutoffs, positions that actually make sense and are defensible.
This, to me, just makes the most sense.
We are against splitting families up, aren't we?
That was the big outrage during the Trump years.
And they don't talk about it anymore, of course.
That was back when detaining someone at the border was putting them in a cage.
So there's always been detainment at the border, just like there was under Obama and there is now under Biden.
But now, for that four-year period, we called it putting people in cages.
So back then, we were told that what made this so terrible is that you're breaking up families, you're splitting families up.
And I agree that we don't want to split families up.
You know, as a parent myself, I can't imagine being separated from my children.
That's why I would never sneak across a border illegally with my children, or without them, but especially not with them.
There are a lot of reasons why I wouldn't do that, and one of them is that I wouldn't want to be separated from them and all that.
So if we don't want to separate families, then, and you have a family here, and they're here illegally, and they have defied our laws, And you need to deport them, not because nothing personal, nothing personal against them, but they broke the law.
And we have a border, we have to enforce it.
And so if you're going to deport them, what, are you going to separate them from their kids?
Are you going to keep their kids here and send the parents back alone?
That to me is a much more cruel way of going about this.
So obviously you deport everyone, including the kids.
Now, the unspoken thing on the left is that, well, they don't want to split the families up.
Not that they care that much about splitting families up in principle, but no, they just want to use that as an excuse to deport no one.
So that's what they're going for, obviously.
All right, let's get to the next segment of the show, Was Walsh Wrong?
You know, for most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've done before, and for many, it's not something they really want to do, but rather something they have to do.
Well, if you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news for you.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer experience
possible through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry,
a superior process, and an exclusive product.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering free in-home or virtual consultation on durable quality,
affordable windows or patio doors for $0 down, zero payments, and zero interest for a year.
Text Walsh to 200-300 for your free consultation and to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Texting Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions is posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates apply.
Reply stop to opt out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
Okay, we got a couple of quick ones here.
Garrett says, Matt, please go back to the old show intro.
It was so much better than the new one.
Well, that, come on.
That, you know, there have been a couple of, a few people protesting the new show intro, but this is, it's, change is hard for people, and one thing you learn, in this business especially, is that anytime you change anything, doesn't matter what it is, there can be people who complain about it, but just objectively, the new intro is so much better than the old one.
Like, come on.
Let's be real about this.
Joe Sanders says, I selfishly have a wife and kids.
Selfish is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I've seen an interesting number of comments making this exact point as we've talked last week about You know, about the effort by the elites in our society to convince people not to have families, not to have spouses, not to have kids, and to live selfishly.
And I've heard from many people saying, well, what's wrong with being selfish?
No, I don't know what, Joe, I don't know what definition of selfish you're using here, but to be selfish is, it means that you are not Concern.
You do not take other people into consideration, right?
It means that you are chiefly concerned with yourself.
Which is, you know, not a surprise.
It's right there in the name.
That's what being selfish means.
So it's hard for me to understand how you would consider that to be a good thing.
Unless you mean that, well, unless you understand selfish to be that you're just, you know, you're taking care of yourself, you're taking care of your family.
That's not a selfish concern.
Selfish means specifically that you are concerned only with yourself to the exclusion of everybody else.
And yeah, it's also true, as many people have pointed out, that just because you have a family doesn't automatically mean that you're not selfish.
You know, there are a lot of people in therapy right now that are still complaining about their parents and how selfish their parents were.
Like, there are plenty of selfish parents out there, there are selfish spouses.
And I've acknowledged this all along, it's an important point too, that just having a family doesn't magically turn you into a better person, but it does Give you a unique opportunity to become a better person.
It does give you the opportunity every day to focus on people other than yourself.
You know, just like you could be childless and single and not be a selfish person, but it's much easier to fall into that.
When you're living by yourself, you're concerned only about yourself and your own amusement.
There are no other, you know, there's no one else that you really have to take care of.
And so that's going to tend to, you know, bring out of people, you know, a certain self-centeredness.
It doesn't have to, but it often does have that effect.
Because you don't have all the same opportunities every day to really care for other people, especially not in the kind of way you do when you have kids.
Old Fred says, depopulation is the right's version of climate change, it seems.
So I assume you mean that depopulation, according to you, is a fake conspiracy theory.
Well, it's not.
I mean, all I can tell you is that the birthrate right now, I think, and you can fact check me on this, I think we're at 1.8 kids.
I think it's at 1.8, 1.7.
Replacement level is 2.1.
it's at 1.8, 1.7. Replacement level is 2.1. So we are currently below replacement
level. And when your population, when your reproduction level in society goes
below replacement level, it means that it's not enough to replace the older
people who are dying off.
Which means that eventually your population starts to decrease.
There's no question that that's happening.
I guess the only question beyond that is whether there's an actual agenda in place to see population levels decrease.
I think the answer to that is obvious.
I mean, we can start with these 60 million babies that have been killed by the abortion industry.
A lot of depopulating going on there.
Finally, Kate Moth says, listen up, an almost 40-year-old man with a high school education and five plaid shirts thinks he has something to say about women.
That's ridiculous.
I have a lot more than five plaid shirts, okay?
Don't be absurd.
Did you know that if you have a credit card with a $10,000 balance and you only pay the minimum every month without putting any additional charges on the card, it'll take you eight and a half years to pay it down?
That doesn't even include the extra fees from compounding interest.
You can't let that happen.
Instead, call our friends at American Financing.
Learn how your home equity can help you pay that balance off much faster, potentially saving you $700 a month, maybe more.
It really is possible to get those kinds of savings while also getting out of debt faster.
And it could even happen in as little as 10 days when you call American Financing.
So why put this important call off?
Pick up the phone right now, see what they can do for you.
There are no upfront or hidden fees, and if you start soon, you could delay up to two payments right off the bat.
So even if your credit isn't perfect, you need to call.
They have a credit card team that may be able to help you, and the service is also free.
So call American Financing today at 866-721-3300.
That's 866-721-3300.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
That's 866-721-3300.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
That's AmericanFinancing.net.
Also Convicting a Murderer, the first true crime docuseries ever released by Daily Wire
Plus premiered this weekend.
It got over 7 million views and a 94% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Critics are raving about Convicting a Murderer, calling it one of the best documentaries of 2023, saying that Candace delivers everything that you could want from a docuseries in the first three episodes.
Don't worry if you missed any of this weekend.
All you need to do is all you need to know rather is that Candace crushed it.
She absolutely blew up the lies portrayed by the filmmakers of Making a Murderer and
exposed the filmmakers for what they truly are. Well critics had something to say about that as well
saying that it was about time the Netflix false crime industrial complex got what they deserve. So
people are finally waking up to what Hollywood propagandists are doing and we can thank
people like Candace for that.
If you haven't begun the series, episodes 1 through 3 are available on Daily Wire Plus right now.
Episode 4 is releasing this Thursday, and you're going to want to see another missing piece of the puzzle revealed.
So don't wait.
Head over to dailywireplus.com slash watch to start the series.
If you're not a member, simply go to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe to join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
The state of California has so many bad laws on the books and
others working their way to being on the books that it's very difficult to single
out any particular one as especially terrible.
They all melt together into one big pile of awful.
But every once in a while, California manages to outdo itself with a law that's horrific, even by California standards.
And that's what they've done with this one.
The Daily Wire reports, quote, California may soon require judges to look at whether a parent goes along with a child's gender identity during custody disputes, worrying advocates who say that parents could lose custody if they don't agree with a child's claims to be transgender.
The Democrat-backed bill, AB 957, passed the State Assembly on Friday and the State Senate on Thursday.
If signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, the bill would require judges to consider whether a parent affirms a child's gender identity, among other factors, during custody battles.
According to the bill, quote, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity or gender expression.
Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case, must promote the child's overall health and well-being.
Assemblymember Lori Wilson said that affirmation could mean whether a parent provided gender-targeted toys, nail polish, and hair length, according to the Associated Press.
Now, of course, It's hard to know where to begin with all this, so we might as well start at the end and work backwards.
Assemblywoman Loy Wilson says that a parent will be required to affirm a child's gender identity or else lose custody.
And what does affirmation look like?
Well, it means providing nail polish and gender-specific toys.
Now, it wasn't all that long ago that the left pretended to be opposed to what they called gendered toys.
Now they say that if you don't give your kids those kind of toys, you could lose custody of them.
They went from toys don't have a gender to if your boy thinks he's a girl, you better give him Barbie dolls or we'll take away your parental rights.
And they made that transition from one to the other over the span of like two years.
Or maybe more like two minutes.
And while jumping wildly from one extreme to another, they didn't even for a moment make a brief pit stop at the correct position.
They just did a leapfrog right over it.
And the correct position is that certain toys, certain colors, clothing, are typically appealing to boys, while other toys, colors, and clothing are typically appealing to girls.
This is not entirely arbitrary or societally constructed.
Girls, for example, tend to be more nurturing and maternalistic, which is why they gravitate towards baby dolls from a very young age.
Boys tend to be more aggressive and energetic, which is why they typically gravitate towards action figures and superheroes.
However, Some boys will not have that aggressive and energetic tendency, just as some girls will not display that nurturing and maternalistic tendency quite as much.
Some boys will prefer toys that girls typically play with, and vice versa.
That doesn't mean that the boy is a girl, or that the girl is a boy.
We're talking about what is typical of boys and girls, not what is absolutely always the case for all of them.
Broad tendencies are not absolute.
There will be outliers.
And those outliers do not delegitimize the tendency, nor do they delegitimize the biological sex of the outlier.
This is not a hard concept to understand.
I shouldn't have to spend five years of my life explaining it.
And I especially shouldn't have to explain, and don't have to, because most of the leftists who now pretend that a girl transforms into a boy the moment she picks up a G.I.
Joe don't really believe that.
That's just a pretense they've adopted in order to bring about their desired conclusion.
What is their desired conclusion?
Well, we're seeing it now in California.
This is their endgame, or at least the end of one phase of their societal destruction and the beginning of a new one.
Remember that these people don't really care about transgenderism.
They never have.
That was just a convenient vehicle, a Trojan horse, to do the thing they really want to do, which is to destroy Western civilization through the destruction of the family.
This soon-to-be law in California will be a major step towards that end as it not only sets parents against each other and children against parents, but also, and this is entirely intentional by the way, incentivizes mothers to create gender confusion in their kids.
That's already happening, but now there's an even greater incentive for it, because now a woman, and I say woman because it's almost always women who do this, a woman who wants to divorce her husband and keep the kids needs only whisper in her son's ear that he's really a girl, that she'll love him more as a girl, that he'll be better and have more fun as a girl.
And as soon as that brainwashing takes hold, she'll know that the boy's father probably won't go along with it, and that's all she's going to need to win full custody.
That's where this is headed.
Where it's designed to head.
Of course, they won't admit that.
So instead, they'll talk a lot about the necessity to affirm.
Or as Laurie Wilson put it, the duty to affirm.
Watch.
Know that parents affirm their children.
They have since the dawn of time.
Typically, it happens when they're Um, gender identity expression matches their biological gender.
But what happens is when it doesn't, that's when the affirmation starts to wane.
And that's what we're dealing with here.
Although it's called the TGI Bill, they're not mentioned anywhere in the law.
What's mentioned in the law is the child's gender, identity, and expression, and the parent's affirmation of that, whatever it is, because that is our duty as parents to affirm our children.
Now, we've talked a lot about this, obviously, but it's always worth reiterating.
Everything you heard there is horribly, tremendously wrong.
Our duty as parents is to affirm our children, she says, demonstrating that she is, no surprise, a terrible mother.
Not just a terrible mother, but a mother who doesn't understand the fundamental nature of motherhood.
Now, there is one context in which it would be valid to say that our duty as parents is to affirm our children.
We should absolutely affirm them in the truth.
We should affirm who they are, who they actually, inherently, biologically are.
We should affirm them as human beings, as children of God, as male or female.
Should I affirm my son if he's confused and thinks he's a girl?
Yes, absolutely.
I affirm my son.
I affirm him as a boy, as a male.
I affirm him in reality.
I say to him, no, you are not a girl, you are a boy, and that is good.
That's what affirmation means.
And if Lori Wilson means that we have a duty to affirm our children in that sense, then she couldn't be more right.
But that's not what she means.
What she means is the opposite.
She means that we have the duty to affirm, to agree with, to validate, to legitimize whatever deluded, confused, inane idea pops into our kid's mind at any given moment.
This is a very dangerous thing because any parent knows that all kinds of deluded, confused, inane ideas pop into our kids' minds every day.
So just pulling the most recent example in my own life.
Yesterday, my six-year-old My six-year-old son, he asked me if he could go out back and chop down a tree.
So he wanted to take a saw and then cut down a large 50-foot tree by himself.
And he said he needed to do this because he needed the wood for the fort that he's building.
So, my six-year-old apparently identifies as a skilled lumberjack.
He believes that he's capable of using very sharp instruments to take down very large trees, and he believes he can do it without getting himself crushed, or the house crushed, or anything else.
And he believes all this firmly.
I mean, in the deepest parts of his soul, he believes it.
Do I affirm that belief?
No, that is one of approximately 18 million beliefs, and opinions, and requests, and demands from my children that I do not affirm.
Because my duty as a parent, despite what Lori Wilson says, is not to affirm whatever my kids say and think, but rather to guide them towards truth and reason, so that over time, they'll begin to say and think things that are true and reasonable.
That is the duty of a parent.
But it's a duty that, in California, you'll soon lose your children if you fulfill.
Which is why you need to get the hell out of that state, if you haven't already.
And it's also why California is, again today, canceled.
