Ep. 1329 - Squatters Can Now Come In And Steal Your Home With No Consequences
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, private property rights are under severe assault all across the country. Increasingly, the laws and the courts are protecting home invaders and giving them more rights than homeowners. Also, Joe Biden claims that the election is not a referendum on him. Instead it's a referendum on the guy who hasn't been in office for four years. A new story says Americans are more unhappy than they've ever been. Why is that? And Elliott Page, formerly Ellen Page, speaks out about the evils of misgendering.
Ep.1329
- - -
DailyWire+:
Take advantage of Jeremy’s March of Man-ness deals now! : https://bit.ly/3TqGI8N
Watch Bill Whittle’s An Empire of Terror only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/49JCJdl
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/WALSH
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Wall Show, private property rights are under severe assault all across the country.
Increasingly, the laws and courts are protecting home invaders and giving them more rights than homeowners.
Also, Joe Biden claims that the election is not a referendum on him.
Instead, he says it's a referendum on the guy who hasn't been in office for four years.
And a new study says Americans are more unhappy than they've ever been.
Why is that?
Plus, Elliot Page, formerly Ellen Page, speaks out about the evils of misgendering.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
When you're running a business, time is money.
That's why I'm so excited to introduce you to RAMP.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back into your pocket.
With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limited restrictions, You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports at the time.
You'll save each month on employee expenses.
We'll allow you to close your books eight times faster.
RAMP is so easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000.
Get $250 when you join RAMP.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, spelled R-A-M-P.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank members, FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
One of the most important ideas in the Bill of Rights is that your private property belongs to you.
It wasn't exactly a novel concept, but just in case there was any doubt, the Bill of Rights spelled it out.
No one can seize your property without due process.
And if you take a look at the major court cases in this area over the years, you'll find that you have the strongest privacy interests in your home, which makes sense.
There's all kinds of exceptions that police can use to search your car or your locker at work, for example.
For your home, there aren't very many exceptions.
Your home is your castle, as the saying goes.
That's been true since the common law was created, but it's not true anymore.
It's not even remotely true, in fact.
It turns out that when you flood the United States with a limitless supply of illegal immigrants, while at the same time shipping millions of jobs overseas, then housing becomes a very scarce commodity.
Squatters, mostly out of desperation, pop up in every home they can find, even homes that haven't been abandoned.
And then when homeowners try to enforce their rights and kick these criminals out of the property they paid for, they're finding out that the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution, has effectively been suspended.
As we discussed briefly yesterday, squatters, home invaders, now have more rights than homeowners in many states across the country.
The government will assist them in seizing your property.
The police, universally, will take the side of the criminal, the criminal home invader, and kick the homeowner to the curb.
And then non-profits and law firms rush in to represent the squatter in legal proceedings should they become necessary.
And then somehow courts will often still rule in favor of the squatter, the home invader, the person who isn't supposed to be there.
We don't have to speculate about any of this.
It's all well documented at this point.
No reasonable person can dispute it.
And I'll start with an example that's gotten a lot of attention over the last couple of days.
I want you to watch As a 47-year-old woman in Queens, Queens, New York, is dragged away from her own home in handcuffs because someone claims to have a lease for her property.
This guy can't show the lease to anybody, including the police and the media, but because he doesn't actually live there, he's invading the home.
But because he claims he's been living there for around a month, they arrest the woman, the homeowner, instead.
Watch.
Today, I'm not leaving my house.
Less than 10 minutes after police left and the locks were changed.
The man who claims to be the one actually leasing the house shows up.
Call the police again!
With the other guy, police took off the property.
Do you see this?
This guy just literally broke down my door.
Broke through myself and my daughter to get in here.
This guy just forced himself into my house.
Yes he did.
And so did you.
You broke through the front door.
The man called the police on her.
So why is it that I have to leave and he doesn't have to leave?
Because technically he can't be kicked out.
We need to go to court.
They consider this a landlord-tenant issue.
And by law, it has to be handled through the housing court, not with police.
If you own this house, you would not want her inside.
I don't own the house.
I don't own this house.
Exactly.
She does.
Yes.
But then once again, you should know how the law works.
I do know how it works.
There's rules to the law.
He says he signed a lease in October, but wouldn't tell us with who.
Show us the proof.
Dan with Channel 7 News.
If you don't want to show it, you don't want to show it.
I would like to see it.
He didn't show me a lease.
This is a bill.
A bill for work he says he had done to the house.
He didn't show police a lease either.
So Adele, you're getting arrested right now?
He doesn't have the lease?
No. He's got no documentation?
Just bills.
So Adele, you're getting arrested right now?
I'm being arrested.
For what?
For being in my own home.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Arrested for being in her own home.
That's exactly what happened.
Unlawful eviction is what they call it, though.
It's what they call it when you call the police because there's a home invader in your home.
That's what you get if you're not willing to wait two years or more for New York's completely overloaded housing court to review your case.
And by the way, even once New York's housing court does review the case, there's no guarantee they'll side with the homeowner.
This is a city that has outlawed the right of self-defense, after all.
And once that's gone, good luck getting them to enforce any of your other rights.
This is the norm in left-wing jurisdictions now.
It's not just that the police don't care about squatters with zero documentation whatsoever.
It's also the fact that the courts don't enforce the law even when you bring flagrant crimes like this to their attention.
In Washington State, as I mentioned yesterday, a judge just granted a restraining order against a landlord whose tenant hasn't been paying rent for years.
The landlord organized a protest to bring attention to the situation.
The judge shut it down.
This is a tenant who's apparently purchased two cars while refusing to pay rent.
And in Washington State, the court sides with him.
This is not just a problem in New York City and Washington State.
It's happening all over the United States.
Consider this recent episode in Atlanta, for example.
This is from just four months ago.
A woman listed her home for sale.
Not for rent, for sale.
And then complete strangers moved in and changed the locks.
And in response, the police did absolutely nothing.
Watch.
This is my home, and there's somebody in there, an intruder in there, intruders, who I do not know.
This wooded corner lot in Tucker was for sale, posted as plain as day online, for sale.
Not for rent.
On closing day, homeowner Ronan McCabe discovered people, strangers, had moved in and changed the locks.
They broke into my house and moved in.
All the locks had been changed.
Friday, October 20th, Mr. McCabe called Gwinnett County Police.
The home had been empty for just a few weeks before it was filled with a stranger's furniture.
He says the couple inside told police they had a lease.
They have no contract, no agreement with me.
Gwinnett County Police are saying that there's nothing that they can do.
The Gwinnett PD's third trip was different.
Things changed very fast.
A woman who told police she was his wife abruptly left.
He came out, went back in.
Suddenly, U.S.
Marshals started flooding the street.
It seems they had a parallel investigation.
Finally over, right?
Nope.
The female was back in the home.
She hadn't been arrested for anything.
I'm asking her to move her stuff out today.
You can ask, but they might not pan out.
I mean, it's beyond parody.
So the police do eventually show up, but it's not to evict the home invaders who are stealing the home, because that's something you can do now in America.
You can steal an entire home.
No, they show up because they have their own parallel investigation for some other crimes that one of these squatters, a sex offender, committed in the past.
So the cops take one man away in custody, but they allow the other squatter to stay on the property.
The cops say the homeowner can ask for her to leave, but it might not pan out.
That's what law enforcement means now.
You can ask people to stop breaking the law.
You can ask them, gee, will you stop breaking this law?
Will you stop victimizing me this way?
But, you know, it might not pan out.
It needs to be said that these are not close cases, okay?
It's true that if it's a confusing situation, say a tenant appears to have legitimate lease documentation, Then in that case, it's probably best that the cops don't arrest the tenant.
And then in that case, you have to settle it in court because it's not clear who's in the right.
But these are not difficult situations like that.
When sex offenders start living in your house without any valid documentation, the police should remove them.
When somebody barges into your home by force and just sets up shop, There shouldn't be any question about it.
Of course they should be kicked out.
But apparently that isn't happening.
Anywhere.
A similar scene played out seven months ago in Chicago.
And this time, a homeowner tries to rent out the property and squatters show up.
But once again, the police do absolutely nothing.
Watch.
My wife and I built our house 24, 25 years ago.
Jim Johnson and his wife, Lark, were looking forward to some good neighbors when the for-rent sign went up on this house in their cul-de-sac.
But last week, they were shocked when a family seemingly moved in overnight.
When they show up and immediately rip down the sign of the leasing company or the owner company, you're kind of like, well that raises a little concern.
And then the next move is a locksmith shows up.
You're kind of like, well that's even more of a concern.
A call to the management company confirmed their fears.
The new residents are not renters.
But rather squatters.
They've gone to the grocery store.
They've had cable come out.
They are acting like they live there, but they have no furniture.
They brought in a lot of blankets.
Hi, I'm Maya from Channel 13.
Can I talk to you guys?
Were you guys supposed to be staying here?
When we knocked on the door, a young woman answered.
Were you guys supposed to be staying here?
Are you guys squatting?
She didn't want to talk to us, but a short time later, the Sheriff's Department was called.
The deputies have confirmed to us that they are investigating the squatting situation.
But for now, this has remained a civil matter, much to the chagrin of the neighborhood.
Well, what's been frustrating is that I have a 12-year-old that I don't even let walk across the street to her best friend's house without watching her, and we've never had that problem.
The ownership company says it has filed eviction papers, but our experience covering these stories shows sometimes it can take six months to a year for the process to work through the courts.
So we could spend all day going from city to city showing you footage like this.
There's footage from rural jurisdictions as well that I could show you.
It's happening all over.
These kinds of home invasions are so common that one handyman has opened up a business advising homeowners how to regain access to their own homes when squatters show up.
Basically, the idea is that you need to generate your own lease so that you can show it to the police officers who are now trained to respect your squatter's rights over your rights in your own home.
Watch.
Well, squatters took over my mom's house after my dad passed away.
We were trying to sell the home.
I called local law enforcement and as soon as they saw that there was furniture in the house, they said that I had a squatter situation and they had basically no jurisdiction and they couldn't do anything.
So I, you know, I dissected the laws over a weekend.
I basically figured out that Until there's civil action, the squatters didn't have any rights.
So if I could switch places with them, become the squatter myself, I would assume those squatter rights.
And just in case they had a fake lease, like I hear some do, I had my mom write me up a lease.
We got it notarized.
I mean, it's hard to think of a more humiliating exercise than this.
You own a property, and to access it and to get the police to enforce the law, you need to draw up some fake lease for them.
And this idea actually works, by the way.
We know that because several years ago, the journalist Charlie LaDuff tried it in Michigan.
He out-squatted the squatters.
Watch.
Wonderful.
I'm coming to move in.
You are?
Yeah, I got the keys.
What's for dinner?
I'm not cooking dinner.
I'm going to go pick up my child.
No, can I get in?
No, sir.
But I have the deed here.
You do?
Yeah, here's the deed.
Here's the check.
Alright.
Here's the deed, and I got permission from the landlord.
Okay, so tell the landlord to come here.
So I can legally go in there.
Um, well, you know.
Yeah, I can legally come in.
Yeah, you can legally come in.
So, let me in my house.
I'll let you in your house.
This is Lynn Williams' house.
Oh, it's... Lynn Williams' house.
It doesn't say Lynn.
Well, of course not, because she took all my paperwork, and everybody else know it.
Is that power hooked up legit there?
Um, my power is... That's not legit.
It's not legit.
No, you, you, you stealing the power.
I am... blessed.
I'm going to jail for squatting.
This is a turn of events.
Call my boyfriend next time.
Are you going to bail her out?
This is technically a violation of probation, so... Are you stealing power, he asks.
I'm blessed, responds the squad, or at least the woman.
Has a sense of humor.
What's funny is that in this situation, unlike all the other ones, the police actually do take the original squatter to jail.
This is the only time they'll take action to protect your property.
You have to hire a new squatter to kick out the old squatter.
I guess the idea is that, you know, the most recent squatter gets dibs.
This is a mockery of the idea of private property rights, obviously, and there's a reason it's happening.
It's the same reason you see so much mockery of religion.
It's the same reason BLM goes after the family unit.
It's why the corporate media pushes transgenderism.
Private property rights, like religion and the family unit, is a bulwark.
Against total state control of our lives.
As long as we have private property, the state can't control us, at least not as easily, at least not to the extent that they want to.
Without private property, we're just renters.
We are totally at the mercy of the powers that be.
Renters can be evicted at will.
You'll own nothing and be happy, as the saying goes.
The Biden administration has done everything it can to normalize the destruction of private property rights.
The administration fought to extend the COVID-era eviction moratorium as long as they could, long past the time that there was any plausible argument that ending evictions would somehow stop the spread.
And by the way, there was never any plausible argument that that was going to help stop the spread.
But even based on their original argument, they were extending it well, well past that.
And that led effectively to the nationalization of private property in this country.
Landlords lost the right to evict squatters paying no rent, even when they own the property outright.
Let's watch that to remember.
Yeah, they're the ones paying badly.
We're talking about a family, a young family with a two-year-old child who are actually packed in a room at the in-laws because they cannot move into the house that they actually bought a year ago.
Watch this.
My husband and I closed escrow the day that we got married, July 24th of last year.
We were told because we are the new owners intending to live in the property, we would be able to evict them.
Them being squatters that had been staying on the Shadeway Road home in Lakewood.
So I was confused on the fact she can't even walk into the house even though she owns the house.
I mean, what's that about?
That's right.
Because the person living there, they were trying to do a remodel, trying, and she literally let them.
They have to ask permission to go into their own home because she has a right to her peace in the covenant.
And if they just show up there without letting her know and getting her permission, she'll call the cops and they'll remove them.
It's happened.
The neighbors were telling me about it.
It's crazy.
I don't know where to go with that.
Hopefully we can get her some help and hopefully that shines a light on clearly a loophole that needs to be addressed.
The anchor says it's a loophole, but it's the opposite of a loophole.
It's not a loophole at all.
The policy was working as intended.
The eviction moratorium had nothing to do with a virus.
It was intended to do something that's never happened in this country since the Civil War, which is the wide-scale suspension of private property rights.
And once you pull off something as unconstitutional as seizing people's homes in a time of emergency, as the Biden administration defined it, then it becomes much easier to seize people's homes at any point in the future.
And that is what we're seeing right now.
We're seeing it play out again all across The entire country and that means more homes for the millions of illegal aliens who are entering this country.
It means more humiliation and destruction for American citizens.
And it means we're getting closer to some homeowner somewhere snapping and deciding to take back his property by force.
At this point you have to imagine that's exactly what the people running this country want to see happen.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing,
which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree,
Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments
are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill
your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University at privatechristianaffordable.
Visit gcu.edu, that's gcu.edu.
From the Daily Wire, it says the legal drama between Texas and the Biden administration
continues after a federal appeals court ordered a pause in the state's law
that allows authorities to arrest and deport immigrants suspected of crossing the southern border illegally.
The appeals court's hold on the law comes just hours after the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed it to take effect as litigation continues.
In a two-to-one decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order that stops Texas Senate Bill 4 from going into effect as the court hears the case brought by the Biden administration along with the ACLU and other groups.
And I have no faith that the courts will ultimately arrive at the correct conclusion on this.
We'll see.
We'll hear arguments on the case on Wednesday, which is today.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority rejected the Biden administration's emergency request
for a stay on the Texas law while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit,
while the high court's three liberal justices dissented.
So, as I said, the court drama continues here.
And I have no faith that the courts will ultimately arrive at the correct conclusion on this.
We'll see.
The problem is that you can't just analyze the letter of the law here.
You know, it's not enough to look and say, "Oh, well, immigration enforcement is a federal matter,"
which it may be in theory.
But the point here, the context, is that the federal government has completely abdicated its responsibility.
Not just abdicated it.
It's not just that it's trying but failing or doing an incompetent job or an inefficient job.
We're used to all that from the federal government.
Everything they do, if they do it at all, is going to at least be done incompetently and inefficiently.
In a way that's much more expensive than it needs to be.
But what's actually happening is the federal government is involved in a deliberate conspiracy to undermine our immigration laws and erase our borders in order to increase the political power of the ruling party in the country.
And so that's what's actually happening.
And any court that doesn't recognize that basic fact Doesn't recognize that that is the situation will probably not arrive at the right conclusion will not it will not give us the right ruling because they aren't ruling on the actual issue at hand.
And you can't even really refer to the Constitution on this one because as far as I know.
There's nothing in the Constitution, one way or another, describing exactly what to do when the federal government engages in a conspiracy to destroy our national sovereignty in order to import Democrat voters from the third world.
This was not a possibility that our founders had seriously considered, and how could they?
But that is what's happening, and that is the context.
In which Texas passed its own border law, and in which every other red state should be passing similar laws if they haven't already, or if those laws are not already making their way through the legislative branch, then they should be.
But that's the point.
That, you know, you cannot assess this situation and look at it as if, you know, the scenario is that, well, the federal government is trying to enforce the border, but then Texas is coming along and trying to do their own thing, and then you have this conflict, and it's very confusing.
That would be one thing, but that's not what's happening.
Instead, the federal government has said, we're not going to force it at all.
And you have to sit back and allow the third world to invade your state.
You have to allow your state to become the third world.
That's what we're saying.
And we're going to bring in, you know, we're going to bring in drugs.
We're going to bring in drug dealers.
We're going to bring in violent criminals.
We're going to bring people in who start, who are murdering the citizens of your state.
We're going to bring them all in.
We're not going to do anything about it.
And you have to sit and take it.
That's what the federal government has said in, you know, in so many words, that's what they've said.
And any analysis, any legal analysis, of the case has to include that reality, or it's not going to come to the right conclusion.
Here's another clip of President Dementia stuttering and babbling.
This one isn't even that bad compared to most, but there's a point that I want to make about it anyway.
But first, let's watch it.
Look, the fact is that I shouldn't probably get started on it, but because I promised I'd be brief, I want to say hello to every one of you.
This election is not a referendum on me.
It's an election between me and a guy named Trump.
Okay, so he starts by saying, look, forks.
So he's talking to kitchen utensils now.
That's where we are.
Nothing to worry about there.
But what he says at the end of the clip is more important, because he says that this election is not a referendum on him, which is a very different argument from the one that an incumbent would make If he was confident in his performance, right?
It's interesting that he would come out and say that.
Because if you're confident in your performance, and if you're confident that the country's in a better place now than it was when you got into office, then you would say, yeah, this election's a referendum on me.
This election is about me.
It's about my performance.
And if you think I've done a good job, if the country's in a better place now after four years, if you're in a better place, then vote for me.
Yeah, I mean, this is a performance review.
You should be reviewing my performance.
That's what he would be saying.
But he's not.
I mean, an incumbent saying that the election is not a referendum on him It's like a performance review.
Imagine an employee going in for a performance review with his boss and starting it by saying, look Forks, this performance review, it's not about me.
This is not really about me.
This is not a referendum on my performance.
This is about Dave and accounting.
It's not about me.
It's about him.
When you open that way, It tells you something about this person's confidence in their own performance.
But usually a president will not come out and be that open about the fact that they want to make this not about them because they're not sure of their own performance.
Biden is more honest about that than presidents usually are, not because he's an honest guy.
He's not.
He's a despicable lying scumbag.
But he also has dementia.
So, you know, sometimes he blurts out the truth inadvertently.
And that's what's happened there.
So we're not used to that level of honesty about it.
But we do know that this is usually this is how the game is played.
And you want the election to be, you know, as we've Talked about plenty of times, and this is a basic political analysis that many have offered, but it's true that you don't want the election to be about you.
Whoever the election is about, usually, they lose.
And which is why it's so important for Trump to allow the election to be about Biden.
And I think so far, That is how it's playing out.
But really, even though Trump has had the nomination secured effectively for a while now, for months, it wasn't officially secured until a few days ago.
And so now we're officially in the general election, I suppose.
So we'll see how it plays out.
But really, the less that Trump, you know, puts himself in the spotlight.
They're going to try to put him in the spotlight, obviously.
And, you know, trying to throw him in jail with 50 different court trials is one way to do that.
But the more that he allows, like this is all it is, just allow Joe Biden to be in the spotlight, shine the spotlight on him, make it all about him, every question that it goes to you, throw it right back at Biden every single time, back to him, back to him, and make people focus on this old, doddering, senile bumpkin in the White House who Has made everyone's life worse.
Like, you know, the country is not in a better place today.
That is the fundamental, basic question you have to ask about an incumbent who's running for re-election.
And it's not always, you know, we say, are you in a better place?
Well, of course, that's something people take into account.
But, you know, someone could do, you could have a president who does a fantastic job, and that doesn't automatically mean that you individually would be in a better place, because things can happen in your own life.
That get in the way, just like you could end up in a better place even though the president is doing a terrible job.
So what you have to ask is the country generally, does anyone really believe that the country as a whole is in a better place today than it was before Trump, before Biden took office?
And that's a broad It's a broad category, you know, a better place.
Well, what do we mean by that?
Well, you break it down.
Economically, politically, culturally, whatever level you want to look, is there a better place on any of those levels?
And of course, the answer is no.
All right, CNN has this report.
"All but one of the 100 cities "with the world's worst air pollution
"last year were in Asia."
So, 99 of the 100 worst polluters are in Asia.
With the climate crisis playing a pivotal role in bad air quality that is risking the health of billions of people worldwide, the vast majority of these cities, 83, were in India, 83 of the 100 worst polluters, according to this report, are in India, and all exceeded the World Health Organization's air quality guidelines by more than 10 times.
The study looked specifically at fine particulate matter, which is the tiniest pollutant but also the most dangerous.
Only 9% of more than 7,800 cities analyzed globally recorded air quality that met The World Health Organization standards, which says average annual levels of PM 2.5 should not exceed 5 micrograms per cubic meter.
And I definitely know what all that means.
Or maybe I don't, but I do understand the basic fact here that almost all, by this measure, World Health Organization, you know, however much you trust them, Almost all of the worst polluters are in Asia, and we add to that something we talked about recently when the subject came up of plastic straws again, I believe.
But you add to that that almost all of the pollution in the ocean is coming from Asia, and then you also throw in Africa.
But Asia and Africa together are causing almost all of the pollution in the ocean, and the reason for that is Pretty simple.
You know, all you have to do is look at an image or a video of rivers in a lot of these third world countries, and the rivers themselves are, you know, basically treated like conveyor belts where they just dump the trash right into the river and ferries it out into the ocean.
So, water pollution, the pollution in the ocean, plastics in the ocean, all the poor sea turtles that are getting whatever plastic straw stuck in their nose, most of that, almost all of it, happening because of Asia and Africa.
And then we're told air pollution also, that's almost all Asia, the vast majority of it, with India contributing most of all.
And yet, even though we get these reports from the media from time to time, Usually, most of the scolding and the lecturing on so-called climate change goes to us.
But the reality, on top of everything else, on top of the fact that man-made climate change is a myth, on top of the fact that we in fact don't control the weather, that the sun is what calls the shots on our planet no matter what we do.
But even aside from all that, Like, the reality is that in the United States, we could stop driving cars completely.
We could give up on cars.
We could just decide that we're going to walk and ride bikes everywhere.
We can get rid of all of our plastic straws, which we essentially have.
Get rid of all the plastic.
Get rid of all the plastics.
Get rid of everything.
All pollution out the window, at least any pollution that comes from technology.
You know, we can't do anything about the cows.
We could kill all the cows, too.
We could do all of that, and what difference will it actually make?
When you've got the vast majority of the pollution coming from the other side of the world, and coming from countries that, again, treat their rivers, their waterways, like garbage dumps.
So it makes no difference.
But there's no effort to grapple with that.
We still get all the lectures, which of course is ridiculous.
Here's another report.
This is from Axios.
It says, the U.S.
hit an all-time low ranking in the annual World Happiness Report, tumbling eight spots to number 23.
Some countries, like Finland and Denmark, consistently rank among the world's happiest.
The U.S.
isn't one of them.
A steady supply of studies has found that Americans feel glum about issues ranging from loneliness to the economy and the country's political leadership.
It's the first time since the report launched 12 years ago that the U.S.
did not rank among the world's 20 happiest countries.
And we had another study like that that we talked about recently.
Coming to a similar conclusion that we are an unhappy country and becoming unhappier by the day.
I think there's a—in fact, it was just yesterday we talked about wokeness, how people who are woke tend to be the most depressed and the most anxious.
And so there's a connection here.
Like, why is this the case?
Why is America an unhappy country?
Now, I'm skeptical of any study that claims to measure happiness in this way.
Happiness is not the kind of thing that can be Measured in a quantitative way.
And the only way that you can really measure it is just with self-reported days, just by asking people whether or not they're happy.
So what you're really reporting is what are the countries where people are more likely to report that they are happy.
But there's a disconnect between the number of people reporting that they're happy and the number of people who actually are happy.
I mean, somebody could say that they're happy, and they're not really.
Or they could have an idea of what happiness is that isn't exactly correct.
So, you know, I'm skeptical about that.
I'm skeptical of any ability to actually quantify these things.
But even so, it does ring true that we are a more unhappy country than we've been in the past.
So why is that?
I don't know how you rank it, either.
Like, where do we actually fall in the ranking if you can't actually rank happiness that way?
I think that's sort of incoherent.
But whatever the case may be, if we are becoming a more unhappy country, why is that?
Well, one of them, one of the reasons is that we already talked about yesterday, the connection between wokeism or leftism and unhappiness and why that makes people unhappy.
Leftism has this stranglehold on the culture.
People are going to be more unhappy.
We, at the same time, have a decaying culture, which makes people unhappy.
There's a loss of a sense of control that people have over their lives, which makes them unhappy.
Loss of meaning.
You know?
To me, that would be a more interesting study, actually.
Rather than asking people, are you happy?
Ask them, what does life mean to you?
What does your life mean to you?
What does it mean?
And I suspect if you ask that question, the results are going to be even more depressing.
Because you get a lot of people that essentially their answer is, it doesn't mean anything.
You know, you're going to get a lot of, I don't know, no opinion.
I'm not sure.
Life has no meaning.
You get a lot of those kinds of answers.
And the more that people lose a sense of meaning in their lives, the more unhappy they become.
But then also, I think on top of all that, we are a country that is obsessively focused on happiness.
So that's the irony here.
That we're, it would seem, less happy than we've ever been.
But we're also more focused on being happy than we've ever been.
In fact, that might be the answer people give you.
If you ask them, what does your life mean?
If they have any answer at all, it will probably be something like, well, you know, just try to be happy.
That's what life is, just trying to be happy.
But what we discover is that the more you make that the central focus of your life, The more that happiness in and of itself, for itself, is the goal, the less happy you become.
Because happiness, in reality, if you actually attain it, it is a by-product of doing what is right.
It's a byproduct of finding meaning in your life.
It's a byproduct of living with actual purpose and direction.
It's a byproduct of living for something other than yourself, living in service to others.
So, all of that, you do all of that, and you're living your life, and you're living that way, and then you turn around one day and you say, well, look at that, I'm happy.
And it's not going to be a permanent feeling.
You can't hold on to that feeling every second of the day all the time.
But you'll experience it a lot more as a byproduct of living the right way.
Okay, I wanted to mention this case briefly, and I've sort of been putting this off because it's so horrifying.
But there's a video circulating, and we're not going to play the video.
But it's a video of a woman who doesn't speak English, in court, being given her sentence.
And the sentence is life in prison without parole.
And we also hear her, through a translator, making excuses for her behavior and talking about how she's depressed and she's suffering and nobody cared.
Anyway, that's what the video is.
The crime that this woman committed, her name is Crystal Candelario, is that she went on a 10-day vacation to Puerto Rico and I think a couple other places.
And she left her 16-month-old daughter in a playpen while she went on vacation.
And the daughter died.
This is a CNN report.
Jalen's cries echoed through the quiet streets of Cleveland in the dead of the night.
The toddler whimpered and howled, but no one came to her rescue.
Her mother, Crystal Candelario, was away on a 10-day summer vacation and had left Jalen alone in a playpen with a few bottles of milk, prosecutors said.
A neighbor's doorbell camera captured the 16-month-old's frequent screams, including one around 1 a.m.
two days after the mother left.
But Candelaria was hundreds of miles away in Puerto Rico with a male friend.
After a few days at the beach and another stop in Detroit, she returned home on June 16th last year to find her daughter dead.
She'd been gone for about 10 days.
Candelaria pleaded guilty last month to one count of aggravated murder and one count of child endangering.
At her sentencing on Monday, which is from the video I mentioned, forensic pathologist Elizabeth Mooney told a Cleveland courtroom that Children experienced the most extreme separation anxiety between 9 and 18 months.
She recounted Jalen's excruciating final days.
I can't even keep reading this.
But the child died of, she starved to death, and she died of dehydration.
While this mother was on vacation, was sitting on the beach, enjoying her time, fully aware that her daughter was not just dying, but dying like the most excruciating death That it's possible for a human to experience.
Like, starving to death is... When it comes to physical suffering, starving to death is... pretty much as bad as it gets.
And that is the death that she condemned her 16-month-old daughter to.
Because she wanted her to go on vacation.
And I guess my only point in bringing this up... My first point is just that it's so horrifying that I don't...
I feel as though it should be mentioned for that reason alone.
But also, not to jump up on this soapbox again, but this is why you just need the death penalty.
This is why, right here, all the other arguments that are made for it, and we've talked about it many times in the past, what the arguments are, and there are plenty of arguments, plenty of academic arguments.
About why you need it and about the deterrence factor and about all these other things.
But I think all those arguments sort of fade away.
You don't even need them.
It's just this case alone.
This is why you need it.
For people like this.
Now, she didn't get the death penalty.
Right?
And that's exactly the point.
She didn't get the death penalty.
She got life in prison without parole.
But everybody, I think everyone who hears a story like this And it finds out what the penalty was, that she's going to prison.
I think everyone kind of just... I don't care where you stand or where you think you stand on the death penalty.
In theory, you hear a story like this and you know, you know in your bones that going to prison is not enough.
It's just not enough of a punishment.
And so anything about deterrence, any of these other sort of academic theoretical things, that's not the point.
The first point is not like, well, how do we deter other women from condemning their children, you know, to death by starvation?
Yeah, we do want to deter that, obviously.
But of course, the truth also is that when you have someone capable of evil at this level, there's not a lot you can do to deter them.
When they're that evil, when you have someone who's a soulless monster, how do you stop a soulless monster from behaving like a soulless monster?
It's like, well, the only way you do it is by putting them in jail.
But if they're not in jail yet, it's almost impossible.
So that's not even the question.
The question is just punishment.
And that's why we've gotten to where we talk about capital punishment.
It's right there in the name, punishment.
But even people who argue for it, they argue for every aspect of it except the thing that's in the name, which is that it's for punishment.
That's why you need it.
Because there are crimes that simply need to be punished that way.
You need to have the worst, you know, you need to have a punishment that goes beyond putting them in a cell.
And crimes like this that cry out for it.
And I think everyone knows that.
I think everyone knows that someone like this, you cannot allow someone like this to keep living.
This is someone, you've punched your ticket off of the earth.
We cannot allow you, you cannot be a part of human society, even in prison anymore.
You're not good enough for that.
And I think this case makes that very clear.
All right, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong?
Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially with all the rain we have been getting here in Nashville.
That's why I am so grateful to have Windshield WOW.
Windshield WOW is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses two magnetic cleaning paddles, one on the outside and one on the inside of your car, to clean both sides of a windshield, all from the outside.
Being able to clean both the front and the inside window at the same time is a game changer.
I wish I had one of these years ago.
Windshield Well applies firm cleaning pressure and is super thin to get into those tight dashboard areas.
Seriously, all you got to do is push around the outside paddle and the inside follows automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
Washing your car windshield enhances visibility and driving safety, and it helps preserve the integrity of your vehicle's glass and paintwork.
It's a simple yet essential aspect of car maintenance that should not be overlooked.
What are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com and use code WALSH to check out for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com, code WALSH.
The first comment says, Matt, Hollywood has indeed already given the rom-com treatment to cannibalism.
In 2022, Bones and All, starring Timothee Chalamet, was released.
Another one says, you asked sarcastically if anyone has seen a romantic comedy about cannibalism.
I actually have.
There's a very funny show on Netflix called Santa Clarita Diet, and it's hilarious, mostly because how ridiculous it is, but I think you would like it.
You think I would like it, really?
You say it's a romantic comedy about cannibalism, and you watch that and you think this is something Matt Walsh would like?
I don't think so.
You know, I made what I thought was a joke yesterday, because we read that article from whatever it was, The New Scientist.
Arguing that we need to stop, we need to stop stigmatizing cannibalism.
We need to de-stigmatize cannibalism.
And the article complains about all the negative portrayals in the media of cannibalism.
And then I thought, I made what I thought was a joke that, yeah, sure, you know, let's have positive portrayals of cannibals.
Let's have a romantic comedy about two cannibals who've fallen in love.
And yeah, then I had multiple comments informing me that no, Hollywood's actually already done that.
They're one step ahead of actually destigmatizing cannibalism.
So, every time I want to think like, okay, well this thing is so absurd, it obviously hasn't happened yet.
That's my optimism coming through, and I always live to regret.
My few brief moments where I lapse into optimism, I always regret it.
I'm always embarrassed at the end.
Another comment says, okay, Ariana Grande.
Is it Ariana Grande or Grand?
It's Grande.
Grande, okay.
I thought so.
Ariana Grande putting her toe in her mouth, not an example of pedophilia.
Ariana Grande trying to squeeze juice out of a potato, not an example of pedophilia.
Ariana Grande trying to drink water upside down, not an example of pedophilia.
Okay, if you want to pretend, and we're not going to play the video again, but we were talking about the groomer scandal that Nickelodeon now finds itself in, thanks in large part to this quiet on-the-set documentary that's exposing all of the child grooming that was going on behind the scenes at Nickelodeon, particularly during the kind of Nickelodeon's heyday, their era, back when people that are my age were watching it in the 90s and then in the early 2000s.
And there's, you know, plenty of disturbing videos of the ways that these kids, child performers, were sexualized, and this one in particular we're not going to play again.
But I don't know.
I mean, if you can watch that video and then actually claim that you don't see what they're doing there, then...
Either you're naive in the extreme, or you have some other reason to be making excuses for the sexualization of children.
Some much more sinister reasons.
And I don't know, this is just an internet comment, I don't know what the case is for you.
But I do suspect it's not naivete.
And finally, I can't believe Matt has this worked up over juvenile double entendres in a show aimed at teens.
That's exactly the kind of humor I would have loved as a teen.
Saying they're all pedos seems like a bit of a stretch.
Maybe the school moms need to unclench their drawers.
I never use the, are you sure you want to die on this hill phrase.
And I'm not going to use it here, just on principle.
But if I was going to use it, this is the time when I would use it.
Like, really?
You want to speak up in defense of the Nickelodeon groomers?
Now, I didn't say that everybody working at Nickelodeon were pedophiles.
I didn't say they all were.
I said that they were groomers and also pedophiles.
There were actual pedophiles working there, as we talked about, who were arrested for child sexual abuse.
And then most of the rest of them, who did not fall into one of those camps, were cowards.
And as I said, you always need, anytime you have a scandal that comes out about years of this kind of behavior going on behind the scenes at some company or some institution, you always have the perverts and the degenerates that are doing the disgusting things, but then you also always need An army of cowards who sit by and let it happen.
And why do they let it happen?
Usually for very simple reasons.
They just let it happen out of self-preservation.
Because they don't want to sacrifice their career.
Because they don't want to stir the pot.
They don't want to be confrontational.
to be confrontational because they're, you know, that's why.
So just to clarify, I think the people that are working, the adults who are working at
Nickelodeon while this is happening were either pedophiles, groomers, or cowards.
They could be all of that or some combination.
And as to the jokes, I mean, again, some of these, as you say, these juvenile jokes, we saw how actual child sexual abusers We're putting these jokes, these quote-unquote jokes, into the show.
Are you claiming that this was for innocent reasons?
No, this is actually a case where, once again, the so-called school marms have been vindicated.
Because I can remember, in fact, I can remember even in the 90s.
You know, as a kid, I would watch these Nickelodeon shows, shows like All That and all the rest of it.
This stuff went over my head.
I didn't really understand what was going on.
But I can remember even at the time, there were adults who thought that Nickelodeon was inappropriate.
In fact, my own parents, there were plenty of Nickelodeon shows that they would We was out, we liked the show, and they would sit down, they would watch an episode of it, whatever it was, and then in some cases they'd say, you know, you're not watching that anymore.
And I always thought they were being way too strict.
What's the problem?
But now, as an adult, and especially seeing some of these revelations, I can now see that my parents as adults were noticing, like, this is not, some of this stuff is weird.
This is not normal for this stuff to be in children's entertainment.
And I guess at the time, you know, if you were an adult that had a problem with Nickelodeon, you were a quote-unquote school marm, but school marms vindicated yet again.
Jeremy's Razors is doing the unthinkable.
This is a sale you cannot miss out on.
Jeremy's Razors is lowering all prices for every razor.
You want a trial set?
Lower price.
You want the starter set that comes with more cartridges?
Lower price.
Smooth 6, Precision 5, you guessed it, lower price.
Take advantage of Jeremy's March of Madness.
Now, go to jeremysrazors.com to get your razor at a discount right now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
The actress Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page, is back in the conversation again.
She's been doing the interview circuit to promote her new film, something called Close to You, which tells the story of a quote-unquote trans man, that is a woman who identifies as a man, on her way to see her family for the first time since transitioning.
And the movie has a 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is very bad.
A score that's even worse when you consider that mainstream critics would want Of course, to give a film like this every benefit of the doubt.
So if the left-wing media is panning a heroic tale about a trans person, that must mean that the movie is really, really bad.
So bad that movie critics can't even fabricate a reason to praise it.
You know, it's like if you're starring in the school play and your mom comes to watch it and afterwards the only positive thing she can say is, well, it looked like you were really trying hard up there.
But Paige has bigger problems than one bad movie.
Those problems were put on display again in clips that are circulating from her interview with Channel 4.
Here she is talking about the trauma of being misgendered.
Here it is.
And is it something you can relate to in your own life, kind of that slight unease in certain family situations or with certain groups of friends?
Yes, absolutely.
And I think, you know, still being early on in my transition, of course.
More used to it now.
I think at first, when you first come out as Tripp, you're like, oh my God, you know, all these situations you find yourself in.
And maybe you just, I guess, progressively kind of get used to it.
There's a very powerful scene in the film where Sam's mum misgenders him.
And actually, interestingly, he is kind of trying to make her feel more comfortable in that situation.
I just wondered whether you think that's quite common for LGBTQ plus people?
Very common.
Yeah.
If someone misgenders me out of just… You can tell when something is intentional and awful.
There's another thing.
It's not a big deal.
Oh, sorry.
Fix it.
You move on.
It's really not.
If someone keeps doing it consistently over and over again, that's a different conversation.
In society, we have quite a straitjacket of what we're supposed to be.
I know you've spoken about this in Hollywood as well.
Yes, and for cishet people, of course, as well.
And that's why I'm like, oh my God, why can't we all just connect on this, right?
We're all just inundated from the moment we're born.
Some people even have parties before that about... Oh, the gender reveals.
Exactly, like how you should be, how you should look, what success means.
All of those things.
We're all facing those pressures, and I think you see that in the film.
So here we see the usual attempt by a trans-identified person to try and make herself seem like the reasonable one.
She says that so-called misgendering is not a big deal, so long as you apologize and fix it.
That is, she wants you to apologize for telling the truth and fix it by telling a lie.
But of course, any misgendering, i.e.
correct gendering, Done intentionally is, she says, automatically awful.
So in Paige's world, like with any other trans activist, it's not just, it's just not plausible.
It's not even theoretically possible that a person could intentionally use biologically correct pronouns for reasons that are not sinister.
Millions of people in this country feel morally obligated to use correct pronouns regardless of what a trans person might prefer because using incorrect ones would be a lie.
And we don't want to participate in a lie.
We can't participate in it morally.
We've tried to explain this to the pages of the world, but she simply ignores what we say, disregards our explanation of our own state of mind, and declares that we're all awful.
We're evil.
And she does this while still trying to paint herself as the reasonable and compassionate one in the conversation.
That's the game.
It's what they all do.
They declare that only their feelings and desires matter, ours don't matter at all, and then they demand our sympathy.
I cannot sympathize with self-obsessed egomaniacs who believe that their perception of reality, however demented and confused it might be, is the only valid one.
So I have no sympathy for her at all.
But I do have pity.
I feel sorry for Ellen Page.
Her story is a cautionary tale.
And it is just as dire and devastating as what you hear from any detransitioner.
Detransitioners who, by the way, I do sympathize with.
But Paige herself has not detransitioned, not yet, but she still inadvertently reveals the true unbridled evil of the gender transition industry.
And of all of the sort of high-profile quote-unquote transitions, I think this one most of all.
Reveals that.
Because consider to begin with, again, the movie that she's promoting.
As mentioned, against all ideological odds, the film has been crushed by critics, which is probably inevitable because it's just not possible to make trans propaganda into a good film.
It's like trying to construct a stable house out of popsicle sticks.
You just can't do it.
The raw material isn't solid enough to build a story around.
But tragically for Page, these kinds of movies are the only movies she can make anymore.
Now, back before she tried to become a man, she was a bona fide Hollywood star.
She had lead roles in successful films like Juno and X-Men and Inception.
But now, her options are severely limited.
She can't, and I assume wouldn't want to, play a female character in a film.
She also can't, as much as she might want to, play a male character.
All she can do is play a trans person, and her transness is so obvious, it's so glaring, that the movie has to be about the fact that she is trans.
It would be distracting to stick her into some other film about something else and, you know, just have her there being trans, even though that's not what the subject is about.
Like, to describe what I mean, by comparison, you know, if you're gonna put a guy in a giant chicken costume into one of your movies, Then every scene that he's in has to be about the fact that he's in the chicken costume.
You can't just have the guy in the chicken costume show up in a scene without anyone mentioning or noticing the elephant in the room or the chicken in the room in this case.
You can't, for instance, have a police procedural where one of the detectives just so happens to dress as a chicken.
The chicken getup is too outlandish, it's too distracting.
So, if the guy had the chicken costume permanently attached to his body, it would severely limit his casting opportunities.
He'd have to wait until some screenwriter, somewhere, happens to write a film about a guy who looks like a chicken.
And Page is in a similar situation.
It's a situation that most trans-identified people find themselves in post-transition.
Now, most of them aren't actors.
They aren't paid actors, anyway.
But the dilemma they face is essentially the same.
It's that limbo zone we've talked about before.
Page no longer looks or sounds like a woman.
Not exactly.
She certainly doesn't have the feminine charm and beauty that she had before she did this to herself.
She was a pretty young lady before all of this, and now she isn't.
But she also doesn't look or sound anything like a man.
She's too small.
She's too petite.
She still has the mannerisms of a woman.
There's nothing masculine about the way she looks, sounds, or carries herself.
And there's a reason that no Hollywood director is knocking on her door to have her play the male lead in the next big action movie franchise, right?
She isn't going to be the next Jason Bourne or John Wick.
She doesn't have her feminine charm anymore, but neither does she have any masculine grit or presence.
So she doesn't pass as a man, not even close, but she also doesn't look much like a woman.
She's stuck out in the gray zone, in the fog.
Still as much a woman biologically as she was before, but having destroyed most of her femininity without successfully replacing it with masculinity.
And this is the trans trap, you might say.
They lure you out into the cold, and they leave you there.
So, if you'll excuse a little parable.
Imagine a young lady sitting in her home one night.
It's very dark, very cold outside.
There's a blizzard raging, but it's warm inside her house.
It's cozy, it's comfortable, it's home.
And then comes a knock at the door, and a man stands on her front porch and tells her that just across the field, only a few hundred yards away, is a much better house.
It's bigger, it's nicer, it's better in a number of mostly unspecified ways.
And he tells her that she can go live there instead, in that house, in the better house.
And she's resisting at first, but then thinking more about the fact that there's a better house out there, she starts to feel worse and worse about her own house.
Before the guy knocked on the door, she liked her house.
It was fine.
It was good.
It was hers.
But now that she knows there's a better one, she doesn't like her house anymore.
So, she agrees to come with the man out into the blizzard to go live in the better house.
And they walk for a while in the cold and the dark across this field.
And they walk, and they walk, and they walk.
And after a while, she realizes that the other house must be more than a few hundred yards away.
That's when the man tells her that, yeah, actually, he meant to say that the house is a thousand miles away.
She'll never make it there.
She'll never actually live in the other house.
She can't.
But at least she'll be a little bit closer.
And that should be good enough.
And with that, the man disappears, leaving her out alone in the blizzard.
But now she's gone too far.
She's lost.
She can't make it back to her own house, but she'll never, ever make it to the other house.
She's stuck now, outside, in the dark, having given up her home, which was not perfect, but at least it was warm and it was hers.
And in exchange, she gets nothing.
Just the cold wind and an empty field, which is where she'll be forever, until she dies.
And that's what the gender transition industry does.
It lures people out into the cold darkness with the promise of something better.
And then it just leaves them there.
It is unspeakably evil.
And Ellen Page is yet another victim of it.
Even if she hasn't figured that out yet.
But she will.
Eventually.
And for that reason, the people who did this to Ellen Page are today cancelled.
