Ep. 1332 - The Media Panics As More And More Women Choose To Dump Their Birth Control
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, more and more women are choosing to dump their birth control pills. This has caused a panic among the media and Big Tech platforms. They're accusing these women of spreading "misinformation." But why are they so determined to keep women on the pill? We'll discuss. Also, a Democratic congresswoman claims that banning men from women's sports will hurt women. How can that be true? And some red states are looking to put chaplains in public school. I like the idea, but I think it will do more harm than good. I'll explain why. And the president of Mexico says that it's not Mexico's fault that it ships fentanyl and other poison into the United States by the ton.
Ep.1332
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Episode 2 of The Divided States of Biden on DW+: https://bit.ly/4aqs6fn
Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Policygenius - Get your free life insurance quote & see how much you could save: http://policygenius.com/Walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
- - -
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, more and more women are choosing to dump their birth control pills.
This has caused a panic among the media and big tech platforms.
They're accusing these women of spreading misinformation, but why are they so determined to keep women on the pill?
We'll discuss.
Also, a Democratic congresswoman claims that banning men from women's sports will hurt women.
How can that possibly be true?
It can't, but we'll talk about it.
And some red states are looking to put chaplains in public schools.
I like the idea in theory, but I think it will do more harm than good in practice.
I'll explain why.
And the President of Mexico says that it's not Mexico's fault that it ships fentanyl and other poison into the United States by the ton.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Nobody likes to talk about life insurance, but it's incredibly important
to have a good life insurance policy to protect your family should something happen to you.
Start shopping now with Policy Genius.
Find the right policy to protect your family today and give yourself the peace of mind that comes with knowing that if something were to happen to you, your family could cover all the expenses while getting back on their feet.
PolicyGenius's technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks.
If you already have a life insurance policy through work, that might not offer enough protection for your family's needs, and it may not follow you if you leave your job.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams.
Policygenius has licensed agents who can help you find the best fit for your needs.
When they make it this easy, there's no excuse not to do it.
Policygenius works for you, not the insurance companies.
That means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another, so you can trust their guidance, save time and money, and give your family a financial safety net with Policygenius.
Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.
The Washington Post, as you may know, has been hemorrhaging subscribers and web traffic for years.
Late last year, the paper conducted yet another round of layoffs, impacting hundreds of employees.
Jeff Bezos purchased the paper for $250 million a decade ago, and last year alone, it managed to lose roughly $100 million.
So this is not a profitable venture, and in normal circumstances, Businesses that lose this much money don't stay around very long.
But the Washington Post has stuck around.
Jeff Bezos has kept it on life support to fulfill a specific mission, which is to harangue and censor independent voices on behalf of Jeff Bezos' donors and the Democratic Party.
A couple of days ago, that mission was on full display.
On March 21st, The Washington Post published an article entitled, Women Are Getting Off Birth Control Amid Misinformation Explosion.
The Daily Beast ran a similar story, warning ominously of an explosion of women who are ditching birth control amid a misinformation blitz.
Now, first of all, it needs to be said, of course, that, as we know, any time the media collectively decides to label something misinformation, they really mean information that we find personally or politically inconvenient.
They're not interested in proving you wrong.
They're interested in shutting you up, and that's exactly what's happening here.
Quoting from the Washington Post piece, Brett Cooper, a media commentator for the conservative Daily Wire, argued in a viral TikTok clip that birth control can impact fertility, cause women to gain weight, and even alter whom they are attracted to.
It racked up over 219,000 likes before TikTok removed it following the Post's inquiry.
Now, the piece goes on to describe other similar videos that the Post also wants to be deleted from the internet.
For example, there's this one from Ben Shapiro's show a year ago.
Watch.
Yeah, I mean, the actual story here, I mean, I'm a New Yorker, I'm not in some sort of conservative bubble, and I wanted to go off the pill myself after thinking more critically about it during the pandemic and thinking about what taking these exogenous hormones might mean.
And as soon as I started telling my friends, I realized virtually all my young female friends, including my progressive ones, were having the same thoughts.
Because, of course, taking an exogenous pill of hormones every single day would affect the way that you See the world around you the way that your brain works.
And the more that I went down this rabbit hole, I realized that there is this wealth of information and researchers who have been looking into the effects of the hormonal birth control pill on women's psychology.
And it's been completely Just untouchable and like as you mentioned the third rail because of course there was the Dobbs decision recently and there's a sense that if you criticize birth control at all period you're you're criticizing it as an idea which of course I'm not but I think that there is attention that needs to be paid to giving women as much information as possible to make the best choices for themselves.
Now, it's hard to imagine a more anodyne clip than that.
This is not a woman making up crazy, unhinged conspiracy theories about birth control, whatever those would be.
She's not expressing some dangerous, unscientific opinion, if an opinion can even be dangerous.
She doesn't even appear to be political.
She's just articulating a very reasonable, increasingly common concern, which is that taking unnatural hormones might have some unexpected and unwanted effects on the human body.
Even if you don't know anything about the scientific data on this point, that's not a crazy thing to believe.
I mean, it just seems intuitively true that there are going to, at a very minimum, be side effects when you do something like that.
But as the clip goes on, they do talk about some of the research on this point, and none of this is quack science.
It's widely accepted in medical literature.
For example, a recent study out of Denmark, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry,
found that, quote, "Hormonal contraception use "doubles the risk of suicide attempts
"and triples the risk of suicide."
The study specifically found that, quote, "The association between hormonal contraception
"and primary outcomes peaked at two months, "but continued even after the cessation
"of hormonal contraception for some years."
The researchers also reported that hormonal contraceptives were connected
with a 70% increase in rates of depression.
Now, before I get into the specifics of what other studies have found,
It's important to pause here and take another look at how the Washington Post is framing
So here's the first paragraph.
Quote, search for birth control on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear.
Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill.
Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility.
Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.
Physicians say they're seeing an explosion of birth control misinformation online targeting a vulnerable demographic.
Now the implication of what the post wrote is that it's misinformation to say that birth control is related to depression and anxiety, but that's not true.
At no point in the Washington Post article did they debunk the study from Denmark.
They don't even mention it.
Instead, they simply state, as a matter of fact, that you're crazy if you link birth control to weight gain, infertility, depression.
They claim the only significant side effects of birth control medication are blood clots, but they're just wrong on all accounts.
One of the main reasons they're wrong is that hormonal birth control inhibits the body's natural reaction to stress.
As a UCLA health study put it late last year, quote, "Researchers at the UCLA Department of Psychiatry
and Biobehavioral Sciences Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research found
contraceptive users and non-users process stress differently
at the molecular level with contraceptive users also reporting a more negative psychological response
to stress compared to non-users."
Now, is it possible that disrupting the body's natural stress response might lead to weight
gain?
Given that weight gain is one of the most common symptoms of stress.
The Watcher Post thinks you're a science denier, if you even suggest that.
They'll have you pulled off TikTok if you even mention the possibility.
That's kind of weird because less than a year ago, NBC News ran this report in which their medical experts explained that weight gain and hair loss are among the symptoms of hormonal birth control.
Watch.
In a post-Roe world, contraceptives like birth control are taking center stage.
I'm officially off my hormonal birth control.
But online, a chorus of voices are taking to platforms like TikTok to talk about why the pill might not be for them, even if they don't want to get pregnant.
A few quick updates for you.
25-year-old Erica Hong says she first got on the pill at 16 as a way to not only prevent pregnancy, but also manage what's called polycystic ovarian syndrome, presenting in symptoms like acne and irregular menstruation.
And it really, truly helped me with a lot of my symptoms, but then I experienced new side effects.
Side effects like mood swings, weight gain, and even hair loss.
In a nutshell, that repeated over and over again for about five different pills over a span of almost 10 years.
Her experience with birth control is unfortunately not uncommon, according to doctors.
What are some of the common side effects that you see with people who take birth control?
So when we look at side effects from starting a particular type of contraception, that can be anywhere from nausea, headaches, or even some weight gain.
There are some people that note some hair changes, whether that's hair loss or sparseness in hair.
I think I'm getting hair loss.
For Ali Vekaro, hormonal changes, like hair loss, came after she got off the pill.
It scared me at first.
I did not even know that was a side effect.
Wow, what an explosion of misinformation you just saw there.
And I guess we're expected to believe that at some point between May and this week, the science changed?
But of course it didn't.
Going back to the UCLA study, researchers confirmed existing research which found that, quote, hormonal contraceptive pills may increase women's risk for chronically elevated inflammation which carries the long-term risk of developing illnesses such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders as well as potential mood disorders including depression.
The lead author at UCLA added that, quote, Now, the truth is that hormonal birth control does come with all kinds of risks and side effects.
All drugs do.
manage stressful situations.
If women on the pill are having as increases in cortisol, but their mood is getting worse,
it could mean that the pill is preventing their bodies and minds from returning to normal
following stress.
Now, the truth is that hormonal birth control does come with all kinds of risks and side
effects.
All drugs do.
And drugs that suppress the normal, healthy functions of the body are always going to
be especially risky.
Drugs that you're taking that are meant to cure something that is not a disease, such as like the natural fertility, a woman's natural fertility, that's not a disease, it's not an illness.
And so when you're taking something that is suppressing a part of your body that is not defective, it's going to have an impact on your body.
And that includes potential impacts on fertility, as much as The Washington Post doesn't want to admit it.
Like right now, if you go to the Planned Parenthood website, you'll find that they recommend a method of hormonal birth control known as the Depo-Shot.
Quote, the Depo-Shot is an injection you get once every three months.
It's a safe, convenient, and private birth control method that works really well if you always get it on time.
Planned Parenthood doesn't mention on their website is that the Depo shot has clear and proven impacts on fertility.
This is from the WebMD website, which on most days the Washington Post agrees is a reliable source, but here's what they say, quote, injectable birth control, unlike other forms of hormonal birth control, it may be harder to get pregnant after you stop getting these shots.
It may take 10 months or more before you ovulate again.
For some women, it will take up to 18 months for periods to start again.
So, this is a method of hormonal birth control that does impact fertility after you stop taking it.
In fact, it can make women infertile for a very long time.
This isn't some conspiracy theory, and neither is the idea that hormonal birth control can contribute to weight gain, depression, suicide.
The same sources that the left tells us to trust at every opportunity established medical researchers are very clear on this.
But the trust the science crowd has suddenly become very distrusting of science when it comes to this.
And that's not the only platitude that they're abandoning in order to censor anyone who speaks critically about birth control.
You may recall My Body My Choice.
These people really believed in the My Body My Choice mantra they would celebrate, or at least accept, that an increasing number of young women are choosing to forego birth control.
But they can't celebrate it, and they can't even accept it, and they can't even allow women to talk about it, In public, on these platforms, because birth control is central to their cultural agenda.
With fewer women on the pill, more women will become mothers.
Some of them will drop out of the workforce and discover fulfillment and happiness as wives, as homemakers.
And this is the real crisis that The Washington Post and the other left-wing rags are worried about.
The last thing that the elites want to see is a movement of women fully embracing their own womanhood, And men fully embracing their manhood.
A move back towards the family, away from materialism, away from self-preoccupation, towards marriage, towards parenthood.
That's what they don't want to see.
These people have been waging a war on the family for decades.
And the birth control pill was their nuclear bomb.
The family is the greatest threat to them.
And a society full of families, of intact, happy families with attentive mothers and strong fathers, that is a society that has rendered these people basically powerless.
That is their fear.
And they fear it like they fear nothing else.
And then politically, of course, we know that unhappy career middle managers at Citibank are one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party.
And if those people rebel, well, Democrats will have real trouble winning another election.
And they're willing to do anything, including lying to women about the serious and even fatal drug side effects of birth control and so many other drugs, to prevent that from happening.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Not only is owing back taxes stressful, but the IRS has also become more determined than ever.
The IRS's Chief Data and Analytics Officer revealed that they're focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent.
They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't filed their returns first.
Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you with a record of negotiating over a billion dollars in tax relief for their clients.
Their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help you.
Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up-to-date.
Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move.
Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt.
Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit their website at tnusa.com/walsh.
They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt today. That's tnusa.com/walsh.
So there was a hearing late last week, a hearing about a bill that would ban males from competing in female sports
and And the other side of the debate, the people who want men to compete against women, the people who have taken a totally indefensible position, embarrassed themselves thoroughly, as you would expect.
But nobody behaved in a more humiliating way than Representative Pramila Jayapal.
And there are several clips of her circulating from this hearing that are all really embarrassing for her.
If she had the capacity to be embarrassed.
But this one in particular, for reasons we'll talk about, I think was the worst.
Here it is.
The way this bill targets trans people in the name of gender equality is simply insulting.
Don't believe for a second that this is about protecting women and girls.
My amendment would require a report on the impacts of this bill on all female athletes since categorical bans on trans women harm all women.
That is why women's organizations across the country, including the Women's Sports Foundation,
have denounced categorical bans on trans athletes for promoting fear, dangerous stereotypes,
unfair scrutiny on high-performing female athletes, and sex discrimination based on
misinformation.
And just think about this for a second.
How are you going to enforce this ban?
How do you verify a girl or a woman's "reproductive anatomy"?
We have already seen horrific sexual abuse against girls and women in sports.
If a woman or a young girl, if your daughter, your daughter doesn't look feminine enough, is she subject to examination?
This is absurd and insulting.
Okay, so a few things here.
First of all, you should know, if you don't already, that Jayapal has a quote-unquote trans kid.
She's in the process, she's therefore in the process of helping her, I think it's her male child, her son, transition into a female.
So she's already abusing her child in this way, which means that she's incapable of being even remotely honest about this issue.
She just can't be.
Now granted, almost all elected Democrats are incapable of being honest about this or, you know, any other issue.
But for her in particular, to be honest would be to admit to herself that she's ruined her child's life.
And she can't do that.
That's not something that most people are willing to do.
That's the sort of honest self-analysis that only a very strong and courageous person could engage in.
But the problem is that a strong and courageous person wouldn't trans their kid in the first place.
So, the only people capable of being honest about transing their own kids?
Are the people who would never trans own kids in the first place and so that's that's the dilemma here and it's an important point to understand because it explains you know one of the reasons why a lot of these people push transgenderism it seems seems like an obvious reason.
But it also explains why so many social media platforms ban or demonetize you for talking about it.
It's because the adults who run these platforms, the adults who hold these political offices, many of them have children who identify as trans, or they have powerful friends or bosses who have children who identify as trans.
So, you know, you could just imagine Imagine a meeting at some big tech company where they're discussing the speech policies when it comes to transgenderism, and if 15 people are in the room, or however many, how many of those people have quote-unquote trans kids themselves?
Probably more than one.
Enough that it's just impossible that any kind of honest conversation will take place.
And it's very unlikely that anybody in the room will have the guts to speak up and say, yeah, this is crazy.
They're not going to do it.
And the second point about what Jayapal said is, well, she says that these bans hurt all women.
In what way?
I mean, that's an interesting claim.
Can you be specific?
Like, let's just take an actual specific female athlete.
Tell me how she specifically, personally, is hurt by not allowing males to compete against her.
What is the damage that is done by not allowing males to compete against female athletes?
And whatever that damage is, you're telling me that this is damage that was being done to female athletes Since the, you know, inception of women's sports up until very recently.
So this is, they love to use the phrase real world harm, you know, but then they proceed to talk about harm that isn't happening in anything resembling the real world.
So what is the harm?
She can't tell us because it's nonsense.
And third, finally, this is my favorite.
My favorite point From the anti-reality side when it comes to this issue is when they say, well, how can we tell?
How can we tell who is trans and who isn't?
How can we possibly tell?
It's impossible!
We need to conduct some kind of intrusive exam to figure out who's trans and who isn't.
That's what they claim.
It's like if a furry in a dog costume were to sneak into the dog pound and then, you know, you came in the next day and you know that someone broke it and you're looking around at all the dogs and you're like, how can we tell?
How can we tell which one is the furry?
It's impossible.
There's just, there's no way.
Well, I'll tell you how we can tell who the trans person is by looking at them.
By glancing at them for two seconds, is how you can tell?
Doesn't even take two seconds.
Like, as long as it takes to just look over and go, oh, okay.
Just that, right there.
That's how we tell.
That movement.
Glancing over, yep, there he is.
That's how we tell.
Um, in the vast majority of cases, quote-unquote trans women do not even come close to passing, as they say.
Like, not even close.
Not within a hundred miles of it.
So this is not a problem.
And especially because many of these trans women athletes, quote-unquote, were men who identified as men, like, three weeks ago.
So, Leah Thomas was a guy named Will Thomas for his whole life until one day he decided to be Leah.
So, even if he could present himself convincingly as a female, which he couldn't, even if he could, we all know, it's like, oh, well, that's Will Thomas.
He's in school.
He was in school as Will his whole, we all know him.
And here he is as Leah.
It's not confusing.
So the only, I'm just trying to imagine, How could it be that anyone would really be confused by this?
The only way that people could be confused about whether, let's say, Leah Thomas is a woman, the only person that could be confused is, first of all, it has to be a blind person, and deaf, because you can tell when they speak.
So, you need a blind and deaf person.
You would need Helen Keller.
So, if Helen Keller was assessing them, and also, if Helen Keller was convinced That Will Thomas, the person previously known as Will Thomas, disappeared, was like raptured or something, and then a brand new person called Leah Thomas, who looks suspiciously identical to him, appeared out of thin air.
That's what will be required for people to be confused about it.
Which is to say that no one's confused.
Enforcing these rules would not be difficult in the vast majority of cases.
Now what about the very, very, very rare case of a quote-unquote trans woman who can sort of pass as a woman according to the eye test?
I can't even think of a case like that off the top of my head.
But let's just, you know, from a statistical perspective, they're probably, let's just pretend that every once in a while.
You know, you're gonna run across a trans-identified male who, according to the eye test, you know, you can't really tell.
Let's take this hypothetical person.
What about him?
And what if, for whatever reason, we didn't know or couldn't know that he had been enrolled in school as a boy for years prior to this?
Like, so, whatever reason, all that is out the window.
What do you do then?
Like, how do you weed those people out?
Do we need to have invasive exams?
No, we don't.
What happens in that case?
Well, I guess in that case, that would be a boy who could get away with cheating.
That's it.
I mean, that's the answer.
So you pass these laws.
No one is suggesting any invasive exams to figure out who is a female and isn't.
It is not even close to necessary in almost all cases.
And in the cases where it is confusing, well, what do you do then?
Well, that's a cheater.
That's someone who can succeed at cheating, unfortunately.
There's always going to be people who can get away with cheating.
Steroids are illegal in sports, but some people find a way to use them anyway.
Like, you know, in sports you'll go to a certain extent to figure out who's using steroids, but there's not—there's a limit to how far you'll go to enforce any—you know, whatever the—there's all kinds of rules in sports, and all kinds of different ways to break the rules.
And depending on what the sport is, there's a certain length you'll go.
To prevent people from breaking the rule, but then you'll only go that far.
You're not going to go farther than that, because at a certain point, it just becomes completely unreasonable.
And what does that mean?
It means that, yeah, you're just sort of acknowledging that if someone is really determined, there might be a few people who can successfully cheat.
And it's unfortunate.
It shouldn't be allowed.
It's bad.
That person is doing something wrong.
You put measures in place to stop people from cheating.
The fact that some cheaters are devious enough to get around the measures is not an argument against the measures themselves.
Especially when you're putting measures in place that will weed out 99.9% of the cheaters.
And in this case, if you just say, men are not allowed.
We're not going to do anything special.
We're not going to do anything special to figure out who's a man or not.
Other than just look at them.
Like, just from across the room.
Right there.
Yep, that's Will Thomas.
We all know that's who it is.
Obviously, there's nothing.
And so, he's not allowed.
That's all we're going to do.
And if you do that again, 99.9% of the male cheaters, that's enough to get rid of them.
And the 0.1% or fewer who sneak through, well, they're cheaters.
And it's wrong.
They shouldn't be allowed to.
I mean, they shouldn't be doing it.
But they are.
You're always going to have cheaters.
That's just the answer.
All right.
This is an interesting story.
This is from MSN.
Lawmakers in mostly conservative states are pushing a coordinated effort to bring chaplains into public schools, aided by a new legislation crafting network that aims to address policy issues from a biblical worldview.
And by a consortium whose promotional materials say chaplains are a way to convert millions to Christianity, the bills have been introduced this legislative season in 14 states inspired by Texas, which passed a law late last year Allowing school districts to hire chaplains or use them as volunteers for whatever role the local school board sees fit, including replacing trained counselors.
Chaplain bills were approved by one legislative chamber in three states, Utah, Indiana, and Louisiana, but died in Utah and Indiana.
Bills are pending in nine states.
One passed both houses of Florida's legislature and is awaiting the governor's signature.
So these are bills that are, as you heard, going to put chaplains in public schools.
Which is an interesting idea.
I think it's a bad one, though, and I'll explain why.
It's not because I have any problem with bringing Christianity into education.
I'm in favor of that.
In principle, anyway.
I think there should be prayer in the classroom.
I think that the constitutional argument against prayer in the classroom is absurd, because it hinges on the separation of church and state, which As I hope you know, is not really a constitutional idea.
It cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.
That was an opinion expressed in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, who, by the way, was worried about the state's corrosive effect on religion, not the other way around.
What the First Amendment forbids is the establishment of a state religion by Congress.
But kids or teachers or both praying in a classroom, let's say, that is not a congressional act, and it's not the establishment of a state religion.
It's not either of those things, so it should be allowed.
And also, of course, religion and the state can never be fully separated.
Our country was founded On a religious doctrine, which is the doctrine of inherent human rights endowed by the Creator.
It's one of our foundational ideas.
It's a religious idea.
It's a religious doctrine.
And anyone who takes exception to that, like, what else would you call it if you wouldn't call it a religious doctrine?
Inherent human rights endowed by a Creator.
What is that if it's not a religious idea?
Is it scientific?
Can you go and find evidence of human rights, of divinely endowed human rights, in science somewhere?
Can you go in a laboratory and locate it?
Well, yeah, there are the human rights right there.
Found them.
Find them in a petri dish?
You can't.
It's a religious idea.
It just is.
Anyone who goes around talking about human rights, that is a religious idea.
So, the state will always be religious.
Ours was Christian.
Now it is, it's not anymore.
And it's grounded, but it's still religious.
Our government now is not anymore grounded in Christian doctrine, but it is grounded in the religion of leftism, which is secular Satanism.
So we don't get to decide, you know, it's not possible to have, really, to have a truly secular government in that sense.
That's just not possible.
It's just a question of what religious ideas is the government grounded in.
So, I think all that is true.
I still don't like the idea of chaplains in public school.
And the reason is simple.
Do we have any reason to believe that these ministers will actually know the gospel and teach it?
Do we have any confidence in that?
I don't.
In fact, what I'm confident in is the fact that you start bringing these chaplains in, and I don't care if it's in Texas, if it's in Florida, it will still be the same situation, most likely.
Let's say they start bringing chaplains into public school, Well, who are those chaplains going to be?
They're going to be liberals who preach the gospel of tolerance.
And how do I know that?
Well, I know that because that's what you find in most churches.
And the idea that you'll find something better in public school is absurd.
So that's what it could be.
It'll be chaplains, I'll tell you right now, who these are not going to be like, maybe With rare exception.
These are not going to be conservative Christian, you know, Christians who are very grounded in Scripture.
That's not what it's going to be.
It'll be chaplains who teach the kids that, you know, God wants them to be tolerant and accept everybody for who they are and there's no such thing as sin and, you know, we shouldn't feel ashamed of anything that we've done.
And we certainly shouldn't feel ashamed of anything that we call our identity.
If we claim anything as an identity, then automatically we shouldn't be ashamed of it.
We shouldn't be judgmental.
Let's not judge anyone or anything.
Let's not engage in any judgmental stuff.
This is what it's gonna be.
And the thing is, I would rather have schools ignore Christianity, or even preach against it, Rather than preach a perverted form of it.
All of those options are bad.
I don't like any of those options.
Which is the reason my kids don't go to public school.
Because those are really, like, right now, if you send your kid to public school, when it comes to Christianity, it's gonna be one of those three.
That's all you're gonna get.
Either they're in an education system that completely ignores your child's faith, or that actively, like, militates against it.
Which is most of the time what's happening.
Or, you know, if this starts happening, then you're probably going to end up in a scenario where they pretend to embrace it, but they are embracing and therefore teaching something that they call Christianity, but that is not.
And so, again, all three of those options are bad.
I think the first option of ignoring it is the least bad.
Militating against it is the second worst option.
The worst of all, because it's the most confusing for the child, and the most likely to settle in and make an impact, is the preaching of a perverted form of it.
You know, if it sounds sort of like a lose-lose situation with the public school system, that's because it is.
It's again why I don't send my kid to public school.
It's the same thing, I've made a similar case about sex education.
And this reminds me a little bit, it's like a little bit of a version of what you still find in some states and in some areas of the conservative movement where they say that, you know, We need to have sex ed, we need to have an abstinence-focused sex ed education.
That's what we need to have.
But I don't really want that either.
Now, I don't want the comprehensive sex ed, the so-called comprehensive sex ed, you know, of which Alfred Kinsey, the degenerate quack, is the godfather.
I certainly don't want that.
In that case, that's the worst option.
But I don't want to send my kids to school to have an abstinence sex ed either, and the reason is that I don't trust some health teacher in some public school to handle that subject matter in the way that I think it should be handled.
I don't trust them to teach that.
I think it's important to teach abstinence, it's important to teach chastity.
Do I trust Any public school teacher, frankly, to teach that effectively, to teach it appropriately, to teach it in the right way?
No.
Do I think it's the role of any stranger out there to teach those things to my kid?
I don't.
It's just that it just shouldn't come up at all.
In that case, that's something that shouldn't come up at all.
There shouldn't be any sex education at all.
Let's talk about actual academic subjects.
All right.
I wanted to briefly mention this as well, if I can find it.
Fox News has this.
The Boston Task Force on Reparations called on white churches to step up and pay the black community back for racial inequities that root back to the transatlantic slave trade, according to reports.
The Boston Globe reported that black and white clergy members met in Roxbury for a press conference intended to be held outside.
It was instead held in the basement of the Resurrection Lutheran Church on Saturday because of rain.
The commission was established through a 2022 Boston City Council ordinance and made up of 10 members, including two from the youth community.
In February, the Boston activists called for the city to fully commit to writing checks and for a $15 billion payout since the city's wealth was built on slavery, they argue.
Which, by the way, just isn't true at all.
The idea that whatever wealth Boston has right now is built on slavery is ridiculous, but anyway.
Reverend Kevin Peterson said, quote, We call sincerely and with a heart filled with faith and Christian love for our white churches to join us and not be silent around this issue of racism and slavery and commit to reparations.
Peterson is a minister and is trying to rename Faneuil Hall because of its ties to the slave trade in the 18th century.
Peterson said, "We point to them in Christian love to publicly atone for the sins of slavery,
and we ask them to publicly commit to a process of reparations where they will extend their great
wealth, tens of millions of dollars among some of these churches, into the black community."
Okay, a few things here.
I mean, you've heard my speech against reparations many times.
I don't need to repeat it.
And you'll probably hear it many more times before all is said and done.
The idea that these churches have great wealth... Now, there are some churches that do, like megachurches, Joel Osteen, you know, those kinds of churches that are not really churches.
Those are churches that have a lot of money to throw around.
Most churches do not.
And that's just, if you have ever been to a church, unless you're going to one of those mega church type places, where the pastor is really Tony Robbins, you know, it's really like a motivational seminar disguised as a church.
Unless you're going to one of those, you know that these are, you go into most churches and you look around and these are not places that are, that have, you know, money falling out of the ceiling.
It's far from it.
But putting that aside and putting aside all the many arguments against reparations and the claim that Boston's wealth is built on slavery, all that is ridiculous.
When you cloak this in Christianity, just like when you cloak any wrong idea in Christianity, it's especially offensive because this is not Christianity.
And you as a Christian, if you are pointing to somebody else in the name of Christ and calling on them to atone and apologize to you and then give you something, that is not Christianity.
That's satanic, is what that is.
That is a satanic perversion of the Gospel.
Now, call on your fellow Christians to atone, to be sorry for their sins and atone for them.
Throwing yourself into that, right, as the greatest sinner among them.
If your message is, we should all atone for our sins, we should all beg forgiveness for our sins, that is a Christian message.
The problem is that in most churches you don't really hear that.
You don't hear a lot about sin these days.
And now, if you do hear it, it's going to be in the context of this racial sin.
Not a sin that we all share.
You know, not original sin.
Not sins that are based on the wrongdoing that we all are guilty of.
But it's a racial sin where you've got one group looking to the other group and saying, apologize to us.
Not even to God, but to us.
And then, uh, and give us something.
That is, uh, that is not Christianity.
Not even close.
All right.
Speaking of sins that need to be atoned for, uh, I have unfortunately finally a deeply unsettling, uh, tragic, Really disturbing video to play for you, and I don't like playing stuff like this on a Monday.
It just starts the week on a bit of a sour note, but I feel duty-bound to talk about this, to bring it to light.
If you have kids in the room, I would maybe send them out of the room before I play this, because it's not appropriate for kids.
It's not even appropriate for adults, honestly.
But here it is.
This New Zealand start-up is making ice cream out of cauliflower and they're on a mission to help the world eat differently.
This plant-based ice cream is made without any dairy, gluten, nuts or soy.
The two female founders, Millie and Jenny, came up with the idea and started making ice cream here in New Zealand using cauliflower which would otherwise go to waste because it wasn't the right shape or size for supermarkets.
The tubs are certified home compostable which means you can just chuck them in your home compost and they can return to the earth.
Eat Kinder is stocked in one of the largest supermarket chains in New Zealand and they have their sights set on expanding overseas.
So comment below where you think they should be stocked and what countries they should expand to next.
Save this post and send to someone who you think would love some cauliflower based ice cream.
It's so creamy.
Wow that's so good!
I can't taste cauliflower there.
Yeah, no, no, no.
Cauliflower ice cream.
Uh...
The...
This is simply not okay.
It's just not okay.
And you know that I'm not joking when I say that that should be illegal.
I really believe that.
It should be illegal.
It should be illegal, certainly to sell it as ice cream, to put that, like false advertising, you know, is supposed to be illegal.
It's fraud.
I would argue that it's fraud.
And much of the vegan food industry, it's all fraud.
And it's the worst kind of fraud.
This is like Bernie Madoff, you know, times ten.
It's the worst kind of fraud.
And it should be illegal, punishable by a $50 fine and death.
It should be illegal for you to market anything as ice cream if it's not made with milk.
And by that I mean regular milk.
And when I say regular milk, everyone knows I mean cow's milk.
Okay?
Milk from a cow.
From the udder of an animal that goes moo.
Okay?
That's what I mean.
And anything outside of that is not milk.
It's not ice cream.
It's not anything.
This ice cream, what it actually is, is liquefied cauliflower.
And imagine putting that on the carton.
Imagine putting on the carton, here's some mint chocolate chip flavored liquefied cauliflower.
But, you know, you would never do that because nobody would buy it.
And what does that tell you?
When you're selling a product that nobody would buy if you told them what it actually was.
What does that tell you?
But they don't say it because they're not honest.
That's what gets me the most.
That's why I think that the The vegan infiltration of all of these different food products, I think it's a moral issue.
I think it's one of the great moral issues of our time.
And it's a moral issue because they're lying.
And they don't have the guts to be honest with us, and they don't have the guts to be honest with themselves.
So they say, oh, this is ice cream, this is butter, this is milk.
No, be honest.
You've given up ice cream, butter, and milk.
The three major food groups.
Okay?
You've given it up.
And you want us to give it up.
And you want to sell us something that you call ice cream, but that is minus the one thing that makes it what it actually is.
And rather than just admit that, rather than be straightforward, you lie.
And that's what I don't like.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a vegan.
Well, there is something wrong with being a vegan, obviously.
That should be illegal, too.
But we can only do one thing at a time here.
So, I'll put it another way.
It's bad enough to be a vegan, but if you're going to be a vegan, just be a vegan.
And if you're some other made-up thing, like lactose intolerant, then just be that.
And yes, I'm seriously arguing that lactose intolerance is made up.
I don't believe in it.
Media matters.
You can run with that.
Matt Walsh says that lactose intolerance doesn't exist and is satanic.
Well, that's not true.
Veganism is satanic.
Lactose intolerance is just made up.
Here's how I know it's made up.
I know it's made up because It's not possible to live without dairy product.
I don't think it's possible.
I don't think I've ever eaten anything that doesn't have some kind of dairy product involved.
I don't think I ever have.
I don't think I've eaten one thing that does not involve dairy.
So I don't think it's possible.
That's my theory.
Anyway.
The main point is, that is just revolting.
And everybody involved should be executed.
President Joe Biden called on the power of women to help restore Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand during his annual State of the Union address.
Now more than ever, we need to remember the 65 million unborn babies whose lives have been sacrificed in the name of abortion.
This should only motivate us to save more unborn babies' lives.
PreBorn's network of clinics have rescued 200 unborn babies by showing a mother her child on ultrasound a baby's chance at life could double.
So when I came to my first visit and I had my sonogram and seeing the heartbeat, it really hit home that, oh my gosh, there's a miracle literally growing inside of my womb.
Preborn not only offers mothers free ultrasounds, but these mothers are given assistance for up to two years.
One ultrasound costs just $28.
Any amount will help, and all gifts are tax deductible.
Help us fight back by saving the lives of these innocent babies.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword, baby.
That's pound 250, baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
The Divided States of Biden with Ben Shapiro has its second episode out, focused on how fentanyl has become America's silent epidemic.
Many know what fentanyl is, but do you know that it's the number one killer of adults ages 18 to 49, claiming an average of 295 lives per day?
The Biden administration is completely silent.
In fact, Biden's policies make it easier for fentanyl to be distributed and sold across the country, allowing it to fall into the hands of any American, many of them very young.
Ben Shapiro uncovers the fentanyl crisis in one of the city's most affected In the latest episode of The Divided States of Biden, watch The Divided States of Biden, Fentanyl, America's Silent Epidemic, now exclusively on Daily Wire+.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
For our Daily Cancellation today, we have the President of Mexico, Andres Manuel López Obrador,
a man who, among his other problems, has far too many names.
His bigger problem, or the bigger problem for the citizens of Mexico, which means by extension that it's a bigger problem for us, is that President AMLO is absurdly corrupt and resides over one of the most corrupt regimes in the world.
And on Sunday, he was interviewed by 60 Minutes.
The conversation spanned many topics, most of them centering around immigration and related issues.
There was one brief 45-second exchange that deserves a special highlight, I think.
The anchor asks the Mexican president about all of the fentanyl being produced and shipped into America by the Mexican cartels, and the president, unsurprisingly, looks to shift the blame immediately, and here's what he says.
The DEA says cartels are mass-producing fentanyl, and the U.S.
State Department has said that most of it is coming out of Mexico.
Are they wrong?
Yes.
Or rather, they don't have all the information, because fentanyl is also produced in the United States.
The State Department says most of it's coming from Mexico.
Fentanyl is produced in the United States, in Canada, and in Mexico, and the chemical precursors come from Asia.
You know why we don't have the drug consumption that you have in the United States?
Because we have customs, traditions, and we don't have the problem of the disintegration of the family.
So, Mexico's crooked president is asked about the fentanyl that his country is exporting into our country by the ton, and he accepts no special blame for the problem, instead tries to pretend that Canada is as much a contributor to the drug epidemic as Mexico.
And he also points out that there is fentanyl produced within America as well, which may be true, but doesn't answer the question.
Then he points finally and correctly to the disintegration of the nuclear family in the United States and the loss of our culture and traditions.
He says that Mexico doesn't have the same drug consumption problem, even if they do have a rather large drug production problem, because they generally keep their families together and they maintain their customs and value their culture.
This answer should tick you off rather severely, and in case the reasons aren't obvious, I'll explain.
First of all, He presents Mexico as a superior country, one with a healthy family unit and a vibrant culture, but he doesn't explain why his people want to come here if that's the case.
If our country really is so bad, then stay in yours.
Why come here and add extra strain on a nation that is already strained, according to you?
And second, the point he makes about the collapse of the nuclear family and our culture in America is true.
And I'll get back to that in a moment, but it doesn't answer the question.
No matter what our problems are, the fact remains that this guy runs a country that he doesn't actually run.
The cartels are in charge and they're poisoning the entire hemisphere and beyond with fentanyl and myriad other drugs that together kill more Americans in a single year than were killed in every war we fought over the past 60 years combined.
That's the fact that he just wants to sort of gently step around.
And third, Yes, the American family is in a state of rapid disintegration.
What he doesn't mention is that the drugs imported from Mexico have something to do with that problem.
Having Mexico to our south is like having a giant sewage line spewing filth and poison into our country by the bucket load every second of the day.
And the poison, the drugs, have a corrosive effect on everything that they touch, especially the family.
And as to the loss of our culture and customs, That can even more so be tied back to the invasion coming from his country and its neighbors.
You know, he's proud of Mexico for celebrating its customs and traditions, but it would not have those customs and traditions anymore if he had to deal with the entire third world all across the globe sneaking into his country to set up shop.
You know, he may have other third worlders sneaking in, but that's only because they're on their way here to our country.
Earlier in the interview, he said that he doesn't think we should build a wall.
The fact that the president of Mexico doesn't want us to have a wall is about as good an argument for building one that anyone can possibly make.
But the point is that he doesn't want us to enforce our borders, even as he criticizes us for problems that can be tied directly back to the lack of enforcement on our border.
So these are all reasons to be irritated at the Mexican president for his dismissive response to the fentanyl crisis that he is helping to facilitate.
But you can only be so angry at him.
After all, he's the president of a foreign country.
He doesn't care about our country.
Only vaguely pretends to.
Although we can blame him for being corrupt and useless, we can't really blame him for his lack of concern for America, seeing as how he's not American.
But that's why that little clip makes me even angrier at our own political leaders.
The ones who live here and supposedly represent our people and our interests.
We should be angry at them, not only because they're failing to stand up to people like the Mexican president, but because most of them would never say what he just said.
Leaving aside the hypocrisy, the shirking of responsibility, all of that, he is, again, completely correct that our national drug problem has everything to do with the collapse of the family unit and the loss of our culture and traditions.
The president of a foreign country is willing to speak that truth However self-servingly it might be, but our own president would never and most of our politicians at every level of government would never and have never said that.
There is a vanishingly small collection of American politicians who would point out and have pointed out that the nuclear family has been destroyed and every societal problem can be traced back to its destruction.
You know, this should be a point that All of our leaders speak about constantly and work urgently to address.
It should be treated as a five alarm fire, as a national emergency, because that's what it is.
But not only will most of them not treat it as an emergency, most of them won't even acknowledge it.
Or else they'll flat out deny that it's happening.
Now, as to the loss of our culture and our traditions, I think there's an even smaller collection of American political leaders who will ever discuss that.
And an even smaller collection still Would ever draw a connection between that and a real-world problem like the drug epidemic.
But there is a connection.
There's a glaringly obvious connection.
Culture is identity.
Identity is meaning.
Without meaning, there is despair.
And in despair, people turn to drugs.
Not because it will give them meaning, but because it will numb their minds and their souls to the pain of a life lived without it.
You know, we were not losing tens of thousands of Americans every year to drug overdoses back when America had a cultural identity, back when we had our own customs and traditions, back when we knew our history and valued it and celebrated it.
Now we have none of that, at least not on a collective level, and instead we have the tens of thousands of drug deaths.
This is not a coincidence, but it's a point that almost none of our leaders have ever made or will ever make.
They leave it to the President of Mexico to point that out.
And for that reason, he, and also they, are today cancelled.
