Ep. 1370 - Chaos Erupts In Congress Because Our Politicians Are The Dumbest Dimwits To Ever Exist
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, mayhem breaks out during a congressional hearing. It was a wild spectacle, but most of all extremely, extremely stupid. Also, the insane backlash continues against an NFL kicker who committed the sin of promoting marriage and family life to young women. Plus, Greg Abbott issues a pardon for a man who shot a BLM protester in self-defense. And NBC has a new documentary coming out, just in time for Pride Month, all about "queerness" in the animal kingdom.
Ep.1370
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the brand new animated sitcom Mr. Birchum only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Introducing Emerson - A Premium Multivitamin for Men: https://bit.ly/3WlNWgs
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Constitution Wealth - Go to http://www.ConstitutionWealth.com/Matt and sign up for a FREE consultation today!
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order of Fruits & Veggies + $10 Off Every Additional Set. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Working Genius - Get 20% off today with promo code WALSH at http://www.WorkingGenius.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 Walsh Show, mayhem breaks out during a congressional hearing.
It was a wild spectacle, but most of all, extremely, extremely stupid.
We'll go through it today.
Also, the insane backlash continues against an NFL kicker who committed the sin of promoting marriage and family life to young women.
Plus, Greg Abbott issued a pardon for a man who shot a BLM protester in self-defense.
And NBC has a new documentary coming out just in time for Pride Month, all about queerness, quote-unquote, in the animal kingdom.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
It's 2024 and if you're still spending your money with woke companies, cut it out.
There are a lot of great companies out there that aren't shoving diversity and inclusion initiatives down the throats of their employees or their customers.
Maybe you're already doing business with some of these.
That's great.
Maybe you're boycotting companies who have made headlines by acquiring the latest trans influencer as their spokesperson.
Even better.
But have you given much thought to where your money is currently invested?
A lot of big wealth management companies make billions of dollars investing your money however they want, wherever they want.
Even if that means investing in businesses who don't care about your values.
Align your portfolio with your principles today with my friends at Constitution Wealth.
Constitution Wealth is the Patriots choice in wealth management.
to help you build a solid investment plan while reducing your investments in the ESGs and DEIs,
companies that care more about global warming and diversity ratios than they do about the return on
your investment. And with Constitution Wealth, you can start using your shareholder votes to
support conservative action, fight the culture war with your most valuable weapon, your investments.
Help build a parallel economy by working with an investment firm composed of professionals
who are patriots like you. Go to constitutionwealth.com/matt and sign up for a free
Mediaite reports on the purpose of the hearing, quote, The committee met to discuss a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena.
That subpoena demanded that he turn over the recorded deposition of President Joe Biden as questioned by former Special Counsel Robert Herr.
Herr investigated Biden's retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and vice president.
Ultimately, the special counsel declined to prosecute Biden, stating that a jury would likely view him as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
Now, as you probably recall, Joe Biden was judged by the special counsel to be mentally unfit to stand trial for his mishandling of classified documents.
The poor old man was just confused, Robert Heard determined.
There was a, you know, and there may be some merit to that excuse, maybe, because he is senile, if not for the fact that Joe Biden is also You may have noticed, the President of the United States.
And if he is not mentally competent enough to stand trial, how is he mentally competent enough to sit in the Oval Office?
That's a very good question.
And another question is this.
Just how embarrassing and troubling was Joe Biden's performance in that deposition that it led to this conclusion?
Well, as a way of getting to the bottom of that, Congress has attempted to obtain the audio recording of Biden's deposition, but the Biden administration, as you just heard, is refusing to comply with the subpoena on the grounds that they don't want Biden to look bad.
Now, that's not the reason they're giving, but it is the actual reason, as we all know, and this is why the House Oversight Committee was meeting last night.
Very important subject, one that requires a seriousness of mind and purpose.
We could all probably agree.
Unfortunately, however, in the current year, Congress happens to include some of the dumbest human beings who have ever been born on planet Earth.
Voters in this country have scoured the nation, from sea to shining sea, looking for the most obnoxious dimwits they can find, and then they have elected those people and put them into positions of power.
Now, of course, we have been electing clowns to Congress for many years, but we have now reached critical clown mass, I would say.
As philosophers and scientists have long warned, when you reach critical clown mass, total dysfunction follows.
And that's what we saw at this hearing on Thursday night.
So let's go through this.
It all began with Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who made a little dig at Democrat Representative Jasmine Crockett.
Here's what she said.
I don't think you know what you're here for.
Well, you're the one talking about- I think your fake eyelashes are messing up- No, it ain't nothing- Hold on, hold on.
Order, Mr. Chairman, would you order?
Okay, so that was the fuse.
That was the spark in the tinderbox of stupid that was about to erupt.
Marjorie Taylor Greene makes fun of Crockett's fake eyelashes.
Now, You know that I am not exactly a sensitive soul when it comes to this kind of thing, or any kind of thing.
I've been known to throw out insults myself on very rare occasion.
It almost never happens, but on occasion I'll insult someone.
And it's true that Crockett does seem to have fake eyelashes.
But, come on, is a congressional hearing really a place for catty little insults like that?
How does a comment about another representative's eyelashes help us obtain the recording of Joe Biden's deposition, which is supposed to be the purpose of the hearing?
It does not help us.
Instead, it takes things wildly off course, and that's exactly what happened.
Watch.
All right, motion, table.
Now the chair recognizes Ms.
Green for 4 minutes and 21 seconds.
Mr. Chair, point of order.
Who's?
It's me.
Ms.
Crockett.
I'm just curious, just to better understand your ruling, if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blonde, bad built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?
A what now?
Chairman, I make a motion to strike those words.
I don't think that's a part of it.
I'm trying to find clarification on what quality... Chairman, motion to strike those words.
I had no idea what you just said.
We're not going to do this.
Look, you guys earlier literally just... You just voted to do it!
You just voted to do it!
Order!
Order!
I'm trying to get clarification.
Look it, calm down.
Calm down.
No, no, no, because this is what y'all do.
So I'm trying Hey, Ms.
Crockett, you're not recognized.
Ms.
Crockett.
I can't hear you with your yelling.
Calm down.
No.
Can you please calm down?
Don't tell me to calm down.
Calm down.
Because y'all talk noise and then you can't take it.
You're out of control.
Because if I come and talk s*** about her, y'all gonna have a problem.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman.
All right.
Chair.
Okay.
Order.
Chair now recognizes Ms.
Green for four minutes and 21 seconds.
Okay, it might be hard to discern anything that's being said over noises that sound like feral cats fighting in a back alley, so please allow me to provide a brief but fully accurate and verbatim transcript of Jasmine Crockett's remarks.
She said, and I quote, y'all wanna play games with me, don't tell me to calm down, y'all talk noise and then you
can't take it, 'cause if I come and talk shit about her, y'all gonna have
a problem.
That is an actual statement made by an elected member of the United States Congress during a
House Oversight Committee hearing.
And I think we can safely say that it is the first time in American history that any member of Congress operating in an official capacity has ever used the phrase, y'all talk noise.
It's also, I'm guessing, the first time that the phrase, talk s*** and y'all wanna play games, has ever been uttered during a congressional hearing.
It's never happened before.
We're making history here in all of the wrong ways.
And that was not the only history-making moment.
Listen to this exchange in the same hearing between Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC.
How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person?
Are your feelings hurt?
Move her words down.
Oh, girl.
Baby girl.
Oh, really?
Don't even play with me.
Baby girl?
I don't think so.
We are going to move and we're going to take your words down.
Again, the transcript.
Oh girl, baby girl, don't even play.
There's another statement that we can assume, with some measure of certainty, has never been stated on the record at any congressional hearing ever in history.
It is another historic first.
We are witnessing history in the making.
Now, if you read just the transcript of these exchanges, without any context, You would assume that this was perhaps an argument between groups of people at a Waffle House.
Or maybe it's a feud that broke out in the parking lot of a Bojangles fast food restaurant at 2 a.m.
If you just arrived here in a time machine from 30 years ago or any time prior, you simply would not believe that this was an exchange between members of Congress.
I would not be able to convince you.
You wouldn't believe it.
And if I did convince you of the fact, you would immediately get back in your time machine and go back to your own time to warn the world of the impending collapse of our collective IQ.
And if for some reason you couldn't go back in your time machine because it ran out of gas or something, you would probably elect to throw yourself into the sea rather than stay here and live through this with us.
And I couldn't blame you.
Now, we should note that the Democrats were not the only ones humiliating themselves in this exchange.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is no better, or if she is better, only slightly so.
And this dispute between Greene and AOC continued as AOC demanded an apology for the random insults that Greene kept throwing onto the pile.
Listen.
[SWISH]
Ms. Green agrees to strike her words.
I believe she's apologizing.
No, no, no.
Mr. Perry.
Okay, hold on.
Then, after Mr. Perry's going to be recognized, then Ms.
Green has five minutes and 21 seconds.
I'm not apologizing.
Well, then, you're not striking your words.
I am not apologizing.
Now, let's go.
Come on, guys.
Why don't you debate me?
I mean, I'm not going to debate you.
I'm not going to debate you.
I'm not going to debate you.
Mr. Chairman, the minority... I think it's pretty self-evident.
You're out of order.
You don't have enough intelligence.
You're out of order.
Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
I'd like to strike those words as well.
I'd like to strike those words as well.
That's two requests to strike.
That's two requests to strike.
Oh, they cannot take the words.
If there's another motion to strike your words again, please get your members under control.
Here's the correct apology.
Ms.
Green, do you agree to unanimous consent to strike your words?
I repeat again for the second time, yes, I'll strike my words, but I'm not apologizing.
Without objection.
Why don't you debate me, she says.
Well, I very much hope she doesn't, because I think we've already seen what a debate between AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene would consist of.
Here's what the debate would be.
You're stupid!
No, I'm not!
You are!
And you're ugly!
No, you are!
No, you!
And so on for seven and a half hours.
And this catfight felt like it went on for that long during the hearing as the men sat there bewildered and stuttering, trying meekly and ineffectually to get the hearing back on track.
So it's a very, you know, you had the women screaming at each other and the men just standing in the middle like, come on guys.
It was a microcosm of American culture in many ways and in all the worst ways.
Now, by contrast, And really, you could choose any time at random.
But back in the year 1858, there were a series of presidential debates between Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen Douglas.
And these were highly contentious, emotionally charged, often involved bitter personal attacks.
After all, this was only three years before the country would erupt in a brutal civil war that would kill 700,000 people on both sides.
And yet, these men expressed their disdain for one another in eloquent and intelligent ways.
So eloquent and intelligent that we can't even imagine politicians in the modern age speaking this way.
So, here's just one very brief example, pulled at random.
In the first debate, Douglas spoke first, and Lincoln, when it was his turn, felt that Douglas had lied about him and misrepresented his anger.
His record, rather.
And he was angry about that.
So, here was his way of accusing Douglas of dishonesty.
This is just one sentence.
One sentence will be enough to make the contrast clear.
He said, quote, My fellow citizens, when a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him.
At least, I find it so with myself.
But when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.
So in other words, he's saying, you lied about me so much that I'm not even angry.
It's actually, it's absurd how much you're lying.
Now, compare that to how that same sentiment would be expressed by politicians today.
Instead, it would be something like this.
Oh, baby girl, don't play with me.
You best stop talking that noise with your lying ass.
Now, the intelligence of our leaders hasn't just declined, it has plummeted like a meteor out of the sky and formed a crater in the ground that goes five miles deep into the earth.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
We know that because it never was this way until now.
There was a time when our nation was led by men, and it used to be mostly men, let's face it, who were articulate and intelligent and dignified and composed and Perhaps most importantly, boring.
They were boring people.
Now, I'm not saying that they were always good at their jobs or always made wise decisions.
That certainly wasn't the case.
But I'm simply trying to emphasize the fact that it is highly unusual, from the perspective of history, to have a Congress with an average IQ of 85.
Okay, when we can watch this, and we know, like, most of the people watching this, we are certainly smarter than the people that we hear in that exchange.
These are very dumb people.
But of course, you know, the average IQ of the country has collapsed too, so we would expect, I guess, the country's representatives to follow suit.
My only hope is that voters get tired of this, and I think many are.
Now, too many are not tired of it.
If you go on Twitter right now, you're going to find people on both sides who are, like, you know, cheering on whoever their side was in this thing and pretending, oh, she got her.
Did you listen to that?
Oh, wow, that was a good one.
So there are still absolute morons, just bottom-of-the-barrel morons, who are still somehow impressed with this kind of thing.
But my hope is that most people aren't, because we don't need to be entertained by politicians.
We really don't.
I don't want to be.
I want to turn on C-SPAN or whatever hearing and just be bored out of my skull.
That's what I want.
Because they are not here to amuse us.
We have enough amusement.
Do we need more?
Everywhere you go, there's amusement, okay?
Everywhere you go, there are things out there that want to amuse you.
Pick up your phone anytime, and it's just nothing but amusement.
Constantly.
Do we need it from politicians also?
Do we need it from committee hearings?
We need them to amuse us also?
Like, is anyone allowed to just be serious?
Can we have serious people doing anything, anywhere?
No, these people are not there to go viral.
These are not social media influencers.
We should have serious people leading us.
Now, we need more than seriousness from them.
We should also want them to be competent and have integrity and always put America first.
Put America's people first.
And of course, we have almost no one who checks any of those boxes individually, let alone all of them.
Before any of that, they need to be serious people who take the job seriously.
Because none of the rest matters if they're not.
It doesn't matter if they claim to be, it doesn't matter even if they do claim they put America first, even if they appear to supposedly be competent and intelligent.
If they're not serious people who are actually serious about doing the freaking job that they've been assigned to and that they have applied for and been accepted for, if they're not serious people then none of it matters because they're not going to do anything.
But we can only get serious kinds of leaders if we have serious voters who take the job of voting seriously.
Because ultimately, you get the leaders you deserve.
And as sad as it is to say, this is what we deserve.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Balance of nature fruits and veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables daily.
They use an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables onto whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants.
The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in Balance of Nature's Fruits and Veggie capsules are fruits and veggies.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
With Balance of Nature, there's never been an easier way to ensure that you get your daily dose of fruits and vegetables.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies and an additional $10 off every additional set you buy.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
Okay, let's start here.
By now you've likely heard all about the controversy, the incredibly stupid controversy surrounding a speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at a commencement ceremony for Catholic students at a Catholic school.
And he's been viciously condemned by the left, the media, Democrat politicians, the NFL has condemned him.
He's been doxed, he's been threatened, he's been harassed.
Just an insane, rabid, vicious, psychotic response.
Um, from so many people, all because he gave a speech as a Catholic man at a Catholic school to Catholic students, where he articulated Catholic teaching.
That was the whole speech.
It was an excellent speech.
He was right about everything he said, and everything he said, again, was totally consistent with Catholic teaching.
The idea that there would be any controversy about a Catholic message at a Catholic school is just preposterous.
But also not terribly surprising, of course.
And meanwhile, as many people have pointed out, you know, there are NFL players who have been charged with domestic abuse and drug possession and assault and so on and so on, and none of them get the kind of treatment that Harrison Butker has gotten for saying a bunch of Catholic stuff at a Catholic commencement speech.
Where again, he was hired to go and give his perspective.
So there have also been plenty of morons on social media who have said, Well, is Harrison Butker going to get drummed out of the league the way that Colin Kaepernick was?
What about all the conservatives who told Colin Kaepernick to just shut up and play football?
Why aren't they saying the same thing to Harrison Butker?
Well, you idiot, it's because, well, there's a few reasons.
Number one, Harrison Butker is a star at his position.
He's one of the best in the league at his position, which is field goal kicker, which is a very important position on the field.
And Colin Kaepernick was way past his prime, was a mediocre bum, and he had already lost his starting job.
He was bad.
He was bad.
He was bad at playing football, which is like the actual reason why he flunked out of the league, because he couldn't play the game.
Nobody wanted to hire him.
Now, was he good enough back in, whenever it was that he left the league, back in 2015 or 2016 or whatever it was, was he good enough to at least be a backup somewhere, or even a third string, or at least be on a practice squad?
Yeah, probably.
But he didn't want that job, first of all.
And second, the baggage he brought with him was not enough His talent was not enough to override all of the baggage he brought with him.
So that was the problem.
If he was more talented, he'd still be in the league now, probably.
But the bigger, the most important distinction between the two, which should be very obvious, is that Colin Kaepernick was using the football field itself during the games to make his political statements.
So, as a football player on the football field, he was using that as a forum to make political statements.
Harrison Butker, in the off-season, was invited to a Catholic school as a Catholic man to give his perspective in a speech, and that's what he did.
And then there's the third distinction, which is probably the most important, which is that Harrison Butker is right, and Colin Kaepernick was wrong about everything he said.
So, I think there's enough there to make the distinctions clear.
So anyway, a lot of controversy.
But then there's one clip, of course, that's gotten by far the most attention, and it's the short portion of the speech where he addresses the women in the crowd.
And it is a short portion.
The speech is like 20 minutes long, and he spends like a minute, if that, talking to the women in the crowd.
And I was looking quickly for a clip of just that part, and this is the only one I found when I was looking quickly.
Somebody edited it to put clips of a handmaid's tale into the clip of the speech.
And I'm going to play this version, actually, mainly because I want you to hear what he said, but also because, actually, the handmaid's tale imagery, along with what Butker is really saying, only serves to show how absurd the moral panic over his remarks actually is.
So let's watch that.
For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment.
You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives.
I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you.
How many of you are sitting here now, about to cross this stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?
Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.
I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabel, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.
I am on this stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation.
I am beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made
possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school
would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all,
"Hole-maker."
[applause]
Wow. How terrible.
This man deeply loves and appreciates his wife.
He actually gets choked up talking about how much he loves his wife.
What an awful thing that we should be upset about.
I mean, honest to God, if you actually watched the clip, how can you manage to have those kinds of negative emotions watching that?
Really?
That upsets you?
Um, and on top of that, he's daring to tell the women in the audience that family life is good and will bring them joy and fulfillment.
What a monster!
What a monster this man is!
Now, in all seriousness, what is there to be upset about?
He doesn't say that no women should ever work outside the home.
He didn't say that!
He didn't say that Homemaker is the most important title of all that anyone could ever have.
He said it's one of the most important titles.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
You don't even think it's one of?
It can't be one of the most important?
You're upset about that?
Are we allowed to agree?
Like, women that stay home and raise their kids, they do one of the most important jobs?
So if you're upset, then I assume that what you're saying is that it's not even one of the most important.
Being a mother and raising your kid is not even, it doesn't belong in that category.
It's not even top five, according to you.
Like, to me, that is the radical position, not what he is saying.
He doesn't say that women who work outside the home are evil or bad or should be arrested and stoned to death, okay?
He didn't say that.
He didn't imply it.
He didn't get anywhere close to it.
He simply says that most of them, most of the Catholic women at a Catholic school, will find their greatest calling in family life.
Which they will!
That doesn't even mean that most of them will solely be mothers and stay-at-home moms, but that most of them will find their greatest calling, will find their greatest vocation in raising families, which is true.
And the same could be said of the men.
In fact, he does say it about the men.
He says it about himself.
He says that he wouldn't be who he is without his wife.
Is that offensive?
Is what he just said about himself offensive to men?
Because I can guarantee you something, if he had said the opposite about women, the feminists would be having an even greater conniption to it.
He says about himself, I wouldn't be the man I am today without my wife.
What if he had said, you know, women who get married, they wouldn't be the women they are without their husbands.
Can you imagine if he had said that?
The explosion, it would be a nuclear explosion of outrage.
We would all be incinerated right now.
And if not dead with that, or, you know, have radiation poisoning from the nuclear explosion of feminist rage if he had dared to say that.
Yet, yet, he said it about himself.
He said it about men.
The men who get married, they wouldn't be the same men if they didn't have their wives.
So, my point is, like, if what he said about women is insulting for women, then isn't what he said to men insulting to men?
But no one's insulted by that?
Why is that?
Because that'd be crazy to be insulted by.
And when it comes to men, you're allowed to talk about the importance of family life, but for some reason, to bring it up around women at all is offensive.
How dare you discuss families to women?
How dare you?
Now, and of course he's promoting family life to both men and women, because you need both to be involved in order to have a family in the first place.
So he's right.
You will find more purpose and fulfillment and happiness in your family than in your job.
Most jobs, most jobs, Don't have much deeper meaning beyond the fact that you're doing it to make a living, which is fine.
I mean, that in itself is important.
But if you're working middle management in some corporate office somewhere, there's not a whole lot of meaning underneath that.
There just isn't.
Most jobs in the country are, again, this is not true of all of them, but most jobs in the country, or at the very least a large number of them, Again, don't have much deeper meaning beyond just you're doing the job and that's why you're doing it.
Most people who have jobs, the reason they have the job, it's not really because they're so passionate about what they're doing, it's because they need to make a living.
Which means that if you make that the center of your life, if you make it the focal point, if that is your life, your life will inevitably have little meaning to you.
It will have little meaning to you.
You will struggle to find meaning in your own life.
Now, finding meaning in family life is different.
You can find meaning in family for its own sake.
And then it also gives meaning to everything else you do.
So that when you go out and do your job, now hopefully you can find meaning in your job also, to some extent, for its own sake.
Hopefully you enjoy what you do and you feel like you're contributing to the world in some way.
But whether or not you feel that way about your job, the fact is that you're doing it to provide for your family, and so that gives it even greater meaning.
And this is true of men and women.
But what he's saying is especially true of women, even though it's true for both.
And why is that?
Well because, and if you're in the outrage mob going after Butker, I want you to listen closely here.
Just listen to this, come in a little bit closer and listen to what I'm going to say because I need you to really try to let this sink in.
Men and women are different.
I'll say it again in case you lost me.
Men and women They are different.
Okay?
They're not the same.
That's what different means.
That's why we have different words for them.
Or at least we used to.
They're two different groups.
They are different biological categories.
And so not everything is exactly the same.
So, when Butker told the women in the audience that many of them are excited about getting married and having babies, it was true.
Like, they applauded him.
Did we not notice that?
They applauded.
So you might be offended on behalf of the women in the audience, but apparently many of them were perfectly fine with it.
I'm sure they're very glad that you're white knighting for them, but they weren't offended.
Because it's true.
You know, in fact, many of them have been excited about that their whole lives, essentially.
Little girls play with baby dolls.
Little boys don't generally play with baby dolls.
Girls from a young age like to pretend to be the mommy, right?
My own daughters have been sort of playing mom, playing like they are the mommy since they were 18 months old, when they start gravitating towards the baby dolls and the kitchen play sets and all that sort of thing.
And girls all over the world since time immemorial have had versions of this.
You can go to ancient cultures and far-flung parts of the globe and you'll find ancient versions of dolls and that sort of thing.
Because girls have been playing, partaking in a childlike way in these sort of domestic duties since time immemorial.
My four-year-old daughter just the other day was telling me all about her baby doll and its name and its favorite color and what it likes to eat and, you know, all that sort of thing.
My boys have never done that.
My boys aren't thinking about that.
Very few people have boys that are.
And that's because boys and girls are different.
Men and women are different.
So yes, young women graduating college, unless they've been conditioned otherwise, will oftentimes desire to get married and have babies.
Now, why didn't Harrison Butker, even though he had plenty of messages for men that were similar in theme, right?
Why didn't Butker say the same exact thing to the young men?
Why didn't he say to the young men, well, I know many of you are most excited about getting married and having kids.
Because it wouldn't be true.
That's why he didn't say it.
He didn't say it because it wouldn't be true.
It wouldn't make any sense for him to say, I know many of you men here are thinking X, Y, and Z, when he knows that they're not thinking that.
Because boys don't grow up, most of them, dreaming about being husbands and fathers.
Most of them don't.
They don't play with dolls.
You know, boys dream about going out into the world and being explorers and adventurers and warriors, right?
This is not, despite what people on the left say, this is not social conditioning, okay?
This is visceral.
This is instinctive.
So it's not, when I observe that my daughters are playing with dolls and my sons are outside with sticks pretending to sword fight, this is not some kind of, like, arrangement that I have set up because I'm so old-fashioned.
This is the same dynamic that billions of people across the world and through history have observed from the youngest of ages.
We are the first society in history to try to deny these basic realities, these basic differences that everyone has always noticed.
And so those young men in the audience, that's what they're thinking about.
They want to go out.
Right?
They want to go out into the world.
They want to go out on an adventure.
That's what they're thinking about.
That's how men are wired.
Men want to discover, and eventually they'll discover the joys of family life.
But it's hard for men to understand that joy, even conceptually, until they experience it.
It's easier for women to understand it and desire it before they've experienced it.
Because again, men and women are different.
Women are wired differently.
When I was college graduation age, even though I didn't go to college, but when I was that age, or I would have graduated had I gone, I absolutely did not want to get married or have kids.
I wasn't opposed to it in principle.
It just wasn't something I felt myself deeply desiring.
There are many things that I desire, there are many ambitions and goals that I had that occupied my mind pretty much 24-7, but I didn't sit around much thinking about how great it would be to be a dad.
I just didn't think about it.
Most young men don't.
Then I met a woman who I loved, and I wanted to be with her.
And through my devotion to her, I discovered the joys of being a husband and then a father.
And now that I am one, I can't imagine life without my kids.
Now I can't get back into that.
I can't even conceive of that.
I cannot put myself back in that mentality.
It's sort of inconceivable.
But this is the way it's always worked.
Men get married and they have kids because they fall in love with a woman.
And that's what you're supposed to do when you fall in love with a woman.
Women get married and have kids because they want to get married and have kids.
So now when you remove that sense of duty from men, that sense that like, okay, well this is what I'm supposed to do.
I've met the woman that I love.
That was sort of the easy part.
But what I'm supposed to do now is I'm supposed to be a man and now I'm supposed to take on these new duties and responsibilities.
When you take that Away from men.
And you try to convince women not to desire family life and marriage and family life anymore, you end up with what we have now, which is people aren't having kids anymore and everyone is miserable and everyone's confused and nobody knows what the hell they're doing.
There's just no question at all that historically, throughout the world, women have generally been wired to desire family life and to find purpose and meaning in that vocation.
The question that we are asking in this society is whether that wiring can be changed at scale, society-wide.
Because Harrison Butker is not trying to convince the women of anything.
Did you notice that?
He's not saying, you should do this or that.
He's saying, well, I know many of you want this, and that's a great thing to want it.
Now, on the left, the message is different.
What they're saying to the women is, no, you shouldn't even want that.
You shouldn't want to have babies and all that kind of stuff.
You should want to be a CEO.
You should want this.
Because there's a society-wide effort to change the inherent instinctive, both biological and spiritual wiring of men and women, so that they want different things than what they have always wanted since the beginning of the human species.
The question is whether that can really be changed at scale, and whether we should even try to.
Whether it's worth trying to change it.
And I say, no, it can't really be changed, ultimately.
And no, absolutely, we shouldn't try.
Why?
What was wrong with how it has always been since forever?
Why do you need to convince women that they should want to be CEOs?
Why?
How does that benefit anybody?
That's not to say that no woman should ever be allowed to be a CEO.
But why is there this decades-long intentional effort to convince women that they should want that, even if naturally they don't?
If Harrison Butker was criticizing anything, he was criticizing that.
I don't know.
If you can't see that, I think it's because you don't want to see it.
All right, the Postmillennial has this.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a full pardon and restoration of rights for Daniel Perry, the former Army Sergeant who was found guilty of murder for the fatal shooting of Garrett Foster during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest while Perry was an Uber driver.
Abbott said in a statement, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted an exhaustive review of U.S.
Army Sergeant Daniel Perry's personal history and the facts surrounding the July 2020 incident and recommended a full pardon and restoration of full civil rights of citizenship.
Among the voluminous, well, volume, voluminous?
Anyway.
Uh, reviewed by the board, they consider an information provided by the Travis County District Attorney, the full investigative report on Daniel Perry, plus a review of all the testimony provided at trial.
Texas has one of the strongest danger ground laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney.
I thank the board for its thorough investigation.
I approve their pardon recommendation.
Uh, Perry, who was driving an Uber, for Uber at the time, encountered an armed BLM group that had taken over the streets of Austin.
Perry originally faced one count of murder and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
The jury did not find him guilty of the second charge.
The Austin police said that a car turned onto Congress Avenue near 4th Street at 9.51 p.m.
Protesters who were marching in the area surrounded the car and Foster, who was part of the group, was armed with a rifle.
And Perry told 911 operator, I made a wrong turn.
A guy pointed a freaking weapon at me and I panicked.
I didn't know what to do.
I'm just an Uber driver.
I made a wrong turn.
I've never had to shoot someone before.
They started shooting back at me and I got out of the area.
Okay, so.
Now that he's been pardoned, I gotta say, Greg Abbott fluctuates between big W's and big L's more than maybe anyone else in public life.
And this, of course, is a big W. Huge W. Obviously, this was the right decision.
Perry never should have been convicted, much less sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Total travesty.
And the case is very simple.
This guy was driving along, just trying to, you know, doing Uber, trying to make a living.
And he finds himself surrounded by an armed mob.
Multiple people in the mob are armed, including Foster, who was open carrying an AK-47.
Now, the left defended Foster by saying, well, open carry is legal in Texas, which is the only time they have ever favorably cited open carry laws.
You never hear that.
But in this case, it's people on the left saying, well, open carry is legal.
He has a right to exercise his Second Amendment rights.
But that's irrelevant, because just because you have the right to carry doesn't mean you have the right to surround a car that's trying to drive down the street.
You have no right to do that.
This is really the point.
They surrounded the car and tried to stop it from moving.
You can't do that.
You cannot do that.
I know left-wing protesters have trouble understanding this, but actually, just because you're mad about something doesn't mean you get to just shut down a street.
Because you're mad.
We don't care that you're mad.
And people that are trying to drive on the street, that shouldn't be their problem.
But we're really mad because this happened.
I don't care.
That's your issue.
Why do I have to care about that?
This guy's driving an Uber.
He's trying to pick somebody up.
And when you surround somebody's car like that, they have every right to take that as a threat to their lives.
And then Foster also pointed the rifle at Perry, so, according to Perry, and so it's a slam-dunk self-defense case just based on that.
But even if he hadn't pointed it, it wouldn't matter.
You're surrounding the car and you're armed.
Perry, again, had every right and reason to think that his life was in danger.
And I also have to say, this is also why open carry is stupid, by the way, and maybe an unpopular opinion with our audience.
I'm actually not sure if it is or not, but I don't know, either way.
I'm as big a supporter of the Second Amendment as you'll find, and I will still say that open carry is ridiculous.
It's just ridiculous, most of the time.
Now, there are circumstances, you're out on a ranch or something, or obviously if you're hunting or whatever.
So I'm not saying there are no circumstances where open carry might make sense, but in most circumstances it doesn't make sense.
In a populated urban environment, to walk around intentionally showing off your weapon to everybody, it's ridiculous.
I don't know any serious gun owner who does that, or thinks it's a good idea.
The very few occasions where I've met someone who open carries in this kind of environment, They're always, always irresponsible idiots who are super impressed with the fact that they're carrying a gun and they want you to be impressed with it, and so they're walking around with it like a fashion statement.
Every case I've encountered of someone who open carries like this, it's just, it's like they're showing off.
They're really impressed.
They think it's really cool that they have a gun and they want people to know it.
And that is not, you know...
Serious gun owners, that is not how they view their gun, and that's not how they would treat it.
It's not a fashion statement.
They're not trying to impress anybody.
Responsible gun owners and people who carry responsibly, they don't want you to know that you have it on you.
Or where you have it.
Why would they want the public?
There's no real advantage to the public knowing that.
And any argument that, because the one argument you hear in favor of it is, well, If a bad guy, if a potential bad guy knows that someone else is carrying because he's open carrying, then he's less likely to do a bad thing.
But I think that's just not true.
Like, I don't think there's any evidence that it works that way.
In fact, there's evidence that it goes the other way.
And this case is that sort of evidence.
Because by presenting your weapon, if you're open carrying and you're letting everyone, hey, everyone, look, look, I got, look, I'm carrying.
When you do that, if you find yourself in a confrontation, you have automatically escalated that confrontation because everybody involved in it knows that you're armed.
And so you have brought an element into this confrontation that will not de-escalate it, and it may well go the other way.
You are increasing the chances that something bad happens.
If you're carrying, you should want to have control over when and if your gun is presented.
And that's the way most people carry, that's the way they look at it.
Like, I don't, I'm not, this, the fact that I have a weapon on me is, is not going to, if that becomes public knowledge, it's because something's happening and, and it has, now, now I have to respond.
But otherwise, just walking around, as I said, as a fashion statement, is ridiculous.
And why did this guy have it?
Like, why was he carrying a rifle around?
You're at a protest, you claim that you have no violent intent, and you're open carrying a rifle.
Like, why?
And you're stopping cars carrying a rifle.
What can that do other than Create a horrible situation, which is exactly what it did for this guy, and he's dead, and it's his fault.
And I'm glad that Greg Abbott made the right decision there.
Okay.
Well, we've had this.
I don't know.
It's not even worth playing, but we will anyway.
Vice President Kamala Harris was in a conversation with the comedian Jimmy O. Yang, and she let a little F-bomb slip.
She's very impressed with that about herself.
Here's that moment.
We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open.
Sometimes they won't.
And then you need to kick that door down.
Excuse my language.
We gotta make t-shirts with that saying, kick the door down.
She is so impressed with the fact that she used an f-word.
She was so excited to use it.
So impressed with it.
And obviously, as you know, the f-bomb moment was planned ahead of time.
Like, obviously.
It was the least convincing slip of the tongue that I've ever heard.
And the funny thing is that Kamala Harris, instead of putting the f-bomb aside, which by the way, look, There's no point even complaining about it at this point, given what we started the show with and the way that these elected officials are behaving.
Something like this is small potatoes.
But really, it is like, it's not cute.
It's not impressive.
It's just, I really would like public officials, just comport yourself with some dignity and grace, really.
Can you just do that?
Is it that hard to do?
But, in any case, Kamala Harris is the worst example of the mentality that she's promoting.
Sometimes you gotta kick the door down.
Well, she didn't kick any door down.
The door was open for her, not because of her own merits or hard work, but purely because she's a woman and she's sort of black.
And that's the reason why the doors were open.
She didn't have to kick anything down.
And the shame is that there's an essence of a message in there that is actually true and important.
The problem is that she's cloaking it in this left-wing identity politics and victimhood culture, and that's where a lot of the rest of the conversation went.
She's presenting it as though these alleged victim groups are the ones who especially have to go out and kick doors down and, you know, and all of that, when in fact they are the ones who actually have doors opened for them.
But if we can get past all of that, then there could be a message in there for young people especially.
About, you know, when you have goals, you have to go out and pursue it.
Be single-minded, be passionate, have seriousness of purpose, intensity in going out and pursuing your goals.
It's not the most breathtaking wisdom that anyone's ever heard, but it is actually an important message.
Um, it's just that Kamala Harris is the worst possible person to deliver it.
Far too many people are unproductive and unfulfilled in their jobs, and too many teams fail to maximize productivity and achieve great results.
That's why Patrick Lencioni, the author of Five Dysfunctions of a Team, created Working Genius, this 10-minute assessment is revolutionizing the way managers and leaders think about
teamwork and productivity.
For individuals, Working Genius is the simplest and fastest way to discover your gifts
and better understand the type of work you thrive in. It provides detailed insights into your areas
of genius along with an easy-to-apply report that will help you leverage this information
in your work and life. For teams, Working Genius helps maximize productivity and fulfillment.
Ask everyone on your team to take the assessment and generate a custom team map to reveal strengths and potential weaknesses.
You'll be amazed at the results.
This will quickly help you understand where and why your team gets stuck and how to leverage one another to achieve more together.
The six types of Working Genius has been used by nearly 1 million people since its launch in 2020.
It's quickly becoming the tool of choice for teams and organizations that want to maximize their productivity, fulfillment, and results.
This tool is being leveraged in almost every industry imaginable, from startups and nonprofits to Fortune 40 companies.
We've even used this tool at The Daily Wire and seen the impact it can have firsthand.
Now, you can get it, too, with my special discount code at WorkingGenius.com.
Use code WALSH at checkout for 20% off the $25 assessment.
That's WorkingGenius.com, promo code WALSH.
This Sunday, prepare for an all-new episode of Mr. Bersham, The Daily Wire's new animated sitcom.
Join the comedic genius of Adam Carolla, Megyn Kelly, Roseanne Barr, Jay Moore, Patrick Warburton, Danny Trejo, our very own Brett Cooper, and an all-star cast at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central, exclusively on Daily Wire+.
If you missed the series premiere last Sunday, catch up right now, or if this is your first time hearing that we launched a hilarious animated sitcom from Adam Carolla, Let me tell you a little bit about Mr. Burcham.
He's the no-nonsense junior high woodshop teacher struggling to navigate a world he doesn't understand or approve of, constantly clashing with his gamer son, Snowflake Students, and most notably, the school's spirited Jedi officer, Carponzi.
That stands for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.
In case you're wondering, trust me, you will not be a fan of Carponzi.
I repeat, Episodes 1 and 2 are streaming now, with new episodes released every Sunday, exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
Don't miss out on the laughter, the lessons, and of course, the lumber.
Plus, for a limited time, get 25% off all Daily Wire Plus annual memberships with code BIRCHAM25 at checkout at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Now, it was all a big misunderstanding.
She thinks she's marrying a male and female penguin, only to be told by a zookeeper after the two penguins start mating that they were both, in fact, males.
And then the camera cuts to a close-up of Amy Poehler looking confused because, honestly, gay penguins?
How absurd, the concept is crazy, and therefore mildly amusing, and it was a laugh line in 2009 when that episode aired.
But we're a much more cultured people now, so the idea of homosexual penguins simply isn't funny anymore.
We're told that, just like gay people, gay penguins deserve our acceptance, not our mockery.
In fact, more than that, we're supposed to model our behavior around the life choices of these flightless birds.
And that's why gay penguins are front and center in a new documentary that's coming out soon on NBC's streaming service, Peacock.
This time around, the gay penguins aren't a gag, and the documentary isn't a comedy.
Not intentionally so, anyway.
It's all very real and very dead serious.
The show is called Queer Planets, and of course, it's coming out in time for Pride Month.
It's only in humans that we have such a stigma about it.
The idea of just having two fixed sexes is clearly out of style.
Mother Nature is pretty open-minded.
Sex is not just for reproduction.
It's clear that no matter where you look on our planet, nature is full of queer surprises.
To be honest, we should all probably get laid a little more than we do.
Well, it's exactly what Alex Jones warned us about so many years ago.
They're making the frogs gay, along with every other animal.
Supposedly, the existence of gay penguins and sex-changing clownfish is a sign that the animal kingdom is queer, quote-unquote, and that everything you were told as a child is wrong.
Queerness has always existed.
It's only in humans that we have such a stigma about it.
Nature is full of queer surprises, we're told.
Apparently David Attenborough was not available to narrate, neither was the Honey Badger guy, even though his voice was enough of a queer surprise that it racked up about 100 million views back in the day.
So instead, according to IndieWire, quote, the upcoming film was narrated by Girls5eva actor, it's Girls5eva, I think I'm pronouncing that how, but anyway, Andrew Reynolds, and is billed as a first-of-its-kind nature documentary that focuses solely on the queer creatures in the animal kingdom.
Before I go into detail about the trailer, the big picture is pretty clear.
The left is truly anti-human in the most literal sense of the term.
You must think that humans are on the level of these animals in order to justify human behavior by pointing to supposedly analogous animal behavior.
And when the documentary equates queerness in humans to queerness in animals, that's what they're doing.
They're saying that if animals do it, then we can learn from them because we're no better than animals.
Now, if we're playing that game, the ramifications seem pretty clear.
It would mean that, like, rape and cannibalism and killing and devouring your own young would also be justified, because these are all quote-unquote natural behaviors also.
To give just one recent example, earlier this year scientists documented what they called a stunning discovery in the waters off Maui.
For the first time in recorded history, photographers captured images of two male humpback whales having sex.
And this was presented by LGBT activists as a big win because supposedly it proves that they're all completely normal.
So here's just one example of a common reaction to the news from something called Extra Magazine.
Watch.
So a pair of humpback whales were photographed getting it on for the very first time.
And guess what?
They were gay!
Gay whales!
Shout out to these copulating kings who were spotted making sweet whale love off the coast of Hawaii back in January of 2022.
A new study published this week confirmed that the sighting marks the first time humpback whale intercourse has been observed at all, let alone homosexual relations.
According to the paper, our two horndogs right here approached and circled a private boat off the coast of Maui before engaging in sexual activity about three to five meters below the vessel.
So apparently whales are exhibitionists, too.
Now, researchers have studied humpback whale social behavior for decades, but observance of their sexual behavior has been, like, super rare.
Whales are mammals, so reproduction happens much the same way as with humans, and they've got, you know, similar parts.
During the intimate moment in Hawaii, researchers say one of the whales was seen to be holding the other one in place with its pectoral fins while penetrating it.
Now we've got tons of explanations and reasoning for homosexual behavior in other animals, we love you gay penguins, but little is actually known about humpback whales in this area.
Researchers weren't able to conclude a motive for why the whales were doing like they do on the Discovery Channel.
It could be practice for reproduction, a show of dominance, or a form of social bonding.
Still, I'm more than happy to add gay whales to the long list of proven gay animals.
Now, that person is more than happy to add humpback whales to the list of gay animals because it supposedly validates everything gay activists have been saying.
But there's just one problem.
One of the humpback whales in this scenario was clearly raping the other.
Here's the breakdown from NBC News' gay division called Out News.
They're summarizing a report from researchers who made this discovery.
Quote, the encounter occurred between one male whale, apparently who appeared unhealthy or injured, and a strong and healthy male whale.
The whale that received penetration was visibly emaciated and covered in whale lice that can proliferate on humpback whales that have lost mobility.
The emaciated whale may have approached the photographer's friend's boat to seek cover from the other whale.
The emaciated whale circled the boat and attempted to swim away from the healthier whale.
The healthier whale then held the other in place and then we know what happens next.
Somehow, those details didn't make the cut for Extra Magazine's report.
There's no word yet on if they're still happy to say that the humpback whale rapist represents the behavior of the gay community.
But, using the logic of NBC's Queer Planet, I guess we're supposed to conclude that, indeed, this discovery is a major win for all the humans out there who aspire to be rapists.
Because you're supposed to feel seen and validated, because rape is as natural as queerness.
It's in the animal kingdom, too.
That's what they're apparently saying.
And they're saying the same thing about cannibalism because, of course, we see animals eat one another within the same species all the time.
Alligators do it.
Lions do it.
Chimpanzees, hamsters, leopards, spiders, toads.
There's also evidence of many adult animals routinely mating with prepubescent animals.
Bonobos, for example, are straight-up pedophiles.
Here's a paragraph from the book Bonobo, the Forgotten Ape, published by University of California Press.
It's a real page-turner quote.
Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination, male-male, female-male, female-female, male-juvenile, female-juvenile, and so on.
Now that's not even getting into infanticide, and harems, and etc.
So if NBC is justifying transgenderism and homosexuality because they happen in nature, then they're justifying everything else that happens in nature, too.
And there's some pretty unsavory stuff happening in nature, to put it mildly.
This is not difficult to see.
There's no way around it.
It's the obvious, logical conclusion of what they're peddling.
And of course, maybe that's the whole point.
I mean, we've seen over and over again how the left's sexual agenda necessarily results in the sexualization and abuse of children.
We also know that the same people pushing this ideology also support unrestricted access to abortion.
And with that context, it's pretty safe to conclude that the point of this documentary is to advance the same exact narrative.
It's just another front of a much larger war that they're waging.
Now, fortunately, it's all extremely clumsy.
And as you saw, the documentary tries to justify gender ideology, transgenderism, gender fluidity, because these things supposedly exist in the animal kingdom, but That's just completely false.
In the animal kingdom, there are only males and females.
Now, in some species, a male can become a female, or be both a male and a female, but that doesn't make that true of the human species.
So, for example, the documenter brings up clownfish as an example of a transgender fish that can change between male and female.
The implication is that clownfish change their pronouns and take hormone therapy, just like humans do, I guess, but clownfish change genders by transforming into females biologically.
They're all born male, like many other fish, and they have the capability of naturally transforming to females, at which point they can't go back.
They can't pick and choose which gender they prefer to be at any given day.
They don't require any artificial surgery or any external hormones at any point of this process.
They are completely unlike humans in many, many ways, and they are completely unlike humans identifying as transgender in every relevant respect.
Put another way, some species of animals can fly.
Some can breathe underwater.
That is not evidence supporting the assertion of any human being who claims to have those capabilities.
And this is so basic and so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently it does.
Now fortunately, in this case at least, it seems that most people have caught on to how absurd this is.
The near-universal mockery that's greeting this documentary shows why most companies, I predict, will be much more reserved and quiet about their Pride Month celebrations this year.
This whole movement has become a parody of itself, a literal recitation of a sitcom joke from a decade ago.
And that is why queer planets and everyone else who wants to pretend that animal sexuality justifies human behavior at all are today cancelled.
