Ep. 1717 - Matt Walsh Reacts To The Trans Athlete SCOTUS Hearing
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Supreme Court debates the great question of our time: what is a woman? Kentanji Brown Jackson humiliates herself as usual. And the children’s YouTuber Ms Rachel is on a propaganda tour with Mamdani. That's just one of the many reasons why you shouldn't let your children watch her slop.
Ep. 1717
- - -
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMemberExclusive
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Cowboy Colostrum - Get up to 25% off Cowboy Colostrum with code WALSH at https://cowboycolostrum.com/walsh
American Financing - Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Walsh or call 866-569-471 for details about credit costs and terms. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers. NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org
Policygenius - Head to https://policygenius.com/WALSH to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
- - -
DailyWire+:
🍿 The Pendragon Cycle: Episodes 1 & 2 start streaming Jan. 22nd exclusively on DailyWire+
Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe
Friendly Fire is here! No moderator, no safe words. Now available at: https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire
👕 Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://dwplus.watch/MattWalshMerch
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today, the Matt Wall Show, the Supreme Court debates the great question of our time.
What is a woman?
Katasha Brown Jackson humiliates herself as usual.
And the children's YouTuber Miss Rachel is on a propaganda tour with Mamdani.
That's just one of the many reasons why you shouldn't let your children watch her slop.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
If you know anything about cults, then you know that inevitably their denial of reality catches up with them in spectacular fashion.
Heavensgate started out innocently enough back in the 1970s.
The hippies were convinced that they'd eventually ascend on board an alien UFO and transform into immortal beings with godlike powers.
Members eagerly signed up because after all, there wasn't a whole lot of downside risk involved.
In the worst case scenario, if the prophecy was wrong, your life would continue as normal.
Maybe you'd have to leave your family for a bit, but otherwise no big deal.
In the best case scenario, you become omnipotent.
So it seems like a win-win.
Now, fast forward a few decades and Heaven's Gate changed the terms of the bargain a little bit.
By the 90s, in order to get those godlike powers, you needed to take your own life.
So it was a slight revision in the contractual arrangement.
But a lot of Heaven's Gate members went along with it anyway.
They had bought into the nonsense that they'd been fed.
They were in too deep.
They had sunk costs.
They weren't about to turn back at the last minute as the Haley Bopp comet approached.
So they took the drugs, died, and that was that.
The cult of Heavensgate was no more.
Now, at the risk of sounding a note of optimism on this show, we're now seeing a very similar trend play out in the Democrat Party.
After years of denying reality, as it concerns everything from human biology to DEI to Donald Trump, the seams are starting to come loose for the left-wing political movement in this country.
It's evident from one news story to another that reality is finally hitting these people in the face and they're not taking it very well.
So consider, for example, this piece of video footage from the shooting of Renee Goode.
Most people miss this moment, which isn't surprising because there's so much footage of the shooting online.
But Laura Powell noticed a very revealing comment from Goode's lesbian friend right after the shooting.
Listen, she shouts, why did you have real bullets?
So she genuinely cannot understand why federal law enforcement officers would load their weapons with actual ammunition.
You will not find a clear window into the state of mind of these open borders agitators.
They truly believe that they're playing a game.
You know, it's all role-playing to them.
From the dispatchers we talked about yesterday in the anti-ICE signal chats to the legal monitors who are currently running around Minneapolis to document ICE and prevent them from abducting quote-unquote random brown people.
They desperately want to escape their uninteresting and depressing lives and reimagine themselves as like French resistance fighters circa 1942.
All of their friends and social media networks and schools and employers have indulged this delusion.
So they naturally expected that the federal government would do so as well.
They seriously expect that when they drive their cars directly into law enforcement, officers will simply take the hit and get run over in order to keep the fantasy alive.
Or if they shoot, they'll shoot, I don't know, super soakers, water guns.
Now, if you were a Democrat political strategist and you weren't ideological, you simply wanted your party to win, this would be a major existential concern.
We're not talking about one or two lone wolves or bad actors here.
We're talking about a critical mass of Democrat voters who are deranged.
They support attacking federal law enforcement, assassinating a conservative podcaster, taking shots at the president of the United States, mowing down an insurance executive, most recently gloating over the cancer-stricken body of a cartoonist who dared to say something negative about a demographic that's sacred to them.
You know, these are symptoms of a political movement that has lost touch with the reality.
And now, like all cults, they're losing touch with human decency as well.
They're nearing their moment of ultimate self-destruction.
And that became even clear yesterday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court for two cases, Little v. Heckox and West Virginia v. BPJ.
Now, for background, Hetcocks refers to a man who wanted to join the women's track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho.
And meanwhile, BPJ is a 15-year-old high school student, also a male, who's taking cross-sex hormones and other sterilizing medications who wants to join the girls' sports team at school.
Now, both Hetcocks and BPJ were banned from joining the girls' team because of laws passed by their respective states, which prevent males from competing against females.
In a moment, we'll talk in some detail about the legal issues that are involved here, but really this was the highlight.
More than three years after my film, What is a Woman?
The lead attorney for one of the trans-identifying athletes was asked a very basic, fundamental question by Justice Alito.
He wanted to know what it means to be a man or a woman, a boy or a girl.
He wanted the attorney, a very highly educated individual, went to Harvard several times, to provide some definition of biological sex so that we can distinguish between men and women.
And this is and always will be the, of course, the fatal question for trans ideology.
It's a question they simply cannot answer.
They've had years now to come up with some kind of answer.
Years.
But they haven't been able to.
The entire movement hinges on the notion that a man is someone who says he's a man, a woman is someone who says she's a woman.
There's no definition they can offer that isn't circular and therefore meaningless.
And that's why the attorney is in an impossible situation that he's put himself in.
And so he tried to punt on the question.
Listen.
If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Yes, Your Honor.
And what is that definition for equal protection purposes?
What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded.
We do not have a definition for the court.
So let's put the transcript up on the screen so it's clear what was said.
Quote, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or woman?
And then after some stammering, the response from the Harvard educated lawyer before the Supreme Court is, we do not have a definition for the court.
That's the answer that the left's attorney gave in a case that's supposedly about how trans-identifying individuals are being discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex.
They can't define the words they're supposed to even be arguing about.
So this is yet another Hindenburg moment for the modern left.
It was just over a year ago that the ACLU admitted before the Supreme Court that there's no evidence that butchering and sterilizing children actually prevents suicides.
In fact, as you'd expect, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Now, when asked point blank to define the concept of biological sex, the attorney for the trans-identifying plaintiff says simply, eh, pass.
Now, in a casual debate among friends, this would be embarrassing enough.
It's a concession that you've lost.
But in an oral argument before the Supreme Court, it's something else entirely.
The lawyer is saying that one of the most fundamental concepts in all of human biology, the distinction between sexes, is null and void.
The entire concept of biological sex has no meaning.
And if that's the case, if we're really supposed to disregard a category that's easily definable and pretend we can't define it at all, then, of course, nothing is real anymore.
If chromosomes and human biology suddenly mean nothing at all, then nothing means anything.
Then who's to say that ICE isn't the Gestapo or that Charlie Kirk wasn't a Nazi or that Scott Adams wasn't a racist who had it coming or any of the other left propositions?
All of it is who's to say they're wrong.
As long as we're making everything up, there are no boundaries.
The delusions can run rampant, and that's exactly what's happening for Democrats at a large scale.
Take, for example, this moment that took place outside the Supreme Court.
The Daily Wire interviewed a left-wing activist, and it went kind of how you would expect.
Here's how that was.
Why are you splitting up sports?
Like, I'm not even sure a woman could play basketball as well as a man if she practiced.
I'm pretty sure a woman could play basketball as well as a man if she practiced.
That's all it takes, a little more practice.
This is the mainstream view of the average leftist in 2026.
Yesterday, NPR ran a whole segment about studies that supposedly showed that men don't have a biological advantage over women in sports.
You have to wonder why these people aren't outside the headquarters of the NBA and NFL right now demanding that every team signs a female athlete, just like they have female referees now.
It's not like the NBA and NFL are right-wing institutions.
They'd be receptive to whatever the activists have to say, and it wouldn't be hard to make the change either.
You could just incorporate the WNBA into the NBA overnight.
How many games do you think they'd win?
Maybe the better question is, how many fatalities would there be before the police had to shut down the entire league?
Now, in fairness to the left-wing side of the argument, the ACLU made a slightly different case before the Supreme Court.
This is a section from the ACLU's brief, which was flagged by Kristen Wagoner at ADF Legal.
Quote, the medical understanding of biological sex encompasses several biological attributes, including chromosomes, genes, gonads, hormone levels, internal and external genitalia, and other secondary sex characteristics.
Transgender women may possess some of these biological attributes typical of women.
The act's definition of biological sex excludes the key criterion circulating testosterone levels that would have allowed certain transgender women to play on women's sports.
So the ACLU is taking issue with Idaho's definition of biological sex, which includes three criteria, reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.
So according to the ACLU, anatomy and genetics aren't the key criterion.
The really important metric, in their view, is the level of testosterone in your system.
This is another way of arguing that sex has no real meaning because anyone can change it at any time.
All you need to do is take some hormones and that's it.
Now, at the moment, it doesn't look like the Supreme Court is going to side with the ACLU on this.
The laws banning men from competing against women, laws that never should have been necessary in the first place in a sane society, will probably be upheld.
And that means that contrary to what the ACLU is arguing, these bans don't violate the 14th Amendment or Title IX.
Alas, there is no constitutional right for men to pummel women in every available sport.
Who would have thought?
But just to give you an idea of how absurd these arguments have been at the lower court level, an appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the laws amounted to sex discrimination because, quote, athletes on girls and women's sports, but not on boys and men's teams, are subject to invasive sex verification procedures to implement the law.
In other words, the schools were checking to make sure that no males were trying to sneak into the girls' team, but they weren't checking to ensure that females didn't try to sneak onto the men's team.
And in the eyes of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, that amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination.
But really, it's common sense.
I mean, obviously, you don't have to check to see if girls are sneaking their way onto the boys' team because the girls would have no incentive to do that.
They would get absolutely demolished if they tried, and no team would want to pick them up.
So even if you pretend that the female athlete could somehow pass as a male, which has never happened in human history, the fact that they be completely smoked on the field would be a pretty big clue.
Now, separately, this is a line of argument from the left and the ACLU that if a particular male transidentifying athlete can demonstrate that he specifically has no biological advantage over women, then he should be able to play with women, even though he's a male.
So in other words, if a boy has been chemically castrated from a young age and destroyed his muscles and bone growth to the point that he can prove he's as weak as the average female athlete, then he should be allowed onto the girls' team.
That's called an as-applied challenge to the Idaho law.
This is how far the movement has sunk, by the way.
You know, they're trying to argue in court that they should be considered females if they do enough irreversible damage to their bodies.
According to this argument, a female is nothing but a severely diminished male.
And that brings us to this clip of Kantanji Brown Jackson, where she brings up as applied challenges, and she does it as only Kantanji Brown Jackson can.
See if you can decipher whatever this is.
To the extent that you have an individual who says what is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety and all of the reasons that the state puts forward,
that's actually a different class, says this individual.
So you're not treating the class the same.
And you're not, how do you respond to that?
In other words, the as-applied challenge essentially redefines the class or one could think of it as that.
And so what's wrong with that, number one, and how do you square that with our holdings in Kaban, which Leer later described in this way?
In other words, Lehrer suggested that Kaban was establishing that as applied challenges of this nature do exist.
Certainly the take the second question first.
Yes.
Kaban says nothing about as applied.
I know that Lehr says later this was an as-applied case, but simply reading Kaban, it does not say that.
So just going to the transcript here, quote, is treating someone transgender but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward, that's actually a different class, says this individual.
So you're not treating the class the same.
How do you respond to that?
The lawyer doesn't really respond to it because he has no idea what she's talking about.
That's what he should have said.
He should have said, I don't respond.
have no clue what you're saying.
It's total gibberish.
Contanja Brown Jackson is a perfect illustration of the black woman privilege we've discussed on the show this week.
There's really no group in the country more privileged now than black women because the most mediocre among them, black women who can barely read or speak, like Katanja Brown Jackson, are elevated to the most prestigious positions solely because they are black women.
Katanja Brown Jackson is not qualified to be like a high school principal, let alone a Supreme Court justice, and yet here she is.
And for what it's worth, this wasn't the only word salad from Jackson during yesterday's argument.
Here's another moment where she stumbled a bit as she tried to define what a woman is.
Listen.
You have the overarching classification.
You know, everybody has to be play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth.
But then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity.
For transgender girls, they can't.
So I think that, okay, as to the part about your ability to pass over from boy to girl, you can go from one way, but not the other.
I want to be clear that BBJ is not challenging that specific classification.
I think that's important to start with.
But I think, if anything, that's useful evidence as to the lack of a transgender-based discrimination, because if the legislature were just sort of unsettled by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the answer would have been to then bar them from what they're just saying.
I appreciate that.
I guess I was getting at what I understood the Chief Justice to be trying to discuss, which was this notion that this is really just about the definition of who we accept that you can separate boys and girls, and we are now looking at the definition of a girl, and we're saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.
Now, putting aside the nonsense at the beginning of that clip, which no one in the court could possibly comprehend, she's outraged that we're limiting our definition of girls to girls who were assigned female at birth.
And first of all, of course, anyone using the phrase sex assigned at birth is someone who, as we know, should never be taken seriously for any reason.
Because for the millionth time, doctors don't assign your sex any more than they assign your height or your weight.
They observe it.
They record it.
They don't give it to you.
It can't be overemphasized enough that just 15 years ago, no one on the planet could have been confused about this.
So these are all things that were invented yesterday for all practical purposes.
And now we have Supreme Court justices parroting the lingo as if it's all completely logical and well-settled science, even though it makes no logical sense.
And some of the conservative justices did too.
By the way, they also were using this lingo.
Amy Coney Barrett, the supposedly conservative female justice on the bench, kept referring to, quote, trans boys and quote, trans girls.
Now, if you're not in the throes of the reality distortion field of the left, then you immediately notice how these people stammer on nonsensically whenever they're talking about basic concepts.
You realize right away that they're full of it.
At the same time, they really think that they're onto something.
They think they're winning the argument.
But they're not winning the argument.
With every high-profile meltdown like this from Minnesota to Washington, that becomes obvious to more and more people.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court, the Daily Wires team, noticed that the pro-reality side far outnumbered the trans activists.
Although true to form, the trans activists were much more obnoxious.
So you have to keep images like this in mind, especially as we head into a very important election season.
Cults don't last forever.
Eventually they burn themselves out.
Reality hits hard.
And then the cultists, the ones who are still alive and functional anyway, will try to resume their normal lives.
They'll forget all about how they pretended they were members of the French resistance in downtown Minneapolis and how men can transform instantly into women and how it's totally normal to drive your car to a federal law enforcement officer.
They'll try to back away from all that.
But keep in mind, it was just a decade ago that CNN of all places was running puff pieces for ICE.
They were bragging about getting exclusive access to immigration raids.
This is a clip that the account called Maze just unearthed and it's pretty incredible.
Just before the sun rises in the windy city, immigration and customs enforcement agents fan out across Chicago to arrest criminals in the U.S. illegally.
Tech 1, Tech 2, Tech 3.
CNN was granted exclusive access to witness some of those raids.
Any weapons on you?
No.
We got a warrant for your arrest.
So we got here and there was a lot of action almost immediately.
We came in, saw the individual, we had eyes on our target.
You know, he was able to come out of the business for us.
We were to apprehend him without incident.
At the same time, we also brought out his brother, who also is believed to be illegal in the United States.
We were able to run him on our portable fingerprint scanner.
He did have a hit with DHS, so he's been previously encountered by the Border Patrol.
So we're going to take him to the office and verify what criminal history he has, and we'll go from there with him.
So that was early 2016 at the end of the Obama administration.
The liberals at CNN were showing off the cool hardware that ICE uses on their immigration raids.
So it's a perfect illustration of how fake and ephemeral all of this outrage is that we're seeing right now.
Leftists know that ICE isn't suddenly targeting brown people because of the color of their skin or kidnapping anyone.
The narrative is an obvious fabrication.
It's inauthentic.
And for that reason, it's not sustainable.
Nor is it productive.
Just last night, ABC News reported that, quote, for the first time in at least half a century, the U.S. experienced negative net migration in 2025.
And they cite a study from Brookings, which states that, quote, we estimate net flows of negative 295,000 to negative 10,000 for the year.
Continued negative net migration for 2026 is also likely.
So for all the wailing and ICE watching and domestic terrorism these people are engaging in, they are failing.
Meanwhile, as impotent leftists scream into the void, millions of people, the majority of Americans, are thrilled by what they're seeing.
And with every viral meltdown from a leftist agitator and every word salad from the DEI justices on the Supreme Court, Team Sanity is making the comeback that we've all been waiting for and which this country has desperately needed for a very long time.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you're tired of feeling like crap and you want to be healthier in 2026, you need to throw some colostrum into your daily routine.
Our sponsor, Cowboy Colostrum, is as legit as you can get.
We're talking 100% American grass-fed cow colostrum that's collected only after the calves get their share.
Unlike other brands that process their product and strip out half the good stuff, Cowboy Colostrum keeps it whole, full-fat, and protein-rich, basically the way that nature intended.
This is true first aid colostrum packed with immunoglobulins and growth factors, not some watered-down version.
They make it easy too.
Just throw a scoop of chocolate, Madagascar, vanilla, matcha, or strawberry into your coffee or smoothie.
No artificial flavors, just natural ingredients that actually taste good.
The result, your gut stabilizes, your skin clears up, your hair looks better, and you feel great all day.
It's the highest quality bovine colostrum you can buy in the U.S.
And honestly, it just works.
My producer Holly has been so excited to use cowboy colostrum.
She just got hers last week, is loving it so far.
For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order.
Just head to cowboycolostrum.com/slash walsh and use code walsh to check out 25% off when you use code walsh at cowboycolostrum.com/slash walsh.
Are you worrying about those upcoming credit card bills after the holidays?
If you're a homeowner, there's no better time than now to call American Financing and wipe out that debt, eliminate the stress, and set yourself up for a strong 2026.
The Fed dropped rates for the fourth time in December.
American Financing can help you access that equity in your home at an interest rate in the low fives.
That is a much lower rate than the average 20% or more credit card rate.
American Financing is saving their customers an average of 800 bucks a month.
That's like a $10,000 raise to start the new year.
They're no upfront fees, no obligation to see how much you can save.
And they're closing some as fast as 10 days and even delaying two mortgage payments.
American Financing, America's home for home loans.
Call today, 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net/slash Walsh.
All right, we will have, we're going to have probably significantly abbreviated headlines today, mainly because I'm having trouble speaking, having a bit of a Katanja Brown-Jackson situation myself.
Not because I have an IQ of 83, but because my voice is giving out.
My annual laryngitis episode has cropped up.
For the record, my IQ is at least like easily five points higher than that.
So let's just hit a couple things quickly.
Here's an easy one, but can't let it go.
Just can't.
Pramila Jayapal, congresswoman from, where is she from?
Washington State, I think.
Yeah, from Washington.
Very upset by everything happening right now with ICE.
And here's what she has to say about it.
The majority of Americans across the country, regardless of political party, know that immigrants from all over the world, Somalia, India, wherever they're from, Latin America, Africa, that immigrants have built this country and make this country what it is today.
Now, first of all, I think we can all agree, as you watch that video, we can all agree that as much as we might despise her political views, Pramila Jayapal is a very attractive woman.
This is a specimen of great beauty.
You know, I think we could all, I hope we would.
We should be able to agree.
I have seen some really mean comments that I won't repeat.
But there are people leaving comments about this video, any other video about her.
And I could repeat it.
I'm like, I could donate.
Yeah, I've seen people saying things like, well, she looks like she lives in a bell tower.
It's like a quasi-moto type of thing, quasi-modo vibe.
I'm not going to repeat that.
I'm not going to say that.
I'm not going to repeat that.
That's what they're saying.
I don't agree with it.
I think it's really wrong and mean.
And I'm not going to stoop to the level of insulting someone's looks.
So let's put that to the side.
The claim that she's making, though, I will say, and we've heard this many times, of course, but it bears repeating that it's extremely insane.
And it's easy to lose sight of just how crazy it is.
But the reality for most of American history up until the mid 20th century is that there would have been effectively, like effectively zero immigrants in this country from any of the places that she just listed.
So she listed Somalia, India, Latin America, and Africa.
And of course, Somalia is in Africa, but so she kind of lists it twice.
But in reality, there were probably fewer than a million total from all of those regions combined in the country up until 1965, which is effectively zero.
Out of those groups, there would have been the most from probably Latin America.
We probably had a few hundred thousand from Latin America in this country prior to 1965.
Somalia, like none.
I mean, there's just nobody from Somalia.
And as we've covered on the show, ad nauseum, Somalian immigration is a very new thing.
Somalians didn't start coming here until like the 1990s.
Indians, again, basically none, very few, a few thousand maybe until 1965.
Africa in general, almost none.
And the laws changed in 1965, opening up immigration from those places.
So mathematically, historically, it's impossible to argue with any credibility that people from these regions built the country.
Now, that's not to say that none of them have ever contributed meaningfully to the country since arriving here.
No one is saying that.
Now, well, I am saying that about Somalia, actually.
I will go so far as to say that not only have Somalians not built the country, but they have not even contributed meaningfully to it at all ever.
But it's not necessarily true of every single person in all of those other groups.
Building the country, though, is a different claim entirely.
Building the country, that is something that was done almost exclusively by people of European descent.
And that's just a matter of history.
That's just historical fact.
And there's no way around it.
And we've been through this before.
But rather than dwell on that, there's another point I want to make about this.
When you hear this argument, we hear it all the time.
Oh, these people, they helped build the country.
Well, you can't have it both ways.
Like this is a trying to have your cake and eat it too sort of situation, which is what the left tries to do on every issue, but in particular on this one.
So you notice what they're doing.
By claiming that Somalians built the country, people from Africa built the country.
They're making a kind of blood and soil argument.
That's what she's appealing to.
She's actually appealing to this kind of blood and soil nationalist idea.
They're arguing that Somalians have a right to be here because historically, ancestrally, they worked and bled and sacrificed for this country.
There's no reason to bring it up, leaving aside the fact that it's not true, even if it were true.
Well, what's the point of bringing that up?
The point of bringing it up is that, is to say, well, they have historical ancestral ties to the land.
That's what's being claimed.
Again, not true at all, obviously.
But that's the kind of argument they're making.
So you would think, if you didn't know any better, you would think, and you heard that argument from Pramila Jayapal, and you saw her say that, and you thought, my God, what a beautiful woman.
And then you hear that argument and you would think, well, this is progress in a way.
Because you would think, well, on the bright side, at least they're admitting, like what she's saying is totally false and ridiculous.
But at least she's admitting that your ancestral ties to the land do matter.
That it's something that actually matters.
And if they admit that, you might think as a naive person.
Well, then it's just a matter of proving that actually Somalians have no ancestral ties to the country.
Okay.
It's good that now we all are acknowledging, apparently, that your ancestral historical ties to the land matter.
Now that we're all on the same page, let's take a look and see who actually has those kinds of ties and who doesn't.
But the problem, of course, is that they will immediately switch streams and in the next breath claim that it's horribly racist to make that kind of argument anyway.
So they'll say, the Somalians helped build this country.
Hey, the Somalians are deeply rooted in America.
And then you say, like, what are you talking about?
They got here in the 90s.
Okay.
They got here in the 90s.
How do they help?
They built the country in the 1990s.
So they came and they were pioneers building the country at a time when like Nickelodeon existed.
And you respond that way, and then they immediately switch and say, oh, well, it doesn't matter anyway.
This is blood and soil.
This is white nationalism.
Yeah, but it's what you just say.
It's like, this is the argument you were making.
I'm just telling you, you're wrong about it.
It's racist.
So this is the game they play.
It's like trying to wrestle a giant slug.
You can't, that's the thing about the left.
Their arguments are so bad and so baseless and so ungrounded, like they're not grounded in anything, that it's just, it's like trying to wrestle a giant slimy slug.
You can't get a hold on anything.
The minute you get a hold on it, they slither out and now they're over here.
Now that we've started 2026, it's perfect time to cross getting life insurance off your list and kick off the year with real peace of mind.
Making sure your family is taken care of is a big responsibility and making sure everything's in place.
If something happens, can feel like an even bigger one.
That's where our sponsor, Policy Genius, comes in.
It's an online marketplace where you can compare quotes from top insurers side by side, completely free.
No jumping around between websites, no endless phone calls.
Their licensed agents work for you, helping you figure out what you actually need, not what some company wants to sell you.
They walk through all the details, handle the paperwork, answer your questions, and take the weight of life insurance off your shoulders.
So check out Policy Genius.
They've got thousands of five-star reviews from people who finally found the right policy for their needs.
You'll thank yourself later with Policy Genius.
Real users have gotten 20-year, $2 million policies for just $53 a month.
Ease the weight of protecting a wonderful life.
Head to policygenius.com slash Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Walsh.
All right.
Miss Rachel is the YouTuber who makes videos for preschoolers.
And we've talked about, I think we've talked about her a little bit in the past.
And now she's out with Mamdani doing a propaganda tour with him.
So she's in the past.
And she's done, she's done this before.
She's done the LGBT thing.
She's done the gay pride thing.
She's done the pronoun thing.
And I think that's when we've talked about her in the past.
And that's reason enough to not put her content on for your children.
You know, you should not allow your children to watch it for that reason alone.
And here she is with Mamdani.
You'll see the tweet there.
Mamdani says, this morning, Miss Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre-K Center, where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators.
We also discussed universal childcare and how we're making it happen for NYC.
Yeah, I'm sure the four-year-olds are very interested in that conversation.
You sat down with four-year-olds to talk about universal child care, which, by the way, is really bad for four-year-olds.
It's really bad for kids because that's just, that is the state's way, the government's way, in this case, the city's way of getting more kids into childcare and away from their parents.
So that's really what he's saying.
Good news, kids.
We're going to make sure you spend even less time around your parents.
You're going to spend even more time with government workers.
Government workers are the best.
Ask your parents to bring you to the DMV sometime, and you'll see a whole bunch of government workers.
They're the nicest people.
Don't you want to spend every day all day with them?
Well, with universal child care, you can.
So I guess that was the message.
But we don't even need to get into that.
Enough people have covered that base about Miss Rachel.
And so this is the debate.
Like, is she a political propagandist?
Because she's very popular with kids.
And she's got like billions of views.
I mean, so, and should you be exposing your kid to this given that she's a political propagandist?
And the answer is, no, you should not be exposing your kids to this political propagandist.
But put that to the side.
I want to make a more basic point about this Miss Rachel person and anyone like her.
And I've said that I find almost all of these children's YouTubers to be very creepy.
Like these are creepy, weird people.
And as a parent, you have to have a radar for that kind of thing.
It's very important to have a radar for that.
And if your radar is not going off, when you turn on and you see these children's YouTubers, if you're not immediately like, who is this person?
Then I don't know.
I mean, you're oblivious.
So even before you get into the content or the political propaganda, even before I knew that, like, I see it, and I just, I don't like the vibes, okay?
And sometimes, yeah, that as a parent, especially, sometimes that matters.
Vibe-based arguments are often not valid, especially in political discussions.
But as a parent, very often, you know, the vibe should matter to you.
You look at something, you see someone, you're like, I don't like the vibes here.
This is weird.
This person's not going to be around my kids.
That's it.
It's just weird.
And I'm definitely not going to sit my kids down to watch this YouTuber because I just don't like the vibes.
And these are people who have figured out that children's content, making content for three-year-olds, right?
So these are adults that are making content for like three and four-year-olds.
And they figured out that it's extremely profitable to do it.
So they just start churning it out.
Okay.
These are slop merchants for toddlers.
We've got slop merchants who are just churning out slop all over the place for all different age brackets.
And these are people who churn out the slop for four-year-olds.
And it boggles my mind that there are parents who are like, yep, this is what my four-year-old needs is some slop.
Bring on the slop.
Here you go.
Sit down, Junior.
It's slop time.
Go ahead.
Just spend three hours watching this like mind-numbing, weird drech.
And that's what parents do.
And I don't get it.
And the other thing I can't stand are these, especially.
And this is what, this is, this is where it gets, this is where the weirdness kicks in.
Because you have these like children's content creators or whatever we call them who act and dress like children themselves.
This has become the thing now.
And it's not, it's not that new over the last like couple of decades, really.
In many cases, you have people that make entertainment, make content for kids, and they speak and act like kids themselves, even though they're adults in their 40s and 50s.
You see Miss Rachel and she's got the overalls and the sneakers and the headband.
It's like, what adult?
You're in your 40s.
Why are you dressed like that?
And she speaks and acts like a kindergartner.
And that's what almost all of these children's YouTuber types do.
And it's so common.
I think it's one of the reasons maybe a parent's radar doesn't go off.
Maybe you don't see the red flag because you see that and you're like, yeah, this is what kids' content is.
This is what they do.
No, it's not normal.
It's weird.
Like, would you talk to your kid that way all the time?
Do you dress like that?
Like, if you want to relate to your kid, do you dress like a toddler to do it?
And here's the thing.
It's not actually good for kids.
It talks down to them.
It's patronizing and it doesn't help them learn and grow.
You know, you compare it to like Mr. Rogers, right?
Mr. Rogers made content for children, but he didn't present himself like a child.
He was a grandfatherly type of figure, and that was his vibe.
And so, you know, he passes the vibe check as you're, if you're a parent.
The vibe is, oh, he's like a grand, like a grandfather.
You know, a friendly, grandfatherly type person.
And that's wholesome and that's constructive and that's edifying.
Children can learn from that.
It helps them grow.
But when you put on the overalls and start speaking to them in this like absurdly over-the-top, childish, patronizing way, they're not learning anything.
So just for example, I went to Miss Rachel's page and pulled up just one, like randomly, one of the videos at the top, because any one of them makes the point.
And if you have not seen this person, again, this is like billions of views for this stuff.
This video has hundreds of millions of views, I think.
Billions of views overall.
Nothing political here.
There's nothing overtly objectionable or inappropriate about this.
I'll just play 20 seconds.
It's all I can tolerate.
And it's all you're going to be able to tolerate.
But watch.
Hi, friends.
Today, we're going to learn all about animals together.
It's going to be so much fun.
Can you do this rhyme with me?
An oink, a moo, a cockadoodle doo.
Who's in the barn playing bee-gaboop?
My God, stab me in the face and kill me, please.
Just stab me and kill me.
I would rather be stabbed to death than watch five minutes of that.
I would rather jump out of the 100th story window than watch that.
When the next regime comes in and they start arresting people like me, if they give me an option, they say, we're going to put you in solitary confinement and make you watch Miss Rachel.
Or we could just throw you off a building.
I would say, please the building.
I would thank them for it, actually.
I'd be so grateful to not have to thank God.
Thank you.
Yes, absolutely.
So this is pure slop.
Okay.
Just because it's for kids and there's bright colors.
This is what parents think.
Oh, it's for kids and there's bright colors.
So automatically it's wholesome.
It's slop.
Pure slop for little children.
This is, this is the four-year-old equivalent of like Mr. Beast.
And this is not, why are you talking like that?
Okay.
And if you say, well, she's talking to kids.
Really?
Is that how you talk to your kids?
If you're a parent, you talk to your kids like that all the time.
Hey, friends, let's have some fun.
Let's make animal noises, friends.
And you've got your overalls and you're dressed like a kid.
Really?
Is that how you parent?
No.
This is not how anyone has ever raised kids.
This is a very new thing that we've come up with.
That if you want to, if you're an adult making, you know, entertainment for children, it's like you got to put on that whole act.
Now, it's true that men and women are different and women are going to be and should be softer and more maternalistic in their approach.
And they will speak to children more on the child's level than a father will.
This is why you need both.
It's why it's important to have a mother and father.
Like one of the many reasons why it's important to have both approaches.
But that's not this.
This is not soft and maternalistic.
This is obnoxious and grating and incredibly, ridiculously patronizing.
And if you think it's not possible to patronize like a, you know, a five-year-old, then again, you're just clueless.
It's patronizing.
Here's a good general rule.
If your child is watching content that you as the parent find so obnoxiously annoying that you could not possibly be in the same room while it's on, which is how any parent must feel about that.
There's no way that you as an adult could tolerate that.
There's no way that you could sit and watch that for any amount of time.
But if that's the case, that's a good indication that your kid shouldn't be watching it.
Not because it's political, not because there's anything about it that is on paper inappropriate, but just because it's vapid and irritating and stupid and bad for their minds and their souls because of that.
You know, as an adult, there isn't going to be any, I mean, there's not going to be any like children, even the, even a, there are some good children's shows, books for children, like there's plenty that exists.
And there's not going to be a children's show or book that you will find deeply absorbing or entertaining.
Like it's not for you.
So the point isn't that you should find it really entertaining.
But if it's something actually wholesome and edifying and well-made, made with respect for the audience, okay?
And again, that should not sound silly.
Like, yes, if you're making stuff for a five-year-old, you should, you should have respect for your audience of five-year-olds.
It's all the more important to have respect for the audience.
You don't have any respect for the audience when you're churning out this garbage.
And, you know, if it's something like that, wholesome, edifying, well-made, then, you know, as a parent, you might not like, it's not the kind of thing that you would put on and watch yourself, but you can stomach it.
It's tolerable.
And there are some children's shows that are like that, even today.
And this, the problem is not exclusive to Miss Rachel.
It's not new.
You know, there was a shift in children's programming going back to when I was a kid.
And that's when you started to see this kind of like hyper weird, patronizing, overstimulating, bright colors, noises, random stuff happening type of content for kids.
And that's when you first started to see it.
Teletubbies came out back in the 90s.
And I remember that my parents wouldn't let my younger siblings, teletubbies were after my time.
I think I was, you know, whatever, 10 or 12 when it came out.
But I had younger siblings that were in the age group for it.
And my parents wouldn't let them watch it.
And it's not because they, you know, thought that there was necessarily anything objectionable or political in the show.
It's just that it was, it was, you know, my dad was the same way.
He looked at it like, this is just weird.
What the hell is this?
Right.
He would walk in and see something like, what is this?
What the hell is this?
Why are we letting them watch this?
And it's just babyish and patronizing.
It was, you know, this is what Teletubby was.
It was like, it was like a, what they were going for was a show for babies that seems like it was made by a baby.
That's, that's, that was the vibe.
And that is not the tone you want for wholesome, constructive, edifying children's content.
And now you have these YouTubers who have stumbled onto this formula and they just start churning this stuff out.
Nobody knows who these people even are.
They come along and next thing you know, they're getting literally billions of views.
This is what parents are allowing.
You just like, you see a video and it's got a lot of bright colors and it has a picture of a cow, right?
And it's got someone in overall sitting there smiling.
And parents go, oh, this is kids' content.
It must be fine.
And you don't stop to think like, who is this person?
This person's like a multi-millionaire now making content for kids.
Who are they?
What's their game here?
What are their views?
I mean, why are they doing this?
Kind of question you'd think you'd ask.
And all of this stuff, all it does is turn your kids into overstimulated, you know, dopamine addicts.
Miss Rachel, as I discovered when I went to her page, just to find that one example, the first video at the top of her page is for babies.
So her first video, so she makes content for toddlers and like preschoolers.
She also makes videos for actual babies, like for one-year-olds.
Who the hell is putting YouTube on for a baby?
And then when I've asked this question, I always get the answer, oh, well, she teaches the ABCs.
She teaches colors.
Can't you do that?
You're the parent.
Well, without Miss Rachel, how am I going to teach my kids the ABCs?
I don't know.
Teach them?
Like the way that parents taught kids for thousands of years before YouTube existed, before Miss Rachel was a thing?
This is what you should be doing.
Turn the damn YouTube off and read your kid a book.
How about that?
So.
That's the uh that's the real problem.
And I said it'd be abbreviated headlines, but I ended up ranting about Miss Rachel for 25 minutes, and that's fine because it's it's important.
It's uh millions of kids are spending hours a day with this stuff, and it really does matter.
Uh, so turn it off, read your kids a book.
That's my point, that's my message.
And we will leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God?
Is that who you think I was alone with?
Maradin, I knew your father.
I am yet convinced that he was not of this world.
All men know of the great Taliesin.
Oh, my father, the gods should war for my soul.
Princess Garris, savior of our people.
I know what the Bull God offered you.
I was offered the same.
And there is a new power at work in the world.
I've seen it.
A god who sacrifices what he loves for us.
We are each given only one life, Singer.
No.
We're given another.
I learned of Yezu the Christ, and I have become his follower.
He's waiting on a miracle, and I think you can give him one.
Trust in Yezu.
He is the only hope for men like us.
Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the Great Life.
Great Light, Great Darkness.
Such things mattered to me then.
What matters to you now, Mistress of Lies?
You, nephew.
The sword of the High King.
How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield?
Still clinging to the promises of a god who has abandoned you.