Ep. 1765 - This Video Is One Of The Worst Things I've Seen In A Long Time
Matt Walsh critiques the "war on noticing," citing Shane McAnally's viral video where a toddler chose "Mama" over "Dada" as proof that children biologically require a mother and father. He attacks same-sex parenting studies for bias, references Justice Roberts' dissent in Obergefell, and condemns antidepressants for numbing symptoms rather than curing depression. Walsh further argues that 10% of U.S. births in 2023 came from illegal immigrant mothers, violating the 14th Amendment's intent, while mocking calls to ban boiling lobsters despite their lack of mammalian pain consciousness. Ultimately, he asserts a moral inversion where crustaceans are valued over unborn humans and questions why Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
The Cost of Survival00:15:10
Let's be honest, the cost of living isn't just high, it's exhausting.
If you've been leaning on credit cards lately just to cover the basics like groceries, gas, and utility bills, you're essentially paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more.
Why keep handing your hard earned paycheck to big banks when you could keep it for your own family?
My friends at American Financing have a better way.
They're helping homeowners tap into their equity to pay off high interest debt with mortgage rates currently in the fives.
On average, American Financing is saving their customers $800 a month.
That's nearly $10,000 a year back in your pocket.
It's not just a loan, it's a total financial reset.
It takes just 10 minutes to find out what you could save.
There are no upfront fees and no obligation to talk to a salary based mortgage consultant.
Here's the kicker start today, and you could even delay two mortgage payments.
American Financing, America's home for home loans, 866 569 4711.
That's 866 569 4711.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.
You may have heard left wing political orthodoxy described as a war on noticing.
Steve Saylor wrote a book on the topic called Noticing.
At every opportunity, leftists will demand that you deny the reality that is directly in front of your eyes.
And we see this over and over again, particularly during any debate involving racial and gender politics.
You're just not supposed to notice that all the mass shooters were on SSRIs or that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by young black men, and so on and so on.
Closely related to the war on noticing is something you might call the war on showing.
Leftists will happily use euphemisms to describe their policy goals, but they'll Go to extraordinary lengths to avoid showing you what those policy goals actually entail.
So, they'll talk about the woman's right to choose or gender affirmation surgery, for example, but under no circumstances would they want voters to see any footage of an abortion or a vaginoplasty or whatever they call it.
They understand that if most people actually saw the horrific procedures they're talking about, support for leftist ideology would collapse overnight.
Nevertheless, every now and then, Despite the best efforts of activists who are committed to keeping you from noticing, reality occasionally slips through.
The masses get a glimpse of the utter depravity that every major institution of the left, from the media to academia to big tech censors, tries so hard to conceal.
Now, one of those moments took place over the weekend when millions of Americans saw this video, which was uploaded by a gay 51 year old Nashville based country music singer, a songwriter named Shane McAnally.
And yes, that's.
Apparently, actually, his name, Shane McAinally.
He's apparently collaborated with singers like Kenny Chesney and Keith Urban, and he's won a few Grammys.
In this footage that we'll play in a second, McAinally's self described quote unquote husband shows off a five month old child whom they acquired through surrogacy.
And in particular, McAinally's alleged husband, and I'll use the term here for the sake of simplicity, but the air quotes will always be implied his husband attempts to get the baby to say, Who do you want, Dada or Pop?
To which the child responds, Mama.
And from behind the camera, McAnally informs the child that Mama's not an option.
Watch.
Hey.
Hey.
Who do you want, Dada or Pop?
No, Mama.
Do you want Dada or Pop?
Who do you want?
Dada or Pop?
No.
Do you want Dada or Pop?
No way, Jose!
I think.
Oh.
There is no mama.
I'm so sorry.
You have Dada and Pop.
You have Pop.
Two choices.
No mama.
No mama.
No, mama.
Dada or pop?
Oh, no.
No matter how much propaganda people have been force fed by the corporate press, and no matter how much reprogramming they've undergone at a university, this kind of video cuts through all of it, which is why it has millions of views.
At a primal level, unless you're completely broken as a human, this footage is.
Tragic, enraging, intolerable.
Your first reaction is that you want to find that child and rescue him from these psychopaths and return him to his mother.
It's not simply that these two men clearly aren't interested in properly taking care of this child or treating him as a human being instead of a social media prop.
The issue is that these two men, as a matter of basic human biology, are incapable of properly taking care of the child.
They're not able to give the child what he actually needs, which is a mother and a father.
A child needs his mother.
This should not be a controversial statement.
It's something all human beings have understood for thousands of years, up until five seconds ago.
Children need their mothers.
Anyone who's ever had a child in a healthy home knows children need their mothers.
Neither one of these men are his mother.
And neither one of them can properly take the place of the mother.
That's what makes the moment so profound and so unbearably sad when the baby asks for mama.
You know, and some commenters have defended McAnally and his fake husband by saying that the baby is just babbling.
You know, in fact, one of them has, I think Shane himself has said this.
Well, he doesn't know what mama means.
You know, he's too young to speak using words and.
And so he's saying mama.
He doesn't actually know what that means.
And that's true, but it does not make this moment any less horrifying.
In fact, it makes it worse because babies say mama before they even know what the word means because mama is an easy sound to make for a child.
This is how the word mama came to be.
It's why we call our mothers mama, which we usually shorten to mom as we get older.
This is where it comes from.
And it's why almost every culture on earth uses the word mama or mom or some slight variation.
So, we are born saying the word mama before we know what it means.
And in a normal, healthy situation, the adults in the baby's life, especially his mama, his mother, will respond enthusiastically when he makes that sound.
Now, he is just babbling at first, but if his mother is there, which she should be, and he says that word, the mother will respond in a way.
And that's how he'll learn to attach the sound.
That's the easiest for him to make to the most important person in his life, which is his mother.
He'll make the sound, his mother will light up and smile, and he'll learn that the sound applies to his mother.
This is the natural way of things, it's beautiful.
The process works beautifully, it's ingrained in us from birth.
It is a beautiful, wonderful thing, except when the child is torn away from his mother at birth and forced into an unnatural, disordered environment.
Only then does this beautiful, wonderful, natural process become tragic and sad.
I mean, think about it.
This is the word that the baby can easily, naturally say.
In a healthy situation, that natural, easy noise that he makes is met with affirmation.
But in this situation, this natural, easy sound, noise for the child to make is met with a negative reaction.
It's met with dismissal.
It's met with no.
Think about how much that warps.
Think about how difficult that is for the child.
What effect that has on his young mind.
Well, Mick Ainley and his husband, again, air quotes, have made the decision to exploit this, to exploit the tragedy and sadness of the child's situation for social media clout.
When Mick Ainley posted that video on his Instagram, as you saw there, somebody posted a comment that read, Throw it away and start over.
And McAnally replied to the comment with laughing emojis.
He also uploaded this footage, which has the caption Six week old homophobic baby.
Watch.
You're such a happy boy.
Yeah, you are.
Yeah, because you have a brother.
Yeah, and you have a sister.
Yeah, and you have two puppies.
Into dads.
Oh.
Now, if you're listening to the audio podcast, the baby's face suddenly grimaces when he's informed that he supposedly has two fathers instead of a mother.
And this is supposed to be hilarious because you see the baby is acting like one of those backwards right wing bigots who think that children actually need a mother.
So he posts the image of his child on Instagram and of the child on his Instagram and uses the child as a punchline.
Which is just a totally natural, normal, paternalistic thing to do, isn't it?
And then when the online backlash began, McAnally insisted that the outrage was overblown and that he's actually, quote, quite conservative politically.
Now, just to be clear about this, if you believe that two men should raise children together, you are not a conservative.
You are destroying the most critical fundamental bond that a child can have.
You are permanently altering the trajectory of your child's life for the worse.
And it's not even a close call.
Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of human nature doesn't need to have this explained to them.
Okay?
If you don't believe in conserving the fundamental building block of human civilization, which is the family, which is marriage, actually, which is the bedrock of the bedrock, which is the family, then you are not a conservative by any meaningful definition.
I mean, we hear a lot about the conservative civil war these days.
Conservatives are always fighting over this and that issue.
Well, if we're going to have a civil war among conservatives, it should actually be over this, right?
The people who want to conserve and protect marriage and the family and human life, especially unborn human life, on one side versus the alleged conservatives who are either opposed or indifferent to that.
Okay, if there's going to be a dividing line, that should be it.
Because if you're not on my side on that issue, then I don't care what else you think.
I don't care what you think about anything.
Taxes, foreign policy.
I don't care.
You don't want to protect and preserve the foundation of human civilization?
I can't.
We're not on the same side.
Oh, but we agree on foreign policy.
Who gives a shit?
Really?
You think that's more important than this?
And yet, you know, you'll hear it endlessly claimed that science somehow proves that children don't actually need a mother.
You know, they'll cite all kinds of studies which supposedly show that children raised in gay households don't suffer any negative developmental consequences.
Now, the thing is, a few years ago, a woman named Katie Faust, who founded the organization Them Before Us, looked into these claims, as others have, and she found, unsurprisingly, that these studies are, without exception, unscientific nonsense.
Many of them, And we've talked about this in the past on the show.
Many of them recruit their survey participants directly from websites devoted to gay activism, which immediately invalidates the entire study.
And additionally, she found that several years after the Obergefell ruling that legalized gay marriage, only 0.02% of all households in the United States consisted of same sex couples raising children, which is an extremely small number of households, which makes it very difficult to find a sample size for any kind of usable data set.
Now, you run into the same problem with all the studies purporting to show that gender affirmation surgery, quote unquote, benefits children.
All of those studies are absolute bunk because of the methodology used to conduct them, just like the studies extolling the virtues of gay parenting.
These are almost always not blind studies.
Okay, so the participants know what the study is trying to prove and they are recruited for that purpose.
So you're a gay couple, you know you're in a study to find out whether gay parenting is good or not.
Huh, are we going to get any usable, honest data out of that?
I mean, you're often relying on self reported data from people who know what the thing is trying to prove.
And the sample sizes are so small that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from them anyway.
You'll find this with any major society altering change the left is trying to foist on us.
They make the change, right?
And then 10 seconds later, they claim to have volumes of long term, scientifically conclusive studies proving that the change is good.
But it wouldn't even be possible for them to have that kind of data.
If they have the data, it's because they engineered it.
They rigged it to achieve the desired outcome.
That's inevitably what's required if you want a study to somehow prove that it's a good idea to chemically castrate a child or that a child is better off being raised by two men rather than his own mother and his own father.
These are irrational, illogical conclusions that fly in the face of common sense, biology, and thousands of years of human experience.
They are conclusions that you can only arrive at if you've predetermined them from the outset.
Rights to Mother and Father00:15:37
Now, in reality, the ideal and natural situation is that a child is raised.
By a mother and a father.
Obviously.
Two men raising a baby can never be ideal by definition, and that is putting it very, very mildly.
Because in many cases, these situations go from, you know, far from ideal to outright horrifying.
Horror shows very quickly.
Consider this case out of Georgia.
Watch.
A Georgia couple is sentenced to 100 years behind bars after adopting two young boys to repeatedly rape.
The dads even installed.
Cameras throughout their family home to capture this ongoing sexual abuse.
If that wasn't enough, though, they posted the images and videos online so other predators could view these horrifying crimes.
The parents in this case are 34 year old William and 36 year old Zachary Zulok.
They're a married couple out of Walton County, Georgia, which is just east of Atlanta.
We're not revealing their sons' names to keep the boys' privacy, but we can tell you that right now they're ages 10 and 12, and they were adopted by the Zuloks.
Through a Christian special needs agency.
Outwardly, the Zulok family seemed to have it all.
William worked for the government and Zachary had a job in banking.
Their home was upscale too in a nice neighborhood of Loganville, Georgia.
They posted pics online that were smiling, happy, basically looking like they were the picture perfect family.
They even have a photo wearing shirts that say, Love my family with the rainbow flag in support of pride.
Now, you notice, I mean, the whole story is unspeakable.
You notice the line about how these children were adopted through a Christian special needs program.
And this is a recurring theme, sadly.
Just sort of as an aside, it should be mentioned when it comes to the worst, most civilization destroying ideas known to man, for pretty much every single one of them, you'll find a fake, quote unquote, Christian charity funding or enabling it in some way.
Christian charities, not all of them.
This is why you need to be careful.
But Christian charities resettle more foreign invaders in the United States than anybody else.
They support all the climate change scams and racial justice programs and so on.
And now, at least one of them is helping gay men find children to rape and abuse, a crime that, even in Georgia, apparently doesn't qualify these two men for the death penalty.
So you have to wonder why we even have a death penalty at this point if this is not going to qualify.
But as heinous as this crime is, it's not exactly uncommon.
Here's another recent case from Britain.
A man has appeared in court accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a 13 month old boy he was seeking to adopt.
High school teacher Jamie Varley is also accused of repeated accounts of assault, cruelty, and indecent images.
All the charges relate to Preston Davy, who was pronounced dead shortly after he was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital in July of 2023.
Mr. Varley, 36, and his 31 year old co accused, John McGowan, were in the process of adopting Preston.
Lancashire police were alerted on July 27, 2023, after an unresponsive baby boy was brought into the hospital.
Mr. McGowan is accused of allowing The death of a child, sexually assaulting a child, and two counts of child cruelty.
Now, what you have to keep in mind here is that simply from a statistical perspective, we have absolutely no way of knowing how often this kind of abuse takes place.
Unless these abusers are dumb enough to brag about what they're doing or manage to murder their child in the process, something along those lines, then the abuse is nearly impossible to detect.
And in many cases, there's not even a way to screen parents who are obviously a threat to their children.
And there was a recent study that shows that, you know, gay parents, or rather, same male same sex couples adopt boys about 80% of the time, whereas heterosexual couples adopt boys about 50% of the time.
You wonder why that's the case.
Remember the registered sex offender who managed to acquire a child through surrogacy in Pennsylvania?
We've talked about this.
It turns out that in Pennsylvania and most other states, it's fine for a tier one sex offender to acquire a child through surrogacy.
They only care about the background checks for children who are adopted.
And even then, we can assume they're not exactly rigorous about the background checks.
Think about how deranged this is.
A child is conceived through surrogacy, ripped from his mother.
Dropped in the hands of two gay men with no family to check in on him is totally helpless.
I mean, disturbing does not begin to describe this, but it's completely normal in most of the country.
Now, mention any of these trends out loud and you'll get shouted down or worse.
Riley Naimi was just assaulted for mentioning these statistics.
Watch.
It's your guys' son or daughter or son.
Awesome.
And are you guys a couple?
Yeah.
That's awesome.
Cool.
So, have you ever heard about?
The statistics coming out that gay men are statistically much more likely to commit child molestation?
No.
You never heard about that before?
That's crazy, yeah.
No.
Yeah, don't you think it's weird that you guys have a child but neither of you are a woman?
No.
You don't think that's weird?
No.
So you had a surrogate?
You paid a woman $50,000 to be pregnant?
Who are you?
And building a connection to a baby?
Hey, don't take my mic.
I'm actually concerned for your baby's safety.
I'm concerned for you.
We are asking you to leave.
Hey, For God!
Get off!
F you!
Bro, guys!
Guess what?
You guys are together?
You all deserve to be killed.
For God's sake?
Yeah, yeah.
Killed.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
You all deserve to be shot in the head.
Now, when they aren't assaulting you, the normal response to the left at this point is to claim that, in fact, the data supports their position.
They'll accuse you of cherry picking one or two bad outcomes.
So, to be clear, we're not talking about one or two extreme cases here.
As a general matter, children raised in same sex households have much worse life outcomes.
This is from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which you can see there that the green bar is children raised by a man and a woman, while the yellow bar is children raised by same sex couples.
The same sex parents produce worse results in virtually every category.
Children raised by same sex couples are far more likely to be obese as adults, far more likely to be distant from their parents, more likely to have suicidal ideation as an adult, far more likely to be depressed as an adult.
Then there's the findings from the National Health Interview Study, which looked at 1.6 million cases and found 512 same sex parent families.
And you can see the results.
It's the same story.
Children raised in same sex households were more likely to have emotional problems across the board.
Donald Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at Catholic University, summarized the findings this way Biological relationship, it appears, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the higher risk of emotional problems faced by children with same sex parents.
The primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, May not be that it tends to present them with improved parents, more stable, financially affluent, although it does this, but that it presents them with their own parents.
Now, we talked about the problems with trying to do studies on a subject like this and how often the results are rigged in a certain direction.
And even in spite of all that, you still have these results.
And when you have to dig to find these studies, because this is not exactly the kind of research that's likely to be funded these days or reported on, but it's all out there.
And even if it wasn't, even if there wasn't a single study showing that children in same sex households have worse outcomes, which there are, we would still know that it's a horrible idea to let gay couples adopt or use surrogacy.
We would know that because it's a matter of basic logic and common sense that by far the optimal situation for every child is to be raised by a mother and a father.
Every child has a mother and a father.
This is the natural setup.
You know, when I say that two men are not meant to become parents, I'm not making a moral claim, although I do think gay adoption and surrogacy are immoral.
I'm making an observation about physical reality.
Two men are not meant to become parents.
And we know that because two men cannot become parents in principle.
You know, it's not like, well, you could have a straight couple that has infertility, which is a defect, it's an illness, something has gone wrong, right, with the setup.
We're not talking about that.
This in principle, by their very nature, two men are forever and always, in all situations, in all cases, through all of time, past, present, and future, excluded from the act of procreation.
Now, none of the arguments I'm making are new.
It's not a revelation.
If you go back to the Obergefell decision in 2015 and pull up John Roberts' dissent, you'll see that he makes all the same points.
Now, I'm obviously not a fan of John Roberts, but This dissent has aged extremely well.
Roberts argued that if the court forced the nationwide legalization of same sex marriage simply because a bunch of activists demanded it, then those same activists would soon be able to insist on all kinds of other legal protections without any basis in the Constitution.
Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court was ordering, the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese and the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.
Roberts pointed out that, For millennia across all civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship, the union of a man and a woman.
Roberts noted that, quote, when sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child's prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways.
Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
And from a Democratic perspective, Roberts observed that only 11 states had voted to legalize gay marriage, while five states had legalized the practice through court decisions.
The country was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the institution of marriage intact.
Now, how did the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, respond to all those points?
They didn't.
Pull up the decision sometime and you see for yourself.
So, Bergefell wasn't based in the Constitution at all.
It was the beginning of a slippery slope that has continued to this day.
Now, you could draw a straight line from Bergefell to those videos of the gay men taunting the baby that they purchased and trafficked into their homes.
And by the way, when you hear the term slippery slope, you're often told that it's a fallacy.
It's a convenient label that's used by people who know very well the slippery slope is actually not only not a fallacy, it's undefeated.
I mean, so called social conservatives have been making slippery slope arguments for decades and have always been right every single time.
The left wants us to accept something, and conservatives say, no, that's bad.
And also, if we accept that, here's where it's going to lead.
And then they're shouted down as being panicking and exaggerating and all the rest of it.
And then what do you know?
The thing happens every single time.
Now, if you give left wing activists any kind of concession, they'll immediately demand more concessions.
If you change the definition of marriage to appease, which is not even possible to actually do, but if you create this fiction, well, they're not going to stop there.
They're going to reorganize or they're going to recognize that you're weak, and then they're going to use the court system to enable horrors beyond human comprehension.
Just like they use the courts to force gay marriage in every state, they've used courts to mandate racial equity programs, gay adoption, surrogacy, child castration, mutilation, under the guise of so called gender affirming care.
And the whole time they're doing it, they'll claim you're a bigot if you object, they'll accuse you of being a hateful person for recognizing obvious patterns of behavior.
It's a total abomination.
There's no coherent argument in defense of it at all.
Not a single argument.
There's no argument in defense of allowing gay men to acquire babies.
There's actually no argument for it.
The best that advocates can do is argue that, well, maybe allowing gay men to purchase babies might not be that harmful to the baby.
Well, that's wrong, of course.
It is harmful.
But it's also not an argument for why this is a positive good that should be embraced.
Because it isn't.
Gay surrogacy and gay adoption are predicated on the idea that gay men and women have a right to become parents.
But that's not only morally insane, it's also logically incoherent.
It's like jumping off a building and claiming that you have the right to fly.
Nobody has the right to defy the laws of nature.
Where would such a right even originate?
But as long as leftists can invent rights out of thin air, which is what they did in Obergefell, then they're not going to stop until somebody forces them to stop.
You know, let's, let's, so let's have that conversation.
Let's state as plainly as we possibly can that two men cannot be parents.
It's impossible.
Doesn't matter how they feel or what they want, it cannot be.
The only right at issue here, and the one that's being ignored completely, is the right of the child.
The child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two men masquerading as mother and father.
The child not only has that right, but it is indeed one of the first and most fundamental rights.
I mean, the whole idea of a right is that it is a thing that you rightfully possess.
By nature.
All of our legal rights in this country are based on the philosophical idea that some things belong to us by our nature.
Those are our unalienable rights, as it says in the Declaration of Independence.
Every child has a mother and a father by nature.
A child's mother and father belong to him, and he to them.
This is literally what a human right is.
Now, some children will be deprived of one or both parents by death or some other misfortune.
If that happens, then obviously it can't be said the child's rights are being willfully infringed in the same way that we wouldn't say a person's property rights are infringed when a tornado hits the house.
But when a conscious choice is made to uproot a child out and away from his natural family, rip him away from his mother, and place him into some kind of constructed artificial scenario where he'll be raised according to the impossible fiction that he has two dads or two moms, then in that case, his rights have been violated.
Protecting Your Family Policy00:03:59
They've been violated at the deepest level that it's possible for a right to be violated.
A gay couple that's not allowed to adopt or use surrogacy is not experiencing any infringement of their rights because they have no right to possess a child that they did not and cannot conceive themselves.
But a child, on the other hand, does have a right to his own mother because she is his mother.
This should not be a difficult concept to understand.
And until we stop pretending that we don't understand the concept, Children will continue to be abused in ways that we can't possibly fathom or detect.
And the solution is clear ban adoption by gay couples, ban human trafficking under the guise of surrogacy for everybody in all cases, do it at the federal level.
And ultimately, yes, we have to overturn Obergefell.
And we should not be shy about saying that, which next to Roe is the most farcical and ridiculous Supreme Court decision of all time.
I've said repeatedly that conservatives haven't done much with their time in Washington, but if they can pass these bans, then they'll have made a major stride towards conserving one of the most important institutions in this country, which is the nuclear family.
The left has made the nuclear family their primary target precisely because they understand how important the institution is to Western civilization.
And before any more children are tortured, before any more lives are destroyed, we need to defend it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
A lot of Americans are paying more attention to their health and looking for simple ways to support their daily routine.
And for a lot of people, the appeal is pretty straightforward.
They want something easy to stick with, made with ingredients they recognize and not a huge disruption to their day.
That's why so many people are turning to Dose for Cholesterol.
It's a clinically backed supplement designed to support overall cholesterol health with ingredients like ginger, pomegranate, amla, and turmeric.
Dose fits into a routine without complicating life.
It comes as a daily two ounce liquid shot.
So, there are no capsules and no powders to remember, and it's delivered right to your door, which makes it easier to stay consistent.
We have a lot of people around the Daily Wire who like to keep things simple and practical, and DOSE is one of those products that fits that mindset.
People want options that feel practical, familiar, and easy to keep up with.
That's why our team is really excited about DOSE Daily.
New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering Walsh to check out that's D O S E D A I L Y dot co slash Walsh for 35% off your first month subscription.
Have you ever thought of just how much you really have to keep track of on the daily?
You've got 12 different passwords, your kids' sports schedules, a grocery list that never stops growing, among many other things.
But for all the stuff we manage to remember, we often forget something much bigger.
What happens to our families financially if something happens to us?
The responsibility of protecting your loved ones and planning for the future is heavy.
Trying to navigate life insurance on your own can be a mess.
Our sponsor, Policy Genius, makes the process dramatically easier by acting as an online insurance marketplace, not an insurance company.
So you can compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free.
Free, actually understand what you're buying.
Their license team works for you, not for the insurance carrier.
So they care about your needs, your budget, your family.
They help you figure out coverage amounts, prices, and terms.
So there's no guesswork.
Policy Genius will help answer your questions, handle paperwork, and advocate for you throughout the process, which is why they've racked up thousands of five star reviews on Google and Trustpilot.
Protect your family with a policy that grows with your life.
With Policy Genius, you can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276.
Dollars a year for just a million dollars in coverage.
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.
The Mystery of Depression Meds00:15:23
All right, this is one of my favorite Trump headlines in a while from CNN.
Trump accelerates research on psychedelic treatments and asks, Can I have some?
Reading on says President Donald Trump on Saturday signed an executive order aimed at encouraging expanded research into psychedelic drugs, part of a broader push to explore emerging mental health treatments.
Trump said during the event, in many cases, the experimental treatments have shown life changing potential for those suffering from severe mental illness and depression, including our cherished veterans.
The president also announced the federal government is making a $50 million investment for further research into the psychedelic drug Ebogaine.
I don't know.
That's how you pronounce it.
Trump, ahead of signing the order, pointed to initial research, he said, demonstrates the drug's potential and quipped that he wanted some himself.
Okay, now I will say that I really have no opinion about psychedelics and their potential value to treat mental health issues.
I'm skeptical.
Won't surprise you to learn.
I have no interest in ever taking psychedelics.
I wouldn't recommend it.
I haven't looked into it or researched it at all, and I don't plan to.
So, yeah, I don't know.
But this, he also makes this comment.
He says after he asks for some psychedelics, Jokingly, we assume.
He says, I don't have time to be depressed.
You know, if you stay busy enough, maybe that works too.
That's what I do.
And, you know, that comment about depression, which was said sort of as an aside, got some attention, some negative attention.
Some people were upset by it.
Trump says he doesn't have time to be depressed because he's too busy.
And a lot of people don't like these kinds of comments because they contradict the idea that depression is a disease in the same way that, you know, cancer is a disease.
And you would never say that somebody can get rid of cancer by staying busy.
Right?
I mean, somebody has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or something.
You're not going to say, oh, just stay busy and you'll be fine.
And, you know, depression is a physical disease like cancer, we're told.
And so when you say things like, oh, stay busy, it flies in the face of that.
But it's actually not true that depression is a disease in the way that cancer is a disease.
And it is true that actually staying busy is a good way to treat depression.
Provided you're staying busy with meaningful work.
Also, like going for a walk, getting exercise.
All of these things will work much better in most cases than any pill ever will.
Because depression is a pattern of thought, it is a state of mind, it is a way of thinking about things, it is a perspective.
There's a physical component to it because it involves your brain, but it's no different in that sense from any other feeling or thought process.
And it makes no sense to look at the human mind, which generates all kinds of thoughts and feelings, and then declare that the uncomfortable thoughts and feelings are all diseases and shouldn't exist and must be medicated out of existence.
That's not just anti human, but it's illogical.
It's like incoherent.
And that's why the medications very often don't work.
I mean, it's why we are at once the most depressed and anxious society ever in history and also the most medicated.
People are going to therapy more than ever before.
They're taking more of these drugs than ever before.
And yet, when you see that trend, you should see like depression and anxiety doing this.
If this thing works and more people are taking it, then we should see less of the thing that it treats.
That's not what's happening.
Because the medications generally don't work, which we also heard in this event, which also upset some people.
Listen.
On the fact that over 20% of US women are on these drugs that are prescribed for life.
We have a mental health crisis and.
Do they work?
No.
They don't.
I'm on a couple of them.
I would not have picked a girl.
I would not have picked a girl.
20%.
I mean, I've heard that statistic before, but it just blows my mind every time I hear it.
20% of women in this country are on antidepressants.
That is crazy.
I mean, that's a full on.
If we can't look at that and recognize it as a full on crisis, like something is not right here, something is wildly wrong, obviously.
And, you know, she says she's on multiple of them, they don't work, and she's right.
Unless by work, you mean that they numb you, that they make you Feel less, right?
Psych meds can do that.
They can make you feel less.
Like you're feeling, you've less feeling.
That's true, but they can't actually make you a happier, more fulfilled person.
That's the thing.
And I can state that again, this is not, you don't need to look at any study for this.
Can a pill give you fulfillment and meaning in your life?
No, it's impossible.
It's just impossible.
No medication could do that.
It's impossible.
Because what is depression ultimately?
I mean, what is the depressed person thinking?
What's going on in their mind?
What is the thought process that we call depression?
How does a person know that they're depressed?
We always hear that, well, it's more than just a sad feeling.
I agree.
So, depression is ultimately the thought, the feeling that the perspective, However, you want to put it, that life is meaningless, that it's hopeless.
Depression is despair, and despair is the loss of hope.
It's the loss of meaning.
That's what these things mean.
That's what it means.
There's no pill that can infuse into your mind a sense of meaning or hope.
That pill doesn't exist.
That's not a thing that can be, it just can't be put into a pill.
You can't do that.
Now, what a pill can do, maybe, is make you less upset about the meaninglessness in your life.
But that means that antidepressants work at best as like kind of painkillers.
They treat the pain, but not the source of the pain.
It's like if somebody gets their leg blown off and you give them morphine.
Well, the morphine will make them feel less anguished about the missing leg, but it's not going to grow the leg back.
It's not going to prevent an infection that kills them.
And in that way, antidepressants might make you feel less pain from your sense of meaninglessness, but the sense remains.
Right, the emptiness remains.
And if anything, it gets worse.
The reason why exercise and like staying busy and going for a walk actually do treat depression, not the symptom, but the thing itself, is in part because these things are goal oriented.
They're healthy.
They actually give you meaning.
Not all the meaning you need in life, but they do have some meaning in them.
And that's why they work.
And in any case, this is an important conversation to have.
I mean, we need to be talking about psychiatric medication, our society's dependence on it, the downstream effects of that dependency.
This is something I've been shouting about this forever, and some other, I'm certainly not the only one, some others have as well.
We have become a society that is totally dependent on not antidepressants, they are just one form of psychiatric medication.
Obviously, there are many others.
And we have become totally dependent on it.
And there's never been any kind of real serious national conversation about that or what it means down the line.
You've heard me talk about Equip's Prime Bars before, but now I'm also really liking their Prime Protein too.
Men's Health called it the cleanest protein on the market.
Starting today, my listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Protein, which has become our team's favorite clean protein.
This stuff is really delicious without any of the junk and toxins that fills a lot of the powders on the shelves.
Equip makes it simple, real food ingredients with your choice of clean sweeteners.
Each serving has 20 grams of grass fed beef protein, no whey, no seed oils, no junk.
Plus, every batch is third party tested for heavy metals, plastics, pesticides, mold, you name it.
When they claim to be the cleanest protein bar out there, they can actually prove it.
And they have great flavor options.
So, adding it into your daily routine, drinks, baking, anything really is simple.
Chocolate.
Vanilla, strawberry, even chocolate mint and cinnamon roll.
Try them all and they're all great.
So you can't go wrong.
It's time to clean up your protein powder.
Go to equipfoods.comslash Matt Walsh.
Use code Matt Walsh at checkout to get 25% off prime protein purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time.
That's EQUIPfoods.comslash Matt Walsh.
Use code Matt Walsh at checkout.
And that brings me to this.
Michaela, Jordan Peterson's daughter, posted an update about her dad.
And Jordan has been, of course, out of commission for.
Going on a year now, I think.
He's been sick.
We haven't heard much about the nature of that.
The family's been very private about it, understandably.
And yesterday, Michaela posted this.
I'll just read what she posted.
She said, We figured out that dad is a psych med induced neurological injury and has been suffering from akathisia.
I believe that's how it's pronounced.
It's been six years since any psych medications.
Last summer, her symptoms started after a flare up likely induced by mold and stress.
It was complicated by pneumonia and associated sepsis a month later.
It's been horrible.
Neurological injuries from psych meds are far more common than people know.
I made this video.
She made a video about it to explain what they are and what akathisia is because they're not talked about enough.
They're misdiagnosed, nearly impossible to treat, and hidden by the pharmaceutical industry.
And she goes on to say that I'll be jumping up and down about psych med injury awareness from now on as it's impacted my health as well.
And it's devastating.
So, first of all, praying for Jordan and his family.
Jordan's done a lot of good for a lot of people, myself included.
And his absence is certainly felt very clearly.
And, um, And now we hear that he's dealing with problems stemming from psychiatric medications, not antidepressants in this case, to my understanding, but anti anxiety meds, I believe.
But the conversation is the same.
Psychiatric medications have been prescribed en masse to millions of people.
There's no evidence that they're actually working at this scale.
Basically, no conversation about the side effects and injuries they're causing.
And people are being profoundly harmed by it.
And here's the thing.
And I'm always trying to find a way to put this into words.
Because I think when we talk about this, we sort of miss the point.
And to me, the point is this that the people prescribing this stuff don't actually know how the medicine works, or if it works, or why it works if it does work, or why it didn't work if it didn't work.
Because the human mind is as mysterious to science as like a distant alien galaxy, if not considerably more so, actually.
I mean, the human mind is the most mysterious thing that we know of in the universe.
We don't even know how consciousness arises from the brain.
We don't understand the basic relationship between the brain and consciousness.
There's a huge gap in our understanding, which, you know, any scientist or doctor who's honest will admit that.
Well, the problem is that these medicines operate in that gap.
Like anybody with depression or anxiety is experiencing a Distressing state of consciousness.
This is, I would hope, obvious.
Like depression and anxiety are functions of consciousness.
You can't be depressed and anxious if you're not conscious.
So that's what it is.
It's a conscious state.
I mean, if I were to, that's the most basic way to define what it is.
Depression is a certain conscious state.
And the medical industry tells us that it originates from physical mechanisms in the brain, but we don't actually know how the mechanisms in the brain translate.
Into conscious thoughts in the first place.
And yet, the medicines aim to fix some problem related to how the physical mechanisms create these uncomfortable conscious thoughts.
Except that nobody who's prescribing the medicines or making them actually has any idea how any of that works.
So, if somebody's experiencing anxiety, that's a conscious experience, right?
So then they take an anti anxiety medication.
If the medication works and now they're consciously experiencing less anxiety and they go back to the doctor and they say, Hey, doc, it worked.
The doctor will say, Hey, it's great.
Excellent news.
But keep taking your pills.
You want some more?
But if the person follows up and says, Hey, how did it work exactly?
Like, how did the medicine alter my state of consciousness so that I'm experiencing less anxiety?
I mean, anxiety is not like a hallucination.
I mean, if somebody's anxious, anxiety is a thought process.
You're thinking certain things.
And how did the medicine change what I'm thinking?
The doctor, if he's honest, will have to say to the patient, I don't know.
I don't know.
I have no clue, actually.
I really don't know at all.
Which means that if it doesn't work, the doctor also doesn't know why it didn't work.
And if there are downstream psychological side effects or injuries, he also is not going to know why that's happening or how to make it stop happening or if it will ever stop happening.
He doesn't know any of that.
We are messing around with things we don't understand.
We are drugging our minds into oblivion, at best, based on very incomplete science.
At best.
Very incomplete.
You know, I mean, it's like throwing a grenade into a dark room without having any idea of what's in there.
No clue at all.
Maybe it'll work out fine.
Maybe you'll kill 10 people.
We don't know.
And that's basically what we're doing with these medications.
And I wish that we would talk about it in an honest way.
Maybe now we will.
Birthright Citizenship Debated00:08:07
I'm excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the Pocket Hose Ballistic.
I don't ask much from a garden hose, just want it to work and Not fight me like it's got a personal vendetta every time I turn on the spigot.
That's why our sponsor pocket hose is great.
It's lightweight, it doesn't tangle itself into an unusable mess.
And when you turn the water on, it expands into a full hose.
Then you're all ready to turn it off, it shrinks back down.
So you're not wrestling with 50 feet of rubber in your own yard.
The ballistic version is reinforced with the same kind of material used in bulletproof vests, liquid crystal polymer.
So it's absurdly strong, five times stronger than steel, which is reassuring when you're Kids are inevitably dragging it across the driveway or attempting to use it as a weapon against each other in the summer.
Plus, it's got a 360 degree pocket pivot at the spigot so it moves with you instead of kinking up every three seconds.
It also has thicker washers so it doesn't leak everywhere and a UV coating so it doesn't deteriorate after one summer.
And now, for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle.
Just text Walsh to 64,000, that's Walsh to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase.
Text Walsh to 64,000.
Message and data rates may apply.
Our New York Post says this article Nearly 10% of U.S. births in 2023 came from illegal immigrant mothers.
According to newly published research, Pew Research Center revealed that 320,000 of the 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. that year were anchor babies who would not qualify for birthright citizenship if President Trump's executive order is upheld by the Supreme Court.
Now, that's pretty stunning.
I mean, 10% of all births are anchor babies.
Totally ridiculous situation.
It's going to completely transform the demographics of the country in very short order.
Obviously, that's the point.
And it's going to accomplish this goal on the ridiculous premise.
Well, actually, two ridiculous premises.
The first is that the founders of our country actually intended to open American citizenship up to millions of people.
Third worlders from the poorest and most dysfunctional places on earth, as long as they manage to make it across the border before they give birth.
Nobody really believes that the founders intended that or that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended it, who are writing the 14th Amendment specifically for freed slaves, not immigrants.
And yet, nobody believes that.
Everyone knows that's not true, but we're supposed to accept it anyway.
And the other absurd premise is in the name.
Birthright, citizenship.
Birthright.
I mean, just think about that birthright.
The idea is that the child of an illegal immigrant from Guatemala has a birthright to be here and be considered an American.
A child of a third world mother who makes it across our border three weeks before delivery has now a birthright.
That's completely insane.
And again, everybody knows it.
The actual birthright belongs to Americans, real Americans, who were born to American parents, Americans who are tied to this land by heritage, by blood, by ancestry.
They have a birthright a birthright to live in the country their ancestors built for them, a birthright to enjoy the prosperity and safety and security their ancestors intended to pass down to them.
That's the birthright.
But everything's so backwards and upside down that if you talk about birthright in that sense, you'll be called a bigot.
Like the term birthright is condemned as bigoted unless it's applied precisely to the people who actually have no birthright in the first place.
So, some kid from Honduras whose parents were illegal immigrants can grow up and talk about his birthright.
If I say that about myself, well, I'm a white nationalist.
And speaking of this issue, I saw this screenshot of a New York Times article posted to X by somebody named Theo Wold, and he captions it.
The New York Times tells us the story of an illegal alien couple from Honduras who were expecting their first child after being deported last year due to a charge for drug possession.
They snuck back across the US border, a felony, to ensure their son would be born in America.
They were then deported yet again, but their son is now an American citizen with the same rights as you and I.
This is why the Supreme Court needs to overturn birthright citizenship.
Okay, so this is a case study that, keep in mind, the New York Times has presented this as something that exemplifies the birthright citizenship issue.
So they're saying we need birthright citizenship for people like this, that the person profiled here.
This is their choice.
This is not me cherry picking, they've chosen this.
And let me read the excerpt that Theo provides here.
Her baby, Gail, was born a month early in a South Texas hospital.
As Gail slept, the officer explained that a bus had arrived to take Ms. Acosta back to the detention center where she had lived for the past three months.
It was time to say goodbye.
Ms. Acosta felt her whole body tremble as she moved away from her son, a 27 year old immigrant from Honduras.
She and her partner had crossed the southern border in the fall when Ms. Acosta was about six months pregnant after being deported from the United States the previous spring.
The couple knew that they were taking a chance when they began their 1,700 mile journey back to the U.S.
But to give their first child together a chance at American citizenship to be born on U.S. soil, they had agreed that they would do anything.
Okay, so this is the New York Times trying to make us sympathize with anchor babies by giving us this story, which they obviously believe is a good representative of most anchor baby cases.
And it is, they're right.
And this is a story of an illegal immigrant woman and a criminal deported for drug possession, comes back across the border, as is pointed out in the caption, a felony.
To cross the border again after being deported.
And it sprints across the finish line at the last minute and has the baby on U.S. soil.
This is a citizen of Honduras trying to use a technicality to circumvent our laws, to include the laws against drug possession.
Does any rational person, does any thinking person actually think that this makes sense?
That it should be this way?
That it's reasonable to allow this kind of thing?
It doesn't even make any sense.
So, we're, I mean, this is the magical dirt theory of US citizenship that there is something mystical about the dirt itself, about the land itself.
And so, if you could just, Be on the land.
Doesn't matter if you committed a felony to get here.
Doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter if you're giving birth 10 seconds after you just made it across the finish line.
You dive across and land on the ground and then immediately give birth.
He's a U.S. citizen forever.
Why?
Well, because the dirt is magical, it's magic dirt.
That's the argument.
And if you're sensing the theme here, it's like an argument, again, that no one actually thinks that.
All right.
This article is making the rounds online.
Do Lobsters Feel Pain00:07:41
New York Post says researchers have established that lobsters feel pain in a manner similar to that of other mammals, including humans.
And boiling, the traditional method for killing these crustaceans, causes them suffering.
In light of this revelation, scientists are calling for an immediate, legally enforced ban on boiling.
Experts have long debated whether lobsters' behavioral responses to harmful stimuli indicate that they actually feel pain or are exhibiting mechanical reflexes.
To settle the argument, a team of researchers at Sweden's University of Gothenburg examined how the behavior of Norway lobsters changed if the creatures were given painkillers.
In the study, electrical shocks considered painful in humans were administered to the lobsters.
When the shocks were delivered to lobsters that had not been treated with painkillers, they attempted to escape by rapidly flipping their tails.
However, when the lobsters were injected with aspirin or lidocaine, No escape attempts or tail flipping were recorded.
And so, anyway, now they're calling for a ban across the world, I guess, of boiling lobsters.
Boiling is already illegal in Austria, several Australian states, Norway, and New Zealand.
First of all, there's kind of a morbid comedy in the idea of scientists being so concerned about the suffering of lobsters that they do experiments where they electrocute lobsters.
What kind of mad scientist scene were they setting up here?
You've just got lobsters strapped.
You got dozens of lobsters in this dungeon strapped.
Now they have no idea what's going on.
Strapped down and being electrocuted by these people in lab coats.
And the people in lab coats are saying, this is for your own good.
I know it hurts.
You're never going to convince me that they actually were motivated by any kind of humane concern.
You just wanted to electrocute something.
That's all that was.
That's all these scientists were doing.
They saw a lobster and said, wouldn't it be, what would happen if we electrocuted one?
And they came up with a whole study just to justify it.
And second, for the record, the study doesn't actually establish that lobsters experience pain, it doesn't establish anything at all.
This is why, I mean, to go back to the beginning about, we talk about studies very often are totally bunk.
You can find studies that are worthwhile, but you got to really check the methodology.
A lot of times, studies are just like this it's just scientists, it's just like making up bull.
Oh, if he flips his tail, he's experiencing pain.
What?
Why would you assume that?
Because experiencing pain is a question of, Consciousness.
You know, a thing can respond to physical torture by convulsing around or recoiling.
That doesn't establish that it is a conscious experience of pain.
In order for that to happen, the animal would have to be aware that it exists and that it is experiencing pain.
So, to actually experience pain requires a capacity for conscious experience.
And do lobsters have that capacity?
I have no idea.
I doubt that they do.
There's no way.
You can electrocute a million lobsters, you'll never get to the bottom of that.
And third, lobster is the most overrated food on the planet, anyway.
You know, second only to crabs, actually.
Neither are worth the effort.
You got to sit there and crack open a shell, dig out the meat like an animal.
Meanwhile, beef in every form tastes better and doesn't require me to do any work.
So, anytime someone's like, you want to have lobster, you want to have crab, no, I'll just have a hamburger.
It tastes way better and it's much easier.
And I don't have this alien looking thing that I have to crack it open, and it's like guts are spilling out, and there's weird yellow stuff coming out.
So, and I don't have to murder the cow myself by boiling it to death.
I mean, I would if that's what it took to enjoy a hamburger.
I wouldn't want to.
I'm just saying that if that's how cheeseburgers were made, then, you know, what am I?
I'm going to do what I got to do.
Like, what are you going to do?
Not eat a cheeseburger?
Let's be real.
But fourth, most importantly, and, uh, And the point that everyone is making in response to this article, and rightly so, is that the scientific community here is showing more concern for the suffering of crustaceans, of these cockroaches of the sea, than they are for actual human babies, unborn babies.
I mean, this is the connection a lot of people are making, and rightly so.
We know that unborn children feel pain, and it's much more likely that they are consciously aware of that pain to some degree.
And whether they feel pain or not, I mean, they do, but regardless, They're human.
Lobsters are lobsters.
We heard about several countries that already ban boiling lobsters.
All of those countries, it will not surprise you to learn, have legalized abortion.
So it is a fact, it's not some kind of right wing talking point to say that those countries give more rights to lobsters than to human babies in the womb.
That is a true fact.
In New Zealand, for example, lobsters are more protected.
Than unborn babies.
Lobsters have more of a, are recognized by the law to have more of a moral claim than unborn humans.
And I'd bet a lot of money that the scientists calling for this boiling ban, these weirdo scientists electrocuting poor lobsters, I'd bet all of them are pro abortion.
I have no clue, but I'd put a lot of money on that assumption.
And this is liberalism in a nutshell.
A human baby is a, Is a meaningless clump of cells.
And then on the other hand, you got this hideous, weird, alien looking ocean bug, it is a beautiful, sacred life worthy of legal protection and moral consideration.
It is a perfect inversion.
Everything flipped on its head once again.
So, another theme of the show.
And I guess we'll wrap it up there.
I wouldn't actually boil a cow alive, just to be clear.
Before media matters, Gets to work on that one.
I wouldn't actually do that.
If you've got to kill a cow and then boil it in order to get the cheeseburger, then I would probably do that.
But I don't think I'd boil it alive.
It's a moral quandary.
You'd have to debate it.
But ultimately, I'd come down against it.
So just to clarify that one thing.
We'll wrap it up there and talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
I do believe that if people have committed treason against the United States of America, their statues should not be in the Capitol.
History is written by the victors.
And since the 1960s, we've been told, mostly by people whose ancestors didn't even live here during the war, that the South committed treason.
But if the Confederates were traitors, then why was Jefferson Davis never put on trial for treason?
Wrapping Up the Show00:00:21
What were Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson afraid of?
Did they know something they're not allowed to say today?
It's time for the truth.
So here it is.
Robert E. Lee was a military genius and a man of immense honor.
He was beloved by Americans from the North and South for a century after the war.