The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1337 - The Most Anti-Christian President In History Declares Easter 'Transgender Day of Visibility'

Episode Date: April 1, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden escalates his war on Christianity by proclaiming Easter as "Transgender Day of Visibility." Leftists then proceeded to spend the day trying to explain why Jesus is pro-trans. Also, under a new law in Vermont, parents will not have the right to find out what books their children are checking out from the library. And Beyonce's new country album is out, and it's an even greater abomination than many had feared.   Ep.1337   - - -    DailyWire+:   Woke Stinks. We Can Help. Check Out Jeremy’s Deodorant here: https://bit.ly/3xigo8d   Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB  Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month when you make the switch! https://www.puretalk.com/Walsh     BJU Press - Learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities at http://www.HomeSchoolHelp.com/Walsh    Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order of Fruits & Veggies + $10 Off Every Additional Set. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/   - - -   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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today in the Matwell Show, Joe Biden escalates his war on Christianity by proclaiming Easter as transgender day of visibility. Leftists then proceeded to spend the day trying to explain why Jesus is pro-trans. We'll talk about all that today. Also, under a new law in Vermont, parents will not have the right to find out what books their children are checking out from the library. And Beyonce's new country album is out, and it's an even greater abomination than many had feared. We'll talk about all that, and more today on the Matwell show. But you know, $20 barely gets you anything these days. You can't get a burger and fries for less than that anymore.

but do you know what will get, what $20 will get you from the cell phone company I use, Pure Talk. You can get unlimited, talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month. Pure Talk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost. The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees. You can switch to Pure Talk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use, or you can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Android's. Making the switch is incredibly easy. Their U.S. customer service team can help you join Pure Talk.

as little as 10 minutes. Choose to spend your hard-earned money with a wireless company that shares your values, supports our militaries, and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on fake news networks. Stop spending ridiculous amounts on your phone plan. Go to PureTalk.com slash Walsh. Right now, my listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month. That's puretalk.com slash Walsh. Well, as they've done for thousands of years, Christians celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ this past Sunday. All over the world, the faithful gathered, to celebrate the joyous news that the Messiah died and rose from the grave for the salvation of mankind. This is the central fact of our faith and the reason why Easter is our most sacred

holiday. But at the same time, a cult that was invented mere decades ago in which opposes everything Christianity stands for was holding its own observances on Sunday. In a deliberate attempt to mock the very idea of Easter, they celebrated something called Transgender Day of Visibility. Joe Biden, who claims to be a Catholic, ushered in the festivities with a presidential proclamation that can only be described as not only blasphemous, but also completely counterfactual. It's not overstating things to say that this proclamation document underscores, once again, that the Biden administration is the single most radically anti-Christian regime in American history, and it's not even close, actually.

In the proclamation, Biden describes so-called transgender Americans as, quote, part of the fabric of our nation. He accuses millions of Americans of being, quote, hateful for supporting laws that ban the castration, sterilization and mutilation of children, saying that these Americans seek to, quote, target and terrify transgender kids and their families. Any claims that there's a, quote, epidemic of violence against people identifying as trans, without mentioning that this violence almost exclusively relates to domestic incidents, prostitution, drugs. He also fails to qualify this statement with the fact that trans-identified Americans are

murdered at a lower rate than the general population. Of course, nowhere in devout Catholic, quote-unquote, Joe Biden. Biden's proclamation, is there an attempt to explain how the concept of transgenderism is compatible in any way with Catholicism? He doesn't grapple with how a Christian can ascribe to modern gender theory while also accepting what we're clearly told in the first chapter of Genesis. Male and female, he created them. There's no way to grapple with this.

These views are diametrically opposed. One can either believe in transgenderism or they can believe in Christianity, not both. just as one can either believe in transgenderism or they can believe in biology, not both. And on both counts, Biden chooses, of course, transgenderism. And coming from the same alleged Catholic who pushes the mass murder of the unborn, that's not exactly surprising. But this decision to issue this blasphemous proclamation on Easter, it was so unbelievable.

It's so unprecedented in modern politics that a lot of people wondered if it was real. I was one of them. And I saw it on social media. I had to go check the White House website myself. and I found that, indeed, it was real. And precisely because it's real, because it's easily verifiable and so damaging to the Biden administration and at the same time, because of that, so-called fact-checkers instinctively jumped into action to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. And there are many examples of this, so I'll just pick one.

Here's the headline from Reuters. Quote, fact check. Transgender Day of Visibility falls annually on March 31st, not on March 31st, not on. always at Easter. And then here's the spin. Quote, international transgender day of visibility takes place annually on March 31st to celebrate transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. It was not designed intentionally to fall on Easter Sunday, as claimed by some online accounts. Transgender Day of visibility has been celebrated on the same date, March 31st, for years. The date of Easter changes each year. Now, the point of fact checks like this, of course, is to censor

posts on social media platforms like Facebook by labeling information. as misinformation, and they do this every time, not by debunking a claim, but rather by intentionally confusing an issue or by debunking a claim that nobody's actually making. Nobody made the claim that transgender day of visibility and Easter always fall on the same day. No one has said that, but that's the claim they debunk. And we see this kind of thing again and again. It's like when a. PolitiFact said that it was false to claim that AOC was photographed crying in front of an

empty parking lot because in reality they said it was an empty road. Now, they know what people are reacting to. They know what the point is. They know what we're actually saying. And instead of talking about that, they pick some phony misconception related to the episode in order to rate it all as false. Now, the problem with this excuse in this case is that, and this should go without saying, is that Joe Biden did not have to issue any proclamation recognizing the so-called transgender day of visibility. Like what the defenders are saying basically is that, well, Biden can't help that they fell on the same day.

It's not his fault. And you're right, he can't. But he can help that he issued a proclamation about it. You don't have to do that. Even Barack Obama never did that, despite the fact that this holiday was invented a year after Obama took office. So that is what people are responding to. Now, of course, no president should recognize any transgender day, regardless of what date it falls on.

But if you have any respect at all for the holiest day on the Christian calendar, then you would at least skip the proclamation this year. That's the point. Reuters knows that, and they dodge it on purpose. There was no need to issue this proclamation except for the sole and express purpose of mocking Christians. Secondly, it's not like the Democrats just begrudgingly nodded towards Trans Day because they felt like they had to. Okay, this wasn't a perfunctory checking of boxes. They went out of their way to celebrate the occasion. It wasn't just some staffer in the White House who put out that proclamation with Joe Biden's name on it.

They all did it. This went beyond the White House. Here's Gavin Newsom's Easter message, for example. Watch. Today on Trans Day of Visibility, we celebrate the trans individuals in our communities and recognize their struggle, struggles for recognition and increasingly survival in the face of unfathomable hate, hate which leads them to often feel unsafe or like they don't belong. And we also celebrate the many contributions that they've made. We've had transleaders at the forefront

of progress in every field imaginable, from STEM to the arts, to human rights advocacy, to so much more. So much more. Now, it's not necessarily the most important point to make here, but notice how Gavin Newsom's wife claims that trans people have made many incredible contributions to human progress, but then fails to cite one single specific example. She just says they've done a lot of great things and then moves on. But the truth is that trans-identified people have accomplished nothing of significance in this country or any country ever. All they have done is contributed massively to increase rates of depression and suicide in the last decade by encouraging young people to castrate and mutilate themselves,

instead of actually improving their mental health, they've also committed several acts of terrorism. But beyond that, they're just not doing anything of significance. And that's not an insult, it's just a fact. Even if I was interested in celebrating the achievements of trans people, even if somehow I wanted to do this on Easter of all days, I still wouldn't be able to partake in that celebration for the simple reason that there are no achievements to celebrate.

But politicians throughout the Democratic Party all over the country pretended otherwise yesterday. In New York, Kathy Hockle issued her own proclamation of transgender day of visibility. It states that New York, quote, reaffirms our commitment to see beyond the gender binary and create equity. And for his part, the HHS Secretary Xavier Bacera put out this message, quote, today I'm thinking about our country's great transgender, non-binary, and two-spirit leaders who epitomize resilience, progress, and joy. transgender day of visibility is an opportunity to celebrate their accomplishments and double down on our commitment to their well-being. He also added a picture of a bunch of people without faces because that's what equity means.

It means nobody has a face. But, you know, first of all, like Newsom's wife, he doesn't mention what accomplishments transgender people have achieved. That's because there are no accomplishments to mention. On top of that, like the identity of transgender, so-called non-binary and two-spirit are nonsense labels. I mean, the two-spirit thing blew up in Canada a while ago, which is why Justin Trudeau. goes around referring to 2SL LGBTQIA plus people now. But it's not a real thing. It was invented by some woman at a gay and lesbian conference in Canada in 1990.

But there are other major problems with this statement, which again is from our HHS secretary, who oversees health in this country. And the biggest one, perhaps, is that you cannot tell us that trans people will kill themselves if you misgender them, which is what they say. and then in the next breath insist that these people epitomize resilience and joy because if they really are resilient,

joyful people, then we don't have to worry about what kind of language we use around them. They can handle it, right? They can handle a pronoun they don't like with resilience and joy. But if we do have to worry about the words we use, worry in fact that the wrong word might cause them to commit suicide and mass,

then there may be many terms you could use to describe them, but joyful isn't one of them and resilient, even less so. As for doubling down on our commitment to their well-being, as the HHS Secretary claims to want to do, the only way to accomplish that is to tell them the truth and stop catering to delusion.

But of course, most importantly, Sunday was Easter, and Xavier Bacera, like all of us, should have spent the day thinking not about trans people, but about the lordship of Jesus Christ and the state of our own immortal souls. The same is true of Karen Jean Pear, who issued a statement about the courage of the trans community on Sunday. This is the same woman who claim that trans kids are under attack in this country just three days after a trans terrorist murdered men, women, and children in a Christian school in Nashville. But Karen Jean-Paird never praised the courage of the police officers in that incident who put the trans terrorists down, never mentioned their heroism.

They don't need to be visible, apparently, like trans people do. They don't have their own holiday like the sacred Trans Day of Visibility. A holiday is so apparently important, so ingrained in our national tradition now, that it must be officially recognized by the White House, no matter if it conflicts with Easter or not. Now, it could be interesting to take a look now at the person who started this fake holiday since we're on the subject. And just for your own reference, for no other reason, really, I will show you this. This was invented, this holiday was invented by a man who identifies as a woman and now uses the name Rachel Crandall Crocker. And here he is.

Well, I tried to come out to my parents when I was eight years old, okay? And that was in 1967. Let's just say it didn't go well. I started the transgender day of visibility nine years ago. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfum intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified

impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. Yeah. And I was hoping that maybe a few people would like it. Oh my God. Oh, they. Um, um, um, it's even celebrated in Vietnam. I'm not really always fluent. However, I started the International Transgender Day of Visibility.

What a beautiful one. Now, this is the left's approximation of Jesus, I guess, the man who believes that eight-year-olds can change their gender. That's what he claims there, that he came out at eight years old. And this is who we're valorizing. He achieved the incredible feat of starting a Facebook group back in 2009, which is where Trans Day of Visibility originates. Easter began with the Son of God emerging gloriously from the tomb.

Trans Day of Visibility began with a guy starting a Facebook group. I guess this is what passes for a great accomplishment. in the trans community. Another irony of this whole trans day of visibility thing, of course, is that trans people are already more visible than any other group in the history of the world when you compare their population to the amount of media coverage, et cetera, that they receive. There has never been such a vast gulf between the attention paid to a group of people and the actual size of that group.

LGBT people in general are celebrated with dozens of special days and months just for them. We've gone over the full list several times on this show in the past, so I'll spare you. But we know, of course, that they have all of Pride Month. That's 30 days right there. They have the Trans-Dade Day of Visibility. They have Agenda Pride Day. International Pronound Day. National Coming Out Day.

Transgender Parent Day. Trans-awareness Week. On the Sexual Visibility Day. Bisexual Visibility Day. Bisexual Awareness Week. International Non-Binary Day, which is also a week for some reason. The International Day Against Homophobia, Bifobia, and Transphobia. The International Lesbian Visibility Day, as well as Diverseualness.

gay uncle day in August, and there are many more. And all, I counted more than 130 days on the calendar reserved to worship our LGBT deities. And there might be more. I just, you know, gave up counting. Now, government leaders, especially in the Biden administration, they make a point of recognizing most of these days. They will say something to recognize a great many of these days. Meanwhile, Christianity, the faith that built this country, the faith that many of the most important, most accomplished most significant human beings in the history of humanity belonged to, only has two holidays that somebody like Joe Biden will even pretend to care about. And now one of those two has been overshadowed by one of the 130 LGBT days. It's outrageous, it's disgusting, but it's also

instructive. Because I've been saying for years that LGBT isn't just a collection of sexual and gender identities anymore. It's our new state religion. And never has that been more clear than it is today. Now let's get to our five headlines. Well, you know, we all want our kids to be prepared for the future and for them to have these skills and knowledge to seize the opportunities before them. Their education is a key component of that preparation.

BJU Press is dedicated to providing families with educational resources and tools that train students to analyze and think critically about real-world problems. That's not all. Their textbooks and resources are rooted in a biblical foundation, bringing all subjects under the ultimate authority of God's word. As parents, we have an obligation to guide our children to become the best individuals we can. BJU Press not only provides a robust curriculum that is both biblical and academically sound, but also fosters a sense of community through an encouraging homeschool community and a simple-to-use online platform. For over 40 years, BJU Press has expanded their products and services. They have a complete line of K-12 textbooks and teacher support materials.

Many of these products are officially offered electronically to homeschoolers and Christian schools. Most recently, they've created an online community for teachers to create and share their lesson plans and outlines, as well as this blog for offering encouragement and sharing ideas. Visit homeschoolhelp.com slash walsh to learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities. Homeschoolhelp.com slash walsh. That's homeschoolhelp.com slash walsh. Now, before we move on from this topic, I want to play one more clip for you. This is David Jolly on MSNBC with Al Sharpton, calling out Republicans for daring to object to the White House honoring trans people on Easter. And here's what he said.

Listen. Why are Republicans choosing this battle as a way to take on the president? Yeah, I'm not quite sure, Rev, to be honest. I mean, there's a little bit of dirty political pool here, but I think we've got to hear. hit it head on and suggest to President Trump and Mike Johnson and Senator Blackburn and others who are relying on the words of their Christ and their Jesus they celebrate today to condemn Joe Biden, to suggest to them that actually the Jesus they celebrate today would be inclusive of the transgendered community and would be supportive of the transgendered community and command all Christians,

including Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and others who celebrate today that in fact they should love the transgendered community as they love their own God. I am not sure the theology upon which they rely to criticize Joe Biden. I would say politically it's stupid because among the five to ten persuasive of actual persuadable voters, part of their concern about today's Republican Party is exactly this behavior. Why would you use time politically if you are Republicans to celebrate that you want to condemn and exclude fellow Americans, that you do not want to provide equity and equality to all people? Because that is essentially the message that was received by millions of Americans today. I think it's wrong theologically.

It's wrong morally. And it's absolutely stupid politically. I mean, stupid politically. Well, I'd like to see a poll on this. How many Americans are thrilled that Biden issued a proclamation for transgender on Easter? I'm willing to bet that most Americans are going to be on our side on this one. So you see a few things going on here. First, we see the usual routine.

We see the game. We know how the game is played. Somebody on the left does something outrageous and ridiculous and repugnant. And then we react to it and we look at it and we say, wow, that's outrageous, ridiculous, and repugnant. And then the left reacts in shock and horror at us for the way that we react. So they are shocked and horrified that we are shocked and horrified by the shocking and horrifying thing they have just done. That's the game. And there are too many examples of this to count.

I mean, just think back when they first started dressing and drag and reading to kids at libraries. You know, when Drag Queen Story Hour first became a thing. And obviously, people were disturbed by this. People still are disturbed by it, as they should be. But on the left, there was never a single moment where they said, even at the beginning, they never said, hey, look, you know, I know this is kind of alarming. Nobody has done this before. But it's a good idea.

And we'll explain why. Now, they never said that because, of course, it's not a good idea. and they can't explain it, but also because the moment, the moment they decided to do it, the moment they decide to do something, no matter how bizarre it is, no matter how much it breaks from tradition, no matter how much it breaks from what people are accustomed to, no matter how much it defies common sense and our basic sense of morality and decency, the moment they decide to do it, we are expected to embrace it totally, absolutely, without hesitation. So when Joe Biden becomes the first president in history of the country to issue a proclamation on Easter that ignores Easter and instead celebrates trans people, the left will not permit us to be even slightly taken aback by this.

Despite the fact that it's never happened before, you would think that they could at least admit that it's like somewhat provocative. It's a little bit controversial. You'd think if they were honest people, they could at least admit that. But they can't. They can't. They never do. No matter what they do, the moment they are doing it, you not only are supposed to accept it, but you are supposed to accept it like you're not even surprised that it's happening. Accept it like you've seen it a thousand times already. And then there's the theological claim that Jolly makes, and he says that Jesus would be inclusive and supportive of the transgender community. The problem with the statement is that, in fact, Jesus never says a word about transgender people. In fact, the Bible never mentions them

anywhere at any point. Instead, the Bible again and again and again and again affirms the reality of only two sexes, male and female. There is no indication anywhere that we can switch sexes or we can transition from one to the other. Again, everything in the Bible leads to the opposite conclusion. We are told that we are designed. We are knitted together in the womb. And if we are male, then we are made to be male. If we're female, we are made to be female. That's what the Bible says. And this is a major problem for guys like David Jolly because he would claim, right, that trans people are not a modern invention, which in fact they are, but he would say that this is not a modern invention. He would say that, you know, we did not come up with this category five

seconds ago. He would claim that trans people have always existed, you know, that there were trans people back, you know, back in the time of Christ who were walking around and identified as female, even though they were men. But maybe they didn't. say, you know, they just didn't come out and say it because they were so afraid. Well, if that's true, then that means that makes it, you know, even more noticeable that they were, in fact, excluded from the Bible. Jesus would never exclude trans people. He did. I mean, according to you, if trans people existed back then, he did exclude them. He never mentioned them one time. In fact, again, everything that is said on the topic of sex in the Bible is the kind of thing that if you

heard someone say today, you would accuse them of transphobia. So he did. He actually did, in fact, exclude them. They're excluded completely from the Bible. And again, it's not just that they were not mentioned. It's in fact that there are claims about human biology in the nature of human identity are refuted and repudiated again and again and again. So there's the rub. either the trans category is a modern invention, in which case Christians should deny its legitimacy, or it's an ancient invention, which was excluded entirely from the Holy Scripture, while the binary, quote unquote, was affirmed countless times, in which case Christians should deny its legitimacy.

So either way, you end up at the same place. Now, does that mean that Jesus rejects trans-identified people? does mean he turns them away, but he doesn't love them? Of course it does not mean that. Rather, Jesus says to the trans-identified person, as he does to all of us, repent and believe. Give up your sin. Go and sin no more. Jesus says that we must bow to him as Lord over our lives, ourselves, our identities, that we are not God over ourselves, that we do not determine our own identity, that it is in fact assigned to us, not at birth but at conception.

That's when our identity is assigned. And we don't get to come up with our own. We don't get to say, well, identify as this. Doesn't matter what you identify as. You're not God. You don't make that choice. Sorry. And the rejection of your biological nature,

the claim that you can make your own identity, this is pride, this is blasphemy. This is sin. So what does God say to the trans person? It says the trans person must repent, just as any sinner must. Leave your sin behind. Leave behind your pride. Put on the armor of God.

Follow Christ. Same for all of us. So is that a rejection? No, absolutely not. No, Jesus does not reject the trans label. Instead, he calls on you to reject it. Jesus doesn't say to the trans-identified person, I reject you. He says to the trans-identified person, reject your trans-identification because it's not real.

It is pride. It is pride. You are not the Lord over your own life. You do not get to determine that. I made you a male. That is what you are. It doesn't matter if you don't want to be. You must conform your mind to the identity that I have given you.

That is what God says. And if you think, if you're of the opinion that this issue and this community of people should be discussed more in the Christian church, I actually agree with you. But that's what the discussion will be. That's what the discussion should be anyway. And I think probably that's actually not a discussion that you want, is it? No, actually what you want is you want Christ to bow before. for you as God and say, you know what? Yeah, it's totally up to you who you are. I made a mistake. Oops. I gave you the wrong identity somehow. I put a soul in the wrong body. I made a mistake.

My bad. You should correct the mistake that I made. That's what you want the Lord of the universe to say to you in your pride. All right. There's a, this is from mynbc5.com. There's a new bill currently moving through the statehouse aiming to create stronger regulations and provisions for libraries in Vermont. There are many aspects of it, such as establishing school policies to prevent books from being removed based on gender identity, race, and sexual health. Another is creating a state library consultant in the agency education to support librarians. However, one major part of it highlights confidentiality for minors accessing resources in libraries. Mary Danko, Fletcher of the director of Fletcher Free Library, says, libraries value privacy. We want anyone that bought people.

It's a borrow's material from our library to know what they take out is confidential. So what this law would do is it would lower the age from 16 to 12, where if a 12-year-old takes out a book at the library, their parents are not able to find out what the book is. Their parents cannot go check their library records of their 12-year-old child to find out what book they took out. Here's a local news report on this. Wendy Hiscoe is the Brownell Library Director in Essex Junction.

She feels the age limit can be lowered. Age 12 seems reasonable for kids who are really starting to explore who they are. Hisco has worked in two previous states that had no age limits. She's also a mom of an 11-year-old and feels allowing her kid to have free reign is the best approach. We always call it doors and windows, so maybe opening a door or seeing a window to identify with somebody else. So I think that's really just a great way to think about. information at the library. Benjamin Morton feels it's essential for a child's growth.

They can't really grow and develop as a person because they aren't experiencing new things and they aren't encountering things that go contrary to what their parents espouse. His mom, Barb, agrees, but she can see how some parents may feel the bill unfairly restricts their rights. Some people are going with the flow, some people are not. So it depends on the Fletcher Free Library Director Mary Duncan. who has been working in libraries for 20 plus years, says her message to those parents is at the end of the day,

kids will process information at their own pace. Even if you are reading a book that maybe is a little bit above your level, you don't take that in because it's your own mind and your own development at the time that is taking the information that it needs. So I want to ban parents

from finding out what their 12-year-old kids are reading. And now you notice something here they, well, you might notice a lot of things. They claim that they just want the kids to have privacy. You know, they want the kids to be able to check out any book that they want without adults monitoring them. You heard the one guy there in the mask with the stains all over his shirt, just a quite unsightly specimen. You heard him say that the way that a child grows as a person is to do things that are contrary to what their parents espouse. They're just flat out saying it now.

Like this is how a child grows is by rejecting their parents outright. I mean, these people are, this is the enemy. Okay? What you just saw there, like this is the enemy we face in our culture. Those people, the people that say things like that, the people that believe things like that and will say it out loud, that will directly say that they want to sever the bond between you and your own child, that's the enemy.

But you notice that, you know, they say they want privacy for the child. But as always, that's not what's actually happening here. If it was, if that was the actual issue, this law would still be horribly wrong. But it isn't, it's worse than that, right? Because when you hear that schools want privacy, you want kids to have privacy from the parents, what the library wants kids to have privacy and the parents, what they're actually saying is that they, the adults in charge of those institutions want to have exclusive access

to this information about the child. That's what they're actually saying. This is not privacy, right? The kids' activity will still be known by other adults. It's just that the other adults will be the librarians or the school staff members

rather than the parents. So with these policies, the adults that run these institutions, what they are saying is, I should know this, not you. That is what they're actually saying. The librarian is saying that she should have the exclusive rights to know what your 12-year-old child is checking out of the library. The librarian wants to know more about your child than you do.

Same for teachers who push similar policies in school. And they frame it as privacy rights for the child, but really it is access rights. Okay. They want more access to your child than you have. That's what they want. And what does that mean? It means that a creepy librarian can take your child aside and recommend a bunch of LGBT books, load them up with those books, and you as a parent have no right to know.

The staff at the library wants to be able to keep secrets with your child. And this is, I know we're not supposed to say groomer anymore, but spade is, you know, spades a spade here, groomer's a groomer. This is a classic grooming tactic. When an adult says to a child, this is a. between me and you. You don't have to tell your parents about this. Don't tell your parents. We'll keep this between me and you. That is always, always, always a major red flag. There is really no context where that is ever okay. The only possible context is when a child confides

in another adult that he, the child, is being abused at home. Okay. But even then, it wouldn't work that way because it's not it there's it's not a secret being kept by the child and the and that one adult because the adult hopefully is going to go and get help for the child so many other people are going to be brought in on this it's not a secret we're not just keeping this a secret but of course that's that's that's uh that's not what's happening here anyway because these are not abused children that are seeking refuge or seeking safety right this is a this is the adult saying to the child, yeah, this is something I know about you, but don't tell your parents. Just let me know. And keep this in mind also, as referenced in the opening monologue, we are constantly being

told that kids who identify as LGBT are at a vastly increased risk of suicide and other self-destructive behaviors, and that's true. You know, I certainly concede that point, which means that if your child considers himself to be in that group, if he considers himself to be gay or trans or whatever, then he is at an increased risk of suicide. And that's one thing that everybody agrees on. There's not many things on these issues that everyone could agree. But everyone agrees on that. Because it's statistical reality. You can't deny it. Not that the left has any problem denying reality, but this is one reality they won't deny. So you as the parent, the person who raises him, who lives with him every day, like, it would seem that you would need to know

that. If we actually want to protect these kids, if we want to make sure they don't hurt themselves, then you need to know that your child is at an increased risk of suicide. But these schools and now these libraries, they want to hide that information from you, the information that you need to protect your own child. How many children are dead right now? How many children killed themselves because they were in a high-risk group? And the adults who knew that didn't tell the parents. How many kids are dead because of that? We'll never know the answer, but I can guarantee you it's not zero. It's a lot more than zero. I can guarantee you that. So that's one of the many problems here. But the main point is just again, to summarize,

just get the hell away from my kids. You creeps. This is why I can never live in a place like Vermont. This is why I could never send my kids to public school. I could not surrender my children to a system that thinks that it has more authority over my kids than I do. I can never do it. nobody is more qualified to raise my kids than I am. No other adult should know more about my kids than I do. And my wife does. I could never let these people anywhere near my kids. No parents should.

Parents should be the ultimate earthly authority, the ultimate earthly authority over their own children should be the parents. Now, yes, a parent can lose that authority. A parent can lose their rights to their own kids. A parent can lose their right to everything and be sent to prison if they're abusive, neglectful, and so on. But as a default position, is a default position, authority must go to the parents. Why is that? Well, even aside from the fact that the people trying to take that authority away happen to be creepy weirdos with insane ideas about everything, even aside from that, the point is that as a parent, okay, I love my child. I care about my child in a way that you, you out there, you know, any of you, whether you work at a school, a library, or anywhere else, in a way that you never could and never would.

So you might work at a school or a library and interact with my child in that context. But when's the last time you laid awake at night worried about my children? You never have. I have many times. How much sleep have you lost over my kids? None at all. I've lost plenty. If my children died, how devastated would you be?

That librarian in Vermont who says, I should know this. and the parents should, if any one of those kids were to die, how devastated would you actually be? Would you never be able to find happiness in the world again, in a world deprived of their presence? No, if that was my child who died, that would be me. Right? Life, I would barely be able to find a purpose in living anymore without them. But you would be fine. You know, I mean, you might be sad, but you would ultimately be fine. are you animated every day to make sacrifices and endure hardships and take on enormous amounts of stress and heartache so that my children can be provided for and happy and healthy? You aren't.

I am. You know, I love my children. I would die for them. I would kill for them. I would do any moral thing to protect them. And I would probably do a lot of immoral things, too, to be perfectly honest with you. this is how I feel about my own kids, not anybody else's. I love other people's kids in a sort of universal charitable way that we should love other people, especially children.

But my kids are mine. They're my own. And for that reason, and maybe not that reason alone, but for that reason to begin with, for that reason primarily, the parent is the ultimate earthly authority over the child. unless something happens where we have to change that arrangement. But when we change it, we realize or we should realize what a serious, significant thing that is, which is why you only change it in the worst possible circumstances. It's really a question. Who should have ultimate earthly authority over the child?

By default. Should it be the parents who love the child beyond all measure? You know, the people for whom that child is, is their purpose, their mission from God, their vocation on this earth? Or should it be government employees at a school or librarians who barely know the kid's name? That's really the question. And I think it's just, the answer to that question is so exceedingly clear that it we shouldn't even it should not be a conversation. All right. Another thing I want to mention is from Fox News headline. Movie producer of Cabrini responds to critics that film fails to show nun's faith motivation.

That's the headline. The movie Cabrini now in theaters is getting a lot of positive reviews for its cinematography, acting, and storytelling, but some of the most piercing criticisms of the film have come from the faith media. The Catholic Exchange asked whether Cabrini is a feminist civil justice warrior or a Catholic saint. The EWTN critiques of the movie is gutted of religious meaning. And Catholic World reports, Father Henry Graby commented on his review, oddly missing from the film are several characteristics that would be considered essential for anyone striving towards sainthood, namely holiness and prayerfulness. The film reveals the struggles of Mother Cabrini born Francis Xavier Cabini, an Italian woman who was the youngest of 13 children, became a

Catholic nun. The film elevates her feistiness, which enabled her to defy her frail health and challenge the power structure of the Catholic Church and the city of New York to build orphanages, hospitals, and schools. And she came here in the late 1800s and that's sort of the story. But this film is getting sustaining some criticism from conservatives and Christians on the grounds that Fox News mentions here. And I bring this up because I bring it up now because I just watched the film last night with my family. And I'll be honest with you about this, that the honest truth is that they sent me a screener of the film weeks ago, Angel Studios did, and I was hesitant to watch it. In fact, I was not excited to watch it. I didn't jump at the chance

to watch it. And the reason is that it's a faith-based movie about a saint. And I've seen a lot of those kinds of movies over the years. And in my experience, they're almost always boring, dull, poorly acted, poorly written, clunky, sappy, corny, just not good films. And that's the case with most faith-based films historically for as long as they've been making them. Now, even though the stories they're telling are important, are oftentimes the most important stories, but they tell the stories poorly. They just don't tell the stories well. And so it's, and the fact that they are not only making a bad movie, but they're making a bad movie about such an important story makes it not only boring, but actually frustrating to watch. I've actually been, I've watched these kinds of movies in the past, and I get angry.

watching them because I say like how can you ruin this this story how could you not manage to tell it well it's it's it's mind-boggling now Angel Studios of course made sound of freedom which was a good movie but even with Angel Studios again to be honest based on my own experience of watching these kinds of films I was skeptical that they could continue to grow that they could you know continue to improve artistically actually do something interesting and compelling with a story like this. Nothing against Angel Studios. My skepticism, not based on them, but just based on decades' worth of Christian films. And that was the problem. So I wasn't excited to watch it. We did finally watch it, though. It seemed like a good Easter movie to watch. And I was wrong.

I mean, it was an exceptionally well-made, well-shot film, powerful, subtle performances, good writing, top-shelf cinematography. Just the camera work was fantastic. And it manages to suck you in. the very first scene, you're brought in and you're in it and you're with it. A movie about a nun who opens an orphanage for immigrant children in New York could have easily lapsed into schmaltz and melodrama, but it really never does. It feels authentic. The way it's shot, the way it's lit, the performances, it's just the script, it feels like, it feels real. The problem that Christian films have had in the past is that they depict dramatic things happening and they want you to feel

deep emotion while you're seeing these things. But you don't feel those emotions because nothing about the film seems real or authentic. You know, there's kind of this gloss over everything. It's all sort of sanitize. Even the way, I mentioned the lighting, even the way a lot of Christian films in the past, they all been lit sort of the same way. You feel you're watching a commercial. It doesn't even, everything about it feels wrong. It feels acted. It feels not real. So maybe, you know, I've seen Christian films in the past, whatever. It's about a marriage, a couple struggling with marriage or someone struggling with their faith or someone is dying of cancer, you know, or whatever.

And by all rights, you should be emotionally invested in that sort of thing because it's like the story itself is, well, that's a dramatic story, you know. But you aren't because the writing is sort of bland and one dimensional and the performances lack the nuance to make them feel real and all of that. But, you know, with this film, you're supposed to feel like these Italian immigrants are in a desperate situation, and you do as you watch it. You're supposed to feel sad and frustrated when Cabrini suffers setbacks throughout the story, and you do feel it. You're supposed to feel like the pain and triumph and everything on the screen, and you feel all that as you watch it. It's just a

good film. It's what good films do. And this is just talking about the artistry of the film, not even the message, but artistic grounds alone, I think Angel Studios, with this movie, again, the Sound of Freedom was good, but I think with this movie in particular, they've announced themselves as serious, sophisticated players in the film industry. And I'm really excited about that. And using the word sophisticated, it's hard to use that word without sounding, you know, pretentious or something. But that's just it. I mean, a lot of conservative Christian-type films, if you were to sum up what they lack is they lack sophistication. These are not sophisticated artists or really artists at all. But this hasn't. It's a sophisticated film. It's a sophisticated

Now, what are the critiques? Well, the movie's 20 minutes too long for one thing. And it also goes pretty heavy on the girl power stuff a little bit too much, you know. And sure, it's a true story. Cabrini really did encounter, St. Cabrini encountered obstacles and her quest to set up orphanages. And some of those obstacles were because she's a woman. I get that. But there must have been seven or eight different scenes where somebody, some man shouts, you can't do that. You're a woman. It's a bit heavy hand. you know, after a while, but not so much that it ruins the movie. And then there's the critique mentioned in this article, which we'll finally get to. And I was talking about this on Twitter

yesterday, and I heard some of this as well from other people who were much stronger in the criticism than some of the things I quoted in the Fox News article. But the criticism is that it downplays the spiritual aspects of the story, you know, that it's, it downplays the religious themes, even though this is a story of a saint. And it's a fair critique, and there's truth to it. Now, religion is front and center in the whole movie, because basically every frame of the movie, the religion is front and center because it's a movie about a Catholic nun. And there's several scenes where faith is discussed, scripture is quoted, and so on. But it's true that the film seems to explore Cabrini's personality and character more than it explores

her faith. Now, these things are all interwoven. They aren't clearly distinguishable anyway, but there's some truth to that observation is what I'm saying. Yet I still think it's foolhardy for Christians to dismiss the film entirely because of that, as some have done from what I've seen. Because the fact is, this is a family-friendly movie about a heroic historical figure, who's also a Catholic nun. Now I say family-friendly, by the way. It's intense. So it might not be, you know, you might not want to sit your four-year-old down to watch it, but it's, it's, you know, it's still, I think, very much a family film. And, and not only are there religious people in the film not portrayed as oafish villains, as they would be in any mainstream Hollywood film,

but they're the heroes of the movie. And the most villainous creatures in the movie are politicians and bureaucrats. So, I mean, you know, come on. And that on top of the fact that it is, again, a very well-made film. If that's not enough to see the movie as at least a net positive, then I don't know what to tell you. And, you know, one thing you have to understand, and I think some conservatives and Christians struggle with this, but you have to understand that, you know, filmmakers have to put the story first. Their first priority, if they're good filmmakers, is to tell a compelling story. That's the first thing that matters. Before anything, else. The number one priority is to tell a compelling story. Everything else. The message,

everything else is second. It has to be. It has to be because that's what they're doing. They're telling us a storytellers. You have to tell the story. And that requires them to make artistic choices and to take some risks for the sake of the story. And the reason why Christian films were so god-awful for so many years is that filmmakers didn't put the story first. They didn't treasure the story and the craft and art of storytelling the way that they should. Instead, they just looked at the story as nothing but a vessel to deliver a message. And so you ended up with movies that were terrible stories, but they were, you know, relatively sufficient sermons.

And that's all they were. And they were flat, boring stories that were poorly told, but you had the message in there. The problem is that nobody, you know, the message didn't really get to anybody. It didn't affect anybody deep down because it was wrapped in. inside an uninteresting story. And the problem is that when filmmakers try to go the other way, and they actually put the story first, there are going to be some members of the audience, those who actually watched those bad Christian films and pretended to like them.

Because those films did have an audience. They were preaching to the choir, but they did have an audience. Well, those people, they'll get angry. Right? They'll get angry when the storyteller makes some artistic storytelling decisions in order to make sure the story is good. And that's when you get criticism was like, well, we didn't see her praying enough. Well, you know, look, you could have included a few more scenes of her praying, but also

it's just not, we're not going to sit for five minutes and watch somebody pray in a movie. It's just not, it's just not praying is incredibly important to do. But in this context of a film, when it's already kind of too long already, it's just not, that's not a compelling thing to watch someone to do in a story most of the time. So it might be one of the reasons why they didn't have it. And the problem is that, you know, again, some conservatives will watch it and they'll go, well, why do you check this box? And why do you check that box? And what about this one? And why didn't you, what about this sermon that you could have told and you didn't?

And they get mad when an artist tries to actually make art instead of a homily. So one of the reasons why the way, you know, we complain all the time that there aren't enough movies about the Bible. You know, they're not a, biblical stories being made into films anymore. And I agree with that. I'd love to see, I mean, of course, the whole Bible. We could have, we could have 50 incredible films made in the last 20 years just based on the Bible alone. But the major reason why that doesn't happen, obviously, is that Hollywood is mostly a bunch of heathen degenerate perverts who have no interest in telling those stories. But then the other problem, too, is that the few

filmmakers who would maybe want to tell those stories and could tell a good story, they're hesitant because they know that any of these biblical stories, you're going to have to make artistic choices. You're going to have to turn it into a film. These are not films. And a lot of these stories are, you know, if you were just to tell, if you were to just make a movie and all you see is what's on the page, the movie would be like 17 minutes long. It's like you'd have to flesh it out. add in details that are not included in the text. It's the only way that you could tell a story. Maybe the one exception to this is the passion of the Christ.

But if you want to, something beyond that, it's going to require you to make artistic filmmaking decisions. And so I think a lot of those filmmakers, they just realized, like, well, it's a lose-lose because, you know, the non-Christian audience, they might not like it because they feel like I'm proselytizing. But even the Christian audience, like, they're going to be breaking, they're going to have a fine-tooth comb going through this film looking for what they consider to be exegetical or theological problems.

And so that's why we often don't end up with a lot of the art that we could otherwise have. So anyway, that's a long way of saying, Cabrini. Pretty good move. Check it out. Balance of Nature, fruits, and veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables every day. They use an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables into whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants. The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar. The only thing in

Balance of Nature's fruits and vegetables are fruits and veggies. Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day. You just couldn't do it. Well, with Balance of Nature, there's never been an easier way to ensure you get your daily dose of fruits and vegetables. Go to balance of nature.com. Use promo code Walsh to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies and an additional $10 off every additional set you buy. That's balance of nature.com promo code Walsh. Jeremy's most requested item was natural deodorant. And when we released Jeremy's natural deodorant, it was a massive success.

Well, now it's back in stock. This natural deodorant is free of chemicals harmful to your body like aluminum, paraben, sulfates, and other stuff I can't pronounce. Woke is toxic. And so are a lot of deodorants. Kick out both when you get Jeremy's natural deodorant. Enjoy the salt, stone, and musk scent for men and the water lily and minerals for women. Not too sticky, not too greasy, it's just right. Get your Jeremy's natural deodorant at

Jeremy'sraisers.com today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Every once in a while, I'll take a position that I realize is risky. Even while I'm saying it out loud on camera, I am conscious of the fact that I may well come to regret having said what I'm saying. You might argue that it makes me imprudent and reckless to say something publicly that I know I might soon wish I didn't say, or you might argue that it makes me courageous. At least I'll try to argue the latter case, but the former is probably more true most of the time. By the way, the problem with venturing out onto a precarious limb, of course, is that the limb might snap and send you hurtling down to the forest floor. And that is what happened to me after I publicly stated a few weeks ago that Beyonce's new country song wasn't that bad.

Now, I didn't say that it was good, objectively. I didn't say that I would be putting it on my Spotify playlist. I didn't say that it was a great song. I just said it wasn't terrible. It was catchy. It was kind of not awful. It wasn't much of a ringing endorsement, but it was the closest thing to an endorsement that I've ever given Beyonce. And so it was inevitable that I would live to rue the day that I vaguely praised one of her songs, sort of.

And in fact, she's made me regret it multiple times in the intervening weeks. But the real catastrophe struck when Beyonce released her new country album and one of the other songs on that album made the rounds online. And it's Beyonce's rendition of the classic Dolly Parton hit Jolene. Now, if you're a red-blooded American, then you are well familiar with the original song. at his Dolly's mournful plea to the woman, Jolene, who is trying to steal her man. Let's listen to a little bit of that. Your beauty is beyond compare. There's a vimeral green.

Your smile is like a breath of spring. Your voice is soft like summer rain, and I cannot compete with you, Jolene. He talks about you in his sleep, and there's nothing I can do to keep from crying when he calls your name Jolene. I can easily understand how you could easily take my man, but you don't know what he means to me, Jolie. Okay, now what makes this song unique and interesting, which has caused it to resonate over the five decades since it was made, is the vulnerability and the heartbreak and the longing in the lyrics and the performance.

Dolly Parton is insecure, fearful, desperately in love with a man who she believes she cannot afford to lose. Those opening lyrics are iconic because of how they kind of invert expectations. She's singing to the woman who is trying to break up her relationship, but instead of attacking her, she praises her rival's beauty. And already there's more poetry in those opening lines than in every Beyonce song ever written combined. But we'll get to Beyonce in a moment. Later on in the song, Pardon Pleased with Jolene, quote,

You can have your choice of men, but I can never love again, which is really the essence of the song. She sees this woman of surpassing beauty who can have any man she wants, trying to take the best man that Dolly Parton thinks she'll ever have. And that's where the song's sadness comes from. It's also why so many people have related to it. Now, when I heard that Beyonce was covering the song, I of course knew that her cover wouldn't get within a thousand miles of Dolly's original. Beyonce just doesn't have the soul and gravitas to do a song like that any justice.

But at the same time, in a weird way, I was initially impressed with the idea. Because after all, it is a very tender, very feminine song expressing deep insecurity and vulnerability. And Beyonce just doesn't make songs like that. So this seemed to be an interesting departure, even if her performance was destined to pale in comparison. But then I listened to Beyonce's version. Here's a little bit of it. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft.

I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident Restoration is guaranteed pour your money back.

Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. To the games you play, nothing new, been deep in love for 20 years if this kid's on themselves

or attracted to my man but you don't want this month to shoot your shop with someone. Ah, well, there you go. Of course. Just when you think the Beyonce might be growing ever so slightly as an artist and a person. She proves you wrong. It turns out that she has taken this song full of pain and yearning and emotional honesty and turn it into yet another

mediocre girl boss anthem. She has, in other words, taken everything that makes the song great and replaced it with everything that makes modern pop music terrible. Now, Beyonce's molestation of the original, she sings, her beautiful beyond compare, takes more than beauty and seductive stares to come between a family and a happy man. Jolene, I'm a woman too. The games you play are nothing new, so you don't want no heat with me, Jolene. And later she adds, but you don't want this smoke, so shoot your shot with someone else.

And then sings, Jolene, I know I'm a queen, Jolene, I'm still a Creole Banji Bs from Louisiana, don't try me. And finally, she warns, I'd hate to have to act a fool. So, in other words, if you like the original,

but you always thought that it needed less honesty, less heart, less soul, more feminist platitudes and a healthy heaping of urban slang, well, then here you go. Your wish is Beyonce's command. And the problem with this new version, aside from the fact that the performance is flat and uninteresting, the lyrics

are clunky and kind of stupid, and that Beyonce has ripped the song's heart out of its chest and eaten it like some kind of nightmarish Aztec ritual. The problem is that it lacks the vulnerability of the original song. In the original, Dolly Parton is desperate. She's worried. She's anxious. She's lying awake at night, listening to the man in bed next door as he dreams about a woman more beautiful than herself. In Beyonce's version, she's a confident queen. She's a confident queen. She's unbothered. She's tough and independent and perfect and wonderful and unafraid and her man would never cheat on her anyway. Which, if that's the case, then why should anyone even care about the story you're telling us in the song? There's no emotional resonance because there's no emotion.

There's no tension. There's no fear or longing or heartbreak. Beyonce's the greatest. She's a queen. She's perfect. Everything's perfect. So who cares? Why are you even telling us about this? like why has this moved you to song in the first place? How am I supposed to be emotionally invested in your own alleged perfection? This is what most pop and rap music is these days, not all but most. It's a bunch of millionaires bragging about themselves. And the question, among others, the main question is, why should anyone care? Your boasts are not interesting.

They are also not relatable to the rest of us mere mortals. Beyonce is a strong, confident queen, she claims. Well, the rest of us are human beings. We're not kings and queens. We're people. We have insecurities and pains and fears, anxieties, hopes, dreams, desires. Music at its best expresses those universal human experiences. But Beyonce's music expresses nothing more than how awesome Beyonce thinks Beyonce is.

Never mind the fact that she isn't nearly as awesome as she believes herself to be. If she is that awesome, then what are we even supposed to feel while we're listen to her brag about it. If her bluster is true, then it makes her music totally boring and pointless. I can't think of anything less interesting than listening to a famous rich person sing songs about how great they are. But the thing is, it isn't even true. And that's the biggest problem with just about every song she's ever made and with much of modern popular music generally. It just isn't true. It's not saying anything true about the human experience. It's not connecting with anything real inside us. Because the truth is that any woman,

okay, Beyonce included, any woman who sees another woman, a beautiful, radiant woman, hitting on her boyfriend or her husband, will at some level feel insecure and threatened. If she's a human being, that's how she'll react. That's how humans react in those situations. It's real. It's true. Like no woman would just wave that off and say, whatever, I'm a badass queen. no man would ever leave me. Now, she might say that out loud, perhaps, but deep in her heart, she'll have doubts. In fact, it would have been interesting if Beyonce's version began with the blustery confidence, but then as the song went on, the cracks start to show, and she reveals herself to be insecure and anxious about the situation. That would have been

a smart, artistic direction to take it. Still not as good as the original, but at least a creative twist. But Beyonce has no capacity for creativity, and as none of the artistic intelligence or honesty to even conceive of something like that. So instead, we get a version that will only appeal to women who are as dishonest and lacking in self-awareness as she is. But if it appeals to those women or men, it's not because they relate to Beyonce's corny feminist bravado, but because they want to relate to it. That's the whole reason people like to listen to rappers and pop stars brag about themselves.

It's because they, the listeners, want to feel as arrogant and self-assured as those rappers and pop stars pretend to feel about themselves. It's all an act. Right? And in reality, Beyonce is so incredibly insecure that she's won like 32 Grammys, but still winds because she hasn't won album of the year. She's won more awards at the Grammys

than any artist in history, and it's not enough. That's how desperate for affirmation and approval she really is. And you know what? That would be an interesting subject for a song. if Beyonce explored the fact that she has praised the world over, showered with money and fame and critical acclaim, and yet she still hungers for approval.

That would be honest. That would be interesting. I would listen to a song like that. It would even be relatable, actually. Because, you know, none of us have won 32 Grammys, and most of us aren't nearly as rich as she is, but we all know that in our minds, one insult outweighs a hundred compliments.

Why is that? Well, that's the kind of thing. A real artist who has the courage to be vulnerable and honest might be able to explore. But Beyonce is not a real artist. She's a mediocre hack. She's been making music for 25 years. And during that entire time, she's never managed to say one interesting or insightful thing ever. She's bland and dull and arrogant.

And worst of all, she's a liar. And also, frankly, not a very good singer. And that is why she is today. Canceled. About it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day.

Talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.