The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 912 - Lia Thomas Inspires People To Finally Oppose The Trans Agenda

Episode Date: March 21, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, ESPN has an on-air moment of silence to protest the Florida parental rights bill. Meanwhile, backlash against the NCAA’s policies allowing men in women’s sports continues to grow with no sign of abating. Is the cultural tide turning? Also, Ukrainian president Zelensky invokes the Holocaust while appealing for more countries to get involved in the war in Ukraine. Is that comparison fair? Plus, the White House considers stimulus checks and gas cards to solve the gas prices problem, which will do wonders for the inflation problem. And the media twists itself into knots trying to “debunk” the claim that Biden’s SCOTUS nominee has a tendency to be lenient on child sex predators. But their debunking only succeeded in proving the claim.  I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb  You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Join Third Thursday Book Club now to be a part of tonight’s Q&A: thirdthursdaybookclub.com We’re exposing the most successful failure in government history. Stream Fauci Unmasked here: https://utm.io/ueogL   Haven’t gotten your preferred pronouns badge? Head to my Swag Shack to grab yours today:https://utm.io/uei4E Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matwals show, ESPN has an on-air moment of silence to protest the Florida parental rights bill. Meanwhile, backlash against the NCAA's policies allowing men in women's sports continues to grow with no sign of abating. Is the cultural tide turning? We'll talk about that. Also, Ukrainian President Zelensky invokes the Holocaust while appealing for more countries to get involved in the war in Ukraine. Is that comparison fair? Plus, the White House considers stimulus checks and gas cards to solve the gas prices problem, which will do wonders for the inflation problem, of course. and the media twists itself into knots trying to debunk the claim that Biden's SCOTUS nominee has a tendency to be lenient on child sex predators,

but their debunking only succeeds in proving the claim that was originally made. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Well, interest rates continue to fluctuate. They're volatile, and I really can't stress this enough. It's important to get ahead of them and lock into a lower rate while you can. Look, there are still 5 million homeowners who can benefit by saving hundreds, maybe up to $1,000 a month. you've just got to call America in financing. America's home for home loans where you'll get a free mortgage review from a salary-based

consultants. There's no pressure, no obligation. There's no upfront or hidden fees. It's a very simple, right to the point, just a simple conversation around custom loans that may fit your budget better. From lower rates to shorter terms and even debt consolidation, it really could mean up to $1,000 in monthly savings, plus tens of thousands of long term. And if you start soon, you could close in as fast as 10 days.

Like with all the inflation and many people in this country, hurting economically. You've got to look for all the savings that you can find. And here's one place to start just with a phone call. And all you got to do is call 866-569-47-11. That's 866-569-4711, or visit Americanfinancing.net. NMLS-182334 NMLS Consumer Access.org. Now, these people are, of course, incapable of shame. And so all of the embarrassment was felt secondhand on Friday when ESPN paused during its coverage of the women's NCAA basketball tournament to have a moment of sign-line. in protests of the Florida legislation, which lying opponents have dishonestly dubbed the don't say gay bill. The stunt sparked, for one thing, a philosophical debate among some people, which is that

if ESPN anchors stage a protest during women's basketball coverage and nobody is watching to notice, did it really happen? We'll leave that discussion for another time. For now, here is one anchor explaining the demonstration. Watch. legislation happening in Florida and across other states as well that are targeting our LGBTIQI plus communities. Many of our colleagues here at ESPN have planned and organized a walkout that will be happening at 3 p.m. Eastern today. And to be honest with you, we thought we were going to come here today and really celebrate a sport that has meant so much and done so much, including for so many in the LGBTIQI plus communities. But we understand the gravity of this legislation and also

how it is affecting so many families across this country. And because of that, our ally ship is going to take a front seat. And with that, we're going to pause in solidarity. Wow. I mean, I can't decide what's more brave. The blatant lies, the phrase, our allieship will take a front seat or the moment of silence on a broadcast with zero viewers. It's hard to say. But she wasn't alone. The announcers on the court also joined in. Let's listen to that. plus teammates at Disney. Ask for our solidarity and support, including our company's support,

in opposition to the parental rights in education bill in the state of Florida and similar legislature across the United States. And a threat to any human rights is a threat to all human rights. And at this time, Courtney and I, we're going to take a pause from our broadcast to show our love and support

for our friends, our families, and our colleagues. Needless to say, of course, none of these people have read the bill or know what's in it or have any idea what's going on. You don't actually see the whole moment of silence there, but trust me, it was inspirational. Speaking of inspiring Disney on the same day announced that in further protest of the Florida legislation that forbids teachers from talking to six-year-olds about their sexuality, that's the thing that's a threat to human rights is if we don't allow teachers to talk to six-year-olds about their sexuality, that human rights are threatened because what? because six-year-olds have a human right to be sexually indoctrinated by their creepy-pervert teachers? Or is it that the creepy-perperper-teachers have a human right to indoctrinate kids?

Yeah, I think that's probably what it is as far as they're concerned. But anyway, Disney announced that they would be releasing a film where two lesbian cartoon characters make out. And this, again, is, you know, another inspiring thing that they're doing because of the bill. This is from The Daily Wire. It says, Pixar has reportedly decided to reinstate a same-sex kiss in the upcoming animated children's film. Lightyear in response to Florida's so-called don't say gay bill, and the Walt Disney Company's leadership's response to it. A source close to the production said the next feature film from the studio about the real-life story of how the famed toy story character Buzz Lightyear came to be

will reportedly include a kiss between two female characters, reported variety in a piece published Friday. One of the characters is reportedly a significant female role by the name of Hawthorne. So by the way, just to clarify, this is a cartoon about the origin story. of the film character that the Buzz Lightyear toy is based on. The origin story, a fake origin story of a fake character from a fake movie that a fake toy was based on. If you're wondering whether major Hollywood studios are utterly and completely out of ideas, I think that should probably answer it for you. I mean, no self-respect in person should have ever even been considering buying tickets for this 100-minute toy

commercial to begin with, but especially not now. Now that it's being used not only as a vehicle to sell Disney merchandise, which is the main reason why any Disney movie exists, but also as a forum to protest the prohibition of childhood sexualization. And yet we see in this move by Disney and the demonstrations on ESPN and all the other theatrics from the left surrounding this bill, a certain not-so-s subtle hint of desperation. Because they're panicked, frenzied. they can see the cultural tide turning slightly and they're terrified.

Speaking of which, the Leah Thomas charade at the NCAA Women's Swimming Championships last week has become its own sort of watershed moment, no pun intended. There's a backlash against the trans agenda right now, unlike anything we've seen to this point in our culture. And it hasn't abated, even after Thomas lost his final races over the weekend, clearly throwing the competition intentionally so that the gender ideologues could point to it and say, see, it's not so unfair after all. I mean, he won handily in this, what was a 500 meter race, and then the couple of races he did on Saturday,

he lost, he came in sixth place or something. Wasn't even competitive. So pretty clear that he lost on purpose. But that has done little to stem the tide of outrage, nor should it. On Sunday, an NCAA swimmer by the name of Rika Georgi wrote a letter to the NCAA protesting their decision to let a male compete.

Now, she's the first female swimmer to, formally and publicly complain with her name attached. Bold move, brave move, necessary move. And I admire her for it. Now, on the other hand, I don't think it's splitting hairs to point out that when I read this letter, she refers to Leah Thomas as she multiple times. And also talks about how much she respects Leah Thomas and all those things. and Leah Thomas is pursuing his dreams, or rather her dreams, and so on and so forth.

Now, this doesn't totally negate the impact of the letter, but it does diminish it slightly, sadly, because by calling Thomas She, it concedes the underlying claim that Thomas is making. I mean, either Thomas is a she or not, and he's not. And since he's not, he doesn't belong in the Women's League. But if he was a she, then there'd be no reason to complain. and trying to keep him out or her out in that case would indeed be unfair and wrong. I mean, literally the only argument against Thomas's participation, and it's the only argument we need, is that he is a he.

That's the whole argument. There is nothing else. That's all there is to say. He's a he. By calling he, she, you undercut yourself accidentally conceding the very point you're supposed to be arguing against. So the letter is a good start. definitely. Again, I don't mean to detract from the bravery it took to write, and it does take bravery. But we need to go a lot farther. I mean, this is a good start, a good step. We need to go farther than that.

And we need to be arguing against all of this on a fundamental level. So here was another good sign. The swimming finals was also the scene of a confrontation between activist Kelly J. Keene and a man who now identifies as a trans woman after 50 years as a man. Keene was trying to explain to this guy why she is not comfortable with him using the female restroom. And here's how that exchange went. On the basis of the comfort, hang on, on the basis of the comfort and dignity of girls and women, I'm asking you, telling you, please do not use women's faces. It makes them feel uncomfortable. My girls and the other women I am with are very comfortable with me in the bathroom. Well, fortunately, I'm not your daughter, and my daughter is also not your daughter. That's right.

So she would feel... She would feel very uncomfortable. No, I... No, you interrupted me. Excuse me. I'm not here for a debate. Back to you, mind. Right.

I would like to... I would ask you to please call off your dog. I beg your pardon. Whoa. I am asking you, as a mother, I'm asking you of a mother, do not use female spaces. And I'm very uncomfortable.

She makes women in glass feel very uncomfortable. You are not... As a mother, I am... As a mother, I am very... You're not a mother. You never birthed your children, You're not a mother, darn. I just a job of fun, which is he's a mom.

You hear this guy? As a mother, this is a 50-year-old dude who, after 50 years as a dude, decided to put on a wig and call himself a woman. I mean, that's it. One day he wakes up, puts a wig on, I'm a woman, I'm a mother. Having skipped all of the most difficult aspects of motherhood, he now wants to claim the title for himself, except he ran into at least one woman who won't go along with it, doesn't want the women's restroom to turn into a masquerade ball or a costume party for this guy's sake.

What comes across most of all in the conversation between the two is, as I pointed to many times, the overwhelming suffocating narcissism of the trans person in this exchange. He simply doesn't care how anyone else feels and what anyone else wants. He takes whatever he wants for himself without any concern for anybody around him. He claims the bathrooms of women. He claims their very identities, tries to make it all his on somewhat paradoxically, though, while he covets womanhood, he also very clearly has incredible contempt for the women themselves. He hates women, but yet wants to be them. And he, along with all the other gender ideologues, have been running roughshod over the

culture for years, taking whatever they want with no resistance. That finally seems to be changing, slightly. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not declaring victory. We're a very long way off from anything that can be considered a cultural victory on this front or any other front. Because victory, if it comes, is years down the line. Generations away probably. It took generations to lose the culture. We'll take generations to get it back. But recently, we have seen some movement in the right direction. We're seeing some of that here.

Baby steps towards sanity and moral decency. Now, these advances could easily stall if we succeed in, say, getting men out of women's sports and then decide that that's good enough. call ourselves the winner go back to ignoring the issue? I can see that happening. Or if we all, you know, go with the line that some conservatives have adopted, claiming that, you know, we have no problem with the left's gender theories in general. We just care about fairness and sports or privacy in the bathroom or whatever, as if that's the fundamental issue, which it isn't. What we have to remain firm on is that we have a problem with the very concept, you know, the very, the guy there in the

wig, the very concept that he could be a woman because he says he is. That is what we are taking issue with. That's what we're arguing against. That's what we're fighting. It's not just this or that particular thing that that guy wants to do, but it's the very claim that he is making about himself. There are still a lot of people on the right who are very cautious about that, very afraid. And so you see this even now. You see you see plenty of people, you know, even conservatives who for the first time are really speaking out about some of this stuff. They're saying, oh, I don't have any problem with transgenderism. It's just, it's just women's sports that I care about. Now we adopt that. We make that our line. That's a mistake. And we lose. Meanwhile, you know, the left will only become more desperate, more enraged. Try to push even further. As we're seeing down in Florida, they will they will double down and triple down, then double down. Then, double down on their triple down. Again, as they've done in Florida. The battle only gets more vicious from here. But I think we're finally moving ever so slightly in the right direction. Now let's get to our five headlines. When we're talking about all the inflation, the one area

where we see inflation more than ever is in the grocery store. Even though grocery prices feel like they've doubled. Good ranchers, though. For them, prices have stayed low and affordable. I know you're used to the heartburn that you get when you go to buy food and you see how much more expensive it is even from the last time that you went well you can get rid of that heartburn by just shopping good ranchers instead because once you subscribe your price never goes up your best price is locked in for life shop good ranchers for all your beef chicken and seafood needs good ranchers only sells 100% American meat from local farms and ranches they have signature steak burgers that are packed full of flavor they're pre-trimmed and pre-marinated chicken breasts which we had

for dinner just last night by the way are absolutely delicious and so easy to prepare plus their packaging makes it easy to cook what you want and save the rest, which keeps you from wasting anything. Their animals are ethically raised and sustainably sourced. They do things the right way, and it shows in every box and in every bite that you take of their delicious food as well. So get your $30 discount on prime steaks and better than organic chicken today. Go to good ranchers.com slash walsh to save on the quality you've been looking for. Good ranchers takes the guesswork out of the grocery store by sourcing everything from local farms and shipping it to your door. So use my code Walsh and enjoy your box of 100% American meat and your $30 savings. Order now.

to combat inflation with good ranchers. American meat delivered. Well, not one of my parenting highlights necessarily. Not an award-winning moment for me. But yesterday, my two-year-old daughter, Emma, was running through the house, calling her brother a coward. She was running after her saying, come here, you coward, shouting at him. And I'm like, wait, is she saying coward?

Where did she learn that word? And how does she know the correct context to use it? And that's what my older son reminded me that she learned it from me, because I called her my two-year-old a coward a few days ago, which I had forgotten about, which I did. It's true now that he mentions it, but you have to understand the context here. We were playing with lightsabers, and Emma kept claiming that she wanted to fight me with the lightsabers. She would grab a lightsaber. They'd fight me, Daddy. And then, so then I would square up, you know, to have the lightsaber.

And then she would run behind the couch. She would run away. And so I was saying to her, come out, you coward, and face me like a man. and she took that to heart too much. And now I'm going to really seem like a freak even more than usual when my daughter says it in public and some stranger asks where she heard that word. And my older kids will be very excited to say, oh, she heard it from Daddy when Daddy called her a coward. So that's what's going to happen. But on the other hand, I guess there is something kind of perfect about me having a toddler

who talks to people that way because it's sort of exactly what you would expect, I guess. Very on brand. Okay, I want to start with this. this right at the top of the five headlines, the five-ish headlines. Last week, Dave Rubin, who I'm sure you all know, announced that he was going to be having two children via surrogacy. Now, unlike most of the other hosts here at The Daily Wire, I don't know Rubin personally. I've never met him. I do know his work, and I appreciate it. I agree with many of his opinions that I've heard him express over recent years. Based on his work and what he said, you know, I know

Well, obviously he's gay. Until recently, he identified as an atheist. I don't think he does anymore, but I'm not sure about that. Not a very religious man, as far as I know. And also, as far as I know, at no point has he called himself a conservative. If I had to pick a label for him, I would say, it seems to me he's more of a libertarian. In fairness, I don't know if that's the label he picks for himself. All that to say, this news out of Rubin's personal life didn't come as a particular surprise to me.

I also didn't hear the news until late last week, Thursday or Friday, and I heard about it, only because some people on the right started trolling my comments on Twitter and I guess on YouTube also demanding that I denounce Dave Rubin and accusing me of cowardice because I hadn't yet. And quickly, these people, I guess, had just sort of decided that I'm some sort of culture war squish who supports gay marriage because I hadn't said anything about Dave Rubin. One of the guys leading this charge against me and other conservatives who hadn't said anything publicly to that point was Mark Dice, who's a conservative commentator and YouTuber whose video

you've probably seen in the past. All this was exacerbated by the fact that certain other prominent conservatives and other conservative outlets such as the Blaze, for example, had publicly congratulated Rubin for the news about the surrogacy and the kids. Now, this I think rightfully perturbed conservatives in the audience, some of whom very unrightfully decided all at once that I was part of this and I had tacitly congratulated Dave by not saying anything. This all came to a head on Sunday when I finally got into a back and forth with Mark Dice, got kind of heated. As far as that goes, I talked to Mark privately. We've put it behind us. You know, honestly, I'm not looking to have any feuds with people on the right. I've done that in the past. I told him when we talked about it

privately. I said, I've got into fights with people on the right in the past. And at the end, I always feel like the only winner was the left. And so I just don't want to do that. And so that's all the needs to be said about that. As for the Dave Rubin's situation specifically, you know my views on gay marriage and surrogacy at all related matters are very clear and have been extremely consistent for many many years um i've never wavered on any of these issues ever in my life and i never would reuben obviously is not an exception to that and i honestly don't think he would expect me to see him as an exception in fact i'm quite sure of that because he's spoken about this before by the fact that He's got a conservative audience, and he's kind of, there's a lot of conservative friends,

many of whom don't agree with many of these things. And he's aware of that, and he's okay with it. I also have no problem saying any of this, but when people come at me with accusations, making demands, telling me that I have to say this or that, I'm not going to cooperate. That's not how I do things. It's not how I operate. When you come at me and say, I demand that you say, whatever. I'm not going to say it because that's, I just, I don't respond to that.

But for the people who maybe are unfamiliar with my work or, you know, and are looking around now at all the conservatives who seem to now be endorsing gay surrogacy, something that would have been totally unthinkable 10 years ago. I mean, 10 years ago, it's unthinkable that you would have anyone who identifies as conservative endorsing, you know, gay surrogacy. Even people on the left, most of them 10 years ago, or at least 15 years ago, would not have. have. And so there are people, you know, people who may be looking around at that and aren't as familiar with me and maybe are sincerely wondering where I stand on it. I will speak to that. And obviously, it has nothing to do with harboring any ill will towards Dave who I think does really good work. And by all accounts is a good guy. It just comes down to this. Three things, really. One, when it comes to marriage, I believe that marriage is a particular thing with a

particular function and purpose. It's meant to be the foundation of the nuclear family. And as such, it's the foundation of human society. The relationship between man and woman is special and unique because it has the capacity in principle to produce human life. No other relationship among humans has that ability. And so the man and woman relationship is a different sort of thing and ought to have a different name and be cherished and protected in a way that other relationships are not.

You know, the way that I've, when I've talked about this on college campuses, as I've, as I have many times, the way that I've tried to, you know, sort of explain it is just imagine if human society collapsed and everybody's, you know, memories were erased. And you were rising out of the rubble and looking around and you don't have no memory of anything before this. and you look around and you see, you know, different human relationships, people, people pairing up in various different ways. And you notice that this one kind of relationship has this funny habit of making people, you know. If you saw that, you would probably think, well, we should call that something.

That's an important thing that we should protect. And that's a, it's different. It's a different sort of thing from any of these other relationships. And that's why marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it is. That's what it's supposed to be. Is the context in which this relationship occurs. It's also true, of course, that I'm a Christian, and my faith calls me to defend what we now call, quote-unquote, traditional marriage.

But there's a reason. There's a reason why the Bible teaches what it does about marriage, and this is what I'm trying to articulate. Second, I think that every child deserves and needs a mother and a father. That's a foundational principle. One that we can't abandon without seeing the whole edifice come crashing down on itself. Like that's a block you can't really pull from the Jenga tower without the tower toppling over. If we're going to talk about defending the family, then I think that's a principle we have to defend, that every child deserves a mother and father.

Third, I'm opposed to surrogacy, no matter who is doing it, gay or straight, because it's the modification of the female body. I mean, you're, you're renting a woman's womb to grow a baby. Often it involves buying a woman's eggs and then, and then another woman's womb. Okay, so that, meaning you're making commodities of both the female body and human life. And I oppose that. So those are my views, always have been. Like I said, I don't, I don't make exceptions. And I don't think Dave would want or expect to be an exception because he strikes me as the kind of guy who respects when people stand on their principles, even if he doesn't agree with those principles. So that's where I stand.

But it is an important conversation. And I think it's something that we should be clear about. All right, let's go here. This is from the Daily Wire. On Sunday, Ukraine's president, Zelensky, sparked outrage when he compared the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Holocaust during a speech to the Israeli government. He said, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a military operation, as Moscow claims. This is a large scale and treacherous war aimed at destroying our people,

destroying our children, our families, our state, our cities, our communities, our culture, and everything that makes Ukrainians, Ukrainians. Everything that Russia troops are now destroying deliberately in front of the whole world. This is why I have the right to this parallel and to this comparison with the Holocaust of World War II. Our history and your history, our war for our survival and World War II. Then he goes on from there, making comparisons to the Nazis and so on. you know, of course, one of the ironies here is when Zelensky invokes the Nazis and the Holocaust, it is also true that there is a Nazi faction in Ukraine, an actual Nazi faction in Ukraine, that even now some mainstream media outlets are admitting to them. Originally, originally that was like a conspiracy theory. You're not a lot of talk about it. But that that's an actual thing.

doesn't mean that Putin is right. It's just another detail in this conflict that I think we all have a right to know because anytime there's a war between two nations, it's never going to be as simple as you want it to be. And this one certainly isn't. Meanwhile, this is from the Guardian. It says 11 Ukrainian political parties have been suspended because of their links with Russia, according to Ukrainian President Zelensky. The country's National Security and Defense Council took the decision.

to ban the parties from any political activity. So he banned these political parties. And then on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader signed a decree that aims to unite all national TV channels into one platform. I was abolishing all the TV channels and just making one, citing the importance of a unified information policy. There's another detail that I think we should know, especially when we're told the warmongers in our country who want us to get involved in this conflict, risking World War III, they're more than willing to do it, the warmongers anyway. More than willing to risk a nuclear war even. And one of the reasons that they give us is that this is something we need to do to defend democracy. Well, this is what the Ukrainian democracy looks like.

And that's all. This is my position all along with this has been number one. I just don't like being lied to. Just be honest with us. I don't think that's too much to ask for. But of course, this entire time, if you simply ask for the truth, like, what exactly is going on? Why are these things happening? That's all.

It's simple questions. If you ask for that, then you're a stooge of Putin. All right. Let's go next year. This is from the Daily Wire. It says the White House is reportedly holding off on the idea of sending gas cards, prepaid debit cards loaded with taxpayers money that the government would send to certain Americans to use towards gasoline. After pushback from Democrats who worried the idea would never work in providing economic relief in the face of high.

fuel prices. Instead, President Joe Biden's team and the gang on Capitol Hill are reportedly considering more stimulus checks raising gas prices, rather raising gas taxes on oil companies to fund means-based assistance and rescinding federal oil leases to companies who do not use them to tackle the problem of high gasoline prices. In in-depth look that the proposed plans alongside common sense would lead one to believe that the White House plan serious otherwise would cause more inflation in higher gas prices. on Saturday, Axios reported that the White House considered giving Americans gas cards, but Democrat caucus laid out why it was a bad idea.

And here's why the Democrats themselves didn't want the gas cards. And they said it would be expensive and poorly targeted. It could worsen inflation. Delivering the cards would be a slow process that could bog down the IRS in the middle of the filing season, potentially delaying people's tax returns. And then so they're looking at other things. So I agree with that when gas prices go out just saying, oh, we'll send gas cards to everybody or not even everybody to certain people. That's not much of a solution.

I agree with that. But then how is the solution to send stimulus checks instead? Talk about poorly targeted. This has been the problem with these stimulus checks all along, going back to COVID. Just start sending checks to everybody, making not even any effort to figure out who actually, before we even talk about whether it's a good idea in general to just send the free money out to people. No effort is even being made to figure out who actually needs it, who doesn't. Just send it to everybody. Or set an arbitrary income limit and everybody underneath that income is going to get it. And you're going back into COVID, like, even if you didn't, if you earned under a certain amount, even if you didn't lose your job and you're doing perfectly fine, you're going to get the checks.

If you earn over a certain amount, even if you're not doing it's fine, you're not going to get it. So that's poorly targeted certainly. And it's not unlike, despite what the media tries to tell us, as always, just like with Zelensky's green screen, we're not supposed to believe our lying eyes. But it's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence that for years they were giving out these, these, passing these massive spending bills, sending checks to everybody, pumping all this money into the system, and then you have inflation. It means it's exactly the thing. that going back to the first COVID relief bill, people like myself and many others were saying, this is going to cause inflation. And then what do you know you have inflation? That's not a coincidence.

And no, it's not, we can't put all that on Putin as much as we might want to blame Putin for everything. Putin wasn't the one who sent out all the checks to everybody. I don't think that was him. If he was, then I think a lot of people in America would like him a lot more than they do. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. If the gas cards are poorly targeted, are going to cause inflation, then how is a stimulus check going to be better? It seems that that would be even worse. Between the two options, I think they're both bad. But between the two options, the gas card would actually be better, it would seem, because it'd be a little bit more targeted and ensure that the money is actually used on gas, as opposed to a stimulus check. It would just be wasted on anything. Like most people, you send them a stimulus check, they'll go out and buy a TV or something. That's just like what, that's how a lot of people are.

wired. And here's the other thing that you might take note of to show how serious the government is about bringing the gas prices down. What about the gas tax? They're talking about some efforts to, we give a federal gas tax holiday. Some states are talking about it as well. But it hasn't happened yet. And why just a holiday? I mean, why not get rid of these taxes for the foreseeable future. But that's how serious they are, of course, about addressing this problem. All right, this is from the New York Post. It says South Carolina has given the green light for condemned prisoners in the state to be executed by firing squad. Final approval came Friday after the State Department of Corrections said renovations had been completed on a new death chamber where the executions can take

place in the state capital of Columbia. The electric chairs of the state's primary method of execution, but a May 2021 law now allows prisoners to change. choose to die by lethal injection or firing squad. The state said in a press release, I'm just mentioning this because this is, you talk about common sense. I mean, it's, it's, it's crazy that we've done away with the firing squad in so many of the states that still allow executions. It's crazy we've done away with executions in general in many states, but even the ones

that allow it, getting rid of the firing squad. Like, what's the reason for that? Well, the reason is pretty simple. It's just kind of like trying to hide. It's trying to sanitize what's happening. It's not about, you know, more humane methods of execution. The electric chair, lethal injection? These certainly are not painless ways to die, especially the electric chair.

But it sanitizes it a little bit and allows you to hide a little bit from what's happening, which is that we're killing someone. Justly, rightfully, someone who this is the punishment that they have warranted that they deserve because of their actions. You know, people who, through their monstrous actions, have given society really no choice but to deal with them in this way.

Yet there's always this, even, it just shows you something about our society that even when it comes to how we execute people, I mean, you're killing them, and we still don't want to confront that. We're so afraid of death and of confronting the reality of death. and confronting our own mortality, that even in executions, we try to hide it by putting someone on a,

you know, strapping them down on a gurney and injecting them with something. And we think that will somehow, I don't know, what it's supposed to achieve exactly. Seems to me that firing squad is obviously the cheapest way to go about it, the quickest way, the simplest way. also much, much less opportunity for things to go wrong. You hear about cases of electric chair or lethal injection where that's administered to someone. That's the other thing. We talk about administering it, right?

It's death. We're not killing someone, we're just administering it. But you hear of it being administered and it goes wrong. And then it takes multiple attempts. And obviously, it's agonizingly painful for the person, for the condemned. So not a lot of opportunity for it to go wrong. quick, cheap, and also, I would think the most painless of all the options. Not a fun thing to experience, but the most painless.

This is what every state should be. And also, rather than dragging it out, you know, we establish that somebody is guilty of a horrific crime. And then 27 years later, we bring them in to do the deed. How about we establish that they're guilty, they're convicted, and I don't know, the next day you bring them out in front of the firing squad. and that's it. Let's see. Finally, biggest and most important news of the day that I have to mention, on Friday, our very own Candace Owens tweeted this. She said, one thing I would like to understand is why Desani water tastes so disgusting. How is it possible to make water taste this bad? Someone out there knows the answer. Now, this caused Desani water to trend nationwide on Twitter. I mean,

it was trending for like two days. People were talking about bottled water because of what Candice had tweeted, which is, I mean, you know, talk about driving the conversation. And it is an important conversation for us to have, I suppose. And huge numbers of people were agreeing with Candice that Desani water is bad somehow. I didn't even, I didn't know this was a thing. I didn't know that people pretended to feel strongly about what kind of bottled water they prefer, especially as someone, like, if you can find a petty thing to feel weirdly strong about, if it's possible to find it, then I'm the guy to find it. Okay, I spent 15 minutes ranting about daylight savings time and how it's going to,

the Senate bill making it permanent, it's going to be the end of civilization. So, you know, I can do that. But even I couldn't come up with a monologue on, I don't think I could do 15 minutes on Desani water. Yet all these people were saying how Desani water is terrible, talking about what kinds of bottled water they preferred. And I responded, calling Candace out, you know, and I don't like to do it that often with my own colleagues, but I, you know, I pointed out that all bottled water tastes the same,

and it all tastes like tap water. All these bottled water companies, they're like getting the water. It's just from the same guy's kitchen sink that they're all going in. Some guy lives in a townhouse. They all go in and just fill their bottled water in that same sink. It all tastes exactly the same. And she disagreed. We went back and forth, and I finally threw the gauntlet down, and I said, all right,

I'm challenging you to a blind taste test. Okay, we put, we put like four or five cups of water. You tell me which is which. And so we are actually going to do that. She accepted the challenge. And I mean, I just, I bet $100 on it. I put $100 on it. And I'm already thinking about all the ways I'm going to spend my newfound wealth.

Because there's, I'm sorry, there is no way. Unless they rigged this thing. Okay. Unless this is another rigged election. There's no way. through a blind taste test, you can actually discern different types of bottled water. I've already tested this out. In fact, I got into an argument with my wife about it because she was taking Candace's side.

It's like, oh, yeah, the sotty water is disgusting. So I said, all right, let's try it. So I went to the gas station. I got various different kinds of bottled water. And we tried the blind taste test. She failed utterly. So I feel pretty confident. Now let's get to our comment section.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but let's play the video comment. Sweet Daddy Walsh, I finally got you figured out. This explains why you're antisocial, you hate dogs, you're lazy and lie around on the couch during holidays, and you like to fish, especially at night. You're a cat, at least part cat. Of course, this won't explain your tendency to wear skinny jeans, but hey, anyway, go and cancel me. SBG for life.

Thank you for that contribution to the discussion. Well, you know what? You're not totally wrong because I do have a cat and a dog. And to me, it's totally clear that cats are far superior as pets. And that's just because they're much more self-sufficient. They stay out of the way. They can mostly take care of themselves. And they're not begging.

They're not desperate for your attention and affection all the time. time. They're not begging you for attention. They're not, they're not like emotionally unstable like dogs. So I guess I won't take much issue with that. Let's see. Biro says, as someone with a useless art degree, I absolutely love Matt's leprechaun. Matt, I highly encourage you to illustrate your next best-selling children's book. Perhaps it could be an Irish boy who identifies as a leprechaun until he meets real leprechauns who aren't so convinced by his professed self-identity. You're welcome. You know, there are several comments encouraging me in my artistic endeavors. And I think that it's mostly sarcastic, but it's still, it made me feel good, and I appreciate that.

Cosmonaut says, if Matt made an entire podcast reclining back on his seat, I'd watch it twice. It does give it a different sort of vibe. But the vibe is I don't care at all about what I'm saying. I don't know if that's really what I should be projecting branding-wise. Stacey says, I love Maddie's slightly more offensive and slightly less condescending than Ben. There's no way Ben is more condescending than me. actually Ben isn't condescending at all and I don't say this because he's my boss but the guy's like a literal Ivy League genius

and I'm a community college dropout and I've never felt condescended to by him so I think that's just something well there was one time on the backstage debate when we talked about aliens it was the only time I felt condescended to by Ben and by everybody in the room actually and I still have not really recovered from that

musical seizure guy says quoting me our side waited too long and then he says, I really like this channel, but wish we didn't have sides in this country. Like, you have to agree with everything a side says. Not playing the blame game either. I'm not saying he started it. Oh, well, still better

than the view. Yeah, I guess it would be, that would be nice if there weren't sides, if there wasn't a culture war raging. But, I mean, there is. They're very clear. Now, there's a very clear dividing line in our culture.

And it's not just a line. It's actually, it's like a Grand Canyon. Okay, it's a vast chasm. Now, when you, on either side of that chasm, there are all kinds of different factions. And not everybody agrees. And that's where things get complicated. Obviously, we know on the,

sort of on the right side of that vast chasm, they're not all getting along. And we don't all agree on a lot of the fundamental issues. But we are all on the same side of that chasm, at least. and what is that chasm exactly if I had to kind of summarize it? I think it's the most fundamental thing of all. It's truth. You have one side that reject, they're relativists, and they reject that there is any actual truth at all.

There's no objective moral truth. There's no, and there's no objective physical truth. There's no objective scientific truth. I think that, if you had to summarize, that that's what it is. And those are sides. I would like it if it wasn't that way, but it is. And pretending otherwise and just doing this, oh, well, why can't we all get a long thing? That's not going to help. This is the world that we have inherited. And the only way, there's no bridging this divide. There's no compromise. Like, there's no compromise position between there's no truth and there is truth.

There's no compromise position between we shouldn't kill babies, we should kill babies. No compromise position between women have penises, they don't, right? Like there's no compromise there. No compromise between we should sexualize children at six years old and teach them about sexuality and gender identity. And we shouldn't. There's no compromise position between that. So ultimately, if the two sides are kind of, if that divide, if that canyon is filled, if there no divide anymore, it's going to be because one side has emerged victorious over the other.

It's not because they all got along somewhere in the middle. The middle doesn't exist. It's because one side won. And again, you might not like to see it that way, but that's how it is. And we should probably face it. You guys know we don't stop making great content here at the Daily Wire. And we're super excited then about our latest docu-series Fauci Unmasked. The show exposes the most successful failure in government history, Dr. Anthony Fauci, hosted by our very own Michael Knowles, he peels back the mask on Fauci's past and shows the world's leading scientist for what he really is, which is a fraud. All three episodes dropped last week, and it's seriously good. You can watch the entire thing now. Binge it all in one sitting. Check out the sneak peek here.

He's the highest paid employee in our federal government. And beginning in the spring of 2020, Dr. Fauci began to set national policy that affected the way that 330 million Americans lived their lives. For goodness sakes, I'm telling you where a mask, keep social distancing. There's nothing political about that. But who is, Anthony Fauci? People who have conspiracy theories, those are people that don't particularly care for me. In this short series, we will do what the establishment media have refused to do. We will give you an unvarnished look at the career of the most powerful politician in America.

Dr. Anthony Fauci. Don't you think it's time that you step down? I'll let someone else who has a more effective message. Actually, no. Lots of places can expose you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity,

which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply.

The last part of the three-part series is streaming now and is available exclusively to DailyWire. So if you're not a member yet, head to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join today. The show is excellent. And since we're only adding more content every day, you don't want to miss this. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. As you probably recall last week, we discussed the work being done by Senator Josh Hawley to expose some of the troubling facts about SCOTUS nominee Kintanji Brown Jackson's record, her actual judicial record, that is, not the sort of record that, you know, Democrats focus on when it comes to Republican nominees, famously scrounging up their high school yearbooks and demanding to know how many parties they went to in high school. That's the Democrat approach to judicial vetting, at least when the nominee is selected by the other party.

In this case, you know, we have no idea whether Kintanji Jackson partied in high school or wrote vulgarities on her yearbook. No one's asking that question. What we do know, however, is that she is a longstanding and quite nasty habit of going, on child sex predators as a judge. To refresh your memory, here's the Daily Wires report from last week. It says Senator Josh Hawley said Wednesday that President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes. I've been researching the record of Judge Cantanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions,

articles, interviews, and speeches. I've noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson's treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children. Holly claimed that as far back as during Jackson's time in law school, the judge has questioned whether convict should be made to register sex offenders and said that it leads to stigmatization and ostracism. She suggested public policy is driven by a climate of fear, hatred, and revenge against sex offenders. And it gets worse, Holly warned, as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission,

Judge Jackson advocated for drastic changes in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn. Now, he goes into extensive detail, providing citations and documentation along the way. Here's a little bit more from the Daily Wire. It says, the Missouri Republican further said that Jackson, has suggested there may be a type of less serious child pornography offender whose motivation is not sexual and noted that during Jackson's time in the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Jackson said she mistakenly assume that child pornography offenders are pedophiles. Jackson also said that she wanted to understand this category of non-pedophiles who obtained child pornography. On the federal bench,

Judge Jackson put her troubling views into action. He tweeted in every single child porn case for which we can find records. Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child poor offenders. Okay, now this all sounds quite damning, but don't worry, the media assures us that Holly's claims have been debunked. Here's George Sneffalupicus on ABC explaining. We are using escalating attacks from some Senate Republicans like Josh Hawley, you set out a Twitter series of tweets suggesting that Judge Jackson is somehow soft on child porn. It's been debunked by several independent fact checkers. But what does that tell you about the confirmation fight ahead?

Well, I'm not sure what it signals, but as far as Senator Hawley is concerned, here's the bottom line. He's wrong. He's inaccurate and unfair in his analysis. Judge Jackson has been scrutinized more than any person I can think of. Now, you notice, as always, that the people claiming that the claims have been debunked never actually explain how they were debunked. They never tell you what the debunking proved, only that the debunking occurred. And we can just rest assured that there's nothing at all to see here. It was debunked and that's it. I guess the MSNBC took it a step further, insisting that the scrutiny of Judge Jackson is all really a plot to get her killed. Listen. I need the Democrats to get up there and defend her just as vociferously

as Lindsey Graham defended alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh. Like I need that level of energy for the Democrats, especially when they come at her with this trumped up alleged issues about her sentencing for sex offenders. Because what Josh Hawley is doing, let's be very clear. What Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this is he's trying to get her killed. He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee. Of course, when Holly mentions Jackson's judicial record, he's trying to get her killed. But would Democrats accuse a Republican nominee of being the ringleader of a roving gang of

serial rapists. That's just fair play. Now, these same people said that Amy Coney-Barrid is the member of a secret, sinister, handmaid's cult. Turns out she's just Catholic, by the way. But that was all legitimate. Yet the slightest scrutiny on Jackson is not only false, debunked misinformation, but also offensive, outrageous, racist, a call for violence. This is the level of discourse in this country, of course. Now, the left's actual response to the charges made against Jackson, if they're being honest, if they're being honest about it, it would be that they actually agree with her

that child porn is not a very serious crime. Of course, for all their moral hand-wringing about Kavanaugh, they wouldn't actually give a damn if Jackson was a serial killer herself. They wouldn't care if she liked to burn down orphanages in her spare time. They just want to get her on the bench. So even if they normally objected child pornography,

they still wouldn't let that get in the way of their support for Jackson as a nominee, obviously. But as it happens, they actually do agree with her lenient approach to the crime. As their efforts at debunking have shown, here's the ABC fact check, which makes this point clear. This is supposed to be,

we heard snuffel up against us on ABC saying, this has been debunked, well, here's ABC's debunking. And here's what they say. While court records show that Jackson did impose lighter sentences than federal guidelines suggested, Holly's insinuation neglects critical context, including the fact that the senator himself

has voted to confirm at least three federal judges who also engaged in the same practice. quote, if and when we properly contextualize Judge Jackson's sentencing record in federal child porn cases, it looks pretty mainstream, according to Doug Berman, a leading expert on sentencing law and policy of the Ohio State University School of Law. Quote, federal judges nationwide typically sentenced below the child porn guidelines in roughly two out of three cases. And when deciding to go below the child porn guideline, typically imposed sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum. Judge Jackson's record in these child porn cases does show she is quite skeptical of the range. set by the child porn guidelines, but so too were prosecutors in the majority of her cases, and so too are district judges nationwide appointed by presidents of both parties.

Okay, so that's the debunking. The first point in this fact check just paints Holly as a hypocrite on this issue, which maybe he is or maybe he isn't. That has nothing to do with whether the claims themselves are true. The rest just assures us that Jackson's approach is mainstream, and lots of other judges do it, and it's totally fine and normal and good. In other words, says the fact checker, I personally agree with her on the issue, and so I don't see it as a big deal. That doesn't debunk the claim made about Jackson. It confirms it. They confirm it in the first sentence saying she's lenient on child porn offenders.

That's what Holly said. So it's confirmed. Confirmed. Fact. Now, if I accuse you of doing something and you say, yeah, I did it, but everyone else is doing it too, you haven't debunked my accusation. You can't say I did it, but everyone's doing it. See, you're debunked. No, you've verified my accusation. You've admitted to it. The rest, whether it's true that everyone else is doing it, whether it's good that everyone is doing it, if they are in fact doing, all of that is beside the immediate point. The immediate point is that what I said about you is true. And that's what these media fact checkers have done with the accusations against Jackson. Now, is it true that lots of judges are lenient on child sex predators? Sure.

lots of judges are lenient on many crimes, especially sex crimes. That's why there are so many violent perverts walking the street as we speak. Is it good to be lenient, though? Is it justified? No, absolutely not. Jackson's soft-pedaling approach extends beyond child porn and goes to sex predators who engage in physical abuse as well, but even just when it comes to child porn, these are people, whether distributors or consumers, who are participating in the most debased and vile form of exploitation imaginable. What they've done deserves the severe, punishments available to us by law and even some punishments not available to us. Also, these people are dangerous to the public and will always be a danger. Even if it's theoretically

possible to rehabilitate some of them, which I'm skeptical of, even then, it's certainly not possible to ever be very confident in their rehabilitation. They will always represent a threat. No parent would ever feel safe living next to a guy who was previously convicted on child porn charges. That's why they should be locked in prison for as long as possible. It's the safest thing. It's also justice, which is something that a justice of the Supreme Court should know something about. But Jackson doesn't, and that's why Judge Jackson and all the fake debunkers coming to her aid are today. Canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word,

please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Nol's show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Production manager, Pavel Vodowski. Our associate producer is McKenna Waters. The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. Our audio is mixed by Mike Corrima, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright DailyWire

2022. John Bickley here, DailyWire editor-in-chief. Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less. Join me and my co-host, Georgia Howe for daily coverage of all the biggest stories on Morning Wire.