The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 974 - The Appropriation And Degradation Of Womanhood

Episode Date: June 17, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the mayor of New York City is the latest high profile Democrat to come out in favor of drag queens at school. We’ve talked about how it’s harmful to kids to involve them in drag events. But today I want to discuss how drag attacks and demeans womanhood. Also, the CDC issues guidance for how to have sex while infected with monkeypox. Nancy Pelosi again proclaims herself a devout Catholic while shilling for abortion. A Hollywood actress explains why she chose surrogacy, and her explanation perfectly illustrates the problems with surrogacy. In our Daily Cancellation, a dog food company encourages millennials to become “pet parents” instead of real parents.  Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com, and pick up your copy of the “What Is A Woman?” book here: https://utm.io/ueFMe    Watch our Summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie” with Gina Carano: https://utm.io/ueFOe    Join us for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr  — Today’s Sponsors:  40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. Get their book "What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion." https://40daysforlifegear.com/collections/books/products/what-to-say-when With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the mayor of New York City is the latest high-profile Democrat to come out in favor of drag queens at school. We've talked about how it's harmful to kids to involve them in drag events. But today I want to discuss how drag attacks and demeans womanhood. Also, the CDC issues guidance for how to have sex while infected with monkeypox, if that's something you want to do. Nancy Pelosi again proclaims herself a devout Catholic while shilling for abortion. A Hollywood actress explains why she chose surrogacy, and her explanation perfectly illustrates the problems with surrogacy. In our daily cancellation, a dog food company encourages millennia. to become, quote, pet parents instead of real parents.

We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Well, we know that we are, we assume probably just days away from Roe v. Wade becoming a thing of the past. And you may think that that means the fight is coming to an end over abortion. But abortion legislation returning to the states just means that the real battle is really only just beginning. There is no group in America better position than 40 Days for Life to help fight that battle, just as they've been fighting the battle now for decades. 40 Days for Life has one million volunteers throughout the country, holding peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities. You may be surprised to hear that their largest presence is actually in the states where they're needed the most.

That would be the country's blue states, with California being their biggest state. Their vigils have closed many abortion facilities in America, and nearly half of those facilities were in liberal states where abortion will continue to remain legal after the fall of row. From San Francisco to Chicago to Seattle, which are hardly pro-life areas, obviously. Volunteers have guided abortion workers to have a change of heart and quit their job. So as this issue gets out of D.C., 40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots of the pro-abortion movement. Check out their locations, their podcasts, and their new book, What to Say When, the Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion at 40 Days for Life.com. There was a period of time which lasted about 45 seconds, it turns out, when it seemed that the new mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, might be a relatively normal, decent, rational, competent human being. But that was all an illusion, of course.

Those sorts of people simply cannot be elected in the modern Democrat Party. They are non-viable candidates, particularly in a place like New York. So after impressing us during the campaign by saying some provocative things, arguing, for example, that criminals should actually go to prison sometimes, you know, things like that, really controversial. It's no surprise that Adams has long since surrendered to leftist insanity. In that vein, Adams tweeted yesterday afternoon, this is what he tweeted. He said, drag storytellers and the libraries and schools that support them are advancing a love of diversity, personal expression, and literacy that is core to what our city embraces. At a time when our LGBTQ plus communities are under increased attack across this country, we must use our education system to educate. The goal is not only for our children to be academically smart, but also emotionally intelligent.

To be absolutely clear here, Eric Adams, the mayor of America's largest city, is our country. arguing that we must have cross-dressing men in school for the sake of diversity, personal expression, emotional intelligence, and literacy. Indeed, our children will be illiterate if they're not taught to read by men in dresses. That's why no child in America has ever learned to read up until this point. None of us know how to read. We're all illiterate. I don't know if you knew that, because we all suffered from a severe lack of drag queens growing up. After all, Nobody ever even considered putting drag queens in school up until about 12 minutes ago. It was never discussed.

It was never imagined. It was never considered an option. It was not a debate anybody was having when I was in school. Nobody was debating this. Nobody was saying, you know, maybe we should include some drag queens in this whole thing, this whole deal here. Nobody said that. But now in the last 12 minutes, the left has declared that it is not only an acceptable option, but that it is, in fact, necessary.

It is crucial to a child's development that he be, frequently exposed to men with cross-dressing fetishes. That is the actual official position of the Democrat Party at this point. It's not just being advanced far out on the fringes by groomers and pedophiles. It's now being advanced in the mainstream, though still by groomers and pedophiles. Notice again, the flight path of progressivism. It always follows the same course. First, they, you know, whenever something comes up, some new brand of degeneracy, first they deny

that it's happening at all. In this case, they denied that anybody wanted kids to be around drag queens. And then they admit that it's happening, but they say it's rare and it's not really a big deal. And then they admit that it's happening all over the place, but they argue that actually it's good. And now for the final stage, they say that the thing they used to say isn't happening at all is actually happening and happening a lot and should happen and needs to happen and should be mandatory. This evolution from not happening to mandatory doesn't take very long at all. Sometimes the plant will grow to full bloom in the space of a week or even a day. Meanwhile, a video is going viral today of one drag queen out in the drag wilderness crying out against this madness.

Here this unnamed drag queen from a video, I think this is about a year ago, scolds parents who bring their kids to drag events, the events that he performs at, and confirms that drag shows are inherently sexual, both on stage and behind the scenes. Listen. What in the hell has a drag queen ever done to make you have so much respect for them and admire them so much? Other than put on makeup and jump on the floor and ride around and do sexual things on stage? I have absolutely no idea why you would want that to influence your child. Would you want a stripper or a porn star to influence your child?

It makes no sense at all. A drag queen performs in a nightclub for adults. There is a lot of filth that goes on, a lot of sexual stuff that goes on. And backstage, there's a lot of nudity, sex, and drugs. Okay? So I don't think that this is an avenue you would want your child to explore. Yeah, that's a good point. You know, it's good to have at least one person in the drag world.

confirm what should be obvious, but really we don't need them to confirm it. You need only watch a few seconds of footage to understand what's going on. For example, the latest clip posted by Libs of TikTok shows a drag event attended by at least one very young child and featuring a half-naked man with fake rubber breasts dancing around while the audience hands him dollar bills. Here's that. And that appeared to be the child's grandmother. The child was sitting on her grandmother's lap. My grandmother, if she had encountered an event like this, she would have called an exorcist.

She would have called the police and an exorcist. Your grandmother? What chance does that poor kid have? You have multiple generations of degenerate groomers raising you. My God. Now, we've already said plenty about how this affects kids who are exposed to it, how this is all part of the left's overarching effort to corrupt and sexualize the youngest generation. We'll say plenty more about that in the future, I'm sure, as the groomers continue to ramp up their war

against our nation's children, I'd give it less than two years at this point until elected Democrats are explicitly arguing in favor of decriminalizing pedophilia. They're already arguing for that in effect in certain ways, but it'll be explicit in the next two years. They're not going to call it pedophilia, of course. They'll use a different term, like minor attracted person, or else, probably they'll come up with something new, but we are very close to that threshold being officially crossed, and we inch closer every day. That's why the battle to protect our children's souls and minds and innocence is central in the overall culture war. But what I want to focus on today for a few moments at least is something else, not entirely unrelated. Because while all of

this represents a war on children, it also represents a war on womanhood. As I've argued in the past, drag is female blackface. That's what it is. Drag shows are essentially modern-day minstrel shows where men dress as hyper-sexualized cartoon versions of women and they dance around for the vulgar amusement of the crowd. Now, put to the side just for a second, the most shocking and disgusting aspect of the video that I just played, namely the fact that a toddler was in attendance. Even if there was no child there, what does it say about drag and about the left generally

that it's considered wholesome and worthwhile entertainment to watch a man in a skimpy skirt with absurd amounts of makeup bouncing around the room with enormous fake rubber breasts. If there's any entertainment value in such a bizarre spectacle, though I don't see any value in it at all, entertainment or otherwise, it would be in the, I guess, macabre humor of watching a man make an over-sexualized mockery of womanhood. The potential comparisons are obvious here. Imagine the same sort of scene, except that it's a white man in an Indian headdress dancing and whooping around while onlookers laugh and clap. Just imagine that. Or a white man in blackface or a white woman in a fake afro lip-syncing a Whitney Houston song. In fact, that doesn't even need to be done for laughs. We've seen white people get canceled simply for wearing dreadlocks or opening Chinese food restaurants. No intent to mock or sacrifice. in that case, and still it's somehow considered dehumanizing and degrading to the groups of people who've allegedly had their identities appropriated, quote unquote. But in the case of drag,

the whole point of the exercise is for men to appropriate womanhood. That's what people are paying to see. That's what groomers are taking their children to see. Femininity turned into a circus act. Womanhood as a carnival sideshow. Now, there's no surprise, womanhood is commandeered, parodied in many ways in our culture, and quite often this happens. The left has never met a form of female appropriation that they don't want to celebrate. The dirty little secret about that side, the left, is that they hate women, and they actually hate women even more than they hate men, I've realized. And they hate men quite a bit. So this is saying something. Now, they call masculinity toxic, but they actually idolize it.

They're jealous of it. They're envious. That's why they want all these female action heroes. They want females in the military. They want us to celebrate women who become tough corporate bosses and CEOs and so forth. But femininity, they have no use for at all. It's a thing to be performed and laughed and gawked at. They chop the breasts off of girls and put rubber breasts on grown men. People are like potato head dolls to them. Swap one part for another. It's all the same as far as they're concerned. They see human beings in general in this light, but their assault on womanhood takes oftentimes, I think, a different kind of form from their assault on manhood. Womanhood is made into a fetish or a joke or a performance. Often all three at once. That's what drag is. Womanhood as fetish, joke, and performance. Womanhood appropriated, degraded. made into something ridiculous and ugly.

And this, I think, is a point that we need to start making more often. Now let's get to our five headlines. Exema is unpredictable. But you can flare less with ebbglis. A once-monthly treatment for moderate-tissaphyr. After an initial four-month-longer dosing phase, about four-and-10 people taking ebbglis achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.

Ebglis, Librikizumab LBKZ, a 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebbglis.

Before starting Ebbglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebbglis.com or call 1-800-Lilleyr-R-X or 100545-9-9. Well, fear of out-of-control inflation is hammering the stock market. The S&P 500 is having its worst start to the year since World War II. So not only are your savings worth less, you now have less of it on top of it, insult to injury. So now might be a good time, though, for you to diversify into growth. gold, the most stable asset in the history of the world. And Birch Gold is the company I trust to help you convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold and silver. Not only will Birch Gold help you

fortify your savings with precious metals, they'll also help you do all of this in a tax sheltered account. So all you got to do if you want to learn more is text Walsh to 989898 to get started. Amazon stock is down 37% in the first half of the year. Tesla is down 40% and cryptos have been slammed. Plus many fear the hawkish moves by the Fed could stall the economy. So what's your plan, text Walsh to 98, 98, 98, and get your free no-obligation info kit on gold from Birch Gold. They are the precious metals professionals. They're the ones that I trust and you should trust to. So again, text Walsh to 98-98-98 and secure your savings now. All right, the Daily Mail reports that the CDC has issued bizarre guidance telling Americans infected with monkeypox

to have sex by masturbating at least six feet away from their partner, among other recommendations. Now this is guidance from the CDC. It says anyone who has the disease must not have sex, but for those who ignore the advice, the agency has published a list of the do's and don'ts under the bed sheets. Among its tips was also to have sex while still fully clothed to ensure all rashes are covered and even to avoid kissing. Other advice was to wash your hands, wash hands, fetish gear, and clothing immediately afterwards, and even to consider having sex virtually, such as over the phone. This is, okay, so we have, from the CDC, they publish this chart here, which you can see, and then they give all the options with helpful illustrations

in case you weren't sure what that would look like. And then they say, yeah, try virtual sex, masturbate six feet apart. The centers for disease control and prevention are giving advice on, you know, masturbation. Make sure to wash afterwards. They say, avoid kissing, wear clothing during the sexual act, and cover your race. rashes. So this is, you know, that's a good way to put somebody in the mood, I guess, is just say, hey, you know, I'm covered in monkeypox lesions. So, you know, we can still have sex. Let's just keep our clothes on is what the CDC is suggesting. How much, you know, the self-control that you would have to lack, that you can't even abstain while you are covered in monkeypox rashes,

But you have zero self-control. But this is also how the government sees us. That's how the CDC sees us. They see us as animals. We might as well be monkeys to them with the monkey pox. They see us as animals that cannot be expected. Because obviously, the right advice here that you shouldn't even need to tell anybody is that if you have monkey pox, if you have something called monkey pox,

like I don't even need to know anything about monkey pox. that someone has monkeypox, I already know, yeah, you probably should not be having sexual relations with anybody until this issue is cleared up. And after it's cleared up, maybe wait another like month or something. But rather than just say, okay, you have monkeypox, you're covered in rashes and legions, your skin is breaking out into hives and everything, rather than just say, don't have sex at all, they've just decided that people aren't capable of that. So instead, here are some ways to do it that will mitigate your risk slightly. If you could somehow find someone who will have sex with you while you're covered in monkeypox

legions. They really do. This is, we're living in Brave New World. And the government sees us as these animals driven entirely by compulsion who have to be controlled and muzzled as we saw for two years with the masks. Cannot be trusted or expected to exercise any kind of self-control or any sort of judgment whatsoever. This is how we're seen. And the really, and the even sadder part of that is that many people, in fact, live down to that impression that the government has of them.

Because it is a self-perpetuating prophecy in a lot of ways, and intentionally so. All right, let's move to this. Nancy Pelosi was asked a very good question. Doesn't happen very often from the media, but I suspect the person who asked this question. I don't know who it is. I'm sure that information is available. But I suspect this was not somebody in corporate media. But she was asked, does she agree, as a devout Catholic, she claims, does she agree with the Pope?

All popes, actually, but specifically the current Pope and Pope John Paul's. Second, that abortion is murdered. Does she agree with that? as a quote-unquote devout Catholic. Let's see what she says. St. John Paul II said an Evangelian vitae that abortion is murder, and Pope Francis told the Pontifical Academy for Life that abortion is truly murder. Do you agree with Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II that abortion is murder?

What I agree on is that whatever I believe or agree with the Pope's on is not necessarily what public policy should be in the United States as people make their own judgments, honor their own responsibilities, and attend to the needs of their families. Next? My speaker, actually, as far as the abortion case is concerned, there has been a number of acts on churches, on crisis pregnancy centers. Republicans are going out of the Democrats for not saying anything,

and they're saying that that your rhetoric is contributing to the circumstances. Well, let me just say this. A woman has a right to choose to live up to her responsibility. It's up to her, her doctor, her family, her husband, her significant other, and her God. This talk of politicizing all of this, I think, is something uniquely American and not right. countries in Ireland, Italy, Mexico have had legislate initial this to expand the woman's right to choose very Catholic countries. I'm a very Catholic person and I believe in every woman's right to make her own decisions. Very Catholic. She's very Catholic. And you know, you notice she doesn't she doesn't actually say that she disagrees with the Pope on this. And to be clear by the

way, we talk about do you agree with the Pope about abortion being murder? It's not just, from a Catholic perspective, if you're actually a Catholic, it's not just that the popes have, you know, given their own personal opinion about the fact that abortion is murder. This is the official teaching to Catholic Church. And it's a teaching that you cannot reject without rejecting the church itself because as I've tried to explain, if you reject a fundamental moral teaching of the church, then you're saying that the church is wrong about fundamental moral facts of life. And you're rejecting the moral authority of the church. If you reject the moral authority of the church, then in what sense are you Catholic? Not in any sense at all. And this is the same,

by the way, for any religion. If you claim to be a part of a certain religion, but then you say that you disagree with the fundamental teachings of that religion, then by definition, you are not of that religion. That might be a mask you like to wear. It might be a banner you like to march under. It might be something that you like to perform in front of a crowd for political reasons, but it's not a faith that you actually hold within yourself. What I would like to hear someone ask Nancy Pelosi is rather than do you agree or disagree with the popes on this, how about here's maybe the way that I would phrase it

and there's really no way to phrase the question that will stop someone from Nancy like Nancy Pelosi from just wiggling her way out of it and dancing around it because she has no integrity or anything like that so when you're talking to somebody with no integrity there's really there's really no way it's like wrestling a giant slug or something

there's no way to get your hands around the argument because it's nothing they say means anything and they can contradict themselves themselves within the same sentence. But the question I would ask is, do you believe that God recognizes a woman's right to kill her unborn child? I think that's probably how I would phrase it. Because you could say all you want, well, women have that right. And you could get around it by claiming that technically, according to the law as it's written right now, they have, quote, the legal right, as in it's something that the law, as invented by human beings, says that they're

allowed to do. But is this a, another way of putting it, is this a natural, is this a part of natural law? Is this a natural human right to kill your unborn child? Is that something that God would recognize? Another way of phrase and question, when God creates a human being and puts that human being in the womb of a mother. Does God want that human being to be born? Or did he create the human being in the womb of his mother with the intention and hope that the child would be dismembered and thrown into a dumpster? What do you think about that? Again, no way to phrase the question that will actually make them say anything honest, but that is one way of putting it. All right, just from the Washington Times, it says,

Republican senators are heading off any attempts by their colleagues to include language requiring women to register for the draft in the annual defense policy bill. In a letter Wednesday to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed, 11 lawmakers led by Senator Josh Hawley, warned of solid opposition to force American women to register for the military draft. It says, quote, women have served in and alongside the armed forces since our nation's founding, lawmakers wrote, while American men are required register for the military draft and fight if needed, these requirements have never been applied to American women where they have fought they have done so freely. This approach to serve our nation well and it retains broad bipartisan support and a bunch of Republicans sign the letter. Just trying to head off at the pass any attempt to officially require women to sign it for the draft. Now, you know, this is one where you have to be careful because there are people on the right. And this seems to me, just anecdotally, to be a position on the right that's gaining some steam and becoming kind of popular.

And that position is that, hey, okay, yeah, just sign women up for the draft too, because we're told that men and women are the same. This is all the feminist stuff, girl power. And, hey, this is what you guys say, feminist, that everyone is exactly the same, exactly equal. There are no differences. Women can do everything that men can do. All of that, well, then you should have the exact same responsibilities. And under that way of thinking, there's no reason at all to exempt women from the draft. So it's kind of a, hey, you made your bed and now you have to lay in it approach. So there are a lot of people on the right that are saying that. That's not my view for a few reasons. Number one is that, yeah, you could say that to feminists and to the left and all of that.

but my own daughter is not a feminist and she's not on the left. And God willing, if I raise her right, she never will be. So this is not, now, if there was a law saying that left-wing feminists, so men and left-wing feminists are eligible for the draft, then maybe we have something to talk about. But that's not what we're talking about. So you're talking about punishing all women and all of our daughters in order to what, send a message to feminists?

and many of whom, by the way, people on the left, left-wing feminists, especially people, you know, the feminists in academia and they're coming up with all these theories and everything, they're not going to be actually drafted into any war. As we know, the draft, you know, this actually only affects, in reality, poor people and middle class people.

So a lot of the feminists and people on the left, who you're trying to stick it to here, it's not actually going to affect them. It's your own children, your own daughters. They're going to have to pay the price. So that's my first problem with that and why I could never support drafting women. And then the other reason, too,

is that even if I didn't have daughters of my own, we just cannot be a society. We can't be a country. We can't be a civilization that drafts our daughters into combat, that sends our daughters. against their will to go fight our wars and die. That's just once we become that, and if we all accept it, then that's just the end, basically.

That's the end of our civilization, as we know. We've just kind of given up. We've thrown up the white flag completely. We get to the point if we all just agree that, yeah, sure, whatever, just send our daughters off to fight. Even if the draft is never actually enacted, which I suspect eventually it will be. But even if it never is, the fact that we would all be willing to do that, if we declare our willingness, then that to me is just an act of total civilizational surrender that I can never be a party to. All right, let's see what else we got here.

This is from The Daily Beast. It says the office actor, Rain Wilson, who obviously played Dwight Shrewt, came a bit too close to embodying his inflammatory TV character, Dwight Shrewd, on Wednesday. when he tweeted a poor attempt at a joke about transgender people. He tweeted, quote, TIL, you can no longer say nursing or breastfeeding mother. You have to say chest feeding person. Just FYI. That was the tweet.

Which I guess is supposed to be, it's not even a joke. That's just a, that's just true. That's like what the left is trying to do. They're trying to supplant breastfeeding with chest feeding. So he tweeted this and then, but then he tweeted an apology. I think we have the actual tweet from him. He tweeted apology, he said, yesterday I tweeted a mean crack about breastfeeding versus chest feeding.

After speaking with some trans friends and educating myself a bit more, I want to apologize for the tweet. It was adding to misinformation and meanness. I'm sorry. So, of course, he immediately caves. Again, what he originally said was not even a joke or a crack about trans people. He was pointing out that. chest feeding has become the new PC term of art, which is true.

But then he had to apologize for that because he was educated by his trans friends. Educated about what exactly? What did they teach you is what I want to know? And the thing about this whole breastfeeding versus chest feeding thing is that it doesn't even make sense. Okay, even on the left-wing premise here, it doesn't make sense. it's exactly like the Latinx latinx thing well we need to have latinx because it's gender neutral Hispanic is already gender neutral you could say Latin and that's gender neutral so along with all the other problems of latinx the first problem is that it's not by your own premise it's not

necessary and it's the same thing here chest and breasts these are synonyms essentially Like, men have breasts. There's a reason why men can get breast cancer. It's rare, but men can actually get breast cancer. It's rare because they have less breast tissue, but men have breasts. And the words are basically used interchangeably. So it's a distinction actually without a difference in the first place. So when we're told by the left that, well, we need to say chest feeding instead of breastfeeding because it's more inclusive, that doesn't make any sense.

The two words are synonymous. Now, what the left will say in response to that is, well, if they're the same, then why can't you just change it? If it means the same thing anyway, then why not just say chest feeding instead of breastfeeding? No, no, no. That's not, once again, I don't have to provide that explanation to you. No, it's more like, why should we change it? If it's basically a distinction without a difference and the change doesn't make any sense, I don't have to explain to you why we shouldn't change it.

We've been using the term breastfeeding forever. Everybody knows what it is. You're the one suggesting the change. You have to explain it. It's not up to me. You're proposing the change. So that's something that you have to defend. Why is this necessary?

But, of course, you can't defend it. The only defense is that, well, it makes trans people feel better. Why does it make them feel better? Number one. So we talk about breastfeeding that makes them feel sad. Why? And then the second question is, why should I care that much in the first place? Why should we have to go through this great effort to change a term that everybody has been using forever and that has caused no problems for anybody? And now we've got to change it because a couple trans people had their feelings hurt.

Explain that to me. Let's see. We've got now, Rand Paul versus Dr. Fauci, this is round like 50, I think. It's kind of a long clip. We'll play some of this, though. Here's Rand Paul trying to investigate the financial incentives in the vaccine push. Let's listen to some of this. Another question for you. The NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties and from which companies. Over the period of time from 2010 to 2016, 27,000 royalty payments were paid to 1,800 NIH employees. We know that, not because you told us, but because we forced you to tell us through the Freedom of Information Act. Over $193 million was given to these 18,800 employees. Can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever owe? oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?

Well, first of all, let's talk about royalties. That's the question. No, that's the question. Have you ever overseen? Have you ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company? You know, I don't know as a fact, but I doubt it. Well, here's the thing is, why don't you let us know?

Why don't you reveal how much you've gotten and from what entities? The NIH refuses. Look, we ask them. We ask them. The NIH, we ask them whether or not, who got it and how much they refused to tell us. They sent it redacted.

Here's what I want to know. It's not just about you. Just to give you the spoiler, he doesn't answer the question, of course. He says that, well, that's not information we have to provide and everything else. Now, I see these, I really, I continue to appreciate Rand Paul's efforts here.

And one of the reasons why I'd like to see him jump into the race in 2024. I hope he does. And you also have to keep in mind that, you know, Ram Paul was doing this. It's a little bit less politically risky now, but he was doing this calling Fauci to account back when Fauci was, you know, the great saint. And on the left, he still is. But there was a time when he was like celebrated across the spectrum in that way. And Ram Paul is still doing this. A lot of credit for that. But every time I see VALC, he's a lot of credit for that. But every time I see videos like this, I'm also slightly frustrated because it feels kind of futile and hopeless. To expose all of the corruption and then, okay, fine, we expose it, you can embarrass him in

these public hearings, which is great, but what needs to happen is people need to be arrested. There need to be actual legal consequences. Okay. And that's another thing in 2024. That's what I want to hear from Republican running for office. They're going to find out, they're going to get to the bottom of all the corruption related to COVID, related to the people who shut down the country for two years and all the damage that they caused, knowingly caused, and they're going to find those people and they're going to arrest them. That's what I want to hear. All right, one other thing here, this is from the Daily Wire. It says, Dexter Newblood actress Jamie Chung admitted to choosing to have children via

surrogacy because she feared getting pregnant could ruin her Hollywood career. The 39-year-old real-world San Diego alum made her motivations clear during an interview with today. Chung recently welcomed twin boys along with her husband Brian Greenberg. A couple's been married since 2015. She says, I was terrified of becoming pregnant. I was terrified of putting my life on hold for two plus years. In my industry, it feels like you're easily forgotten if you don't work within the next month or of your last job. Things are so quickly paced in what we do. So it's a compromise that we made together as a couple. She continued, I think there's a little bit of shame, it's still not a very common thing, and we weren't ready for judgment. We really just did it to

protect ourselves. We announced things when we were ready to. And then she responds to some of the critics. She says, people probably think, oh, she's so vain. She didn't want to get pregnant, and it's much more complicated than that. For me personally, and I'll leave it at this, it's like, I worked my ass off my entire life to get where I am. I don't want to lose opportunities. I don't want to be resentful. That's her response to the charge that she's vain. Not doing yourself a lot of favors. No, no, I'm not vain.

I just didn't want to lose any opportunities with the inconvenience of carrying my own children in my womb. And I didn't want to be resentful. Resentful of who, your children? It seems to be what she's saying, that if she had decided to get pregnant the old-fashioned way by actually being pregnant, she would have resented her children for depriving her of opportunities.

You could see perfectly illustrated here the problem with surrogacy in general. There are many problems. It starts with the commodification of human life. The commodification of women. I mean, you're renting out a woman's womb like it's an Airbnb and paying her for the privilege to like house your unborn children. It's almost like, you know, buying a space, like a storage space or something like that. Renting storage space from a U-Haul facility. Like you're storing old ski equipment and a jet ski or something,

but instead you're storing your children in somebody's womb. So that's the first problem. And then also it encourages people to treat children as an accessory. And it's very clear that this actress, that's the way she sees it, where she wants to have kids and she likes some aspects of the idea of having kids, but she doesn't want to be terribly inconvenienced by it. And she doesn't want to fully inhabit motherhood. She wants to stay around the fringes of it and only let certain parts of it in

and have full total control over that. So she's treating the children as accessories in her life, It's kind of like fashion accessories or maybe a sort of a hobby that you could take on. And that's, we enable people to see children that way. We enable them to live that way. And that's not good for the people. And that's certainly not good for the children. And also there is the problem of not fully inhabiting your own life and the roles that you play in your own life.

Like if you're going to be a mother, be a mother. embrace the fullness of motherhood to the extent that you can, which isn't to say that, you know, you need to carry children in your womb in order to be a mother. You could adopt children and still fully be their mothers. But then you are, if you do that, then you are fully inhabiting motherhood to the extent that you can within that context. But if your intention is to conceive children, then you should inhabit that. So you're rejecting, it's the rejection of your children and of motherhood and of yourself also in a weird sort of way. Not good, just to summarize.

All right, let's get now to our comment section. Birthday to you. Happy birthday. Is this filming right now? Happy birthday to you. Yeah, you guys know how much I love birthdays and surprises, so I really appreciate that. What would I? Oh, nice.

I do, I do deeply appreciate it. Thanks guys. Happy birthday, man. Okay, thank you. Okay, I've just been told there's a there's a clip that we're going to play that I'm supposed to react to. So, here it is. My four-year-old son asked me, Mommy,

who makes the Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage? Who's to blame? Amash is a messes! I told him we. We. We. We make the Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage. With rage.

We. We. We. We are rocking poker dots and flannel shirts. Without shame. Without shame. Without shame. Do you know our name?

well do you we're the sweet baby gang the sweet baby gang the sweet baby gang the sweet baby gang and we have a crucial message for our sweet daddy as we do for life

for life okay um I don't know I am so confused right now like so much of the audiences I'm sure confused but also

deeply touched in a, in a weird way. And that's not a phrase that I use very often. And I wish I hadn't just used it then, but I did. That was, I mean, that was, I have to admit, that was beautifully done. And I don't know, I don't know what else to say about that. That was, that looked like that took a lot of work. And that's from the, that's from the SBG Facebook group, I believe, right? Yeah, that's what, that's who it's from.

That took, that looked like, to me, I don't know a lot about editing, but that took, That looked like it took at least, you know, 30, 40 minutes. And I do appreciate it. As much as I'm opposed to any recognitions of birthdays, especially my own, I still will allow that. And I'll even say thank you to the sweet baby gang for that. All right, we're going to try to soldier on from that. And we'll go here.

Ruth Lewis says, I think Matt is too hard on Trump. He couldn't govern great because his administration was tied up with phony witch hunts for four years. Sorry, Ruth, I'm still thinking about that, a sweet baby game tribute. What are we talking about here? Okay, I think Matt is too hard on Trump. He couldn't govern great because his administration was tied up with phony witch hunts for four years. Yeah, look, I'm not interested in the excuses, though. Okay, if you're president of the United States, that's true, the phony witch hunts and everything else.

And he had the media against them and everybody was against them. And there were things that they were doing against Trump that were quite unprecedented. No doubt about that. I don't deny any of that. But at the same time, okay, and if we're talking about this is just a sort of post-mortem of the Trump years and trying to figure out why it went the way that he did and why he didn't fulfill ultimately many of the promises that he made. and you want to bring up the phony witch hunts and so forth, then fine. But if we're talking about going forward for 2024, your argument for Trump 2024 can't be a bunch

of excuses for 2016 through 2020. You see what I'm saying? So I don't want to hear, and this is kind of the argument I've heard from a lot of the people that want Trump in 2024 is that, well, give him another chance. It's like, no, what is this? Give them another chance. This isn't like Little League Baseball or something. So set them out there to pitch another inning.

This is the country. And by the way, if Trump could be hogtied by phony witch hunts, as you put it, well, that's going to happen again. You think they're not going to do it again? If he gets in there, it's going to be that times 50. It's going to be what it was the first time, but way worse. And so if he's already shown that he can be essentially disabled in his governing by all of that, then it's just going to happen again. Now you put Rondesantis in there.

Will the same thing happen to him? Maybe, but the thing is we don't know yet. You can at least make the argument with him. We don't know how it will go. So they're going to have the phony witch hunts against Rondasantis. Will he be able to navigate that and still govern effectively and put his agenda forward? With Trump, we already know how it went. So we know that.

With Ronda Sances, there's a chance that might go different. So that's my argument. Okay. All right. Devin says, even if you grant all of gender ideology, shouldn't their belief in gender fluidity alone preclude them from allowing children to make life-altering changes to their body? That's a really good point. And that's just, but one of a million self-contradictions in the whole, in gender ideology in general. Also, the fact that, like, what we're told now is that your body

has nothing to do at all with your gender or your sex or anything else. Like, your body parts are totally irrelevant, we're told, right? So then what's the point of the surgeries? What's the point of the drugs? What's the point of chopping the women's breasts off and all the rest of it? Because according to them, right, you can, women have penises also. There's nothing inherently male about having a penis. So if that's the case and you identify as a woman, then why get the surgery mutilating your genitals in the first place. When that has nothing to do, it's almost like a separate thing now, we're being told. So it doesn't make any sense, but of course, as we've discovered, nothing they say makes any sense.

Michelle says, speaking of the drag bird song we played yesterday, wouldn't this be more effective if a gentle, delicate female ballerina had performed this? Is there something wrong with the soft, natural beauty of a young woman? Well, yes, there is. as we talked about in the opening. According to the left, there is something wrong with it, and that's why they wouldn't have a woman do that. Max says, according to my research, Matt is absolutely right. Birds sing in the morning to mark their territory and attract mates specifically males singing to females. They do it before dawn because the time and lack of visibility is optimal as to not attract predators. Okay, so I thought it was probably something like that, so it is officially confirmed that I know more

about birds than the Audubon Society. And Mark says, hey Matt, please never ever, ever play that drag queen bird song ever again, thanks. Which song? You mean this one? It might make you listen to the whole thing again. That the climate is changing. It might be too much weirdness after an SPG tribute. By the way, Autobon Society, after posting this, they shut down their whole Twitter account.

In shame. That's true. They actually did that. Who would have ever thought that this would be the end of the Audubon Society? This is how the Audubon Society would go out. Is with drag-slam poetry. People believe it's to tell each other that they made it through the night. Oh, here the lies.

Misinformation. As a way of saying, I'm still here. Okay. All right, that's enough of that. Good. You know how that goes. See, I can only assume that you've left that comment because you wanted to see the song again, because you know what happens when you tell me things like that.

Right now, most of the country is experiencing a heat wave. So it's a great time to stay indoors with the AC set to 60 degrees. I like to bring it down to 50 if I can. And what better way to enjoy the cool AC than to sit down and enjoy the great content that Daily Wire has put out so far this month? We have the most talked about documentary in America. What is a Woman starring myself? And What is a Woman?

The Book is available now so you can stay in, read the book, watch the movie. We also have a true summer blockbuster, Terror on the Prairie, starring Gene. to Carano. Disney tried to cancel her, and now she's back in the gritty new western that we've made that you've got to check out. There's never been a better time to become a DailyWire. Remember, your subscriptions ensure that we can bring you more entertaining, entertainment, more films, more documentaries that challenge the woke narrative. Not only that, but your membership gives you access to an entire library of content, which includes what is a woman, terror in the prairie, and so much more. So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now to join us today.

And now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today we have the exciting opportunity to cancel a pet food company. The Better Choice Company makes super premium natural pet food for millennial and Gen Z pet parents. Now, we've already have enough fodder here just in the opening sentence to cancel everybody in sight, but it gets better. As Yahoo Finance reports, the very unapply named Better Choice Company has launched a new ad campaign for its Halo dog food brand. And here's the marketing pitch, according to Yahoo. It says, quote, let's face it. Pets are the world's best kids. That's why Better Choice Company, a pet health and wellness company,

unveils its new marketing campaign to celebrate pet parenthood. The new Halo Pet campaign sets out to validate and empower the new generation of pet moms. The campaign launches in support of the company's new brand, Halo Elevate, a super premium natural pet food backed by science. Millennials are delaying having children. They are, however, enthusiastically embracing pet parenthood with 76% of millennials owning a pet. The new campaign from Halo is speaking to these pet moms and saying, we see you, we get you, we are you. Now, if I was a narcissist, I might think that this ad campaign was made specifically to annoy me personally, because it's got all of the elements there. And those suspicions are not much allayed by the actual ad itself, which we will watch now. Halo makes the world's best food

for the world's best kids. No, not that kid. This kid. You can live. leave this kid alone for 10 minutes and they won't destroy your house. With these kids, you can actually sleep in. And shopping never ends in tears. Ezra, Ezra, please. Maybe being a human parent is overrated. So if you're going to have a kid make it a furry one and feed them Halo Elevate, natural, science-based nutrition for their optimal health.

Halo, the world's best food for the world's best kids. Okay. Where to begin? I don't deny that having kids is actually more difficult than having a dog, and we'll get to that in a moment. But first of all, dogs don't destroy your house or wake you up? What? I find it a bit concerning that nobody at this dog food company has ever actually met a dog, apparently. In fact, dogs tend to be way more destructive than children.

They also can be significantly noisier and more annoying. My kids have never eaten my boots or gnawed on the legs of my couch or chewed on the carpet. it. My kids don't eat out of the trash. My kids don't poop on the floor, usually. My kids don't wake me up in the middle of the night barking. I don't have to take my kids outside of the dead of winter and stand there waiting for them to take a dump in the grass. None of my kids have ever vomited on the kitchen tile and then tried to eat it. Dog has done that, though, multiple times. I came home a few days ago, and someone in the house had torn into my bookshelf and eaten two of my favorite books. Guess who did that? Wasn't my kids. I can tell you. Now I'm starting to wonder actually

what kind of kids these people have encountered. You know what my kids can do? They can clean up after themselves. Okay, sure, it does take a lot of coaching and often I have to, you know, deploy various methods of encouragement, shall we say, to get them to clean up. But you can actually raise your kids to clean up after themselves. A dog will never do that. If a dog like picks up a shoe in his mouth and walks it over to the other side of the room, right, and drops it there. Everybody will applaud, oh, look at the dog, he's so great. It would take the dog about 19 hours to clean a whole room at that pace. My kids can do it in at least 18 hours.

My kids can do other things, too, like they can pour their own bowls of cereal in the morning. They can bathe themselves. In fact, they can do literally thousands of things that the dog cannot do, and we'll never be able to do. And as my kids get older, they'll become even more self-sufficient, while my dog will still be barking at leaves and crapping all over the place. But here's the main difference between my children and the dog. They are my children. The dog is not my child. He's a dog. I'm not the parent of my dog, and you are not the parent of your dog. So stop saying that you are. You are not a dog mommy. Do you know who your dog's mommy is? Another dog. There's a dog that made it with another dog and

had a dog and that dog gave birth to your dog and that dog is your dog's mommy. You didn't mate with a dog and have a dog. I sure hope you didn't. Okay. Not only are you not your pet's parent, but in fact, your relationship with and to your pet bears no resemblance at all to the relationship a parent has with and to their actual human child. Aside from all the many functional differences between dogs and kids, the other major difference is that within a human nuclear family, there's an opportunity for a loving bond which far surpasses anything you will ever experience with any other human, much less a mangy, four-legged beast. I love my kids in a way that I could never love an animal. I know them in a way that I could never know an animal. I was there with them

when they were born. I've cared for them every moment of their lives. I've gotten to know them more deeply as time has gone on. We can talk and have conversations. We can share experiences on a much deeper and more meaningful level than you can share any experience with a dog. My children have brought me great joy. More joy than any animal can bring. They also can make me much angrier and more frustrated than any animal can make me. But that's only because they are human beings. They are complex. They can be rebellious and strong willed. They're self-aware. They have their own ideas about the world. My dog has no ideas about anything. He's an idiot and always will be. it is much more complicated to discipline a child, right? And there's more at stake. So if you fail as a parent,

your child might become a monster who inflicts unimaginable suffering on himself and the world. If you fail as a dog owner, your dog might bite the mailman or whatever. Does this mean that it's better to own dogs? Because it's easier? No. It means that owning dogs is simpler and easier in some respects, but also much less important. There's much less potential for for greatness and for love in its fullest and deepest form. Just as you could climb a mountain, or you could sit on your butt and watch TV. A lot less can go wrong watching TV. It's easier and takes less effort.

Does that mean it's better to watch TV? Does that mean that you should never climb any mountains, whether literally or metaphorically? Sure, if you want to live a shallow and meaningless life. But here's the thing. If you avoid the difficult things in life, you also are avoiding the greatest joys and most fulfilling and most meaningful experiences that life. has to offer. This is the bargain you make when you elect to be a dog parent, quote, unquote, instead of a real parent. And if your goal is just to be comfortable and live with ease,

then why not get an ant farm instead of a dog? Why not stick with a goldfish or a pet rock? Because the further you go down the intelligence and self-awareness ladder, the easier it is to be a parent, quote unquote, of those kinds of creatures. There's also far less potential, again, for love, for joy, for purpose, for meaning. And Lord willing, my kids will grow older. And long after my dog dies, my kids will start having kids of their own. And their kids will have kids. And eventually I will die.

And as I'm laying on my deathbed, I will know and take comfort in the fact that my children are alive. They'll be there for me in my final days, just as I was there in their first days. I'm not going to be thinking about my dead dog in those moments. dog I have now will have been replaced five or six times over by then, but my legacy will live on in my children and in theirs. My blood will run through their veins. We'll be connected forever in this life and the next. That's parenthood, not pet ownership. Now this perhaps has gotten a little too serious for a conversation that began with a dog food commercial, but as you may have noticed, there are a few things I hate more than when people act as though pets are equivalent to children.

they are not. And that is why the Better Choice dog food company is today canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Have a great weekend. Talk to you on Monday. 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 Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles 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 Coramina,

and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022. Hey, everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood. But on the Andrew Clavin Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

So come on over to the Andrew Clavon show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Clavin.