The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 985 - A Nation Divided Over Pregnant Men

Episode Date: July 13, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the chasmic divide between the two sides in the culture war was put on full display during a Senate hearing in which a college professor claimed that men can get pregnant. Also, JK Rowling officially disavows me and breaks my heart in the process. She says that I’m really no different from a trans activist. But today we’ll talk about why that charge could more rightly be leveled at left wing feminists like herself. And a disturbing video goes viral showing two very young children in the inner city assaulting two police officers. What hope do kids have when they’re raised like that? Plus, John Bolton admits to planning coups in foreign countries while a remarkably incurious Jake Tapper sits and nods along. In our Daily Cancellation, Gavin Newsom signs a law that will open gun manufacturers up to lawsuits.  Become a DailyWire+ member today to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?” and access the extensive DailyWire+ content catalog: https://utm.io/ueIZt  — Today’s Sponsors:  40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. “What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion” Available on Amazon OR at 40DaysforLife.com Reliefband® is the #1 FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband. Use Promo Code WALSH for 20% OFF plus FREE Shipping! www.reliefband.com BIG XCHAIR SALE GOING ON NOW! Financing for as little as $30/month xchairWALSH.com 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 casmic divide between the two sides and the culture war was put on full display during a Senate hearing in which a college professor claimed that men can get pregnant. Also, J.K. Rowling officially disavows me and breaks my heart in the process, I must say. She says that I'm really no different than a trans activist. But today we'll talk about why that charge could more rightly be leveled at left-wing feminists like herself. And a disturbing video goes viral showing two very young children in the inner city assaulting two police officers. what hope do kids have when they're raised like that? Plus, John Bolton admits to planning coups in foreign countries while a remarkably incurious Jake Tapper sits and nods along.

In our daily cancellation, Gavin Newsom signs a law that will open gun manufacturers up to lawsuits. There are all kinds of problems here that we'll discuss today and so much more on the Matt Wall Show. Well, Rovi Wade has been overturned and the battle is now finally leaving D.C. And going back to the grassroots, no group in America when it comes to grassroots fighting over the pro-life issue is better positioned than 40 days for life. There are one million volunteers hold peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities in 1,000 cities. In fact, most of their volunteers are located in blue states such as California, where the lives of innocent babies are most threatened, where they're most needed,

and that's what they're doing most of their work. Many former abortion facility directors say that these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to increase to as high as 75%, which is a major blow to the abortion business. These peaceful vigils have even led to many closures of abortion facilities in America, nearly half of which were in states like, rather cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. These are hardly pro-life areas, as you may know, but that's, again, is where 40 Days for Life is doing most of their great work. 40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.

You can check out their locations, podcasts, and free magazine at 40 Days for Life.com. Again, for more information on 40 Days for Life, simply head to 40 Days for Life.com. Now we reach the end of our J.K. Rowling saga. After being criticized by the left in the media for calling my film, what is a woman, effective, though she did so in the context of criticize me, Rowling, finally decided to make it publicly and abundantly clear that she's not my friend and we are not allies. On Twitter, in response to Jason Whitlock, that was really a response to me, marking my first official disavowal by a famous person. Pretty excited about that. She wrote, quote, respectfully, I've been facing. down the Punch and Kill Terfs Brigade for a while now, and not once have I thought, what I really want is to hand this over to a man who thinks feminism is one of the worst

things to happen to Western civilization. Like many women on the left, I despair that so many self-proclaimed liberals turn a blind eye to the naked misogyny of the gender identity movement and the threat it poses to the rights of women and girls. Walsh's film undeniably exposed what many leftists are too scared to, but a shared belief that women exist as a biological class, and waters wet and the moon's not made of cheese does not an ally make. I believe women are susceptible to certain harms and have specific needs that feminism is necessary to secure and protect our rights. Walsh believes feminism is rotten and his default appears to be denigrating women with whom he disagrees.

He's no more on my side than the shut up or will bomb you charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag. So you're saying that you like my movie, though. That's my main takeaway. She also accuses me of denigrating women with whom I disagree. That, of course, is ridiculous. I denigrate everybody I disagree with. Women or not, just to be clear.

And finally, she claims that I believe feminism is rotten and one of the worst things to happen to Western civilization. On that point, I issue no denial whatsoever. That is precisely what I believe. The 60 million dead children that it's already left in its wake is probably all the evidence I really need to support that assertion. But the gender ideology, that J.K. Rowling herself opposes and has fought against quite bravely and admirably

is itself more evidence of feminism's fatal flaws. Though some left-wing feminists like J.K. Rowling have staunchly resisted the modern manifestations of gender ideology and its incursions into female spaces like locker rooms and sports teams and all that kind of stuff, still feminism has, as a whole, utterly failed to halt or even significantly slow down the advance of this threat. Why is that? Perhaps rallying and her feminist allies might want to stop and consider this question. You know, we hear so much from them about we've been in this fight for years. We've been fighting. So, well, why haven't you achieved more than you have if you've been fighting it for so long? Well,

what's the obstacle in your way? At the risk of being accused of mansplaining, I'd like to give my own answer to that question. Now, since what is a woman came out? Feminists have debated amongst themselves, and we've talked about this, they've debated whether they should champion the film, whether they should team up with an unsavory character like myself for the sake of defeating the gender ideologues, and ultimately, with very few exceptions, they've decided that the answer to both conundrums is a resounding no. Rowling's statement yesterday puts kind of an exclamation mark on that answer.

They want nothing to do with me. They really don't want the help of any man at all unless he takes an explicitly subordinate role in the fight. And even then, they might not want him. This is one of the reasons why feminism has failed to stop transgenderism, I think. This right here. That feminists are naturally antagonistic towards men. They always have been from the beginning,

way back in the so-called first wave, even back then, antagonistic towards men. So they might complain about the way that, women are treated when they speak out against the trans mob, and they might lament that women they believe are left alone to face down this horde. But then when any man tries to stand beside them, they can't help but turn on him. They ask for help, but then they say to the man who answers the call, oh, not you, yuck, get away. This is a problem because any true resistance, any real and effective counterinsurgency against the gender ideology movement will require the coordinated

efforts of both men and women. Men have a totally crucial, absolutely crucial role to play in this fight. Women cannot rescue society from this madness alone, neither can men. This is the beauty of how we're designed. Men and women need each other. Our complementary nature means that we're more powerful working together than we are apart. This is true of men and women in the context of marriage and families. And it's true, I believe, on the societal level. But feminism is inherently antagonistic towards and competitive with men. That's why feminism is deadly in a marriage. Because in a marriage, you need that complementary unity, but instead, through feminism, you get antagonism and competition. And it's also why it weakens, not strengthens the fight for sanity

and truth in our culture. This isn't my assumption, by the way. I've seen this firsthand. I have been for the past month and more at the center of one of these arguments among feminists about whether they can really work hand in hand with a man and the answer that most of them have come through is no, they can't. Well, the problems go deeper than that. This is what I really want to talk about.

Feminists have decided, and I've been told this explicitly, that I am just one side of the same. coin with the transactives. As Rowling professed, I'm no more her ally than they are. She says I'm just as much her enemy as, you know, rabid trans activists who threatens to kill her and burn down her house. I'm, I'm just as opposed to her as they are, she says. And yet, if I'm on the same side of, if I'm on one side of the same coin with these people,

then why is it that I oppose trans activists, not just on the matter of transgenderism, but on literally everything. I disagree with the trans activists on every conceivable issue. Any conservative, if you're a conservative, this is going to be the case. You disagree with the trans activists on not just this issue, but like everything. You don't agree on anything. So what coin are we sharing exactly? We have nothing at all in common.

We are diametrically opposed all the way down the line on everything. We live in different universes entirely. That's not the case for J.K. Rowling and the trans activists. It's not the case for any of the left-wing feminists who seemingly oppose the trans-agenda. They all agree with the trans-activists on nearly every issue except transgenderism. So it's the opposite of our situation. Right? And even on transgenderism, many of them agree with the fundamental proposition even when it comes to that.

I'm not sure if this is the case for Rowling specifically, but you often hear the so-called gender-critical types say that, well, they have no issue with a man identifying as a woman. They'll even respect his pronouns. Their problem is specifically with the male invasion into private female spaces. Very often, they go to great lengths to make it clear that they are not denying the underlying philosophical claims of transgenderism. But whether they oppose transgenderism on that level or not, the fact is that left-wing feminists certainly agree with trans activists on most other major issues. why the two groups can march hand and hand at the pro-abortion rally, at the gay pride rally, at almost any other rally. This is because the trans activists and the feminists actually share

an overarching worldview. Their fundamental premise is the same. Why do you think Planned Parenthood has gotten into the gender transition game? It was not only a savvy business move for a company that stands to lose millions from all the babies that will no longer be allowed to kill, but also a natural evolution. Transgenderism itself is a natural evolution from feminism. Feminism came first, setting the stage, and then transgenderism. Gender theory sprang out of the same milieu. These are not two separate and distinct things, but rather two branches on the same tree, deeply intertwined and associated with, connected with each other. And as Stetman, writer for the Federalist in other places, explained this, I thought pretty succinctly on Twitter.

She said, I respect my many feminist allies in this fight, but this is fundamentally true. Transgenderism is not an aberration away from the fundamental assumptions of feminism, but their logical conclusion. The central tenet of all waves of feminism has been that the differences between the sexes are not biological but socially constructed, that your sex should not matter with regard to any important decisions in your life or how society interacts with you. But this is and always has been a lie. The differences in our brains and corresponding psychology have just as much scientific backing as the difference is an upper body string. Only difference is one threatens the premise of feminism and the other doesn't, but they both come with societal and personal implications. I think that pretty

much summarizes it. Feminism has preached from the beginning that the physical differences between the sexes are largely unimportant and irrelevant, while a stepman points out outright denying the existence of some of the differences. It's only a short distance from that to the trans activist claim that all of the differences are effectively non-existent. Sex is a social construct. It's a performance. It's a thing that an individual chooses to participate in or not. Now, that idea is absurd, but it's absurd in the same way that feminism is absurd.

Feminism and transgenderism are cousins at the very least, but probably more like twins in the midst of a sibling rivalry. They have more in common, too. Both gender ideology and feminism are hostile to. the nuclear family, both see it as an inherently oppressive and patriarchal structure, which has to be demolished. This, again, has been feminism's professed intention from the beginning of the movement, all the way back down to the first way. The trans activists are explicit about this as well. But, you know, and so when they talk about the evils of the family, they are indistinguishable from each other. The two once again are looking through the same

lens. But most of all, they have this in common. And this is what really means. They are relativists. All leftists are relativists. In fact, you could stop using the word leftist and simply call them relativist because relativism is the gospel they all share. It's the thing that binds them together. It's the creed they all profess. A left-wing feminist may believe that there's an objective physical truth about the world, which we can all know. But if she's on the left, then she certainly at least believes that moral truth is relative. We're not subject to any ultimate moral order. We construct our morality for ourselves. One cannot be pro-abortion without having this view, the view that there is no objective or fundamental moral truth. So once again, the trans activist takes this to its logical

conclusion. If there is no objective moral truth, then who is to say that there's any objective truth at all. If I can create my own moral universe, then why can't I create my own physical universe? The trans activist takes the left-wing feminist up on her own word. He follows her premise all the way down to the bottom, to its

core, and she looks and sees what it looks like, and she recoils in horror at the results. But she doesn't realize she's looking in the mirror. It is feminism and transgenderism, which are two sides of the same coin. That's why the feminist can't take a swing at gender ideology without hitting herself in the process.

And this is why she ultimately fails in the fight. And that's why they cannot accept me or any of us as allies. But at least, where J.K. Rowling is concerned, if we don't have that in common, we will always still share a bond as best-selling children's authors. That's one thing they can't take away. Now let's get to our five headlines. Did you know that one out of three Americans regularly suffer from nausea? Every time I watch the news, I get nauseous. And every time I travel in a car, as you know, I get nauseous.

Especially the 20 hours we did to go on vacation. I was especially nauseous. And that's why I made sure that I had my trusty relief band. I never leave home without it. That's why people call me Mr. Relief Band, because I always have it with me. That's what they call me. It's true. Relief ban is the number one FDA- cleared anti-naugia wristband that's been clinically

proven to quickly relieve and effectively prevent nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more. How it works as relief ban stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls nausea, then it blocks the signal that your brain is ascending to your stomach telling you that you're sick. It's like the name says. It's legitimately a ban you wear on your wrist to give you relief from nausea. And you can change the intensity depending on how you're feeling to make it stronger or

weaker. It's really that simple. So if you're finally taking that summer trip or you're just, you're just a little bit. just nauseous from everything going on in the world. I've got good news for you. Right now, you can join the over 100,000 relief band users with an exclusive offer just for my listeners. If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code Walsh, you'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and no questions asked, 30-day money-back guarantee. Remember, it's better to have a relief band and not need it than to need it and not have it. So head to R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com and use

our promo code Walsh for 20% off plus free shipping. Before we get into the headlines, I've got to tell you this is the most important highlight. In fact, we have a new item now available in the DailyWire Shop and go to dailywire.com and go to our store there. We've got all kinds of great products. And I know I'm a little bit biased, but I think, honestly, frankly, I think we do have the best store at the Daily Wire. I mean, all the other ones are great, but ours is the best because of items like this. So this is the newest thing.

this is our shirt where you can profess your pride in being a believer in space aliens with the My Truth is Out There shirt because, as I've said many times, I don't know if aliens exist in the universe, but they exist in my heart. They are my truth. And I know that my truth is out there in the form of an alien with that beautiful wig on as well. So go to dailywire.com and get those shirts now. Speaking of Martians from outer space, this is from the Daily Wire, it says in a contentious exchange in which an abortion rights advocate and law professor acted patronizingly towards Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley,

who asked whether her phrase, people with a capacity for pregnancy simply meant women, the professor accused him of being transphobic. This is University of California at Berkeley law professor Kiara Bridges, And she appeared at a hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine legal concerns following the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. And rather than describing the exchange, I think it's better if we just watch it. Here it is. Professor Bridges, you said several times, you've used a phrase, I want to make sure I understand what you mean by it. You've referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?

Many women, cis women, have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy. So this isn't really a women's rights issue. We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley. So your view is that the core of this right then is about what? So I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic, and it opens up trans people to violence.

by not recognizing that. Wow, you're saying that I'm opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women or the folks who can have pregnancies? So I want to note that one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide. So I think it's important. Because of my line of questioning?

Because we can't talk about it? Because denying that trans people exist and pretending not to know that they exist is dangerous. I'm denying that trans people exist by asking you if you're talking about women having pregnancies. Do you believe that men can get pregnant? No, I don't think we're not thinking of agreement. So you're denying that trans people like this.

And that leads to violence. Is this how you run your classroom or students allowed to question you or are they also treated like this? No, no, no, they're told that they're opening up people to violence by questioning. We have a good time in my class. You should join. You might learn a lot. Wow, I would learn a lot. I've learned a lot just in this exchange. Extraordinary. Okay, so to use a phrase that I absolutely hate, there's a lot to unpack here. First, we again get this straw men. of you deny trans people exist. Now, we have to answer this charge, I think, in a specific, in a particular way. Because in one sense, it's true that we do deny that.

We deny the logical and scientific validity of transgenderism as a concept, or at least we should. So in effect, we deny that, quote, trans people exist as a category, we don't, though, deny the existence of people who identify as trans. Okay, that's the distinction. That's the nuance. And the left, though, when they say you deny trans people exist, they're trying to conflate these two things. They're trying to erase this distinction, right? But it's also a clever trick because it provokes conservatives oftentimes to say, and I maybe have been guilty of this in the past. And it's just when you're not being

when you're being lazy in the way that you in the way that you speak you might you might respond and say no we don't deny the trans people exist and just leave it at that and if you say that though he's oh no no of course trans people exist then it sounds like you're endorsing the whole concept like the idea that a person can be trans in that the claims they're making about the world are actually true so that's you know it's that is a a self-identification that people have made about themselves, claiming to be transgender, that is sort of beyond gender to exist in this other category. There are people who have made this claim about themselves. There are men out there, males who make the claim that they're women. Those males do exist. The claims they're making,

though, are not true. But there are a few other points to make based on this exchange. Another is that this woman is, we always have to note this, is a law professor. She is a, she is a, and yeah, she's at Berkeley, but even so, she's a highly educated academic in charge of informing and teaching and tutoring young minds. People spend exorbitant amounts of money to send their children to this person. And even conservative parents do this. Now, there might not be a lot of conservative parents sending their kids off to Berkeley, but conservative parents spend thousands of dollars plunging themselves and their children into years of debt for the privilege of being brainwashed by this fruitcake or fruitcakes just like her because what we have to understand

is that she is not at all an aberration. Nearly every college professor in the university system is just like that. Nearly every single one. There are very few who at least publicly would disagree with anything you just heard that woman say. Almost all of them have bought in, in a public-facing way at least. That's all that really matters. Because if they know better but in their heads, but they're still preaching and teaching this kind of madness, then that's all that matters. I mean, at this point, I really see no difference between sending your kid to a university and sending them off to some sort of like suicide cult in the jungle somewhere to be indoctrinated. I don't really see a difference. It's madness with few exceptions.

Like there are a few colleges out there that are still safe. And when I say safe, I mean, colleges that are actually interested in educating people. A few of them. The vast majority have gotten out of the education game. They got out of it a long time ago. And now what they are educating children in, not even children, young adults, the education they're providing is indoctrination into the most insane worldview, the world has ever seen.

Also note how she says, well, when you, when you, you say this, or when you ask this, it's not even a statement that Josh Holly was making, as he points out, he was asking a question, not even making a statement. But when you ask this question, she says, you're opening trans people up to violence. And then he asks for clarification. And what does she say? She doesn't point to the mythological epidemic of hate crimes against trans people. That isn't really happening.

Instead, she says suicide. That's what she points to. So when she says violence, when you're provoking violence against trans people, what she's saying is you're provoking trans people to commit violence against themselves because of what you're saying. What she's saying is trans people have guns to their own heads. And if you don't stop saying what you're saying right now, they're going to pull the trigger. This is the emotional blackmail that we get. And of course, it's not based in reality whatsoever. even if it was.

Like, our obligation is to speak the truth. And you cannot sacrifice the truth for any reason whatsoever. And that's where we start. But it also just so happens that the claim she's making is not true. Or at least the implication, insinuation that if you, trans people are committing suicide because people are questioning their identity. as we have seen as we went over and what is a woman in the film scott nusion talked about uh trans people are the most suicidal 10 years after transition so what that means is that you can

you can give them all of the affirmation in the world it doesn't do anything to solve the suicide problem in fact that arguably the statistics show it makes it worse and we should see that now I mean, I think the left would at least admit or would concede that today, on this day in the year 2022, we are a far more affirming culture of transgenderism than we were 30 years ago. Yet is the trans suicide rate lower today than it was 30 years ago? No, it's higher. That doesn't make any sense. if affirmation is what prevents the suicide epidemic from happen.

And then, of course, we have evidenced again illustrated for all to see the two universes, as we talked about in the opening, the chasmic divide, two sides that cannot be reconciled. You hear the professor, the way she says it, she says, are you claiming that men can't get pregnant? This is supposed to be a gotcha from her against Senator Holly. What, are you actually saying that men can't get pregnant? Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm saying the thing that every single person on earth would also say up until 12 seconds ago. And even now, in the last 12 seconds, the vast majority of people would still say this.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Now, perhaps she doesn't believe what she's saying. There are a lot of thoroughly unimpressive, lackluster people in academia and beyond who have made careers and names for themselves by repeating the nonsensical tripe that's been. scripted for them. So it could just be that. Or maybe she does believe it. As I said, it doesn't make a difference really one way or another. And then you see the left's reaction. This is another litmus test moment because that clip has gone viral on the left and the right with people on the left if you go to social media saying, oh, this professor, she demolished Josh Holly, embarrassed him, humiliated him. These are people who watch the exchange. You just watch.

launched with a woman claiming that men can get pregnant. And they come away not only agreeing with her, but believing that she totally dismantled and humiliated the other party in the conversation. We're in two universes. I'm sorry to say, but as I have been saying for years, there is no reconciling this. There is no common ground in between. It doesn't exist. the only unity, the only reconciliation is for one universe to be destroyed, right?

This is like for the two universes to collide and one to be destroyed. That's the only unity here. And the left has made that clear. Yes, you can be united with us. We would love to be united with you. But you have to renounce everything that you believe, beg for our forgiveness, give up on your entire worldview, all your most deeply held beliefs,

and then come over to us in our universe, and then we can be united. Although, even then, not really. Because you're still going to take a subservient role. The fact that you ever disagree with us at all, we're not going to ever forget about that, or forgive you for it. But we will allow you, you know,

we'll allow you to be part of the team, maybe as a water boy or something. that's the message. All right. And our message has to be similar in return. The only difference is that we have grace and forgiveness. But we have a similar message in that, no, what we're saying to the other side is, no, we cannot come over to you. You need to abandon this delusional, insane worldview that you have and come back into the light and the truth.

That's the only way that we can be united with you. We cannot come to you. You have to come to us. All right, let's go to this. The Daily Wire has this report. It says a disturbing video purportedly taken in St. Paul, Minnesota, last week, shows diaper-clad black toddlers, cursing and attacking police officers. AlphaNews.org posted the video online, said it was shot as the officers.

Attended to execute a search warrant for a murder suspect. Two toddlers can be seen punching, kicking, cursing, throwing rocks at the officers. You can also hear someone else appears to be an adult. who's exhorting the children, egging them on, and taunting the black officers. We have that footage. Let's play that now. That's just an incredibly sad video for one thing. That one kid is a kid could be more than five years old.

And what hope does that child have in life, really? And is it, we're not going to say there's no hope. I mean, there's hope for everybody. Certainly pray for that child. But that is a kid at an extreme disadvantage in life. And why is that? Because what we're told, what the left would say, you watch that video. And they would say, well, those kids are, those, they're victims of systemic races.

They would actually agree with me that the child is, of course, at an extreme disadvantage. But they would say it's because of the system, the system. racism. Is that what you see in the video, though? The problems in the inner city. Are they due to systemic racism and police brutality? Or are they largely due to what we just saw, what we just witnessed, which is the obliterated family structure, negligent or non-existent parenting? Or sometimes parenting that's worse than non-existent, where the parent is present, but actively encouraging their children to engage a behavior like that. It's kind of like, I guess we would call that anti-parent thing.

And it also shows the totally impossible situation that police are in. When you've got toddlers acting like that, I mean, they're being trained from a young age to assault police officers. What hope is there for the police in these communities? And the difficulties that police face all of the anti-police sentiment, as we transition into the next story here that I want to make sure I mention, all of that is all the more reason to hold the cops in Yuvaldi accountable. Because you have to contain the rot in Yuvaldi.

Don't cover it up. Don't shield these cops from accountability. If you do all of the anti-police stuff, it only gets a thousand times worse. So here's the latest there in Yuvaldi. This is from the New York Post. It says, cops responding to the Evaldi, Texas school shooting, ran away from gunshots while 19 children and two teachers were left to die in their classrooms, according to new footage of the horrifying attack published Tuesday.

This footage is out there, which I'm not going to play it, but you can go and find it if you want to. And one of the reasons I'm not going to play it, there's not a lot of, there's not a lot to be learned from it from the audio. And it mostly just shows, it's a long video, and it mostly just shows these officers standing around in the hallway. The disturbing video first obtained by the Austin American statesman shows how police officers dilly-dallied in the hallway of Rob Elementary School instead of charging toward 18-year-old

gunman Salvador Ramos as he systematically slaughtered 21 people on May 24th. The 77-minute clip shows officers rushing into the school just minutes after 18-year-old Ramos began his rampage. But rather than confront him, they stop and linger. with one cop in a helmet and vest, even seen using a wall-mounted hand sanitizer and checking his phone. That's probably the most shocking thing from this video is towards the end of it. These guys have just been standing around the hallway, and he kind of saunteres over to this hand sanitizer thing that's on the wall and sanitizes his hands while he's there. And I've even heard some people trying to make excuses for that saying, well, he might be sanitizing his hands because he knows he's going to have to administer medical aid. And so that's that's why he's doing that.

Yeah, except that he sanitizes his hands and then just continues to stay. stand there doing nothing. He doesn't do that and then run into a minister medical aid. There were a lot of kids who needed medical aid and died because they didn't get it, but the officers were just standing there. Maybe I should correct myself, they don't just stand the entire video. In the first part of the video, you see them run away because first they enter, they are hot on the heels of the shooter. They make it into the building a couple minutes after him. They're going towards the classroom. Then you hear gunshots, and you see these cowards running for their lives.

And then they spend most of the time cowering behind, you know, in a hallway, an adjacent hallway. I said there's not a lot you can learn from the audio and the video. There is one thing, though, an important thing, is that several minutes into this, you hear more gunshots coming from the classroom being fired by the shooter. He's not firing at the police officers. So we can't, of course, assume that that is him killing more children. children. And this proves what was already pretty evident, but I think now it proves it, that because those officers didn't go in, more children were killed. It's not as though, as we were originally told, that the story kept changing, of course, but one of the early versions of the story is that by the time the officers got there, all of the damage had been done. And he'd already slaughtered all of these people. And the shooting was over. And now as much.

more of like a hostage situation. And so that's why they were waiting around. Or they couldn't get in. We were also told you they couldn't get in the door because it was locked. So it turns out the door was not locked. It was unlocked the entire time. They were cowering on the other side of an unlocked door. But we also know now that he continued slaughtering kids while those officers heavily armed, whatever it is, 19 of them, ballistic shields heavily armed are just standing on the other side of the door as kids are being slaughtered. Really, all these officers should be put in prison until they rot. That's what should happen.

It's not going to happen. So at the very least, all of their names need to be released at the very least. We have the right to know who these people are. And if that's all the accountability that happens, at least it's something. There's another point to make here also, which is that after Yuvaldi, what we've heard from the gun-grabbing crowd is, well, you see, the good guy with a gun, that doesn't work. That plan doesn't work. No, there's no problem with the plan. The good guys with guns were right there. They could have saved countless lives. They were right there. But they didn't do anything.

They just stood there. They were not good guys. That's the problem. It's not the issue is not with the gun. is that they were not, you need good guys with guns. That means men, people who are courageous and willing to do the right thing. There are a lot of people like that in society. Unfortunately, none of them were in that hallway that day. All right, let's go to this. John Bolton was on CNN after another January 6th hearing, and one moment in this conversation really stood out. Listen to this. It's also a mistake, as some people have said, including on the committee, the commentators, but somehow this was a carefully planned coup d'etat aimed at the Constitution. That's not the way Donald Trump does things. It's rambling from one half-vast idea to another,

one plan that falls through and another comes up. That's what he was doing, as I say, none of it defensible. But you have to understand the nature of what the problem of Donald Trump is. He's to use a Star Wars metaphor, a disturbance in the force. And it's not an attack on our democracy. It's Donald Trump looking out for Donald Trump. It's a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. I don't know that I agree with you, to be fair, with all due respect.

One doesn't have to be brilliant to attempt a coup. I disagree with that. As somebody who has helped planned coup d'etat, not here, but, you know, other places, it takes a lot of work. And that's not what he did. It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.

Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol, As to that, there's no doubt. But not overthrow the Constitution to buy more time to throw the matter back to the states to try and redo the issue. And if you don't believe that, you're going to overreact. That is a really amazing video. Just the total lack of curiosity on the part of Jake Tapper, who's allegedly a journalist. You've got John Baldwin who announces, oh, I've planned coups.

I've done that many times. there's no follow-up from Jake Tabber saying, when did you do that? Which coups were that exactly? You can tell me more about that? We know the government does this. Orchestrates coups and insurrections, even as they claim that there are attacks on democracy in this country.

They organize those sorts of things and instigate them and fund them and carry them out in other countries. So we knew that the government did that, but they don't usually admit it. You know, you usually have government officials not only admitting it, but bragging about it. Because what he's saying, what he's responding to is the claim that you don't have to be brilliant to organize a coup. And he's saying, no, you do, because I've done it. And I'm brilliant. I'm great at doing coups because I'm such a brilliant guy. Jake Taber asks, no follow-up.

Instead, he says, yeah. You know, I've planned coups. Uh-huh, yeah. Continue. Continue to your next point. We don't need to linger on that at all. My God. All right, one of the things, before we get to the comment section, a long story in the Wall Street Journal, which Taylor Lorenz actually tweeted,

and she tweeted with the caption, The ban air conditioning movement is growing. Headline, Employers Beware, people who once put up with thermosats set to deep freeze, now want the kind of climate control they had working from home. The article goes on, public health nurse Becky Graham brought a suitcase of winter clothes from Minnesota to a springtime conference in Atlanta where it was 80 degrees. Miss Graham said, I have a tank top, a long-sleeved shirt, and a sweatshirt on in jeans, and I'm still cold. She lent what layers she could spare to those who arrived ill-suited for the deep chill of conference rooms

in Atlanta's convention center. For two years, people who worked from home could fine-tune thermosets to their liking. As they head back to the offices, many are lamenting the loss of control over their work-day environment. I got to tell you, this article goes on for pages with all of these sob stories from people complaining that it's too cold in the office now. They have to go back to work because they've been working from home. Now they've got to go back to work, and it's cold

because of the evil air conditioning. Now, the article doesn't actually call for banning air conditioning, but it is part of this anti-air conditioning genre that exists. And I have to tell you, the anti-ACOMs, movement. I think we've talked about this before. I don't think we talk about it enough, though. It is barbaric, really. It is pure barbarism. Every summer, we have to go through this. So let's just review it again. First of all, if you want to ban AC, if you are anti-air conditioning, to any extent at all, then you are anti-human. Because air conditioning is without exaggeration,

one of the top five, maybe top three human inventions of all time. It competes with the printing press. I think it may actually come before it. It's hard to think of any individual innovation, and you could challenge me on this, any individual invention or innovation that has so helped to increase human health, happiness, and well-being more than air conditioning has. Before the world had air conditioning, you know what people did? They just suffered in the heat. Okay? It was hot and sticky and it smelled and it was gross and it was sweaty and it was filthy and it was horrible, much like Los Angeles is now. But even in Los Angeles, Angeles, you can still go inside and enjoy the air conditioning before the looters come in

or someone comes in and robs you at gunpoint. But before then, you can have the air conditioning. It saves lives. This is why we owe it to air conditioning and to our forefathers who gave us this great blessing to blast it as much as we can in the summer. I mean, just blast it. It should be warmer in your refrigerator than it is in your house and in your office. If you're too cold, wear a sweater. Because we always have to remind people, if you're too cold, you can always put on more layers. You can wear a whole snowsuit if you want. You know, if you build an igloo in the office if you need to, you can do anything. But if you're hot, there's only so many layers you can take off before HR gets involved, before the police get involved. So I'm glad we could

establish this once again. Now let's get to our comment section. Many of us spend more time every day in our office. chair than in our cars or beds. That's why it's so important to invest in the right chair to spend those hours with the right level of support and comfort to get the most productivity out of your day. X chair has made my time at my desk not only more productive, but it's honestly my favorite place to sit for any reason. I don't have my, I just have a crappy wooden chair that I'm sitting in right now. I couldn't bring my ex chair on our trip. I tried to fit it in the car, my wife. I said, we don't need any other luggage. I'm just going to bring my ex chair. She said, that's crazy.

So unfortunately, I'm going without it. But the reason I love the X-Chair is that it has the patented dynamic variable lumbar or DVL support that offers customized support. But an X-chair can also give you a massage. It can heat up or cool down. It's got all those features. And now, thanks to X-Chair's new FS-360 armrest, I can even adjust my armrest to the perfect position that I need. All these unique X-chair features help the hours on my desk fly by in complete comfort. That's why I love my X-chair, and I miss it terribly.

due to popular demand. X-Chair has extended their sale through July 15. So you can buy now before prices increase again. Go to X-chairwalsh.com. Now, that's the letter X-Chair, W-A-L-S-H-H-com. Or call 1-844-4-X-Chair. X-Chair is a complete 30-day money-back guarantee for complete comfort, and you can finance your purchase for as little as 30 bucks a month. X-chairwalsh.com now. Zach says, when Matt was showing the picture of the web telescope, I'm shocked he didn't end that segment by saying this picture shows how much is in the universe and this is more proof that there have to be aliens somewhere out there in the universe, missed a perfect opportunity to drop more pro-aliant propaganda. I did, I didn't miss that. I did point that out, didn't I? I'm pretty sure I didn't miss

that opportunity. I never would miss that opportunity. I'm a big alien supporter, as you know, which is why we have these new shirts, which are available at the daily wire store. My truth is out there. We'll get yours now. Zaz Razumataz says, behind every Vic There's a dude in address saying he's the bigger victim. Could not have said better myself. Another comment says, Matt making fun of how Jill Biden pronounces bodegas while simultaneously pronouncing Unitos as Unitos.

How am I supposed to pronounce it? How is it? Unitos. Unitos? Is that what it was supposed to be? Look, I'm allowed to mispronounce Spanish words because I speak English number one, but also because I'm not trying to pander

to the Hispanic community. So I'm allowed, even though I'm in this glass house of mispronouncing, I can still throw stones, at least at Dr. Joe Biden, PhD, because she commits this grammatical crime while trying to pander to the Hispanic community. If you're going to do that, then I think you have to be held to certain standards of pronunciation. Another comment says saying Spanish people are tacos is like saying that is a box of Lucky Charms, which would be especially offensive actually as Lucky Charms are the worst cereal. At least tacos are delicious, you know. Freeze 32007 says, as a black man who actually enjoyed friends, the TV show, I never once thought about the lack of black people until they just now mentioned it.

Well, that's because almost nobody thought about that in the 90s. Okay, Al Sharpton was thinking about that kind of thing. the 90s. Jesse Jackson was. Very few other people were. We were kind of living our lives, especially if you were, I don't know how old you are, but if you were a kid in the 90s, this is not something you thought about very much. Liam says, hey Matt, quick question regarding the telescope capturing stars and galaxies billions of light years away. It takes millions and billions of years for light to reach us from that far away. Does that mean that those stars and galaxies have existed for billions of years? How does that fit in with the creation account in Genesis? I've always

believes in the literal interpretation of seven days. This seems to lean more towards the day age theory. Thanks for your time, SBG for life. Yeah, well, the problem of distant starlight is, I think, one of the greatest problems that the people who take the literal interpretation of Genesis face. I think there are a lot of problems for that interpretation. But the fact that these stars exist and are billions and trillions of miles away, and we can see them is scientific proof that they've been,

that the universe is billions of years old, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be able to see them. The light would not have made it to us by now. As far as that goes, look, the account in Genesis talks about days, uses the word days, before there's even a sun which appears in the account. right so so we know that it can't be a literal 24 hour day because the literal 24 hour day is defined by earth's relationship to the sun that's what a day is um if there's no sun then our conception of a day has has to be completely altered a day is a relative thing at all the days are a day could be

two hours or 200 years depending on where you live and um and and the universe, I mean, depending on where you live in the universe, where your planet is, and all that. So that's how these things are defined. So if we're talking about a day before we have a sun, then it's obvious that we mean day in some other sense, not in the literal 25 sense. All right. And finally, Lauren says, Matt, who's doing your makeup while being incognito? Well, Lauren, you know those are the questions we don't ask. You know that you get banned from the show for asking that question. And also the answer is my wife, and we won't speak of it again.

Pride month is sadly over. All the corporations have taken down their rainbow logos and stored them in the garage until next year. And while their celebration might have ended, what is a woman is still one of the most popular movies at home on Rotten Tomatoes. So we're still celebrating our own sort of Pride Month, because I am very proud of this film. At least it's got a 97% audience score from well over 5,000 ratings, still getting, talked about people are still watching it, even if mainstream reviewers still won't touch it. DailyWire is known for creating fearless documentaries and other pieces of content like what is a woman. That's not all you get.

If you subscribe to DailyWire Plus, you'll get everything you love about the DailyWire and so much more. As a member, you get exclusive access to new shows and content from Jordan Peterson, plus the entire Prager You library, plus original movies and documentaries, plus animated and live action kids content coming soon. You're getting all of that. We're building the future you want to see. You got to join us, though.

We need your help. Head to Dailywireplus.com and become a member. That's Dailywireplus.com today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. For our daily cancellation, we head west to the great mystical fountain, which pours forth with an endless stream of cancelable people and things and people who look like things. I'm speaking, of course, about California,

where Governor Gavin Newsom has proudly announced a new law that he's very excited about. The Daily Wire reports, Democratic governor of California, Gavin Newsom recently recently, put several gun measures into law, including one on Tuesday, that would allow lawsuits to be filed against gunmakers. The law, AB 1594, creates a firearm industry standard of conduct, including the requirement to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls and take reasonable precautions to ensure that the firearm industry does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products

who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls. That's very clear. If a member of the gun industry fails to comply with these standards and others set forth in the bill, they may be sued. Newsom said in a statement, in part, nearly every industry is held liable when people are hurt or killed by their products. Guns should be no different. And we have more here from the governor explaining this new piece of legislation. Listen to this. Well, it's well known that nearly every industry is held to account when their products cause harm or injury. Well, except one, the gun industry. The gun lobby, well, it spent millions and millions of dollars buying off politicians. to shield themselves from any liability.

Today, California is going to change that. They can no longer hide from the mass destruction that they have caused. I'll be signing a bill that will allow Californians to sue irresponsible gun manufacturers and distributors. If you've been hurt or a family member is a victim of gun violence, you can now go to court and hold the makers of these deadly weapons accountable. Our kids, families, and communities deserve to live without the worry. of gun violence. And with Assembly member Ting's bill, gunmakers will finally be held to account

for their role in this crisis. Well, this is all it should go without saying complete nonsense. In fact, no industry is held to account if their products are misused or used illegally. No industry is required to put safeguards in place which prevent individuals from exercising free will while they use the product. No industry has held to that rather impossible standard. Newsom doesn't want the gun industry to be treated like any other industry, but rather he wants it to be set apart from all other industries and how it's treated. It's not difficult to think of examples that disprove Newsom's point here.

For instance, you can't sue the car manufacturer if somebody runs a red light and teabones you. You can't sue the car manufacturer or the alcohol company if the person, new T-Bone-you, was drunk behind the wheel. You can't sue Black and Decker if somebody hits you over the head with a hammer. You can't sue whatever company made the knife that someone plunged into your chest. You can't sue the toaster company if you electrocute yourself because you were trying to make toast while taking a bath. You can't sue, you can't purchase a helium balloon and then sue Party City after you jump off a building and break your back because he thought the balloon would help you float safely to the ground. Here's when you can sue. If you get injured while driving

because your car randomly blows up or the wheels fall off. If you get electrocuted by the toaster while using it properly outside of the bathtub, if you get hit in the head with a hammer because the head of the hammer flew off while you were trying to nail something, you might have a chance at winning a lawsuit against somebody because of that. If Party City markets its balloons as suitable parachute substitutes, then you certainly could suit for your broken back and would probably win millions. If a product is used properly and in accordance with the law, and during that proper and supposedly safe usage, it hurts or kills somebody, that's when you consume.

If a product is marketed a certain way and the marketing says, hey, you should use the product to do this. And then you buy it and do that. And because you did what the marketing said, you hurt yourself or somebody else. Once again, lawsuits will come because of that. And you can sue gun manufacturers in those circumstances already. You can sue gun manufacturers for a range of things, in fact. The left claims that gun manufacturers are totally exempt from all legal action,

but that would come as news to the families of nine Sandy Hook victims who sued Remington and won $73 million just a couple years ago. But in that case, they were suing over Remington's marketing practices, claiming that it was marketing its product in a dangerous and reckless and irresponsible way. Now, whatever you think of their claim, the point remains that you can already sue gun manufacturers for all of the same reasons that you can sue any other type of company. For another example, a gun manufacturer was sued back in 2014 when one of their hunting rifles exploded injuring a man's hand in burning his face.

The gun was being used properly and legally in accordance with all the laws and regulations and in keeping with gun safety protocols. And it certainly was not marketed as the exploding type of gun. But it exploded and it hurt someone. So the manufacturer was sued. In California, they want a single gun manufacturers out, make a special case out of them by making them the only companies that can be sued for harm done

when their product is intentionally and illegally misused. And you know, you can pretty much hurt yourself or somebody else with almost any object or product if you are determined to misuse it, which is why those kinds of lawsuits in any other case would not be allowed. Now, if this law is allowed to stand, which it probably won't be, it'll almost certainly be blocked in court. It would bankrupt the gun industry. And that, of course, is the point.

Now, the left knows they can't abolish the Second Amendment, so instead they look for these kinds of end-run maneuvers. If they can't get rid of your legal right to purchase a gun, they can just try to get rid of your ability to purchase a gun because there are no guns available, because they've bankrupted all the gun distributors. That's what they'll try to do anyway. They're not going to succeed because the assault on gun rights

is the one area of the culture war where the left has consistently failed. That's what makes them so angry and so desperate, especially Gavin Newsom, who is 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 Benchapiro 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 Vodoski. Our associate producer is McKenna Waters. The show is edited by Jeff Tomlin. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire, 2022. Today on the Ben Shapiro show,

a Berkeley professor goes viral for lecturing Senator Josh Howley on men having babies. We examine a shocking tape of a toddler cursing out a police officer in Minnesota, and Joe Biden's inflation is getting worse and worse. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.