The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 994 - When Parents Lose Custody For Refusing To Trans Their Kids

Episode Date: July 27, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the trans cult has a powerful ally in the courts. More and more, we’re seeing courts take custody away from parents who will not affirm their children as trans. Today we’ll talk about one especially harrowing and tragic example. Also, Joe Biden continues his transition into a ventriloquist dummy. We’re starting to see some early primary polling data, and it’s a hilarious disaster for the democrats. Pete Buttigieg says his feelings are hurt that not everyone agrees with his definition of marriage. CNN claims that Biden can save all life on earth with an executive order. And in our Daily Cancellation, Kamala Harris unveils the latest, most cutting edge innovation in the field of virtue signaling.    Become a DailyWire+ member today to access movies, shows, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc  — Today’s Sponsors:  Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Call at 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com mention offer code: WALSH Skip the grocery store & choose Good Ranchers for 100% American meat. $30 OFF your order + FREE Shipping GoodRanchers.com/WALSH or use code: WALSH at checkout! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Walls show, the trans cult has a powerful ally in the courts. And more and more, we're seeing courts take custody away from parents who will not affirm their children as trans. Today we'll talk about one especially harrowing and tragic example of this. Also, Joe Biden continues his transition into a ventriloquist dummy. We're starting to see some early primary polling data, and it's a hilarious disaster for the Democrats. Pete Buttigieg says his feelings are hurt that not everyone agrees with his definition of marriage. CNN claims that Biden can save all life on earth with an executive order. and in our daily cancellation, Kamala Harris unveils the latest most cutting-edge innovation in the field of virtue signaling.

All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show. The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe is a huge, albeit long overdue step in the right direction, but there's still a long way to go to rid our country of abortion completely. Many companies are bowling to the woke mob by donating to pro-choice causes and candidates or reimbursing their employees' travel expenses so that they can go and get an abortion if they live in a pro-life state. That's what's going on. And what if I told you that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you might be supporting these companies and their pro-abortion agendas without even knowing it just when you pay your monthly phone bill.

Don't let abortionists use your money to fund policies that you don't believe in switch to charity mobile instead. Charity Mobile is a pro-life, pro-family cell phone company that sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the pro-life charity of your choice. You don't have to compromise on values or good phone service. You get it all in the same company with charity. Charity Mobile. Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones, no device or service contracts, great nationwide coverage, and live customer service based right here in the USA. The fight for the right to life continues and pro-life causes need your support. You can help by simply switching your phone service to Charity Mobile today. Call 1877-4744-362 or chat with them online at Charitymobile.com.

Mention offer code Walsh to redeem a free cell phone offer today also. That's Charitymobile.com and offer code Walsh. We know that the trans agenda is anti-truth. anti-reality, anti-science, but that alone is not what makes it so harmful. I mean, flat-earthers are also anti-reality, and yet we don't spend a lot of time worrying that our kids will get sucked into that cult. What makes the trans agenda so dangerous and destructive is that the truths it militates against are the most basic truths of all. It seeks to warp a person's understanding of themselves, of their own identity. It means one thing to have wild misconceptions about the shape of the earth. It's another to have wild misconceptions about yourself, your body, your identity, your

place in the world. But the trans cult does something else too, which many other cults before it have done, though none with anywhere near this level of success. It attacks and destabilizes the family. One of the many truths that it opposes is the truth of the nuclear family. It hates the family because that institution, the family, attests so powerfully to the true nature of the human person and of the two sexes. It also hates the family because children raised in stable families, protected and guided by parents in a loving and sturdy marriage, are much more difficult to reach and indoctrinate. They're not impervious. They're not impervious to brainwashing, but they are significantly shielded against it. A family provides a child with an anchor.

He is secured, he's sheltered, protected. The groomers then have to take to take away this anchor, blow up to family, leaving kids unmoored and unprotected, vulnerable, like a baby deer wandering through the forest, easy prey for the wolves. This is why the groomer spent so much time and so much effort trying desperately to place this wedge in between the child and the parent. This is why we hear about so many schools that have policies of intentionally hiding a student's LGBT self-identification from parents. And even after all the backlash and outrage over these sorts of policies. Still, many teachers continue to engage in this kind of predatory behavior and brag about it openly. Here's just the latest example from this week.

If you as a teacher have a student come to you and tell you that they are gay, part of the LGBTQ community, whether they are looking into transitioning, anything like that, but they don't want their parents to know yet. The question on the news was, as a teacher, is it a teacher, is it your responsibility or as a school, is it your responsibility to inform the parents of what their child is going through? On the news, they all say yes. It is the schools, the teachers, the counselors, due diligence to let these parents know what the kids are going through. As a teacher, I disagree. I did have a student come and tell me this last year that she was gay. She did not want her mom to know, and I respected her wishes. Now, that teacher,

like so many others, wants to have intimate knowledge of a child that the child's parents do not have. This is a classic cult tactic. It's right from the cult handbook. The recruiter of the cult seeks to form a bond with the recruit that supersedes any bond they have with anybody else, including and especially family members. Take that crowbar and pry the child away from the parent. That's the idea. And increasingly, the prying is taking more aggressive. and invasive forms, often involving the courts, acting as the crowbar. In my film, What is a Woman? We heard the story, of course, of a father in Canada who was sent to jail and lost custody of his daughter because he wouldn't affirm her as a boy. For simply insisting that his daughter is his daughter, that she is his daughter and not his son, that the girl he helped conceive and raise still exists, he lost everything. The sort of thing happens frequently

in Canada and will become even more frequent with the recent passage of an anti-conversion therapy law so-called, which declares it an illegal form of conversion therapy for anyone, including parents, to refuse to use biologically incorrect pronouns for a child. If you do that, if you call a girl, she, and she wants to be called he, then you are now engaging in conversion therapy. It's against the law. Your criminal will put you in jail and take your kids away. But it's also starting to happen in the U.S.

Now, there have already been well-known cases like the Jeff Younger case that you've probably heard about. Even before that, there were cases like one in Ohio, for example, where two parents, in this case, their two parents still married, lost custody of their daughter because they refused to allow her to medically transition into a boy. The judge legally kidnapped the girl and gave custody to the grandparents that she, Judge Sylvia Hendon, trusted, would facilitate the child drugging and mutilation. Now, that happened back in 2018, and it's only going to become more common now as time continues, which means we're going to see more and more stories like that of Jeanette Cooper. Now, Jeanette Cooper is a 44-year-old woman whose tragic tale was highlighted this week by journalist Kelsey Bollar of the Independent Women's Forum.

On the IWF website, she tells the story of how Cooper, who is the mother to a 12-year-old girl, Also, by the way, a lifelong progressive Democrat. By no means is this like a conservative with an axe to grind ideologically. It's a progressive Democrat woman and mother. Lost custody of her daughter because, unlike her ex-husband, she wouldn't affirm her daughter's diluted idea that she was really a boy. Reading now from the article says, Jeanette Cooper never imagined she'd lose custody of her child.

The 44-year-old lifelong educator always consider herself a loving and responsible mother to her daughter Sophia. But when, at age 12, Sophia suddenly claimed to be transgender, Jeanette was skeptical. Sophia had never exhibited signs of gender dysphoria. In fact, Sophia exhibited many more traditionally feminine behaviors and preferences than Jeanette ever had. To Jeanette, it didn't make sense. But Sophia insisted not only that she was trans, but that she was unsafe around Jeanette. What followed was an almost Kafkaesque series of court proceedings and therapy sessions in which Jeanette's ex-husband, lawyers, therapists, and other individuals an institution supposedly concerned with Sophia's best interest, work to erode Jeanette's most

basic parenting rights. Nearly three years later, Jeanette can't even visit with the daughter she loves. She lives less than 10 minutes away, but can only communicate with Sophia by U.S. male, all because she insists that Sophia is a girl. Now from here, we're told the whole story about how Jeanette and her husband divorced in 2015. Now, at first, Jeanette was, as very often happens, was awarded almost full custody of her daughter. She had her daughter six days a week. But then one day at the age of 12, her daughter goes for a visit to her father's, who, by the way, had recently remarried and was now married to a psychotherapist.

And she goes to the visit that never returns. The girl announced out of nowhere that she was trans and couldn't live with her mother anymore because her mother's disagreement with trans ideology made her feel unsafe. Now, Jeanette suspects, and with good reason, I'm guessing, that the girl's psychotherapist stepmom has a lot to do with her daughter's discovery of her male identity. There's probably something to that theory, but also I'm sure she picked it up from school. She picked it up from social media. We've heard this story over and over and over again. So many parents with this exact story. Most of the time, they're adolescent girls, but not always. girls perfectly fine, no signs of gender dysphoria at all, no indication ever at any point in her life that she was confused about her gender, and then one day out of nowhere, just like that, she says, oh, I'm trans.

Now, in this case, the court ordered an investigation of Jeanette to find out if her daughter was actually unsafe around her, because that's what the daughter said. So they ordered an investigation, took seven months investigating this mother. and found no abuse, no neglect. But they did decide that Jeanette needs to, quote, further her understanding of and support of the minor child as relates to the minor child's gender dysphoria. Translation, she's not on board with the trans agenda, and so she can't see her daughter anymore.

And she hasn't. She hasn't had any physical contact with her child for the past three years. Now eventually, and this is where it gets even more sinister, if that's possible, eventually she was forced to negotiate a deal, right? And here is the deal that she was given by the court. In exchange for giving up any legal right to see her daughter again, she was assured in writing that her daughter would not undergo a medical transition without her permission or a court order. Okay, so this is the deal with the devil that parents are now forced to make. Give up your rights to your daughter or we will mutilate her. We will cut her to pieces if you don't give up your rights to her. Imagine being a parent having to face that decision. And so she says, well, I guess I have no choice. I'm never going to see my daughter again. But at least she won't be mutilated. But the thing is, you know, part of the deal here is that even if you agree with a court order, we can still mutilate her. And we know how easy it is to get the court order.

Jeanette points out correctly that murderers in prison now have more communication and contact with their children than she does. That kind of makes sense in a certain way because as far as the system is concerned, she's worse than a murderer. I mean, she's a transphobe. That's the cardinal sin. There's an interview on YouTube that Jeanette did with the Independent Women's Forum worth watching. She explains why she rejects the idea that she should simply have, you know, relented and allowed her daughter to take the lead and do it. whatever she wants. Here's what she says about that. And what I have been told is to follow her lead, to follow her in this journey. I am not willing to do that. I don't think that is good parenting.

It's my responsibility not to hook my boat to hers. It is my responsibility to be a lighthouse. To be something stable that she can see, some guide that she has that will always be there that is consistent. I still do that today, even though I have no custody of her. I have no medical decision making, no educational decision making, and no way to communicate with her other than by male. You know, one thing you could see just watching that video is, I mentioned, this is a progressive Democrat feminist the mother is, and you could tell just by looking at her, this is, you know, she partially shaved head in the whole nine yards. This is, and she talks about in the article, too, in the interview, how she doesn't even, she doesn't believe in traditional gender roles.

So, so, but even then, not, not good enough as far as the, as far as the far left radicals on the court are concerned, you know, in family court. As far as their concern, still not good enough. You'd be progressive, Democrat, everything else, feminist, not good enough. your kid's still not safe because there's this one item on the progressive agenda that you do not go along with the imagery that she mentions there of a lighthouse is quite powerful and it's correct

if your child is lost in the fog of confusion not sure which way is up not able to discern east from west not sure who they are your job as a parent is to be a light and a voice of calm and clarity. It's not to abandon your child to the mist and say, hey, just wander around in whatever direction you want.

You'll figure it out. Yeah, whatever. Just go that way. It's fine. But that's the strategy the court demands. Turn the light off. Leave your child to the dark. Or else we'll take her from you, they say.

Now, sort of at the end of this story here, at least up until this point, most recent development is Jeanette's daughter doesn't even identify as trans anymore. Okay, so when she originally came out as, quote, trans, and her mother said, I don't buy it. She was right. She doesn't identify trans anymore. She identifies as non-binary and uses Z-Z-Zer-Zers pronouns, which means that this is included, too, by the way.

We take your kids away. Affirm your daughter as a zer. whatever the hell that is or will take her from you. Of course, if you're in this position as a parent and you say it and you ask the court, what even is a zer? Like, what does that mean? What do you tell me I have to do? They can't explain it.

It's total nonsense. But what does it mean for the girl? It means that she's grappling around helplessly. She's totally lost and confused. She has no idea who she is. But that's exactly what the groomers want. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, dinner time is an incredibly valuable moment to me personally because I'm a gluttonous, fat ass,

but it's also valuable to my family, all of us. Dinner time is dedicated to shutting the world out, if only for an hour, and being present with my wife and kids, hearing about their day, what they saw, what they learned. The dinner table is where we solve problems together as a family. It's where my wife and I strive to set a good example for the kinds of men and women our kids will grow up to be. One of my favorite ways to gather my family around the dinner table is with Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers cares deeply about providing families with high quality meat at a reasonable price. Their mission is to bring people to the table, making those shared moments with your loved ones,

easy, accessible, and delicious. Good Rancher ships 100% American meat, born, raised, and harvested in the U.S. right to your door. Plus, when you subscribe, your price is locked in for the life of your subscription. Good Ranchers not only supports American agriculture, they're also big fans of the Daily Wire. They support all of our shows. all the more reason to support them. So use my code Walsh for $30 off plus free shipping on your first order. Take advantage of this offer today. Invest in time, share with your family. You're going to buy meat anyway. Why not buy great meat from folks who support all that we do here? Go to good ranchers.com slash walsh to start bringing people back to the table and eating seriously delicious food. You know, one other thing about this, when you hear stories like this, that's why it's so important to preserve your marriage.

you know, to fight tooth and nail to preserve your marriage. And now it takes two to tango. And so that doesn't mean, you know, if you're in a marriage and you're fighting tooth and nail and the other person isn't and they just leave and they want to blow the whole thing up, there's only so much you can do. So I understand that. But going into a marriage to have the agreement between both of the understanding that we are going to fight for this, this is one of the reasons why it's so important.

because when the marriage falls apart, now you're at the mercy of the courts. You're at the mercy of so many institutions. And the courts can come in and just say that, you know, whichever of you will be on board with our ideological agenda, we'll give the kids to you. Now, as we've seen, I mentioned the case in Ohio in 2018. Even if you stay together and you still are married,

the courts can still come in and take a kid from you. but it's a lot easier for them if you're divorced and you're already at each other's throats and there's already an antagonistic relationship, then it's a lot easier. And that's also why, you know, going into a marriage, now, like 10 years ago, it's unthinkable that you'd have to, that you, that this is a question you would have to ask someone when you meet them, you're in a relationship, you're thinking about the future. You know, when I met my wife, I didn't, we, we, in the,

early going didn't talk about this because it just didn't come up. But now, you know, if I was single today and looking to get married, and I find someone, I think this is, this is someone who, you know, there could be a serious relationship, I'm going to ask them about this on the first date. If you're a single person today, you should ask on the first date about this trans stuff. I'm not saying it's the first thing you bring up when you sit down for dinner, but I would bring it up very, very early on. You need to know, does this other person believe that biology exists? Do they understand that men are men and women are women? Do they think that children can choose their gender? Yes or no? I would ask that question on the first day, because if they say,

if you get anything but a total affirmation of reality, and when you bring up transitioning kids, if they do anything but scoff at it in horror and say that it's barbaric and insane, anything outside of that and just get up from the table, get up from dinner, walk away, say this isn't going to work. I don't care what else is going on. I don't care if you're a nice person, doesn't matter. This is not going to work. Because I can't, see, you're in, I'm living in the universe that we all occupy called reality.

You're off of fantasy land. And so there's no way to have a relationship, certainly not. of marriage where only one person in this couple is in reality. All right. Speaking of someone who's often in some other reality, Joe Biden yesterday gave a speech where he was talking about January 6th. And, you know, the Democrat Party, they were so proud of this moment from Joe Biden that they posted it. They took this clip. We're about to play for you. And they put it on the official Twitter account for the Democrat Party. Because I guess this is supposed to be a moment of Joe Biden being strong and in command and coherent.

But you tell me if that's what you see. Watch this. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-cop. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-American. Donald Trump lacked the courage to act. The brave women and men in blue all across this nation should never forget that.

Now, even for that 20-second clip, in which, by the way, he never blinks. Try to do that. Have you ever had a staring contest with someone? It's hard to get to 20 seconds. Try to make a 20 seconds without blinking. He doesn't blink at all. And I don't know if they have his eyelids taped back or something.

I don't know what it is, but he doesn't blink. And even in that 20 seconds, there's a lot of jump cuts. They're cutting around all over the place just to be able to string that together. And it is still really disturbing. to see this guy, he doesn't even, he's not blinking this totally vacant look in his eyes. And I've been pointing this out about Joe Biden since the campaign and before that. You take everything else out of it. The fact that he's wandering around, tripping, falling off of bicycles, babbling incoherently, all the, taking, you take all that out of it. You can just tell by looking in his eyes that it's just not all there.

these black sort of doll-like vacant eyes. He looks like an actual puppet at this point. He looks like, I'm half expecting to see Jeff Dunham standing next to him. It looks like a ventriloquist dummy. And they've obviously got him hopped up on all kinds of drugs. I don't know what they've got him on. And that's the best. That's like him at his best, which is why they put that up on Twitter.

And by the way, what he's saying there also doesn't make any sense. Let's just remember that. Let's not get caught up in the fact that he's senile and forget that what is being said, like the words that he's reading, don't make any sense at all. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-America. Okay, so first of all, January 6th, once again, was not an insurrection, was not an organized, serious attempt to overthrow the government. the only people that were armed on January 6th

were the Capitol Police officers who shot and killed someone. So that's the only person who died as a result of violence on January 6th was Ashley Babbitt, who was one of the rioters who was shot and killed. So that's the first thing. And the second thing is that so putting January 6th to this side, which was not an insurrection, it was a riot. And it was a very stupid and foolish event, but it was not an insurrection. So tabling that, okay.

Let's just for a second dissect this idea that you can't be pro-insurrection and pro-America. America was founded by insurrectionists. It was literally born in an insurrection. The insurrection is a violent overthrow of a government. That's what happened. That's what we celebrate on July 4th. Okay, we have insurrectionists on our money. We build statues to them.

We name cities after them. them. And, I mean, increasingly, we're taking the statues away and taking their names off, but it's not because of the insurrection part. So it doesn't make any, it's like saying, it's like saying that you can't be pro flower and pro bread. It's like this is a central ingredient in what made America. Just as a historical fact. And it is, it is actually relevant because this is not, this is not semantics here. It's not like easy gotcha thing. America was born an insurrection. Now, does that mean that we should be pro-insurrection? Well, no, because the statement doesn't make any sense. Pro-insurrection, anti-insurrection? What are you talking about? Obviously, your opinion about an insurrection

will be determined by the circumstances of the insurrection, right? Would anyone? So we hear from Biden and from the left now. They're, well, I'm anti-insurrection, really? So you think that there is never a circumstance where it would be morally acceptable to violently overthrow a government? Never? It's like never happened to it. There's never been a government that ought to have been or was justifiably overthrown.

You don't believe that. Of course you don't believe that. Once again, if you believe that, then America shouldn't exist to begin with. So that's what's your what's your opinion on insurrections? I don't know. Can you tell me like what's the what are we talking about? Which insurrection? Which government's being overthrown? Why are they being overthrown? Did the insurrectionists have any other option but to resort to violence? Like all these things need to be explained before I can tell you whether or not I think they did the right thing. It's just totally ridiculous. Okay. Let's go to this related. Here's a 2020. New Hampshire Democratic primary poll, which has been released. It's pretty early, but this is the polling data. And let's, this is, this is great comedy right here. This, look at this.

This is how bad it is for the Democrats. And if I'm a Democrat, I'm looking at that. I am panicking right now. And they are panicking. So let's just review, keep this up, because I want to review the state of things. The guy who's currently president, okay, are ventriloquering. D Dummy in Chief is at just 16% and he's not in first place. He's behind his Secretary of Transportation, who lost to him in the 2020 primaries, and who is most widely known for taking an extended maternity break in the middle of a supply chain crisis. He's, he's number one at 17%. Then right below these two is an elderly socialist woman, best know for pretending to be a Comanchee warlord. And she's not even the only elderly socialist on the docket. The other

is polling at 8% behind Klobuchar, who isn't known for anything except pummeling her staff. And speaking of pummeling staff, Kamala Harris, comes in at 6% as the vice president, barely above the big booty Latina, Keziya Cortez, who most recently pretended to be handcuffed. And speaking of being handcuffed, she barely edges out notorious crime lord Hillary Clinton, who's above Stacey Abrams, a woman who's been. wandering across the countryside for three years, claiming to be the governor of Georgia. And at dead last, as always, is Cory Booker, of course. This is what they're facing.

This is their whole roster. It is not a good situation. And you know it's not good when, you know, high-profile Democrat politicians are asked whether they think the current Democrat president should run again and they don't want to talk about it. So Cory Bush, member of the squad, was asked for her opinion. Does she think, not like will he run again, not asking for her prediction of the future, but should he run again? And she wouldn't answer the question, which is certainly a way of answering it.

But let's listen to that. Do you want to see Joe Biden run for a second term? Yeah, I, you know. That's an easy question. That's not going to take long. Do you want to see Joe Biden? I don't want to answer that question because we have not. That's not, yeah, I don't want to answer that question.

I mean, he's the president and he has the right to run for a second term, absolutely. But I don't want to, I'd rather you not do that answer. You got to like two minutes to be in the car. Yeah, I know, I gotta get to the other thing. Appreciate it.

I gotta get to the, I gotta get to the other thing that I got, yeah, I don't have time to answer that question. It's a yes or no question. I just don't have time. I got to run. That's bad news, okay?

I mean, that's like, it's like if you're married and you ask your wife, if she loves you. And she says, do I love it? Well, I don't really, we don't have time to talk about that. I got to get to the other thing. I got this, I got to, I got to go do some laundry. Not a good sign. Speaking, by the way, of the, I guess the frontrunner, the Democrat frontrunner, Pete Buttigieg, he had some thoughts recently. He was on State of the Union on CNN, and he had some thoughts about the Republicans who do not favor federally codifying the redefinition of marriage.

Now, there are plenty of Republicans, as we saw in the House that were on board with it, but the majority still were not. And Pete Buttigieg is very offended and personally hurt by that. And here he is explaining why. This is really, really important to a lot of people. It's certainly important to me. I started my day, as I try to do on weekends. I try to give Chaston a little bit of a break and do breakfast with both of our twins.

And that alone, that's no small thing, as ever. Every parent of small kids knows, it was one of those days where the tray table wasn't quite fitting into the high chair. And I'm trying to make sure that they're busy enough with their little cereal puffs to give me enough time to chop up the banana and get the formula ready. And it just, I don't know, that half hour my morning had me thinking about how much I depend on and count on my spouse every day. And our marriage deserves to be treated equally. And I don't know why this would be hard for a senator or a congressman. I don't understand how such a majority of House Republicans voted no on our marriage, on as recently as Tuesday, hours after I was in a room with a lot of them talking about transportation policy,

having what I thought were perfectly normal conversations with many of them on that subject, only for them to go around the corner and say that my marriage doesn't deserve to continue. If they don't want to spend a lot of time on this, they can vote yes and move on. And that would be really reassuring for a lot of families around America, including mine. A couple of things here. First of all, this guy is such an egomaniac. I mean, they all are, but especially this guy. And it's even more grading with him because there's just no basis for it for his ego.

Like, it has nothing to rest on, no accomplishments to rest on at all. It's like a small town mayor who runs for president, fails, spectacularly, and then he's given an appointment, you know, a cabinet appointment for no reason, other than the fact that he checks a couple of identity boxes. And so that's it. He's a transportation secretary. But he says, oh, they voted on my marriage. No, they weren't voting on your marriage, you egomaniac. That's not what the vote was. There wasn't a bill on the docket. What do you think of Pete Buttigieg's marriage? No, specifically, it's about the, should the federal government redefine marriage. Should we codify the redefinition of marriage on a federal level? That was the question

that they were answering and some of them said no, as they should have said. And by the way, the people who answer no to that, well, there's a number of reasons why you might answer no specifically to the question of should the federal government codify. But for the people who are critics of the whole, you know, of the redefinition of marriage on any level, they're not saying that your marriage doesn't deserve to continue. What they're saying is that your marriage can't exist because marriage is a particular thing and your relationship does not fall into that category. argument. Now, I realize that's still going to offend you and make you upset, but that is the argument.

And it's actually a really important distinction. As I tried to explain last week, and as many people have attempted to explain, this is all a question of definition. And the idea for thousands of years is that marriage by definition is an in-principle procreative union between a man and a woman, and it serves as the foundation of the family, which serves as the foundation of human society. That was the answer. That was the definition. That's what. it was. That's it. And then people like Pete Buttigieg came along and said, well, it's not that anymore. And then the question and response has always been, well, then what is it if it's not that? Pete Buttig has an answer that question. He says, well, my marriage deserves to be treated equal

to other marriages. Well, but equal means the same. Pete, and is it the same? Is it the same? with Chasen, is it the same as, is it in principle in its substance, in its function? Is it the same as my relationship with my wife? And the answer is no, because my relationship with my wife has the potential to create new human beings. And yours doesn't. So that is a difference, right? That's a difference. We can all agree.

No question about it. That's a difference. Is it an important difference? Is it a definitional difference? I would say absolutely it is. Of course it is. But even putting all that to the side, you know, he says that, well, how could we talk about, they would sit and talk about transportation policy with me and then go and vote the way they did. Why should, so, so they can't talk about, you cannot have a productive conversation about transportation about transportation, policy with someone unless they agree with your definition of marriage? Unless they affirm your relationship as a marriage, you can't talk to them about transportation policy?

See, that's your problem. That's your hang up. It's not theirs. I guess for those Republicans, they figured, yeah, okay, well, I might not agree with this, but we can still talk about transportation. Why can't we? You're the one who sets down kind of the ground rules here and says, well, you have to agree with everything about my lifestyle, or we can't talk about anything. That's your problem.

That's, that's, that's, uh, that's, uh, that's you deciding to do that. All right. On the, on the subject of marriage here, there's one other thing I wanted to mention. This is from media. It says, um, Politico flagged a stunning poll result showing that a quarter of Republican voters opposed Congress passing a federal law to protect interracial marriage. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised alarm bells over rights like marriage equality, access to contraception in private sexual activity, with the Supreme Court effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, et cetera, and so forth, yada. In the latest edition of the political playbook PM newsletter, the authors noted that they

polled the act in political mourning consult poll and singled out several results, including this response to the question, do you support or oppose Congress passing a federal law to protect the right to interracial marriage? And 71% of a voter support it with just 15% opposing. And this is like the shocking. I can't believe that many Americans would oppose the bill. You know why they probably oppose it? Not probably.

I'll tell you why they oppose it. They oppose not interracial marriage, but the totally pointless virtue signaling law that you're proposing to protect this institution that is not under any threat whatsoever. So what they're opposing is the virtue signaling pointless law. that you want to pass. Not unlike the efforts to make lynching illegal, right, just recently passed. It's a hate crime to lynch someone. Well, I oppose that bill, and every Republican should have opposed it. Not because we support lynching people, but because it's already illegal. And there is nobody who wants to legalize it. So this law serves no purpose whatsoever. It's already illegal. It's already a hate crime. So no reason to do this. You're just doing it

for virtue signal reasons. And I'm not going to go I'm not going along with that. You're treating passing laws as a, it's like a pageant. It's a stunt. I don't support that. So just to clarify, speaking of stunts and pageants, here's a Vogue, Vogue did a cover story to photo shoot of the Zelenskies in Ukraine. And before we get to the photos, before we get to the photos, is a little bit from the article. It says, there is no script for first. ladies in wartime. And so Elena Zelensky is writing her own. The wife of Ukrainian president, Valdemir Zelensky, a longtime comedy writer, always preferred to stay behind the scenes, while her husband, a comedian turned politician, whose presidency may yet determine the fate of the

free world glowed in the limelight. But ever since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, Zelenska, okay, well, that's the last name, Zelenska, has suddenly found herself center stage in a tragedy. And then it goes on for a while from there. And okay, we could see. So Annie Leibovitz was on hand to, and she's the one of the famous photographer, photographs all the celebrities and everything. And so she did, let's go through some of these photos. You see them there. The two Zelensky's posing for all these different photographs, looking very serious. He's got his trademark green t-shirt on the whole time. But there she is, I guess, out on the battlefield in a pretty blue jacket.

Because this is what you do, right? This is what you do when you're in a war and you're fighting for the fate of the free world, as we're told in the profile there. You stop to do a magazine photo shoot. That's just standard procedure. I mean, there are so many examples from history of that, right? I mean, I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are.

We're still told that the war in Ukraine is a fight for the fate of the free world. It is a war for the fate of the free world, and yet you've got celebrities going over there. You've got all kinds of media outlets showing up. Photo shoots. Vogue is there doing a cover story. Fighting for the fate of the free world, but you have time to pose for a photo spread. Nothing weird or off about that at all, right? Makes perfect sense.

Speaking of fighting for the fate of the free world, but not just for the fate of the free world, but actually for all life on earth. That's something else that's happening right now. There is a fate. There is a struggle for life itself, for all life on earth. And here's Bill Ware of CNN on CNN, fretting about the fate of life on earth and talking about how the Biden administration needs to save all life on earth. Let's listen.

So where does that leave things, right? I mean, we have more than 35 million Americans. They're under heat alerts this morning. I don't want you to do a deep dive. on how climate change has created the conditions for a lot of these things that we're seeing in a number of fronts. But what can the administration do next?

Because they may very well lose the House or the Senate in several months' time. Yeah. What should folks look for? I mean, that is the big question that the president says his lawyers are working on right now. To what extent they can stretch his executive powers without any legislative help.

It's interesting that the letter from staff part of their plea is please get Joe Manchin to change his mind. You know, this is hung up on an old-fashioned filibuster, sort of recent made-up American rules where the fate of life on Earth is at stake and doesn't seem to match. Now, if this were FDR, if this were the 40s, this was after Pearl Harbor. Okay, you heard it there.

That's the line. The fate of life on Earth. Just think about the claim, this claim that's being made. you know, like, not only is climate change happening, well, as established, everyone agrees the climate change is happening. Everyone agreed. No one denies that the climate exists. No one denies that the climate is changing. That's what climates do. That's why we call them a climate, right? So, you know, no one's denying that. And the claim, though, is that human activity is affecting the climate to such a degree that it's an apocalyptic situation.

and we're all going to die because of it. So that's one level of the claim. But then the next level is that by just passing a law, like that there is actually a piece of legislation that could be written and passed that would fix the weather and save all life on earth. And if not legislation, then executive action. This is what they're saying, that there is potentially.

There is something that Joe Biden could write down and sign, which would through the force of that act, change the weather and save all life on earth. I mean, even if you were to buy everything the climate alarmists say up to that point, even if you're with them on everything else, maybe you even agree that we're all going to die soon because of climate change. It still should seem absurd to you that there's a law that could be passed that would fix any of this. All right, one of the thing I wanted to mention a little bit of entertainment news.

Marvel has released a trailer for the Black Panther sequel, which is being called Wakanda Forever. And I'm not going to play the trailer for you or anything. This begins now, as I understand it, I think this is phase five of the Marvel franchise multiverse, whatever rollout. And it just continues on forever. I bring this up only to segue into something else. As I mentioned before, I'm a big fan of books about survival and exploration. So I just read another one. I just finished a book called In the Kingdom of Ice, which was written by, I believe, the author, Hampton Sides,

written a few years ago. And it's a tremendous book. And it tells an incredible story about the USS Janette Expedition back in like the late 1870s, early 1880s. And this was an expedition that was meant to go to the North Pole, and to sail across it across the open polar sea, which doesn't really exist, but they didn't know that at the time. And so they were trying to find this polar sea. And this expedition, well, they never make it to the polar sea, which doesn't exist. They get locked in the ice,

and they're trapped in the ice for two years up in the Arctic, just like floating on the ice for two years on this ship, right? And which means they pass through two Arctic winters where it's 180 days of darkness, and they're just on this ship. And then finally, the ice melts a little bit, and they think that they're going to escape and they're home free, but then they hit more ice and the boat, the ship sinks. Now they all have to evacuate the ship, and now they're stranded on ice in the middle of the Arctic, and they have to make it 1,000 miles to solid land, which is Siberia. So they have to traverse the ice for 1,000 miles to make it to Siberia, which, of course, is a wilderness. And they've got their, they're, they're, they're, uh,

these boats the whole way. They're kind of like pulling these boats because there are patches of water they have to sail across. And it's just this tremendous. So they finally make it to Siberia, a bunch of them die along the way. And then they're in the wilderness. And then a bunch of them die in the wilderness. And like finally a few survivors are able to find, you know, some villages of natives there. And then they make it home and they tell the story. Anyway, the point is, when I read books like this, it just reminds me, how much superhero franchises and wokeism together have totally ruined Hollywood. Because you've got these real-life stories that would make incredible films,

but there's no one to make them in Hollywood. There should be, I mean, the story that I just butchered, as I paraphrased it in three sentences, how is there not five movies about just that story? There should be 20 great films about Arctic exploration alone. and so many fantastic, tragic, almost unbelievable stories, but they're not told. And the reason they're not told is that, number one, the heroes are all men and mostly white. So that's one reason.

And the other reason is that Spider-Man never shows up. And so instead, we just get the same damn movies over and over and over again. while there are all of these spectacular stories to be told of things that really happened and that most people today don't know about and kids don't know about because they're not hearing about it in school and so they don't hear about it at all it is a it's a damned tragedy is what I'm saying all the more reason to stop watching the stupid superhero movies you have to let them like the people that are making you have to let them know we're sick of this we've seen it, give us something better. You keep watching it, they're not going to ever stop.

Do you really think Black Panther 2? Is that a more worthy story to tell than the story of the USS Jeanette? Men trapped on the ice, traversing a thousand miles, go to Siberia, survival tragedy, all of that? Black Panther 2 is a better story? Really? All right, let's get to the comment section. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein. The new Elixir. Collection featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover

the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. Sophia says, I really needed to hear that stuff about marriage. I love my boyfriend so much and we're compatible, but I tend to overthink things way too much. Well, if you love them, you're compatible. If you have values alignment, okay? So hopefully you've had that conversation by now and definitely ask them about the trans stuff. All of that lines up, then, yeah, just get married. Just get married.

What are you waiting for, Sophia? Pretty and Pink says, I was an only child and I was a handful. When you have no siblings to play with, you have to entertain yourself. I think I would have matured quicker if I had a sibling. I helped to have at least two one day as soon as I find a man who is a Matt Walsh fan. Well, that's the other thing you should be asking. So that's another litmus test. I would ask on the first date.

Are you Matt Walsh fan? Are you a member the Sweet Baby Gang? Yeah, we're actually discovering this right now. You know, having just, as I mentioned yesterday, we have just the two-year-old at home right now. The other kids are with their grandparents. So we have, you know, we're a family with an only child just for the one. week. And we are realizing what an advantage it is to have other kids who can play with her and entertain her. Because if you don't have any of that, then it's like, then it's on us all the time.

Of course, the trade-off is that when you have other kids, they also antagonize each other and fight all the time. But it balances out, I guess. And the other thing I got to get used to is that even though our two-year-old is pretty loud and she talks a lot, still, there is, there's this comparative silence in the house that's when you're a parent with a bunch of kids, It becomes silence becomes very unsettling. You crave silence, but you're also, this is the curse, I guess. It's like you crave silence because you get so little of it, but then when you get it, it's disturbing because you know what silence usually means when there's a, like if there's a moment of silence when you've all the kids at home,

you know that something terrible is happening. And so I've had to get used to that also. Blue says, Matt, I want you to know that what you talked about towards the end of the video right before the comment section part, you need to continue hammering that point home. As a 29-year-old single guy myself and with no family and never had a father, it kind of sparked something having a man I respect, tell me to go have an adventure and live in my car. Honestly, just hearing that it's okay and I shouldn't worry and I can go anywhere I want, never really would have thought about it like that, but I guess I could go anywhere in the world and do anything I want if I really wanted to.

Yeah, and it's, by the way, I'm not saying that you should go out and live in your car on purpose, like that you should seek that. what I'm saying is that if you are a young, a young, able-bodied man and you have no dependence and you have no one who's relying on you, then the stakes are pretty low for you. And you have a much better, you have a much greater ability to survive and adapt than you realize. It's just that living in modern society, we oftentimes never tested. We never test our ability to survive because we're not going to be going on expeditions to the Arctic or where it really is tested. And so you just spend all your time at home and you're watching a lot of TV and you're living in luxury and comfort.

And maybe you crave adventure at some level, as all men do. Like at some level you still crave it, but you think that there's no way you wouldn't be able to survive out there in the wild world. But you can. You just have to test yourself. And that is the beautiful thing. And if I can convince even one guy to make one young man to make this decision, then I'll think it's a success. You can really go anywhere. Take advantage of that. Go anywhere, do anything, just have an adventure. It'll be okay. I mean, you might, you know, you're going to be making some sacrifices. You're not going to be as comfortable. Even if you're not living in your car, right? You're going to be depending on yourself and you're going to be taking care of yourself. So, you know, probably you're going to end up in just some dumpy little apartment and you're not going to be as comfortable. You're not going to have all the luxuries you're used to. but it's exciting.

Go and build a life for yourself. Be your own man. There's my motivational speech for the day. Another one. So you get two in two days. We're on a roll here. As you're all aware, no one could define the word woman

as of about five minutes ago. The people in my documentary, what is a woman, legislators, Supreme Court appointees, you name it. No one can define it. As we talked about last week, Merriam Webster redefined female

in the hopes that they could stuff it down the memory whole without anyone noticing. And frankly, this is the most attention of dictionaries getting in the history of etymology, probably. With all of that in mind, we've decided to enlist the help of a team of biologists to create a garment in a lab. And what we came up with is the definition of woman T-shirt. It's here to educate all of those confused individuals by emblazoning your chest with the proper non-circular definition of the word woman. Head over to my swag shack at dailywire.com slash shop to purchase this shirt and see all the other amazing products that we have to offer today. Also, is it ironic to make an ad for an ad-free viewing experience?

Maybe, but that's exactly the type of experience you'll get when you subscribe to DailyWire Plus. This is our growing hub for all things, DailyWire, where you'll find shows, podcasts like this one, movies, bonus content, and coming soon kids' content as well. DailyWire Plus is everything you love about DailyWire Plus so much more and minus the ads. Go to DailyWireplus.com to become a member today and get 35% off your new membership. That's DailyWirePlus.com. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You know, there might be some hope for Kamala Harris politically if she could manage to stake out something close to the middle ground, right?

Positioning herself as a rational centrist. Now, she'd still have to contend with the obstacle of her abysmal personality and the visceral revulsion people experience when they hear her speak. But at least then she'd have some shot at forming a real constituency. But the problem is that there is no center. There's no middle between the right on one side and abject insanity on the other. And if there was, Harris isn't looking for it anyway. She's scrambling ever to the left, hoping to achieve relevancy by appealing to the smallest possible subset of degenerate whack jobs.

She's not alone, of course. This is the political strategy of the entire Democrat Party. Yesterday, Harris set a new standard in that department during a roundtable discussion with disability rights leaders meant to commemorate the Senate. of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And here's how she began her remarks. Listen. I want to welcome these leaders for coming in to have this very important discussion

about some of the most pressing issues of our time. I am Kamala Harris. My pronouns are she and her. I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit. Well, that's outrageous. How does she know that she's a woman? She's not a biologist. And how does she know that she's wearing a suit?

Is she a fashion designer? And how does she know that she's sitting at a table? Is she a carpenter? Maybe so. Perhaps this woman has many more skills and qualifications than I thought, which is a low bar to get over as I thought she had none at all. Harris would go on to babble incoherently, as is her custom. Nobody knows exactly what she was trying to say,

but we do know that whatever she was saying, it was impactful. The Dobbs decision and the act of the United States Supreme Court to take away a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America will impact a lot of people and differently in some situations. And we need to be responsive to these issues and also lift up the voices of all people who will be impacted in the way it will be impacted. So that's why we are convened today. And I will add a couple of points in terms of the direct impact that we anticipate there will be from the Dodd's decision on people with disabilities. Many people will be impacted impactfully in ways that cause an impact on those impacted by the impact. She truly has a way with words. You have to admit.

and her way is to string them together totally at random. But Kamala wasn't the only person, embarrassing herself at this event. All of the speakers introduced themselves by listing not only their pronouns, but also their race and their articles of clothing. It was, we can safely guess, the first time ever that a White House meeting began this way.

The Biden administration continues to make history in all of the worst and most humiliating ways possible. Let's watch. Thank you, Madam Vice President. My pronouns are she her. I'm a white woman with long brown hair. I'm wearing a red dress and I'm wearing a see-through mask so you can see my red lips. I am a black woman with curly hair and I am wearing a vintage black and floral dress. I'm a Latino with a blonde highlighted hair and I'm wearing a gray blazer over a black sheath dress. China looks on and laughs.

The entire world laughs, except for that part of the world, which suffers from the same psychological maladies as us. Now, the ostensible reason for this whole routine is to be more inclusive of the visually impaired. This is one of the latest, most cutting-edge innovations in the field of woke virtue signaling. It's even more advanced than trans pride flags and land acknowledgments. The idea is that blind people will feel more included, more involved if you provide a brief physical description of yourself before speaking. But this is obviously very stupid for reasons too numerous to count, but we'll just go through a partial list. First of all, if a person was

blind at birth, you're not helping them by mentioning your blue suit. They're not going to know what blue is. In fact, if anything, you've only further alienated them by bringing up a concept that has no meaning to them. This method of introduction then appeals to a portion. of the visually impaired, a subset of the subset. But while appealing to them, it further marginalizes everyone else in that community. Second, does it actually appeal even to that subset of the subset? Are visually impaired people asking for this? Or would they prefer it if you just got on with saying whatever it is you want to say and got it over with?

And if they do want the physical description, is the color of your jacket really what they're looking for? I mean, like, if you're visually impaired in someone speaking and you don't know what they look like and you're wondering what they look like, are you wondering, I wonder what color shirt they're wearing. Is that the information that you need to form your mental picture? No, why not mention your height? Why don't mention your weight? Like, if it were me, that's one of the questions I would have. If I couldn't see and someone's talking, like one of my things is I'm wondering, how tall are they, how fat are they? just to build that mental picture.

Why not provide a one to ten rating of your physical attractiveness? These are the kinds of details that people are actually interested in anyway. Third, does Camilla Harris give her pronouns and her selective physical description every time she addresses an audience? Well, no, of course not. She did it in this case because it's a roundtable about disabilities, but is that the only kind of conversation that the visually impaired ought to be included in? I mean, isn't it all the more marginalizing of the disabled community to specifically include

them in conversations about being disabled, but not in every other kind of conversation? So by doing this, what you're saying to the visually impaired is, oh, yeah, we really need you to be included in this conversation. But then this meeting's over and you go off and you talk about something else. He's, oh, no, we don't need you guys for this. I mean, this isn't about, we'll bring you back in when we're talking about disabled stuff. How many visually impaired people were even watching the vice presidential roundtable discussion? about the Americans with Disabilities Act, or any?

And yet Kamala Harris only makes the effort to be inclusive of the differently abled during that event. That seems even more offensive to me. This is the problem with this kind of virtue signaling. Once you start doing it, you can never stop. Because if you're saying that the whole routine of identifying the color of your jacket, like you're a character in a book for preschoolers,

if you're saying that's necessary or important for the sake of inclusivity, then you have no excuse to ever stop doing it. So you wanted to be inclusive of the blind yesterday, but not today. What gives? This is the conundrum you make for yourself. Fourth, speaking of being inclusive, the great irony is that all of these women

were making a show of their visual impairment inclusiveness while at the same time needlessly alienating and excluding the hearing impaired. Because as you notice, the clip, they were signaling virtue not only with pronouns and physical descriptions, but also by wearing masks. But face masks marginalize those with hearing difficulties. And I say marginalized in this case for once, not ironically or sarcastically.

I mean, the masks really do marginalize people who have trouble hearing. The muffled voices, the inability to read lips. This has been a nightmare for the hearing impaired. I mean, really, it has actually excluded. We hear so much about people being excluded. It has actually excluded people. They can't tell what anyone is saying. And people with hearing difficulties, they've complained about this for years about the masks,

trying to explain that all of the unnecessary masking is legitimately making it difficult for them to function in society and communicate with people. But the COVID cultist just ignored them. And now, even at a roundtable discussion about disabilities, people who suffer from that rather common disability are, again, ignored. But this is what virtue signaling is all about. It's done in the name of inclusion, and yet it always excludes far more people than it includes. The signals, the virtue signals, target people at the intersections of various identity groups and at the intersection of the already intersected groups, becoming more and more acute and specific,

until you've excluded almost everyone in the name of, including a handful of people who were already included and really didn't need the special accommodation. But that's okay to the virtue signaler because nothing that she's doing is actually for that small group. See, all the stuff about, you know, including visual impaired people, that's not who it's for. No, she's not worried about them. She's worried about herself. The point is to brand herself as one of the enlightened, one of the progressive, one of the chosen. And thus, as far as I'm concerned, I'm told for the fourth time, she is also now one of the 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 Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael 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 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 DailyWire 2020. Hey there, this is John Bickley, DailyWire editor-in-chief and co-host of Morning Wire. On

Today's episode, whistleblowers come forward alleging a scheme at the FBI to downplay derogatory information on Hunter Biden. Concern over monkeypox continues to grow, and the Senate advances a semiconductor chip bill amid a technology race with China. Join us and get the facts first on the news you need to know with our show Morning Wire.