Ep. 1567 - Why I Went To Speak In Front Of The California Assembly Yesterday

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I testified in California yesterday in support of a bill that would keep men out of women's locker rooms and sports teams. We'll talk about that.
Also, some female members of Congress banded together to demand that they be allowed to vote from home in defiance of the Constitution. And a prominent race hustler declares that every law written before 1965 should be abolished because they were all written by white men.
Plus, Cory Booker filibusters for over 24 hours. It was the longest filibuster in history.
What was he filibustering?

Why was he doing this? That still is not clear. We're talking about all that and more today in The Matt Walsh Show.
Look, I don't know your exact situation, but if you're like the thousands of homeowners American financing talks to every month, you're struggling to keep up, barely making ends meet, drowning in high interest debt, and it's not your fault. Life got more expensive.
Inflation hit hard. And if you're still carrying credit card balances with 20% interest rates while your mortgage sits untouched, you're ignoring the one thing that could turn it all around, which is your home.
And this is where American financing can help. Would you trade 10 minutes for a shot at saving an average of $800 every single month? Because that's exactly what homeowners are doing when they call American Financing.
A simple, no-obligation call could change everything. They have a team of salary-based mortgage consultants, so there isn't any incentive to put you into a loan that doesn't make sense.
And there are no upfront fees to find out how much you can save. Don't wait.
Call American Financing today and start feeling that relief. 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.
You won't find many instances in modern life where there is near unanimous agreement on anything. It doesn't really matter what the issue is.
You're probably not going to find a consensus. There was a recent poll that supposedly showed that around a third of millennials believe the earth is flat, for example.
So whatever explains this phenomenon, whether it's the internet or drug use or a large-scale mental health crisis or some combination of the three, it's hard to deny that it exists. As a country, we simply cannot agree on much.
And, you know, we weren't always like this. Not so long ago, presidential candidates like Nixon and Reagan could win 49 states.
Try picturing that happening again in your lifetime. It's very hard to imagine.
But despite this sea change in American politics, there are still some issues that remain uncontroversial. Not many, but they do exist.
And maybe the most important point of consensus is that despite the relentless corporate propaganda to the contrary, Americans still believe that basic observable biology is indeed real. They have not fallen for the scam of gender ideology, at least not to the extent that many people assumed that they had.
Specifically, 79% of Americans do not believe that men should play in women's sports. And we've talked about that poll before.
It was from the New York Times recently, which is, of course, one of the main proponents of gender ideology. But even the New York Times had to admit that Americans can see through the propaganda.
According to the results, 67% of Democrats also agree that men, whether they're supposedly trans or not, should stay out of women's sports. And to put that number of context, you will not be able to get 67% of Democrats to agree that Donald Trump shouldn't be hauled before an Antifa firing squad and summarily executed without a trial.
But on this issue, there's broad agreement across political parties, and that's why even Gavin Newsom is taking the side of the 67% of his own party. And that makes sense, of course, because in order to believe that men should be able to play against women in sports, you have to ignore what you can see with your own eyes.
I mean, it's one thing to harass and intimidate millions of Americans into going along with the fiction that biological sex is meaningless and that men can become women in the abstract. Yes, it's an egregious lie, but it's also tempting for many Democrats to go along with it.
After all, if we're just talking about words and pronouns, they might say, then what's the harm of affirming this, even if it's not true? This is the logic that many Democrats have internalized, in no small part because, in many cases, they know that they'll lose their jobs and their friendships if they don't. But it's an entirely different proposition to convince people that there's no issue with trans-identifying men playing sports against women, because for someone to go along with that particular lie, it's not enough for them to fall victim to propaganda from the Human Resources Department or their university's DEI office about how gender is supposedly malleable and meaningless.
They have to go a step further than that. They have to also pretend that high school boys' soccer teams can't actually destroy the women's Olympic soccer team, even though everyone can verify that that happened.
They have to ignore the obvious strength differences between men and women that they see constantly in everyday life. They have to affirm, in other words, that what they're seeing with their own eyes is in fact a lie.
They have to go full 1984. And it's very difficult to get a majority of people to do that, even if they're Democrats.
What's remarkable is that despite this consensus among both conservative and liberal voters, politicians in the Democrat Party continue to insist on forcing women to play against men. They've continue to ride this 80-20 issue where they are on the 20 side.
They've continued to ram through their egregiously unpopular agenda, which is something that can only happen if people don't speak up. If 80% of voters want something and their elected representatives ignore them, then we can deduce that voters are not holding the representatives accountable.
They're not showing up to hearings, making their opinions known. They're not ejecting anyone from office for defying them.
They're staying silent in the face of an extraordinary rejection of basic biology that everybody knows is completely insane. And that's why yesterday I flew across the country to speak at a hearing in the California State Assembly.
And this hearing concerned a bill that was proposed by Republican lawmaker Bill Assaylee. The bill would reverse California's current law, which allows males to compete against females from elementary levels all the way up to college, as long as the males claim that they're really women.
That law's been on the books since 2013 in California, and Assay bill would overturn it, which again is what the majority of voters want in the country, but also in California. When it was my turn to speak, of course, I only had two minutes.
That's why I decided to focus on the single most important aspect of this entire debate, which is actually not fairness or safety, as important as those are. Here's what I told the California Assembly Watch.
Today, I'm not going to talk about fairness, although it's certainly true that allowing men to compete in women's sports is deeply unfair. And I'm not going to talk about safety, although it's certainly true that allowing men into female sports teams and into their bathrooms is incredibly unsafe.
I'll let others highlight those important points. I want to talk about something even more important and even more basic.
It's the most basic thing of all. It's truth.
You must keep men out of women's sports and out of their facilities for the simple reason that they are men. Men are not women.
A man who claims he is a woman is still not a woman. So why shouldn't men play in women's sports? Because they aren't women.
It isn't true. We should not allow men into women's sports for the same reason we shouldn't go around claiming that two plus two equals seven.
It's just not true. It is a lie.
The man who identifies as a woman is either deluded and confused, or he is a cross-dressing fetishist looking to play out his fantasies in public. In either case, the claim that he's making, the claim to womanhood, is not true.
And compelling women to take part in this untruth is evil, perverse, and predatory. If you would use the force of law to compel young girls to use a changing room with a boy, you are yourselves predators.
Transgenderism is a lie. It is, in fact, the most deranged lie that mankind has ever invented.
In a free country, nobody should ever be forced to participate in a lie. As lawmakers, you have an obligation to the truth.
It is a truth that I know you all recognize because every human who has ever lived on earth recognizes it, that men are men and women are women. It is that simple.
And the question before you is just as simple. The question is this.
Will you side with the truth, a truth so basic that every toddler understands it, or will you disgrace yourselves by denying it? That is your choice to make. Now, after I spoke, a student who lives in Riverside, California named Taylor Starling testified about how her spot on the varsity cross-country team was stolen by a male student.
Taylor worked very hard for her spot on the team. She lost it because of California's law.
At no point did any Democrat on the committee express any sympathy for Taylor. They didn't care at all, of course.
Instead, when it came time for the two Democrat witnesses to testify, they attempted to basically rebuke Taylor indirectly. So listen to these two

activists and pay attention to the arguments they're making and the arguments they don't make. Listen.
For well over a decade, California has allowed transgender student athletes to compete alongside their cisgender peers and to use the restrooms and facilities that best aligned with gender identity. These policies have been working for years.
The author of AB 844 frames this bill as an effort to protect women and girls. As the mother of a 21-year-old daughter, I worry about my daughter's safety constantly.
Sexual assault and violence directed at women and girls is at epidemic levels. But that threat of violence comes largely from their coaches, intimate partners, and family members.
There is no credible evidence to suggest that trans students are a threat to their classmates or their teammates. And this is why anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations denounce bills such as this.
I'm also the proud mama bear for my daughter who is trans, and I'm here to make sure that you understand that everyone deserves to have equal access to facilities in alignment with their gender. I know we just talked a lot about sports, and the issue of sports and facilities is actually very tied together.

My daughter has played soccer, baseball, roller derby, and hockey, and I have to say I love it when she has a game or a practice. She comes home feeling grounded in her body.
With her safe involvement in sports, she gets to stow off the sparkly, wonderful human that she is. By contrast, in spaces where she has not felt comfortable using facilities aligned with her gender, I've seen her physically uncomfortable with stomach aches that have sometimes kept her home from school.
As you can hear, they offer a bunch of lame deflections that were geared towards the kind of testimony that Taylor Starling delivered. They implied that Taylor's emotions didn't matter because their so-called trans child was getting tummy aches when his gender wasn't affirmed at all times.
Not being allowed into the girls changing room was making his tummy hurt. That's what she just said.
They suggested that trans identifying males aren't assaulting female athletes in locker rooms. Conservatives are making a big deal out of a handful of incidents.
You know, girls are saying they don't want to be forced to change in front of boys. And the answer from these activists is that, well, the girls shouldn't complain because the boys aren't physically assaulting them, except when they do.
Those reflections are morally deranged and, to put it mildly, unconvincing. But more importantly, they do absolutely nothing whatsoever to respond to the point that I was making, which is like, again, the fundamental point.
At no point did either of these witnesses actually defend the proposition that men can become women or that boys can become girls. The mama bear with the alleged trans child didn't launch into any kind of explanation of how sex is meaningless and how she was really the one who was on the side of truth and basic biology.
Instead, she talked about how sad her son felt whenever people didn't lie to him and say that he's really a girl. This is all that trans activists have because they know their underlying position is incoherent and also massively unpopular.
My point is that the fundamental claim they're making, the claim that men can be women, is false. And none of them address that point at all, as if the truth or falseness of their fundamental claim is somehow irrelevant.
As if to prove my point, or to prove this point in general, prior to my testimony, a California lawmaker named Rick Chavez Zabor announced that everybody who believes in basic human biology is in fact a Nazi. So young girls who don't want to change in front of boys are morally indistinguishable from concentration camp guards, according to this maniac.
He made these comments during a hearing for a similar bill, which would have banned male athletes from competing against women in high school in California. Listen to this maniac.
Listen. Really reminiscent to me of what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
We are moving towards autocracy in this country. In Nazi Germany, transgender people were persecuted, barred from public life.
Mr. Gonzalez? I appreciate my colleagues' comments, but if we could stick to the point.
This is about this. This is about this Bill.
They were barred from public life. They were detransitioned.
They imprisoned and killed in concentration camps. And the way that it started was the same kinds of things that are happening in this country by the Trump administration.
Really reminiscent. So, you know, when this moron, when he sees a bathroom that says women, he looks at that and says, oh man, this reminds me of the Holocaust.
You know, Nazis weren't fans of transgenderism, he says. And therefore, if you don't believe in the lie of transgenderism, you're a Nazi.
And if you're not familiar with basic logic or history, and if you have an IQ hovering around room temperature, then maybe this kind of reasoning is persuasive to you. But very quickly, it also leads you down a pretty unsustainable path.
For example, you might come to believe that highways are racist because, after all, the Nazis created the Autobahn and we wouldn't want to be like the Nazis. Therefore, you don't get to drive on the interstate, which, to think of it, I mean, Pete Buttigieg also says that highways are racist.
So maybe we're starting to see a pattern here. Along the same lines, the Nazis banned many forms of animal experimentation.
So if you think that's a good idea, well, then I got bad news for you. You're probably a Nazi.
So this lawmaker is not making any kind of coherent argument, nor is he addressing the issue at hand, which is whether men should compete against women in sports.

Even less is he addressing the fundamental issue underlying it, which is whether it's actually true that a man who says he's a woman really is a woman.

He skips over all of that and instead accuses everybody else of being a Nazi.

For his part, the chair of the committee, Chris Ward, was not much better.

Here were his remarks towards the end of the hearing over the bill that we were testifying about. You know, it's been mentioned here that the basis for, I presume, both of these bills, but it was stated here for this bill, is that transgender women are not women, that they are men.
I do not agree with that. I'm going to go back to my own exploration as I came to realize that I was gay.
Because in that era, as we know in the 90s, we were told that this is not biologically possible. It is not possible, nor is it normal, for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman.
and many actually still agree with that here today as well. And we fought long and hard for the rights that we've gotten there, some of which are under threat today.
Now, kind of flipping a coin on its head under this bill, a transgender boy would be forced to change in a girl's locker room, even though they might have a facial hair, they might very much express or look like a boy. And how uncomfortable might that be to girls who are in that locker room? So you hear his little spiel there.
Now, throughout this entire hearing, the Democrats on the committee, including Chris Ward, refused to ask me any questions, nor did they ask Taylor or anyone else any questions. Instead, during the question period, they gave little speeches like this one, accusing those of us on Team Sanity of being Nazis and bigots.
His bit there about there's been claims that trans women are not women. That's directly in response to what I said.
In fact, he's looking right at me. But making sure to not frame it as a question, because then I'd have a chance to respond.
He didn't want to give any of us a chance to actually respond. They certainly didn't want to give, say, Taylor Starling also a chance to talk and to elaborate.
I would have liked to see Chavez give Taylor, the young girl who doesn't want boys in a locker room with her or on her team, give her a chance to respond to his claim that she's apparently a Nazi, but there was no opportunity for that. And that all culminated in this moment when the assemblyman running the hearing looked right at me and claimed that trans women are indistinguishable from actual women, but would not allow any discussion of that point.
Instead, he invokes the gay rights movement and comes up with a hypothetical about a tomboy in a girl's locker room and then moves on. Of course, it's not a remotely relevant hypothetical.
It's pretty obvious that women would much rather have an actual girl in their locker room, regardless of what the girl looks like. No woman has a problem with that.
Even if there's a tomboy or a more masculine looking woman, that's not the issue. You'd much prefer that over a man who gains access to the locker room simply by claiming that he's a woman.
Girls would also much rather compete against an actual girl, even if that girl somehow has facial hair, as he says. And the gay rights comparison makes even less sense.
Because the point is that a trans-identified male is not actually a woman. Claims to be a woman, but he isn't.
We are denying the fundamental claim of transgenderism. On the other hand, nobody denies that gay people exist.
Now, what some of us, including myself, do deny is that, quote unquote, gay marriage can exist.

But homosexuality itself is a thing. I mean, that exists.
Transgenderism is not. Transgenderism is an ideological claim that we reject.
Now, the reason these lawmakers didn't engage with me or any of us in any way is that they know that they're on the losing side and on the indefensible side. They're on the side of total incoherence, and everyone who was in that room could see it immediately, which is why one thing I noticed, and anyone else who watched this could notice, is that as each member of the public came up to voice their approval or opposition to the bill, in almost every case, you knew where they stood before they said anything.
And there was a, this is the way they do it in California, apparently, you have the hearing, and then there's a, and then however many members of public want to come up and voice approval or opposition are allowed to do so, in this case, it was a very long line. There were probably over 100 people.
And so you're kind of looking at this line, and it was actually kind of a fun game to play in your head before each person spoke to guess what their position was going to be just by looking at them. And I was playing this game in my head and I was right probably 95% of the time because it was pretty simple.
If a person looked normal and healthy, they looked like the kind of person you wouldn't mind sitting next to on the subway. They were in almost every case on our side.
If they look like the kind of people that you would rather stand than sit next to, they were almost in every case on the other side. So here's a few clips just to show you what I'm talking about.
Here's what the opponents of this bill, the pro-trans side, look like. Watch.
Ari Critch Brinton, niece of a cisgender woman who had male characteristics and was cruelly denied the women's room throughout her too short life. I oppose this bill.
Hi, Eve Banas, representing the Sacramento LGBT Community Center in strong opposition. Hello, I am Lilac Fildreth, and I'm a college student and former student athlete.
I oppose this bill. My name is Catalina Zambrano.
I'm an out and proud trans woman. I'm the executive director of CalPride Valle Central,

and I'm a strong oppose this bill.

Hello, my name is Catherine Darrow.

I'm an out and proud trans woman.

On behalf of the trans youth of Sacramento and California,

I vehemently oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sophia Usher.

On behalf of the trans youth of California and Sacramento, I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Dean Wild, and I strongly oppose this bill. Segregation is wrong, and we shouldn't have to say this in 2025.

My name is Alex Judd, and as a non-binary resident of Citrus Heights, I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Jenny Ancier, and I'm a voter from Rancho Cordova, and I'm here to adamantly oppose AB 844. Hello, my name is Jocelyn Wagner.
I am with Bay Area Derby. I am a trans athlete, and I strongly oppose this bill.
My name is Tiffany Thompson. I remain the mother of the slowest girl on her track team, my trans daughter.
On behalf of her, her peers, and Sacramento Rainbow Kids, I strongly oppose this vitriolic bill. Hello, my name is Christina Lee.
I'm a California voter, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.
On behalf of my trans elders and my queer community and the people who are here and occupy this on this stolen land long before you ever were, you get to decide whether or not you want to be here doing the work that we are doing. Thank you.
Or you end up having to, you know, be on the wrong side. I mean, you know.
Okay. I'll take that as a position of opposition.
So you see how easy this game was. It wasn't like I said, it was a fun game, but after a while, it's not fun because they make it so easy to guess who's going to be on what side.
I was waiting for someone to throw us for a loop, maybe one person to get up there with a face mask and then be in support of the bill. But that didn't happen.
Just to reiterate, in case you missed it, here was one of the opponents of the bill that we just showed. This is, if you can't see it because you're listening to the audio, that's a person decked out in a full mask and face shield in April of 2025.
And this was not unusual. Without exception, every single person who wore a COVID mask this hearing ended up announcing that they were opposed to the bill.
In fact, every single person who looked like a patient who just escaped from an asylum when they got up to the podium came out against the bill. And by contrast, here, we'll just show a quick clip of this, but here's what the supporters of the bill, meaning the sane people, the people that want to segregate sports by sex and locker rooms, here's what they look like.
And there were quite a few of them who showed up, but just a few here. Hello, my name is Sarai McCullough, and I am also a Young Women for America ambassador and former multi-world champion in martial arts.
And I played for over 10 years, and I am in strong support of this bill. Hello, my name is Natalie Mendes.
I am from Young Women for America as well, and I played basketball, softball, and golf in high school, and I am in strong support of this bill. Hello, Mark Eskibel, Dad Talk Today, and National Family Justice.
I would just like to back up both the claims here by my gentlemen, Asalie, and Matt Walsh. They are 100% correct.

My name is Mariam. I'm here on behalf of Women Are Real and Cores, Californians for sex-based evidence in policy and law.
Males can never be females. I'm in full support

of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Emmett Adams. I am 18 years old.
I am a newly registered Democrat. I am a gay

man. And according to Assemblymember Rick Chavez, I am also a Nazi because I support this bill.
Thank you. Hi, my name is Jean Chadbourne.
I'm from Oakland, California. I'm a lifelong Democrat.
Everyone just looked like a normal person. They were all in favor of the bill.
And I'm not pointing out the differences here in order to get laughs or make a cheap point or just to mock these people, although that is also fun. This is not just an incidental observation.
The point is that the dividing line in our culture is increasingly a line between normal people and people who despise normalcy. Ironically, at one point, one of the members of the public went up to the microphone and took a shot at me.
He pointed in my direction and said that he didn't realize the circus was in town. I'm supposed to be the circus, apparently.
But as he made that comment, there was an entire line of circus clowns behind him, and they were all on his side. Cross-dressers, hypochondriacs, and face shields, bearded women, all on his side.
Yet the Yet the circus in his mind is all the normal, well-adjusted families who don't want their daughters to be forced to change in front of boys. These people are so bizarre, so abnormal, that they see normal as abnormal.
They hate normalcy, and that, again, is the dividing line. Now, fortunately, contrary to what you may have heard or assumed, the normal side is actually pretty well represented in California.
A huge number of people showed up in favor of the bills. And from talking to some of the lawmakers and staffers, they tell me that California voters are pretty firmly in their camp on this issue.
It's an 80-20 issue in California also, just as it is across the country. But at the moment, this consensus is not reflected in their state assembly, which is why both bills to re-segregate sports based on sex were voted down 6-2 yesterday.
The Democrats won't even let the bills make it to the floor for a full debate. And as a result, in California, males will continue to compete against females, even though no one, including the state's government, can explain why that makes sense.
As a result, the Trump administration, which is already investigating the state of California for violating federal law in this area, should terminate funding to the state's education department. That's roughly $15 billion in funding.
The state is openly defying both the federal government and its own voters, and there should be consequences for that. And in the meantime, more voters in California and every other state that, with a demented legislation that forces women to compete against women, men, should attend hearings like this one.
And if that happens, then very quickly, these cowards will realize that they're not anywhere near as powerful as they think they are. And this could not be more important or more urgent than it is.
Acknowledging the truth is the basic prerequisite for a functioning society. But the leadership of the state of California, along with several other states, has established that they're not concerned with the truth, or even with what their voters want.
They're committed to a path that will lead inevitably to absurdity, authoritarianism, and ultimately destruction. And yesterday, we made our position very clear on that point.
The Democrats plugged their ears and pretended they couldn't hear us. So we'll keep going until sanity reigns supreme again.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Did you hear about the recent study showing that about 20% of women who have medical abortions experience complications? There have even been some tragic deaths that have happened as well.
What's concerning is that the Biden administration relaxed the reporting requirements so the NIH doesn't have to track injuries related to these medications anymore. These pills now account for over 60% of all abortions, but many women don't fully understand the risks.
At pre-borns clinics, they see women every day who are struggling after taking abortion pills. Some even come in not knowing what to do with their pregnancy remains.
At Preborn, they welcome these women with compassion and support. They can even offer abortion pill reversal treatments if they come to them early enough.
By sponsoring an ultrasound for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, you're helping provide real choices and important information. Just $28 covers one ultrasound, or $140 helps five women see their children.
If you'd like to make a difference, simply dial pound 250 and say baby. That's pound 250 and say baby or visit preborn.com slash Walsh.
Your choice today could help save a life tomorrow. Donate today at preborn.com slash Walsh.
Okay, NPR reports two moms brought business on the floor of the House of Representatives to a grinding halt on Tuesday over their push to allow remote voting for new parents. Representative Brittany Peterson, or Pedersen, said, we don't F with moms.
She said that on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, alongside Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican.
We worked as a team, Luna said, and I think that today is a pretty historical day for the entire conference in showing that the body has decided that parents deserve a voice in Washington and also to the importance of female members having a vote in Washington, D.C. Luna and Pedersen have been working to pass legislation that would allow new parents to vote by proxy for 12 weeks around the birth of a new child.
So there's a lot of procedural stuff going on, but it all boils down to business and Congress being shut down for the sake of trying to force through a rule that would allow moms of young children in Congress to vote from home for a period of several weeks. So they don't have to show up

to Congress. They can just cast their vote through Zoom or something.
And here is what

Representative Brittany Pettersson holding her newborn, making her point as dramatically as she

could. But here she was arguing in favor of this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition

to this rule, which restricts moms and dads from doing their jobs after welcoming a new child. Like so many of our colleagues, it's one of my greatest honors to be a mom.
I have two little boys, a son named Davis, who's five, and my little guy here, Sam, who's now nine weeks old. It's also one of my greatest honors to have been elected by my constituents to represent them in Congress.

And I can tell you, after being a mom here and being only the 13th member to have ever given birth while serving in Congress, voting member, I can tell you we have a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families like mine. When I was pregnant, I couldn't fly towards the end of my due date because it was unsafe for Sam and you're unable to board a plane.
And I was unable to actually have my vote represented here and my constituents represented. After giving birth, I was faced with an impossible decision.
Sam was four weeks old. And for all of parents here we know that when our when we have newborns it's when they're the most vulnerable in their life.
It's when they need 24-7 care when taking them even to a grocery store is scary because you're worried about exposure to germs and them getting sick let alone taking them to an airport on a plane and coming across the country to make sure that you're worried about exposure to germs and them getting sick, let alone taking them to an airport on a plane and coming across the country to make sure that you're able to vote and represent your constituents. Yeah, yeah.
So, okay. So, no, this is a no.
Sorry, no. We cannot have our elected representatives voting from home.
They are constitutionally obligated to come and vote in person. And that's what taxpayers

deserve. We deserve to have representatives who show up to work.
They don't work that many days. They work like nine or 10 days a month.
I think in the week of April, they're going to be in Congress for like, yeah, nine or 10 days. So yeah, you need to show up for that.
It's only nine or 10, and we need you there, not on Zoom. We already have a huge problem of a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency in government.
This makes it worse. All of that becomes worse if you have lawmakers doing the business of Congress, not even in person.
And anyone who thinks that this would stop at mothers of newborns is just a fool. I mean, you let them do this, and within a couple of years at the latest, they're going to have all kinds of exceptions.
We all know that. All kinds of other life circumstances that would allow them to not come to work in person.
And I say hell no to that. Just absolutely hell no.
There were some conservatives kind of rallying around this, I think, because Representative Luna was involved, who's a Republican.

And it's kind of mind-boggling that you have conservatives rallying around the notion that members of Congress, that the work obligations for members of Congress are too onerous and we need to make it easier on them. Like what? What? If you cannot juggle being a politician and a mom, then stop being a politician.
Prioritize your child, resign from your position, and let somebody else take over. You could do that.
You should do that. It would be better for your child.
It'd be better for the country. And this is what makes this story, I think, kind of relevant on a cultural level beyond DC, because it's another example of the feminist, have my cake and eat it too approach.

They insist that women are superheroes who can do everything.

They can be a mom and have a full-time job

and be politicians and leaders of nations

and do all of that at the same time.

But pretty quickly, we find out that actually

they can't do all of that.

They can't do everything and be everything.

So they start demanding accommodations.

And in many cases, they demand that we upend rules and laws

and customs and policies that have been in place

This is... of that.
They can't do everything and be everything, so they start demanding accommodations. And in many cases, they demand that we upend rules and laws and customs and policies that have been in place for centuries, all so that they don't have to choose between one thing or another.

So these women want to be mothers. They don't want to leave their children with babysitters,

which of course is, I mean, that's always an option, but they don't want to do that. They also want to be in Congress.
So they want to be mothers, don't want to use babysitters, but they do want to be in Congress. They want all of that.
Well, guess what? You can't have all of that.

Okay?

It's like people are allowed to tell you no.

You can't just have, well, but I want all of that.

Well, but you can't.

Okay, yeah, we would all like to have everything all the time, but you can't.

You have to choose.

You have to make hard choices.

That's part of leadership.

And their inability to make a hard choice right now just proves all the more that they're not good leaders. This is leadership 101 is making hard choices, trade-offs.
I know this is scandalous news to a feminist, but you can't actually always have everything you want. You have to make choices.
You have to make hard choices. Make a choice and stop trying to drag us into your indecision.
You want to be in Congress?

Well, then you'll either have to forego having kids or you'll have to use child care.

You'll have to start hiring child care.

We know what you people get paid.

We know that you work part-time hours and you get paid and we know what you get paid.

You get $180,000, $200,000, whatever it is for part-time hours.

So we know you can afford child care. You can't claim you can't.
We're paying you. We know what you get paid.
You get 180,000, 200,000, whatever it is for part-time. So we know you can afford childcare.
You can't claim you can't. We're paying you.
We know what your salary is. So if you want to be in Congress, those are your options.
You could just not have kids or, and I think it's great to have kids, obviously, as someone with six of them, or you can have childcare.

But if you want to be a mother and not rely on childcare, well, then you can't be in Congress.

There's a million other things you can do.

You just can't do that.

Sorry.

You just can't do that.

But I want to.

Well, I don't care what you want.

You can't do that.

There are policies in place here.

See, what the taxpayers want is more important than what you want. You can't be everything and do everything.
You have to choose. And this is the kind of messaging that women hear all the time.
You hear people say this all the time. They say, women can have it all.
Why should they have to choose? No, you can't. Okay.
Nobody can have it all. Not women, not men.
Life is about trade-offs. And it's just that you want everyone else to make the trade-offs.
You want everyone else to make the adjustments and the changes so that you don't have to. You want us, the taxpayers, to make the trade-off here.
Okay. You want us to throw out what has been the policy in this country since its inception.
So we have to sacrifice that so that you don't have to sacrifice. No.
Again, the fact that you're even demanding that proves that you are not a leader fit to be in Congress. You can't have it all.
You can't. You do need to choose.
And that's it. And I don't care if there are, the fact that there's a Republican representative behind this doesn't mean that all of a sudden, oh, you're not loyal to the MAGA agenda if you don't.
So we have to agree with everything. So if a politician comes along and shouts MAGA, now we have to agree with everything they say about everything? Now we have to get on board with this ridiculous idea that the work requirements for Congress members are too onerous? That it's too much to ask them to show up to work for 10 days a month? Because they wear a MAGA hat? Give me a break.

All right. Here's something else absurd.

Ellie Mistles, he's the overweight race hustler who you probably don't know by name,

but when you see this guy, you'll think, oh yeah, that freaking guy.

So he has a new book out called Bad Law, which is apparently all about the laws that he thinks are bad and that we should get rid of because he says that a lot of laws are racist and misogynist, so we should just do away with them. But which laws exactly? Which laws should we get rid of? Well, he appeared on The View, where it's a great place to have these kinds of legal conversations.
In-depth legal analysis is what you turn to The View for, And he gave his answer there. Let's listen.

My premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965

Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional.

Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act,

we were functionally an apartheid country.

Not everybody who lived here could vote here.

So why should I give about some law

that some old white man passed in the 1920s, like the Immigration and Nationality Act? Okay, so I'm pretty sure he just said my premises for the book. Did he just say that? Did I hear that right? Not my premise, but my premises.
Anyway, this is an author, illiterate, no big deal. No reason why you can't write a book just because you're illiterate So, every law before 1965 is presumptively unconstitutional Get rid of all of them, he says This is the nuanced, in-depth analysis that you get from a guy who describes himself in his press release for his book As a brilliant legal mind This is the brilliant legal mind at work Every law written by old white guys should be abolished.
They are presumptively unconstitutional. Well, maybe if you're smarter than Ellie, which is to say, if you're smarter than a sofa cushion, he has the intelligence of a sofa cushion, but also the physique of one.
But if you're smart in that, you may have already pinpointed one major issue here. Calling them unconstitutional obviously assumes that the Constitution itself is valid.
But the Constitution was written long before 1965, and it was also written by white guys. In fact, our system of government was invented by white guys.
Democracy is an invention of white guys. You know what else white guys did, Ellie? They passed the laws abolishing slavery.
So I've got some bad news, Ellie. If we're abolishing every law made by a white guy before 1965, well, you just put slavery back on the menu, apparently.
In fact, you've abolished every good law that's ever been passed in this country. And if you're rejecting everything that white men did in general, then you're rejecting Western civilization itself, which, of course, someone like him, he'd probably say, well, yes, I do reject it.
But so what he's actually rejecting is everything that gives his life,

that makes his life enjoyable and meaningful and free. He's rejecting all of that.
And look,

I've given this speech a million times, and I'm sure that I'll give it a million more times,

but I won't give it right now, the whole speech about how white men deserve gratitude for being the driving force behind basically all the best things about this country and Western civilization. But this is the reason why I give the speech as often as I do, because I'm very tired of this just casual disdain towards white men.
There's no embarrassment. They're not embarrassed by it.
There's no shame, no hesitation. You could just go on national TV and say, yeah, everything that white men did, it was all crap.
It was all terrible. It was damn white men.
And for a long time, we have responded to this sort of thing defensively. The response, if there is a response at all, the response has been, Well, no, white men aren't that bad.
Come on, guys. But that's not good enough.
That response is not good enough. What we need to say is, hey, you ungrateful brat, why don't you say thank you? Why don't you say thank you to the white men who gave you this country? How about that? Okay.
That's what I want to hear out of you is thank you. I think that needs to be the response.
All right. Well, let's touch on this briefly.
We've dealt with a lot of fake news on this show, but sometimes the fake news is so fake that you have to stop and almost admire it. And that's how I felt about this headline from CBS News.
The headline says, one out of every 15 American adults have been at a mass shooting, according to University of Colorado study. That's a shocking statistic, isn't it? One out of every 15 adults in this country have been at a mass shooting.
That's about 7%. There are something like 260 million adults across the

country. So do the math.
That means that around 20 million adults have, you know, 18 to 20 million

adults have been at a mass shooting. Now, what does that mean? What does been at mean? It's like

an odd way of phrasing it. Been at a mass shooting.
It's like, hey, ever been at a mass shooting? It's just a weird way of putting it. Does that include people who've been at the site of a mass shooting after the fact? Are we including everybody in the city or state where a mass shooting occurred? Is that how we're getting to these numbers? Well, we can find out if we skip the CBS article, we just go right to the study itself.
We see that the respondents in this survey, 10,000 respondents, I think, the respondents were asked if they were physically present on the scene of a mass shooting. And it was clarified that physically present means you were in the immediate vicinity of where the shooting occurred while it was occurring, such that the bullets were flying in your direction, or you could see the shooter, or you could hear the gunfire.
That's how it's all defined. So yes, this study is claiming that 20 million Americans were actually there at a mass shooting while the bullets were flying, which is insane, obviously.
This is totally insane. Okay, unless they were polling only the residents of downtown Chicago, then these results are totally bogus.
And this is why I don't trust studies. Studies are a fake science.
If you can use a supposedly scientific method to achieve any preordained result that you have in your mind, then it's fake. It's a fake method.
So how do they get these results? Well, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't really matter.
Maybe they rigged the sample size. Maybe they only polled people in high crime areas.
Maybe people are just liars. Maybe the real headline is that 20 million Americans are unrepentant liars.
I don't know. Who knows? What I do know is that mass shootings are not nearly so common or so widespread that 20 million adults in this country have been physically present for one.
Now, if you told me that 20 million adults have been present for a mass shooting and 19 and a half million of them live in the inner city, maybe I'd believe that. If you grow up in the inner city and live there for years, your chances of at least

being in the vicinity for a shooting where four more people are injured or killed seems

relatively high.

Probably still not high enough to get to those kinds of numbers.

But if that was the claim, it'd be a little bit more credible.

That's not the claim, though.

They're trying to claim that this is a widespread national problem so that if you get a hundred random people in a room, it's likely that seven or eight of them have been in a mass shooting. That's the claim.
And I just don't believe it. And academia has tried to make us susceptible to this kind of ridiculous propaganda by convincing us that we cannot trust our intuitions.
We cannot trust our common sense. There's been one campaign after another where our supposed intellectual betters say, yeah, well, you think this doesn't make any sense, but that's because you're uneducated.
You can't trust your common sense. They did that with COVID.
They did that with the vaccine. They did that with all the trans stuff and on and on and on.
The goal is to break us down to the point where we don't trust our gut level instincts. They want to get us to the point where basically we don't have gut level instincts anymore, where we are these little baby birds with our mouths open, ready to guzzle down whatever they regurgitate unthinkingly.
And so that's where you get this game where they make some kind of outlandish claim, and then you say, you know, I don't know, that doesn't really make sense to me. And they say, oh yeah, well, here's a study that says that it's true.
This is science. Stop questioning science, you science denier.
And you're supposed to throw your hands up and say, okay,, if the studies say that Then I believe you But we need to get to a point I think many of us are already at this point Where we say, I don't give a damn what your study says Okay, that's nonsense I know nonsense when I hear it And that's nonsense Oh, well, have you looked into the methodology of the study? No, I haven't. I just know that's not true.

I know 20 million Americans have not been present at a mass shooting.

I just know that's not true.

I don't need to look into it.

I don't need to find some other study that proves it.

I just know it's not true.

It's nonsense.

I just know that because I have common sense.

And that really is the only response to this kind of nonsense. Let's get to the daily cancellation.
Well, let's face it. Current handgun storage options are like choosing between two flavors of terrible.
Either your weapon is locked up tighter than Fort Knox, completely useless in an actual emergency, or it's sitting around like an accident waiting to happen. Enter Stopbox USA, who apparently realized that forcing people to choose between safe but inaccessible and accessible but dangerous was a ridiculous false dilemma.
Their solution, the Stopbox Pro. I've been using my Stopbox Pro for a while now, and one reason I love it is because it uses a push-button locking system that doesn't require you to fumble with keys while an intruder casually waits for you to find the right one.
And unlike those fancy electronic locks that inevitably die when you need the most, this thing is 100% mechanical, no batteries, no problem. So while the rest of the world is busy making smart devices that fail spectacularly when unplugged, Stopbox USA went old-school, reliable, quick access when seconds matter, secure when they don't, and zero dependence on electricity.
Plus, I appreciate that Stopbox manufactures all their products right here in the USA at their dedicated facility. This homegrown approach guarantees exceptional craftsmanship in every unit while creating valuable employment opportunities for American workers.
For limited time only, our listeners are getting a crazy deal. Not only do you get 10% off your entire order when you use code MattWalshShow at StopBoxUSA.com, they're also giving you a buy one, get one free for their Stopbox Pro.
That's 10% off and a free Stopbox Pro. Use code MattWalshShow at StopBoxUSA.com.
Discover a better way to balance security and readiness with Stopbox. You know, it's been difficult to ignore lately that Gavin Newsom is running for president in 2028.
He's got a podcast where he talks to conservatives. He's been making half-hearted attempts to moderate some of his more insane positions.
He's also one of the few Democrats who's capable of speaking coherently in public, which immediately vaults him to the status of a presidential contender. Even if you let entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles burn to the ground, it's still easy to tell that he's a frontrunner.
That's how thin the bench is. But while the bench may be thin, it's not entirely empty, as it turns out.
Beginning on Monday night, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey decided to announce in his own very theatrical and flamboyant way that he plans to run for president in 2028. But unlike Newsom, Cory Booker didn't make this de facto announcement with a podcast.
Instead, he decided to turn the Senate floor into his own podcast by launching into a filibuster. Now, as you probably know, the filibuster is a tactic that involves speaking for a very long time in order to delay or prevent some kind of action in the Senate.
A decade ago, Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours to block a vote on CIA Director John Brennan. Huey Long filibustered for 15 hours to protest legislation from the New Deal.
Read a bunch of plays by Shakespeare, as well as oyster recipes to pass the time. Back in the 50s, Strom Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act.
In all of these cases, there is a point to the filibuster. There's an objective.
At no point in the history of this country has anyone imagined that a senator would engage in a filibuster for no reason at all. But that's exactly what Cory Booker just did.
Beginning on Monday night around 7 p.m., Booker announced that he intended to disrupt the business of the Senate without explaining why. He just rattled off a bunch of complaints, none of which had anything to do with any legislation before the Senate.
There was no clear message or theme to any of it. So here's just a few clips from his filibuster extending from 7 p.m.
to around 4 a.m. on Tuesday.
Listen. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business

of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able. I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis.
We are not solving the deficit in what they're proposing here. They're cutting and cutting and cutting things that make no sense to cut.

And they're doing it.

For a

tax They're cutting and cutting and cutting things that make no sense to cut. And they're doing it for a tax breaks which disproportionately go to the wealthiest.
Placing tariffs on our biggest trade partners is beyond unfair. This drives the cost of goods up and the consumer is the one who ends up paying the increase.
Even with universities got too woke and had too excesses, the antidote to that isn't to try to shut down the thought of the left. It's to try to make a fair, more competitive marketplace for ideas from all around the political spectrum.
Now, one of the problems here is that just a few years ago, Cory Booker wrote on Twitter, quote, the filibuster has been abused to stop reform supported by the vast majority of Americans from background checks to protecting the right to vote. We must stop this abuse of power.
That was back when Democrats had control of the Senate. They wanted to pass a federal law requiring that mail-in ballots become a permanent nationwide feature of our elections.
In other words, they wanted to make voter fraud easier and the filibuster stood in their way. But now the filibuster is good again.
And we're not just talking about a procedural filibuster here. This is the real deal.
The talk until you can't kind of filibuster. Only there's no point to this one.
He's not blocking a law on mail-in ballots or anything else. There's no law or anything he's trying to block.
He's just talking. So there's not a whole lot to be gained from watching this particular filibuster.
Even if for some reason you're interested in seeing a random politician speak for 24 hours so that you can observe his physical and mental decline in service of some kind of morbid fascination or whatever, then you probably still won't be satisfied with this footage. That's because Booker, as we all know, is the classic theater kid turned politician.
His goal is to seek the spotlight, which means that any anguish he demonstrates is probably fake. He did the same thing during the Kavanaugh hearings when he supposedly risked expulsion from the Senate with his little Spartacus moment.
Nothing about him is genuine. But just for the record, here's how Cory Booker was acting early Tuesday afternoon, around 17 hours into the filibuster.
He's either losing it a little bit or he's doing his best impression of the drifter at your local gas station. You decide.
To call to the conscience of this nation to say, I will not stand for another American to lose their health care for a billionaire. I will not stand for another veteran who's dedicated to stopping the suicide of other veterans to lose their job.
I won't stand for the air quality in my community to be worse because they're letting polluters pollute more. I won't stand for the collective assaults on the Constitution by a man who even the highest judge in our land, a Republican-appointed judge, said stop threatening and bullying other branches of government.
When is it going to be enough? My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they're trying to do.
But we, the people, are powerful. We are strong.
We have changed history. We have bent the arc of the moral universe.
And now is that moral moment again. It's the moral moment again.
God bless America. We need you now.
God bless America. If you love her, but I'm begging people, don't let this be another normal day in America.
Please, God, please, God, don't let them take Medicaid away. Well, mission accomplished there.
It's definitely not a normal day in America. The question is, why isn't it a normal day? What exactly is Cory Booker doing? Why is he doing it? What is he trying to achieve? I went looking through the accounts of various Democrats and Democrat-aligned politicians, and I still have no idea how to answer this question.
For example, DNC Vice Chair David Hogg wrote, quote, Cory Booker is a legend. The official account of the Democratic Party posted, quote, thank you, Senator Booker, for standing up for the American people.
Meanwhile, Senator Lisa Murkowski wrote, quote, whether you agree with him or not, the past 24 plus hours was what most people think a filibuster actually looks like. Congratulations to Senator Booker for his historic feat while staying on his feet.
Now, at no point do any of these people tell us what he's filibustering or why he's doing it. Even Booker himself refused to explain what exactly is going on here, what he hoped to achieve.
Booker wrote, quote, I may be tired and a little hoarse, but as I said again and again on the Senate floor, this is a moment where we cannot afford to be silent. We must speak up.
What's most clear to me tonight is that this is just the beginning, that Americans across this country, no matter their title or party, are ready to be heard. I believe that history will show we rose to meet at this moment.
It will show what we did not let the chaos and division go unanswered. It will show that when our president chose to spread lies and so fear, we chose to come together, to work together, and to rise together.
Close quote. Okay, but still not answering the question.
You're filibustering something. So you're filibustering what? On the Senate floor, the Democrats' leader, Chuck Schumer, led a round of applause for Booker.
He said everybody was proud of him, but again, he didn't explain why. Watch.
Would the senator yield for a question?

Chuck Schumer, it's the only time in my life I can tell you no.

I just want to tell you a question. Do you know you have just broken the record?

Do you know how proud this caucus is of you? Do you know how proud America is of you? Now, just to add to the surreal humor of the situation, while the applause was ringing out in the Senate to recognize Cory Booker's filibuster of absolutely nothing, one of Booker's staffers was being arrested because of a crime that Booker himself facilitated. Apparently, the staffer is one of Booker's bodyguards.
And as Fox News reports, quote, a congressional staffer for Senator Booker was arrested for carrying a pistol without a license after being escorted into the U.S. Capitol by a member of Congress and allowed to bypass security by the New Jersey Democrat himself.
Booker led the aid around the U.S. Capitol Police Security Checkpoint on Monday night, later resulting in the arrest.
Capitol Police officers are required to check aides and others at checkpoints, regardless if they're with a member of Congress or not, close quote. So why did Booker sneak this guy in and why was the staffer slinking around the Capitol building with a gun while he wasted everybody's time? Nobody knows.
At the moment, all we know is that

none of this seemed to bother Democrats in the Senate.

For once, they didn't pretend to care about gun crime.

Instead, as Booker spoke for 25 hours and five minutes,

they assisted his filibuster

by asking him fake questions to pad the time.

And then when Booker finally gave up,

they all applauded.

Watch.

The ideals that others are threatening,

let's get back to our founding documents,

that those imperfect geniuses

had some very special words

to the applauded. Watch.
The ideals that others are threatening, let's get back to our founding documents, that those are perfect geniuses, had some very special words at the end of the Declaration of Independence. It was one of the greatest in all of humanity declarations of interdependence.
When our founders said we must mutually pledge, pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. We need that now from all Americans.

This is a moral moment.

It's not left or right.

It's right or wrong.

It's getting good trouble.

My friend, Madam President, I yield the floor. Theatrical performative, as always, from Cory Booker.
He never disappoints in that regard. You always get a performance out of this guy.
And to recap, so far this week, Cory Booker rambled for more than 24 hours about nothing in particular. He didn't accomplish anything in that period except for helping a staffer commit a crime.
And now after these monumental achievements, all of Cory Booker's colleagues are celebrating him as a hero. You will not find a better encapsulation of the modern Democrat party than this.
I mean, it's perfect right down to the fact that the stunt took place on April Fool's Day. Democrats in Congress have a national approval rating of around 20 percent, and they're spending their time talking about nothing for no reason at all, while they're aiding and abetting criminal activity.
The good news for Democrats is that Cory Booker has finally stopped talking. The bad news for them is that everyone has a chance to listen to what he had to say, or more accurately, what he didn't have to say.
Democrats have no ideas, no substance, no coherence. They can only utter complete nonsense for the sake of it, as Cory Booker has so clearly demonstrated for the entire world.
And that is why Cory Booker and the leadership of the Democrat Party

that has embraced his degrading

and pointless filibuster

are today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Have a great day.

Godspeed.