Ep. 1584 - Another Dumb “Racism” Scandal Takes Over The NFL

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media have found their new racial martyr and victim of white

supremacy. He's a football player who got drafted into the NFL a few rounds later than expected.

They don't make racial martyrs like they used to. Also, Trump has a judge arrested for interfering

with immigration enforcement. An allegedly Republican governor vetoes a bill to keep

sexually explicit material out of the schools. And two gay influencers went out and purchased

children through surrogacy. Now they spend their time parading the kids around and using them for content.

We'll talk about all that and use code DW100 to join now. With everything that's happening in the economy, it feels like we're all walking on shaky ground.
Prices are stuck at a really high level, and it seems like nothing is affordable anymore. It's no wonder many are relying on credit cards to cover the gaps.
Credit card debt is skyrocketing, and it's leaving a lot of people stressed out. If you're a homeowner, you don't have to face this uncertainty alone.
My friends at American Financing can help you take control. They can help you access the equity in your home to help you pay down the high interest credit card debt, giving you peace of mind and real savings.
On average, people just like you are saving $800 a month. Plus, they may close your loan in as little as 10 days.
Don't let the chaos of the economy get the best of you. Call American Financing right now.
It costs you nothing to get started, and you may be able to delay two mortgage payments, giving you a cushion in this uncertain time. Call 866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711, or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh. Collective cries of anguish echoed through the heavens this past weekend.
You may have heard the sound. It was the sound of trauma, of heartbreak, of great moral outrage.
It was the sound of the left-wing hacks in sports media reacting to Shador Sanders, the son of former NFL star Deion Sanders, being drafted into the NFL a little bit later than most people expected. Now, for some background and context, Shador Sanders is a quarterback who played for Colorado, where his dad, Deion Sanders, is the head coach.
And for months, most analysts projected that he would be selected in the first round of the NFL draft, which began on Thursday and ran for three days and seven total rounds, as it always does, ended on Saturday. But the prognosticators in sports media are about as credible and have about as good a track record as the political prognosticators in the news media, which is to say they're full of crap most of the time.
So Shador was not drafted in the first or even second round. Instead, he didn't come off the board until the fifth round when he was drafted by the Cleveland Browns, who selected a different quarterback, some other players, a water boy, a cheerleader, a janitor, before they finally got around to drafting Shador.
Now, why does any of this matter? Well, it doesn't matter. But to the commentators in sports media, it was a national tragedy.
Shador's brief draft slide was ESPN's 9-11. This was the NFL Network's Pearl Harbor.
They'll never forget where they were when it happened. They were shell-shocked.
They were dumbfounded, grief-stricken. Now, here are just two very short clips, and there are dozens I can play, but two very short clips that give you a pretty good idea of how they were covering this news.
Watch. very tough time for him.
Ian? I would echo that. First of all, you guys mentioned the various people texting.
I woke up to a text from my mom wondering why Shador Sanders has not gone. I mean, that's kind of where it's reached right now.
I mean, it's everyone who casually follows football just wondering why the biggest name in the NFL draft has not gone. You know, you guys mentioned wanting to hug him.
Charles did. I've got a lot of those texts from different draft rooms in the NFL.
It feels so bad for him. Poor kid.
But those teams are also not taking it. For Deion Sanders and Shador Sanders, all I can say is I think it's disgusting.
I don't understand what the heck's going on with this. It's disgusting.
I don't get it. I've never seen anything like it.
It's never happened before. I just want to reach out and give him a hug.
Such a tough time for him. Now, to be clear, they are not talking about somebody who, I don't know, survived a school shooting.
They're talking about an already wealthy and famous athlete who had to wait a day longer than expected to be drafted into the NFL and get paid millions of more dollars to continue playing football. It's like weeping in the street because a trust fund baby got the wrong color Ferrari for her sweet 16.
I mean, most of the human population would kill just for the chance to experience this kind of disappointment. But the sports media treated Shador like a Holocaust survivor because of it.
And all of this would just be kind of funny and embarrassing, but not really worth discussing. After all, sports media embarrasses itself in some form pretty much every day.
They embarrass themselves even more often than the news media does, if you can believe it. But what makes this whole spectacle something worse and perhaps more notable is the reason why the sports media were so outraged.
And even if you know nothing about this story and you don't even know who this guy is, you already have guessed where this is going. From 10 seconds into the first clip, you already knew what they were going to say next, didn't you? Because they very predictably made this about race.
It was decided that Shador Sanders fell in the draft because he's black. Now, as an article in The Root put it, in the quote, Shador Sanders not getting drafted in the first, second, or third rounds of the NFL draft is like when that white cashier scrunches up her face and drops change in your hand instead of running the risk of touching you.
Was she a racist Karen or is that how she treats all customers? It's a racism Rorschach test. Now, nevermind the question of how else a cashier is supposed to transfer change from her hand into yours.
What do you want her to do? Stroke your arm gently as she sensuously places one coin at a time into your palm? I mean, personally, I prefer that you just drop the change into my hand so we can both move on with our lives. But that's how I interpret the racism Rorschach test.
On the other hand, for the race hustlers, when it comes to the racism Rorschach test, the answer is always, yes, it's racist. And that's why lots of commentators in sports media, of course, jumped in to make it about race very explicitly.
Here's another brief highlight reel. Watch.
We all know that it's not just about him being Deion Sanders' son. It's about the bravado he carries.
It's about the fact that he looks a

certain way. It is about the fact that the color of his skin sometimes at that position can be

questioned. Why didn't Shador get drafted in the first round? I got three reasons for y'all.
I

spent a lot of time. I was up to 1 a.m.
last night really mewling over this decision. Why didn't

Shador get drafted in the first round? Number one, he didn't code switch. What do I mean he

didn't code switch? Shador Sanders did not change his identity or how he comes off for the sake of the decision makers. He did not change how he comes off for the sake of the decision makers and who are decision makers in the National Football League.
Primarily non-minorities, primarily white people. So if it's not football, what is it? Are there racial undertones here? Racist undertones? You be the judge.
Racism is so hard to sort of grasp and prove. But it just stinks.
It smells of racist undertones of too many white people in charge in this league. That was Ryan Clark, Emmanuel Acho, and Skip Bayless in order.
Three of the most prominent sports commentators in the country. All of them agree that this came down to race.
Skip is practically in tears over it. I mean, the guy's crying almost about it.
Emmanuel says that he was up all night mewling about it, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. I assume he was reaching for the word mulling.
But the other thing about sports commentators is that they really are, for the most part, fantastically stupid. I mean, these are very, very dumb people.
Stephen A. Smith was also outraged.
He was tweeting in a frantic hysteria all weekend, repeatedly invoking Colin Kaepernick and alleging that there was collusion at play, just as there was allegedly to keep Kaepernick out of the league. And it wasn't just sports commentators.
Jamal Bowman, the former congressman, famous only for pulling a fire alarm. He's that guy, in case you forgot.
He put out a video on Saturday claiming that Shador's fate is more evidence that America continues to fear strong black men, quote unquote. And he also said this.
I take it personal when I see someone like Shador Sanders, you know, because he talk a certain way and because he wears gold chains and his pops is Dion and he don't want to submit to y'all, y'all white, you know, he's going to, he's going to slip in the draft. And you're telling me it's based on the evaluation, like you didn't watch the games and watch him play and see him play.
Like it's crazy. Peace.
Now, given that I have an audience of intelligent people, certainly more intelligent than Jamal Bowman, who has the approximate IQ of a rubber spatula, I probably don't need to explain that these racism complaints are totally asinine. I mean, if you think that Shidor wasn't drafted in the first round because he's black, you'll have to explain why the guy selected number one overall is black.
Also, the guy selected number two is black. So was the guy selected number three.
So was the guy selected number six, number seven, number eight, number nine, 11, 12, 13, and so on. There were 32 selections in the first round.
All but five of them were black. And this ratio, of course, held up through the entire draft, just as it did in last year's draft and the year before that and before that and before that and before that for decades, which is why only 25% of the players in the NFL are white.
All of the rest of them are black or some other racial minority. The vast majority of NFL players are black.
The vast majority of the biggest stars are black. The highest paid player in the league is black.
So where is the racism coming into play exactly? Is it that black players are held to a higher standard? Are black players scrutinized and penalized and criticized more? That was one of the claims we heard very often over the weekend about this. Well, that doesn't really work either because Deshaun Watson, a black quarterback, was credibly accused of sexual assault by over 20 women, 20, and yet was still given the richest contract in league history after all of those accusations were made public.
There are black players in the league who have been involved in all manner of scandals and crimes and alleged crimes. The Baltimore Ravens selected a player in the second round of this year's draft who was accused of rape in high school and then again in college.
He's also black. But they needed an edge rusher and the kid has talent, so they overlooked all the rape stuff.
That's how NFL teams operate. I mean, they don't care about the color of your skin or the crimes on your rap sheets.
They don't care if you're a serial killer. If you can help them win games, it's all that matters.
Winning is the only thing that matters. You know, most people know the Ravens, most legendary player of all time, a black man, Ray Lewis, was charged with double murder.
Two people he was alleged to have killed. A year later, he won Super Bowl MVP after.
So nothing matters in football but winning, which by the way is what I love about football football Actually, it's the ultimate meritocracy Shador suffered his tragic drop For which all of humanity weeps And the heavens cry out for justice Because he's not a great prospect He's a pretty good prospect He's better than me He definitely should be drafted higher than I should But he's not great By the standards of, you know, by NFL. He's not as talented as a lot of the guys who went before him.
Also, to make matters much worse, he's a high-maintenance diva with an ego bigger than any room he walks into. According to lots of reports, that's exactly how he came across in his pre-draft interviews with various teams.
I mean, this is a guy who had a room custom-built just for the draft night broadcast with the word legendary painted all over the walls. He has declared himself an NFL legend before even being drafted by a team.
He hosted a draft party where he performed some of his rap songs because apparently he moonlights as a rapper. And during this party, he walked around with a giant briefcase full of cash.
At the NFL scouting combine, he said that he doesn't even need to explain why an NFL team should draft him. There's just no question that Shador deserves to be drafted, according to Shador.
Listen. If you ain't trying to change the franchise or the culture, don't get me.
So you should know history repeats itself over and over and over, and I've done it over and over and over, so it should be no question why NFL franchise should pick me. You think I'm worried about what critics say or what people got to say? You know who my dad is? They hated on him too.
So it's like it's almost normal. Without people hating, it's not normal for us.
So we like diversity. We like everything that comes with the name.
That's why we are who we are. If you aren't ready to change the culture, don't draft me, he says.
That was his message to teams considering drafting him, a message that was apparently heard loud and clear. This is, of course, the opposite of what you want to say in a job interview situation.
Employers are looking for candidates who will fit into their workplace culture, not candidates who demand that the culture change for them. I mean, just imagine walking into an interview and saying, hey, if you hire me, I'm going to need you to change the whole culture and the entire way you do business.
Okay, that's how special I am. That is a surefire recipe for getting laughed out of the room.
The only real mystery here is how this jackass managed to find any team dumb and desperate enough to draft him, but it's Cleveland we're talking about. Dumb and desperate is sort of their brand.
So it turns out they actually won't have to change their culture at all. In any case, in this story, what we find is to me, the real tragedy of the left-wing race hustle.
We find what really makes it so harmful, at least one of the things that makes it so harmful, which is that it constantly destroys opportunities for much more productive conversations. so many teachable moments, especially for younger people, have been wasted over the past several years because the usual suspects inject their racial victimization narrative into it, completely derailing what could have otherwise been a useful discussion.
And in this case, we could have been talking about the value of humility. And we could use a lot more conversations about humility as it falls second only to chastity as the most underrated virtue of our time.
Shador comes from a generation that has been thoroughly brainwashed into the religion of self-worship. And his dad is Deion Sanders, who is one of the prophets of that religion.
But in the real world, you can only get away with being a narcissistic nightmare if you're extremely talented and gifted. Basically, if the weight of your ego is still somehow outweighed by your skills, well, then you can get away with it.
But even then, you're only getting away with being a narcissist. It certainly isn't helping you.
And eventually, as your skills fade, as they will for everyone, no matter your line of work, this equation may not work out in your favor anymore. You know, the thing about a narcissist is that their skills, their talents, their physical gifts, whatever it is that's causing people to put up with their nonsense, all of that isn't going to last forever.
But narcissism, unchecked, will last forever, or at least until death. In fact, it probably will only grow with age, like a tumor.
So the lesson is that no matter how talented you are, it's better to be humble. There are two kinds of people in this world, after all, the humble and those who will be humbled, as Christ explains to us in the Beatitudes.
It's much better to be in the first group than the second. And that's the lesson we could take from this.
But instead, we're hearing again about racism. Because why talk about real issues when you can talk about fake ones? If the media had a motto, that would be it.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Ever wonder what gives elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers their edge? Many are turning to Armra Colostrum.
This remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level. Armra helps build lean muscle, speeds up recovery time, and enhances overall performance without relying on artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients.
Whether you're running a company pushing for limits in training or simply looking for a natural advantage in your daily life, Armora Colostrum optimizes your body's systems for peak performance and sustained energy. Research has demonstrated that colostrum does more than just strength and performance.
It enhances your body's ability to absorb essential nutrients, supports the development of lean muscle mass, and improves endurance. At the same time, it works at the cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping you bounce back faster after intense physical exertion.
Plus, Armour Colostrum can also support your microbiome and balance and strengthen immune defenses throughout the body, and who doesn't want a stronger immune system? We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 15% off your first order.
Go to tryarmour.com slash Walsh or enter Walsh to get 15% off your first order.

That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Walsh. Daily Wire reports, FBI Director Cash Patel said on Friday that federal agents arrested a Milwaukee County, Wisconsin judge who was suspected of helping an illegal immigrant from Mexico evade immigration and customs enforcement officers.
Last week, ICE agents showed up at a Milwaukee County courthouse to arrest a Mexican citizen after a hearing before Judge Hannah Dugan. The judge directed ICE agents to wait in Chief Judge Carl Ashley's office and then told the defendant to exit the courtroom through a side door.
Patel said in a post, quote, we believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in a courthouse.

Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since. But the judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public.
The FBI director added that the bureau would share more information soon and thanked the FBI's Milwaukee field office for its work in arresting the judge. Pam Bondi, Attorney General, also confirmed it on X saying, I can confirm that our FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan, the county judge in Milwaukee, for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by ICE.
No one is above the law. So this is great.
I mean, this is exactly what we've been waiting for, what we need, holding these kinds of people accountable. And of course, the media is treating this like it's a nuclear catastrophe, but these are the same people who cheered for years while a former president was arrested multiple times.
So we don't need to take their protests seriously at all. This judge allegedly obstructed the enforcement of immigration law and stood in the way of the law being enforced.

If the allegations are true, then it's a flagrant, not even a borderline case.

I don't even know what a borderline case like this would look like, but whatever it is, it's not this.

If this is what she, in fact, did, which was tell the ICE agents to go wait over there and then sneak this guy out the back entrance, you're trying to help a fugitive essentially escape justice. And if that's the case, then she committed a crime.
She should be prosecuted. She should be convicted and then also sent to prison.
So it's important that every part of this happen. This is the first step.
But if it's not seen through to the end, including prison time, then it will have the opposite of the effect that's intended. because this should be a kind of a warning shot.
This should be making an example of this person that we don't care if you're a judge. We don't care if you're a mayor, a governor.
We have borders in this country. We have immigration law.
And you are not entitled to defy it whenever you feel like. so this is an opportunity to make an example out of someone.

But if she ends up getting off the hook, if she ends up just getting a slap on the wrist,

then you've done the opposite of making an example. You've made an example, but it's the

wrong kind of example. So she needs to go to prison if she is in fact guilty.
And if you want

to know more about this judge, Hannah Dugan, here's a clip of her from, I think, recently, not in relation to this case, but her just sort of talking about her judicial philosophy, I suppose.

Listen to this.

The rule of law is how we address our social issues, how we address our disputes, but also how we grow as people.

Thank you. is how we address our social issues, how we address our disputes, but also how we grow as people.
The rule of law is premised on equal justice, but also we have evolved into due process. And it's really the due process.
I, as a person who, for a couple decades, almost represented low-income people. It is due process that really equalizes those differences between people.
If we follow the rule of law which includes processing our cases in an orderly manner, in a predictable manner, in a manner that holds people to standards, then we're able to achieve that equal justice that we are promised and hope to have continue despite our differences, despite our class differences, despite our racial and religious differences. The Milwaukee Courthouse has for decades been known to really attempt innovations.
Apply the traditional law but also look at solutions that are more complicated because these cases that involve say veterans or mental

health patients or children are more complicated than what the law can

address. The solutions or the sanctions or the punishment or the sentences are

I'm sorry. more complicated than what the law can address.
The solutions or the sanctions or the punishment or the sentences are fashioned more towards addressing the global issues involved in the case, such as violence or mental health issues or drug treatment issues, rather than punishing outright. Okay, excruciating, but that's kind of a perfect video in many ways, because it's a perfect representation of the kinds of woke judges that are destroying our communities, destroying our country.
So much violence and chaos comes from these kinds of people. But when you listen to her and you're not paying attention to the content, she sounds very unobjectionable.
You've got the elevator piano music in the background.

It's just this old lady who sounds and looks like a DMV employee,

babbling in almost a whispered tone, kind of monotone, talking about helping the less fortunate or whatever,

not ranting and raving, not foaming at the mouth, nothing like that.

There's nothing on the surface that sort of screams radical to you.

And yet her ideology is extremely radical, and it has caused untold harm.

I mean, this woman is a conqueror and destroyer. Women and everyone like her.
Our society has been conquered and destroyed by these kinds of women. Not only women, but many of them are.
She's like the Genghis Khan of our time. That's what our Genghis Khan looks like, unfortunately.
Like a middle school lunch lady. So what is she actually saying? Well, you kind of have to understand the code.
You have to know a bit about how to translate woke jargon into English. And she says that the Milwaukee courthouse is innovating.
Well, that's a red flag number one. We don't want judges to innovate.
Innovation is not what we want from the judicial system. We want you to enforce the law.
We want you to punish the offenders. We don't really want innovation.
And then she says that, well, we're focusing less on punishment. And that, of course, is the major red flag.
That's the number one major red flag. You hear this from a judge.
That's like the worst thing you can hear from a judge. We're not focused on punishment.
It's like hearing a doctor say, you know, I'm not as focused on treating the actual disease.

I try to be more innovative.

I try to be more open-minded.

Some diseases are good.

No, treat the disease.

That's why you exist.

That's your whole job.

And as a judge, your job is to punish. Not to innovate, your job is to punish.
Now, that may not be your only job in every case, but that's really your main job. Yes, it's to punish.
Not to bring about social change, which she talks about in the longer clip. Your job is to follow the law, enforce it, and punish.
Your job is justice. You are the justice system or part of it.
And justice means punishment. That's what it means.
So when you hear that, you automatically know, despite how she comes off, this is a dangerous radical. And this is how our dangerous radicals come off.
And this is someone who, again, if she's guilty of what she's been accused, she deserves to go to prison. Daily Wire reports, North Dakota Republican Governor Kelly Armstrong vetoed a bill this week that would have required school districts to keep books determined to be sexually explicit out of the reach of students, saying that the bill was a misguided attempt to legislate morality.
Armstrong on Tuesday vetoed Senate Bill 2307, which would have prohibited school districts from maintaining explicit sexual material in classrooms and libraries and would allow concerned parents and others to initiate a review of materials they believe may be in violation of the law. In his veto message, Armstrong said that enforcing the bill would be unworkable and infringe on free speech.
Quote, expanded on a law passed in 2023 that barred public libraries from keeping sexually explicit books in their children's section. The law also requires public libraries to have a policy in place to keep explicit books out of the children's section.
SB 2307 would have expanded those guidelines to school districts, requiring districts to ensure that students were not exposed to sexually explicit material through physical books or online resources offered to them. Districts would also have been mandated to put policies in place to ensure compliance.
Armstrong in a message said that it's redundant and overly burdensome. And so he vetoed the bill.
So this is a bill to keep sexually explicit books away from kids in school. A Republican governor in North Dakota vetoes it.
Now here's the thing. He says the bill is redundant.
And if that was his only complaint, and if it were true, then I would agree with his decision to veto it. Because we get that kind of thing a lot.
A bill is passed to do something that's already being done by another bill or by several other bills. So even if you support what it's doing, you should object to it because we don't need redundant legislation.
We don't need multiple laws all doing the same thing. That's a waste of time.
It creates unnecessary confusion, unnecessary sort of red tape and bureaucracy and all that. But then this guy, Governor Armstrong, he admits in the same breath that it's not redundant because he lists all of these other things that he says the bill will do.
He says that it overreaches, that it imposes censorship. Presumably, the other bill that he signed didn't overreach, didn't impose censorship in his view, which means that this bill is different.
It's not merely redundant. It's not redundant at all.

It's doing some, you know, his actual complaint is not that the bill is redundant, but that it, but that it goes farther than other bills have gone, which is, which means that it's, again, means that it's not redundant. So let's just put that complaint to the side.
His real issue is that this bill is censorship and that it, quote, legislates morality. So let's take each of these objections one at a time.
Censorship, he says. Well, yeah, it is censorship, and that's good.
Okay, we want censorship in the schools. We do.
Yes, we want schools to engage in some amount of censorship. What does censorship mean? It means suppressing or prohibiting material that is deemed objectionable.
That's all that censorship is. That's what it means.
Now, there are plenty of contexts where we don't want censorship. There are plenty of occasions where things are censored wrongly or where the wrong things are censored.
Okay, so nobody thinks that all censorship is good. No one has that opinion.
But this idea that censorship in principle is bad, that you can sort of make an argument against something simply by calling it censorship, as if it's a foregone conclusion that, oh, yeah, well, that's censorship. Of course that's wrong.
No, that's, it's ludicrous. Okay, obviously we want to prohibit certain objectionable materials in the schools.
Obviously, we do. Does anyone actually think that there should be zero censorship in the schools? Does anyone think that literally any kind of material at all should be made available in the school buildings? Any material? So like a hardcore porn magazine should be allowed in school? A manual on how to make a pipe bomb? We should just like have that in the school library for fourth graders? Does anyone think that? Well, unless you're a full-on lunatic, you would say that those materials obviously don't belong in the schools, which means, yes, they should be censored.
We got to get over this really silly aversion people have to, well, I can't support censorship. I'm against censorship.
No, you're not. Unless you're psychotic, you're not against censorship in principle.
Yes, of course we want censorship. There's a whole bunch of stuff.
There's a lot of, there are many different kinds of material that we don't want in the schools, of course. So we do want a certain amount of censorship in the schools.
Personally, you know, I don't know about you. I mean, I could come up with 50 books off the top of my head that I would, 50 shades of gray.
I don't think that should be in the in the classroom. You know, I don't think that should be on the shelf in a first grade classroom or any grade really.
Does anyone? Okay. So censorship.
Yeah. I think, I think in the schools, that book should be censored.
It should be prohibited because it's not appropriate for a school environment. So we got to get over this ridiculous allergy that people have to the word censorship.
I'm against censorship. No, you aren't.
Shut up. No, you aren't.
We just established that you don't want Fifty Shades of Grey unless you're a total pervert. You don't want that in the school.
So you're in favor of censoring that book in that context. And that's okay.
It's okay. You can admit that.
It's okay to admit it. So objecting to this bill on the grounds that its censorship is incoherent.
Of course, it's censorship. Only a very small number of the books that have been written in human history are going to be found inside a school.

And so a lot of thought should be put into what books make the cut. And the vast majority of books will not make the cut, either because they're objectionable or they're inappropriate, or they have no educational value, or they're just not needed.
but in any case, we're making decisions about what kind of material should be made available in this context to kids. And so, yes, we're engaging in a form of censorship.
And it really is okay to just say that out loud and stop being so scared of the word. We're going around pretending, I'm an absolutist.
I'm an absolute, I don't believe. No, you're not.
Shut up. No, you're not.
No, you're not. Unless you're a total pervert, unless you're a pervert psycho, you're not an absolutist on this, so stop pretending that you are.
And you see this even from people on the right all the time. Go on X anytime you can see people.
I don't stand for any censorship at all.

Just, I'm so tired of this.

These freaking morons.

We talked in the opening about people derailing conversations, making it impossible to have any kind of real adult conversation.

And this is another area.

It's impossible to have a real adult conversation because you have these idiots running around claiming to be these like absolutists. And they're just not, you're not actually.
So yeah, let's just say, yeah, obviously there are occasions where censorship is needed, like in a school. So let's just get over that part of it.
Okay. And have an actual adult conversation about what should be in the school.
And then finally, he says that we shouldn't legislate morality. And this is another one.
I'm so sick of this, too. I guess I'm just in a bad mood today, even more than usual.
I'm so tired of this. And this is another one you hear from people on the right.
Oh, we shouldn't legislate. Again, shut up.
Just that's my answer to everything now is just shut the hell up. You're so dumb.
If you go around saying we shouldn't legislate morality, you are too dumb to participate in any of these conversations. You are so stupid that you don't belong in the conversation.
You really don't. If I could, I wish that we could take anyone who still uses the phrase legislate morality and banish them to a small volcanic island somewhere in the Pacific, okay? And let the volcano do what it's gonna do.
You know, I'm not saying we should throw them into the volcano. I'm not saying we should kill them.
I wouldn't say that. I'm just saying, put them on the island and, you know, let nature take its course.
That may sound like overkill, I understand, but I just can't take it anymore. I can't.
Even now, you still have these people running around saying, we don't want to legislate morality. We hear from Republican politicians.
At least them. Can we start with them? exile the Republican politicians who still use the phrase legislate morality unironically.
Okay. Yes, governor.
Yeah, the bill legislates morality. Do you know what else legislates morality? Literally every law that's ever been passed anywhere on earth at any time.
All of them legislate morality. That's what a law is, you ignoramus.
That's what a law does. That's the point of a law.
Why do you think we have laws? Do you think laws are supposed to be morally neutral? Like we just, we make a law, we don't even care whether it's, when we prohibit something, it's whether the thing is good or bad, we don't even know. We don't care.
We're just randomly passing laws without any sense of what's right or wrong. Is that what you want? You utter dumbass, is that what you think we should do? Every law ever passed anywhere legislates morality.
Every law is grounded in some kind of moral code. That's what a law is.
That's the point. Now, a law can be wrong.
So please don't come back and say, well, yeah, but sometimes people make things illegal when they shouldn't be. Yeah, obviously.
Yes, every law legislates morality. It can legislate it wrongly.
A law can be grounded in the wrong moral code. A law can be bad.
It can be wrong. It can legislate morality wrongly or counterproductively.
But every law, the good ones and the bad ones, legislate morality. The alternative is an amoral law.

A law that is passed without any concept of right or wrong.

Just a random arbitrary law.

A law that prohibits or allows something regardless of whether that thing is seen as good or bad.

That's the alternative.

That's what not legislating morality would entail. And that would be insane.
Okay, so take anything that's currently illegal that you think should be illegal. Because I assume if you go around screaming about, we don't want to legislate morality, I assume you agree that we should legislate some things.
There should be some laws, I assume you would agree. So just take any law.
Let's take an easy one. Everybody thinks that murder should be illegal.
At least everyone thinks that after birth, it should be illegal. So let's take the case of murdering some random 35-year-old person.
Everyone thinks that should be illegal. And it is, you know, at least in theory in every country on earth.
Okay, why? Why is it illegal? There's a riddle for you, governor. Why is it illegal? Well, you say, well, it's got nothing to do with morality.
It's because you're hurting someone. Okay, genius.
Why shouldn't we hurt people? Hurting people, who cares about that? Why should I care about that? Who cares? Yeah, it hurts someone. What does that matter? Why shouldn't I hurt people? Why shouldn't I? Oh, because hurting people is evil.
That's it. I mean, that's the answer.
If it wasn't evil, it shouldn't be illegal. Now, that doesn't mean that every evil thing should necessarily be illegal.
It does mean that everything that's illegal should be evil.

Okay, so I would say this again for our friend, the governor of North Dakota.

Not every evil thing should necessarily be illegal, but everything that is illegal should

be evil. There shouldn't be anything that's good and is illegal.

In fact, if something is wrongly made illegal and people are objecting to it,

the whole reason they're objecting to it is because they're saying, well, no, that's good, though.

You can't make that illegal.

It's a good thing.

Okay. Going 30 miles over the speed limit is illegal.
Most people think it should be. Okay.
Going 55 and a 25 in a residential neighborhood, in a school zone. Okay.
Most people think, why is it illegal? Oh, because you might hurt someone. Again, why does that matter? Because it's wrong, because it's evil, because it's wrong to harm people that way.
So any law, it only takes about one or two moves before you're back here, before you're back at morality, before you're back at a moral code. Because that's what all laws are based on.
And you can't get around it by saying, no, it's not based on laws. It's about protecting rights.

Okay, why does it matter?

Who cares about rights?

That's got nothing to do with morality.

We've got to protect people's liberty, their rights, their human rights.

Who cares about liberty?

Who cares about human rights?

Why does that matter?

Why shouldn't we take away somebody's rights?

Oh, because it's wrong to do that. Because it's evil.
because that's one of the evil things that we've decided should be illegal. So those are two things that I would appreciate never hearing again, at least not for people on our side.
We shouldn't legislate morality. I'm against censorship.
Just stop it. If I could censor people from saying that, I would.
That's why it's good that you guys, it's good for everyone that I'm not the dictator of the country because we would add this to the list of laws that I would pass. Because my laws would be, well, they'd be moral.
Don't get me wrong. But also, it would be largely based on what I personally find annoying.
That's how I would, I admit it, that's how I would govern. But I'm not in charge of that.
So it's fine. Finally, we've got this from Trump, President Trump.
He put this out yesterday. He said, I'm bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes.
The Democrats did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus, his reputation, all the Italians that love him so much. They tore down his statues, put up nothing but woke or even worse, nothing at all.
Well, you'll be happy to know Christopher Columbus is going to make a major comeback. I'm hereby reinstating Columbus Day under the same rules, dates, and locations as it has had for all of the many decades before.
So he's bringing Columbus Day back, which is great news. Christopher Columbus is a hero.
He's one of the most important and consequential figures in the history of Western civilization. Deserves to be celebrated.
I think everyone knows how I feel about this. I've given my Columbus speech probably about 50 times already.
I give it every Columbus Day, and it's not Columbus Day yet, so you've heard it at least that many times. But I'll give it 50 more times if I have to, because the attempts to demonize Columbus and minimize his importance are ridiculous, pathetic, just not credible.
And the conversation that comes up around this, again, you've got all these people saying, but Christopher Columbus He committed these acts of brutality He's a brutal He engaged in slavery and all these things Yeah, he did He committed some acts of brutality He did take slaves No, that does not disqualify him from being celebrated today If he was a person living in the modern age And he took slaves, then yeah, it would disqualify him. But we can't judge historical people through a modern lens.
This is one of those concepts that's really hard for people to grasp. I'm not sure why, but you can't analyze history or learn anything from it unless you start from this position that you understand that you're looking at all these things through a modern lens.
And that just doesn't apply. This is not moral relativism.
We're not saying that slavery was okay 500 years ago and it's not okay now. What we're saying is that the personal moral guilt of somebody who practiced it or supported it 500 years ago is significantly mitigated compared to somebody who would practice or support it today.
The reason is that it was a time when slavery was an accepted institution across the globe, including in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. Totally, it was just a given in many places, everywhere really, for thousands of years, which didn't make it okay.
But it does mean that people a long time ago just didn't see it for the evil that it was. For thousands of years, pretty much nobody on earth saw it as an evil.
So yes, that mitigates the individual guilt of any one person.

It doesn't make sense to go think back to a time when everybody on the planet thought slavery was okay and single out one guy and just make him the moral scapegoat. Put all the guilt on his shoulders.
It makes no sense to do that. Especially because the remarkable thing when it comes to slavery, the really remarkable thing is that the remarkable thing about Europeans at the time is how far ahead of their time they were on this issue.
It never occurred to really a single Indian tribe that slavery is wrong. It Never occurred, as far as we know, to anybody in Africa that slavery was wrong.
It took a while before it occurred to anyone in Asia that it was wrong. At that time, it was a globally accepted practice and would remain so for centuries.
But Europeans started to shift their thinking about it pretty soon after making first contact. it would still be practiced for another 200 years before they abolished it.
And when they did, they would be, again, still far ahead of their time. But even back in the 1500s, you start to see this shift happen, which is very early in comparison with the rest of the globe.
For instance, I'm reading a book about Francis Drake right now, who circumnavigated the globe in the 1570s. And he was a slave trader earlier in his career.
But by the time of his circumnavigation in like 1578, 79, he had started to change his mind and really abhor the practice and didn't try to enslave the natives that he encountered. And which, again, it's easy for us to like, oh, well, congratulations.
He didn't try to enslave anyone. Big achievement.
But actually, at the time, it was because very few people had that kind of insight. So it's easy for us to be unimpressed by it.
To us, it's obvious that

slavery is wrong. We were born into a world that had turned away from the practice centuries earlier, but back then at the time, it was not obvious at all.
And when you were an advanced civilization encountering Stone Age people who run around naked and in some cases eat each other, it was not at all obvious that these people are equal to us in some sense, that using them for labor would be a great moral crime. It's obvious to us now, but it was not obvious at the time.
And yet Europeans did come around to that conclusion pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things. And we inherited that conclusion from them.
Anyway, all that to say, none of that should prevent us from celebrating Columbus. And Trump says that it won't prevent us anymore.
And notice one thing that Trump also says. He says that they tore down the Columbus statues and they put up woke or even worse, nothing at all in its place.
And he's right, because you notice how this campaign was waged to tear down Columbus, to vilify and demonize him. Same thing was done to many of our other historical icons and heroes.
But there was always the question of, well, who's going to be put in their place? Who replaces these heroes? Who will be our new historical heroes? And the answer is nobody. There was no replacement.
Because wokeness has no heroes. Wokeness is an ideology with no past, no tradition, no connection to anything that came before it.
And part of that is the fact that wokeness is an ideology that would have seemed insane to everyone as recently as like 20 years ago and any time before that. So there are no woke historical heroes.
We have no woke ancestors. To be far left is to write off everyone who's ever lived up until about 20 years ago.
Write them all off as hopeless bigots. But the other part is that these people are very stupid.
They're poorly educated. They're very historically illiterate.
The anti-Columbus brigade, the statue topplers, the people tearing down our heroes, they really know nothing about history. Which is why you'll never hear them say, well, Columbus, he's not the explorer we should be celebrating.
Instead, let's celebrate this other guy. You know, whoever, Francis Drake, he was reformed on the slavery issue.
They don't say that because they have no idea who Francis Drake is. They couldn't name any Columbus contemporary.
Like, ask them to name. Next time you hear someone talking about how evil Columbus is, ask them this.
This is fun. Ask them, can you name a single other human who lived within 100 years of Columbus, before or after.
So that's 200 years. That's about two centuries.
Can you name one other person who lived anywhere on earth during that incredibly long time frame? And they won't be able to. Most of them wouldn't be able to do it.
He said, can you name one person who lived in the 1400s or the 1500s? One other person. That's it.
They can. In fact, I was thinking about this today.
This is actually a good, sort of like a very basic test. When I talk about having a simple test that you have to pass before you're able to vote.
Here's one. Here's the test.
I think anyone who can't answer this shouldn't be allowed to vote. Name one person from each century for the past five centuries.
So go back to the 1500s, name one person who lived in the 1500s, one person in the 1600s, one person in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s. Hopefully they can do the 2000s, but you'll throw that in there.
I would guess that a huge number of Americans who graduated from our education system and even the university system could not do that. They couldn't do it.
One person from each of these centuries. And you can go with the most famous person for me.
You could go like, oh, 1500s Michelangelo, 1600s Shakespeare, 1700s Ben Franklin, 1800s Abe Lincoln, 1900s JFK, Hitler. I mean, there's a lot of people in that.

You could do that. But I'm betting that a significant number of people could not do that.
It should be like a fourth grade level history test or younger, but it'd be impossible for a lot of people, including the entire woke brigade. So that's the point.
The people that go around saying, well, I got to take down this statue, that person, that statue. We can't celebrate this person anymore.
These people, it cannot be overstated. These people truly know nothing about the history of their country or of any other country on earth.
Because that's what wokeness is. It just, it severs you from the past quite intentionally so that you're kind of floating in this sort of perpetual now where nothing that happened before actually existed or matters.
And that's the root of a lot of our problems in society. Bad credit can close so many doors.
Maybe you went a little wild with credit card in your 20s, and now buying a car or securing a new apartment feels completely unattainable with a subpar credit to our. Kickoff changes the narrative with credit building plans designed to safely jumpstart your score in the simplest, fastest way possible.
Kickoff is the number one credit building app out there, and you can sign up in minutes right from your phone. No credit check required, cancel anytime, no hidden fees, and no interest.
Users with credit under 600 increase their credit by an average of 28 points in the first month. Build your credit fast with Kickoff, the best credit building plan to jumpstart your credit.
Get your first month for a dollar. That's 80% off the normal price when you go to getkickoff.com slash Walsh today.
That's Kickoff without the C. Get K-I-K-O-F-F dot com slash Walsh.
Must sign up via get kickoff dot com slash Walsh to activate offer. Offer applies to new kickoff customers.
First month only subject to approval. Average impact of 28 point increase in first month based on Equifax Vantage Score 3.0 changes for kickoff customers with starting credit below 600 who made their first on-time payment between January 2021 and March 2024.
Payment and credit activity outside kickoff can have an impact on your credit. Terms and conditions apply.
Offers subject to change. Individual results may vary.
It's our first ever 100-hour Daily Wire Plus flash sale, and the best deal of the season on your annual membership is live now. But this isn't just a discount.
It's a declaration. President Trump's first 100 days have sparked the beginning of America's golden era.
The work isn't over. The real fight starts now and the Daily Wire is on the

front lines. This is where truth lives.
This is where the mission begins. Join millions who believe

our best days are ahead. Go to dailywire.com and use code DW100 to join the fight.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. There are a lot of theories for why of the top 20 or so political podcasts, the overwhelming majority of them are conservative leaning.
The same is true of opinion programming and primetime cable news. The most successful ones are all on the right.
But if you think about it, it's not difficult to understand what's going on here. As a practical matter, most commentators and politicians on the left are extremely difficult to listen to.
And that's not because they lack speaking talent or charisma, although a lot of them do. And it's not because they lack resources or funding.
That's certainly not the case. Instead, it's because their ideology, you know, more often than not, does not withstand a significant amount of scrutiny.
You know, spend 10 minutes listening to these people and you'll hear all kinds of nonsense and contradictions. It's unbearable to the point that you just want to turn it off, and many people do.
So to give just one example, if you can stomach it, here's former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg explaining how he acquired his two children. Watch.
So we're in a, what's called a surprise adoption scenario. So we, we literally, we got, I was at work, I was traveling.
I got, we got a phone call, Chaston called me. And the next day we were in a rural Midwestern hospital holding him in our arms and they were like one day old like it was like that like just from like normal life to like and by the way it's twins uh um which was amazing you didn't know it was twins uh or we were just on a list you know we said that we were willing to adopt uh uh uh we wanted to adopt we said that we wanted to adopt with that regard for race by the way anybody anybody who says race is not a thing in this country should experience an adoption process where there are literally different lists.
If you say that you want a white kid only versus if you say that doesn't matter. Wow.
Literally a different list. What is that? What do you mean by that? The list for white kid only is longer.
Hmm. And not only that, there was actually a discount or you didn't have to pay a deposit on the fee.
This is like how it works. I couldn't believe it.
So as you can tell, everybody on the set appears to be disturbed about the fact that, according to Pete Buttigieg, it's cheaper to acquire a black child than a child of another race.

This is supposed to be taken as proof of the fact that America is fundamentally racist or something.

And thankfully, Pete Buttigieg is not a racist, so he boldly accepted the discount that he received on his two mixed-race kids. The implication is that in a true post-racial utopia, nothing like

this would happen because black children would cost precisely the same amount as white children.

But the reason this conversation is so unsettling, of course, has nothing to do with race. It's unsettling because a middle-aged gay man is talking about how he flew in from out of state to purchase children that he has nothing in common with so that he can raise them in a motherless home and use them as props for his political career.
In other words, the real outrage is not that Mayor Pete got a discount for purchasing mixed-race children. The outrage is that he was able to do it in the first place.
And you'd think that that would be an uncontroversial statement in post-Civil War America, but of course it's very controversial, even on the right. From the moment that the concept of gay parenthood first took off about a decade ago, social conservatives were met with derision for opposing the idea of men adopting children.
But in the end, social conservatives have been proven to be 100% correct, as we have been about literally any other issue you can name. We have been right about everything.
This is one of them. Children who are raised by gay men ultimately face double the risk of depression in adulthood, along with much higher rates of anxiety and obesity.
According to research by the sociology professor, Paul Sullins, they're also at a significant risk of being sexually abused, even though nobody wants to talk about that. Recently, a gay couple in Georgia were convicted and sentenced to a hundred years in prison for the systematic rape of two young boys they adopted.
Nobody at the adoption agency wanted to, or perhaps was legally allowed to, ask any serious questions about why two gay men are looking to adopt young boys. So the boys were sent to the home with no further questions and subjected to unimaginable torture as a result.
Now, in an attempt to address these concerns, we were told that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children because it's better for a child to have two dads than to be left to wallow in the foster care system indefinitely. That was the argument.
It wasn't really a defense of the idea that children should be raised by two men in an ideal world. Instead, we were told that the alternative was even more horrifying.
To the extent that this argument was persuasive to anybody, it hinged on the idea that a critical mass of gay men are interested in raising children out of the goodness of their own hearts, children who had been put up for adoption. Now, I didn't find the argument persuasive personally, but a lot of people did.
But then a funny thing happened. Many gay couples decided that they actually don't want to adopt other people's kids.
The whole argument for gay parenthood, as wrong as it was, turned out to be, in so many cases, a red herring. A study by researchers at King's College in 2019 found that over 60% of gay men considering parenthood actually prefer surrogacy as the method instead of adoption.
In recent years, that number has only increased. And in practice, this means that men are shopping for eggs as well as women to carry the children for them, looking for body parts to rent.
And even though Pete Buttigieg won't pretend to be upset by it, all of this people shopping entails a lot of uncomfortable value judgments that implicate genetics, as mothers are screened based on their educational level, eye color, athleticism, and so on. The result is that children are not being rescued from unfortunate situations like foster care and being placed into loving homes.
Instead, they're being conceived with the intent of placing them into unfortunate situations. They're being taken from the women who birthed them and given to gay men like men named Joseph and Nathan Hughes.
Now, if you're not familiar with these two individuals, they apparently sell hair care products on the internet. They also have a fairly large social media following.
And recently, Joseph and Nathan Hughes celebrated the first birthday of two children who they purchased via IVF and surrogacy. And here's what that display looked like.
As you watch this, try to do what these two parents are, alleged parents, are incapable of doing and pay close attention to the children. Watch.
Oh! Kyle,

Kyle,

you want to sit on my shoulder?

Oh my gosh, you're so tall.

You want to sit on my shoulder?

Wow. No.

Kyle, look at all your balloons.

Do you love it?

Do you love it?

Come on, let's go look in here.

Wow. What a Bury Wonderland.
Look at this place. Look at this, so beautiful.
Look, look. And Courtney is so talented.
Kyle, do you want to sit on your throne? Ready? This has your name on it. Okay, ready? Sit right here.
Sit right here. Here's your ball.
Ball. Ball.
Dylan, here's your ball. Distract him.
No, put it in his hand. Well, it's a mountain.
Ball. Kyle.
Okay, ready? Let her take a picture or a video. Ready? I just find this so it's hard to watch.
Those poor kids, you know, kids need a mother and a father in the home. They need the masculine and the feminine influence and role model in the home.
These kids will have neither. They're not going to have, they have no mother, at least not, they do have a mother, but they don't have a mother that's going to be in their life.
So, but I certainly wouldn't, they don't, but they don't, I would not call these men feminine. I would not insult women by comparing these men to women.
So they don't have the feminine. They don't have the mother.
They also don't have the masculine. They don't have a real father.
Whatever these guys are, that's not either. And so this is far worse, far, far, far worse than kids being raised by a single parent.
This is essentially having neither. And so you see these influencers, they're giving instructions to these children like they're dogs so that they post the pictures that these two men want to take, not even pretending to care about what the kids want to do.
Hey, look at the balloons. You like that? Well, no one cares.
Now sit in the chair. And in response to these instructions, the children are behaving exactly as you'd expect them to behave.
They're treating these two men like strangers because that's exactly what they are. There's no connection here.
There's no affection. It's entirely artificial.
And it's not just one bad video that we're talking about. If you go to these two men's social media accounts, you can find a lot more videos like this one.
The children mostly appear to be kind of confused and worried.

They're being shown off like props as they're dragged from one set to the next.

Here's one more from shortly after the children were born a year ago.

Watch.

Confessions of a new dad.

I have never been more in love in my entire life.

Nathan is with Dylan in the NICU and I'm in the room with Kyle and they're just perfect. I love them so much.
They're gorgeous. They're already so advanced, so perfect.
I love you, Kyle. Get that bow out of your eye.
I love you. Look at her.
How could you not love her? Look at that face. Yeah, well, if you love her, how about support her head so that you don't break her neck? That's like as an actual parent, I can't watch videos like this.
I mean, it's hard to watch. And the comments on this video from women are worth reading.
A lot of actual mothers that are chiming in. Here's one of them, quote, he doesn't know how to hold her properly.
This clip genuinely triggered my maternal instinct. Maybe I want to take her away from him and support her head properly.

Here's another quote.

He talks about her like she's a handbag, a fashion accessory.

I don't care who throws a tantrum about it.

You can hear it.

See that he's more interested in his audience than the baby.

And these are the results you'd expect when someone pays to have a child created and then purchases that child with the intent from the outset of putting the child into a situation where he will be deprived of something that he needs, which is a mother. And yet somehow in a relatively short period of time, this behavior is both legal and increasingly common.
But no one's ever addressed the fundamental question, which is why exactly should we allow gay couples to rent wombs so that they can create children who, from the start, it has been determined, will not have a stable, loving home with a mother and a father? Every child needs a mother and a father. Many children are tragically deprived of one or both because of circumstances outside of their control or of anyone's control in many cases.
But this is a circumstance very much within our control. So why are we permitting it? No one seems interested in answering the question.
Instead, many on the right are content to ignore the issue, have not celebrated. Meanwhile, on the left, there's a new push to have insurance companies and ultimately taxpayers cover the cost of the so-called fertility treatments that gay couples demand as part of this process, as though the thing stopping two men from conceiving children is a mere fertility issue and not the laws of nature.
As the Guardian puts it, the cost includes, quote, compensation for the egg donor, no less than $8,000, the egg donor agency fee, $8,000 to $10,000, the fertility clinics bill, including genetic testing, blood tests, STD testing, and a psychiatric evaluation for all parties, sperm testing, egg extraction, insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing, and implementation of the resulting embryos up to $70,000. Then there's the cost of a surrogate, where agency fees alone could stretch to $25,000, and the surrogates themselves could be paid a minimum of $60,000, close quote.

Now, it's a bit like reading the laundry list of expenditures that trans-identifying patients run

up in the service of their fantasies. None of it should be legal, much less covered by insurance

or the taxpayer. And that's certainly the case here as well.
Surrogacy in general should be

banned. Surrogacy in service to the narcissistic desires of all male couples who claim that they have some sort of right to parenthood is the greatest abomination of all because nobody has a right to parenthood.
Children are not objects that you have the right to possess. Those influencers in those videos, they don't have a right to those children.
The children have a right to a mother and a father. They have a right to be children, not fashion statements or accessories or something much worse.
Everyone knows that's true. It's why Pete Buttigieg's interview was so uncomfortable.
It's why the videos of these influencers are so hard to watch. So much of modern leftism is trying to convince people to disregard their own instincts in the name of some alleged form of progress.
But the reality of human biology cannot be suspended, which is why ultimately this madness will end, because it has to end. The only question is how many children will be harmed before that happens.
And that is why narcissistic men who believe they have the right to purchase children

and rent women's bodies in the process 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.