Ep. 1581 - The Legal Team Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely HUMILIATED

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will decide whether parents have the right to opt their children out of LGBT indoctrination in schools. The side against parental rights humiliated itself badly throughout the arguments.
We'll play some of the clips. Also, Tesla profits dropped by over 70% as the coordinated campaign of violence against the company continues.
Now, woke DAs are refusing to press charges against the vandals. And Trump is considering a plan to give financial rewards to women who have kids.

Plus, Representative Nancy Mace has spent most of this week

complaining about a man who allegedly harassed and threatened her.

But the video of this encounter tells a very different story.

All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention, your liver.
This powerhouse organ is crushing it 24-7, handling over 500 different functions in your body. It's a hard job, and sometimes your liver needs a little support.
That's where Dose for your liver comes in. It's not some weak supplement.
This is hard-hitting, science-backed support for your body's most crucial filter. The results speak for themselves.
Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got major improvements in their liver enzyme levels. Want to know what makes this different? Well, one shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice.
It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function. No BS ingredients either.
It's clean, sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results. Start giving your liver the support it deserves.
Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering Walsh at checkout. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month subscription.
If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days from elementary school on up, one of the first things they'll tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns, made up genders.
To call this phenomenon unnatural will be a vast understatement. It's obviously engineered.
Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases, without their parents' knowledge or consent.
But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it's very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls. After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary school age children on up.
And based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, this could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation. So it's worth spending some time on this.
Now in a moment, we'll go through the oral arguments in the case that I'm talking about, which is called Mahmoud v. Taylor.
But first, here's just a little bit of background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland, introduced a new gender and sexuality curriculum.
Now, initially, students or their parents could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn't feasible to continue allowing all these opt-outs.

So they decided that it's going to be mandatory. And to give you an idea of what exactly this

curriculum entails, here's an image from one book that children are introduced to.

You can see it on the screen there. This is what's apparently known as an LGBT storybook.

This one's called, What Are Your Words? And as you can see, one line of dialogue reads, my pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.
The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this new curriculum, quote, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes intersex flag, drag queen, underwear, leather, and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to make sense.
Teasers are instructed to say doctors only guess when identifying a newborn's sex anyway. Close quote.
Now, when parents of varying religious faiths, including Muslims and Christians, objected to the idea that their five-year-olds needed to be taught about sex work and gender transitioning by left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them that they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots.
And all these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn't even demand that the classes and this material be removed from the curriculum, which of course it should have just been removed to begin with.
But still, the school district denied their request, so the parents sued. And that brings us to yesterday's oral arguments.
And I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality and transgenderism and so on.
To be clear, that's what the school district is doing. They're not merely providing these books in the school library.
Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of the class, mandating it. So the truthful answer to Justice Alito's question is pretty simple.
The left understands that if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age. But the school district can't say that out loud, of course.
So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery School District's superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be at a practical level for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes any sense.
It gets so bad that at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy's even talking about. Listen.
The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, look, we want out.
Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this? So a couple of answers. I think on the facts of this case, we have the natural experiment of the schools permitting these opt-outs and then finding that it was not administrable.
It wasn't true in every school. Why is it not administrable? They're able to opt out of the health class, right? The health class is taught discreetly.
There's a mandatory meeting for all parents where they are told exactly what's going to be taught in it, and they're given the option of opting out of the unit of instruction, not the particular... Well, that's how you define the unit of instruction.
You could define the unit of instruction to include the reading of these storybooks. And that's not compelled as a matter of Maryland state law.
It's not compelled as a matter of state law, but why should it not be compelled as a matter of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? There's nothing. What is infeasible about doing that? So again, I think the experience of the schools with respect to these five books showed that it was infeasible.
And let me give you an example. Let's say the school, an exquisitely competent and well-resourced school is able to say on Tuesday at 9 o'clock, we're going to read Uncle Bobby's wedding, we're going to make arrangements for alternative space, we're going to give suitable supervision for our six-year-olds, and we're going to give them an alternative assignment that accomplishes the same ELA goals.
Let's say that happens, right? That they were able to pull off. The next week, someone says, that was my favorite book ever.
I'm going to pull it off the shelf, and I'm going to ask Alan to sit down and read it with me. What happens then? The teacher can't simply summon a librarian to come to the school, say those were the kids who opted out of that lesson.
DAVID S. Well, I don't think you're really answering my question.
Why can't this all be put?

We're going to read Uncle Bobby's Wedding and these other books, but we're going to

read it during a period of time that includes the health class, and children are already

able to opt out of that so they can opt out of reading these books.

I think there's no constitutional obligation to treat these books that introduce people

to LGBT characters in a curriculum that is meant to teach about different matters. I'm not understanding why it's not feasible.
Okay, so as best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it's therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there's a chance that they'll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books or whatever it is.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points. The big one is that when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever.
The teacher is in a position of authority. It's much easier for a five-year-old to discount something another five-year-old says than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he's told to trust.
And anyway, if this is an argument for anything, it's an argument for not having these materials in the schools to begin with, which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it's not an argument against allowing parents stopped out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this, but again, he can't admit it. So he ends up confusing everybody in the room with a bunch of doublespeak.
This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. The whole thing was just a disaster for the side that is against parental rights.
So listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that in Montgomery County,

teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can't become women.

And then Gorsuch asks the lawyer from Montgomery County whether this could constitute coercion.

The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here's the gibberish that the attorney

comes back with. I have a slightly different question.
And you say this is only about exposure. But we also have in the record some guidance materials for teachers, and one of which is if a student says that a boy can't be a girl because he was born a boy, teachers to respond that comment is hurtful and we shouldn't use negative words to talk about people's identities.
Is that exposure or is that something else for a three to five year old? So two points on that, Your Honor. The first is that the record is seriously underdeveloped on whether and how these support materials are used.
These were recommended potential answers for questions that students might pose. There's nothing in the record about whether any teacher...
Let's say a teacher does as instructed, though, and uses that. Is that exposure or is that coercion in your world? I think that as Your Honor has recited it, it is exposure to particular ideas and teaching students to be civil in the classroom.

There are certainly circumstances where use of that script in a particular context could give rise to a claim of coercion.

So Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says a boy can't be a girl.

And then the lawyer states that it's not coercive in any way for the teacher to correct the student's comment in front of the entire class. And then he kind of changes his mind, I guess, and says the opposite.
And even when he's not contradicting himself, the school district's lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. Here's his opening statement, for example.
Listen to this. Sir Schoenfeld.
Mr. Chief Justice and May, please the court.
Every day in public elementary school classrooms across the country, children are taught ideas that conflict with their families religious beliefs. Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home.
Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. And children in Montgomery County read books introducing them to LGBT characters.
Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith, but learning about them is not a legally cognizable burden on free exercise. So, yes, according to this district, this attorney for the school district, there's no difference between teaching elementary school students about wars and teaching them that boys can become girls.
Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it's totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors. Now, one of the ways we know that this isn't true, aside from using basic common sense and just being sane, reasonable people, is that there's no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars.
I mean, he says there that all these things are objectionable to some group of parents. No, no parents are objecting to kids learning about wars in school.
It's understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it's grounded in reality.
It is reality. It's what happened in the past.
That's history. On the other hand, gender ideology is not reality.
It is just that. It is ideological.
Now, as entertaining as it would be to just rip apart the school district's dumb arguments for the next hour, I do have to pause here for a moment and acknowledge that this lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That's a given.
After all, Ketanji Brown-Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you expect, she did not disappoint.
Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children because she takes the left's position on every issue.
Behold, Kandaji Brown-Jackson's argument in favor of mandatory LGBT indoctrination in public schools. Listen.
That the parent can choose to put their kid elsewhere, that you don't have to send your kid to public school. In that situation, I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with.
You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school.
You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them.
How is it a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kids elsewhere? Well, Your Honor, the world we live in in this case is that most parents don't have that option. They have two working parents.
Yes, as a matter of practicality, absolutely. And that's the reality for our parents.
I understand, but in so many other constitutional doctrines, we don't focus on whether people actually can afford to protect their rights. Well, here they're forced to pay for the public schooling.
No, I understand, but usually we set aside and we say, but you still have the right to get an attorney in a civil case, even if you can't afford it, right? So we don't focus on whether or not they can actually do it. They have an option.
And what I guess I'm worried about is a world in which when there is an option to send your kids somewhere else, it seems to me that these parents would be dictating what this school does in the way that you say our cases say they can't do, right? In Carson versus Fulton, this court never required coercion. The parents were already paying tuition to go to the school.
In all those cases, Lukumi, the schools didn't really need tires. They weren't being coerced to do anything.
This court has always sent Sherbert, Adele Sherbert, Thomas. They weren't being coerced to do anything.

They just were being pressured to violate the religious beliefs in order to access the benefit that's much less value than education. Thank you, counsel.
So there you go. You can homeschool, says Cantanja Brown Jackson.
You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there's no burden on these parents, apparently.
It's not a burden to have to take your child out of the school he's in, pay a lot more money, change a child's school or homeschool because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. There's no burden there, she says.
And the lawyer representing the parents responds and points out that she's completely wrong. And many other cases demonstrate why she's wrong.
Like, obviously, it's a burden to have to change your child where your child goes to school. And then she goes quiet and they just move on.
And we'll play one more clip from these arguments involving Justice Alito questioning the school board's lawyer. He follows up on this logic about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school.
And he begins by talking from the perspective of one of these

parents. Here it is.
We pay taxes to support the public schools, but we don't have enough money to send our children to private schools. And one of us can't stay home and provide homeschooling.
So we just want to be able to take our children out of the part of the instruction that we find objectionable. And what's your response to that? Your response to that is just, well, it's too bad, all right? This is the public school and the public school can teach what the public school wants and you don't that, well, you can take your, you can send your children to private schools.
There's no indifference to the religious beliefs of the petitioners in this case. The school did what it could to accommodate those youths.
There are simply circumstances in which what the petitioner or what any plaintiff recognizes that a burden on their religious belief is not a legally cognizable one given legal and practical

general counsel.

Well, it's nice that you say that they respect the parents'

religious beliefs.

But basically, your answer is it's just too bad.

I think my answer is.

You've got to send your children to school.

You can't afford to send them to any place

except a public school.

Unlike most of the lawyers who argue cases here,

they can send their children to private schools.

We may think that that's the way most of the world is.

But it's not.

Thank you. Unlike most of the lawyers who argue cases here, they can send their children to private schools.
We may think that that's the way most of the world is, but it's not. It's just too bad.
So your answer to the parents that I talked about, which are real parents here, is just, well, if you don't like this, you've got to get involved in politics and run for the school board and change it through politics. But basically, the public schools can do pretty much whatever they think is correct as far as the curriculum is concerned.
So this is what it sounds like in the Supreme Court when sparks fly, so to speak. Alito's making his disdain for the school district's argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do.
They're trying to force feed gender ideology to children. And instead of owning it, they're lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won't interfere with their religious liberties.
And not just their religious liberties, by the way, it's also, this is also a parent's understanding of basic reality. You know, the fact that boys can't become girls is not just a matter of Christian faith.
It's also just a fact as well. And anyway, this is not how the Constitution works.
And it appears the Montgomery School District and school districts all over the country are about to discover that. I mean, this is not a close case.
That's why even the far left outlet Vox reported, quote, the Supreme Court's don't say gay arguments when disastrously for public schools. At the moment, the most likely outcome is that when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with our established religion.
Everyone can see this coming at the moment. And just to underscore that, yesterday, Randy Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers unions in the country, went on Fox News and she admitted right away that she would not read these kinds of books in the classroom.
Watch. Community.
Do you believe, though, that there's an appropriate age to have a discussion? These are four to six-year-olds and they're being read. And this is out loud in the classroom, not just not just oh this is a book on the shelf in the library if there's a particular child that you know you might want to read this with but you know just as an example my pronouns are like the weather they change depending on how i feel and that's okay because they're my words sometimes i use all the pronouns i can think of just as one example here let me put it way, Martha, and I think that this will be shocking to you.
These would not be the books I would be reading as a classroom teacher to kids who are four to six years old. And I say this, I went through the New York City public school system.
I was a teacher during Heather has when had the big issue around heather has two mommies and i think when you don't actually make sure that things are age appropriate and we don't actually have sufficient conversations with teachers and parents in terms of how we accept differences then you have situations like this right now now Now, we all know that Randy Weingarten isn't saying this because she believes it. She's maybe the most calculating political operative in the country after Nancy Pelosi.
But Randy Weingarten understands when the left is overplaying its hand, she knows that they're on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children. And she's trying to soften that blow and inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Randy Weingarten, the truth is there's no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we've discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular.
They have alienated the entire country to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way that an ideology like this can survive is by

targeting children before they're able to develop their cognitive abilities. That's their only viable play.
And in a few short months after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it'll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona,

believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life,

liberty, the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic and personal and professional goals.
With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides you a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private Christian Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.

The New York Post reports a progressive district attorney has declined to charge the state employee in Tim Walsland, Minnesota, who was allegedly caught causing $20,000 worth of damage by vandalizing half a dozen Teslas, a decision the local police chief ripped as the latest betrayal of victims. The suspected vandal, 33-year-old Minnesota government employee Dylan Brian Adams, was allegedly spotted keying the vehicles and stripping their paint off while out walking his dog around the city.
Despite what police believe to be evidence of Adams' kid admitting felonies, Hennepin County District Attorney Mary Moriarty will seek diversion rather than criminal charges. The attorney's office said, quote,

this is an approach taken in many property crime cases

and helps to ensure the individual keeps their job

and can pay restitution,

as well as reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses.

So they are going to charge this person with a crime.

And this is, you know, you'll see some people arguing that,

well, for a first time offense, you know, this is common. Except that this is not one offense.
He did it six times. So this is the DA saying, well, we'll give you the first six for free.
But if you do it a seventh time, number seven, mister, then you're going to be in trouble. Okay, we'll let you vandalize six cars, but seven, now that'll be a problem.
And the really outrageous thing is that they don't even have the usual kind of bleeding heart liberal excuse. They can't say, oh, this is a wayward youth.
This is a young person victimized by the system. We got to give them a second chance.
Now, this is a 33-year-old government employee. He's even a white male, if you can believe it.
So I guess we figured out if you're a white male and you want a woke DA to let you off the hook for a crime, this is the crime you need to commit, is vandalizing a Tesla. Now, meanwhile, the media are, as this is going on, the media are gloating today because of reports that Tesla's profits are down 71% this quarter.
Listen to how USA Today reports on this quote. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that he would soon be spending less time with the Trump administration after first quarter earnings fell short of expectations.
Net income for the quarter was down 71% after a decline in vehicle deliveries, with Tesla battling growing competition from foreign brands, shifting trade policies and growing backlash to the brand after Musk aligned himself with the Trump administration. So they blame competition, tariffs, backlash to the brand.
And this is what you'll see in every article on this topic. What they don't do is specify what they mean by backlash.

You know, Tesla profits are not down because of a boycott.

They're down because of a coordinated nationwide campaign of violence against Tesla cars and Tesla owners.

They're down because people don't want to buy the car because they don't want to end up being a target for criminal activity. This is a conspiracy to sink Tesla through targeted acts of violence.
And it's working so far. It's a conspiracy that involves Democrat politicians who are encouraging and inciting it, involves district attorneys that, like this one in Minnesota, that will refuse to pursue criminal charges against anybody who vandalizes a Tesla.
I mean, this DA has just very deliberately and explicitly given an open invitation for anyone in her district to attack and vandalize Teslas. That's why profits are down.
And we've really never seen anything like this. I'm trying to think of anything of any kind of analogy, but in memory, there's not been anything like this.
This effort to take down a company, not through boycotts, we've seen that, but doing it by targeting and victimizing the customers, trying to destroy the company by making people afraid to buy the product. That is unprecedented.
I cannot think of another example of this in certainly in recent history. And this is also, again, the difference between one of the fundamental core differences between the left and the right, because when it comes down to it, the right will always operate inside the bounds of the law.
Just, you know, of course, despite what we hear from the media about how conservatives are, you know, are, and Trump in particular, are lawless and all this kind of thing. That's, that's not the case at all.
The right will operate inside the bounds of the law. The right respects the law, believes in law and order, as we should, but the left does not.
And they will use violence and criminality to bring about whatever end they desire. This is the disadvantage that we have.
I mean, we could take down any company that we wanted, we could sink any of these woke companies that we want, doesn't matter how big they are, if we were willing to do this.

If we were willing to use violence and intimidation the way the left does, we could sink any company.

And I'm not advocating that, by the way, because we can't do that even if we wanted to. I mean, first of all, it's morally wrong.
But second, we don't have the DAs in our back pocket. So if we were to go out and start vandalizing stores that carry Bud Light, for example, then every DA in the country would be ready to charge us with every crime they possibly could.

Culprits would not be doing months in jail.

They'd be doing years in jail.

So aside from the moral problems with that kind of approach, it would also just be suicidal.

In the end, it wouldn't work because I say it would work if the right was willing to do the same thing and would be allowed to do it by the system. But we would not be allowed to do it.
We would, you know, you'd find people being sent to prison and that'd be the end of it. And that's why, as we all know, the left engages in, you know, engages in rioting all the time.
Rioting is a left-wing activity almost exclusively. But the one time that some right-wingers did it on January 6th, they were all hunted down one by one and thrown in prison.
And that's the system saying, well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you guys can't do it. This is not for you.
You're not allowed to do this. This is our thing.
And the same would happen if we tried to pull a Tesla on any brand that we didn't like. So, you know, then what do we do about it? Well, fortunately, conservatives have the DOJ or are supposed to have it, should have it.
So the DOJ needs to get involved. I don't mean talk about getting involved, but actually get involved.
We cannot just allow the left to use this tactic of widespread criminal activity to destroy what was once the most profitable company on the planet. I mean, it's not like this is some rinky dink mom and pop shop that they're doing this against.
They're doing this against Tesla. And if they get away with it, we will have a monster on our hands that we won't be able to contain.
If they actually succeed in destroying Tesla using this strategy, this strategy of crime and violence, then they'll be able to use that same strategy to destroy any other organization or company that they want. If they can do it to Tesla, they can do it to anyone.
So it cannot be allowed. The DOJ has to put a stop to it, has to start prosecuting not just the people doing it, but the people encouraging it and organizing it, has to start making examples out of people, which we still have not seen.
We've heard talk of it. We have not seen.
Who is the, yeah, there have been some prosecutions here, but who, what is the case that we can point to where, okay, we're making an example out of this person and who is it? The only examples that we're getting are on the other end. The examples and the precedents that are being set are that, you know, well, you can do this.
Hey, every leftist can at least go out once and key a few Teslas, and you'll get away with it at least the first time. That's the example and the precedent that's being set.
Okay, the Trump administration is considering a plan to reverse the decline in the birth rate. And before we get to the plan, we should establish that, yes, birth rates are declining at a record pace.
It is a major crisis. Speaking of Elon Musk, he's been talking about this, of course, for a long time.
He issued a dire warning during an interview recently. I think this was on Fox News a couple of weeks ago.
But listen to this. The birth rate is very low in almost every country.
And unless that changes, civilization will disappear. America had the lowest birth rate, I believe, ever.
That was last year. Places like Korea, the birth rate is one-third replacement rate.
That means in three generations, Korea will be 3 or 4% of its current size. And nothing seems to be turning that around.
Humanity is dying.

And people, it's just not something we evolved to react to. And I worry generally about the strength of America.
America is the central column that holds up all of Western civilization. So if you've got the temple of Western civilization, America is the central column.
If that column fails, it's all over. You can't run off to New Zealand or some other place.
It's over. So either we strengthen that column and make sure America is strong and will be strong for a long time, or that roof's coming down.
Well, he's exactly right. It may sound dramatic or overblown to say that humanity is dying, but it is.
It actually is. I mean, the birth rate hit a record low in 2023 in the US.
The birth rate was 55 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, which is how they count the birth rate, which is the lowest in history. And just to give you an idea, because these numbers can sound kind of meaningless if you have nothing to compare it to.
It's kind of hard. And maybe one of the reasons why people are whistling past the graveyard on this thing is like it's hard to conceptualize what is a high birth rate, what's a low birth rate.
So for comparison, the most recent birth rate we have data for in 2023 was 55 births per 1,000 women. In 1950, for example, it was 106 births per 1,000 women.
In 1850, we don't have exact data for this, but this is estimated. It's estimated that the general birth rate was upwards of 300 births per 1,000 women.
So follow the trends here. The birth rate was cut to a third from 1850 to 1950 and then halved again from 1950 to now.
The birth rate is so low now that our general birth rate today is about equal to what they call the crude birth rate in 1850. The crude birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 people, not just 1,000 women of childbearing age, but per 1,000 people.
So in 1850, the number of births per 1,000 people was about 45, and now it's 55 per 1,000 women. Okay, so this is a catastrophic decline in a relatively short amount of time.
In fact, the only group of people that, the only group of women that have seen stable or even increasing birth rates is the over 40 bracket. So women over 40 are having more babies.
Everyone else is having fewer, a lot fewer, a lot fewer. So the age group where there's an increased risk of pregnancy complications, increased risk of stillbirth, of miscarriage, of preeclampsia, of all kinds of problems with the baby, your chance of having a baby with Down syndrome is about 1 in 1,200 if you have a baby at 25.
At 40, it's 1 in 100. Okay, so we're talking about drastically higher risks, pretty much across the board for the mother and the baby.
And yet that is the one age group that we've decided should definitely still be having a lot of babies. I mean, previous generations.
So the way it would work in previous generations is that women would sort of stop having babies around 40, or at least they'd be on kind of the tail end of their, this is when once you get to 40, into your 40s, you have, not only have you had a bunch of kids already, but your kids are, you know, you've got kids that are getting ready to move out of the house, um, or already have. So previous generations stopped having babies around 40.
Uh, now that's when we start. And that's just insane.
It is insane way of trying to maintain a civilization. It, it, it, it doesn't work this way.
You can't do it this way at scale. Okay.
So now there's always going to be exceptions. You could always, oh, I know someone who's that they had a baby when they were 42.
Okay, but at scale, at a civilizational level, you cannot do it this way. It does not work.
So in other words, this is a crisis. It's a major problem.
If the survival of our species is important to you, then you should care about this. I mean, it matters a lot.
So here's Trump's idea to help reverse the trend. New York Post reports, President Trump endorsed giving new mothers a financial award on Tuesday after a report service that the White House was considering handing out up to $5,000 per delivery to reverse

the decline in U.S. birth rates.
Sounds like a good idea to me, Trump told the Post and the Oval

Office when asked about the reported cash incentive to get more Americans to have kids.

The administration's deliberations over the so-called baby bonus were first reported Monday

by the New York Times. One plan would give a $5,000 incentive to new moms, while another would

see that 30% of all Fulbright scholarships be given to applicants who are married or have children. Okay.
Now, I think this is a great idea. I mean, I'm very much in favor of almost any plan to incentivize people to have kids and start families.
The only stipulation I would make and that these plans should make is that whatever the reward is, you only get it if you're married. We don't want to incentivize single motherhood.
It's not as simple as we need people to have more kids. Yes, we need people to have more kids, but in a certain context.
If the goal is to maintain, support, and protect human civilization, then, yeah, I mean, step one, you need more people. You need the people who are here to create more people.
That's how it works. But then as part of that, it's not even like step two.
As part of step one, the new people who are born need to be born into a certain context, and that context needs to the family, a stable nuclear family. So we don't want to incentivize single motherhood.
We don't want to give a woman who already has three baby daddies an incentive to go out and find three more. So it should be $5,000 per delivery if you are married, only if you're married.
They get $10,000. And if we are whittling down the pool a bit like that, then make it $10,000 per delivery.
Make it $20,000, okay? And make it retroactive so that I can collect my 60 grand if we're doing $10,000 per delivery. So there's a lot that can be done here.
How about this? Here's a plan I like. No income tax for married couples with kids under 18.
Now, as you know, I'd like to see the income tax abolished entirely across the board for everyone. But if that isn't going to happen, which it almost certainly isn't, then why not this? Abolish the income tax for all families that feature married parents with kids under 18.
That would be the ultimate incentive. Now, you want to talk about an incentive.
If you don't have kids, so if you have kids under 18 and you're married, there's zero income tax, zero federal income tax. If you don't have kids and you're married, you still have to pay.
If you have kids, but you're unmarried or divorced, sorry, you still have to pay. And people will say that that's unfair.
It's preferential treatment. And they're right.
It is preferential. It should be.
We need to start giving preferential treatment to married couples who have children. We should give them preferential treatment because we should prefer them.
We should prefer them. We don't prefer couples that decide not to have kids.
You're willingly contributing to the extinction of our species. If anything, you should be taxed more.
I mean, raise the income tax to 80% for couples who choose not to have kids. I mean, you have to verify somehow that it's a choice and not a medical issue.
So that'd be a little bit difficult, but either way, they shouldn't get this reward. And if you're divorced or never married and you have kids, again, we don't, we don't, we don't prefer that.
Let's say You don't get the preferential treatment because as a society, that's not the arrangement that we prefer. And even if you're divorced or unmarried with kids, you should agree with this.
You should say, yeah, it's unfortunate I'm in this spot. But yeah, of course, we don't prefer this.
This is not what we should prefer as a society. We should prefer that people are not in the spot that I'm in.
That's what you should be saying. Because as a society, that kind of arrangement does not benefit us.
It actually harms us. So society benefits from married couples having kids.
It does not benefit from really any other arrangement. And we need to start just lavishing rewards and benefits on the people who are doing the thing that sustains civilization and ensures that it thrives.
Just shower them with privileges that nobody else gets. And I know it's, you know, I'm a bit biased because I'm part of this group that would be getting all these privileges, but I'm not saying it just for that reason.
I'm saying it because we, as the married couples that have kids, we are the future of the species. We are the future.
We are carrying the entire weight of civilization on our backs. It's completely down to us.
And so, yeah, it's anything that can be done to make it easier on that group should be done. And I think this plan from Trump is just the beginning, but there's certainly a lot more that could be done.
With the uncertainty surrounding tariffs, families across the country are potentially facing another wave of price increases at the grocery store. But there's good news.
Goodranchers.com is completely tariff-proof thanks to their 100% American supply chain. You'll get stable prices for high-quality meat grown right here in the USA without worrying about tariff-related price hikes.
The average family throws away $500 worth of meat and seafood every year. Well, Good Ranchers helps you avoid this waste with their vacuum-sealed, individually wrapped cuts that stay fresh for a year in your freezer.
Plus, their cuts are pre-trimmed by professional butchers, meaning you only pay for meat that you'll actually eat. No more trimming, 10% off before cooking.
You get more value with every bite. I've tried many of their steaks and other choices, and they are quite possibly the most tender, tasteful, clean protein options I've ever had.
And the convenience of delivery to my door makes them all the more, that much better as well. Here's an amazing offer.
Visit GoodRanchers.com right now and use my code Walsh to get $40 off your order plus free meat for life. When you subscribe, choose free ground beef, wild-caught salmon, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or bacon in every box forever.
That's $300 of free meat every year for as long as you stay subscribed. In a world of constant change, your mealtime can stay consistent and affordable.
Visit GoodRanchers.com today and use code Walsh for $40 off and free meat for life.

Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.

If you're listening to this, you're probably tired of being lied to.

Well, so are we.

That's why The Daily Wire exists.

We don't wait for permission to bring you the facts.

We're here to challenge legacy media every day.

We make the kinds of movies others won't. We investigate the stories they bury, and we tell the truth even when it

costs us. This only works because our members have our back when it matters most.
Join us now at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we once again have to deal with Republican Representative Nancy Mace.

Nancy was canceled during the segment a few months ago, you may recall, for two reasons primarily.

For one thing, she constantly pretends that she's leading the fight against gender ideology,

even though up until a year ago she was going around talking about how important trans rights are to her. And she came to this issue very, very late, which I wouldn't hold against her, if not for the fact that she is so obsessed with taking credit for work she did not do.
And second, she was canceled for, after coming late to this issue, trying to give the anti-gender ideology argument a feminist framing. And Nancy Mays always brags about being the first woman to graduate from the Citadel Military College as if that somehow gives her more credibility in the fight against the trans agenda.
But the truth is that Mace started invading male spaces long before men started invading female spaces. She helped set the stage for the erasure of gender lines and gender distinctions.
As a feminist, she is part of the movement that built the framework for the trans agenda. In fact, Nancy Mace is not just part of the feminist movement.
She is, in fact, the most hyper and obnoxiously feminist politician on the national stage, even more than AOC or Jasmine Crockett or any of the usual suspects. Nancy Mace's feminist histrionics trounce all of them.
Which brings us to the latest incident involving the congresswoman. Mace has spent the past four days on the interview circuit and on X incessantly talking about an interaction that she had with a constituent while she was out shopping over the weekend.
And Mace posted this video on Saturday and has spent the week talking almost exclusively about this. This has been, you know, she's not focused on matters of national importance or matters that actually matter are important to her constituents.
She's instead focused on this viral video. Now in the caption to the video posted to X, she says that she was accosted by an quote unhinged lunatic.
She then bragged that in the face of this grave threat, she held the line and refused to back down. Now, as I said, she has spent the majority of the week bragging about the incredible courage that she displayed in the face of this very intimidating man who was, as she claims, getting in her face and invading her space at the store.
So let's now watch the video and you can decide for yourself who is the unhinged one in this interaction. And just for context, right before the video started, the man asked Nancy Mace when she was going to do a town hall for her constituents.
And this is how the Congresswoman Nancy Mace responded. I do them every year.
You want to keep going? Do you want to keep going and keep harassing me? You could have gone to a dozen town halls last year. Yeah.
I've already done one. I'll do plenty more.
You're always invited. And by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice.
What does that have to do with me? I'm just saying. It has to do everything to do with you.
Do you think everything about me has to do with gay marriage? I do. Absolutely.
Yep. Absolutely.
If you want to get in my face about town halls, you should have shown up to one last year. You can talk about me just saying, oh, I support gay marriage.
Yeah. Because you're getting in my face about a town hall.
You could have done last year. Would you like me? If you have any plans to have more towns halls here, I have town halls every year.
I have have over a dozen every year. Great.
That was my entire question. You didn't have to go to the spiel.
You could have, you could have come to any of them last year. Okay.
And I'm asking you about this year, not 2024. Where were you the year before that? Okay.
Or the year before that? It was a simple question. Oh, because you know what? Because you people on the left are crazy.
So I'm on the crazy. You're absolutely crazy.

Get out of my face.

Goodbye.

You're going to be voted out so fast this year.

I'm not.

I won by so much. You're a disgrace.

That's what you are.

You're a disgrace.

I asked you a simple question and you just to go on this tirade and tell me.

Yeah.

Get out of my face.

Get out of my face get out of my face

try it what's your name what's your name what's your name yep i sure did absolutely get the out of my face now you couldn't take me on baby say the away from me So to review and the censoring of the language in the video there kind of obscured an important point here. But you can watch the original video that she posted proudly on her ex.
The man was 10 feet away asking if Nancy Mace is going to do any town halls. She responds by pulling out her phone, recording a video where through the whole interaction, she is without question the more aggressive and confrontational one.
Then she accuses him of getting in her face, even though he's calmly standing 10 feet away. And then she says, and this is the part you didn't hear there, F you, but she doesn't say F to the guy.
And just to be clear, this is a United States congresswoman saying F you to her constituent in public. It is just impossible

that any reasonable person could watch that video and come to the conclusion that the man was the

one who acted inappropriately. I don't believe anyone, and there are plenty of people on X that

are so, well, Nancy May is so good for you. I don't believe you.
I don't think that you actually

think that she was justified in that. I just don't believe you.
And by the way, lest you think that this is out of context and maybe this man said or did something egregious in the lead up to the video, which still, by the way, wouldn't justify Nancy Mace's response. But well, the guy was also recording apparently, and he released the beginning of this interaction.
And there's about 30 seconds leading up to it. And it consists of him asking from 10 feet away in the same measured tone when she's going to host a town hall.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
So what you see in Nancy's video does accurately represent this man's demeanor and tone throughout the entire interaction. So not only was Nancy clearly in the wrong, but that was some of the most repugnant, unhinged, asinine, grotesque, stupid behavior I've ever seen from a member of Congress.
I mean, Nancy managed to make Jasmine Crockett look like a model of decorum immaturity by comparison. If AOC did something like that, we would ruthlessly excoriate her for it.
But the truth is that as bad as AOC is, she's not nearly shameless and obnoxious enough to say F you to her own constituent because he asked about a town hall. Only Nancy Mace stoops to this level in her obsessive, never-ending quest to get attention.
And that quest continued a few days later on Fox News. Here she is talking to, and by the way, she did a bunch of interviews about this.
This is all she's talking about this week. All she ever talks about is herself.
That's the only thing she cares about, the only thing she ever talks about. And this week, it's all about her, you know, this is because she's the main character of America.
And this is the so this is the the the this episode is all about is all about this thing at the store. So here she is talking to Sean Hannity and listen to the way that this woman describes the incident that we all just watched.
Listen. I just wanted some face wash.
That was it. I went to the store.
I had a little bit of time to myself on Saturday afternoon, want to go shopping like I do. I'm a normal person.
I do my own grocery shopping. And this guy approached me and I will tell you, I felt threatened.
I felt harassed. And I will tell you as someone who's experienced trauma in her life, and a lot of women will understand what I'm talking about, when some guy gets in your face and approaches you in the aggressive manner that he did, and you feel like you're in danger instinctively as women who've been through trauma, who've survived sexual assault, survived domestic abuse, you have two options.
You can fight or you can flee. And Sean, I'm a fighter.
Oh my gosh. So Nancy says she felt threatened, harassed, and in danger because a man spoke to her in the face wash aisle at the grocery store.
She says, and has repeated this line frequently this week, that she says that her history of trauma causes her to react this way. And if that's true, if she is so traumatized that she can't help but lash out belligerently at any man who attempts to speak to her in public, then she is not fit for public service.
Either her reaction was a program response that she can't help, that she can't help, which I don't believe for a second, by the way, or it was a calculated attempt to go viral and get attention by verbally abusing one of her constituents. In either case, she is not fit for public service.
If Nancy has experienced trauma in her life, I'm sorry for it. But if it has made her emotionally unbalanced and unable to remain composed and dignified, even in the most low stakes, low stress situation imaginable, then she is not suited to hold public office.
If she's acting belligerent just for attention, which I think is what's happening, and then using trauma as an excuse after the fact, then she's even less suited. But whichever way you slice it, you arrive at the same conclusion.
And it gets even worse because yesterday she posted another tweet. This one, like so many of her tweets, was accompanied by a picture of herself.
This woman posts more selfies in a day than I've posted in my entire life. But the selfie is the least of the problems with this post.
Here's what she wrote. Quote, if a woman feels unsafe, a real man backs off.
He doesn't argue. He doesn't linger.
He doesn't force her to explain her fear. A real man respects her and walks away.
Real men protect women. Hold the line.
Now, hold the line, of course, is the slogan that she's adopted because Nancy bravely held the line on transgenderism starting in the year 2024. She held the line by belatedly and cautiously stepping up to the line that had already been held for years by people who have far more moral and intellectual courage than she does.
In any case, by the way, Nancy Mace has never held the line on any issue ever. Okay.
A year after George Floyd, she was still claiming that he was horrifically murdered. A year later.
Okay. this is her holding the line.
She has never held the line on any important issue ever, okay, ever. In any case, the bigger issue is all the stuff before that in that tweet where she says that a man is only a real man if he backs away and runs off like a scolded puppy whenever a woman tells him to.
A man is only a real man if he's obedient to women like Nancy Mace. This is classic feminist manipulation coming from an allegedly conservative politician.
Now, in truth, a man should never make a woman feel unsafe intentionally, obviously, but a man is under no obligation to fall silent and submit just because a woman claims that she feels unsafe. Sometimes women can use the I feel unsafe line as a manipulation technique to shut down disagreement or to coerce men into doing what they want.
And we know that that happens sometimes because that's exactly what Nancy Mace just did. We all saw it.
Nancy Mace's behavior in the face wash aisle at the store is a perfect example of exactly this phenomenon. Mace was embarrassed that a constituent noticed how she's so busy doing cable news hits and talking about herself all day and isn't doing anything for her constituents.
And instead of meeting that challenge head on and having an adult conversation, she started screeching about how she feels threatened and harassed and unsafe. And now she says that if we want to be real men, we must bow to that manipulation tactic and shrink away in silence.

Nancy Mace knows what a real man is. And coincidentally enough, a real man is a man

who does whatever Nancy Mace wants all the time, immediately and without objection. Well,

Nancy, if you can start telling me what a real man does and how a real man behaves,

then I can do the same in the reverse. A real woman acts with class and dignity and doesn't

We'll see you next time. can start telling me what a real man does and how a real man behaves, then I can do the same in the reverse.
A real woman acts with class and dignity and doesn't start screaming profanities in the grocery store because someone tried to ask her a question. A real woman isn't desperate for attention, constantly talking about nothing but herself.
A real woman doesn't use manipulation tactics to silence men. A real woman would never hide behind trauma as an excuse for boorish, grotesque behavior.
A real woman takes her responsibilities seriously and would have a lot more respect for her position as a public servant than you do. A real woman, if she serves in Congress, knows that her constituents have the right to talk to her or ask her questions whenever they see her in public.
That's the job she signed up for. And if she doesn't want that job, then a real woman would resign and let someone more suited take over.
That's what a

real woman would do. But it's not what you do, which is why Nancy Mace is, again, sadly canceled.

That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.