Ep. 1563 - All The Reasons Why Big Pharma Commercials Should Be Banned

Today on the Matt Walsh show, RFK Jr. has discussed the possibility of banning advertisements from big pharma.
Almost every other country on the planet already bans direct consumer ads from pharmaceutical companies. We'll discuss why we should join that list.
Also, we now have the body cam footage showing what exactly happened when a mother tried to retrieve her gender-confused minor daughter from the home of a former teacher who had illegally taken custody of her. The footage is just truly outrageous and unbelievable.
We'll play it. And can college

students answer basic questions like, who fought in the Civil War? And is Asia a state that borders

Canada? We'll play the video that delivers the expected but still highly depressing answer. All

of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. you know what's fascinating when your metabolism is working properly you feel the benefits in literally every aspect of your life.
I've been using Lumen for a while now, and it gives me incredible insights for creating a healthy metabolism in my body. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach.
It measures your metabolism through your breath, and the app tells you if you're burning fat or carbs, then provides personalized guidance to improve your nutrition, your workouts, your sleep, and even stress management. Using it couldn't be simpler.
I breathe into my Lumen first thing in the morning to understand my metabolism and get a personalized nutrition plan for the day. You can also check before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's happening in my body in real time.
Adding Lumen to my daily routine has been astonishingly helpful and insightful. Here's why this matters.
Your metabolism is your body's engine.

It's how your body turns food into fuel.

When it's optimized,

you'll experience better energy levels,

improved fitness results,

even better sleep.

Lumen gives you all the recommendations you need

to improve your metabolic health,

helping you make informed decisions

about your nutrition and lifestyle.

Take the next step to improve your health.

Go to lumen.me slash walsh

to get 20% off your Lumen.

That's L-U-M-E-N dot me slash wals to get 20% off your lumen. That's l-u-m-e-n dot me slash wals for 20% off your purchase.
Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode. Imagine that an executive of a major corporation sits down for dinner at a restaurant.
Unbeknownst to him, it's a sting operation. Everything he says is being recorded.
Very quickly, in order to impress somebody that he thinks is interested in him, the executive confesses that his company is lying to the American public. And in secret, the executive says they're thinking about conducting extremely dangerous medical experiments within the borders of the U.S.
And these experiments are similar to the ones in Wuhan that led to the COVID pandemic. And then the executive admits that government regulators are not scrutinizing these experiments as much as they should be for the simple reason that they don't want to jeopardize their potential future job opportunities at the very same corporation.
And then imagine that once the executive realizes that he's on camera and that he's just confessed to a fraud on the American public, he begins screaming and crawling on the floor. And in his hysteria, he pushes people away, tries to hide his face, and then ultimately runs away.
He demonstrates a clear consciousness of guilt, in other words. What do you think the end result of this kind of episode would be? Now, in a rational world, you might expect, at a minimum, that this executive would be fired and that his company would be immediately investigated, both by the government and by every media organization in the country.
After all, it's not every day that a corporate executive admits that his company is working on research that could cause another pandemic. And he also just divulged trade secrets on camera as well, which you would think would sort of upset his bosses.
But in reality, none of those things happened. The situation I just

described took place in early 2023, as you might remember, when Project Veritas secretly filmed a

senior official in Pfizer's research and development division. And you might recall the

whole episode, Pfizer came out, denied essentially that the executive had meant what he said.

And as far as we know, the company took no action against him. In the end, Pfizer, needless to say, did not suffer any significant consequences whatsoever.
They remained one of the largest and most profitable corporations on the planet. But incredibly, the people who exposed the Pfizer executive did not fare as well.
It was like Pfizer kind of pulled a reverse Uno card. For one thing, Project Veritas didn't survive.
It collapsed soon afterwards. And so did the one show on cable news that covered Project Veritas' reporting, which of course was Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight.
They were taken off the air shortly after covering the Pfizer sting operation for reasons that remain officially undisclosed. So to restate the situation, less than five months after a Pfizer executive was exposed and humiliated on camera, everybody who talked about the scandal was deplatformed.
And meanwhile, the executive went back to work. If you wanted to illustrate the extraordinary power that the pharmaceutical industry has in this country, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example.
One way or another, people who criticize them tend to lose their platforms. And that is a level of protection that very few other corporations have, regardless of their financial situation.
Tesla, for example, is about 10 times the size of Pfizer by market cap.

And as we all know, they're subjected to constant media attacks and also physical attacks out in public. So what is it about the pharmaceutical industry specifically that makes them so hard to criticize? The leading theory, which we've talked about before, is that companies like Pfizer have basically bought the media.

I mean, you can't watch Fox or CNN or MSNBC without seeing an ad from the pharmaceutical industry. In total, the pharmaceutical industry spends something like $5 billion in advertising every year, which in some years is more than they spend on research and development.
And a lot of this spending is concentrated on news stations. As the journalist Kyle Becker reported on his Substack, nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands.
If you watch any amount of cable news, you know that that figure is certainly accurate. I mean, you could turn the television on and you'll probably see one of these ads within like five minutes, if not sooner.
And these are among the most lucrative ad purchases, pushing drugs like Ozempic, SkyRizzy, and so on. And naturally, that kind of spending leads to favorable coverage.
Big Pharma doesn't even need to establish any kind of quid pro quo officially or request anything from the news networks. It's just generally understood that if you're working for one of these networks, you should go easy on the pharma giants because they are one of the reasons you're in business.
Now, this dynamic is one of the reasons why a lot of people took notice recently on hearing the news that RFK Jr. and the HHS had supposedly implemented a total ban on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.
And those reports turned out to be inaccurate, at least for the time being. But RFK Jr.
has pledged to implement a similar ban in the past, and he's been very clear about his reasoning. While he was campaigning for Trump last year, and while he was before that leading his own presidential bid, RFK Jr.
made the point that pharmaceutical advertising has compromised the news industry. And he's also said that in part because of these advertisements, Americans spend far more on prescription drugs than pretty much every other major country.
By some estimates, we spend more than twice as much. And it's logical to conclude that advertising plays

a major role in those numbers. When people see an advertisement for a new prescription drug, they're more likely to tell their doctors they want it, as opposed to a cheaper generic brand.
And keep in mind, only two countries on the planet allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, and those countries are us, the United States, and New Zealand. The vast majority of the civilized world, I mean, the rest of the world, has rejected this kind of marketing.
And one of the obvious consequences of this carve-out for big pharma is that they sell a lot more drugs to people who otherwise wouldn't pay for them. And they wouldn't spend $5 billion a year on advertisements if that weren't true.

And this isn't even getting into big pharma advertisements and solicitations that target

physicians and other professionals. So that's a whole other category.
We're talking just about

direct-to-consumer marketing. Now, just to give one example, in 2022,

the manufacturer of the drug Skyrizi, AbbVie is the name of the manufacturer, spent around $229 million advertising the drug just that year alone.

The next year, AbbVie decided to increase its advertising budget for the drug by more than double, and the results were clear.

Drug sales went up to $7.8 billion, and That's an increase of roughly 50% year over year. Now, there was no major FDA approval that occurred in this period.
The drug's formula didn't change in some way. Instead, more people heard about it.
So more people asked their doctors for it. And by the way, the vast majority of the $7.8 billion came from customers in the United States because they're pretty much the only people who are being subjected to these advertisements.
This advertising exemption, of course, is just one of several carve-outs that Big Pharma enjoys in this country. It's also nearly impossible to sue them if, for example, one of their vaccines ends up hurting or killing you, thanks to a federal law passed three decades ago.
But the advertising carve-out is one of the most important ones because it has a lot of downstream effects that aren't immediately obvious. One of those effects is that the ads increase the price of the drugs.
When billions of dollars are spent on advertising, inevitably that cost is going to be passed on to the consumers. This is just basic economics and common sense, and doctors see it every day.
As far back as a decade ago, when direct-to-consumer advertising was much less common than it is today, the American Medical Association noticed the problem. They voted to ban all direct-to-consumer advertising, and the chair of the AMA, a woman named Patrice Harris, announced that, quote, today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concern among physicians about the negative impact of commercially driven promotions and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.
Close quote. Now, it's true that by law, these advertisements have to list all of the potential side effects.
Invariably, they rattle them all off at the end of the commercial, as we all know. And they do it so quickly that you can't really tell what's happening in some cases.
Pretty much everyone ignores these disclaimers at this point because they all end up sounding like a bizarre list of horrible afflictions, always ending in death or paralysis or something catastrophic. You can watch an ad for Claritin and they'll tell you that the side effects could include getting hit by a train or something.
It's almost as if the drug makers have trained us to become numb to all of these potential side effects and to think that they're all extremely rare and unlikely to occur. So you just kind of block them out of your mind.
And that's because even with the often comically long disclaimer at the end of these drug commercials, the ads still don't do enough to emphasize the potential side effects and dangers of these drugs. They don't discuss the relative risk of every side effect or how common they are.
And that makes sense because ads, regardless of who's making them, are meant to manipulate and to create an emotional response in a very short period of time. And that's fine when you're selling cars or clothing or fast food or whatever, but it just shouldn't be the way that medical treatments are presented

to the public. People should consult with professionals when they are seeking these treatments instead of watching paid actors sing a song about it or whatever.
But pharmaceutical ads by design short circuit this process. They allow big pharma companies to sell the disease, not just the cure.
They convince people that they have such and such a disorder. That's why all these ads always start with, are you feeling this way? Do you have these symptoms? Well, then you might have this disease.
Go talk to your doctor about this drug. They sell the disease, and then they sell the drug.
Enlisting the would-be patient to go to their doctor and request a drug, which is totally backwards. You're supposed to go to your doctor with your symptoms, not with a wish list of drugs that you want to receive.
But this is the way it works now. So pharma ads have helped to turn doctors into glorified drug dealers.
And there's about a dozen studies you could point to that bear this out. Patients who go to the doctor and say, I saw an ad for Paxlovid, or I saw an ad for Prozac, are a lot more likely to get that drug than a patient who simply presents their depression-related symptoms to the doctor.

And on top of that, these advertisements have also contributed to the perception that whatever problem you might have,

whether it's depression or feeling like you're in the wrong body or whatever, that a drug from Big Pharma can be the solution.

As we've discussed, this is a sentiment that has ruined the lives of thousands of people, including children in this country. And part of the reason this perception has been allowed to fester, as Liz Wheeler pointed out the other day on X, is that there's no critical reporting on big pharma in the mainstream press.
There's basically none. The pharmaceutical industry is allowed to buy billions of dollars worth of advertising, which presents them as the solution to everybody's problems.
And then the press, along with many scientific institutions that also receive money from big pharma, don't have any incentive to contradict the narrative. If and when HHS does ban these advertisements, then suddenly that incentive will reappear.
Very quickly, corporate media will fail. I mean, it will just disintegrate because they'll be deprived of most of their advertising revenue, or at least they'll be deprived of a very significant chunk of it.
And in their place will be a slew of investigations by actual journalists into the various grotesque abuses of power by the medical establishment in recent years on everything from gender ideology to the COVID shot to antidepressants to everything else. Now, as of right now, again, it appears that the reports were wrong about an imminent ban on these direct-to-consumer advertisements.
But there are reasons to think that RFK Jr. and HHS are still planning to implement one.
And if that comes to pass, and there are indicators that it will, then it would inevitably set up a major legal battle between big pharma and the federal government on First Amendment grounds. They'll claim that they have the constitutional right to flood the airwaves with sales pitches for extremely potent medications

that could ruin your life. But they don't have that right.
I mean, big pharma doesn't have a constitutional right to just access consumers whenever they feel like it in any forum that they feel like it, any more than the local drug dealer does. So if RFK Jr.
can win that fight, then in one fell swoop, he will destroy the corporate press, save billions of dollars for Americans, rescue lots of people from dangerous drugs that they shouldn't be taking, and usher in a new era of skepticism for an industry that badly needs it.

He would be, I mean, easily the single most consequential HHS secretary in the history

of the country, one of the most consequential cabinet secretaries, period, in the history

of the country.

All he needs to do is what pretty much every country in the world is already doing, which

is to tell Big Pharma to get off of our televisions. Now let's get to our five headlines.
I want to tell you about my friends at PragerU, the conservative nonprofit fighting to educate the next generation and win back the culture. Conservatives won big in November, but the fight is far from over.
The left still controls our schools and is undermining faith, family, and freedom. One election is not going to fix that.
That's why PragerU is making real, lasting change. They're reaching young people like never before with pro-American content.
Nearly 2 billion views a year they get with all this, with 65% of their audience under 35. And now PragerU is getting into classrooms.
Nine states have already partnered with them to bring PragerU videos and books into schools

with more states on the way.

But they can't do it alone.

Right now, every dollar you give is triple matched to help push back against radical

indoctrination.

Don't wait.

Go to PragerU.com slash DW and make your donation today, which will be triple matched.

Together, we can keep the momentum going and stand strong for our values.

That's PragerU.com slash DW. Yesterday, we talked about a very troubling case out of Colorado of the radical far-left former teacher and her trans husband, her husband who pretends to be a woman, who took a gender-confused 17-year-old child into their home.
Essentially, this is a child that was brainwashed at school by one of

their counselors at school, told to, by the counselor, this is according to the mother, told to cut off all contact with parents. The gender confused 17-year-old then goes to the home of this former teacher and the trans guy, and they essentially claim custody of her and will not return her to her mother.

And they essentially claim custody of her and will not return her to her mother. And they still have refused to return the child to her mother.
So this is, I mean, by any definition of the term, this would seem to be kidnapping, which is being done out in the open. And I mentioned yesterday how the mother went to the house of the kidnappers and tried to get her child back.
They refused. She then called the police.
The police showed up and refused to help. Well, now we have the body cam footage of this interaction with the police.
And in the footage, we'll see the police officer first talking to the child, to the 17-year-old, inside the home. And then we'll see the police officers talking to the mother outside of the home.
And I just want you to see how the police handled this. Now, we talked about it yesterday, but now you can see it and hear it for yourself.
I mean, it really is truly shocking. So let's watch a little bit of this.
I'm Deputy Thurber. How are you? Good.
That's all I need to basically hear. I'm just coming by to make sure you're good.
You know what I mean? I'm not going to try to insert myself into something that's already sort of in process or whatever you're doing, you know, and yes by legal standard, you're

Technically a minor as a 17 year old, but I just wanted to make sure you're good

You're good. Yeah, okay

Very good. That's all I need for now, and I appreciate you guys and I appreciate your willingness to I

Don't know I guess help me check boxes right here you're probably gonna have to speak with them yeah they're gonna have a meltdown exactly Hey there.

Hi.

So I'm Deputy Thurber.

Hi there. Hi.
So I'm Deputy Thurber. Hi there.
And you folks are? I'm Mom. Okay.
I'm Renee. All right.
Mackenzie. Okay.
So I basically went and did a welfare check, and I don't see signs of distress. There doesn't need to be distress.
She needs to come home. She is harbored by these folks.
I just not have my permission to be here. She is a minor.
I don't care if she's a day away from 18. A minor is a minor and she does not have my permission to be here.
Right but again it doesn't rise to the level of law enforcement involvement she's not in distress right now i'm sorry you're telling me that you're not going to physically rip her out of that home yeah even if there was an agreement between cps and her and the mother that that those are civil agreements and you get it so that's the police officer responding just infuriating and you know you guys know that I'm a big defender of the police. I defend the police on the show.
I defend corrections officers on the show. If you're in law enforcement and you listen to the show, you know that I have your back.
I'm on your side. But there are definitely exceptions to that.
And this is one of them. This officer is a total disgrace.
I mean, where do we even begin?

Let's begin with the scare quotes, right?

He says, well, you're talking to the child, the 17-year-old.

He says, well, you're technically, quote-unquote, legally a minor.

No, she's not, quote-unquote, a minor.

She is a minor.

What do you mean, technically?

She's a minor.

According to the law, she's a minor. She is under the custody of her mother.
And those two adults, one of whom is a cross-dresser, have taken possession of this minor, this child, against the will of the mother. That is not legal.
You can't just do that. Right? I don't think there's any state in the country where that is allowed legally, where you could just take a kid and say, oh, yeah, it's my kid now.
No, you can't have your kid back. Sorry.
That's what happened. I mean, if my kid goes over to somebody's house, goes to a friend's house, and then I come a couple hours later to pick her up, and the friend's parents inform me that my daughter will not be coming home, that they're going to keep my daughter because she wants to stay with them, that will not be acceptable.
That is a lot worse than unacceptable. That would be the cause for me to forcibly enter the home by any means necessary and extract my child by any means necessary and to use whatever amount of force I need to use to deal with anyone who happens to be standing in the way of that in order to get my child back.
And by the way, I would do that without hesitation. It wouldn't be anything.
There's nothing to think about here. I want my child back.
You have 0.02 seconds to produce my child. And if you don't, I'm coming into your house and I'm going to take my kid back and I will do whatever's necessary to make sure that happens.
But this cop here thinks that the whole thing's a big joke. He's having a great time with it.
He thinks it's a big joke. And his way of seeing if the child was in distress was to spend about 20 seconds just asking her if she's in distress.
Oh, just trying to see if you're in distress. Nope.
Okay. Well, see you later.
Really great police work there, officer. That's your way of, and the other adults, the kidnappers are sitting right next to her.
You didn't even pull her aside to talk to her without the other adults there. So the girl just kind of nods and the cop says, well, that's all I needed.
Thanks for helping me check boxes. He actually said that.
Admitted that he was just checking boxes. And then he comes out and laughs about the fact that the mother will have a meltdown.
Oh yeah, she's going to have a meltdown over this. Yeah.
Yes, you scum. Yeah, that's the mother of this child.
Any mother would have a meltdown if she's being told that her daughter has been legally kidnapped somehow. Her daughter's been kidnapped and there's nothing the police are going to do about it.

Yeah, meltdown? Yeah, I would think so. But this is the pro-trans side, cartoonishly evil, indefensible on every level.
and they have been empowered by people like this in government.

I don't know what this, I can't get inside.

I don't know who this officer is.

I can't get inside his head.

I can't understand his motivations.

I mean, the situation here is so clear.

And then he says, well, what am I going to do?

Rip her out of there?

Yes. Yes, that's what you do.
Obviously. That's my kid.
I have legal custody over my own child. There has been no legal process that has happened here to take away my custody of my child.
I have legal custody over my child. I want my child back.
There are adults refusing to return my child. So yeah, uh-huh.
Yeah, you physically remove her. You're a police officer.
Why are you acting like it's not possible for you to physically make someone go where they don't want to go? Don't you do that every day? Isn't that when you arrest anyone? Isn't that? And usually it's not 17-year-old girls. Like, are you able to handle a 17-year-old girl? So, you know, you can't get inside the officer's head.
I don't know what his motivation is. Does he have a trans kid of his own? I mean, usually that's the answer to the riddle in these kinds of cases.
But I have no clue. I have absolutely no idea.

But this is the kind of thing that, I mean, no rational person can look at this case and come away thinking, well, yeah, that was handled correctly. So, just pure evil.
and it's why listen

if you live in a place like Colorado, this is the danger. And certainly this is not me victim blaming here.
But we talked yesterday about the danger of sending your kid to public school, especially if your child starts to experience gender confusion, starts to, you know, if you notice that they're kind of flirting with these ideas at all, sending them to public school is, the public school system becomes a clear and present danger to your child. And you have to do whatever you can to extract your kid from that situation.
And it's even bigger than that, because if you live in one of these states one of these far left lunatic states and your child starts to fall into this cult well you know the law is going to stand against you every step of the way so to the extent you can get your kids out of public school system and also get out of these states. Move to an actual free state.
Daily Wire has this report. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Tuesday that climate change was not included in the intelligence community's national threat assessment this year because she directed America's intelligence apparatus to focus on the most serious and immediate threats the country faces.
She made these remarks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing when Senator Angus King asked why global climate change was no longer deemed a national security threat. Here is the video of this exchange.
One note that surprised me, I've been on this committee now for, this is my 13th year,

every single one of these reports that we have had has mentioned global climate change

as a significant national security threat, except this one.

Has something happened? Has global climate change been solved?

Why is that not in this report?

And who made the decision that it should not be in the report when it's been in every one of the 11 prior reports? I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this annual threat assessment has been focused very directly on the threats that we deem most critical to the United States and our national security. Obviously, we're aware of occurrences within the environment and how they may impact operations, but we're focused on the direct threats to Americans' safety, well-being, and security.
How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation, political violence, which is the finding, by the way, of the 2019 annual threat assessment under the first Trump administration. Do you don't consider that a significant national security threat? For the intelligence community, being aware of.
It's not a national security threat. Tulsi Gabbard handles this very reasonably, very politely, thoughtfully, did a great job.
I would have been a lot less polite and thoughtful about it, which is why I will never hold political office or be appointed to any kind of political position at all ever, which is probably for the best. Because what I would have said in this situation is, well, no, Angus, climate change is not a national security threat.
The climate changes because it's the climate. Climates change by definition.
What do you expect the climate to do, Angus? Not change? Do you want it to remain exactly 70 degrees and sunny forever? I would like that too. But the fact that the weather changes and does stuff you don't like doesn't mean it's a national security threat, you imbecile.
Or any other kind of threat that we need to do anything about, or that we can do anything about. I mean, sometimes the weather is a threat to our safety.
Still can't do anything about it. Okay, do you know what controls the weather, Angus? Do you understand what controls the weather? Do you know what determines the climate and its changes? Well, maybe it's hard to see right now because you're sitting inside, but if you go outside and you look up and you notice that giant spherical bright hot thing in the sky, that's called the sun, Angus.
It's really big. 99% of the mass in the entire solar system is contained in the sun.
It's 27 million degrees at its core. It's a really big thing.
You can fit 1.3 million Earths inside of it. It's like really big.
It's really hot. It has a gravitational force that extends 200 billion miles into space.
If a rocket ship left Earth like today with current technology

300 years from now, it would still be inside the sun's neighborhood. 100 years after that,

it still would be. It's just a really big, powerful thing.
And so that is what decides

what kind of climate and weather we're going to have on Earth, Angus. That's what determines it.

So if you want a threat assessment, there it is. Look at the sun.
There you go. There's your

problem. What are you going to do about it? Blow it up? I mean, what's your plan here? And what do you want the director of national intelligence, like what do you want the intelligence community to do about the weather? Do we need to send spies to go spy on the weather? We already have those, Angus.
They're called meteorologists. Notoriously unreliable, by the way, but we have those, okay? We have spies all the time conducting clandestine operations to figure out what the weather is.
That's called your TV weather man. So go talk to him.
Like, what do you want me to tell you? This is the intelligence community. You want the CIA to work on the weather?

How about this? Why don't we appoint you, Angus? We'll appoint you to head up the intelligence

operation to spy on the weather. As a matter of fact, we'll send you straight to the source.

I already told you what the problem is. I told you who's at fault here.
We know who to blame

for all this weather nonsense going on. Every time it gets hot, there's like one thing to blame.
It's that big burning thing up in the sky. So what we'll do is we'll put you on a spaceship and we'll have you go consult.
We'll send you directly to the sun. How about that? Just right straight into the sun to figure out this problem.
So you go to the sun and then come back and tell us and report back. That's what I would have said.
Something like that. But you know, that's not very polite.
So I understand you can't, hearing of this type, that wouldn't be appropriate, although it is true. All right, speaking of morons, spring break is happening right now.
And so we always get these kinds of videos around spring break. Caitlin Bennett went down to spring break to talk to a bunch of college students and to quiz them about basic facts, about history and civics and that sort of thing.
Of course, we've seen a million of these kinds of videos. So you know exactly where it's going to go.
And yet, and yet, the videos still managed to shock and disgust us every single time. Like, you know exactly how this is going to go.
Okay, it's going to be a bunch of these college kids who are total morons and know absolutely nothing about anything. And yet, still, knowing that going in, you find yourself somehow surprised.
So let's watch this. Who did the colonists fight in the Revolutionary War? Oh, God.
In the Revolutionary War? Oh, I don't know if this is right. I mean it sounds so stupid.
Was it the Spanish? Wait, what are your majors? Business. Biology.
Elementary Education. Oh.
What shape is the US Pentagon building? Isn't it just a square? How many US senators are there? 6, 7, 6, 7, 2, 3, 6. How many amendments are in the Bill of Rights? There's a lot.
I know 17. Who won the Civil War? Oh shoot, it's east or west, right? Well it's the Civil War, so it's the civilians versus whoever was in power.
How many justices are on the Supreme Court?

Justices?

So when you say that, you mean like the FBI?

Who is on the $100 bill?

Abraham Lincoln?

Nope.

Abraham Lincoln.

Come on, bro.

That's the First Amendment.

What's the second?

Right to vote.

Name three states that border Canada.

We'll just do one per person.

Asia.

Thank you. That's the First Amendment.
What's the second? Right to vote. Name three states that border Canada.
We'll just do one per person.

Asia.

I didn't know Canada had a border.

Okay, so these are mostly college students.

We heard one of them is in elementary education, so that's very encouraging.

The leaders of tomorrow.

And I know these videos are kind of cheap. Most likely, she probably talked to a few people who answered the questions correctly, and they don't make the cut for the video.
But that doesn't matter, because it simply should not be possible to go anywhere and talk to college students who don't know who fought in the Civil War. Even though arguably, I mean, there was the one moron who said East versus West.

The girl who said, well, the civilians versus the people in power, that she, it's sort of, I mean, you could make an argument that she has sort of stumbled on something close to the truth. in that you could argue that it essentially was Southerners versus the federal government in a, I don't know.
I mean, if you tried to rescue that one, you might be able to do it, but you should not be able to find anyone, you should not be able to find anyone who thinks that Asia is a state bordering Canada. Think about how utterly clueless about the world you would need to be to think that.
Like, I want to get inside that guy's head and find what do you think the world looks like? Where do you think you are right now? Because apparently you think Asia is close by and that between you and Canada is Asia. So then if you went across the Pacific, which you probably don't know where that is, what's over there? How can you make it to that age? It shouldn't be possible to think that.

And you certainly should not be able to find anyone who graduated from 13 years of K-12

public education and yet are this shockingly ignorant about the most basic facts of the world. And yet you can.
It's very easy to find people like this. I doubt that Caitlin Bennett had even spent all that much time filming.
She probably was filming for like an hour, and she was able to find all this. Because anyone could do this.
You can go down to any beach during spring break, spend an hour filming, and you'll find enough ignoramuses of this type to fill out a funny montage. And that's why I'm really not interested in hearing from anyone defending the Department of Education.
It has totally failed. It has clearly failed in the most fundamental way.
Here's a question to consider. And, of course, there's no way to confirm this, but 100 years ago, do you think, let's even say 200 years ago, okay, in the year 1825, do you think you would have been able to find a single 19-year-old who had no clue where Asia is.
Do you think that in 1825, you could have found a 19-year-old who thought that Asia was somehow a state or territory of the U.S.? I don't think so. Even if you were talking to, I mean, 200 years ago, 200 years ago, there were many fewer people who had any kind of formal education.
And even then, I don't think it would have been possible to find anyone over the age of like seven who had that level of ignorance. And yet these days they're everywhere.
It's a whole cottage industry on YouTube. So this is a systemic failure.
The whole education system has totally failed. And we all know that.
We don't even need to look at test scores, any of that stuff. The fact that anyone can make this video, anyone can do this.
I could do this right now. I could just go out in public anywhere with these kinds of questions.
And if I was willing to film for three or four hours, I could find 50 people who could not answer these questions. And we all know that we could do that.
So the education system has, it has actually produced, it's produced a level of ignorance that, as I said, should not even be possible. It's almost impressive how the amount of ignorance it's produced is almost impressive in its own right.
So you got to tear the whole thing down. The whole thing needs to come down.

And also these people should not be able to vote.

Like that should go without saying.

It is outrageous that probably everyone we saw in the video,

that all of those people can vote.

That the guy who thinks that Asia is a state bordering Canada, he thinks that Asia is like, and that guy can go vote.

And his vote counts the same as everybody else. He has no idea where he is.
He doesn't know where

he is. He doesn't know what planet he's on.
He doesn't know anything about anything at all. And yet his vote is equal to mine.
That should just not be allowed. So that's the next conversation we need to broach.
We've made a lot of progress on the right, even in recent months, even progress that many of us didn't think was even possible. I mean, the fact that we're talking about dismantling the Department of Education, that alone, two years ago, I would have thought, no way that's going to happen.
It's impossible. And so it is.
And so here's another conversation that seems impossible. It seems like it'd be impossible that we would have an actual, like a real, and I don't just mean as a podcast topic, I mean really, like a real movement in this country to start limiting the number of people who can vote.
And it goes against all of our programming, because we've all been raised in this fantasy world where we think that voting is a God-given right. Everyone should be able to do it.
The idea that there'd be any limits put in place at all is just, it feels intuitively wrong to people because we've had this idea drilled in our heads from the youngest ages that voting is this sacred thing that everyone should be able to do. But that's just not the case.
That was never the plan for this country to begin with. You can't have a functioning country this way.

You can't have a functioning country where you've got people who are that stupid, whose

voice matters the same as you or I.

That will kill the country.

It's killing it right now.

And so you start, and there's an exponential growth rate in this kind of ignorance and stupidity. So 50 years from now, the country can't exist anymore when you've got these kinds of people who are steering the ship.
So either we can continue to have a country, or we can figure out a way to stop these kinds of people from voting. I mean, it really is that simple.
It's our choice to make. Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a bit. Hey, we're the sweet baby gang.
As Doge continues to surgically cut the fat from decades of bloated government spending and corruption, Pure Talk, the cell phone company that I use for business every day, is cutting the fat from the wireless industry. That's right.
Pure Talk says, I don't think so, to $100 a month cell phone plans, which are just wasteful, irresponsible. Instead, they're offering America's most dependable 5G network at America's most sensible prices.
Listen to this. Unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data, plus mobile hotspot for just $35 a month.
And with PureTalk's U.S. customer service team, you can switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes.
You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill. You can do all that with Pure Talk yourself.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh.

Switch to Pure Talk at puretalk.com slash Walsh

and get a year of Daily Wire Plus for free

with a qualifying plan.

Pure Talk, wireless by Americans for Americans.

Just last week at Walmart,

a grown black woman was walking around

in a fleece Grinch onesie.

People have no shame.

A onesie. Yeah, the pajamas in public are out of control for sure.
With that said, and there's no excuse to be a onesie, like to wear a one, I mean, that's, you shouldn't be wearing that at your house, clearly, as an adult. But with that said, Walmart is its own thing.
So I'm very clear about what I think should happen to grown adults who wear pajama pants in public. I think they should go to Gitmo.
I'm not even joking. You could make a carve out for Walmart because Walmart has its own set of rules.
Walmart is exempt from many of the basic rules of decorum. It just is.
It just is. It's just the way that I mean, look look, I'll, I was just walking around Walmart at like 9.30 PM a few weeks ago and I was in sweatpants.
I really was. That actually happened.
Um, because I had, we, you know, we had a sick kid and, uh, we needed a thermometer, but we couldn't find, every time we have a sick kid, we can't find a thermometer. When you have a bunch of kids, like these are just the random things that go missing all the time.
And, anyway, I just had to run out. And like, you know, I was aware of swept.
I was around the house. And Walmart's the only thing up is I'm running out.
And then my wife even said to me, like, aren't you going to get changed? I said, well, it's Walmart. It's fine.
It's 930 at night. Going to Walmart.
And of course, inevitably, when I'm there, someone who's a fan stops me and I look like just a total slob. But that's how it is.
It's different. It's a different tradition.
So I'm saying that the rule applies to everywhere except for Walmart. I mean, arguably, like, you shouldn't.
It's rude to not wear sweatpants at Walmart. It's like you're, it's kind of a dress code that you're violating.
Seeing a shoelace and thinking it's a noose is basically the left's version of finding Jesus on toast. Yeah, it is.
That's an insightful observation. You're right.
Except that the Jesus on toast thing is a cliche used to mock Christians. I don't know.
Has anyone ever actually claimed that they found Jesus on a piece of toast? Maybe it really happened one time in the

90s or something and it became kind of a meme. But the fake nooses are an actual epidemic.
That's

a real thing that happens all the time. Makes me think of Matt talking to the, about the hate crime hoax student in Am I Racist? I bet it was painful having to act like an a**hole in front of reasonable people.
Well, you could argue that I act like an a**hole every single day on the show, but it was. By far the hardest part about both Am I Racist and What is Woman were the scenes with normal people.
In fact, probably the hardest thing I did in either movie was the scene

at the biker bar in Am I Racist, which was a great scene. I love the scene, but

just a bunch of blue-collar guys who have no time for the nonsense, and here I am acting like an

absolute buffoon. That was difficult, but it was all worth it for the footage.
Matt, we're obviously

going to need an entire new segment of the show dedicated to the goats. We don't.
We really don't. I've said all there is to say about the goats.
The second goat arrived officially yesterday. His name is Oreo.
So we have Oreo and waffles. Couldn't even do two names that make sense together.
Chicken and waffles, bacon and waffles to keep the breakfast theme going. I don't know.
Couldn't even do that. So we have Oreo and waffles.
And last night I was down in the pen helping my daughter, our 11-year-old daughter, catch Oreo so he could be bottle fed. Why the hell am I doing this? This is what always happens with the animals.
This is the other thing that always happens. Every dad knows this.
You say no to the animal. You end up getting the animal.
You say, okay, well, I'm not going to have anything to do with this animal. I'm not taking it.
But then, you know, it's just, this is the way it works. So we're two days in and I'm already somehow somehow involved in bottle feeding duty for a goat.

And my daughter's getting all upset because she's saying, well, he won't take the bottle.

Then fine.

Then he'll just go.

He's a goat.

Okay?

If he's hungry, he'll eat.

What is happening?

What is happening to me?

My daughter insists that the goats need to wear jackets at night because it's cold. She's trying to put a jacket on the goat and he keeps kicking it off.
It wasn't even a goat jacket. I don't know if they sell goat jackets.
Probably not. This was like a regular human jacket.
And I'm trying to explain to her the anatomy of a person is different from a goat. I don't think the jacket's going to work.
But he wouldn't wear it. So she kept saying, oh, he'll be cold.
Okay, well then, you know what? Then he'll freeze and we will have the meat nicely preserved for tomorrow and I can make us a nice goat stew. Oreo will live on temporarily in our stomachs.
I think that people deserve to see a Matt Walsh morning routine video. No, people don't need to see that.
Like I said, my morning routine is to sleep through about nine different alarms and then to jump out of bed on the ninth. Well, when I say jump out, I mean like crawl out, drag myself out, my bones creaking like a mummy crawling out of the tomb after 3,000 years, wandering half dead to the kitchen.
My kids are trying to talk to me. I'm grunting like some sort of Yeti or something.
And then I drink coffee. And that's my morning routine.
That's the whole thing. That's the video.
So there it is. Maybe you notice how stories you hear on The Daily Wire sound nothing like what the corporate media is selling.
Well, that's no accident. We give you the facts and, yes, our unapologetic opinions.
While we report on the administration's recent immigration policies that are finally making the border safer,

legacy outlets downplay the numbers and ignore the results.

Why did it take record-breaking chaos to get here in the first place?

Who's accountable for the damage of the last four years?

This is why the Daily Wire exists. No spin, no censorship, just the truth.

Join us at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
There are 435 voting members of the House of Representatives, and the odds are very good that you haven't even heard of the vast majority of these people. Unless a congressman represents your district or serves in a prominent leadership position like Mike Johnson, then you have no reason to think about them.
They simply aren't that important. Their vote is many times essentially meaningless when it comes to passing legislation.
That's especially true of Democrats and House of Representatives, who, of course, are in the minority. So very little of their day-to-day activity has any degree of importance at all.
A lot of these people just don't matter at all. And for most of these members of Congress, that's not a problem.
They understand their job is to represent their constituents, not to attract attention for no reason. They're fine operating in relative obscurity.
But for lawmakers suffering from a wildly inflated view of their own self-importance, for pathological narcissists, in other words, obscurity is unbearable. They need to be the center of attention at every opportunity.
And some of these narcissists are actually somewhat subtle about their intentions. They're gifted with an IQ above room temperature, so they're capable of finding relatively intelligent ways to become the topic of conversation.
They might introduce a bill on some trendy topic, or they might deliver a carefully choreographed speech. But there's a subset of narcissists in the House of Representatives who are also extremely painfully stupid.
And as a result, in their bumbling attempts to get headlines written about them, they constantly make fools out of themselves day after day. And the whole time, they think they're doing a fantastic job.
They think that they're fooling everybody. Out of all 435 members of the House, there is no single lawmaker at the moment who embodies the persona of an entitled narcissistic moron more than Jasmine Crockett, who we've talked about plenty of times in recent months.
Jasmine Crockett, for lack of a better term, is a trashy ghetto dimwit. The last time we discussed Jasmine Crockett, it was to highlight how she suddenly adopted a fake black accent the moment that she arrived in Washington.
We've also discussed how she bragged about getting an honorary degree from a college that no one's heard of, as well as her claim that DEI would help SpaceX land rockets on Mars. All this to say, the bar is extraordinarily low for Jasmine.
No one is expecting her to say anything intelligent or to demonstrate any degree of class whatsoever. But even given that low bar, Jasmine Crockett has somehow managed to limbo under it.
She spoke this weekend at an event hosted by the far left group called the Human Rights Campaign, which pushes a variety of propaganda related to gender ideology and the LGBT agenda. And during her remarks, Crockett decided to mock the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott,

because a tree fell on him in 1984 while he was jogging, crushing his vertebrae

and confining him to a wheelchair.

Yes, Jasmine Crockett sneered at Greg Abbott

because he has been in a wheelchair

for the past 40 years.

Listen.

Because we in these hot-ass Texas streets, honey.

Y'all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there.

Come on now.

And the only thing hot about him

is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.

So, yes.

Now, you notice the laughter in the room

at the self-described human rights campaign as Jasmine refers to Greg Abbott as Governor Hot Wheels. These are people who will jump down your throat for ableism and for attacking marginalized communities and all that.
Try to destroy your life over it, actually. But in this case, it's fine because Greg Abbott is a Republican.
And we always knew that these people think like this. But even so, it's pretty striking to see them admit it effectively.
Marginalized communities is a term that means, and has always meant, people who vote unanimously for Democrats. That's it.
Anybody who supports a conservative, by their definition, is not marginalized, and therefore, they deserve to have a tree crush them while they're out jogging. After this footage surfaced, people noticed that Jasmine Crockett had somehow managed

to become an even trashier and less respectable version of herself,

which is a feat that scientists had previously believed to be physically impossible.

So she put out this tweet as a form of damage control.

She wrote, quote,

I wasn't thinking about the governor's condition.

I was thinking about the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants

into communities led by black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable. So she's saying that Governor Hot Wheels is a nickname that has nothing to do with the fact that he uses a wheelchair.
Instead, the Hot Wheels refer to cars, planes, and trains that are carrying illegals out of Texas. This is a post that, in Jasmine Crockett's mind, is a totally convincing explanation.
She is cursed with an IQ of about 80, so she can't see how this might strike everyone else as an obvious, gratuitous lie. But just for good measure, the crack reporting team at the Washington Free Beacon decided to investigate Jasmine's excuse.
And if Pulitzers mattered anymore, they should get one for their reporting on this because it's a remarkable case of shoe leather journalism. Here's what the Free Beacon found.
Quote, Representative Jasmine Crockett liked Facebook comments referring to wheelchair-bound Texas Governor Greg Abbott as Hot Wheels in 2021, a year before he started bussing migrants to Democratic cities, the policy Crockett said she was referring to when she called Abbott Hot Wheels herself, close quote. In other words, Jasmine Crockett was endorsing the nickname Hot Wheels for Greg Abbott long before he transported illegals on planes, trains, automobiles, or any other kind of transportation.
Take a look at this post, for example. This is the Zapruder film of our era.
As you can see there, the post from June of 2021 reads, Hot Wheels something else. And that was a reply from some random person to a post that Jasmine Crockett wrote about Greg Abbott.
And indeed, Jasmine Crockett liked that post. Now, additionally, the Free Beacon found another post that Crockett liked concerning Governor Hot Wheels.
And here's that one. This is from July of 2021.
Somebody writes, keep making Governor Hot Wheels mad. And again, Jasmine Crockett likes the post.
And there are a couple more like this, but you get the point. Jasmine's excuse, which was already completely unconvincing in every way, is actually so bad that the Washington Free Beacon proved it false within about 10 minutes.
As easy as it would be to end the segment here and to cancel Jasmine Crockett for the 50th time, it needs to be said that this event at the human rights campaign was apparently seen as something of a speaking opportunity for potential 2028 presidential contenders in the Democrat Party. And while Jasmine Crockett was the single dumbest speaker at the event by a large margin, even though they're all really stupid.
She wasn't the only Democrat to deliver an inane and insulting message seemingly without realizing it. Here's Illinois Governor J.B.
Pritzker, for example, explaining why exactly children should be exposed to trans activists and gay men parading around in their underwear at pride parades. Here's his reason, his justification for it.

Watch.

My mother was an activist for reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. And she took me to pride parades back when, well, they weren't really parades.
They were protests. So, I have to laugh when I hear the right wing carry on about the dangers of exposing

kids to trans people or same-sex couples, because I'm living proof that introducing your kids to the gay agenda might result in them growing up to be governor. Now, when you watch clips like this, it's not hard to understand why Gavin Newsom is doing a podcast with right-wing guests who he's pretending to agree with half the time.
When Democrats get in a room with other Democrats, things like this inevitably happen. They come up with ideas like, your kid might become the governor one day because you force him to watch men parade around in dresses among various other public displays of fetishes.
That's not exactly a compelling pitch to Americans who just overwhelmingly rejected all of this insanity in the last election. Like leaning into the gay agenda and directly advocating to expose kids to it.
That's the opposite of what Americans are looking for. But it's the pitch that the governor of Illinois delivered.
As pride parades are failing all over the country, this is his argument for why they're a net positive for society. Apparently, these parades produce governors like J.B.
Pritzker, who has destroyed his state. Illinois' population has been dropping consistently for about a decade.
They currently rank 46th in the country for out-migration, meaning the number of people who are leaving because they can't stand to live there anymore is enormous. That's accounting for population size, by the way.
Only four states, Hawaii, Alaska, California, and New York, have residents leaving at a higher rate than Illinois. And J.B.
Pritzker

has been in office for six years, and the problem's only gotten worse under his leadership.

That's the kind of governor that your state can have too if we just elect someone who,

you know, was raised on watching gay pride parades. This is the pitch from J.B.
Pritzker

and the so-called human rights campaign, which has always been a front for perversion and relentless propaganda on behalf of the Democrat Party, and now they're making it explicit. Their message is that Greg Abbott is bad because he's disabled, but J.B.
Pritzker is good because he thinks children should be exposed to sexual degeneracy. So Jasmine Crockett may not accomplish much, but credit where it's due.

This weekend, albeit inadvertently, she managed to expose the all-encompassing depravity of the Democrat Party and its various organs, which used the concept of human rights as a shield for all manner of degeneracy and cruelty. And now they're on tape essentially acknowledging that fact.
And that is why the so-called human rights campaign, along with J.B. Pritzker and the irredeemably trashy Jasmine Crockett, are all 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.