Ep. 1554 - “Conversion Therapy” Bans Are An Outrageous Attack On Free Speech

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue of so-called conversion therapy. Should counselors and therapists have the right to help their patients overcome gender confusion and same-sex attraction? Or should that practice be banned by force of law as it has been in dozens of states? We'll talk about it.
Also, an explosive moment on Capitol Hill when a Republican lawmaker correctly genders the trans congressman Sarah McBride. And Disney is already trying to mitigate the damage ahead of Snow White's premiere this weekend.
A new clip from the movie shows just how bad this thing is going to be, and it's pretty hilarious.

We'll talk about all that and much more today on The Matt Wall Show. Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.

Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.

It sounds miserable and time-consuming.

And sometimes, you know, I just want something deep-fried and unhealthy, if I'm being totally honest.

But with balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients. Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, it freeze-dries them, and then turns them into a powder and puts them into a capsule.
You take your fruit and veggie capsule every day and your body knows what to do with them. Go to BounceNature.com, use promo code Walsh for 35% off.
Your first order is a preferred customer. Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's BounceNature.com, promo code Walsh. There are few weapons in politics that are more effective than mass disorientation.
If you can confuse people about obvious truths, then they become much easier to control. This is a familiar tactic to most living Americans at this point.
We are, after all, the first generation in the history of the world to grapple with the absurdity that men can change their gender at will. But there's really a whole art form to mass disorientation.
It's not just about spreading big lies. It also involves confusing people at every possible opportunity.
And we're confronted with deceptions like this all the time. Media outlets and purported experts will repeatedly tell us to assume something is true or to accept some new framework, even when it's clearly false.
And this can continue for decades without interruption or pushback from basically anyone. Consider, for example, the topic of so-called conversion therapy, which the Supreme Court has just announced it's going to address in a few months.
This is a case that could very well end up being really the single most important free speech case of our generation. And we'll get into that.
We'll talk about the specifics of the case. But before we do that, it's important to recognize that conversion therapy, quote unquote, is a term that's been widely adopted by every mainstream institution in the country.
You can look through newspapers and media outlets going back decades, and you'll find tens of thousands of articles and news segments using this term as if it means something. And in particular, we've been told that it means something very bad.
It's like using some sort of coercive tactic to force a homosexual patient to become straight or to convince a trans-identifying individual that, in fact, he's not really transgender. Without exception, you're commanded to think of these alleged conversions, quote-unquote, as acts of unspeakable evil.
As of today, for instance, YouTube places a disclaimer written by the far-left group The Trevor Project underneath every video discussing the topic of conversion therapy. I mean, they'll probably append this disclaimer to this episode too.
So if you're watching this on YouTube, you could probably see the disclaimer below me as I'm saying this. And the disclaimer reads, quote, conversion therapy refers to a range of dangerous and discredited practices aimed at changing one's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
Well, that sounds ominous. Dangerous.
Conversion therapy, according to the Trevor Project in Silicon Valley, isn't simply a bad idea. It is dangerous.
It's like playing with downed power lines.

You could lose your life because of conversion therapy. And indeed, the name conversion therapy is intended to bring images like that to mind.
You're supposed to picture horrifying scenes of

people strapped to gurneys and given electric shocks or lobotomies. But amid all this discussion

about how horrible conversion therapy allegedly is, the one thing you're not supposed to do is

This is the first part. lobotomies.
But amid all this discussion about how horrible conversion therapy allegedly is, the one thing you're not supposed to do is pause for a second and realize that conversion therapy, at least as it's described by the left, isn't a real thing. Okay, the leftist conception of so-called conversion therapy is a fantasy.
It's like Bigfoot or the boogeyman. It is a myth intended to scare people and disorient them.
By endlessly warning of the dangers of conversion therapy, the left has successfully reframed the debate so that most people just go along with the general concept and assume that it's true, but it's not. Now, for one thing, conversion therapy, when applied to gender identity, is an entirely incoherent concept.
To be very clear, they call it conversion therapy when a counselor or therapist doesn't assist or affirm the attempted conversion of a boy to a girl or vice versa. Counseling that helps a boy accept himself for who he is or a girl for who she is is considered conversion therapy, even though it is the opposite of conversion therapy.
In fact, what they call gender affirmation is actually conversion therapy. And what they call conversion therapy is actually gender affirmation.
They have completely inverted the meaning of the word conversion so that trying to change someone is affirmation and trying to help them accept themselves for who they are is conversion. Now, there's arguably a better case for calling Christian counseling around same-sex attraction conversion therapy in a sense, the counselor would be trying to help a person overcome their same-sex attraction, thereby helping them convert from gay to straight, if that's how you want to put it.
But if that's the framing, then, well, all therapy is a form of conversion therapy. You don't even need the word conversion in front of therapy.

Therapy implies conversion.

All therapy aims to convert patients from one state to another.

Ideally, from a less functional state to a more functional one.

A depressed person might go to the therapist in order to be converted into a happy person.

A schizophrenic might go to the therapist in order to be converted to a patient who doesn't hear voices, and so on. So at worst, we have with conversion therapy an incoherent term.
At best, it's redundant. And that's precisely the reason that conversion therapy has become a rallying cry for the left.
They know that they can't come out and admit that they want to ban speech under the First Amendment, but when they cloak their speech bans by claiming that they're really banning conversion therapy, a lot of people fall for it. In fact, I'm guessing that if you did a poll of the average Republican voter and asked them how they feel about conversion therapy, a large number of them would insist that it's an evil thing and they don't support it.
The goal here, of course, is to force mental health professionals to baptize as many young people as possible into the LGBT religion. And the easiest way of doing that is to ban these mental health professionals from saying anything that might steer young people away from that path.
That's why nearly two dozen states have outlawed so-called conversion therapy. Several other states ban the use of government funding for the practice.
If a young boy comes into a psychologist's office and says that he's really a girl, then in many cases, it would be against the law for the psychologist to disagree. The psychologist is legally barred from telling the boy that he is,

in fact, actually a boy. This is, among other things, a flagrant violation of the First Amendment,

both because it restricts the freedom of speech and because it restricts the freedom,

the free exercise of religion. The government is telling counselors who are Christian in many

cases that they can't say certain words or communicate certain ideas to their patients.

That is, if that's not a violation of the First Amendment, then nothing is. And the counselor's clients, who are also often Christian, are being told that they cannot seek this type of care.
A grown adult with same-sex attraction is, under these laws, prohibited from seeking care to overcome that attraction. The law is saying that the same-sex attracted person who wants to be straight is not allowed to want that.
This is a position that the left has staked out, even though it obviously contradicts their supposed commitment to keeping the government out of the doctor's office, how quickly that principle goes out the window when there's free speech to ban. These are, keep in mind, these are the people who also say that if a parent wants to get sex change treatments for their child, it's none of our business.
Remember, that was the case that Chris Hayes made to Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago. None of our business.
Stay out of their business, whatever the parents want to do. Okay, well, what if a parent wants to get treatment for a child to help them overcome same-sex attraction? Isn't that none of our business? Well, suddenly all of that it's none of our business stuff disappears.
Suddenly it is very much Chris Hayes' business. Funny how that works.
After many years, as I mentioned, bans on so-called conversion therapy are finally heading to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the court agreed to hear the case of Kaylee Childs, a Christian who's also a licensed therapist, and she is banned under Colorado law from telling patients that there's no way to change their gender.
She's also banned from counseling them against a homosexual lifestyle. If Charles wins the case, then dozens of state-level bans on so-called conversion therapy could be struck down immediately.
Watch. This morning, a new Supreme Court case is moving forward that could have implications for LGBTQ plus people all across the country.
Yesterday, the justices agreed to take up a challenge to a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy. This is therapy aimed at young people who are questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The practice is highly controversial and unproven. It pushes gay, lesbian and bisexual minors to change their sexual orientation.
The therapy also tries to get trans children to identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. This challenge to Colorado's law comes after a Christian therapist appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ban violates her freedom of speech.
Colorado officials say the law is meant to regulate conduct, not speech. Both a federal judge and a Denver-based appeals court ruled in favor of the state.
Highly controversial and unproven, but, you know, giving a 13-year-old boy chemical castration drugs to turn him into a girl, that is proven somehow. Now, the core legal issue, as you heard, is whether or not bans on conversion therapy constitute bans on speech or whether they constitute bans on conduct.
And the various federal appeals courts are split on this issue somehow. And now the Supreme Court is set to resolve this split among the lower courts.
Just to dissect that a little bit more because it really is incredible. Democrats are arguing in court that it does not violate the First Amendment for the government to punish therapists who say certain things to their patients.
They're arguing that therapy sessions are really a form of conduct, like a surgical procedure, for example, and therefore they can be regulated extensively by the government. As lawyers for the state of Colorado put it, quote, a professional's treatment of her patients and clients is fundamentally different, for First Amendment purposes, from layperson's interactions with each other.

Therefore, they want the Supreme Court to uphold Colorado's law, which defines conversion therapy as, quote,

any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.

And the ban includes, quote, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards individuals of the same sex. Now, what's left unexplained is how exactly speech can become conduct simply because of the job of the person saying it.
That doesn't seem clear, nor is it clear how the law permits the treatment of detransitioners. These are people who often want a therapist's assistance as they reject their own assumed gender identity, the false one, and they try to embrace their actual identity.
And under the terms of the law, that's illegal. It's illegal.
You're not allowed to give any treatment to detransitioners. These are the kinds of problems you run into when you start regulating speech and pretending that it's conduct.
Now, fortunately, there are signs that this particular challenge will be successful. The Supreme Court recently turned away a similar challenge to a ban on conversion therapy, but they're taking this case.
And the plaintiff that is represented in this case by the group Alliance Defending Freedom, which famously defended the Colorado baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. They also defended a web designer who didn't want to make a website celebrating gay marriages.
Alliance Defending Freedom won both of those cases. So they have a very long and successful track record of affirming the right of free expression.
But the clearest sign that Alliance Defending Freedom is going to win this case is that the left's fundamental position, when you follow it to its logical conclusion, simply does not make any sense. Okay? So think about this.
They say that sexual orientation is immutable and unchangeable, which is why they claim that conversion therapy can't possibly work. But at the same time, they also say that sex is very mutable and very changeable.
Putting it mildly, that does not compute. How can it be that a man might become a woman, but a gay person can't possibly become a straight person? How in the hell is one a matter of self-identity and the other isn't? And on top of that, to change your sex is to change your sexual orientation.
If it is possible to change your sex, then it must be possible to change your sexual orientation. This is the logical problem they can't escape.
If a straight man becomes a woman, and if he really is a woman, as they say, then he has not only gone from man to woman, but he has gone from straight to lesbian. He's gone from straight to gay.
If sexual orientation is immutable, and if sex is mutable, it would mean that every heterosexual man who transitions must transition into a heterosexual woman, which is to say he must now be attracted to men. But that's not how it usually works most of the time.
Usually by his own claim, he goes from a straight man attracted to women to a lesbian woman attracted to women. This is what quote unquote trans women say about themselves.

They themselves are claiming that their sexual orientation changed. Now, explaining all this should not be necessary.
It's obvious to everybody when you spell it out. And of course, that's why they come up with the term conversion therapy in the first place.
The entire purpose of inventing the term is to obfuscate as much as possible so that the issue is so muddled that no one can follow the logic anymore. It is yet another tool of mass disorientation created by activists for their own political ends.
But in just a few months, these activists will have to take their case to the Supreme Court. They will have to convince the justices that a ban on speech isn't really a ban on speech.
It's the kind of self-defeating argument that gender activists have successfully relied on for years because no one's ever challenged it, but that's changing now. There's a very real chance that the LGBT club is about to lose one of its most important tools for indoctrinating the youth, if the decision goes the way we think it will.
And for the benefit of millions of children seeking mental health services, as well as anyone who values the First Amendment in this country, that decision can't come soon enough. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Did you know that scammers can literally steal your home right out from under you? The FBI calls it house stealing, and it's a growing real estate scam targeting American homeowners. Here's how it works.
Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee, and they file it with your local recorder's office. And just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name.
Then they take out loans using your equity as collateral, or even they sell the property behind your back. And you won't even know that it's happening until you start getting collection or foreclosure notices.
So let me ask you, when was the last time you checked your home title? If you're like me, the answer is, well, never. And that's exactly what scammers are counting on.
That's why I trust Home Title Lock. Their million-dollar triple lock protection helps keep your home and equity safe.
Here's what you get. Immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property, urgent alerts if there are any changes, and if fraud should happen, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost.
Here's the best part. I've teamed up with Home Title Lock to give you a free title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim and you can access your personal title expert, a $250 value that you get just for signing up.
Go to hometitlelock.com, use my promo

code Walsh250, or click on the link in the description. And make sure to check out the

million-dollar triple lock protection details when you get there. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code Walsh250, to get the protection and peace of mind you deserve.
So this was a fun moment yesterday, a congressional hearing. Representative Keith Self is recognizing Sarah McBride, the trans congressman.
But another representative, Bill Keating, does not like how self-introduces McBride. And that leads to this rather hilarious exchange.
Let's listen to it. I now recognize the representative from Delaware, Mr.
McBride. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ranking Member Keating, also wonderful. Mr.
Chairman, could you repeat your introduction again, please? Yes, it's a it's a we have set the standard on the floor of the House and I'm simply. What is that standard, Mr.
Chairman? Would you repeat what you just said when you introduced a duly elected representative from the United States of America, please. I will.
The representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.

Mr. Chairman, you are out of order.

Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?

I mean, I've come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent.

We will continue this hearing.

You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way. This hearing is adjourned.
Have you no decency? I don't think I've ever heard someone use that phrase in real life, non-sarcastically, so that was a lot of fun. I was kind of expecting to drop maybe a why I never next.
That would have been great. Anyway, Representative self is quite obviously in the right here.
Bill Keating is humiliating himself in an attempt to virtue signal. McBride is a man.
That's a fact. We aren't going to lie.
We're not playing along with the charade. And that's it.
It's Mr. McBride.
That's what he is. Now, and he can identify as whatever he wants.
He can see himself however he wants to see himself. He can say whatever he wants to say about himself, but he cannot force other people to play along or force other people to say the words that he wants them to say.
That's not how it works. But what I really want to highlight here is the progress the progress that we've seen.
Because five years ago, this moment would have been pretty unimaginable. Five years ago, almost every elected Republican in national office would have respected the pronouns.
And they were respecting the pronouns five years ago. Now, there wasn't a trans congressman back then, but they were respected protesters.

And now we have Republicans referring to this man as a man during hearings.

And this is not the first time.

It happened a couple of weeks ago.

And of course, there's been the Republican backlash against McBride using the women's room.

So just altogether, his reception by Republicans has been quite different from what it would have been five years ago, or even two or three years ago. This is a different climate.
It's a different world. And that's the big takeaway.
Now, the Democrats, on the other hand, have not changed. Democrats react the same way to this sort of thing as they would have five years ago.
They have not changed. They seem basically prepared to ride the trans train all the way over the cliff until it splatters

on the rocks down below. I mean, they're going to ride this thing to the end.
The trans agenda has

almost single-handedly destroyed the Democrat Party. I mean, it really has.
If I were a Democrat,

I would be far more ticked off at the McBrides of the world than at Republicans. Because they're the ones who have driven my party into total irrelevance.
All for the sake of this tiny fraction of the population. As a Democrat, that's how I would see it.
That our whole political operation, our whole agenda has been completely destroyed by these trans activists. They have almost single-handedly ruined everything if you're a Democrat.
And I'm sure many Democrats do feel that way, but they can't say it. They'll never say it.
They cannot say it. They lack the courage.
They lack the will. They lack the backbone to extricate themselves from this madness, so it will destroy them, and you love to see it.
You love to see it. So here's some good news from the Texarkana Gazette.
The Texas Senate is poised to pass legislation requiring public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, one of several Republican-led efforts to blend religious concepts with education. Senate Bill 10 instructs elementary and secondary school classrooms to conspicuously display a 16-inch by 20-inch poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments and type large enough to be legible for a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.
And so that's the proposal. It looks like it's going to become law.
It won't surprise you to learn that, and this is not, this is, there have been a few states recently that have passed laws like this. It won't surprise you to learn that I'm very much a fan of this.
I think the Ten Commandments should be in every school, and there are multiple arguments for it, and each argument is decisive on its own. You don't need any more arguments, right? But I'll give you a few.
I'll give you two at least. And the first, I think, is the most obvious, which is that the Ten Commandments have incredibly indispensable historical significance.
they are on a very, very short list for the most influential and important things ever put to paper or to stone and then papyrus, I suppose. And even if you're a secularist or some other non-Abrahamic religion, and you don't believe the Ten Commandments were given to us by God, and you don't think they were ever put to stone.
God did not pass them down, or there is no God, right? Even if you think, well, you're wrong, but if you think that, even so, on a historical level, that would still make them one of the most influential and important documents ever written. A child who makes it through 13 years of K-12 education and cannot recite the Ten Commandments from memory in order does not have even basic historical literacy.
Okay, that's an essentially illiterate child.

And yet, how many high school graduates who just walked across,

they're going to walk across the stage in May or June this year,

how many of them, if you ask them to name the Ten Commandments, could name them?

How many of them could give you five of them?

Just on, again, a basic literacy level, that is a disgrace, a disgrace for the education system and the teachers specifically, not for the kids who were not taught this stuff. But beyond the historical significance, I go back to what we talked about yesterday, which is that our country is built on and foundationally constructed on not secularism, but Christian faith.
Our education system should actually reflect that fact. And I don't mean that every child should be required to profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or they'll fail out of school.
I mean, don't tempt me. Don't tempt me with a proposal like that, but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm just saying that this is the foundational identity of our country. It is our core.
And our education system, if we're going to have a public education system, needs to reflect some kind of national identity. Public education system means national education system, which means it will reflect and be based on and around our national identity.
The left wants our national identity to be left-wing secular. They want a left-wing secular national identity, which is why they want a left-wing secular public education system, national education system.
And I reject that. So the point is that this is not a choice between having an education system that is rooted in the Christian moral tradition.
It's not a choice between having educations rooted in the Christian moral tradition or an education system that's just neutral. Those are not the choices.
Okay, the education system is going to be rooted in something. It's going to be rooted in some kind of perspective.
There is no such thing as education apart from moral instruction. There is no such thing as a morally neutral education.
It doesn't exist. It cannot exist.
It has never existed anywhere ever and will never exist. To educate children is to not only tell them facts that they should know, it is to form them into the kinds of people that we think they should be.
That's the purpose of education. It's why I don't send my kids to public school, because I don't trust the public school system to form my kids into the people they should be.
The public school system will form my kids into the people that the public school system thinks they should be. But I disagree with what the public school system thinks my kids should be.
So the school system right now, the supposedly secular school system, imparts moral teachings on kids all the time. And mostly, nobody objects.
Because if rather than the Ten Commandments, the schools hung posters that said, thou shall be tolerant, thou shall be kind, be open, be inclusive, be open-minded, be welcoming, and schools do have posters like that all over the place. Every school does.
It might not say thou shall, but it does say, it does have the be tolerant, be kind, be open-minded and all this kind of stuff. And nobody on the left objects to that.
In fact, they want that. And very few people at all object to it, in fact.
But, you know, those are commandments in their own right. Be tolerant is a commandment.
It is a moral principle. It is a moral instruction.
It's not science. There's nothing in science that says we should be tolerant.
It's not some objective fact about the universe. It's a moral instruction.
But who is that moral instruction, that moral commandment coming from? they don't want to take the Ten Commandments because they came from God, even though they don't even believe in God. But be tolerant is coming from who? That is the commandment of who? The guidance counselor? No, actually, it's a commandment coming from our secular liberal culture.
That's where it's coming from. So we can have commandments in the schools that are ancient and have served as the foundation of Western civilization for many, many centuries, or we can have commandments that were devised by secular liberal culture 10 minutes ago.
Either way, you have commandments. And you know, I prefer the originals, I guess is what I'm saying.

All right. This is some, I think, quite revealing footage that's been circulating.
It's from apparently an Instagram account that I guess goes around and films stuff like this, people kind of living their lives. And here we have a couple of homeless people who are no longer homeless technically because they were given free public housing.
And it's just a short clip of them, it seems, shortly after they moved into this public housing arrangement. And this is how they reacted to it.
This is how they are responding to being taken off the street, rescued, you'd think, from this life of vagrancy. But here's how they feel about it.
I don't want to be in government housing. This is Isabella Towers, an apartment complex in Knoxville, Tennessee.
It's just terrible. And it's just too small.
But you could kind of make this nice about the size of mine back home now. Come on, we gotta learn a little gratitude.
This is a heater. I would prefer this personally to living on the street.
It's about the same, really. It's really about the same because we would have more freedom out there though.
We wouldn't care if we lost it today. You wouldn't care? No.
Got the TV, AC, shower. The only two things I've...
Locked door. Yeah.
We consider this still homeless. I mean, I still believe.
I want to live in a house. To where I could actually go outside and do yard work.
Achieving that from this place is substantially easier than achieving that from the streets. Not really.
It's much easier to do on the streets.

It doesn't have a window factor.

But I would say this is a good transitionary point.

Have a place where you can take a shower, freshen up, and then go to work,

start saving money, open up a bank account.

It has a lot of potential.

And then from there you can eventually have your first lap of security

for a place that you actually would like to...

That we actually want. Did you get anything that you could use? Okay, so they're given free housing.
They have a bathroom, a shower, AC, kitchen bed, a door they can lock. And you would think much better than sleeping on a cardboard box out on the street or under a bridge or something.
But they're not satisfied with it. They say that it's no better than being on the street.
They want a bigger place with a yard. They won't accept anything less than 3,000 square feet and five acres.
Meanwhile, if you look at the video, you can see that they've already totally destroyed this place that they were given. It's a disgusting, filthy pigsty.
Trash everywhere. And this is what you get.
People don't want to hear it. People don't want to hear it.
Very few people, we always hear about, let's have an honest conversation about this and that. Well, when are we going to have the honest conversation about homelessness? That's a conversation that very few people want to have.

Even though we all kind of know, and it's one of those classic sort of conversations that you have in your living room, but people don't want to say it out loud. But at a certain point, we just have to be real about it.
that you give homeless people free housing and they destroy it and they complain about it and they don't want it and they end up back on the street. This is the way it works.
Totally predictable. And by the way, many, you know, you talk to people that work with the homeless, you talk to people who, anyone who's tried to help the homeless in any way, everyone has a similar story.
I mean, I'll never forget my sister has a story of seeing a homeless person in a parking lot once. And it's just an anecdote, but there's just many, just symptomatic of the larger problem.
But didn't want to give cash because not really

excited about the idea of helping someone's drug habit. So she gave, I think it was a homeless

woman, she gave the woman a gift card. She went out and she went to a local takeout place and

got a gift card for whatever it was, 20, 30 bucks to go get some food. And the homeless woman complained that she didn't like that restaurant.
I mean, they say beggars can't be choosers, but it turns out the beggars very often are choosers, at least in these kinds of cases. So I've said many times on the show, and I've been mocked for it every time, that you cannot fix homelessness by giving people homes.
When I say that, it's very easy. What do you mean? They're homeless, Matt.
Of course you can fix it by giving them homes. No, you can't.
You moron. This is what happens.
The problem with homeless people is not that they don't have homes. The lack of homes is not actually the issue.
I know it's shocking for some of the dumbest among us to hear that. The homelessness is a symptom.
It's a result of the problem. It's not the actual problem.
And we know that because when you give them free housing, this is what happens. They destroy it, first of all, and then they're back on the street.
Okay, you could give every homeless person in America a free house with three square meals a day for free, and we would have zero homelessness in America for about a week. And within two weeks, we'd have the same amount that we had before.

Okay?

And that's obviously the case.

It's obvious because in most cases,

if a homeless person really wanted to be in a house, they could be.

They're not out on the street because they couldn't get a job

and they couldn't afford a house.

The vast majority of these people are not trying to get jobs or get houses.

And when you see someone on the side of the road, you know, with the change cup, like they're not,

this is not someone who's trying every single day and putting in applications and trying to get a job.

But it's just, they're not trying at all.

They're really not, they're most likely making basically zero attempt to change their situation. In fact, they're so uninterested in finding housing that, again, if you give them housing, they'll end up back on the street in many, many cases.
Why is that? Well, again, this should be obvious. I think it is obvious to almost everyone whether they say it out loud or not.
First of all, many of these people are drug addicts. The vast majority are drug addicts.
I can't say for absolute certain about the two individuals in that video. I don't know.
my guess, if I had to guess, I think it's a safe assumption that when they talk about the freedom of being on the street,

they're talking about drugs.

He means he can do drugs on the street, but he can't do drugs in government housing. Or if he does, he might get kicked out.
Homeless people are homeless in many, many cases because they've dedicated their whole lives to drugs. And if you give them money,

if you give them,

if you be very generous and you give them even,

you know,

so you go to a homeless person

and you give them $100

because you really want to be generous,

you might have just killed that person

because they're going to go spend it on drugs

and overdose.

And they're apathetic at best

about their housing situation.

And I don't know why people pretend they can't wrap their minds around this sort of thing.

But a lot of homeless people really don't actually want homes all that much.

These are often not desperate and starving people who are yearning to be housed again.

They might be desperate in many ways, but the yearning for the house part doesn't appear to be the case. And again, anyone who's ever worked with homeless people knows this, whether they say it or not.
It becomes very obvious. So what do you do then about homelessness? How do you solve it? Well, you can't solve it completely.
That's the first thing we have to just accept. You're not going to solve it.
There's not gonna be a time when there's no homeless people, but you can address it. It doesn't have to be as bad as it is now.
It doesn't have to be like, you can't walk down the street in any major city because it's just strewn with homeless people. it doesn't have to be as bad as it is now.
It doesn't have to be like you can't walk down the street in any major city because it's just strewn with homeless people.

It doesn't have to be that way.

So how do you solve it?

Well, if you have the stomach for it, the problem is that our leaders and a lot of people in general just don't have the stomach.

They don't have the stomach to deal with these kinds of problems the way that they need to be dealt with. And there's really only one way most of the time.
And either you're going to do the thing that works or you're not going to do it because it makes your tummy hurt to think about it. And then the problem is going to continue.
So with homelessness, well, first of all, you need to crack down on drugs in a major, major way, in a way that we, in fact, are not. For all the talk about, oh, the war on drugs has failed.
What war on drugs? What war on drugs are you talking about? There's a war happening. There should be, but there's not.

Okay, I'll know that there's an actual war on drugs

when drug traffickers are being arrested and executed.

That's a war on drugs.

You think we've had a war on drugs?

Like, you ain't seen nothing.

A war on drugs is you arrest the drug traffickers

and you put them on trial and you convict them and then you execute them as mass murderers because that's what they are. So that's step number one.
And number two is you have to disincentivize homelessness. And I know that it sounds crazy if you're completely clueless about these things.
You think, disincentivize? There are no incentives to be homeless. What do you mean? No one's choosing to be homeless.
Yeah, they are. You just heard it.
You just heard it from two people who said that they'd kind of prefer to be on the street. How do you disincentivize it? Well, you take away the freedom that he's talking about.
He likes the freedom of being homeless. And what he probably means, probably, is that as a homeless person, he can set up a camp wherever he wants, and there's no expectation of him at all, and he can do drugs openly anytime he wants.
You take that away. You take that freedom away.
You crack down on the drugs. You crack down on the homeless camps.
You start arresting people who are doing drugs openly. You arrest them.
People that set up camps on sidewalks that should not be allowed. People that do that, you arrest them.
You ban this kind of behavior. You strongly disincentivize it.
You crack down on the drugs, real serious, ugly consequences for the people that are pushing this poison into our communities. That's what you do.
And if you're not willing to do that, then you are not serious about helping, about solving this problem or helping these kinds of people. And I don't want to hear anything.
I don't want to, I just don't want to hear it anymore from people that talk about their deep compassion for people like that. You have no compassion.
You in fact are indifferent to them. You see them as like little puppy dogs.
You don't even see those people because you're not willing to do the things that would actually require to help people like that. All right, let's lighten the mood a bit, as much as we can.
Bit of a weird transition, but Snow White is finally coming out this weekend. I believe this weekend's coming out, and if you're planning to see it, you'll be one of the very few, I think.
Disney is scaling down their plans for the premiere.

And right now they're in damage mitigation phase.

They've been in that for a while.

They're expecting that this thing will flop, which it probably will.

Then again, you can never underestimate the American moviegoers' appetite for soulless

corporate slop.

So it's possible that after all of this, it still makes a billion dollars.

We'll see. I don't think so, but it's possible it does happen.
And anyway, Disney is releasing a few last promo materials for this film. And I want to show you a couple of them just because they're funny.
First, this is a sneak peek of a scene. I think it's the first clip, the first full clip of a scene from this movie that has been put out.
We'll just watch a few seconds of this. Watch.
Please, you were saying. It's just, your majesty, people are struggling.
And it may not be much, but when I was young, my parents and I would pick apples. We'd take them and make pies and go out into the village.
Pies? Pies are luxuries. They don't need luxuries.
It confuses them. But sometimes something small, something sweet even, can make you believe that there's more to being alive than mere subsistence.

You know, I really don't remember you being this opinionated.

My apologies. It's just...
I feel they need some kindness.

Fearless, fair, brave, true How great First of all, I know this point has been made But this truly is the worst casting Maybe in the history of the film industry Has there been a film with worse casting than this? And I don't just mean the Snow White actress. Obviously, she's terrible, but both of them.
These are the two least charismatic actresses in the business. In the same film, neither of them make any sense for their roles.
We've already covered how Rachel Zegler is a terrible choice for Snow White. Nothing about her says Snow White.
And that's even leaving aside the fact that she openly detests the story, as she's said many times during this disastrous PR campaign. But Gal Gadot, who plays the queen, the first problem is that she's the evil queen.
The evil queen is supposed to be envious of Snow White's beauty, and that is just not believable. It is just not, even in a movie with magical mirrors and dwarves and all that, in a fairy tale, that strains my ability to suspend disbelief.
I can buy that this is a world with magic. It's a world where dwarves are down in the gold mines and singing and whatever.
I cannot buy that Gal Gadot is angry, that she's not as beautiful as Rachel Zegler. I cannot buy that.
And also Gal Gadot is a terrible actress, frankly. I mean, she certainly is not a very emotive actress.

She doesn't do big, over-the-top sort of things. But that's what you need for a Disney villain.
This is a Disney villain. You need someone who can ham it up a bit, who can chew the scenery a little bit.
That's what you need from a Disney villain. And Gal Gadot is just not that.
So it just doesn't work at all. There's one other Snow White clip that I wanted that's making the rounds I wanted to play real quick.
This, because this is very funny. The account End Wokeness on X had this a couple of days ago.
And I don't know when this was released, but it's a very brief clip of some song from the movie. And it tells you the origin story of Snow White in this new reimagining of the story.
Listen. Sharing secrets with a stone.
My father told me long ago. I braved a bitter storm of snow.
Is that a girl I'll ever know again? So there you go. That's apparently the origin story now of Snow White.
That's how they explain Snow White's name. She was caught in a snowstorm, so they named her Snow White.
What was her name before that? Who knows? Did they not give her one? They wanted to see what the weather was going to be first, and then they named her whatever the way. So what if her, it's a good thing it wasn't freezing rain or sleet, you know? Her name could have been gray sleet.
Her name could have been 70% humidity, which would not have the same ring to it. And this is not, needless to say, the original story behind Snow White's name.
In the original fairy tale, she is named Snow White because she has white skin. That is what the name refers to.
Skin as white as snow. That's why she's named Snow White.
And it's right in the name. So this is, as many people have compared it to this, it is exactly like, exactly like making Black Panther white.
It is exactly the same sort of thing as if they had Chris Pratt playing Black Panther. That's what they're doing here.
And the filmmakers are obviously embarrassed by it. So they need to come up with some new explanation for why she's named Snow White.
And then this is what they came up with. The lamest one imaginable.
And let me also say one other thing that we've only heard 15 seconds of this song, but the song, the song is obviously, obviously not an original Snow White song. It's a new song.
And it sounds exactly like every song in every Disney movie for the past 15 years. I mean, they all really do sound exactly the same.
And I have heard more of them than you might think because I have daughters. So I've heard a lot of these new Disney songs and they all sound exactly the same.
They don't even know how to make songs for their movies anymore.

It's kind of similar to the Christmas song problem. Nobody knows how to make a Christmas song anymore.
There hasn't been a Christmas song that sounds and feels like a Christmas song for like 50 years. There have been maybe Christmas songs that are technically fine.
and write the... If you just analyze it on a pure musical, just looking at the melody and everything else and you listen to it and say, well, it's fine.
It's a fine song, but it just doesn't feel like a Christmas song. And I don't know why that is, but that ability to make a song that feels like a Christmas song has been lost.

And I think that Disney has a similar problem, that they don't know how to make a song that feels like a song from a fairy tale. They don't know how to make fairy tale songs anymore.
They always feel like these empty kind of derivative, repetitive, mediocre, modern pop songs. So just going to be bad stuff all around.
And please do not support this movie. Do not take your kids and go watch this movie.
You'll be sending exactly the wrong kind of message. It will truly be an indictment on the public if this movie is

successful in spite of it all. And then they're going to do a sequel if that happens, and we're

going to have to deal with Rachel Zegler on doing more PR and interviews and everything else. We

don't want to deal with that, so just don't watch the movie. Let's get to the comment section.
Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes. Well, now there's a third certainty that if you're with Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile, you can be saving a fortune every month by switching to Pure Talk.
That's right. Pure Talk, my cell phone company, is cutting the fat from the wireless industry.
For just $35 a month, you can get unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with Hotspot on America's most dependable 5G network. The average family of four saves over $1,000 a year when they switch to Pure Talk.
That is real money being put back into your pocket. Plus, it's back.
When you switch to Pure Talk's super low $35 plan this month, you'll get one year of Daily Wire Plus for free. But the only way you can get it is by going 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.
Wait, I thought the left likes electric cars as green. My, how the winds change.
Yeah, exactly. I was saying this on X last night.
It really is incredible if you think about it, that Elon Musk has done more than any other human on earth to promote and propagate so-called green alternatives. He is the world's greatest champion of what the left would call green energy.
He owns one of the largest electric vehicle companies in the world, of course. So by the left's own climate change logic, this guy has saved, what, millions of lives? He's prevented untold numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes and tsunamis and whatever else.
If they took their climate change stuff seriously at all, they would celebrate him as an environmental hero. They would happily overlook all the MAGA stuff because he is, again, by their logic, saving the globe.
Whatever damage he has caused by Doge and by sending emails that frighten federal workers, you would think that that has been more than compensated for by preventing hurricanes. How many hurricanes would there have been if Elon Musk never existed? Think about it.
Now, of course, the actual answer is that Elon Musk has not prevented a single hurricane,

and he has had no impact on the weather whatsoever.

But that's my answer as someone who doesn't buy into the climate change hysteria.

But if you do buy into it, then you must concede that this guy has saved many, many, many lives.

And yet they still are trying to destroy him because they don't take their own BS seriously. That's why they are currently in the process of trying to destroy one of the greenest companies on earth.
Let's see. Another comment says, even as a highly pro-science person, I honestly can't see the tangible benefits of constantly spending billions to send rockets to a desolate, uninhabitable, frozen planet far, far away.
Well, look, I'm not going to bore everybody with once again, with my speech about the value of interplanetary travel. I won't go into the whole rant.
I'll go into a half rant. I'll give you a half.
I'll give you a half of the rant, just a portion of it. And I will say that the downstream technological benefits of space exploration are myriad.
They are almost innumerable. The space program in the 20th century gave rise to dozens of technological advancements that greatly improve life on Earth, have greatly improved your own life.
Everything from medical imaging to different water filtration technology and dozens and dozens of other things. And that's because when you try to develop technology to go to another planet or to go to the moon in the 20th century, you end up developing a whole bunch of other stuff along the way because you have to.
And necessity is the mother of invention,

and that is actually true. It was the same thing in the 15th and 16th and 17th centuries,

in the 18th century, with sea exploration. The push to explore the seas and to travel around

the globe gave rise to all kinds of advancements and all sorts of new understandings of the world,

everything from navigational technology to even a better understanding of nutrition, trying to figure out why sailors were dying of scurvy, right? And all that. And then they started to figure out, well, about vitamins, and they started to figure out about the necessity of fruits and citrus in your diet.
So that's one thing. If we develop the tech to go to Mars, we will also develop along the way all kinds of technology that will make your life better in immeasurable ways.
So that's the first thing. The second is that there is a value per se in exploration, even aside from everything else, even aside from the technological advancements, the push to explore, to discover, to find new places, new planets, to conquer, right? This is a human drive.
You cannot have a flourishing human society without it. A flourishing human society encourages these sorts of ambitions, and it gives men with these ambitions a place to direct them.
So I said I wouldn't give it, I said I'd give you a half rant. That was probably about three quarters.
Matt, get your family some goats, get pygmy goats. They're easy to take care of.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'll probably hate them, at least at first, but your kids will absolutely love them. I would, however, caution against getting a billy.
They can go a little crazy. Yeah, that's why my wife and my kids have been pushing me for the pygmy goats.
Why? What purpose do they serve? What is a pygmy goat going to do for me? You could convince me if you said, okay, let's have goats that we will raise and then kill them and then make a nice curry with the goat meat. You could convince me of that.
Curry with fresh goat meat sounds delicious, but they don't want to kill the animals and eat them. So then what purpose do they serve? I already let my daughter talk me into letting her get rabbits.
And if you're getting meat rabbits that you're going to kill and eat, I get it. But like these rabbits, they don't do anything.
They just, they're just there. They're there.
That's all they do. They sit there and they run around and they do nothing else.
So I need animals to contribute. Okay.
That's why God made animals, for man to

have dominion over them. And they need to contribute to the household in some way.
And if

they don't contribute, then I'm not interested. So what the hell will midget goats do for us?

What kind of contributions are they offering to the family is my question. Never mind the clothing Matt wore at the speech.
Can we talk about the fact that Matt clapped real dorky anytime he applauded? Prayer hands versus crisscross. Enough already.
Like, can we, have we, have I been picked apart enough from this? Is there anything else? Is there any other aspect of my clothing or my demeanor or my physical posture, my motions, my hand motions that we can dissect? Is there anything else?

my god this this is hurtful like this hurts my it would this would hurt my feelings if i had any to hurt i think that if i was capable of human emotion i would i would i would probably feel

what my feelings were hurt. I don't know.
I can only assume. And by the way, yeah, I was overthinking the clapping too.
So I'm glad you noticed that. It goes back to my point last week.
Whatever you're self-conscious about, everyone notices. Everyone notices and they're judging you and they are making fun of you and they think less of you because of it, whatever it is.
Just so you know, you're walking around thinking, I hope no one notices this. Oh yeah, we notice.
We notice you freak for sure. So that was another one.
I was actually, because I knew, well, you got to do the clapping and I knew that I might be on camera. I didn't know if I would be or not.
And so I even, I was, I was probably overthinking it. I was actually, I was conscious.
You're usually not conscious when you're clapping. You're not conscious about that motion.
You just kind of do it. But in this case, I was conscious of it.
So I started thinking like, what's the, how do I, and then once you start thinking about it, you look weird. Now you look like a robot because you've thought about this thing you'd never really thought about before.
And so I actually was thinking, clap. And then, so apparently you picked up on that.
So thank you for that. Thank you for letting me know.
You've probably seen the headlines. The Daily Wire has stirred up the usual crazy leftists on CNN, MSNBC, talking about a new effort to pardon Derek Chauvin.
No matter how much the new Trump administration works to undo the damage caused by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over the last four years, the woke movement in American politics will never truly be over until this injustice is righted. Derek Chauvin didn't get a fair trial.
He was railroaded to appease the mob. President Trump has power over the federal part of Chauvin's charges, but he needs to hear loud and clear that the American people want action.
Go to pardonderick.com right now and sign the petition. When we fight, we win.
With your support, we'll do it again. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Have you checked lately to see if your home's title is still in your name? With one forged document, scammers can steal your home's title and its equity. But now you can protect yourself from this crime.
Home title locks, million dollar triple lock protection gives 24-7 title monitoring, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen,

they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix fraud and restore your title. Get a free title

history report and access your personal title expert, a $250 value, when you sign up at

hometitlelock.com and use promo code DailyWire. in recent years.
And this bill, though, is not one of them. The Wisconsin Examiner reports two controversial bills that target transgender youth in schools, one dictating how school districts handle name and pronoun changes,

and the other banning transgender students from sports teams that align with their gender identity,

receive vast opposition at a public hearing on Thursday.

The second bill, AB 100, would require Wisconsin K-12 schools sports teams to designate based on sex,

defined as sex at birth, and would ban transgender girls from participating on teams and being in locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Close quote.
The bill is good and sensible. There's nothing to cancel there.
But the reaction from left-wing activists in the state has been not so good nor sensible. There are many clips we could play, as you can imagine.
But today, I want to focus on only one of them. Here is a local activist at a hearing last week in Wisconsin expressing her disapproval of this legislation.
My pronouns are they, them, or at least that's what I share with people most often. But for this particular meeting, I will come out fully as saying that my pronouns are she, they, him.
Now, I don't usually go into that because it becomes a quite interesting, delicate conversation about what it means to be a man, what it means to be a woman. So I will simply say what I told my 60-year-old father, who was also born and raised in the Madison area, like myself.
I asked him, do you know what it means to be a man? And to his credit, he said, no, I don't. And then I asked him, do you know what it means to be a woman? And again, to his credit, he said, no, I don't.
And then I looked at him and I said, yeah, that's pretty much it.

That's where I land.

I land at an understanding that my womanhood, as I was assigned at birth,

does not come from my ability to produce children or to behave in a feminine way.

And my manhood does not come in the form of my genitalia or

that can be lost too. And so there is a discussion to be had about gender

identity and understanding of what it means to be part of the LGBTQ community. Your genitalia can be lost? I mean, yeah, you can have them removed, you shouldn't, but that makes it sound like you can just wake up one day and your genitalia are gone.
You just misplaced them. I mean, it's pretty, generally speaking, unless you go out of your way to have your genitalia removed and butchered by these so-called doctors, aside from that, you're good to go.
You'll be fine. I think they're probably going to stay intact, barring any horrific accident.
So her pronouns are she,

they, him. And this woman is trying to hog all the pronouns, leave none for the rest of us.
It's like, that's like being stuck behind the morbidly obese guy at the holiday and breakfast buffet. By the time you get to the bowl of bacon, there won't be any left.
And this is the narcissism of gender ideology on full display. And you can see here why I've always said that gender ideology is fueled less by confusion, as we tend to think, and more by pathological self-obsession.
Is this woman confused? Does she think that she's really a man, a woman, and neither all at the same time? That's what she's claiming, of course. She, they, he pronouns would mean that she's both a man and a woman, she and he, while also being neither a man nor a woman, which is the they part of it.
She's obviously not that, but does she even think that's what she is? Is that how she perceives herself? I would say no. And here's the point that I don't hear raised very often or at all.
The point is this, that it's not even possible for this woman to perceive herself as a she, they, he. Nevermind the fact that it's not possible for her to be that.
I'm saying that it's not possible that she even thinks she is that. Because it's like if she identified as a married bachelor or a square circle or dry water or if she claimed that she was visibly invisible.

It is a logical contradiction.

Go ahead and try to imagine what a square circle looks like. can't You literally can't, it's actually impossible Try to imagine what it means to be a man, a woman, and neither You can't, it's not possible for you to perceive yourself as a logical contradiction You cannot perceive a logical contradiction That is why it's a logical contradiction.
It would actually be far more

credible if she claimed to be an elephant or a space alien or a magical wizard, because we can imagine those things. It's not logically impossible for a person to be any of those things.
It's unlikely. If somebody claimed to be an elephant, I'd be profoundly skeptical of anyone who made that claim, but it's not logically impossible.
And at any rate, it's certainly possible for a person to perceive themselves as any of those things. It's not possible to be both sexes and no sexes at the same time.
And in fact, it's not even possible to perceive yourself. There is nothing to perceive.
The concept is gibberish. It's just total nonsense.
Any conservative, these days at least, will point out that it's not possible for a person to be non-binary. But I take it a step further.
I'm saying that it's not possible for you to even really identify as that. For the same reason, again, that you can't identify as or see yourself as a married bachelor or a square circle and so on.

So this woman then is not mistaken.

She's not confused.

She's not crazy, despite appearances.

She is just an incredibly pretentious, narcissistic gas pack.

That's all.

Coming out fully as a she, they, he is her way of telling everyone that she is a complicated, interesting, nuanced person. What she's really saying is that her inner life, her internal experience is so profound and so intense and so substantial that she needs multiple pronouns to describe them.
This is what it means anytime anyone identifies as non-binary, they're really identifying as interesting. When they say I identify as non-binary, what they're telling you is I identify as an interesting person.
Now, of course, what they're actually broadcasting is the opposite. Only the most uninteresting people go out of their way to try to convince you that they're interesting.
There's nothing less interesting than a person who wants to this badly to be interesting. And there's nothing duller or more boring than a person who relies on labels to make themselves seem intriguing.
And besides, besides all that, I can easily tell that she's not a man or a non-binary, but a woman. There are a lot of physical clues, right? But I could tell even with my eyes closed.
And you could tell from her voice, but I could tell even if I couldn't see her and all I saw was a transcript of what she was saying. And I could tell this way because they're supposed to be talking about a specific piece of legislation, but she's wasting everyone's time with an irrelevant personal anecdote.
That clearly shows that she's a woman. I mean, they're trying to debate a new law and she comes in like, you know, my father was born in Madison and here's what he said when I had a totally off topic conversation with him last Tuesday.
That's woman 101 right there. I mean, that's a classic move.
That's a classic move. And of course, I say that with affection, ladies.
I truly do. I actually find this female propensity for non-sequitur anecdotes to be quite charming.
I really do. Usually, anyway, usually charming, just not in this particular case.
In fact, there's very little that can be called charming here.

This is narcissism on steroids. It is snobbery and arrogance disguised as so-called gender identity,

which is how it always works with these things. And that is why this she, he, they woman is today

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