Ep. 1594 - The Left Discovered The New Pope Is Actually Catholic And They’re Horrified
59:10 Share

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media descends into panic at the thought that the Pope might actually be Catholic. God forbid. Democrats in Congress assault ICE agents while attempting to storm an immigrant detention facility. Trump issues an executive order to lower drug prices and a murder victim shows up in court in the form of AI to forgive his killer. The more I see of AI technology, the more I hate it. All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.

Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention, your liver. This powerhouse organ is crushing it 24/7, handling over 500 different functions in your body. It's a hard job and sometimes your liver just needs a little support. That's where Dose for Your Liver comes in. It's not some weak supplement. This is hard-hitting science-backed support for your body's most crucial filter. The results speak for themselves. Clinical trials showed over 86% of people get major improvements in their liver enzyme levels.

Want to know what makes the difference? Well, one shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice. It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function. No BS ingredients either. It's clean, sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results. Start giving your liver the support it deserves. Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.com.

co slash walsh for entering walsh to check out. That's d-o-s-e-d-a-i-l-y dot c-o slash walsh for 30% off your first month subscription. There's quite a mystery unfolding right now at the highest levels of one of the largest churches on the planet, and it's a pretty confounding question. Where exactly is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England? No one has any idea. Now, to be clear, this is not a missing persons case. The post has been vacant for more than four months, and yet...

To this day, the position still has not been filled. As of today, there is still no Archbishop of Canterbury. And at least on paper, this is something of a head-scratcher. Here you have a Protestant church with something like 26 million baptized members all over the world and hundreds of thousands of active members by some estimates. It's known as the mother church of the Anglican tradition. And yet, as of right now, there's no clarity whatsoever as to when they'll pick a new Archbishop to lead the church.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of urgency either. Lawyers are reportedly getting involved for one reason or another. The latest estimate is that it'll be several more weeks at a minimum until the Church of England decides who's in charge. And it's not as if this vacancy was a surprise. The previous archbishop didn't die suddenly or anything like that. Instead, it was announced months in advance that the archbishop would resign before he finally stepped down in January. But here we are. It's now May and the Church of England still has no archbishop.

The contrast with the Catholic Church, especially after the election of Pope Leo XIV, could not be any more clear. On the one hand, you have total dysfunction and chaos among the Anglicans. On the other, the Catholics had a new pope two days after the conclave started. When Pope Francis died, everybody heard about it. People flooded into Rome from all over the world. And when his successor was selected, there were celebrations all over the globe.

Meanwhile, almost no one's even realized that there isn't an Archbishop of Canterbury anymore. In fact, if you ask a random person on the street about the Archbishop of Canterbury, there's a very good chance that no one will have any idea what you're even talking about. And one of the reasons for this distinction is that

For quite some time, the Anglicans have been effectively leaderless, even when they've had an archbishop. The monarchs in England stopped caring about religion, and their bishops don't really have the authority to do anything. So in response, they became progressive in a desperate bid for relevance that obviously hasn't panned out. The Anglicans tied their fortunes to the king's power back in the days of Henry VIII, but once that power waned, they had no answer.

We're left now with a very trendy church, one that supports gay marriage and so-called LGBT clergy and all the other trendy things, that also has few core guiding principles, no real authority, and ultimately no archbishop. The Church of England became liberal to win over the liberals, but in the end, the liberals don't care, and in the process, they've lost the conservatives too. So now, no one even notices the fact that for several months, there has been nobody in charge.

Now, billions of people notice the lack of a pope, though, because the pope actually stands for something. In particular, he is the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ, whose responsibility includes teaching and interpreting Catholic doctrine. And in the Catholic Church, unlike the Church of England, doctrine does not change on a moment's notice. It isn't revised because trans activists or feminists or corporate overlords start screeching at maximum volume.

The doctrine remains consistent because it's not a response to political demands. It's not beholden to polls or media pressure. This is one of the reasons why people care about the identity of the Pope. It's why they notice when the papacy becomes vacant. When you teach the Word of God instead of reading the latest talking points from the Human Rights Campaign, people pay a lot more attention.

Or at least most people pay attention. I mean, not everybody seems to understand the implications of the selection of Pope Leo XIV or the point of the papacy in general. And in particular, at the moment, there appears to be a genuine panic among the media and LGBT activists about the very unsettling and incomprehensible prospect that the new pope might actually be Catholic, if you can imagine that.

They're unearthing some of the Pope's previous comments on same-sex relationships and abortion, for example, and they can't believe what they're seeing. Here's the Guardian's reporting on the dismay that's now supposedly rampant among Catholics. Quote, After years of sympathetic and inclusive comments from Pope Francis, LGBTQ plus Catholics expressed concern on Thursday about hostile remarks made more than a decade ago by Father Robert Prevost, the new Pope Leo XIV,

in which he condemned what he called the homosexual lifestyle and the redefinition of marriage as at odds with the gospel. In a 2012 address, the man who now leads the church said that Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel. For example, abortion, homosexual lifestyle, and euthanasia.

Now over at The View, self-described devout Catholic Sunny Hostin offered her expert analysis of these comments. And she begins by explaining that she thinks papal conclaves are exciting because of the whole white smoke, black smoke thing. Then she articulates what is her greatest fear about the new pope. Watch.

Who are the Catholics here anyway? Oh, you two. I am a lapsed Catholic, but I'm a Catholic. I'm a sinful one. You're a sinful Catholic. We might want to start a funny then. I'm a devout Catholic. Look, I always think it's exciting to watch the conclave and look for the black smoke and the white smoke and just the ceremony of it. And, you know, during these very trying times in our country, we certainly need...

spiritual leadership because of some of the things that we're experiencing. I'm a little concerned about this choice for the LGBTQ plus community. In 2012, he gave an address to bishops and he lamented

"The popular culture fostered and sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel." And that's a quote. And then he cited the "homosexual lifestyle and alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children."

I think that Pope Francis certainly made great changes in terms of embracing the LGBTQ+ community and extending blessings to the community. And I hope that this Pope doesn't roll back. Now, as a general rule, if you're a Catholic in public life, especially one who delivers opinions and analysis every day,

which I guess is, I mean, if we can call what they do on The View analysis. But either way, nobody should be surprised to learn that you're a Catholic. Your Catholicism should be evident in your worldview, your politics, your ideology, your behavior. But you would never know that people like Sunny Hostin are Catholic based on what they say and do every day. So therefore, she has to declare that contrary to all outward appearances, she is indeed a, quote, devout Catholic.

Even though she rejects essentially all of the fundamental moral teachings of the Catholic Church. A year ago, she was demanding female priests, by the way, which is never going to happen, can't happen. It's impossible that it happens. But she rejects all those teachings, all the teachings of the church, but at the same time, she declares that she's a devout Catholic. The important thing is that Sonny Hostin likes looking for the white smoke and gets really excited during the conclaves.

And based on her experience getting excited during conclaves, Sunny Hostin wants you to know that she's very concerned about this new Pope's previous comments on gay marriage. And that's when we heard from Anna Navarro, who describes herself as a sinful Catholic, as opposed to all the other Catholics, apparently. And for her part, Navarro tried to calm Sunny Hostin down by explaining that the Pope's comments were from all the way back in 2012. And that's plenty of time for fundamental church teachings to change, she says. Watch.

It's important that we know that what you're quoting from is from 2012. Yeah, I said 2012. In 2012, right. But what I'm saying to you is in 2012, there were even a lot of American politicians who today are pro-gay marriage and pro-equal rights who were not. So maybe, you know, with the weight of the papacy and the idea that he just said when he went out on the balcony that the church loves everyone and was inclusive in his first message. So

Until we see otherwise, I think we need to pray.

and hope that he follows in Francis' footsteps in being inclusive, forgiving, compassionate, welcoming, and speaking up for the marginalized, speaking up for the poor, speaking up for the migrants, speaking up for the targeted, speaking up for all those people that today feel alone and that Francis said, "You have a mother and a father in the Catholic Church."

So this is one of the better ways of illustrating why nobody cares about the missing Archbishop of Canterbury. In the Church of England, what Anna Navarro just said is totally plausible. I mean, Anglicans could very well change their fundamental positions in a matter of years, but in the Catholic Church, it's a different story. Of course, this Pope is not going to abolish 2,000 years of moral teaching for the sake of accepting LGBT lifestyles and validating LGBT quote-unquote marriages.

And Pope Francis, for all the talk of his liberalism and his softer tone on these issues, didn't do that either. Now, Anna Navarro seems to think he did, but she's wrong. Francis did not change church doctrine on gay marriage in any way whatsoever. The church teaches and has always taught that the homosexual lifestyle is disordered and mortally sinful.

Marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. There cannot be gay marriage for the same reason there cannot be a square circle. This is church teaching, whether the devout Catholics in the media like it or not.

Now, at the moment, no one in the corporate press seems to realize that. Neither do many LGBT activists or academics, including people who describe themselves, again, as Catholics. NBC News, for example, just ran this quote from somebody named Jason Steitel Jack, who identifies as a gay Catholic and an assistant teaching professor of religious studies at St. Joseph's University in New York. And here's what he had to say, quote,

The Church's teaching, even under Pope Francis, remains incredibly homophobic. And the Church goes on inventing new ways of being transphobic as it really avoids learning about trans people and their experiences." Now again, this is a professor of religious studies at a supposedly Catholic university, and he's openly rejecting some of the most fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, he's not just rejecting those teachings, he's calling them hateful and ignorant.

Now, of course, you can have that perspective in this country. It's a free country. This isn't Canada or North Korea. You can mock whatever you want to mock as long as Democrats don't control the Justice Department, of course. But I'll make this as clear as I possibly can. If you publicly denounce fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith, then you are by definition not Catholic.

If you represent yourself as Catholic for the purposes of speaking to NBC News or teaching a class at a Catholic university, even as you deny the teachings of Christ and you deny fundamental Catholic teachings, then you are a fraud. You're a scam artist and you're guilty of the sin of scandal, which is also a mortal sin, by the way.

Now, what we're seeing with this panic over Pope Leo is precisely the reason why progressives can never actually be devout Catholics or devout members of any other ancient faith, for that matter. I mean, they can't even be devout patriotic Americans because instinctively they want to corrupt and destroy every institution that has existed for more than about 15 minutes.

They deny timeless moral truths in principle. They despise tradition. They reject the wisdom of our ancestors. They believe that basically everybody who lived on earth, and certainly every Catholic leader and theologian, has been wrong about essentially everything since forever. They think that they alone hold the truths of the universe that nobody before them could see. If they are devoted disciples of any church, it is the church of the self.

which is another way of saying that they're Satanists. Now, there's plenty of room for people like that in the Church of England, where nothing means anything to the point that they don't care if the archbishop disappears for half a year. But there cannot be room for people like that in the Catholic Church. I mean, they literally cannot be Catholic. Again, you can't be by definition. And for all his mistakes, the previous pope understood that. And based on these newly unearthed comments from Pope Leo and the resulting howls from left-wing activists,

Catholics can be assured at the moment that the new Pope understands that too. Now let's get to our five headlines. Some companies can't define what a man is and we're letting them design the products we use on our bodies. Jeremy's isn't confused. The tea tree peppermint shampoo and conditioner clean your scalp without the chemical gunk. The charcoal body wash scrubs off the day without stripping your skin or your dignity.

And the aluminum-free deodorant, no toxins, just a fresh masculine scent that won't make you smell like a candle aisle. Plus, they're American-made, no sulfates, no parabens, and yes, it's risk-free. 30 days, try it all. Don't like it? Return it. No shame, no questions. Go to jeremysrazors.com slash Walsh or use code Walsh to check out for 20% off your first order. That's jeremysrazors.com slash Walsh and code Walsh to check out. Daily Wire reports, um...

Several New Jersey Democrats claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement got rough with them on Friday, but body cam footage told a very different story. The incident unfolded outside of Delaney Hall, a detention facility housing criminal illegal aliens in Newark, New Jersey. As several House Democrats, New Jersey Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver,

and Rob Menendez pushed past security and demanded access to an oversight of the facility. According to reports, the protesters waited outside the gate until it was open for a vehicle transporting detainees, at which point they rushed through the gates. Democratic Newark Mayor Raz Baraka also participated in the breach and was arrested. On Saturday, after the Garden State Democrats claimed that they'd been manhandled and roughed up by the ICE agents, the Justice Department released body cam footage of the clash between protesters and officers.

Fox News national correspondent Bill Mellugin explained what was shown in the body cam footage. He tweeted, DHS has provided Fox News ICE body cam footage from the altercation at the Delaney Hall detention facility yesterday. They say the video clearly shows Representative LaMonica shoving and elbowing her way past a DHS agent to get past the gate and onto the property, followed behind by Representative Menendez, and that it also shows Congresswoman McIver screaming in the faces of DHS agents.

Members of Congress claim that they were assaulted and roughed up, but DHS denies that characterization. So we have the video. Let's take a look at the video, short clip, and you can see in particular in the red jacket, this is New Jersey Democrat Representative LaMonica McGyver. And just see, just watch her and just watch this whole scene unfold. Here it is. What happened to me? What happened to me?

Okay, so that is LaMonica McGyver forcing her way into this detention center.

And you can see her elbowing and shoving the ICE agent, which is assault. I mean, that's assault. That's assault of a law enforcement officer. They claim that they were roughed up, that they were assaulted. The video speaks for itself. They're lying. Which, by the way, even if they had been roughed up, as they put it, that would be fine. It would be totally justified because...

You're trying to force your way into this detention facility where you're not granted access. You're trying to force your way in. And so if you get the agents are perfectly within their rights to use physical force to stop you. You are not within your rights to use physical force to force your way in to a place where you don't have access.

So even if they had been on tape, I mean, I don't care if they had been on, if there was footage of one of those ICE agents knocking this woman right onto her ass, she would completely deserve it. You're trying to force your way into a building where you don't have access. That's not how it works. And so if you get physically stopped and you end up on the ground in the process, well, that's the way it goes.

But then you watch the video and you realize that, of course, these people are just lying. They're just total liars. They lie about everything all the time. And they're lying here, too, that the roughing up an assault happened the other way. And so they need to be arrested and thrown in jail. I mean, the Trump administration has said that there might be some more arrests in this case, but there shouldn't be any might about it. I mean, she assaulted a law enforcement officer in an effort to gain unauthorized access to a federal building, right?

So arrest this woman and throw her in prison. Here's the only test that matters. If I did that, if you did that, would we be arrested? Well, the answer is yes, obviously. So okay then, arrest her. And this is also where the precedent comes into play because any argument that you might try to make about how, you know, we don't want to arrest members of Congress because of the optics and the politics and the norms, the norms, we have to worry about the norms. Any potential argument in that vein

is ruled out from the start because Democrats already arrested and tried to throw in prison the president multiple times. So the toothpaste is already out of the tube on this thing, so arrest her. And even if it wasn't, even if this precedent wasn't set, I would still say arrest her.

And what makes this kind of thing so despicable and outrageous isn't just, it's not just that they're breaking the law. It's not just that they're assaulting a federal law enforcement officer, although all of that is bad enough, but it's the why. It's why they're doing this. They're doing this in an effort to undermine our sovereignty and prevent us from enforcing our borders and protecting our citizens. These are our representatives doing this.

Which I know, you know, this point has been made by me many times and by others as well, but it really can't be emphasized enough that this sort of thing does not exist anywhere else outside of the white Western world. You don't have this in non-Western countries. It just doesn't exist. Now, sure, immigration is a political issue in other countries. They might debate their immigration policies. You might have some people who want more restrictive immigration, some people who want less restrictive, but...

This kind of open border stuff, this idea that there effectively shouldn't be a border at all, that doesn't exist. You know, the fact that we have a major political party, one of only two of them, that objects in principle to deporting any illegal immigrants at all. Okay, that does not exist anywhere else.

In other countries outside the white Western world, they're not debating whether to enforce the border or not. If they're debating anything about the border, it's the finer details. It's only the U.S. and Western Europe where a border is begrudged. We are begrudged a border in principle. We're the only ones who aren't allowed to fundamentally protect and preserve our own existence. And the reason is actually that the left...

agrees with our point about the border. I mean, they fundamentally agree with it, which is that border is identity, border is culture, and a thing can only have an identity if it can be distinguished from the other things around it. The very act of saying to a foreigner, "No, this is our home. You don't belong here. This is ours. This belongs to us and not to you,"

That is an assertion of identity. And the left knows that, and they don't want that. They don't want us to have any national identity. South Korea can have an identity. Guatemala can have an identity. China can have an identity. Nigeria can have an identity. We can't. Which is why if anyone on the left overheard a Nigerian saying, we have to enforce our borders and protect our national identity, they'd have no issue with that. I mean, they would agree with it.

But if anyone in America says the exact same thing, they denounce it as racist and xenophobic. But the point is that this is not, as it's often called and considered, this is not really a double standard because there is one standard for the left, which is that predominantly white Western countries should not have an identity because the white Western identity is bad. And so it should be abolished.

Which is why if a leftist could look in a time machine or could take a time machine and see a future where America is mostly brown and whites are a small minority. And if they saw that in this future, white people were trying to immigrate here, trying to migrate here from whatever country they still exist in. And if in this future, there was a

giant wall, you know, 100 feet tall and a militarized border where the white invaders were being shot on sight, if the leftists saw the future like that in this country, they'd be fine with it. In fact, they'd be orgasmic with delight. And because they don't really have a problem with borders, they don't have a problem with immigration law in principle. They don't have a problem with those things in principle. They only have a problem when

predominantly white Western countries do it. And why is that? Because they want to abolish what they call whiteness. And you can ask them about this and they will tell you. They're very clear about this. This is not some kind of secret. This is just ask them about, should whiteness be abolished? Every single one of them will say yes. Every single one. So that's what this is all about, very clearly. All right. Here's a

Story from the White House here. President Donald Trump on Monday morning signed an executive order to significantly reduce pharmaceutical drug prices for Americans. The directive, Trump stressed, will bring fairness to Americans and cut out the middlemen to bring prices down so citizens will start to pay prices comparable to other developed nations. The president says, starting today, the United States will no longer subsidize the drug prices of other countries. We've been subsidizing drug prices for the rest of the world, not just the European Union, by implementing a policy called

Most favored nation, Trump said the U.S. is going to pay the lowest price there is in the world. We're no longer paying 10 times more than any other country. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was with Trump at the press conference, said that other nations, particularly those in the European Union, must chip in for research and development. Kennedy said raising the prices by just 20% would dramatically reduce costs in the United States. I think we have a quick clip of Trump at the signing ceremony. Let's watch that.

I think you're going to see a tremendous cut. I don't think, I mean, I know you're going to see it in Medicaid and Medicare. That cut will be massive because drugs are 50, 60% of the cost. So Medicaid costs are going down and Medicare costs are going down because of what we're doing.

Today and this and there's no it's not like oh gee. Well, maybe it won't happen It's gonna happen because the other countries have not you know The drug companies are gonna have to say listen if you don't pay more We're not going to give you the drug and they're willing to do that. So that's it. They have to bet we have to equalize Say it is not price control. No. No what was price control is before I

If you want to talk about price control is what they were doing. They were making us pay. They set a price and they said, here's what we're going to pay and anything else charge America. Because at that time they had a very stupid president and it really went crazy during the last four years. And remember this, the Democrats are the ones that allowed this to happen. This is, I think it's a great idea. And of course, critics, as we just heard in the clip there,

are going to call this price controls, which is funny because it's coming from people often, for the most part, who openly support price controls. So if it is price controls, then the left should be really happy about it. But of course, they're not, obviously, because Trump. I mean, this exact policy, if it was put in place by a Democrat administration, then they would all be celebrating it, obviously. But I don't think that price controls is a fair description, as Trump pointed out.

Because we're already, as you said, we're already dealing with price controls. We're being forced to pay 10 times more than everyone else. That is a price control. It's just controlled in a way to screw us over. So if there's any control now, it's controlling to make things better and more fair for Americans. And it will just never stop being funny to see how shocking and upsetting this is to Democrats and to some Republicans when a president actually stands up and says, OK, I'm going to help my own people.

I'm going to, no, no, I'm not helping, we're not trying to help the European countries or anybody else. I'm going to look out for my own people, Americans. And that's what this is. And the very idea of that is scandalous and shocking to a lot of people. It can even be startling to normal people who are not necessarily Democrats,

There's something almost a little bit startling about it because we're just not used to seeing American political leaders who do that. We're not used to seeing our political leaders who actually look out for American interests and will say so openly. It's like a little jarring sometimes in a good way, at least a good way for me, but not for the Democrats. All right, here's something that's jarring in a very bad way. Here's an update from the futuristic dystopia that we're currently living in.

CNN reports, Stacey Wales spent two years working on the victim impact statement she planned to give in court after her brother was shot to death in a 2021 road rage incident. Even after all that time, Wales felt her statement wouldn't be enough to capture her brother Christopher Pelkey's humanity and what he would have wanted to say. So Wales decided to let Pelkey give the statement himself with the help of artificial intelligence.

She and her husband created an AI-generated video version of Pelkey to play during his killer sentencing hearing earlier this month that read, in a recreation of Pelkey's own voice, a script that Wales wrote. And in it, the AI version of Pelkey expressed forgiveness to the shooter and said some other things. Now, if this sounds horrifying enough, wait until you see and hear this monstrosity. We're going to play it for you. And this is apparently the video that was played in court.

This is again, the person you're going to see on screen is a dead person who died a few years ago, was murdered, and he was recreated by AI and a script was written so that from his own mouth, which is not really his own mouth, he would forgive the guy who killed him. And they played this in court. I mean, it's just, well, let's watch it. I would like to make my own impact statement to Gabriel Horcacidas, the man who shot me. It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances.

In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives. I always have. And I still do. Getting old is a gift that not everybody has. So embrace it and stop worrying about those wrinkles. I once played with one of those filters on your phone where you can make yourself look old. I shared it with a cousin of ours years ago. This is the best I can ever give you to what I would have looked like if I got the chance to grow old. Scary, huh?

No, really. Thank you to everyone for being here. It means more than you know. I love that AI. Thank you for that. And as angry as you are, and justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Hortosita's receipt appreciated it. But so did I. As I said, I like to think I was going to do that. If I was the judge, I would have arrested the whole family for that. I would have arrested everybody. I want to make one thing very clear.

I want to make this very clear. If I am ever murdered, which, let's be honest, is a pretty plausible scenario, and if anyone makes an AI video with my voice and my likeness where I forgive my killer, I swear I will come back and I will haunt you until you die. It'll be full-on horror movie haunting, okay?

You're going to wake up in the middle of the night and there'll be a pale ghostly child standing in the corner of the room silently staring at you. I don't know why people think that small pale children are scary, but I mean, they're in every horror movie, so I guess they do. I don't know how I would arrange to have that kind of haunting. I don't know what the logistics are, but I'll figure out the logistics because I'm not going to tolerate that. And so the point is, if you make an AI video of me,

It better be, I'll tell you what, you know, and I'm, it better be an incisive, brutal, sarcastic takedown of the guy who killed me. Okay. It should be, it better be a daily cancellation of where, of the guy who killed me. That's, that's what I want played in court. I want a victim impact statement where I'm doing a 15 minute monologue that ends with me saying, and that's why the guy who shot me in the head is today canceled. Uh, that's what I want.

I don't really want that, so please don't do that. But the whole thing is horrifying and bizarre and grotesque to turn your dead relative into essentially a digital puppet. I mean, that's what this is. It's like it is the same thing in principle as having somebody make a Muppet, like a Sesame Street-style puppet.

of your dead brother and then having a ventriloquist perform with the puppet in court, up on the witness stand, reading a script that you wrote. It's the same thing. It's exactly the same thing. It's a digital puppet. And it's in very poor taste. It's also, it's extremely presumptuous. It's about the most presumptuous thing you could possibly do. Just awful all around. And I have to say this too, and I know that this will be misinterpreted, but

I'm, you know, I have to say I'm pretty tired of the cheap forgiveness that is constantly offered to murderers and criminals. Every time we hear a story about some murdering scumbag, we always hear about the loved ones of the victim who immediately offer their forgiveness, right? Sometimes days, sometimes like hours after the fact, they're publicly saying, I forgive you. And look,

As Christians, we're called to forgive. But this forgiveness often feels just like cheap and weirdly automatic. I mean, in this case, it's obviously cheap. They're offering forgiveness from the victim using his voice, which means absolutely nothing. But in so many cases, even where there's no AI, it still feels cheap. And that's because the first reaction that you should have to your loved one falling victim to a violent crime

should be righteous fury. It should be intense, fiery anger. That's normal. That's healthy. That's born from the love that you had for your family member. Forgiveness, if it comes and if it's real, comes much later. What does it mean to forgive anyway? What do you mean you're forgiving? Well,

It means that you're not, hopefully it doesn't mean that you're saying, oh, I don't want this person to suffer any consequences because forgiveness should not mean that. Forgiveness does not mean that the person who did whatever the bad thing is, that they don't suffer consequences. So when you say, I forgive you, like, what do you mean? Well, maybe it means nothing. I think oftentimes it really just means nothing. It doesn't, it's like, in what way do you, do you actually forgive them? Are you, really? When you hear about these, and I don't like to

I don't specifically criticize anyone who's mourning the loss of a family member. So, you know, but there have been even very recent cases that may come to mind of people who lost a family member and like immediately they were out in front of like right away they were in front of cameras saying, I forgive, I forgive. And again, what do you mean? What do you mean you forgive? How? In what way? Or are you just saying that?

Because if it means anything, what it should mean, if it means anything, is that you are not, this is the only thing it can mean, actually, really, is that you are not harboring resentment and ill will towards this person. That's what it means to forgive them. Okay? It doesn't mean that you, it doesn't mean that they don't suffer consequences. It doesn't mean, depending on what it is, it doesn't mean that you will necessarily trust them again if this is like something in your personal life, someone did something to you. Okay?

But if it means anything, it means when you say that you forgive the person, you're saying, I don't... I'm not harboring ill will towards you. I don't resent you. But that's my point. How could you possibly declare right away that you have no resentment or ill will towards someone who victimized a family member? I mean, really? Like, right away? You don't... That quickly? You have no resentment towards this person? That's not... It's just not possible. It shouldn't be possible. So...

I think people come out and say they forgive right away because they feel like they have to. And now in this case, you know, this is four years later. So the thought that I'm offering right now is less. The problem with in this case is the way that this forgiveness was offered through an AI puppet. It's just like, you know, and again.

You don't want to criticize people who are, everyone has their own way of grieving, but there are things that are just grotesque and wrong, and that's grotesque and wrong. I don't care, like, no matter who does it, it's still grotesque, it's still wrong. So the problem here is not so much the immediacy of it, because it is years after the fact, but it's the way, it's the way, but it's still this cheap forgiveness where you're putting, in this case, putting the words in someone else's mouth who's dead. But there's also this other thing that I'm talking about that we've seen in particular recently,

where maybe it's not AI, but it's like so quickly afterwards we hear about, I forgive, I forgive. And I just think it's, okay, so either you've just suffered this horrible thing, you've lost a family member, and you really have no, a day later you have no resentment or ill will towards this person. Like it could be that, but that's disordered. That's not natural. You should feel that.

in the immediacy of this event. So if it's not that, then it's just, you're just saying it. And I think that people feel like they have to say it. People feel like they have to come out right away and say, I forgive, I forgive. And they feel like they're not allowed to come out and say, you know what? I feel enraged at this person who took my loved one. I want them to feel the wrath of justice. I want them to suffer for what they've done.

You rarely hear anyone say that because I think they think they aren't allowed to feel that kind of righteous fury, even though it's healthy and normal. And also, by the way, good. That's justice. You're allowed to want justice. You should want justice. And it's biblical. Go read the Psalms sometimes. You know how many Psalms are about wanting evildoers to be brought to justice and to suffer? You know how common of a theme that is?

It's very common. And so there's nothing unbiblical or anti-Christian about it. I think this kind of cheap forgiveness is what's unbiblical and anti-Christian, and we see so much of it these days.

When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, it can feel incredibly overwhelming. She wants to make the right choice, but may feel pressure from society or those around her suggesting her unborn child isn't yet alive. That's where Preborn steps in. Their mission is simply to love these women and help them see that choosing life is possible, creating what can truly be an eternal moment.

Take Stephanie's story. She was scared and didn't feel worthy of support. But after receiving compassion and care at one of Preborn's partner clinics, everything changed when she saw her baby on the ultrasound. That moment transformed her outlook completely. And today, she'll tell you that her five-year-old son is her greatest blessing. By supporting Preborn, you're helping fund free ultrasounds at pro-life clinics across the country, empowering more mothers to choose life. A monthly donation of $28 can make an eternal difference.

Want to get involved? It's easy. Just dial pound 250 and say baby or visit preborn.com slash Walsh. Your gift is tax deductible and genuinely life-changing. Again, that's preborn.com slash Walsh to donate today.

When you're a Daily Wire Plus All Access member, you're not just watching the daily live shows, you're part of the conversation. No ads, exclusive access to live Q&As where you ask us the questions directly and first looks at what's coming next. That includes parenting, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's new series dropping May 25th exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. You get the full entertainment library, every original film and documentary, and early access to major announcements before everybody else. Become an All Access member today at dailywireplus.com. Now let's get to our daily cancellation.

You know, about 10 years ago when I was trying to come up with ideas for my first book, I thought about writing a book called Stating the Obvious. And it occurred to me even back then that a conservative's role in the culture war was mostly just to state what should be obvious. And I pitched this idea to a few different people and I was ultimately talked out of it because the consensus was that nobody would want to buy a book that promises only to say obvious things. It's not provocative or controversial enough.

And the naysayers back then were probably right that it would make for kind of a weak book title, but they were wrong when they said that stating the obvious doesn't have the ring of provocation or controversy, because as the next decade would prove, there is nothing more controversial than stating the obvious. The more obvious a thing is, the more controversial it is. That's certainly been my own experience. Indeed, there is no obvious statement that won't elicit controversy.

No matter how seemingly benign and self-evident the statement is, there will be a group of people, often a very large group, standing at the ready to be offended. And this has been the story of my life for the past 10 years or so. And that story continued over the weekend as I have had a significant number of people yelling at me because I said that children should do chores.

Yes, there are adults in this country, a lot of them, it turns out, who are avowedly anti-chores for children. They actually believe, in principle, that kids should not be required to help around the house. So that means we actually have to talk about this. I have to explain why you as a parent should be doing what every good parent in the history of the world has done.

And make your children do chores. But before I explain that water is wet, let me briefly tell you how we got here. On Saturday, somebody on X posted a question asking me what household chores I take on myself. What household chores do I do myself? This was not an entirely random question related to something else we were talking about. It doesn't matter for our purposes today. What matters is that I replied to this question by saying this. Here's what I said.

I make sure that the cleanup chores are done every night. I don't do them. The kids do. Our kids understand that dad doesn't provide for them and then come home and clean up for them too. They need to contribute as well. Boggles my mind that so many parents today don't have their kids doing daily chores. Totally foreign concept to me. Not how I was raised. Okay, so that was my answer. And, you know, at this point with six kids, three over the age of eight, two over the age of 10, and a five-year-old who can also pitch in, I don't do a lot of cleaning in my house. Like,

Not at all. Not much at all, I got to tell you. And I know that this is shocking for many people to hear. And I know that you may be skeptical, but, you know, and that's fine.

But I will say that, in fact, creating and delivering an hour-long show every day does require a lot of work, even if it doesn't seem like it would. I've also made two feature films in the last three years, which is its own full-time job. I published another book and made dozens of other pieces of content in my spare time during that same time frame. So all that to say, you know, when I come home from work, I'm not going to clean my kids' dishes for them while they sit on the couch.

Yeah, that's not happening. A couch that I bought, by the way, just like I bought the dishes and the food in the house and literally everything else. I'm also not going to have them sit around and expect mom to, you know, be their maid and wait on them, you know, and just wait on them while they sit there watching TV or whatever. So they will contribute and contribute meaningfully.

Whether they like it or not and of course they don't like it most of the time but frankly That's just not my problem. In any case some of the responses to this were were quite disturbing and I'll just read through just a few of them just to give you a kind of a taste of what people Think about this. So let me read a few one comment says you don't have kids to run a boot camp Matt you had them to raise human beings not unpaid janitors

Another comment says, yes, kids should do chores, but I absolutely hated and despised when my father would sit and watch his kids do chores. Now I can't do housework if anyone is home. Matt, pick up a broom and sweep. Grab a wipe and clean the table. Chores is a family activity. No, well, when it comes to sweeping, the work that I will do is when I'm sitting on the couch, what I will do is I'll raise my feet up so that one of my kids can sweep under where my feet were. So I will do that. I'll put in that kind of effort.

Am I going to stand up and sweep the floor while my kid watches me? No, I'm not going to do that. I can't even wrap my head around that. Anyway, keep continuing. Conclusion, Matt Walsh is a slob who makes his kids pick up after him. Another comment says, poor kids, your dad is an effing. Another one says, lead by example. What kind of trash man is this?

Another one says, "Man proudly admits he's too lazy to do anything around the home and forces children to do it. They're supposed to help out, not do it all for you. You work one of the most cushy jobs imaginable. How lazy can you be?" Another comment says, "I don't clean. We have a housekeeper. The kids are expected to clean up after themselves and perform well in school. School is also a burden. Why should they come home after a long day and clean your house for you?" Okay, that last comment, by the way, has over 160 likes.

160 likes on a comment saying, I won't make my kids do chores. We have a staff for that. It's already a burden to go to school. I mean, my God. And this is just a small sampling of the comments. Comments which, I'm sorry to say,

do seem to reflect societal trends. This is not a Twitter isn't real life kind of situation as much as I'd like to tell myself that it is. And I've now looked into this and found that a number of surveys have been conducted in recent years to find out what percentage of parents require their kids to do daily chores. On the low end, some surveys have found that only 30% of parents today, these days, give their kids chores, 30%. Now on the high end, there are some surveys that have said it's like 70%, which is still low percentage.

Because that means that 30% of parents are not giving their kids any chores to do. But I think that 70% is not right because the discrepancy comes down to how we define chores. So if cleaning their room every week or so counts as a chore, then yeah, probably 70% or more of parents make their kids do chores. But if by chore we mean a daily responsibility that extends beyond the child's own bedroom,

then it seems that at least half of parents, if not substantially more, do not assign any chores to their children at all. And by the way, when it comes to cleaning the room, I'll tell you this, that's the least of my concerns. Now, they have to keep their room clean, and that is a chore, but the greater priority is the communal areas in the house where all of us are. You need to help with that.

Cleaning your own room, that's your own room. That's your own space. Like, you are the one who primarily benefits from having a clean room. But you need to also do work that benefits the family because you're a member of the family. And this is how we raise our kids and this is how you raise your kids if you want them to be, like, productive members of society. And it's not a coincidence then that we have also now been plagued with multiple generations of the whiniest, most entitled, and functionally useless adults to ever live in this country.

You know, a 10-year-old who gets to run upstairs and watch TV or play video games after dinner while his parents clean his messes for him is learning a lot of lessons from that dynamic, and they are the worst kinds of lessons that a child could possibly learn. Now, I think what's happening here is pretty clear. Most obviously, too many parents today want to be their child's peer. Now, notice what I didn't say. I didn't say, as it's often phrased,

That too many parents want to be their child's friend. No, there's nothing wrong with being your child's friend. You should be your child's friend, actually. What is a friend, after all? A friend is someone that you know, someone you trust, somebody you confide in, and somebody you enjoy spending time with. That's a friend. It's very good if your children know you, trust you, confide in you, and enjoy spending time with you. So you should be their friend in that sense, but you should not be their peer.

And that's where many parents fail. They want to be their child's peer. They want to be friends on the same level that their classmates are friends. And this is totally disordered and wrong. Because as a parent, you are the authority. It is your job to instruct and guide and delegate and, if necessary, reprimand and punish.

Which is my role in the house with the chores. So it's actually not, is it true that I don't do any chores, clean up chores in the house? Physically, I don't do most of them most of the time. I make sure that they are done because I am in an authority role. And so I'm making sure that they're done. I'm checking after they're done to make sure they were done well.

And if they weren't done well, I come in and say, "Well, wipe the counter down again because that was not done." Okay, I still see crumbs on the counter. You obviously didn't wipe it down. So come on, do it again. That's my job as the authority figure, okay, and not their peer. Making them do things that they don't want to do is one of the most essential and most basic jobs of a parent. Like that is so much of what parenting is. And that's so much of the challenge.

It's like you have kids and they're strong-willed and they don't want to do things that they should do, but they have to do them. That's the hard part. You can't skip that part as a parent. You can't just say, well, okay, but they don't want to do it. It's too much of a hassle. That's it right there. That's where the game is played, is in those moments. And it's one of the most important life skills that you could possibly teach them.

My kids do chores and fulfill responsibilities that they don't like and they don't enjoy every day. And that's a good thing because being a functional, happy, successful adult also entails doing chores and fulfilling responsibilities that you don't like and don't enjoy every day. This is a speech I give to my kids all the time, just like my dad gave to me if they're complaining about having to do something. I say, well, you know, look, there are days when I don't feel like going to work. There are days when I would like to just take two weeks off anytime I want.

But I can't because I have responsibilities in the house. I have responsibilities. So do you. Here are your responsibilities. And you can't just skip them. You know, the problem is that there are many adults who simply refuse to do things that don't bring immediate gratification. And so they will be unsuccessful, unhappy, unimpressive losers forever. And then they'll die. That's the fate that awaits anyone who never learns the discipline of doing things you don't want to do.

And it's also the fate of anyone who never learns to respect and obey legitimate authority. Okay, prison is full of those types of people. You are the legitimate authority in your child's life. That doesn't mean that you can't be close with your child. In fact, if you fulfill your role as authority figure, it will draw you even closer because you'll be giving your child the stability and structure and boundaries that he needs but doesn't know he needs.

And that will make him happier. It will also breed respect from your child towards you. The bond you have with your child should be grounded in respect. If they don't respect you, it will not only cause chaos and dysfunction in your home, it will also destroy your relationship with them. Because parents who try to be their child's peer end up as neither parent nor peer. Because a lack of respect gives rise to contempt and resentment.

And this is why I also heard from a number of parents who seem to kind of like the idea of having their kids do chores, but they don't know what to do if their child refuses. I saw a bunch of replies like this one from a guy named Nate. He says this, quote, yes, they should have daily chores and push to do them. What of the young kids or when they're unable or still unwilling to do them? Do you just let the chores go unfinished because doing them is beneath you or whatever? For your household, I hope not.

And you continue with this scenario. Mess on the floor, guests are coming. You tell your five-year-old to clean up her mess. She doesn't. You threaten and try to persuade. She doesn't. Seems everyone responding to me would just beat her up. I wouldn't, but let's say I do. She still doesn't and is now just screaming. Guests are here and the mess is on the floor because you want to be the man slash father or whatever because cleaning anything is apparently children or women's work only. Now, that was Nate. Now, I don't want to be too hard on Nate, but someone has to be.

This is from the sounds of it, a pitiful man who commands no respect in his home. I can tell you that through 12 years of parenting, I have never had a child just flat out refuse to do a chore, unwilling to do it, unwilling to do it, unwilling. That's not a concept that exists in my house, just as it didn't exist in my parents' house when I was a child. It didn't exist for me to like go to my dad and say, you know, dad, I'm not willing to do that.

There was no, my dad said, well, go vacuum the carpet. No, no, I'm not going to. I'm just not going to do that. That didn't, I can't even fathom what the response would have been if I had tried that. You know, now the kids may sometimes whine and complain. They may sometimes do an unsatisfactory job on their chores. They may try to get away with cutting corners. Kids will do all those things. And when that happens, we deal with it. But not doing the task is not an option. And

If you're a father and your child will look you straight in the eyes and refuse to perform the basic task you've given to them, it's because you've allowed that to be an option. You do not command respect in your home. You're running your home like a democracy where everybody thinks they get an equal vote. You know, your children think that your authority relies on the consent of the governed. It doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. Wield your authority.

I'll never understand these parents that stand helplessly cowering before a five-year-old. You have all the cards. You have all the leverage. The power dynamics could not possibly be more in your favor as the parent. Set boundaries, make rules, impose discipline, have clear consequences, impose those consequences, and do all this for the sake of your children.

and for the sake of a society that will have to deal with your children if you don't. And that is why parents who don't give their children chores because they'd rather be a peer than a parent are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.