Ep. 1608 - LGBT Activists Have Found Their Next Hate Crime Hoax And It’s The Most Insane One Yet
01:04:29 Share

This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch Parenting, available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today. Today on the Matt Wall Show, we've known for a long time that LGBT activists have a persecution fantasy. That's why they've come up with so many hate crime hoaxes over the years. This week, they came up with another one, and it's one of the most absurd that we've seen in a very long time.

Also, you may recall the We Spa case where a male sex offender went into the women's locker room claiming to be a quote unquote trans woman. He was charged with indecent exposure. Well, we now finally have a jury verdict in that case. The trial was in Los Angeles, so you can guess how that went. Plus, a federal judge declares that Trump must continue providing taxpayer funded gender transition procedures to convicted criminals in prison. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.

You can't put a price on truth, but you can put a price on where you get it. Save 40% on new Daily Wire Plus gift memberships for Father's Day with code DAD40 at dailywire.com slash gift.

You may feel like you keep juggling expensive supplements that are just getting more unaffordable to keep up with. If that's the case, then Everyday Dose will be a lifesaver for you. Everyday Dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids all in one affordable cup. Just 30 seconds to prepare and you're getting your caffeine fix plus all the nutrients your body needs. One delicious cup, one simple solution. Everyday Dose isn't just coffee, it's coffee plus benefits.

They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with Lion's Mane, Chaga, collagen protein, and brain-boosting nootropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or jitters. You can choose between their Mild Coffee Plus, which is light, smooth, and gentle on sensitive stomachs, or Coffee Plus Bold, which is a rich, full-bodied, medium roast with an extra energy kick.

Both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third-party testing to ensure you're getting the best quality. Your brain and body will thank you. I'm looking forward to giving it a try myself. Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee Plus or Bold Plus. You also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts, including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com slash Walsh. We're entering Walsh and check out

You'll also get free gifts throughout the year. That's everydaydose.com slash Walsh for 45% off your first order. In pretty much every case, when pathological liars feel trapped, when they realize they've lost all their credibility and their power, they don't suddenly decide to become honest people. Instead, they simply continue lying. I mean, think of Elizabeth Holmes after the collapse of Theranos, one of the most obvious clear-cut cases of fraud imaginable, from prison to

Holmes has refused to take any responsibility, even though she orchestrated the entire fraud. She still claims she's a victim. There are about a million other examples from Jussie Smollett to Bernie Madoff. The only way forward in the liar's mind is to come up with even bigger lies. And that's all they really know how to do. The more desperate they become, the more trapped they feel, the more obvious their frauds become as a result.

At the moment, as a particularly depressing and financially insolvent Pride Month continues to trudge along, there is no greater illustration of this phenomenon than the so-called LGBT movement.

These activists understand that they've been discredited. All of their narratives about alleged hate crimes from Matthew Shepard onward have collapsed under the slightest scrutiny. All of their claims about not having equal rights and just wanting to live their own lives without bothering anybody have fallen apart as well. And that's why Pride Month ultimately is dying. And in response, rather than engage in any introspection, LGBT activists have particularly decided to push yet another lie. And this one

even by their standards, is truly staggering, not just because it's so grotesque and evil, but also because there are precisely zero sane people that would possibly be convinced by it. I'm talking about the decision by LGBT activists to push a

bizarre and obviously false narrative about the recent death of a 59-year-old actor named Jonathan Joss, who was well known for voicing the role of John Redcorn in the King of the Hill show. He also appeared on Parks and Recreation. And according to activists, as well as several other media outlets, Joss was just a few days ago executed in front of his home by a homophobic bigot

who had been tormenting him for a very long time in various ways, all leading up to his eventual execution in this homophobic hate crime. And as proof of these extraordinary claims, the activists point to the following statement, which was posted on Facebook by somebody identifying as Jonathan Joss's husband. And here's the relevant part of it. And as you listen to this, imagine you're a detective arriving at the scene of this homicide,

trying to figure out who's telling the truth, and then imagine that this is what an alleged witness tells you. So I'm going to read it now. Quote, My husband, Jonathan Joss, and I were involved in a shooting while checking the mail at the site of our former home.

The home was burned down after over two years of threats from people in the area who repeatedly told us that they would set it on fire. We reported these threats to law enforcement multiple times and nothing was done. Throughout that time, we were harassed regularly by individuals who made it clear that they did not accept our relationship.

Much of the harassment was openly homophobic. When we returned to the site to check our mail, we discovered the skull of one of our dogs and its harness placed in clear view. This caused both of us severe emotional distress. We began yelling and crying in response to the pain of what we saw. While we were doing this, a man approached us. He started yelling violent homophobic slurs at us. He then raised a gun from his lap and fired.

Jonathan and I had no weapons. We were not threatening anyone. We were grieving. We were standing side by side. When the man fired, Jonathan pushed me out of the way. He saved my life. Jonathan is my husband. He was murdered by someone who could not stand the sight of two men loving each other. Close quote. That's the story. Now, having read that out loud, even if you know nothing about this case at all, you can immediately see the problem. And it's a pretty big one.

None of it makes any sense. It's incoherent. It's the kind of thing that somebody would write if they've lost their mind. If you live in reality, you know that gay men living in San Antonio are not going to be stalked for years by roving gangs of homophobes who taunt them with the skulls of their dead pets and then light their home on fire and then shoot them.

Okay, it's not the kind of thing that happens outside of the fevered imaginations of very delusional activists. It reads like a screenplay that was written by a demi-queer NYU student who also happens to be high on meth or something. At no point should anyone have even pretended to take this statement seriously for any reason. It discredits itself. It makes no sense. So we know that the man was killed, but...

There is no reason why we would take that statement at face value to explain how exactly he was killed and why. But a lot of people did present this statement as incoherent as it clearly is, as a serious believable account by a firsthand witness. Not just believable, but according to LGBT activists, it's absolutely unassailable. It's bulletproof evidence that this is exactly what happened.

And the media treated it that way, too. In the UK, The Independent ran this headline, quote, King of the Hill actor Jonathan Joss was killed in a homophobic hate crime after years of threats, husband says. So they're leading with the statement from this alleged husband without pushing back in any way. Outlets like Variety and MSNBC did the same thing. So did some very popular accounts on social media. The account Discussing Film, which has more than two million followers, wrote, quote,

Jonathan Joss, the voice of John Redcourt in King of the Hill, has sadly passed away at the age of 59 after being shot in a homophobic attack. So they're not even clarifying, they're not even qualifying it as husband says, they're just saying it was a homophobic attack. The pop culture site Toon Hive posted this report, which has more than 14 million views, quote, King of the Hill voice actor Jonathan Joss was murdered in a homophobic hate crime his husband confirms.

Here's another post with 5 million views. Quote, they burned down his house, killed him and his husband's dog, showed them the dead dog's skulls, called them homophobic slurs, and then shot them.

And there were thousands more posts like this all over the internet, from X to Reddit to Facebook to Instagram and everywhere else. Here's another post with hundreds of thousands of views. Quote, This is why the LGBTQ plus movement is necessary. This is why Pride Month is necessary. People shouldn't fear stepping outside to check their mail just for loving somebody of the same sex. If you think otherwise, go F yourself. So...

The LGBT community is unanimous. This was a homophobic hate crime. A gay man was executed in cold blood in broad daylight simply for being gay. But if you look a little more closely at this situation, as in if you spend like five seconds looking into it, you'll immediately find a few very fundamental problems with these claims. First of all, to begin with,

Here is a picture of Jonathan's alleged quote unquote husband. And you can see it here. The quote unquote husband is on the left. Now, admittedly, like Ketanji Brown Jackson, I'm no biologist, but that looks a lot like a woman who is claiming to be a man.

And indeed, this particular woman has a trans flag on her Facebook profile. In other words, there's no husband involved here. And as much as we all recognize that definitions and facts aren't really important to the LGBT movement, it seems like a big issue for their narrative that this was a homophobic attack. And given that little detail, you might be wondering, well, who exactly is this woman? How credible is her story exactly?

Well, she married Joss just a few months ago on Valentine's Day of this year. They hadn't known each other very long before that. And now this woman is claiming to know that for years, Joss has been tormented by neighbors who supposedly torched their home. But the opposite is true. I mean, she's completely inverting reality. Here's a report from a local news station just a few months ago, shortly after the house fire. Quote,

Joss said he left the house to go eat earlier on Thursday and thought he had turned everything off. He said he had been using a propane heater in the home for warmth. Mistakes happen, man, and it's my fault for, I guess, leaving something on, Joss said. Or if somebody came in and did something, who knows, close quote. Well, that's a helpful bit of context that was strangely missing from the post that Joss's alleged quote-unquote husband wrote on Facebook. She suggests that homophobes burn the house down,

But she leaves out the fact that Joss admitted that he'd been using a propane heater for warmth and also admitted that he had probably made a mistake because he might have left it on. And she also leaves out the fact that the local utility company had cut the power to the house and that it was slated for demolition. More on that later. In any event, essentially, he's acknowledging that, yes, he burned his own house down. And that's not all the information that Joss's alleged husband left out. Watch.

This house was built by my dad in 1957 for my mom. This was no role but real-life heartbreak for actor Jonathan Joss when his family home on Dorsey Street burned down in January. On Sunday, neighbors say he was back on the now-empty lot, checking on the Southside property when he got into a deadly confrontation. In the neighborhood, people say Joss made his presence known and not always in a good way. We would see him down the street.

yelling, ranting and raving, sometimes walking up and down the street. Neighbors say Joss took the whole private property concept very seriously. Even after his house had burned down, they say he fiercely protected not only what was behind this fence, but well beyond it. And just different things. He'll argue with different people. Maybe somebody would drive by his home. He didn't like people driving in front of his home. One neighbor says she saw similar behavior from Joss Sunday, although it's still unclear

clear exactly how that led to him being shot. So according to the neighbors, Joss would scream at passing cars. He would regularly harass innocent people in the community. He would act, in other words, a lot like an unstable drug addict with mental health issues, right? That's how he would act. And

That's just the beginning. Here's a report from the local station WFAA, which has more details from the day that Joss died. Quote, neighbor said that Joss was at the site Sunday night checking his mail, which he did regularly, when something went terribly wrong. A video shared by a neighbor who was present shows a man who they identified as Joss pacing up and down the street with a pitchfork and screaming. The neighbors say that it was common behavior over the years for Joss to scream while carrying weapons. They

And even though they say they didn't like it, several neighbors said they were surprised when a man who lives just 50 yards away responded to the situation with a gun around 6 p.m. on Sunday, close quote. Now, before I read the rest of this paragraph, it's worth repeating this line. The neighbors say it was common behavior over the years for Joss to scream while carrying weapons. And on the night he was killed, Joss was pacing up and down with a pitchfork and screaming. Again, none of this made it into the husband's, quote unquote, account of events.

Instead, we're supposed to believe that Joss was just minding his own business, checking the mail when somebody shot him for no reason other than the fact that he's gay, even though he's in a relationship with a woman. Now, that sounds a little hard to believe. It gets even worse. Let's continue reading from the local news report. Quote, many neighbors said that Joss and Alvarez had a long history of trouble. They say both men had been showing weapons and trading threats for years. The feud took many forms.

Weapons, everything, guns, shootings at all times of night, one neighbor said. Adding the men didn't shoot at each other. No, just shooting rounds at their own property and stuff. You could just hear the multiple rounds just blowing off on both ends. Both ends, and he would be yelling a lot, close quote. So there was just some casual gunfire on both sides of the dispute. It was a regular thing, apparently. And it was a conflict that Joss was obviously participating in actively.

According to various news reports, police have been called to the Joss residence more than 60 times so far this year alone for a variety of reasons, from welfare checks to reports of shootings and fires.

The college reported that Joss had been carrying crossbows and pointing them at people, which led police to confiscate the weapon last summer. Also, it's emerged that neither Joss nor his alleged, quote unquote, husband actually own the home that burned down. In fact, the property was slated for demolition before it mysteriously burned down. Quoting from Fox San Antonio,

Quote, city officials saying that the home Joss and his quote unquote husband had lived in was slated for demolition well before the fire in January of 2025. According from the city, according records from the city of San Antonio's dangerous assessment response team indicated that neither Joss nor his husband owned the property. According to city officials, after several reports of theft and mental health concerns,

The Dart team got involved. After inspecting the property, the building was brought before the building standards board, which ordered it demolished. Dart then gave the couple a notice to vacate. The homeowner consented to the demolition of the home and services were disconnected from the property in October of 2024. Officials say the home then sat on a list of homes to be demolished before a fire on January 23rd destroyed most of the structure, killing at least one dog in the blaze, close quote. Um,

So the home was going to be demolished because of the state that it was in. And then after that, mysteriously, it burns down. Again, these are not facts that suggest that Joss and his quote-unquote husband were living the most stable life or that they were being tormented by random, mysterious homophobes. It looks a lot like they were very unstable people. And then there's this Facebook post from a different neighbor describing her experiences with Joss.

Quote, I lived across this man for years. He started gunfights constantly and he burnt his own house down trying to make a meth lab inside. He constantly threatened his surrounding neighbors and played victim when cops came. He used to throw bricks through my window and tore several of our mailboxes down. And no one on that block ever yelled homophobic slurs at him. It's a lie from his, quote, husband for sympathy, close quote.

Now these multiple independent accounts are believable in part because of Joss's public behavior. In fact, just two days before his death, Joss crashed an event for the King of the Hill revival at the Paramount Theater in Austin.

and he had to be escorted out by security. According to People Magazine, quote, while the panel was in full swing, Joss stood up and approached the microphone, set up for the Q&A portion of the event, which had not begun yet. The onlooker says that security guards came out at this time. The eyewitnesses says that audience members laughed nervously in the crowd and that King of Hill co-creators Mike Judge and Greg Daniels didn't seem alarmed while others appeared a bit worried or uncomfortable.

So here's part of that footage of what took place. It was shot by an attendee using the name Brandon Brokenheart on Facebook. Watch. He said the mic wasn't going to be used. And I'm an actor. I see a mic. I use it. I see it wrong. I make it right. I take a breath. I want to breathe. And no offense, sir. I'm not a super fan. I said there's a hole in my money. You should go. There's a hole. There's a hole. My house burned down three months ago.

- Because I'm gay. I've had a couple of loves in my life. - So he's obviously falling apart personally and professionally. He thought these people snubbed him by not inviting him onto the stage. Although you can kind of see why they didn't want him on stage.

So he interrupts them while they're speaking. He shuts the whole event down. He veers between a joking demeanor and, you know, being dead serious as he rants incoherently about 10 different topics. For example, he says that his house was burned down because he's gay, which is completely different from what he said a few weeks ago when he acknowledged that he may have caused the fire himself. And meanwhile, everybody in the room is, you know, nervously hoping that he's not going to become violent because he's acting like a schizophrenic.

Two days later, what do you know? The neighbors say that he was acting like a drug addict, screaming at random people while carrying a pitchfork. And to be clear, I don't know exactly why he was shot. No one does at this point. We can't say whether Joss was threatening anyone or whether the shooting was justified or not at this point, but...

The balance of the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he was not minding his own business and checking the mail when out of nowhere he was executed for being in a gay relationship, as the media and LGBT activists are claiming. There are about a million reasons why that claim is not convincing, starting with the fact that he wasn't even in a gay relationship, as well as the fact that he's repeatedly acted like a lunatic in public and the fact that the source is a trans-identifying woman with every incentive to play the victim.

And indeed, San Antonio police, who have access to all the available evidence, have come to the same conclusion. Here's what they wrote, quote, SAPD homicide is currently investigating the murder of Mr. Jonathan Joss. Despite online claims of this being a hate crime, currently the investigation has found no evidence to indicate that Mr. Joss's murder was related to his sexual orientation.

But because reality doesn't matter to these people, this statement hasn't convinced LGBT activists to stop claiming that Jonathan Joss was executed for being gay, nor have any of the other facts I just outlined. They still won't admit that Matthew Shepard was killed 30 years ago because of a meth deal gone bad, not because he was gay. In fact, one of Shepard's killers was a man that he'd allegedly occasionally had sex with himself, meaning that one of the killers was gay. Every single one of these hate crime hoaxes, going back 30 years,

every single one of these hate crime claims going back 30 years has been a fraud. This is just the latest example of a trend that we've all seen for decades now. If anything's changing, it's that the hoaxes are becoming far more incoherent and lazy and unconvincing. And you only see lies that are this transparent and desperate from people who are losing and who know they're losing.

Desperate to find some justification for Pride Month and the LGBT movement in general, these pathological liars are deliberately attempting to exploit the very predictable and tragic death of an unstable guy, all under the guise of compassion and social justice. It's a fraud. And that's no surprise because their entire movement is a fraud. And the more they pretend otherwise...

The more they pretend to care about Jonathan Joss and the more they pretend to be terrified of phantom homophobic gangs that randomly stalk and torment gay men in San Antonio, the more obvious it is how truly powerless and pathetic these people have become. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Have you ever come across somebody saying that capitalism is evil or something similar, maybe in a video online on TV or just talking with someone? What was your reaction if you did? When did capitalism become such a hot button issue anyway? Well, it seems like people have such strong opinions about it and very little understanding of whole of capitalism as a whole.

Luckily, if you're looking to expand your knowledge and horizons on a broad range of topics, including subjects like capitalism, Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses. That's right, completely free. You can learn about the United States Constitution, explore stories from the book of Genesis,

discover the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or even study the history of the ancient Christian church, I do recommend watching their new course, Understanding Capitalism. In just seven lectures, you'll learn about the role of profit and loss, how human nature shapes our economy, and why capitalism depends on private property rights,

the rule of law and freedom. You'll also discover why capitalism actually encourages morality rather than undermining it, like today's varying political agendas would have you believe. Understanding economics and capitalism empowers individuals and societies to make informed decisions

evaluate policy impacts, and anticipate market changes, ultimately creating more prosperous communities. Go right now to hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll in this course, Understanding Capitalism. There's no cost and it's easy to get started. That's hillsdale.edu slash Walsh to enroll for free, hillsdale.edu slash Walsh.

All right, we have an update four years later on the We Spa case. The We Spa case, if you recall, is where a man, a registered sex offender, went into the women's locker room at We Spa and exposed himself to several women, including minors. And that is what prompted this viral video. We'll play just a clip of it just to jog your memory. But this one...

This is back in 2021. So let's just play this again to remind ourselves. We spa. So it's okay. I just want to be clear with you. It's okay. It's okay for a man to go into the women's section, show his penis around other women, young little girls under age. Your spa, we spa, condone that. Is that what you're saying? Like I asked. So he can stay there.

He could stay there. What sexual orientation? I see it. It lets me know he's a man. He's a man. He is a man. He is not no female. He is not a female. He is not a female. You remember that, I assume we all remember that man, the women's locker room. This is, again, a repeat sex offender exposing himself to women and young girls.

multiple witnesses all attesting to this. And so this man, Darren Adjie Marager, was eventually charged with indecent exposure. And now we have the update. This is the post-millennial. A trans-identifying male who was accused of exposing his genitals to a little girl and several women at the female-only Korean Wii spa in Los Angeles in June 2021 has been acquitted.

Darren Aggie Marager of 55 of Riverside was found not guilty of felony indecent exposure on Monday following a four-week jury trial at the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. Marager is a Tier 1 registered sex offender with multiple felonies and several jail stints, according to records. The jury came to their conclusion after less than an hour and a half of deliberation, telling the court that prosecutors did not submit sufficient evidence

proving that Maraiger exposed himself with the intent of sexual gratification. Maraiger is a heterosexual male who identifies as transgender, and prosecutors could not prove that his penis was partially erect while sitting unclothed next to nude female patrons, which were claims made by several witnesses at the spa.

Additionally, the jury foreman told Judge Joseph Burghardt that the spa let the defendant in, which assisted the jury in reaching its verdict, according to Los Angeles Magazine. Okay, so let's review here. There is no dispute that this guy went into the women's locker room and disrobed. There's no dispute about that. There's no dispute that he is a guy. He's a male. There is no dispute that he's a registered sex offender.

There's no dispute as far as I know, not that this should even matter, but given all the above facts, but there's also no dispute that he's a heterosexual, meaning he's attracted to women. So this is a man disrobing in the women's locker room around a bunch of women and at least one girl, at least one minor, who are also in various states of undress. And yet the jury in Los Angeles comes back with a not guilty verdict because they're

And not to be graphic, but I mean, this is what they said, because they didn't see proof that he had an erection. That was their reasoning for letting him off the hook. Which, what kind of proof did they want? I mean, multiple witnesses saw that fact and reported it. Apparently, that doesn't count as proof. Like, obviously, there isn't going to be security camera footage from inside the locker room. You would hope there isn't.

So there's no way to prove it beyond the witness testimony. And also, why does that matter? How in the world does that matter? What does that, I mean, think about the precedent that's being set here. This is, I mean, this is one of the most outrageous jury verdicts I think I've ever heard. Not just because of the fact they're letting this guy off the hook, that's bad enough. The reason they're giving is, what?

And strangely enough, I've seen very few people talking about this case, even among conservatives. Now, a lot of people talked about it at the time, but this is kind of an important update. So what we're being told in the precedent that this trial has set is that a sex offender can expose himself to children, and it's not indecent exposure unless you can prove that he was visibly aroused.

I mean, what the hell? What the hell kind of madness is that? What kind of, again, it's one of the craziest verdicts I've ever heard. And by the way, he's a registered sex offender because of multiple prior convictions for indecent exposure. And those incidents stem all the way back from 2002, I believe. So this disgusting creep has been going around for 20 years exposing himself.

And yet, in this case, when engaging in the exact same kind of behavior, it doesn't count as indecent exposure because the jury didn't personally see that he was aroused. Now, am I shocked by this? Well, given that this is Los Angeles, no. And given the trans victim status that this sex offender was trying to use as a get out of jail free card, it's hard to be surprised. But

But this kind of madness is exactly why the trans movement is falling apart. This is exactly it. I mean, people are just tired of this. And you have to be a lunatic to hear about this case, hear that this guy was let off the hook, and the reason that he was let off the hook. You have to be a lunatic to think that that was the right decision. I mean, you actually cannot be a sane person and agree with this.

And this is what, and this is why the movement's falling apart because it's just not, it's not sustainable. All right. I wanted to play this. This is not exactly a headline, but this is a, it's interesting to me because this is a clip that's been making the rounds on X over the last couple of days. And I don't know why exactly all of a sudden now people are talking about it, but it has 15 million views over the last day or two, even though it's from a show that went off air several years ago.

So it's not new, but somebody just posted it. And I don't even know the politics of the person who initially posted it or what point they thought they were making. But I can say this clip is from, I believe, the HBO show. Yes, it is from the HBO show Girls, which is the Lena Dunham show from several years ago. And we do know that the creators of the show, including Lena Dunham,

We're definitely trying to make a certain point with this scene and with the entire show. These were like raging far leftists and feminists. So we know what we know where they're where they stand on the issues. We know what point they were trying to make. And instead, in this clip, they made exactly the opposite point of what they were trying to say. So in this scene, we see two characters.

who are dating, and the female character informs the male character that she just had an abortion. She aborted his baby. And now again, keep in mind, and there's another detail about this particular episode that I'll tell you on the other side of this clip that makes it even more interesting, but keep in mind the writers and creators of the show expect us to sympathize with the woman in this exchange. That was the point. You're supposed to watch this and come away from it

on the woman's side. So let's see how that turned out. Let's watch. I can't go for a run and I can't take a bath or use a tampon or have intercourse for like a week. Are you, what? Yeah, just a couple of things I can't do because I had an abortion yesterday. Was it mine? Yeah, of course it was yours. I didn't want to talk about it beforehand. I just wanted to do it.

But I haven't shared with boyfriends in the past. I'm trying to be more open with you. So you're trying to be open with me. How many abortions have you had? I'm not going to share that with you because that is private. I'm not going to ask you how many girls you've gotten pregnant. None. It's not private. I've gotten no girls pregnant except for you now.

- And went with you? - My friends, Sue Ellen Garth. - I don't even know her! - You'll meet her. She's a somnambulist. - Who did it? Who aborted you? - A doctor named Gunita did the procedure. She delivered my cousin's baby. - Was it a boy or a girl? - My cousin's baby's a girl. - No! Ours! - It was a ball of cells. It was smaller than a seed pearl. It didn't have a penis or a vagina. - Isn't this a decision that people typically make together? - So you wanted a baby?

Maybe. That's kind of absurd. We've been together for less than seven weeks. I don't think that we're ready for a child. Crazier things have happened. People do crazy things. My parents got married after a week. Okay, so we should have the baby and put it in your toolbox as a cradle and feed it sardines and tell it that you don't know my middle name? It's Rose! No, my first name is Mimi Rose. My middle name is Eleanor. I don't understand how you could do something like that without talking to me first.

It's evil. You're right. You don't understand. Okay, so that's the scene. Now, again, this is a Lena Dunham show. The intention was to make the woman look like the good guy and the man look like some kind of, you know, unhinged narcissist, some sort of controlling, power-hungry man. But instead, to any normal human, it comes off exactly the opposite way.

Of course, we sympathize much more with the male character in this scene. He's the good guy in the scene, no matter what was intended by the people who wrote the script. And so there are a few interesting things here to talk about. First of all, again, the makers of the show intended for this to be pro-abortion propaganda. And in fact, I went back and found an interview that the actress did with the Huffington Post when the episode first aired all the way back in 2015.

And she said that Planned Parenthood consulted on the script for this episode. So Lena Dunham was literally working with Planned Parenthood to make pro-abortion propaganda. And it was supposed to be a refreshing and realistic depiction of abortion. And it was. I mean, realistic. It was a realistic depiction, at least. And coming from

an organization, Planned Parenthood, that commits millions of abortions. And so they would know. And in this case, they were actually honest about it, though for all the wrong reasons. Now, I know that a lot of people in the pro-life movement like to think of and talk about women who get abortions like they're all these kind of scared, helpless, confused victims. But the fact of the matter is that

A lot of them are exactly like this, exactly like the woman in this scenario. And that's the harsh reality of the situation. This is very common. In fact, this exact scenario that we see in this show is very common. We never talk about it. We hardly ever hear anyone talk about it. But the men who are victims of abortion are rarely acknowledged, but there's a lot of them.

Men whose children are aborted against their will and without their knowledge. But it happens all the time. It's very common. And Planned Parenthood, who consulted on the script, admits it in this scene. That was the point of the scene. They were trying to show a realistic, kind of like normal situation. And they did. They succeeded. They succeeded way more than they ever hoped to. The fact is that a lot of women who get abortions are callous women.

and cold-blooded, totally unfeeling about it. They don't care that they're killing their child. They know it and don't care. Cold-blooded killers. That's what we saw in that scene. The woman in that scene is just a cold-blooded, callous, murdering sociopath. And she does represent...

a certain not insignificant portion of the women who get abortions. That's like the unspoken truth. And we're not supposed to acknowledge that, but it's true. Now, you do also have women who are scared, who are exploited. You have women who are, in some cases, pressured into it by the men in their lives. That's real. That happens. Still doesn't excuse it, obviously. It's still murder. But

You do have that. You have women who, you have the opposite of this scenario, not quite the opposite, but you have a scenario where the man is more eager for it than the woman. That is also true. No one's denying that. But those are the cases that we talk about all the time. I mean, that's, when we talk about abortion as pro-lifers, we tend to talk about it as though the latter kinds of cases are the only ones that

We don't really talk about cases like the one you see depicted in that Planned Parenthood produced propaganda. And, you know, yeah, it's fiction. But once again, it's a fictional scenario crafted by abortion propagandists to reflect the sort of, quote unquote, patients that Planned Parenthood sees every day. So this is a real thing. And, you know, especially now.

You have a lot of pro-life activists who are worried about the optics, which to a certain extent, when you're in a political movement, you have to be concerned with that. I mean, you're in the business of persuading people. And so, yeah, part of what you're taking into account is the optics of, you know, that's part of how it goes. But I think some pro-life activists are far too concerned about that. And so they won't talk about this fact publicly. But

privately. I mean, you talk to anybody who works, any pro-life activists who works outside of an abortion clinic, sidewalk counselors, people like that, and they might not all say it publicly, but if you talk to them privately, they'll tell you that, yeah, you know what? We run into those kinds of women all the time. That is very common. And it's chilling. It is bone chilling because it is like

The guy says in the scene, it's evil. It's just pure evil. And that's what you're dealing with. The other thing we learn here is that it is impossible, actually, to create pro-abortion propaganda. It's basically impossible to do. You can try, but any depiction of this practice or its aftermath is automatically horrifying, no matter how you present it. I mean, think about it. There was...

There was no way to show this scene without it seeming like a moral outrage and a tragedy. There's no way to do it. And leftists and feminists and pro-abortion people in Hollywood have been trying for years to figure out a way to solve this riddle, right? Figure out a way to portray abortion in a film, in a TV show.

where the abortion seems like trying to figure out a way to portray it in a favorable light. And they've been trying for years to do this. There have been dozens and dozens and dozens of attempts and all of them fail because in every case, when you watch it as an audience member, it doesn't matter where you stand on the issue. You watch it and you're like, this is horrifying. This is terrible. Like I, this is, this is, uh, this is like a horror movie because

Because that's what abortion is. It's a moral outrage and it's a tragedy and it's a horror. So if they had made this, so again, like think about their options. If they wanted to make pro-abortion propaganda, they wanted to have a character who gets an abortion, but they frame it in a favorable light. Well, there are only a few ways to do it. They could have gone the opposite way. They could have made it a dramatic scene where the woman is crying about it and very distraught.

But they don't want to do that because then they're admitting that abortion is a tragedy and it's a sad thing. They don't want to admit that, so they're not going to do that. They could have flipped the roles so that the guy was the one who was more insistent on the abortion. They could have done that. But then that would also be a moral outrage, and so they didn't want to portray it that way. And they also didn't want to portray it like they don't want to make it seem as though all the women who get abortions are victims themselves.

Because if they do that, then they lose the whole female empowerment thing because they want abortion to be empowering. They don't want it to just be this last resort that women in desperate straits are forced to resort to. So they can't do that. So they landed on, well, okay, let's have the woman do it and we'll treat it casually. We'll treat it like it's no big deal. It's like to her, it's like she just got her wisdom teeth removed.

And that's what they went with. And that turns out to be the most horrifying approach of all, because there is no non-horrifying way to approach a horrifying thing. That's what it comes down to. Let's get to the comment section. ♪ Man, it's required that you grow up with a sweet baby game.

It's not Pride Month, it's June, and Jeremy's Razors is here to celebrate a real holiday, Father's Day. Now's your last chance to guarantee delivery for Father's Day gifts from Jeremy's Razors. Give Dad a year off from shopping with the Precision 5 Razor one-year bundle.

Did dad raise a winner? Give him the victory bundle for a complete men's care arsenal that works hard without being woke. Shop up to 47% off. Now is your last chance to find the perfect gift. Go to jeremysraisers.com slash father's day right now. That's jeremysraisers.com slash father's day. Tommy used a poor choice of words, but she isn't wrong. Too many men want to live as perpetual college kids. It's a fact. I agree with every complaint you've leveled against women, but you should criticize these man children for once.

For once, Matt, come on. That's a comment from Vanessa. Yeah, for once. For once, you want me to criticize immature men? For once? That's like saying you want me to, for once, take a stand against transgenderism. That's like saying you want me to, for once, speak out against people who ditch their shopping carts. I think I'm pretty well known for going after man-child types. I've done that.

Many, many, many times. And here's the thing. I actually wish that I could continue to focus on criticizing men, given that I am a man myself. So I wish that my focus could remain there.

But I could only do that if there were enough female commentators in the mainstream who were giving tough talk to women and calling out women and criticizing them and criticizing their behavior and their laziness and their selfishness and their refusal to grow up and become adults. If there were enough females doing that, then I could say, well, my voice isn't needed there. That's already being covered. You ladies handle the women. I'll handle the men. And that's the way that I wish it could go. But

The problem is, as we discussed, most mainstream female pundits, not all, but most of them don't really call women out. They don't give any tough talk to young women. They don't point out any of the stuff that I pointed out a couple of days ago when we were talking about when we did our Tommy Lahren cancellation. They just don't talk about it. They refuse to talk about it. And so if you won't talk about it, then that

forces other people to step in and do it for you. And that's just the way it goes. What really convinced me that abortion is wrong is having children of my own. I realized that infants really aren't that advanced in terms of consciousness, despite the claims of pro-abortion activists that there's a huge difference between a baby in the womb and a newborn. That doesn't make newborns less precious or less human. And once you realize that, you instantly see the unmistakable humanity of babies in the womb at any stage of development.

Yes, this is one of the most ludicrous things about the pro-abortion position. It shows how arbitrary the position is. Newborn babies are totally helpless. They're totally dependent. We can assume that they have some, you know, I think they clearly have some degree of conscious experience, but it's not much more than what an unborn child has. They have little to no self-awareness. And, you know, that's why when you look at, when you see a newborn infant, you're

Right. And they're and they're moving their limbs around and they kind of like stare at their own hand because they don't understand that they're they don't have control over their limbs yet. They don't they don't understand that that's their hand, like that concept. So because they're newborns, which just speaks to a to a to a they are not totally self-aware, really. And so what that means is that whatever arguments justify abortion would also justify abortion.

the abortion of infants, because the arguments always come down to basically two things. One of them is that unborn children are not conscious. And the other one is that they are physically dependent on their mothers for survival where, well, the issue, as you point out, is that a newborn baby, that's also true to basically the same degree for newborn babies. So if you justify one, it justifies the other, which tells you that there are no arguments to justify abortion.

Matt's sense of humor always delivers. By age 65, Matt will likely be an appallingly curmudgeonly man with a figure not unlike Orson Welles. Uh-huh. That's my goal. I've told my wife this. I've told her. She knows. Like, I'm in reasonably good shape now. So just, but don't get used to it because the clock is ticking. In 25 years, I will have the physique of a toad. That's warning you right now. That's where all this is headed, to me being a toad.

Okay, next stop Toadville. That's where we're going. So we can't do anything about it. I mean, we could do something about it, but I'm not going to. We still got a good, you got a solid 20 to 25 years. So that's not bad. I say that you're my clone, Matt, but of all things I agree with you about, the anime thing has got to be the biggest. I have an unhealthy hatred for it, but let's face it, hating anime can only be healthy. So nevermind that last part.

So this comment and a bunch of others refer to a comment yesterday from yet another anime fan recommending yet another anime that this person swore that I would like. And I actually did look it up. I didn't watch it, but I looked it up out of curiosity. And the one he recommended is called The Saga of Tanya the Evil, was the one that was recommended yesterday in this very segment of the show.

And I looked it up because despite what you guys might think, I actually am relatively open-minded. And when people recommend stuff to me, when they say, oh, you'll like this show, you'll like this movie, I always, I make a note of it. A lot of times I'll make like an actual note. And then when I'm home later, I'll look it up. And so when someone says to me, hey, you hate anime, but this will change your mind about the entire genre, I'm intrigued by that. And I say, okay, well, hey, look, I'm open to that. I'm actually open to it.

Believe it or not. So I looked it up. Let me just read the description of this anime from Wikipedia. This one that was just recommended to me. The Saga of Tanya the Evil is a... Let's see. The series focuses on a salaryman whose reincarnation as the titular character living in an alternate version of World War I leaves her to be trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnation, willing to avoid being killed

Whilst dying of natural causes, Tanya must take it upon herself to don a bloodthirsty sadist ego in hopes of joining the ranks of the Empire's Mage Corps as part of her plan to become a seemingly indestructible foe. I'm sorry, this is one you thought I would like? So you saw an anime about what an adult man who reincarnates as an evil little girl in World War I who commits war crimes? And you thought to yourself, Matt Walsh would love this.

This is right on Matt's alley. But okay, let's keep an open mind because I have the... I went to IMDb and I have the trailer of the show, which I actually have not watched yet, but I found it on IMDb. Haven't watched it. And let's...

Do we have that queued up? Let's just watch this anime. Maybe this is... Maybe it's the one that will change my mind. Maybe it will. Existence was first confirmed several months ago by our own forces. We know practically nothing about her background. Soldiers have a nickname for her, though. The Devil of the Rye. Believers, have faith in the Lord's blessings. At the end of our hard-fought battles, paradise awaits. And one day we will reach the promised land. I think I've seen enough of that. Um... What?

You're saying I would have I would have to have gone actually insane to sit down and watch that and enjoy it. I would I would I would I would have to I would have to smoke more meth than Glenn Greenwald to enjoy that show. So so it's what it's a salesman who becomes an evil girl and then flies through the air and shoots a magical rifle at planes. And you think I would enjoy that?

you might as well leave a comment saying, "Hey Matt, have you tried stabbing yourself in the face with a butcher knife and then pouring lemon juice directly into the open wound?" You would love it. Give it a try. In fact, I would rather do that than watch this show. And it's like no offense to anyone who likes it, but you could sooner convince me to stab myself in the face than to watch that show. So what would my children think? Like what would my kids think if they came into the room and I was watching an anime cartoon

about an evil schoolgirl flying around and shooting people. They would think that, you know, dad has finally lost his mind. That's what they would think. My wife would have me committed to an asylum. She would actually, there are no asylums open. So she would lobby Congress to open an asylum. And then next, then the next step would be to have me committed to it. And justifiably so. So anyway, I'll pass.

I think I'll pass on that one, but thanks for the recommendation. Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you missed the April 15th deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse with over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments.

The IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free, and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies.

Before the IRS makes the next move.

Father's Day is coming. Skip the socks, skip the grill tools, get dad something he'll actually use. Daily Wire Plus, now 40% off. He'll get ad-free shows from the most trusted voices of conservative media, plus full access to our premium entertainment library, including Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's new series, Parenting. It's the content he wants with the values he raised you on. No shipping, no fluff, just click gift and instantly become his favorite child. Go to dailywireplus.com, use

Code DAD40 and save 40% right now. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. As we've covered on this show extensively, the judiciary in this country is completely out of control for every executive action President Trump has tried to take. There has been some judge somewhere who has declared that somehow he has no right to take it. The judges have made it clear that the president, someone we once thought was the most powerful man in the world, actually has no power to do anything at all.

According to an army of activist judges, the president of the United States has less power and less authority than the manager of your local Domino's pizza. In fact, if Trump tried to order a pepperoni pizza from Domino's, a judge would issue an injunction and declare that Trump only has the authority to order cheese pizza. The question of whether he can have toppings on his pizza will need further deliberation by the courts. So that's the current state of affairs. And so it is no surprise to read this headline from Politico, quote,

Judge orders Trump admin to maintain gender-affirming care for transgender inmates. So not only is Trump not allowed to prevent self-identified trans inmates from receiving quote-unquote gender-affirming care, he is required to actively provide it. And let's read on. Quote,

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to continue providing gender-affirming care to hundreds of transgender prison inmates, ruling that an abrupt decision to curtail their medical care was not based on any reasoned analysis, as the law requires. U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth previously ordered the Bureau of Prisons to continue to provide medical care to several individual prisoners who are transgender, but his ruling Tuesday is the first that broadly blocks federal prison officials from carrying out an executive order from President Donald Trump targeting gender ideology.

Trump's executive order requires the Bureau of Prisons to cease providing any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex. Lamberth's order requires that the Bureau of Prisons to resume providing hormone therapy and social accommodations such as gender-conforming undergarments and hair removal products that were available prior to Trump's executive order. Lamberth ruled that there was no evidence that the administration made any factual analysis before implementing Trump's directive.

And the judge further explained, quote, "Neither the BOP nor the executive order provides any serious explanation as to why the treatment modalities covered by the executive order should be handled differently than any other mental health intervention." Well, this is the same judge who ruled back in February that trans-identified male prisoners could not be transferred back to male prisons

where they obviously belong, because somehow putting men in a men's prison would be a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Never mind the fact that allowing men to be in a women's prison is not only cruel to the real women in the facility, but also the very definition of unusual. So it violates the Eighth Amendment to put the males in the women's prison, not to transfer them back out of it. But this is the kind of basic reasoning that Judge Lamberth is not capable of.

And as for this latest ruling, Lamberth says that the ban on gender transition treatments for trans-identified prisoners was implemented without any factual analysis. And this, of course, makes no sense on a number of different levels. I mean, why would the judge assume that there was no factual analysis done? Obviously, there was some kind of analysis, which is how they arrived at the conclusion that no federal funds should be used to give inmates medical treatments meant to transition them into the opposite sex.

There's as much evidence that the Trump administration analyzed the facts in making the order as there is that the judge analyzed the facts in reversing it. Just because you disagree with the analysis doesn't mean that there was no analysis. But the judge frames it this way because otherwise he would have to affirmatively explain why and how male inmates have a God-given right to drugs and treatments provided by the taxpayer intended to turn them into women or vice versa.

The judge can't explain that, so instead he hides behind this lack of analysis dodge. Now, admittedly, the analysis conducted by the Trump administration on this question was likely very brief. In fact, it was an analysis that probably took them, you know, less than one second to complete. And that's because the analysis of whether male inmates should be given tax-funded treatments to turn them into females need only consist of answering one question. And the question is this.

Can males, if given certain medicines or surgeries, actually become female? Any sane person with a five-year-old's understanding of human biology can answer immediately, no. And that's all there is to the story. That's all the analysis that's needed. It's an analysis, a factual analysis, but it's an analysis as quick and easy as analyzing the question of whether pigs can actually fly or whether, you know, Jack and the Beanstalk is a historically accurate account of a real event. Again,

Since this must be explained to people like Judge Lamberth, the whole entire reason why taxpayers should not pay for gender transition procedures for inmates and why no such procedure should be provided to inmates or, frankly, to anybody else, is that gender transitions are impossible. They cannot happen.

They never have happened. They never will happen. They defy the laws of human biology and common sense. If the judge believes that taxpayers should provide gender transition procedures to inmates, he should provide us with one example, just one will suffice, of an actual successful gender transition procedure performed anywhere in the world on anyone at any point. That is, he should point to one example of a man taking a drug or getting a surgery and then as a result,

becoming a woman or vice versa. But he can't. Nobody can. And he knows it. Everybody knows it. And yet somehow we still have not gotten to the most outrageous part of the judge's ruling. The most outrageous part is this. Reading now, if democratic self-governance means anything, it means giving effect to all duly enacted laws, including those that were enacted decades ago. It does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election victor.

So that's the judge in his ruling. Here the judge is claiming that out of respect for democratic self-governance, he must prevent the president from enacting this policy. This policy that the duly elected president put in place. This policy that not only did he put in place, he ran on it. President Trump spent millions of dollars running ads in key swing states specifically promising to end the practice of taxpayer-funded gender transition procedures.

Lots of voters saw those ads. They then went out and voted for Trump. In fact, those ads were some of the most powerful and influential and successful ads that were run during the campaign by either campaign. So people voted for Trump in part so that he would put exactly this policy in place. And now the judge, who was not elected by anybody, is trying to block the policy that the voters asked for. And he's doing it in the name of democracy.

I mean, this is reasoning so convoluted and fallacious and insulting to our intelligence that it almost makes his belief in gender transition seem reasonable by comparison. It is pure nonsense. It is nonsense built on top of nonsense, which is why Trump should once again just ignore this judge and continue with the policy and dare the judge to do anything about it, which he won't and can't. And that is why this judge is today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.