Justice Alito (6:29)

Listen, if it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Attorney for trans-identifying athlete (6:46)

Yes, your honor.

Justice Alito (6:46)

And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Attorney for trans-identifying athlete (6:54)

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the, would have to, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court.

Matt Walsh (7:10)

So let's put the transcript up on the screen so it's clear what was said, quote, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or man or woman? And then after some stammering, the response from the Harvard educated lawyer before the supreme court is, we do not have a definition for the court. That's the answer that the left's attorney gave in a case that's supposedly about how trans identifying individuals are being discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex. They can't define the words they're supposed to even be arguing about. So this is yet another Hindenburg moment for the modern left. It was just over a year ago that the ACLU admitted before the supreme court that there's no evidence that butchering and sterilizing children actually prevents suicides. In fact, as you'd expect, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. And now when asked point blank to define the concept of biological sex, the attorney for the trans identifying plaintiff says simply, eh, pass. Now, in a casual debate among friends, this would be embarrassing enough. It's a concession that you, you've lost. But in an oral argument before the Supreme Court, it's something else entirely. The lawyer is saying that one of the most fundamental concepts in all of human biology, the distinction between sexes, is null and void. The entire concept of biological sex has no meaning. And if that's the case, if we're really supposed to disregard a category that's easily definable and pretend we can't define it at all, then of course nothing is real anymore. If chromosomes and human biology suddenly mean nothing at all, then nothing means anything. And who's to say that ICE isn't the Gestapo, or that Charlie Kirk wasn't a Nazi, or that Scott Adams wasn't a racist who had it coming, or any of the other left propositions? All of it is. Who's to say they're wrong? As long as we're making everything up, there are no boundaries. The delusions can run rampant. And that's exactly what's happening for Democrats at a large scale. Take for example, this moment that took place outside the Supreme Court. The Daily Wire interviewed a left wing activist and it went, you know, kind of how you would expect. Here's how that was. Why are you splitting up sports? Like, I'm pretty sure a woman can.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (9:12)

Play basketball as well as a man.

Matt Walsh (9:14)

If she practice and keep practice.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (9:17)

Like, what's the issue?

Matt Walsh (9:19)

I'm pretty sure a woman could play basketball as well as a man if she practiced. That's all it takes, a little more practice. This is the mainstream view of the average leftist in 2026. Yesterday, NPR ran a whole segment about studies that supposedly showed that men don't have a biological advantage over women in sports. You have to wonder why these people aren't outside the headquarters of the NBA and NFL right now demanding that every team signs a female athlete just like they have female referees. Now, it's not like the NBA and NFL are right wing institutions. They'd be receptive to whatever the activists have to say and wouldn't be hard to make the change either. You could just incorporate the WNBA into the NBA overnight. How many games do you think they'd win? Maybe the better question is how many fatalities would there be before the police had to shut down the entire league? Now, in fairness to the left wing side of the argument, the ACLU made a slightly different case before the Supreme Court. This is a section from the ACLU's brief, which was flagged by Kristen Wagoner at ADF legal quote, the medical understanding of biological sex encompasses several biological attributes, including chromosomes, genes, gonads, hormone levels, internal and external genitalia, and other secondary sex characteristics. Transgender women may possess some of these biological attributes typical of women. The act's definition of biological sex excludes the key criterion, circulating testosterone levels that would have allowed certain transgender women to play on women's sports. So the ACLU is taking issue with Idaho's definition of biological sex, which includes three criteria. Reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. So according to aclu, anatomy and genetics aren't the key criterion. The really important metric, in their view, is the level of testosterone in your system. This is another way of arguing that sex has no real meaning because anyone can change it at any time. All you need to do is take some hormones and that's it. Now, at the moment, it doesn't look like the Supreme Court is going to side with the ACLU on this. The laws banning men from competing against women, laws that never should have been necessary in the first place in a sane society, will probably be upheld. And that means that, contrary to what the ACLU is arguing, these bans don't violate the 14th Amendment or Title IX. Alas, there is no constitutional right for men to pummel women in every available sport. Who would have thought? But just to give you an idea of how absurd these arguments have been at the lower court level, an appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the laws amounted to sex discrimination because, quote, athletes on girls and women's sports, but not on boys and men's teams, are subject to invasive sex verification procedures to implement the law. In other words, the schools were checking to make sure that no males were trying to sneak into the girls team, but they weren't checking to ensure that females didn't try to sneak onto the men's team. And in the eyes of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, that amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. But really, it's common sense. I mean, obviously, you don't have to check to see if girls are sneaking their way onto the boys team, because the girls would have no incentive to do that. They would get absolutely demolished if they tried, and no team would want to pick them up. So even if you pretend that the female athlete could somehow pass as a male, which has never happened in human history, the fact that they be completely smoked on the field would. Would be a pretty big clip. Now, separately, this is a line of argument from the Left and the ACLU that if a particular male trans identifying athlete can demonstrate that he specifically has no biological advantage over women, then he should be able to play with women even though he's a male. So in other words, if a boy has been chemically castrated from a young age and destroyed his muscles and bone growth to the point that he can prove he's as weak as the average female athlete, then he should be allowed onto the girls team. That's called a, an as applied challenge to the Idaho law. This is how far the the movement has sunk, by the way. You know, they're trying to argue in court that they should be considered females if they do enough irreversible damage to their bodies. According to this argument, a female is nothing but a severely diminished male. That brings us to this clip of Ketanji Brown Jackson where she brings up as applied challenges and she does it as only Ketanji Brown Jackson can see. If you can decipher whatever this is.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (13:44)

To the extent that you have an individual who says what is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety and all of the reasons that the state puts forward. That's actually a different class, says this individual. So you're not treating the class the same and you're not. How do you respond to that? In other words, the as applied challenge essentially redefines the class, or one could think of it as that. And so what's wrong with that, number one? And, and how do you square that with our holdings in Kaban, which Lair later described in this way? In other words, Lair suggested that Kaban was establishing that as applied, challenges of this nature do exist.

ACLU Attorney (14:50)

Certainly. Take the second question first. Yes. Kaban says nothing about as applied. I know that Lair says later this was an as applied case, but simply reading Caban, it does not say that.

Matt Walsh (15:05)

So just going to the transcript here, quote, is treating someone transgender but does not have because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have the same threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward. It's actually a different class, says this individual, so you're not treating the class the same. How do you respond to that? The lawyer doesn't really respond to it because he has no idea what she's talking about. That's what he should have said. He should have said, I, I don't respond To. I don't. I have no clue what you're saying. It's total gibberish. Katanj Brown Jackson is perfect illustration of the black woman privilege we've discussed on the show this week. There's really no group in the country more privileged now than black women because the most mediocre among them, black women who can barely read or speak like Ketanja Brown Jackson, are elevated to the most prestigious positions solely because they are black women. Ketanja Brown Jackson is not qualified to be like a high school principal, let alone a Supreme Court justice. And yet here she is. And for what it's worth, this wasn't the only word salad from Jackson during yesterday's argument. Here's another moment where she stumbled a bit as she tried to define what a woman is.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (16:19)

Listen, you have the overarching classification. You know, everybody has to be play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth. But then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that meaning a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can't.

ACLU Attorney (16:52)

So I think that, okay, you're. As to the part about your ability to pass over from boy to girl, yes, you can go from one way, but not the other. I want to be clear that BBJ is not challenging that specific classification. I think that's important to start with, but I think if anything, that's useful evidence as to the. The lack of a transgender based discrimination. Because if the legislature were just sort of unsettled by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the answer would have been to then bar them from.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (17:22)

I appreciate that. I guess I was getting at the. What I understood the Chief justice to be trying to discuss, which was this notion that this is really just about the definition of who we accept that you can accept separate boys and girls. And we are now looking at the definition of a girl, and we're saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.

Matt Walsh (17:48)

Now, putting aside the nonsense at the beginning of that clip, which no one in the court could possibly comprehend, she's outraged that we're limiting our definition of girls to girls who were assigned female at birth. And first of all, of course, anyone using the phrase sex assigned at birth is someone who, as we know, should never be taken seriously for any reason. Because for the millionth time, doctors don't assign your sex any more than they assign your height or your weight. They observe it, they record it, they don't give it to you. It can't be overemphasized enough that just 15 years ago no one on the planet could have been confused about this. So these are all things that were invented yesterday for all practical purposes. And now we have Supreme Court justices parroting the lingo as if it's all completely logical and well settled science, even though it makes no logical sense. And some of the conservative justices did too, by the way, they, they also were using this lingo. Amy Coney Barrett, the supposedly conservative female justice on the bench, kept referring to quote trans boys and quote trans girls. Now, if you're not in the throes of the reality distortion field of the left, then you immediately notice how these people say, stammer on nonsensically whenever they're talking about basic concepts. You realize right away that they're full of it. At the same time, they really think that they're onto something. They think they're winning the argument, but they're not winning the argument. With every high profile meltdown like this from Minnesota to Washington, that becomes obvious to more and more people. Yesterday at the Supreme Court, the Daily Wires team noticed that the pro reality side far outnumbered the trans activists. Although true to form, the trans activists were much more obnoxious. Watch. So you have to keep images like this in mind, especially as we head into a very important election season. Cults don't last forever. Eventually they burn themselves out. Reality hits hard, and then the cultists, the ones who are still alive and functional anyway, will try to resume their normal lives. They'll forget all about how they pretended they were members of the French Resistance in downtown Minneapolis and how men, you know, can transform instantly into women and how it's totally normal to drive your car to a federal law enforcement officer. They'll, they'll try to back away from all that. But keep in mind, it was just a decade ago that cnn, of all places, was running puff pieces for ice. They were bragging about getting exclusive access to immigration rates. This is a clip that the account called Maze just unearthed. And it's pretty incredible. Watch.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (20:32)

Just before the sun rises in the Windy City, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents fan out across Chicago to arrest criminals in the US illegally.

ICE Agent (20:43)

Tack 1, Tac 2, Tag 3.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (20:44)

CNN was granted exclusive access to witness some of those raids.

Matt Walsh (20:49)

Any weapons on you? No. We got a warrant for your arrest.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (20:52)

So we got here and there was.

Matt Walsh (20:54)

A lot of action.

ICE Agent (20:54)

Almost immediately we came in, saw the individual, we had eyes on our target. You know, he was able to come out of the business force. We were to apprehend him without incident. At the same time, we also brought out his brother, who also is believed to be be illegal in the United States. We were able to run him on our portable fingerprint scanner. He did have a hit with dhs, so he's been previously encountered by the Border Patrol. So we're going to take him to the office and verify what criminal history he has and we'll go from there with him.

Matt Walsh (21:20)

So that was early 2016. At the end of the Obama administration. The liberals at CNN were showing off the cool hardware that ICE uses on their immigration raids. So it's a perfect illustration how fake and ephemeral all of this outrage is that we're seeing right now. Leftists know that ICE isn't suddenly targeting brown people because of the color of their skin or kidnapping anyone. The narrative is an obvious fabrication. It's inauthentic and for that reason it's not sustainable, nor is it productive. Just last night ABC News reported that, quote, for the first time in at least half a century, the US experienced negative net migration in 2025. And they cite a study from Brookings which states that, quote, we estimate net flows of negative 295,000 to negative 10,000 for the year. Continued negative net migration for 2026 is also likely. So for all the wailing and ice watching and domestic terrorism these people are engaging in, they are failing. Meanwhile, as impotent leftists scream into the void, millions of people, the majority of Americans, are thrilled by what they're seeing. And with every viral meltdown from a leftist agitator and every word salad from the DEI justices on the Supreme Court team, Sanity is making the comeback that we've all been waiting for and which this country has desperately needed for a very long time. Now let's get to our five headlines. If you're tired of feeling like crap and you want to be healthier in 2026, you need to throw some colostrum into your daily routine. Our sponsor, Cowboy Colostrum is as legit as you can get. We're talking 100% American grass fed cow colostrum that's collected only after the calves get their share. Unlike other brands that process their product and strip out half the good stuff, Cowboy Colostrum keeps it whole, full fat and protein rich, basically the way that nature intended. This is true. First day colostrum packed with immunoglobulins and growth factors, not some watered down version. They make it easy too. Just throw a scoop of chocolate, Madagascar vanilla, matcha or strawberry into your coffee or smoothie. No artificial flavors, just natural ingredients that actually taste good. The result, your gut stabilizes, your skin clears up, your hair looks better and you feel great all day. It's the highest quality bovine colostrum you could buy in the US and honestly, it just works. My producer, Holly has been so excited to use Cowboy Colostrum. She just got hers last week, is loving it so far. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboycolostrum.com Walsh and use code Walsh to check out 25% off. When you use code walsh@cowboy colostrum.com Walsh are you worrying about those upcoming credit card bills after the holidays? If you're a homeowner, there's no better time than now to call American Financing and wipe out that debt, eliminate the stress and set yourself up for a strong 2026. The Fed drop rates for the fourth time in December. American Financing can help you access that equity in your home at an interest rate in the low fives. That is a much lower rate than the average 20% or more credit card rate. America Financing is saving their customers an average of 800 bucks a month. That's like a $10,000 raise to start the new year. There are no upfront fees, no obligation to see how much you can save. And they're closing some as fast as 10 days and even delaying two mortgage payments. American Financing, America's home for home loans. Call today 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-471100 or visit american financing.net walsh all right, we will have we're going to have a probably significantly abbreviated headlines today, mainly because I'm having trouble speaking, having a bit of a Ketanji Brown Jackson situation myself, not because I have an IQ of 83, but because my voice is giving out. My annual laryngitis episode has cropped up. For the record, my IQ is at least like easily 5 points higher than that. So let's just hit a couple things quickly. Here's an easy one, but can't let it go. Just can't. Pramila Jayapal, Congresswoman from, from where's she from? Washington State, I think. Yeah, from Washington. Very upset by everything happening right now with with ice. And here's what she has to say about it.

Attorney for trans-identifying athlete (25:30)

The majority of Americans across the country, regardless of political party, know that immigrants from all over the world, Somalia, India, wherever they're from, Latin America, Africa, that immigrants have built this country and make this country what it Is today.

Matt Walsh (25:49)

Now, first of all, I think we can all agree, as you watch that video, we can all agree that as much as we might despise her political views, Pramila Jayapal is a very attractive woman. This is a specimen of great beauty. You know, I think we could all. I hope we would. We should be able to agree. I have seen some really mean comments that I won't repeat. Other people leaving comments about when they. With about this video and any other video about her. And I gotta repeat it and I gotta condone it. Yeah, I've seen people saying things like, well, she looks like she lives in a bell tower. It's like a Quasimodo type of thing. Quasimodo vibe. I'm not going to repeat that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to repeat that. That's what they're saying. I don't, I don't agree with it. I think it's really. I think it's really wrong and mean and I'm not going to stoop to the level of insulting someone's looks. So let's put that to the side. The claim that she's making, though, I will say, and we've heard this many times, of course, but it bears repeating that it's extremely insane and it's easy to lose sight of just how crazy it is. But the reality for most of American history up until the mid 20th century is that there would have been effectively, like effectively zero immigrants in this country from any of the places that she just listed. So she listed Somalia, India, Latin America and Africa. And of course Somalia is in Africa, but. So she kind of list it twice. But in reality, there were probably fewer than a million total from all of those regions combined in the country up until 1965. So which is effectively zero. Out of those groups, there would have been the most from probably Latin America. We probably had a few hundred thousand from Latin America in this country prior to 1965. Somalia, like none. I mean, there's just nobody from, from, from Somalia. And as we've covered on the show ad nauseam, Somalian immigration is a very new thing. Somalians didn't start coming here until like the 1990s. Indians, again, basically none. Very few. A few thousand maybe until 1965. Africa in general, almost none. And the laws changed in 1965, opening up immigration from those places. So mathematically, historically, it's impossible to argue with any credibility that people from these regions built the country. Now, that's not to say that none of them have ever contributed meaningfully to the country since arriving here. I don't. No one is saying that now. Well, I am saying that about Somalia, actually. I will go so far as to say that not only have Somalians not built the country, but they have not even contributed meaningfully to it at all, ever. But that's not necessarily true of every single person in all of those other groups. Building the country, though, is a different claim entirely. Building the country, that is something that was done almost exclusively by people of European descent. And that's just a matter of history, this historical fact, and there's no way around it, and we've been through this before, but rather than dwell on that, there's another point I want to make about this. When you hear this argument, we hear it all the time, oh, these people, they help build the country. Well, you can't have it both ways. This is a trying to have your cake and eat it too sort of situation, which is what the left tries to do on every issue, but in particular on this one. So you notice what they're doing by claiming that Somalians built the country, people from Africa built the country. They're making a kind of blood and soil argument. That's what she's appealing to. She's actually appealing to this kind of blood and soil nationalist idea. They're arguing that Somalians have a right to be here because historically, ancestrally, they worked and bled and sacrificed for this country. There's no reason to bring it up. Leaving aside the fact that it's not true, even if it were true, well, what's the point of bringing that up? The point of bringing it up is, that is to say, well, they have historical ancestral ties to the land. That's what's being claimed. Again, not true at all, obviously, but that's the kind of argument they're making. So you would think, if you didn't know any better, you would think, and you heard that argument from Pramila Jal, and you saw her say that and you thought, my God, what a beautiful woman. And then you hear that argument and you would think, well, this is progress in a way. Because you would think, well, on the bright side, at least they're admitting, like what she's saying is totally false and ridiculous, but at least she's admitting that your ancestral ties to the land do matter, that it's something that actually matters. And if they admit that, you might think as a naive person, well, then it's just a matter of proving that actually Somalians have no ancestral ties to the country. Okay, it's good that now we all are acknowledging, apparently that your tie, your ancestral historical ties to the land matter. Now that we're all on the same page, let's take a look and see who actually has those kinds of ties and who doesn't. And. But the problem, of course, is that they will immediately switch streams and in the next breath claim that it's horribly racist to make that kind of argument. Anyway, so they'll say, the Somalians helped build this country. The Somalians are deeply rooted in America. And then you say like, what are you talking about? They got here in the 90s. Okay, they got here in the 90s. How do they help? What? They built the country in the 1990s. So they came and they were pioneers building the country at a time when, like, Nickelodeon existed. And you respond that way and then they immediately switch and say, oh, well, it doesn't matter anyway. This is blood and soil. This is white nationalism. Yeah, but it's what you just say. It's like, this is the argument you were making. I'm just telling you you're wrong about it. It's racist. So this is the game they play. It's like, it's like trying to wrestle a. A giant slug. You know, you can't. That's the thing about the Lev. Their arguments are so bad and so baseless and so ungrounded, like they're not grounded in anything that it's just, it's like trying to wrestle a giant slimy slug. You can't get a hold on anything. The minute you get a hold on, they slither out. And now they're over here. Now that we've started 2026, it's the perfect time to cross getting life insurance off your list and kick off the year with real peace of mind. Making sure your family is taken care of is a big responsibility. And making sure everything's in place if something happens can feel like an even bigger one. That's where our sponsor, policygenius, comes in. It's an online marketplace where you can compare quotes from top insurers side by side, completely free. No jumping around between websites, no endless phone calls. Their licensed agents work for you, helping you figure out what you actually need, not what some company wants to sell you. They walk through all the details, handle the paperwork, answer your questions, and take the weight of life insurance off your shoulders. So check out policygenius. They've got thousands of five star reviews from people who finally found the right policy for their needs. You'll thank yourself later with Policygenius. Real users have gotten 20 year $2 million policies for just 53 bucks a month. Ease the weight of protecting a wonderful Life. Head to PolicyGenius.com Walsh to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you can save. That's policygenius.com Walsh all right. Ms. Rachel is the YouTuber who makes videos for preschoolers and we've talked about, I think we've talked about her a little bit in the past and now she's out with mom Donnie doing a propaganda tour with him. So she's in the past and she's done, she's done this before. She's done the LGBT thing, she's done the gay pride thing, she's done the pronoun thing. And I think that's when we've talked about her in the past. And that's reason enough to not, not put her content on for your children. You know, you should not allow your children to watch it for that reason alone. And here she is with mom Donnie. You will see the tweet there. Mom Donnie says. This morning Ms. Rachel and I visited District 2 Pre K Center where we sang and read with the wonderful students and educators. We also discussed universal child care and how we're making it happen for NYC. Yeah, I'm sure the 4 year olds are very interested in that conversation. You sat down with 4 year olds to talk about universal childcare, which, which by the way, is really bad for four year olds. It's really bad for kids because that's just, that is the state's way, the government's way, in this case the city's way of getting more kids into childcare and away from their parents. So that's really what he's saying. Good news, kids. We're going to make sure you spend even less time around your parents. You're going to spend even more time with government workers. Government workers are the best. Ask your parents to bring you to the DMV sometime and you'll see a whole bunch of government workers. They're the nicest people. Don't you want to spend every day, all day with them? Well, with universal childcare you can. So I guess that was the message, but we don't even need to get into that. Enough people have covered that base about Ms. Rachel. And so this is the debate, like, is she a political propagandist? Because she's very popular with, with kids and she's got like billions of views. I mean, so. And should you be exposing your kid to this given that she's a political Propagandist. And the answer is no, you should not be exposing your kids to this political propagandist. But put that to the side. I want to make a more basic point about this Ms. Rachel person and anyone like her. And I've said that I find almost all of these children's YouTubers to be very creepy. Like, these are creepy, weird people. And as a parent, you have to have a radar for that kind of thing. It's very important to have a radar for that. And if your radar is not going off when you turn on and you see these children's YouTubers, if you're not immediately like, who are. Who is this person? Then, then, then I don't know. I mean, you're oblivious. So even, even before you get into the content or the political propaganda, even before any of that, like I see it and I just, I don't like the vibes, okay? And sometimes, yeah, that as a parent, especially, sometimes that matters. Vibe based arguments are often not valid, especially in political discussions. But as a parent, very often, you know, the vibe should matter to you. You look at something, you see someone and you're like, I don't like the vibes here. This is weird. This person's not gonna be around my kids. That's it. It's just weird. And I'm definitely not gonna sit my kids down to watch this youtuber Cause I just don't like the vibes, you know? And these are people who have figured out that children's content making content for three year olds, right? So these are adults that are making content for like 3 and 4 year olds. And they figured out that it's extremely profitable to do it, so they just start churning it out. Okay? These are slop merchants. For toddlers, we've got slop merchants who are just churning out slop all over the place for all different age brackets. And these are people who churn out the slop for four year olds. And it boggles my mind that there are parents who are like, yep, this is what my four year old needs, is some slop. Bring on the slop. Here you go. Sit down, junior. It's slop time. Go ahead. Just, just spend three hours watching this like mind numbing weird dreck. And that's what parents do. And I don't get it. And the other thing I can't stand are these especially. And this is what, this is, this is where it gets, this is where the weirdness kicks in. Because you have these like children's content creators or whatever we call them, who act and dress like children themselves. This has become the thing now, and it's not. It's not that new. Over the last, like, couple of decades, really, where in many cases you have people that make entertainment, make content for kids, and they speak and act like kids themselves, even though they're adults in their 40s and 50s. You see Ms. Rachel, and she's got the overalls and the sneakers and the headband. It's like, what adult? You're in your 40s. Why are you dressed like that? And she speaks and acts like a kindergartner, and that's what almost all of these children's YouTuber types do. And it's so common. I think it's one of the reasons maybe a parent's radar doesn't go off. Maybe you don't see the red flag because you see that and you're like, yeah, this is what kids content is. This is what they do. No, it's not normal. It's weird. Like, would you talk to your kid that way all the time? Do you dress like that with, like, if you want to relate to your kid, do you dress like a toddler to do it? And here's the thing, it's not actually good for kids. It talks down to them. It's patronizing, and it doesn't help them learn and grow. You know, you compare it to, like, Mr. Rogers, right? Mr. Rogers made content for children, but he didn't present himself like a child. He was a grandfatherly type of figure. And that was his vibe. And so, you know, he passes the vibe check. If you're a parent, the vibe is, oh, he's like a grand. He's like a grandfather, you know, a friendly, grandfatherly type person. And that's wholesome and that's constructive and that's edifying. Children can learn from that. It helps them grow. But when you put on the overalls and start speaking to them in this, like, absurdly, over the top, childish, patronizing way, they're not learning anything. So just for example, I went to Ms. Rachel's page and pulled up just one, like, randomly one of the videos at the top, because any one of them makes the point. And if you have not seen this person again, this is like billions of views for this stuff. This video has hundreds of millions of views. I think billions of views overall. Nothing political here. There's nothing overtly objectionable or inappropriate about this. I'll just play 20 seconds. It's all I can tolerate, and it's all you're gonna be able to tolerate. But watch. Hi, friends. Today we're going to learn all about animals together. It's going to be so much fun. Fun. Can you do this? Rhyme with me. An oink, a moo, a cock, a doodle doo.

Narrator/Voice Actor in fantasy segment (42:49)

Who's in the barn playing peekaboo?

Matt Walsh (42:54)

My God. Stab me in the face and kill me. Please just stab me and kill me. I would rather be stabbed to death than watch five minutes of that. I would rather jump out of the 100th story window. Then watch that. When the next regime comes in and they start arresting people like me. If they give me an option, they say, we're going to. We're going to put you in solitary confinement and make you watch Ms. Rachel. Or we could just throw you off a building. I would say, please, the building. I would thank them for it, actually. I'd be so grateful to not have to. Thank God. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. So this is pure slop, okay? Just because it's for kids and there's bright colors, this is what parents think. Oh, it's for kids and there's bright colors. So automatically it's wholesome. It's slop. Pure slop. For little children. This is, this is the four year old equivalent of like Mr. Beast. And this is not. Why are you talking like that? Okay? And if you say, well, she's talking to kids, really? Is that how you talk to your kids? If you're a parent, you talk to your kids like that all the time. Hey, friends, let's have some fun. Let's make animal noises, friends. And you've got your overalls and you're dressed like a kid. Really? Is that how you parent? No, this is not how anyone has ever raised kids. This, this is a very new thing that we've come up with that if you want to, if you're an adult making, you know, entertainment for children, it's like you got to put on that whole act. Now, it's true that men and women are different and women are going to be and should be softer and more maternalistic in their approach. And they will speak to children more on the child's level than a father will. This is why you need both. It's why it's important to have a mother and father. One of the many reasons why it's important to have both approaches. But that's not this, this is not soft and maternalistic. This is obnoxious and grating and incredibly, ridiculously patronizing. And if you think it's not possible to patronize like a 5 year old, then again you're just clueless. It's patronizing. Here's a good general rule. If your child is watching content that you as the parent find so obnoxiously annoying that you could not possibly be in the same room while it's on, which is how any parent must feel about that. There's no way that you as an adult could tolerate that. There's no way that you could sit and watch that for any amount of time. But if that's the case, that's a good indication that your kid shouldn't be watching it. Not because it's political, not because there's anything about it that is on paper inappropriate, but just because it's vapid and irritating and stupid and bad for their minds and their souls. Because of that, you know, as an adult, there isn't going to be any, I mean, there's not going to be any like children. Even though even there are some good children's shows, books for children. Like there's plenty there are, that exists. And there's not going to be a children's show or book that you will find deeply absorbing or entertaining. Like it's not for you. So the point isn't that you should find it really entertaining, but if it's something actually wholesome and edifying and well made, made with respect for the audience, okay. And again, that should not sound silly. Like, yes, if you're making stuff for a five year old, you should, you should have respect for your audience of five year olds. It's all the more important to have respect for the audience. You don't have any respect for the audience when you're churning out this garbage. And if it's something like that wholesome, edifying, well made, then as a parent, you might not like. It's not the kind of thing that you would put on and watch yourself, but you can stomach it. It's tolerable. And there are some children's shows that are like that even today. And the problem is not exclusive to Ms. Rachel. It's not new. You know, there was a shift in children's programming going back to when I was a kid. And that's when you started to see this kind of like hyper, weird, patronizing, over stimulating, bright colors, noises, random stuff happening type of content for kids. That's when you first started to see it. Teletubbies came out back in the, back in the 90s. I remember that my parents wouldn't let my younger siblings. The Teletubbies were after my time. I think I was, you know, whatever, 10 or 12 when it came out. But I had younger siblings that were in the age group for it, and my parents wouldn't let them wash it. And it's not because they, you know, thought that there was necessarily anything objectionable or political in the show. It's just that it was, it was, you know, my dad was the same way. He look at, like, this is just weird. What the hell is this? Right? He would walk in and see something like, like, what is this? What the hell is this? Why, why are you, why are we letting them watch this? And it's just babyish and patronizing. It was, you know, this was Teletubby, was. It was like, it was like a. What they were going for was a show for babies that seems like it was made by a baby. That's, that's, that was the vibe, and that is not the tone you want for wholesome, constructive, edifying children's content. And now you have these youtubers who have stumbled onto this formula and they just start churning this stuff out. Nobody knows who these people even are. They come along and next thing you know, they're getting literally billions of views. This is what parents are allowing you. Just like, you see a video and it's got a lot of bright colors and it has a picture of a cow, right? And it's got someone in overall sitting there smiling. And parents go, oh, this is kids content. It must be fine. And you don't stop to think, like, who is this person? This person's like a multimillionaire now making content for kids. Who are they? What's their game here? What are their views? I mean, why are they doing this kind of question? You'd think you'd ask. And all of this stuff, all it does is turn your kids into overstimulated, you know, dopamine addicts. Ms. Rachel, as I discovered when I went to her page just to find that one example, the first video at the top of her page is for babies. So her first video. So she makes. She makes content for toddlers and like preschoolers. She also makes videos for actual babies, like for one year olds. Who the hell is putting YouTube on for a baby? And then when I've asked this question, I always get the answer, oh, well, she teaches the ABCs. She teaches colors. Can't you do that? You're the parent. Well, without Ms. Rachel, how am I going to teach my kids the ABCs? I don't know. Teach them like the way that parents taught kids for thousands of years before YouTube existed, before Ms. Rachel was a thing that this is what you should be doing. Turn the damn YouTube off and read your kid a book. How about that? So that's the. That's the real problem. And I said it'd be abbreviated headlines, but then I ended up ranting about Ms. Rachel for 25 minutes. And that's fine because it's important. Millions of kids are spending hours a day with this stuff, and it really does matter. So turn it off. Read your kids a book. That's my point. That's my message. And we will leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.

Narrator/Voice Actor in fantasy segment (51:47)

What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God? Is that who you think I was alone with? Martin, I knew your father.

Matt Walsh (52:04)

I am yet convinced that he was.

Narrator/Voice Actor in fantasy segment (52:06)

Not of this world. All men know of the great Taliesin. You are my father. That the gods should war for my soul. Princess Garrus, savior of our people. I know what the bull God offered you. I was offered the same. And there is a new part at work in the world. I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us.

Attorney for trans-identifying athlete (52:35)

We are each given only one life. Singer.

Matt Walsh (52:38)

No.

Narrator/Voice Actor in fantasy segment (52:39)

And we're given another. I learned of Yazu the Christ. And I have become his follower.

Matt Walsh (52:47)

He's waiting on a miracle. And I think you can give him one.

Narrator/Voice Actor in fantasy segment (52:51)

Trust in Ya Zu. He is the only hope for men like us. Fate of Britain never rests in the hands of the great light. Great light, Great darkness. Such things mattered to me then. What matters to you now, Mistress of lies? You, nephew. The sword of a high king. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to. To wield? So clinging to the promises of a God who has abandoned you? I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great life. Forgive me. The time has come to be reborn.