Paul Random

18 Truth Bombs from Matt Walsh’s Interview with Tucker Carlson

Since his earliest days in radio, the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh hasn’t shied away from sharing his opinions, however unpopular or counter cultural they may be.

The Maryland native asks questions others are reluctant to pose, gives answers that make the politically correct squirm, is unapologetic in his defense of common sense and remains unwavering when calling out the inane, ignorant and ideologically bad ideas that threaten culture.

So, it wasn’t a surprise that Matt Walsh’s appearance on The Tucker Carlson Show was a tour de force – a hearty defense of conservative ideals accompanied by masterful commentary explaining why the family is under attack and why its defense and survival are critical to America’s health and prosperity.

You can watch or listen to the interview in its entirety here, but here eighteen of some of the most powerful things Matt Walsh shared:

On why same-sex adoption is so destructive:

  • “The whole point is to create, the whole point of the family is to make children and care for them. And a family that’s headed up by two gay men [doesn’t do that], that’s why it’s an abomination.”

    On same-sex surrogacy contracts:

    • “We keep hearing about this right to parenthood. I mean, you have gay couples now that are demanding insurance cover fertility treatments as if the reason why two men can’t make a baby is because of fertility problems. No one has a right to be a parent. It’s great to be a parent if you can, but you’re not born with those entitlements. You’re not entitled to a child.”
    • “A child has a right to a mother and a father. A child has a right to the basic fundamental setup that billions of kids throughout history have had, which is a mother and a father.”

    On the destructiveness of so-called gender surgery:

    • “There are certain things as human beings that we just know, and one of them is that sexually mutilating a child is bad.”
    • “Another one is that a child needs a mother and father. We just intuitively know that. I don’t need any study” [to tell me that].

    Why has gender confusion skyrocketed?

    • “Why did it catch on to such an extent? I think that the side that was supposed to stand up for the family and stand up for civilization largely failed and abdicated their responsibility to do so. Conservatives, the church has just largely failed. And not even failed, not even tried, really. And so we have a lot of hypocrites on the right and in the church, unfortunately, who are just claiming to believe things they don’t really believe.”

    Could more families survive on one income?

    • “I think that there are families where both parents have to work. I think there are a lot of families where they think both parents have to work, but they don’t actually have to. It just depends on what your priorities are, and if you’re willing to make the sacrifices.”

    How can you pull it off?

    • “If you’re willing to say, ‘Okay, we’re gonna downsize our home, we’re gonna share bedrooms, we’re gonna have one TV, we’re gonna have one car, we’re gonna go on much more modest vacations, and we’re gonna cut things down to the bone a bit, because it’s worth it to us to be able to keep mom at home and to be able to home school or whatever, it is. So, I think if you’re willing to say that a lot of people could do it.”

    Is the tradeoff worth it?

    • “I much prefer having money to not having it, but not at the expense of having someone else raise my kids.”

    What are the benefits to having mom at home with young children?

    • “It’s just a fundamentally happier home in my experience when the children are being raised by their mother, by their parents, the kids are happier. And beyond happiness, you can control how your children are raised, and you can raise them with your value system and maintain that, which is almost impossible if you’re putting your kids in public school, let’s say.

      On the destructiveness of public schools:

      • “It’s almost impossible (to keep keeps from liberal propaganda) because the kids are going to spend five days a week, seven hours a day, nine months a year for 12 or 13 years of their formative years, not with you or your wife in this government indoctrination center around their peers. And so inevitably, they’re going to be absorbing, they’re going to start orienting themselves to the world based on that, by looking at their peers, not even so much what their teachers are telling them, but what their peers are doing. And that’s what’s going to happen.”

        Is it really wrong to “Keep your kids in a bubble?”

        • “I absolutely want to keep my kids in a bubble. I really do … You are supposed to be providing an environment for your child to grow and develop and mature, physically, morally, spiritually, have a childhood, have actual childhood experiences. I hear from people all the time, people my age and older that say, ‘Oh man, I remember when I was a kid and we were outside, we would run around in the woods and we would be outside all the time playing tag. And I just wish my kids had that because the kids these days are just on the screens all day.’”

          What are some practical ways to save your children from radical indoctrination?

          • “Well, it starts with that we don’t send them to public school. You know, we have always homeschooled from the beginning, so that’s a big step. They don’t have phones. They don’t have access to any screens, except for our family TV. We have a family TV. There’s a policy my wife and I have had since the beginning: we don’t do screens. There will be no screens in a room that has a door on it. So we have one TV and it’s in a very public area of the house where anyone can hear it when they walk in. And that’s it.
          • “Our kids can watch TV. They can’t watch it all day, but they can watch it. And we’re going to know anything that they watch. They’re not going to just sit there on the TV and choose something and tell us what you want to watch. If it’s something I never heard of, well, you’re not watching that until I can watch it first. And they don’t have any Internet access at all.
          • “No phones, no tablets, nothing like that. No laptop, no computer at all. And our oldest kids are almost 12 now.”

            On the importance of praying and praying as a family:

            • “I think it’s important to be on your knees. You don’t have to be on your knees to pray. There’s a perfectly valid prayer if you’re not on your knees. But if you can, I think you should be … I think it’s a good image for the kids to see. It’s a good image. It’s good for my kids to see me on my knees. Because to my kids, I am the authority figure in the home. I don’t answer to anybody in the home. I don’t have to ask anyone’s permission for anything.
            • “I’m ultimately like the source of discipline in the home, as the father, as I should be. But for them to see that, oh, even that guy, even dad, who in the home, this is his castle, but even he is showing submission and obedience and humility towards some power above him. I think that’s a really powerful image for my kids to have, and that I had with my own dad growing up.”

              Ultimate goal as parents?

              • “My political ideology at this point is that I want my kids to go to heaven. I want my kids to go to heaven and I want them to be good and happy people. That’s what I want. So, everything that we do in the home, and we’re not perfect, we don’t get this right perfectly, not even close to it, but everything we do in the home should be tailored towards that end to help our kids be good and happy people.”

                Married to Alissa since 2011, and a father to six children, Matt Walsh doesn’t just speak in theory but possesses a practical passion that’s been informed and inspired by years of real-life experience. May the Lord continue to protect, bless and broaden his platform and use him to inspire, encourage and convict those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

                Jay Leno on Wife with Dementia: ‘I Like Taking Care of Her’

                Even outside Christian circles, the trajectory of Jay and Mavis Leno’s dating relationship would be considered unusual.

                Meeting at Los Angeles’ “Comedy Store” in the late 1970s, Jay Leno, who didn’t drink, offered his new love interest $35 instead of buying her something from the bar.

                “Look, let me give you the money, and you can buy a blouse or something,” he told her. “I don’t want to buy you a drink.”

                As their dating relationship progressed and Jay fell in love, he became concerned that Mavis didn’t have any safety net in the event something happened to him.

                “I had this insurance policy, and I thought if something happened to me, my girlfriend wouldn’t be covered, but if we’re married, we’re covered,” he told People Magazine. “So we might as well get married. Not the most romantic.”

                Mavis, who described herself as a feminist, hadn’t even considered tying the knot.

                “I always had this idea that I would never get married,” she once shared. “But with Jay, I began to realize that this was the first time I was ever with someone where I had a perfect, calm sense of having arrived at my destination.”

                Now at 75 years-old, Jay Leno has been retired from The Tonight Show since 2014. He’s continued to perform as a stand-up comic upwards of 200 times a year and hosts a show on YouTube called “Jay Leno’s Garage.” He owns more than 250 antique and exotic automobiles and is known to enjoy tinkering with and driving many of them.

                The former late-night host recently sat down with podcaster Graham Belsinger and talked at length about his life, including his 44-year marriage to Mavis.

                “I always tell people, marry the person you wish you could be,” Jay offered. “And that’s why if I married another self-centered person who was funny, one of us would die. My wife does a lot of charity work and things like that. And it worked out great. I married the person that had the ideals I wish I had.”

                Mavis Leno is now suffering from dementia. How has that changed the Lenos’ marriage?

                “I go home, I cook dinner for her, watch TV. And it’s okay. It’s okay. It’s basically what we did before, except now I have to feed her and do all those things. But I like it. I like taking care of her. I think somewhere in my life, she’s a very independent woman. So I like that I’m needed. You know, and I need to be there.”

                In another interview last May, Jay told a reporter that Mavis has been his best friend.

                “We have a lot of fun. People say marriage is difficult. I don’t get it. I enjoy her company. I enjoy taking care of her. We have fun. She’s the most independent woman I ever knew. Again, I just couldn’t be prouder of her. I am part of her legacy and that’s what I’m proudest of.”

                While Jay Leno has suggested his faith has kept him going, he hasn’t spoken or reflected publicly about how or what that faith means to him.

                Both Jay’s and Mavis’ reflection about her “feminism” and “independence” are telling and instructive. The empty promises of both are exposed and revealed in the Leno story. Mavis almost never got married because of feminism, and Jay was almost deprived of the honor and fulfillment of serving his wife because of her otherwise stubborn streak.

                It’s estimated that over seven million Americans are suffering from some form of dementia, a crippling and cruel disease that robs individuals of not only their memories, but sometimes their personalities, too. This condition hits the individual, of course, but it also severely impacts spouses, children, grandchildren and other caregivers.

                Mavis Leno and all those suffering from memory loss are deserving of our prayers, as well as their caretakers like Jay and all the spouses, children, and professional healthcare workers committed to serving others with compassion, dignity and respect.

                Jay Leno makes his living telling jokes, but there is nothing funny about the challenges he faces as a husband. But his public proclamation of support and devotion to Mavis is honorable, refreshing and inspiring – and undoubtedly, his finest act yet.

                Image from Getty.

                Karoline Leavitt, Pam Bondi and the Costly Evangelism of the Cross Necklace

                According to Tuesday’s New York Times, the cross necklace is “a hot accessory” that currently resides “at the intersection of faith and culture.”

                Historians suggest the practice of wearing a cross as a pendant around the neck dates back to the second century.

                Tertullian, a Christian theologian who lived during that same period, called believers in Jesus “devotees of the cross.” That reference is said to have inspired early Christians to embrace and redeem the symbol Roman officials had associated with torturous death, even wearing it to connect with fellow believers and talk about their countercultural faith with others.

                Cross necklaces have long been made with various materials ranging from simple wood to precious metals and gemstones.

                “As a millenniums-old symbol of Christian faith, the cross would seem somewhat immune to trendiness,” writes Misty White Sidell in the Times. “But cross necklaces and pendants have been in vogue before and may be again as some feel more comfortable embracing their faith and seek community with others.”

                The Old Grey Lady points out that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Attorney General Pam Bondi are two high-profile women within the Trump administration who regularly wear a visible cross.

                In a statement provided to the Times, Leavitt explained, “My faith is very important to me. It is what gets me through each day.”

                Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Representative and Democrat leader in the House, was spotted wearing a cross necklace during last weekend’s budget protest. Sidell notes that Rep. Jeffries grew up serving as an usher at the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

                That members on both sides of the aisle are wearing crosses inevitably mutes any of the traditional partisan criticism.

                Back in 2023, Michael Coan, associate professor of jewelry design at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, suggested in an interview that crosses can be for everyone. 

                “If you have Jesus on it, it becomes a crucifix,” he said. “That’s a different story. For some people, it can mean redemption from suffering. To pagans, it can mean the four directions. It can represent elements of fire, water, earth and air. It’s a symbol that resonates on a global plane.”

                While Professor Coan is correct that Christ being on a cross makes it a crucifix, something Catholics often display, evangelical believers feature and wear an empty cross as a symbol of Christ’s victory over death.

                It’s true that different people can interpret the cross differently, but Christians can feel comfortable wearing a cross and allowing it to trigger productive and faith-filled conversations.

                But it’s one thing to wear a cross and a whole other thing to live a life that rightly reflects its profound meaning and charge to us as followers of Christ.

                John Stott, the late Anglican pastor and theologian, rightly observed, “The cross calls us to a much more radical and costly kind of evangelism than most churches have begun to consider.”

                Costly evangelism means that as believers who stand up for Christ, we should be willing to lose our reputation, sacrifice our comforts and resources, and even be at odds with significant cultural majorities. It means to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans 12:2). 

                Good for Karoline Leavitt, Attorney General Bondi and anyone else who unapologetically wears a cross, not for the sake of making a fashion statement, but instead as a proclamation of their Christian faith and an invitation to others to join them on the greatest adventure from here to eternity.  

                Image from Getty.

                Why Evangelicals Should Care About the Next Pope

                Over 200,000 people are expected to attend Pope Francis’ funeral on Saturday in Rome, a global event that will draw leaders from every corner of the world, including President Donald Trump.

                After news of the pontiff’s death broke on Easter Monday, President Trump took to Truth Social and declared, “Rest in Peace Pope Francis! May God Bless him and all who loved him!” He later told reporters that the late pope was “a very good man who loved, loved the world, and he especially loved people that were having a hard time, and that’s good with me.”

                Many of the world’s nearly 1.4 billion Catholics will be tuned in to the solemn procession and Mass. They’ll witness all the traditional liturgy and hear readings from Acts, Paul’s letter to the Philippians, as well as John’s Gospel. It will conclude with the “Gloria Patri,” a Latin doxology that ends with the phrase, “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

                In between, evangelicals will find portions of the prayers and some of the elements of the funeral Mass theologically troublesome, especially prayers and petitions to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

                But doctrinal and theological differences aside, non-Catholic believers should be following the next chapter in Rome with interest.

                The Papal Conclave is scheduled to begin May 6. The word “conclave” means “private room” in Latin. At this point, 135 of the church’s cardinals will be meeting in the Sistine Chapel to begin the selection of the next pope. It’s famously secretive. The only sign of what’s going on inside will be signaled by black smoke or white smoke, the latter to indicate they’ve successfully landed on a new leader of Catholics.

                Over time, popes have served an oversized role in the world, and for good and bad. Centuries ago, Pope Alexander VI was accused of buying his way into the Vatican, killed cardinals for their wealth, and even fathered children. Popes have been accused of ordering their predecessor’s death (Sergius III), and almost bankrupting the church (Pope Leo X). Some have accused Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) of doing little to confront Hitler for the holocaust. The Catholic Church has pushed back and says his secret work to save the lives of Jewish people will be revealed in forthcoming church documents.

                Lately, though, popes tend to reflect an era – or do they help shape it by their personality, passions, commitments and convictions?

                When Karol Wojtyla, a.k.a. the newly elected Pope John Paul II, delivered his inaugural homily to the throngs gathered in Rome’s St. Peter’s Square in 1979, he implored those gathered:

                Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept His power … Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To His saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows “what is in man.” He alone knows it.

                Of course, the pope was quoting Jesus, who said to Peter and to all of us: “Take courage … Don’t be afraid” (Matthew 14:27). He was also quoting the Lord in the Book of Joshua: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go” (Matthew 1:9).

                Pope John Paul II, known for his courage and boldness, has been credited with helping to force the collapse of the Soviet Union.

                John Paul II’s successor, Benedict XVI, was known to advocate for the church and world to adhere to biblical values.

                “It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful,” he said. “It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy.”

                Conversely, Pope Francis is probably best known for reimagining church convictions or priorities related to sexual sin and even divorce. He once said, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

                Is it mere coincidence that the last decade has seen a broad collapse of biblical truth and an expansion of all kinds of destructive and damaging behavior? It’s not the pope who has committed the grievous sins, but leaders often set the tone and either encourage or discourage certain behaviors.

                Speculation is running rampant on who the next pope will be. Pope Francis has appointed 108 of the 135 cardinals who will be voting, a fact that some feel is an indicator the next leader of the Catholic Church will be a lot like the latest. But perhaps not. Evangelicals should be paying attention and praying for the process and for a leader who will reflect God’s truth and grace in a world desperately hungry for it.

                Image from Getty.

                Even ‘Opting Out’ Option is a Cop Out and Steals Children’s Innocence

                Tuesday’s oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court over controversial LGBT books in Montgomery County, Maryland schools contained numerous spirited exchanges between the justices and lawyers arguing the case.

                The conservative majority appears poised to rule in favor of the parents and against the radical school administrators.

                Mahmoud v. Taylor centers around the Maryland school district’s insistence on including homosexual propaganda in preschool through 12th grade language arts reading and instructional materials.

                It should be noted they deliberately inserted the books into the language arts curriculum and not health and sexuality teachings because “opt-outs” are allowed in the latter.

                Storybooks at the center of the dispute include “Pride Puppy,” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” and “Prince and Knight.” In that last book, the prince “falls in love” with the knight and not the princess.

                Eric Baxter, a lawyer representing the Christian and Muslim parents objecting to the school’s overreach, was blunt when expressing his objection. “You have children of an extremely young age being indoctrinated in a topic that’s known to be sensitive,” he said.

                Justice Kavanaugh questioned why school officials wouldn’t allow for students and parents to “opt-out” of the teaching.

                “The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents, is to look for the win-win,” he said, “to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.”

                An attorney for the school district claimed making exceptions for some is a recipe for chaos, and a policy that is next to impossible to manage given limited time and space inside schools.

                According to the Oxford-English Dictionary, the use of the term “opt-out” dates to 1962. It means to choose not to do something – as in moms and dads and students choosing not to listen to or read a children’s book that deliberately works to tell them what to think about the acceptability of same-sex relationships and marriages.

                The deterioration of public schools is evidenced in the fact that parents in Maryland are not fighting anymore to not have this propaganda in their schools – but rather simply for the right to not have their children partake in the indoctrination.

                Given the proliferation of progressives and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, the “opt-out” route might be the most feasible and winnable way to win the battle – but it’s still a lousy ceding of morality and taxpayer rights.

                Moms and dads shouldn’t have to pay for this propaganda, of course, but they also shouldn’t have to explain to their young children why they need to skip a class or book or classroom conversation. In fact, forcing parents to have to “opt-out” is a quiet and subtle win for radical activists. That’s because children talk – and when kids step out of a classroom or stay home, you can be sure they’re being asked or ridiculed by fellow students when they come back.

                One of the greatest casualties in this ongoing culture war is the innocence of children. Young boys and girls shouldn’t be thinking about sex or same-sex relationships. They should be thinking about wholesome and inspiring things – like wisdom, kindness, honesty, humility, respect, generosity, and loyalty.

                If they learn about puppies, they should be learning about the value and many benefits of dog ownership. If they’re talking about weddings, they should be learning about the importance of it as a sacred union of one man and one women and given examples of couples who have positively changed the world. Want to talk about princes and knights? Teach them about the Middle Ages or the virtues they defended and championed. 

                Maryland parents are likely to win their right to “opt-out” by the end of June. Hopefully, the victory will also lead to school board members in Montgomery, Maryland, “opting-out” of running for reelection on the school board.