Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left is in mourning over the execution of a convicted murdered by the federal government. They accuse pro-lifers of being hypocrites because some of us support the death penalty. But today we’ll talk about why their position — that the death penalty is okay for babies but not for criminals — is really deranged and incoherent. Also Five Headlines, including Rush Limbaugh causing waves by bringing up the possibility of secession. I think that secession would not be a terrible idea, and I’ll explain why. Plus our Daily Cancellation and more.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left is in mourning over the execution of a convicted murderer by the federal government last night.
They accused pro-lifers of being hypocrites because some of us support the death penalty.
But today we'll talk about why their position, that the death penalty is okay for babies but not for criminals, is really deranged and incoherent.
Also, five headlines including Rush Limbaugh causing waves by bringing up the possibility of secession.
I think the secession would be not a terrible idea, and I'll explain why, plus our daily
cancellation and much more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Thanks for joining us.
And certainly than they would prefer.
You know, we've all, I think many of us have been in that situation.
And now's a good time to think about that and to think about our sponsors over at Lightstream, especially with the holidays now.
You know, this year you can give yourself the gift of extra money in your pocket, pay off your credit card balances and save with a credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream.
You can roll your high interest credit card payments into just one payment at a lower rate.
In a fixed rate, Lightstream's credit card consolidation loans have rates as low as 5.95%
APR with auto pay and excellent discount and excellent credit.
You get a, you can also get a loan from $5,000 to $100,000.
And the thing is there are absolutely no fees, no application fees, no origination fees,
no transaction fees, no prepayment penalties.
Usually there's tons of fees.
In this case, no fees.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
It is that quick, that fast, that easy.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience, and that's exactly what they deliver.
And now during the holidays, there couldn't be a better time to think about this, start saving some money.
Anytime is a good time to save money, especially now.
And my listeners can save even more with an additional interest rate discount.
The only way to get this discount is to go to LightStream.com slash Walsh.
L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M.com slash Walsh.
Subject to credit approval, rates range from 5.95% APR to 19.99% APR and include 0.5% auto pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply.
Offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit LightStream.com slash Walsh for more information.
So on Thursday night, leftists across the country were stricken by grief, mourning the death of a man named Bernard, Brandon Bernard.
He was, as is so often the case with those the left choose to mourn, a convicted criminal, one of five federal Executions scheduled to be carried out between this week and inauguration.
If all of these executions are performed, it will make 13 total since July, and Donald Trump will be, as the BBC has labeled him, the quote, most prolific execution president in more than a century.
The Huffington Post was slightly less reserved, accusing Trump of going on an end-of-office killing spree.
Now, it remains to be seen whether all of these executions in the coming weeks will provoke the same level of performative outrage and sorrow.
In Bernard's case, if you happen to check Twitter on the night of his lethal injection, you might be forgiven for thinking that a Nobel-winning human rights champion or war hero had met his demise.
Kim Kardashian, especially broken up about it all, called Bernard amazing, hopeful, positive, and quote, selfless as always.
As always.
Elsewhere, we were urged to say his name and remember his name, to mark down the day of his death and remember it as a historical outrage and atrocity.
Many news outlets published articles decrying the execution.
Now, if you're wondering what Brandon Bernard actually did to earn this punishment, you'll have to read quite far down into these articles to find the crime described in any great detail, if it's described at all.
But here's an account of Bernard's crime from the DOJ website.
Here's what they say.
It says, Brandon Bernard and his accomplices brutally murdered two youth ministers, Todd and Stacey Bagley, on a military reservation in 1999.
After Todd Bagley agreed to give a ride to several of Bernard's accomplices, they pointed a gun at him, forced him and Stacey into the trunk of their car, and drove the couple around for hours while attempting to steal their money and pawn Stacey's wedding ring.
While locked in the trunk, the couple spoke with their abductors about God, pleaded for their lives.
The abductors eventually parked on the Fort Hood military reservation where Bernard and another accomplice doused the car with lighter fluid as the couple, still locked in the trunk, sang and prayed.
After Stacey said, Jesus loves you and Jesus take care of us, one of the accomplices shot both Todd and Stacey in the head, killing Todd and knocking Stacey unconscious.
Bernard then lit the car on fire, killing Stacey through smoke inhalation.
Now, Bernard's many defenders cry that he made a mistake.
Did a bad thing.
Quote, made poor choices, to use Kim Kardashian's phrasing.
But, you know, we shouldn't execute him now because of it, they say.
Yes, but kidnapping two people, driving them around in the trunk of their car while they beg for their lives, then murdering them in cold blood and burning their bodies is not merely a poor choice.
It is vile, unspeakable, unthinkable, shocking evil.
It's the kind of choice that, once you make it, you have forfeited your right to live in a civilized society.
In our country, you know, we don't execute people for stealing a loaf of bread.
Or voicing an offensive opinion or criticizing the government.
We don't even execute people for much more serious crimes like sexual assault and child abuse.
In order to earn the death penalty, you have to really earn it.
You must act with a level of cruelty and depravity and indifference that just sends shivers down the spine of any person with a conscience.
Brandon Bernard acted in that way and received the punishment he deserved because of it.
Now, speaking of depraved indifference and cruelty, the next person in line for a federal execution set to be carried out today, I believe, in fact, is Alfred Bourdieu.
Now, already some on the left are rallying to his defense.
Bourdieu was convicted in 2002 of killing his two-year-old daughter.
He beat her to death by bashing her head against the windshield and dashboard of his truck.
This was his final act of savagery towards the child who he had already molested and tortured, whipped her, burned her.
The others on deck are Lisa Montgomery, strangled a pregnant woman to death, cut her open and kidnapped her baby, Corey Johnson, convicted of murdering seven people, and Dustin John Higgs, found guilty in the murder and kidnapping of three women.
Now, surveying this collection of bloodthirsty monsters, I find no reason to shed any tears, except for their victims, whose stories are not told and whose names are not put on the poster boards or made into hashtags.
But with that said, you know, I don't begrudge those who take a principled and consistent stand against the death penalty in all cases.
I used to hold that view myself.
It's not unreasonable to argue that the government simply shouldn't execute anybody, no matter how monstrous they may be.
I've come to find that argument flawed, but it's a perfectly valid and cogent argument all the same.
The problem is that a great many of the people rushing to defend Men like Brandon Bernard and Alfred Bourdieu are not making valid and cogent arguments.
The anti-death penalty argument is primarily advanced by those who do not have the intellectual or moral credibility to defend it.
Their answer to the question, who do we have the right to kill, is so impossibly deranged that you wonder how a person can hold such a view and still manage to sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror.
So let's never forget that when someone on the left speaks out against capital punishment, insisting, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley did last night, that we abolish the death penalty, they do not actually want to abolish the death penalty in all cases.
Rather, they wish to abolish the death penalty for convicted criminals while still giving the death penalty to children.
The pro-abortion slash anti-death penalty position suggests that a man who tortures and rapes a toddler before crushing her skull against the windshield of his car has the right to live, but a child in the womb doesn't.
Greater moral standing is given to the mass murderers and child killers than unborn infants.
Much greater, because the infant has absolutely no moral standing at all by this way of thinking.
I mean, remember that.
The pro-abortion people, they believe that the child in the womb has zero moral standing.
None.
I can understand the argument that both the baby and the criminal have the right to life.
I don't agree with it.
But it's coherent, okay?
I can even understand the nihilistic argument that neither have the right to life.
Nobody has a right to life.
Again, I certainly don't agree with that, but it's coherent.
But the argument that only the criminal has the right to life and the child has no right to life is completely incoherent morally and intellectually.
It doesn't even rise to the level of nihilism.
It's something even more debased and a whole lot more confused.
But the irony is that the people who advocate for executing children, but not child killers, will often make the hypocrisy charge against those who take the opposite view.
We hear this over and over again.
We heard it a lot last night.
They insist that somehow it's inconsistent and convoluted to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.
But there is nothing illogical or strange about this position at all.
I mean, even some pro-lifers will make this same case, that somehow there's an inconsistency here.
No.
We who hold this position believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill a defenseless and innocent person.
Those are the three qualifiers.
Intentionally kill, defenseless, innocent.
We do not believe that it is always wrong to kill anyone at all, under any circumstance.
Almost nobody believes that, save Quakers and the rare libertarian who actually takes his rhetoric to its logical conclusion.
Everybody else accepts that sometimes it's okay to kill a person.
Now, we, who hold this view, suggest that sometimes includes self-defense, war, and executing convicted murderers.
The left would say that sometimes means perhaps self-defense in war and also babies in the womb.
That's their position.
That is the inconsistent position.
That is what makes no sense whatsoever.
No moral sense, anyway.
So this is not ground that we can cede to them and pretend that there's some sort of inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-death penalty.
I'll say it again one more time, just to be very clear about this.
Our position is that it's wrong to execute babies, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to execute a man who, for example, beats his two-year-old daughter to death against a windshield.
That's the position.
Their position is utterly deranged, completely incoherent.
And we should remember that, especially in the days ahead when they are lamenting these executions carried out against people who absolutely deserve it, deserve it, and have earned it.
And it's as simple as that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Before we get to our five headlines today, anyone who struggles with car sickness, you
know how awful and miserable it can be, you know, especially if you're, and this has always
been a problem for me, car sickness.
My whole life as a child, I thought I would grow out of it, never did.
So many things I haven't grown out of, carsickness is one of them.
Now I've passed it on to my daughter.
I don't know if there's a genetic component to it or not, but she gets very carsick as well.
And it really is, it's a big problem, especially if you're driving in an Uber or something, And you start to feel like you're going to puke.
You don't want to tell the person to pull over because that's embarrassing.
Also, you don't want to puke in the Uber.
So now you're in the middle of a crisis that you're dealing with.
Here's something instead.
Get ReliefBand.
ReliefBand is the number one FDA cleared anti-nausea wristband that has been clinically proven to relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, morning sickness, chemotherapy, anxiety, hangovers, migraines, and so much more.
The product is 100% drug free.
It's non-drowsy.
So you're not taking other pills you can take.
But they don't work as well and also they make you tired.
And you might be in a situation where you can't be tired for the rest of the day.
The technology was originally developed over 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients.
But now through Reliefband it's available to the masses.
Reliefband is the only over-the-counter wearable device that's been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat
nausea and vomiting.
I've worn the Relief Band myself over the last few weeks when I'm in an occasion, I'm in the back of a car, and it works tremendously.
I have not had a problem with nausea since I started using it.
This holiday season, help someone reclaim their life from the fear of nausea.
Right now, Relief Band has an exclusive offer just for Matt Walsh listeners.
If you go to reliefband.com, use promo code WALSH, you'll receive 20% off.
You don't want to miss this deal.
Head to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com and use our promo code Walsh for 20% off.
Alright, I wanted to play this for you.
This has gotten a lot of attention this week.
Media Matters highlighted it, because I guess we're supposed to be disturbed or offended or something by it, by this clip from Rush Limbaugh.
But, you know, I know that when Media Matters highlights my supposedly offensive moments, the clips that they pull are always my best stuff.
They always pull stuff where I'm like, yeah, that's pretty good.
You guys did a good job.
Thank you for the promotion.
And they do the same thing here with Rush, because this clip, which is supposed to be extremist and offensive, I find to be quite insightful and correct, as is often the case with Rush Limbaugh.
Take a listen.
I actually think, and I've referenced this, I've alluded to this a couple of times, because I've seen others allude to this.
I actually think that we're trending toward secession.
I see more and more people asking, what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York?
What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York?
Especially if you're talking about votes.
I see a lot of bloggers, I can't think of names right now, a lot of bloggers have written extensively about how distant and separated and how much more separated our culture is becoming politically.
And that it can't go on this way, there cannot be a peaceful coexistence.
Of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs.
We can't be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.
Yeah, and I think I'm one of those bloggers that's written extensively about this myself, and I think that's exactly right.
I think the way he summarizes it there is well put.
That is the problem.
In order to, and I've made this point so many times, but this is the reality that we have to deal with.
In order to have a country, in order to be a country, in order to be a people, we have to be united by something.
It's right there in the name, United States of America.
Okay, so we're united, great, but around what?
Unity, just for the sake of unity, is not enough.
You've got to be united around something, by something, for something.
If somebody walks up to you on the street and says, hey, let's unite, your immediate response is going to be, what do you mean?
Why?
What are we doing?
I'm not just going to clasp hands with you and run off into the sunset.
I've got to know what the point is here.
So, in America, what are we united by?
Around?
For?
Through?
What is it?
Is it merely geography and that's it?
Is that the only thing that holds us together as a country?
Is that all it is now to be American is just to live here?
And we know even there the problem is that those distinctions are being erased because we have such porous borders.
But even putting that aside, you know, pretending that our border was actually protected and we had these clear geographic boundaries that were defended, still, I would say that's not quite enough.
There's got to be something else.
Now, you look at other countries around the world, they have a lot of commonality.
You know, they've got a shared heritage.
They've got shared traditions.
A lot of times they have a shared religion.
You know, they have many things in common.
Um, we don't have that.
I mean, we don't even have a shared language.
Now, you might say that, well, America has never quite been united in that way to the same degree as other countries, especially not religion.
You know, we've never been a country where everybody has the same religion.
Fine.
Yeah.
Well then what, what did it used to be?
It used to be where we were united around ideas, beliefs.
We all had the same, the same basic conviction and belief.
In the dignity of the human person.
Belief in God.
Belief in liberty.
These things.
Now, we never brought these ideas fully to fruition.
We were always inconsistent in our application of them.
There's, of course, always been conflict around them.
But at least there was some, at some basic level, really fundamental level, there was something there, something in common.
And we just don't have that anymore.
We don't.
You know, you get a bunch of random people in a room from all across the country, and you find, what can they agree on?
Can you get agreement among these people, even a majority of these people, on anything at all?
Anything?
No.
They won't even be able to agree on, like, can men get pregnant?
Even a question like that.
No agreement.
These are people living in different realities, is the problem.
So, it's not just that it's like we're living in different countries already.
It is that, but it's like we're living in different universes, different realities.
It's like we're living in parallel universes.
We just talked about it in the opening monologue.
I mean, someone who believes, for example, that it's okay to execute a baby but not a criminal, that's not just a difference of opinion with me.
Okay, if that's your view, I cannot understand anything about you.
You might as well be from Mars.
That is how completely deranged and incoherent that view is to me.
I cannot relate to you on any level if that's your view.
And so that's the situation we're in now.
And it's not really sustainable.
The question is, what can we do about it?
Well, here's one.
Now, this was proposed, I think it was supposed to be sort of a joke against conservatives, but this leftist on Twitter, Amy Siskind, and I don't know who she is or what she does because she has me blocked, so I can't look at her bio, but she proposed this and then deleted the tweet.
She proposed it because she was trying to make fun of conservatives, and then all the conservatives saw it, and we all said, that looks great.
I love it.
And so she took it down.
But here's her suggestion.
She has a proposed map.
Of how we break things up, how we achieve an amicable divorce.
And here's her map.
Basically, her idea is that the blue states will be subsumed by Canada and so will form a United States of Canada.
And so then, you know, the Northeast, California, the West Coast, all the blue states, they're going to go up and they're going to be part of the United States of Canada.
And then the rest, the red states, are Jesus land.
And she even gave us a, we got a flag here.
It's an American flag, but with a cross on it.
Pretty great flag.
I like it.
And that's how she suggests that we break things up.
I look at that, I review this proposal, and I have to say to Mrs. Siskind, I've reviewed your proposal and I accept your terms.
I like it.
A couple of problems.
I'll take Jesusland, too.
I'd like to still have America in the name, but I would go with Jesusland.
I like the flag.
I love the flag.
My only issue is, you know, she's got Pennsylvania going up to the United States of Canada.
I would say, I think we keep Pennsylvania, and maybe that's because I just moved from Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania is mostly culturally red, except for Philadelphia.
So what I would say is, here's my suggestion, Philadelphia can be taken by New Jersey.
New Jersey can carve out Philadelphia, and then the rest of Pennsylvania comes to us, and in exchange, I will give Arizona to the United States of Canada.
The only problem with this plan, really, is that this means that we in Jesus' land would have no ports on the Pacific.
So my suggestion would be, okay, we have this divorce.
Then we could very easily, I think, invade and occupy the California territory, and then anyone who resists, we deport them up to Canada proper, and we could take over those ports.
That would be one way.
We could talk about this on our own time.
I don't think we should be discussing this publicly, but that's one way of going about it.
All right, let's move on.
Number two, as if to continue to make the point here, here's a talking head on MSNBC yesterday.
Talking about how we simply can't get along and we're living in different universes.
Here he is accusing Republicans of being mass murderers.
Listen.
And I understand, I mean, the real blame here is Mitch McConnell, is the Republicans, is the president, is a party that does not want to help people, that is working on one side to actually make sure the pandemic kills as many people as possible.
That seems to be the logical consequence of their policy.
And then to make sure that all the people who managed to survive it, despite their policy, suffer economically and beyond.
We want to make sure the pandemic kills as many people as possible.
Do you really believe that?
I'm not even sure who this guy is.
You really think that?
You actually think that Republicans, tens of millions of Republicans, we actually just want people to die?
Is that really what you believe?
See, either you don't believe it, but you're willing to accuse your political rivals of something like that, of all being a bunch of psychopathic killers, Which is a problem.
Or you really do believe that about us.
But either way, it goes back to the first point.
It goes back to Russia's point.
How do we continue to live?
If you really, how could you?
How could we be?
How could I be in the same country with someone who thinks I'm a mass murderer who wants people to die of a disease?
Number three, the Time Person of the Year was unveiled.
And, you know, who cares really, but the winner for person of the year was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
They're Siamese twins now, I guess.
They're both the person of the year, not people of the year, person of the year.
They had to put Kamala Harris on the cover.
I think this is, I believe this is the first time they've done that.
Now, the winner of a presidential election oftentimes gets person of the year.
They don't usually put the VP in there too, but we got to, you know, Kamala Harris gets on the cover.
Again, not that it matters, and of course it's ridiculous to put Joe Biden on there also.
Many more impressive people in the country this year or any other year.
But what has Kamala Harris done?
She embarrassed herself in the primaries.
Uh, lost horribly.
I think she actually, she dropped out before the, before the voting even started, I believe, right?
Because she was doing so poorly in the polls.
Um, and then she got chosen for the VP spot because of her gender and skin tone.
And I'm not saying that as any accusation that's Joe Biden announced ahead of time that that that's what he was going to do.
So what's the accomplishment here?
But sure, she's person of the year.
Number four from the Daily Wire, it says, on Tuesday evening, a doctor who reportedly takes care of COVID-19 patients posted a tweet with a picture of herself in which she claimed one of her patients hosted a Thanksgiving dinner for 22 people and all 22 people subsequently developed COVID-19 symptoms.
She concluded, we are so tired.
This is what she wrote, Rebecca Carb.
She says, last night, one of my many patients with COVID told me she had a large Thanksgiving dinner with family, 22 people.
The day after, one family member tested positive.
Since then, according to my patient, all 22 people have developed symptoms, some severe.
We are so tired.
You know, this is just the latest.
I think she proceeded to take that down, I believe, that post.
This is just the latest one.
We've been seeing this all throughout for the last several months.
These doctors and nurses, they're going on social media, they're going on TikTok whenever they stop dancing, or they're on CNN or MSNBC, and they're just sharing all these personal details about their patients.
If we can actually believe it.
I don't know that I really buy that there was a Thanksgiving dinner and everyone there got sick.
In fact, I say I don't buy that.
Let me just be clear.
I don't buy that.
Let's assume for a minute it's true.
What happened to HIPAA?
I mean, is this not a thing anymore?
Doctors and nurses can go in front of the world and talk about their patients, reveal personal details?
Yeah, you could say, well, they're not giving out names, so what?
And these are patients that they're currently treating.
How does the patient feel?
I mean, do they get permission from the patient first, at least?
Did she go to that patient and say, hey, I want to talk about your family getting sick on Twitter and complain about it?
Are you okay with that?
I doubt she did.
I just find it to be gross, attention-seeking behavior.
Five, finally, there's something a little positive right now, because it's been a little bit heavy, I think, so far on the show.
I am honored today To find out that I am, in fact, a hero.
That's the good news for today, if you're looking for some good news.
I am a hero.
I already knew I was a hero, for many reasons, but here's another one to add to the list.
I am a hero for wearing glasses.
I never knew it, but I am.
At least, that's how it seems, because a news anchor for ABC is being celebrated for her courage in wearing glasses on air and pointing it out.
And the segment is pretty inspiring, so I'll play that for you now.
It's a pretty inspiring segment.
Watch.
I just want to say thanks to the many of you who've reached out this week to say that you've liked seeing me in glasses, and some of you have also asked why I'm wearing them.
Here's the story.
I learned last week that one of my daughters was not wearing hers because she was afraid of what people in her class would say or think about her.
So, in a gesture of solidarity, I've been wearing mine all week to make this point.
Whatever people say or think about you is none of your business.
Just be yourself, authentically and unapologetically.
The rest will work itself out.
We'll leave you now with these pictures of some celebrities who wear their specs proudly.
I hope you will share your kids' pictures with me on social media.
I will only be too happy to tell them how beautiful they look.
Incredible courage.
Incredible courage wearing the glasses.
You know, I have... I've been wearing glasses for like 15 years.
Nobody has ever cared or said anything about it ever to me.
So the idea that she was getting all... She was getting all these emails.
What's with the glasses?
Why are you wearing glasses?
Did people... Really?
People asked you that?
They asked you why you were wearing glasses?
No one has ever come up to me and said, hey, why are you wearing glasses?
Because they help me see.
That's why I'm wearing them.
End of mystery.
So I'm not sure I quite believe that everyone was emailing her about it.
In fact, I don't believe it.
This was just, she was looking for an excuse to, look, yeah, if the story about the daughter is true, you know, I'm so cynical, I don't believe anything anymore, but if the story about the daughter is true and she really was wearing the glasses to make the daughter feel better, then, you know, that's nice.
But you don't need to announce it on air and pat yourself on the back.
That's when you lose all credit.
Being a good parent, you're wearing glasses.
I guess, what, those are glasses that have no prescription so that she doesn't need them, I guess?
Doing that for your kid's sake is great.
But when you go on TV and say, let me tell you a story about a nice thing I did for my own child.
That's when you lose all credit.
It all goes out the window.
Because you insisted on patting yourself on the back.
But maybe I should just, you know, maybe I should just accept the fact that It is an act of courage to wear glasses.
You're welcome, everyone.
I hope that I've been able to inspire you with my own pair of spectacles.
Before our daily cancellation today, listen, if you're experiencing a problem like hair loss, There is a solution.
It's not a problem that you have to, for much of human history that was a problem that if it happens, it happens, there's nothing you can do about it.
But now there is a solution and you should pursue that solution.
There's no reason to accept what in fact is not inevitable anymore.
Nutrafol is formulated with potent botanicals to help you grow hair as strong as you are.
It's physician formulated to be 100% drug free.
This is Nutrafol.
It is physician formulated to be 100% drug free.
They use natural, clinically effective botanicals for better hair growth through the whole body.
You can go to Nutrafol.com and take their hair wellness quiz for customized product
recommendations that put the power to grow thicker, stronger hair back into your hands.
And here's what happens.
When you subscribe, you'll receive monthly deliveries so you never miss a dose.
Shipping is free and you can pause or cancel anytime.
Question everybody has does it work the answer is yes in clinical studies neutrophil users saw thicker stronger hair
growth with less shedding in three to six months Whether you're experiencing, you know, whatever your
situations you're experiencing thinning Whatever it is. You deserve hair as strong as you are again
neutrophil can help you achieve your best hair growth naturally
So you can grow thicker healthier hair and support our show by going to neutrophil
calm and using promo code Walsh to get 20% off This is their best offer available anywhere, plus free shipping on every order.
Get 20% off at neutrafal.com, promo code WALSH.
Again, their best offer, 20% off.
It's spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L, neutrafal.com, for hair as strong as you are.
And also, As we get into the holidays, now is the time to give yourself the gift of The Daily Wire.
Give yourself the gift of me, and everybody else at The Daily Wire, and this beautiful new Leftist Tears Tumblr.
These are the most coveted drinking vessels in the world, in fact.
Sort of the Holy Grail, now, of drinking vessels.
And it's new and improved, and you can get one of those if you become a Daily Wire member.
You also get a lot more.
You get a lot of great content if you become a Daily Wire member.
The Michael Knoll Show is now five days a week.
We're adding PragerU's entire catalog.
We've got Candace Owens joining The Daily Wire.
We've got investigative journalism.
We've got movies coming out.
We've got so much.
You can go outside the narrative and come over to dailywire.com.
So what you got to do is go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and do that now and be a part of what we have coming up in the new year.
It's really exciting.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Thank you for our daily cancellation.
We are canceling the dreaded, the stupid, the pointless, pay-it-forward, drive-through chains.
Now, if you aren't familiar with this thoroughly first-world phenomenon, here's a story about the latest one to pop up from CNN.
There's a bunch of stories about this yesterday, but CNN says, what started as a random act of kindness from one man paying for the car behind him in a Dairy Queen drive-thru resulted in over 900 cars also taking part in the pay-it-forward chain.
At a drive-thru in Brainerd, Minnesota, over 100 miles north of Minneapolis, people stepped up in a small way to show one another that they care.
Tina Jensen, the store manager at one of the two Dairy Queens in town, told CNN a man came by the drive-thru window on Thursday and asked if he could pay for his meal and for the car behind him.
Jensen told her cashier this tends to happen once in a while, but at most it lasts for 15 or 20 cars and fizzles out.
This time, the chain continued for two and a half days with over 900 cars participating, raking in $10,000 in sales.
When the next customer came to the fast food chain's window, Jensen explained what the man in front of them had done, and the act of kindness continued to multiply.
Jensen said, there's all different types of ways to help people.
I think this touched a lot of people that we didn't even know it touched deeper than we know, and you don't know what's going on in a person's life.
When the chain closed for the night, on Thursday, one car left $10 to begin the chain back up on Friday morning, and then the same thing happened on Friday night, and it began on Saturday morning.
Okay.
So that's how it works.
Somebody pays for the meal of the person behind them in line, then that person pays for the person behind them, and on and on it goes.
But do you know who the real hero in this story is?
Not the first person to pay for the next person, no.
The real hero is whoever broke the chain and simply accepted the charity from the person in front and drove away, leaving the person behind them to pay for their own damned fudge sundae.
All of the people in between the first guy, who may have been well-intentioned, but should have thought more about the consequences of his actions, and the last guy, who had the courage to end the whole charade, everybody else, these were just sheep.
They weren't performing acts of kindness.
This wasn't charity.
They did it because they were too embarrassed and felt too much social pressure not to do it.
If it's charity at all, it's coerced charity and not for a meaningful cause either.
The people in the drive-thru line have disposable income that they were already planning to spend on the same kind of junk that you're buying.
They don't need your money.
Really, this kind of charity, if it is charity at all, again, is similar to the sort of charity that you perform When you're checking out at the grocery store and the cashier asks if you want to round up and donate your change to, you know, orphaned sea otters or whatever.
The only reason you say yes is because you'd feel like a cheap ass refusing to give your 27 cents to the sea otters.
It's not something that comes from the kindness of your heart.
If you wanted to help the sea otters on your own time, you would.
Right now, all you want to do is pay for your carton of eggs and your package of paper towels and leave.
The grocery store is taking advantage of your sense of shame to bilk another few cents out of you.
Another few cents of which they will surely take a cut, by the way.
But while the grocery store charity gambit is a calculated ploy to take advantage of people who don't have the spine to say no, the pay-it-forward chain is more of a case of collective insanity.
Everyone is doing it, but nobody knows why.
If you want to understand how crazy it is, imagine how it would come across if you took, you know, take the fast food and the cars out of the equation, okay?
Now imagine you're standing in a long line of people waiting for something, and the guy in front turns to you, gives you $5 out of his wallet, and then suggests that you turn around and give the person behind you some money out of your wallet, and on and on and on.
Now you're all just passing money backwards for absolutely no reason.
Nobody wants to be doing it or knows why they're doing it, but it continues until some free thinker accepts the cash from the person in front and says, hey, thanks for the money, puts it in their pocket and gives nothing to the person behind.
That person, again, is the admirable character in this strange saga.
Now, if I sound like I'm speaking from a place of personal trauma when I talk about this, that's because I am.
I used to live near a Starbucks, where this would happen frequently.
I was duped by it, I'm ashamed to admit, one time, and one time only.
I pulled up to the window to pay for my one single coffee for $2.65, and the girl at the window told me that the bill had been paid by the guy in front.
Then she informed me that they were doing this pay-it-forward thing where each person pays for the one behind.
And she asked me if I wanted to participate and told me that, you know, they kept the chain going for 50 cars so far, or however many it was.
So I said, uh, yeah, okay, sure.
And then she said, okay, that'll be $43.50.
I had just traded in my $2 coffee for a whole SUV load of lattes and frappuccinos and God only knows what else.
It was the worst deal in history, as Trump might have said if he had saw it.
So I drove away, broken, confused.
My coffee now tinged with a taste of betrayal.
And I resolved then to never allow myself to be shamed into empty gestures of pointless charity.
And from then on, whenever someone in front paid for my drink, I said, oh, great.
I accepted the free coffee, drove away with no remorse.
In fact, proud that I had saved others from this farce.
And even when the cashier asks me now about the sea otters, I say, no, thank you.
I don't want to help them.
In fact, the sea otters can go to hell.
And I walk away feeling fine, though wondering if I was a little harsher towards the sea otters than necessary.
Anyway, this is why the pay-it-forward drive-through lines are cancelled.
Forever and always.
By the way, I must also acknowledge my own debt for the cancellation today.
This was inspired by Amanda Prestigiacomo, a writer for the Daily Wire, who spoke out against this yesterday.
The pay-it-forward lines on Twitter got me thinking about this.
So she is the opposite of cancelled, but everybody else in that 900-person chain in Minnesota is unfortunately cancelled today.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and production assistant McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
