Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats spend a day in Congress censuring and condemning a Republican for posting an offensive cartoon meme on his social media page. AOC says that anyone who doesn’t share in their outrage is a “nihilist.” But who are the real nihilists here? Also, the Daily Wire scores a major victory as OSHA suspends the Biden vaxx mandate. And huge, record numbers of people are dying of drug overdoses. Why is it happening? What’s going on? Plus, an MSNBC host warns us about the scourge of “white tears.” What does that mean? Besides that she’s racist. And a doctor says that he still can’t take his three year old to the grocery store because it would be “risking her life.” How can people, especially doctors, still be that deluded.
Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u
Read the Daily Wire’s bombshell Loudoun County exposé here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/loudoun-county-schools-tried-to-conceal-sexual-assault-against-daughter-in-bathroom-father-says | Support the Daily Wire’s investigative journalism for only $4/month — use discount code REALNEWS for 25% off your membership: https://utm.io/udQ0u
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats spend a day in Congress censoring and condemning a Republican for posting an offensive cartoon meme to his Twitter page.
AOC says that anyone who doesn't share in their outrage is a nihilist.
But who are the real nihilists here?
Also, the Daily Wire scores a major victory as OSHA suspends the Biden-Vaxx mandate.
And huge record numbers of people are dying of drug overdoses.
100,000 people died last year.
Why is it happening?
What's going on?
Plus, an MSNBC host wants us to warn us about the scourge of quote-unquote white tears.
What does that mean?
Besides that she's racist.
And a doctor says that he still can't take his three-year-old to the grocery store without feeling like he's risking her life.
How can people, especially doctors, still be that deluded?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Getting free insurance quotes from PolicyGenius.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place.
Why compare?
Well, you can save 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with PolicyGenius.
You can save $1,300 or more a year on life insurance by using PolicyGenius to compare policies.
The licensed experts at PolicyGenius work for you, not the insurance companies, so you can trust them to help you navigate every step of the shopping and buying process.
That kind of service has earned Policygenius thousands of five-star reviews across Trustpilot and Google, and eligible applicants can get covered in as little as a week thanks to an award-winning policy that swaps the standard medical exam requirement for a single phone call.
This exclusive policy was recently rated number one by Forbes Advisor, higher than options from Ladder, Ethos, and Bestow.
Getting started is very easy.
First, you just gotta head to policygenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much life insurance coverage you need and compare personalized quotes to find your best price.
And they don't add any extra fees.
It's very easy to do, very cheap, so there's no reason not to.
Head to policygenius.com to get started right now.
Policy Genius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right.
As it stands right now, we continue to wait for the Rittenhouse verdict.
It's extremely troubling that it's taken so long.
Troubling because we have to remember something really basic here.
The standard is supposed to be a reasonable doubt, and it can be easy to forget this.
It can be easy to forget as we watch a trial.
that's been rigged in every way against the defendant, it's easy to forget that in fact,
trials are supposed to be in a way, you might say rigged in favor of the defendant.
Rigged is not really the right word here, of course.
The point is just that the defendant is supposed to be given a headstart.
There are certain advantages that are meant to be built into the system.
That's how the system is made.
And one advantage is that the prosecution needs to prove its case
while all the defense needs to do is establish that there is maybe a reasonable doubt
about what the prosecution has claimed.
And that is, it's supposed to be anyway, a pretty low standard.
It's meant to be.
The defense doesn't need to prove that the defendant is innocent.
All they need to demonstrate is that it's reasonable to doubt whether he is guilty.
Just that it's reasonable.
And they don't even actually need to demonstrate it.
The prosecution has to demonstrate that it is not reasonable to doubt the defendant's guilt.
If they fail to meet that purposefully high bar, then that's supposed to be game over.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
So we've gotten into the weeds quite a bit in this case.
We've talked about You know, the specifics and all the things surrounding it.
But questions like, should he have been there or not?
And I've said, I think he not only had every right to be there, but it was good that some people showed up to actually defend the property if the government had decided that it was not going to fulfill that role, which it had decided that.
But most of that should be a moot point.
The only thing that matters is this.
Could a reasonable person have at least some doubt about whether Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty of murder?
Could a reasonable person entertain the possibility, at least, that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense?
The answer to that question is obviously yes.
It would be unreasonable to say that it is unreasonable to have doubts about this case.
I think there's a lot more than reasonable doubt in this case.
I think rather than guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but that's not the standard.
That's not the burden that he's supposed to have to carry as a defendant, and we should keep that in mind.
But while we wait for this verdict, something else happened yesterday worth discussing right here in the opening, I think, from Yahoo News.
They report, quote, the House voted Wednesday to censure Representative Paul Gosar after the Arizona Republican posted a violent cartoon video that depicted him killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden.
The resolution passed 223 to 207 with two Republicans, Representative Liz Cheney and Adam Kissinger, of course, joining all 221 Democrats voting in favor of Gosar's censure.
Representative Dave Joyce, who sits on the House Ethics Committee, voted present.
Three Republicans did not vote.
The measure stripped Gosar of his committee assignments, including a seat on the House Oversight Committee, a panel on which he had served alongside Ocasio-Cortez.
Okay, so this is what the House of Representatives concerned itself with yesterday, all right?
And many Democrats took turns giving impassioned speeches, discussing in somber and firm tones the inexcusable, violent, threatening, dangerous, terrible meme that Paul Gosar retweeted.
Before we go any further, we should probably play that meme for you, just so you understand what we're talking about.
It is a jokey video, apparently made as a parody based on some kind of anime show.
I'm not familiar with the show.
And it shows Gosar as some kind of, I don't know, action hero, ninja or something.
And at one point in the cartoon... Well, rather, at one point, a cartoon with Gosar's face attached hits another cartoon with AOC's face attached with a sword.
Okay, very dangerous stuff.
Parental advisory stickers all over this thing, but let's just give it a watch.
Here it is.
My god.
Horrifying.
(upbeat music)
My God, horrifying.
That's the worst thing I've ever seen in my life.
So while inflation skyrockets, cargo ships remain jammed in our ports,
drug epidemic kills 100,000 Americans a year, dozens of other very real crises grip our nation.
Congress spent the day talking about this cartoon.
And Nancy Pelosi kicked things off, shaking her head, saying that this is a sad day.
It's a sad, sad day for Congress.
And she's right, actually.
It is a very sad day for Congress, but not for the reasons she thinks.
And she continued by drawing a connection to What do you think she connected this to?
You just take a guess.
January 6th, of course.
She said, "Depictions of violence can foment actual violence and jeopardize the safety
of elected officials as witnessed in this chamber on January 6, 2021.
It is inconceivable that a member of our community would wish to repeat the violence of that
dark day."
Now, we're not going to test our intestinal fortitude by playing too many clips of these
Democrats sobbing over a meme cartoon on Twitter, but we do have to play at least, I think we
we have to at least suffer through a little bit of AOC's remarks.
Because she, after all, was the victim, the quote-unquote victim of this cartoon.
And that is an utter that she is always eager to milk.
And let's watch her do that now.
I've been serving in this body just under three years.
Not three years, Enormous amount has happened.
But in response to the Republican leader's remarks when he says that this action is unprecedented.
What I believe is unprecedented is for a member of House leadership of either party to be unable to condemn incitement of violence against a member of this body.
It is sad.
It is a sad day in which a member who leads a political party in the United States of America cannot bring themselves to say that issuing a depiction of murdering a member of Congress is wrong, and instead decides to venture off into a tangent about gas prices and inflation.
What is so hard What is so hard about saying that this is wrong?
This is not about me.
This is not about Representative Gosar.
But this is about what we are willing to accept.
This is not about me.
This is not about me, as I use the word me and I 72 times in my 10-minute speech about me.
No, we really can't.
On second thought, we should not be playing clips of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when we are broadcasting from, you know, the sixth floor of a hotel room when I'm right next to a window, because the urge to jump out is sometimes overwhelming when I'm listening to this person.
A sad, sad day.
A sad day.
An incitement of violence.
Democrats, of course, are not satisfied to call the cartoon merely inappropriate or crass or vulgar.
No, they have to make it into a terrorist act.
They have to pretend that Gosar was actually threatening himself.
He was himself threatening to stab AOC with a sword or encouraging other sword-wielding assailants.
This meme was actually a message to Gosar's team of secret ninjas calling on them to finally launch their long-planned attack.
That's the way Democrats tried to present it, and when most Republicans, aside from the usual suspects, Cheney, Kinzinger, refused to join the censure, that sent them into even more furious spasms of outrage.
AOC accused Republicans of nihilism for not being angry enough about the Twitter meme.
And all the Democrats were very upset, pretending to be very upset anyway, that Republicans would not join them in being that upset.
Well, Republicans were right, of course, to not go along with this.
Why?
I mean, is it because congressmen ought to be sh**-posting with anime memes?
Is that a thing, ideally, that we'd be doing?
No.
I mean, it doesn't bother me, personally.
I think it's kind of funny.
But in a perfect world, it would not be unreasonable to say, yeah, that's a little inappropriate.
It's kind of crass and childish.
Let's not do that.
Yet in this world, which is far from perfect, Even if you feel that way about the meme, you can't say it when Democrats demand that you say it.
You can't bark on command like a trained puppy, because then you are willfully participating in a charade.
You are assuming a role in their stage play.
AOC called it nihilism, that Republicans will not condemn inappropriate behavior.
That's not what's going on here.
It's more that they are refusing to be a part of the Democrats' nihilism.
If the Democrats in Congress actually cared about incitements of violence, and about crass and inappropriate behavior by its members, and they condemned every such example, and they were so stringent about it, so respectful of the rules of decorum and decency, that they even made time to condemn memes and cartoons, right?
If this was all in the context of them being very consistent on this issue, then maybe you might give them a little bit of what they want.
You might say, sure, yeah, you shouldn't oppose to that.
But that's not how it works.
Their message is not that members of Congress should not incite violence.
Not that Paul Gosar did incite violence, but that's not their message.
Their message, the point they want Republicans to agree with, as they all clasp hands together, is that the rules should be applied based on their ideological and political needs of the moment.
Which is why, for example, when Maxine Waters has repeatedly and explicitly called for violence against her political enemies, or squad members repeatedly and explicitly justify and foment BLM rioting, there's no condemnation there, certainly no censure, because the rules are different for them.
And anyone who will not agree that the rules are different is a nihilist, they say.
It's all quite grotesque and outrageous, which is why Republicans need to do a lot more than simply refuse to go along with it.
That's a good first step.
So there's a little bit of progress here.
Because I think if this exact same situation had occurred like five years ago, there probably would have been, you know, 30 Republicans joining at least.
So they're not going along with it.
That's good.
But they should also be on the offense, using the bully pulpit to call attention to behavior on the other side that often goes far beyond memes and cartoons.
Just the latest example, Representative Cori Bush, like we talked about on this show, this week called a defendant in a murder trial a white supremacist without any evidence.
She's, of course, not the only one to have done that.
And also without evidence, claimed that white supremacists shot at her in the streets of Ferguson, which we know is a lie.
It never happened.
Why aren't Republicans moving to censure Cori Bush for that?
Sure, they don't have the votes, but they can call for it anyway.
Two can play at that game, but only one ever does.
I think it's time for that to change.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Well, living your everyday life is getting more and more expensive, as I'm sure you've noticed.
And so here's maybe the smartest move you'll make all year.
And there's time to do it now, at the 11th hour.
Make your smart move.
It might be the only smart move you make in the entire year, if you're me.
A mortgage refinance could be the smartest move.
It could save you thousands of dollars in interest, maybe help pay off your loan sooner, or even allow you to access cash.
But to really capitalize on a mortgage refinance, you must be sure you're choosing the right loan with the right lender.
That's why I recommend American Financing, America's home for home loans.
For over 20 years, they've been a mortgage industry leader, offering competitive rates, low monthly payments, and custom terms without ever charging upfront or hidden fees.
You get a free mortgage review, and you'll also learn about ways to save up to $1,000 a month if you give them a call.
You may even be able to skip two mortgage payments, but you've got to call American Financing right now, and you've got to do it, as I said, right now.
866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711.
or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
By the way, I want to mention just a quick shout out to the member of the Sweet Baby Gang
that I encountered at a deli here in Nashville.
And I went to a couple of days ago, I went to a deli, got a sandwich,
and he handed me the sandwich back.
We have the picture here.
He handed me the sandwich back, and he had written on the wrapper
of the sandwich, "Sweet Baby Gang."
He didn't say anything to me.
Never acknowledged it, even knew who I was.
He wrote "Sweet Baby Gang" on the wrapper.
Now, the thing is, he handed that to me, and...
And I didn't notice what was written on it, initially, because I don't notice anything.
I'm like lost in my own head.
You can ask my wife.
I don't notice anything around me.
I'm totally oblivious.
I mean, she always makes changes in the house, and I come home, and I don't notice it.
Like, she could replace all of our furniture with balloon animals or something, and I wouldn't notice.
I could be sitting on the couch, and she could set it on fire while I'm sitting on it, and I probably wouldn't notice.
So I didn't notice that, but I went to go pay for it at the cashier.
And that's when I noticed it, because he called attention to it.
We both kind of noticed it together, and he had no idea what that meant.
And he was very, very confused and a little bit disturbed.
And he read it, and he said, oh, sweet baby gang, huh?
And I said, oh, yeah, yeah.
And then there was a little bit of an awkward pause, and he said, do you mind if I ask what that means?
And then I just leaned in, and I kind of whispered.
I said, you don't want to know.
And I left it at that, and it was even more awkward for the rest.
We finished the checkout in total silence, and I walked out, and it was great.
So, appreciate that for the Sweet Baby Gang.
Okay, I want to talk about this OSHA thing, but before we do that, one other point, going back to the opening, because I don't want to...
I don't wanna neglect to play this clip.
I talked about Republicans going on the offense.
Well, credit where it's due, Lauren Boebert, she actually did that, okay?
So she's giving a little bit of a blueprint here for what that might look like.
She got up to talk during this discussion, this debate over censoring Paul Gosar, and she did something, this again, five years ago, I don't think you're gonna see any Republican doing this, but she did, and it's great.
Let's listen.
Democrat policies are so pathetic and have done so poorly that the left has nothing else to do but troll the internet looking for ways to get offended and then try to target members and strip them of their committees.
This is a dumb waste of the House's time.
But since the Speaker has designated the floor to discuss members' inappropriate actions, shall we?
The Jihad Squad member from Minnesota has paid her husband, and not her brother-husband, the other one, over a million dollars in campaign funds.
This member is allowed on the Foreign Affairs Committee while praising terrorists.
A Democrat chairwoman incited further violence in the streets outside of a courthouse.
And then the cherry on top, my colleague and three-month presidential candidate from California, who is on the Intelligence Committee, Gotta give that a standing ovation.
That... As the kids say online, where's the lie?
Everything she said is exactly correct.
This is unacceptable and this would never be- >> Gentlemen, it's time to expire.
Gentlemen from Florida.
Gotta give that a standing ovation.
That, as the kids say online, where's the lie?
Everything she said is exactly correct.
Now the one point I will make here, okay, in fairness to Swalwell, she says, Cherry on top, we have no evidence and no reason
to believe that he And in fact, there's a lot of reasons to think he probably was.
But that's aside from the point.
He did in fact sleep with a Chinese spy, and it's not actually funny.
It's one of those things, all you can do is laugh about it, because we have a member of Congress Who is in a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy named Feng Feng, and it's not an issue.
We're not going to censure it.
We're not going to talk about it.
Okay, well, it's just a member of Congress in a sexual relationship with a foreign spy from a foreign adversary.
from a foreign adversary.
Ilhan Omar, speaking of foreign adversaries, Ilhan Omar was, she responded to this
and because she was called out there, I mean, she, you know, had,
She was married to her brother, allegedly.
I'm not sure if we still have to put allegedly on that or not.
Bobart says she's part of the Jihad squad.
And Ilhan Omar responded on Twitter.
She says, Luckily, my dad raised me right.
Otherwise, I might have gone to the floor to talk about this insurrectionist who sleeps with a pervert.
She's talking about Boebert now.
I am grateful I was raised to be a decent human and not a depraved person who shamefully defecates and defiles the House of Representatives.
And then praise God.
Okay, well, first of all, the people who are defecating As far as defecating in important places, I think that obviously goes to Joe Biden.
There's no evidence that Lauren Boebert has ever done that.
As far as her dad raising her rights, I will say, Ilhan, I guess your dad raised you and your husband very well.
Imagine the arrogance of this person, of Ilhan Omar, and the bubble that she's in.
That she would actually go down this road of talking about criticizing someone else for being married to a pervert.
I'm not even sure what she's referring to with Boebert there.
You are going to open that door?
Of all people?
Amazing.
All right, let's move to this.
This is from Fox.
It says, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is abiding by a court order and suspending enforcement of the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate on large private businesses.
In a statement shared to OSHA's website, the agency said the court ordered that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce Um, the mandate until further court order, the agency said that it remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies.
But as it stands right now, uh, it has been suspended.
So any employer who is enforcing this mandate, they have no excuse to enforce it.
They don't have to, no one has, no one has to do anything.
No one is under any obligation to do anything legally because it has been suspended.
And this happens after The Daily Wire filed a lawsuit.
So we're fighting back and we're getting results.
This is not the sexiest thing, right?
When you're filing a lawsuit in federal court, not the sexiest form of fighting back, but it's an effective form and it matters.
And we talk about this phrase, fighting back, and we hear it so often, And often in reference to things that are to, you know, just people tweeting and doing totally impotent things that's kind of lost its meaning.
But this is real fighting.
And the thing is, you know, I still talk to some people on occasion.
Who say that their problem with The Daily Wire is that we don't fight.
That's an impression that among some people, I think a minority, but it still seems to linger a little bit with some people anyway.
And I find that kind of amazing because what conservative outlet, and I know that I'm biased for obvious reasons, but what conservative outlet is doing more than us?
That's a serious question.
Can you name one?
Any conservative outlet out there that's doing more than we're doing?
Lots of other outlets out there that I respect and I like and I support, and you should support too, but nobody's doing what we're doing.
We're suing the federal government.
We helped flip Virginia.
We are, to use the liberal term, we're disrupting the entertainment industry.
We're getting into investigative journalism.
We've made a huge impact as far as that goes.
These are all things that we're doing.
And I really believe that, by the way.
I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it.
I might say this isn't a promo spot.
I might say things in promo spots that I don't believe.
Well, theoretically.
I mean, everything I say in promo spots, I mean.
But theoretically, that's one thing.
But this is real.
Daily Wire is a special place.
And I'll tell you why.
Because we actually care about the mission.
We really do actually care.
We are crazy enough to care.
And you can't always take that for granted.
That's not always the case.
I'm not going to say any names or anything, really, because I can't say names.
I can't see it inside anybody's head or inside their heart and soul.
But just because there are people in front of cameras saying a lot of conservative-sounding things and building an audience of conservatives, that doesn't mean that they really believe what they're saying or care that much about it.
But in our case, we really do.
And putting our money where our mouth is, in a very literal sense.
Okay.
Next, Joy Reid continues to put her anti-white bigotry on full display.
I know we're used to it by now, right, with this woman, but this is really, even by her standards, this is over the top.
Let's listen.
So it's called Rittenhouse Trial.
It reminded a lot of people of something.
Something, I just can't remember what it was.
Oh!
The Brett Kavanaugh hearings, in which Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused by a high school friend of committing sexual abuse of her, cried his way through the hearings to make him a permanent member and associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
And his tears turned out to be more powerful than the tears of Christine Blasey Ford, which were the tears of an alleged victim.
But in America, there's a thing about both white vigilantism and white tears, particularly male white tears.
Really white tears in general, because that's what Karen's are, right?
They Karen out, and then as soon as they get caught, it's like... bringing waterworks.
White men can get away with that, too.
And it has the same effect.
Even as the right tries to politicize the idea that masculinity is being robbed from American men
by multiculturalism and woke-ism, they still want to be able to have their tears.
Can you believe it?
Those damned white people, they want to have their tears.
What the hell does that mean?
Well, I know what it means.
I'll get to that in a second.
But also notice the catch-22 here.
And it was on full display in the Kavanaugh hearing that she brought up, also with Rittenhouse.
Because the catch-22 is that if you're a man, and you're accused of something, be it rape or murder, and you get up there, and you are calm and collected, and you address the charges against you, and you deny them, and you show very little emotion, Then you'll be accused of being some kind of sociopath.
And we're going to hear a lot about toxic masculinity.
So, if you get up there, you're accused, and you're not emotional about it, then that is toxic masculinity.
You know, you're playing tough, you're being a sociopath, you don't care, you know, you should care, you don't care enough, you're stuffing all the emotions inside, all this kind of stuff.
That's toxic masculinity.
But, if you get up there and you're emotional, then it's white male tears.
So, no matter what you do, no matter what your response is, and it's designed this way, of course, no matter how you respond, you are somehow proving that the allegations against you are correct, and you are only demonstrating your moral failings.
Literally, no matter how you respond.
And that, of course, is because to people like Joy Reid, the moment you've been accused, You're guilty before you were accused.
Enjoy Reed's world.
Every white male is effectively a rapist and a murderer.
Whether they've done it themselves, or not, they are part of a system that is guilty of these
kinds of crimes. And so they themselves are personally guilty. And even if they haven't done it,
then they're always a risk to do it.
So, as far as Joy Reid is concerned, you throw Kyle Rittenhouse in prison, even if he's not
technically guilty of murder, he basically is, he's a white male, he's part of the system,
and probably at some point in the future, he's going to harm someone. So you might as well put
Now, Kavanaugh, you know, again, same kind of thing.
As far as Joy Reid's concerned, he's basically guilty, even if not with the...
With Christine Ford.
At some point, I'm sure he's done this, or he will do it.
And so, he should be held accountable for it regardless.
And that's the Catch-22.
No matter how you respond, you're guilty.
Because you're guilty before you respond.
The conclusion has already been determined.
And therefore, however you respond, well, that's how a guilty person would respond.
Because you're guilty.
There's the circular reasoning of it.
But I also want you to understand how, and I probably don't need to point this out to you, but really reflect on how racist this white tears thing is.
I mean, it's the most dehumanizing thing I can imagine.
She is suggesting, essentially, that as white people, we don't have human emotions.
We are not human.
It's all manipulation.
Because if you saw white people as human, then Kyle Rittenhouse's response, even if you think he's guilty, his response makes a lot of sense.
Even if you're a guilty person, and you killed someone, and you murdered them, and now you're facing life in prison, any normal person, guilty or not, would have an emotional breakdown at least some point during that process, if not multiple emotional breakdowns the whole way through.
That's a normal human response, guilty or not.
What kind of person would see, this is an 18 year old kid, accused of murder, facing life in prison, his entire life.
This is the reality.
As he sits right now, waiting for the verdict, there is a distinct possibility that for the rest of his life, which could last 60, he could spend 70 years of his life, his entire life, in a cage.
Once again, guilty or not, who would not have an emotional breakdown, a panic attack, cry, when faced with that?
And yet Joy Reid sees that and she's suspicious.
She's suspicious because he's a white male.
And she doesn't think that white males, or even white people in general, have emotions.
It is, I mean, she... Lots of people in positions of influence in this country today empower really truly hate white people.
Truly hate them.
She hates them.
And I'll tell you this, there is no one, and I really mean no one, In a position of power or influence in this country today, who truly hates black people in the way that Joy Reid hates white people.
And we know that because those kinds of people, those kinds of racists, have been driven out.
They were long ago driven out.
It's a very intentional campaign to find the racists and drive them out.
But only certain kinds of racists, right?
But racists like Joy Reid, you know, that's fine.
You can do that.
We, you know, there's not going to be any segment.
I don't care.
Anyone on the left, you think Fox News is racist, which it isn't, but you think you're ever going to see a segment on Fox News?
There's a black murder defendant.
Is there going to be someone on Fox News talking about the problem of black tears?
It's quite literally unimaginable.
It would never, ever happen.
And that's because this kind of out and out, this is dangerous.
I mean, when you've got people in positions of influence, Joy Reid should have no influence whatsoever.
She's not qualified to hold any job at all, but she does have influence.
And when you have this kind of totally dehumanizing racism against, you know, this effort to dehumanize an entire race of people, it is very dangerous.
And it's not going Well, it's going to the same place and heading in the same direction that these sorts of things always do throughout history.
All right.
This is from UPI.com.
It says, new government data confirms what many have suspected.
The pandemic has prompted a record number of drug overdose deaths, with more than 100,000 Americans succumbing to addiction as COVID-19 raged across the country.
That figure is almost 30 times higher than the previous year, when 78,000 overdose deaths were reported, according to provisional figures from the U.S.
Center for Disease Control.
Lead researcher on this says, the 12-month period ending in April 2021 is the first time we've seen over 100,000 estimated deaths due to drug overdose.
Drug overdose deaths continue to rise at least through April 2021.
So this past spring, and that's this past spring, we haven't seen any indication that the numbers are slowing down.
So it's actually worse than this.
This is just until the spring.
And as he said, there's no reason to think And it's gotten better.
100,000 people dying of a drug overdose in one year.
100,000.
Okay, you don't have to go back that far to what a point when the number would have been something like 30 or 40,000 or 50,000, which was still a lot.
It's doubled now and in a short period of time.
What does that tell us?
Well, this is something we could spend a lot more time on and maybe we will in a different show, but on a future show.
A few things here.
First of all, as many of us said the entire time, Lockdowns, okay, the lockdown is not a victimless situation, okay?
It's not just a matter of, well, better safe than sorry, let's play it safe and do this and, you know, even if we're inconveniencing people, at least we're preventing people from dying.
No, there are victims of the lockdown.
The lockdown is something that you're doing and it will itself cause deaths, and it has.
This is drug overdose.
It's not a coincidence that this, even the CDC is not denying that there's a connection between the lockdowns and drug overdose deaths.
We know about suicide and, you know, the rapidly dramatic increase in suicide deaths and suicide attempts, especially among kids that happened during the lockdown.
So this was a, this was a calculation that was made saying that let's lock everybody down.
And we're going to do that in order to theoretically save the lives of this group over here.
But in so doing, we're going to ensure that this group over here dies.
So it was a trade, a trade-off.
And not a trade-off worth making.
Also, another point is that it's really unfortunate that criticizing the pharmaceutical industry is now an anti-science conspiracy theory.
I mean, this used to be something where you would find some common ground.
This was actually an issue up until COVID.
This was an issue where there was some amount of common ground between the left and right.
That we could talk about the pharmaceutical industry, and abuses in the pharmaceutical industry, and the way that the pharmaceutical industry has very intentionally gotten millions of people hooked on opioids and other drugs.
And we could talk about that, and you could find agreement on the left and right.
But now, after COVID and the vaccine, It's been decided that in order to protect and defend the honor of the vaccine, that means we also have to protect and defend the honor of the pharmaceutical industry.
And so criticizing the pharmaceutical industry now has become, it's now a partisan thing.
And if you do that, it's sort of an anti-science conspiracy theory.
Which is really a shame.
Because when we talk about 100,000 overdose deaths, And it's not going to get better on its own, it's only going to get worse.
Big part of the blame, yeah, we have lockdowns, also the pharmaceutical industry.
As I said, the pharmaceutical industry has very intentionally gotten millions of people hooked on drugs.
And this is all part of the, as I said, this is a much bigger conversation we probably should spend more time on.
This is all part of a problem I've talked about on the show, which is the medicalizing of the human condition.
Everything is a medical problem now.
There's a drug for everything.
Every uncomfortable feeling that you feel, go get a drug for it.
Every pain that you experience, every physical pain, go get a drug for it.
And there's, of course, you can't watch TV without seeing these advertisements for drugs, these pharmaceutical advertisements.
And what they're doing, they're not simply saying, you know, in these advertisements, they are not just selling the drug, they're also selling the disease.
They say to you in the advertisement, well, are you experiencing this and this symptom?
Well, then you might have this disease, and hey, by the way, here's the drug for it.
That's not the way that this really should work.
And historically, it hasn't worked that way.
I mean, historically, traditionally, you go to the doctor, And you tell them your symptoms, and they diagnose you and tell you what the disease might be, what the problem might be, and if there's a need for a drug, they'll give it to you.
But now, people have the pharmaceutical industry selling them the disease, and then they go to their doctors with the disease already in mind, with the diagnosis that they got from an advertisement, or from WebMD, and they bring that to the doctor, and they say, this is the disease that I have, here are my symptoms, here's the drug, give it to me.
And quite often they find doctors who are lacking in scruples and have conflicts of interest financially and are willing to do it.
So all of this plays into it.
Also, we've got the border wide open.
That's where all the fentanyl is coming from.
And we've got a, you know, an even deeper problem in our culture of a loss of meaning and despair and people are turning to drugs.
All these things all together contribute to this problem.
All right.
One other thing I wanted to play for you before we get to reading the comments.
Netflix has a new show coming out, and this looks really innovative and unique.
We've never seen a show like this before, so I want to play this for you.
Check this out.
The last 48 hours have been insane.
I'm about to be put in a house with seven other people that I've never met before.
Of course I gotta bring my whole closet.
One of my goals is to step outside my comfort zone.
To explore who I am.
Oh, I was going the wrong way this whole time.
Gas station, stop.
One of the few places I actually go poop.
The countdown to Austin begins.
This experience is going to help me grow my wings.
I'm about to pull up to the house.
I'm super nervous.
Can we skip to the good part?
I'm excited!
Okay, well, so it's the real world.
The only reason I play that... Netflix has discovered The Real World, and can you imagine?
I wouldn't suggest watching it, but it would almost be worth watching just the first 20 minutes, and I'll tell you why.
Can you imagine how insufferable a show like The Real World is going to be now in the woke era?
And these reality shows were bad enough on their own.
Now add wokeism into it?
I guarantee, first 20 minutes, they're having a difficult conversation about race.
In the first 20 minutes, I guarantee it.
And also pronouns.
But at least they're getting outside of their comfort zones, you know, and growing their wings by living in a nice house in Austin with other attractive people who all have the same values and opinions as them.
So that's good.
I mean, they're really expanding the horizon.
So that's one advantage here.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Valveisbetter says, Matt, thoughts on forced monkey labor?
I'm totally for it.
I think it's great.
I think it's a great use for monkeys.
And I know that in some countries, I guess, they do.
They do use forced monkey labor.
I was reading an article recently about, I don't know which country, but I think they use monkeys for... Maybe we've talked about this on the show before.
This sounds like the kind of thing we would talk about.
They use monkeys for harvesting coconuts, because it's hard to get the coconuts all the way up in the trees, and it is also dangerous to send a person up there that could fall, so you just enslave the monkeys, and you have them go get the coconuts, and you don't have to pay them, right?
That's the great thing.
And I think it's fantastic.
I mean, I think there should be more of this.
Any time there's like a dangerous job like that, and there's not a lot of money to pay someone to do it, and you can use animal labor, then yeah, of course.
What's the problem with that?
Of course, in our silly mind, and we've been infected by Disney and all that kind of thing.
So, we have this hierarchy in our mind in the animal world.
And a lot of people, some people do, of course, but most people don't have a problem with the idea of barnyard animals who are enslaved.
But doing that to a monkey, oh, they're monkeys, they're cute.
I think it's fantastic.
I think it's a really good idea.
And you know something else?
It gives the monkey a purpose.
I think that this is the greatest purpose that you can give an animal is to live in service of a human being.
This is why I think some people don't like zoos.
I think zoos are great.
And you might look at the animal in the zoo and feel sorry for the animal in the zoo, but this is their purpose.
They're bringing joy and happiness to human beings.
Kids are learning about animals.
Isn't that a great purpose for an animal to serve?
To serve mankind?
What's wrong with that?
You can feel sorry for the elephant in the zoo, or they could be out in their natural environment and they'll die a lot sooner.
And you know, they're just kind of wandering around.
And, um, I think to, to, to be there for the purpose of human, to be used by human beings is a, is a great and wonderful purpose for animals.
And so we're doing a favor for them as well as ourselves.
All right.
PK877 says, Matt, if Britney Spears was really such a potential threat to herself and others, how could they allow her to continue to be a full-time pop star, releasing multiple albums and performing all over the world, making millions for the people put in charge of her finances?
Yeah, I don't, um, I don't really buy that argument.
You know, as I said, I don't know Britney Spears' psychological state.
I don't think you do either, but I do know that just because you can perform on stage, that doesn't say anything at all about your psychological fitness and your mental competence, one way or another.
And I don't see why it would.
Yeah, you can dance around on stage and sing a song.
Mentally incompetent people can do that, as we have seen through the years.
By the way, if they couldn't, then there wouldn't be any pop music.
There wouldn't be a pop industry.
Another comment says, 10 minutes ago, Matt Walsh.
There is no justice in our court system.
It's all pageantry and can't be trusted.
Flash forward 10 minutes, talking about Britney Spears, Matt Walsh.
The decision of the court should be taken at face value and have the unquestioning power to take over someone's life.
Okay, but that's not what I'm saying.
Okay, I'm asking where is the evidence of Britney Spears' sanity?
I, it's, that's a sincere question.
I'm not the one who started the free Britney Spears movement, but if you're
going to be involved in that movement, saying she needs to be freed from her
conservatorship, then I would assume you must have some evidence that the claim
that she's mentally incompetent and a danger to herself and others is untrue.
And if you don't have that evidence, then what the hell are you doing calling for- I mean, would you walk into a mental asylum and just point to some random person and say, I don't think they should be here?
I mean, maybe they shouldn't be there, but do you have any reason to think they shouldn't?
That's all I'm saying here.
So if I went up to you and I said, pretend I wasn't talking about Bernie Spears.
Pretend I was talking about someone named, I don't know, Bernice Spears.
And I said, hey, Bernice was put under a conservatorship because she's been judged mentally unfit and a danger to herself and others.
Would you automatically say, hey, no way!
Bernice shouldn't be under that conservatorship.
And if you did, I would say, well, why do you say that?
Do you know anything about the situation?
Of course, the difference here is that people think Because they grew up watching Britney Spears and they see her performing, and maybe they follow her on social media, they think they know her.
And it's an illusion.
That is totally an illusion that is created.
Hollywood, the music industry, the record industry, they create the illusion that you know these people, and that you're friends, and that they're a part of your life.
But they're not.
You don't know anything about them.
At all.
It's hard enough to know people that are around you physically.
I mean, your next door neighbor.
You probably don't even know them.
And that's someone that you actually talk to and can have conversations with.
Even there, it's very difficult to say that you know someone, but a pop star?
You don't know the first damn thing about her.
You know nothing.
Unless you do, in which case I'd love to see what information you have, but I've never seen it.
Let's see.
Meredith says, I think I expected to be a much better parent than I am, but turns out that being tired all the time prevents some of that.
One thing I have changed my mind on is always answering the question, why?
My son loves testing boundaries.
Also, we underestimate the corruption of a grandparent who wants to spoil.
Yeah, this is one thing, again, non-parents, you'll hear that, I hear this criticism from people, and I always know they're non-parents when they say this, but they say that, because I said so, you should never answer a child with because I said so, that's a bad response, you know, it's because we should take the kids seriously and always answer their questions, and no matter how many questions they ask, we should always be ready to sit there and have a conversation, well, I'll talk to you about this.
Um, but no, I think, I think in fact, because I said so is not only an appropriate response, but it's a necessary response.
And it's, and it's, it's, um, children need to hear that.
There's an important lesson in the, because I said so, meaning that I am the parent and you should respect me and listen to me.
Now, that doesn't mean that you should unquestioningly listen to everyone who claims to be an authority figure forever, but as a child, you need to have respect for your elders, and there are going to be things they tell you that you're not going to understand, but you should still listen because they know more than you do.
And so, we as the adults, we don't have to convince you to do as you're told.
Okay, this is not a situation where we have to wait around for you to understand it, and then you'll listen.
No, you need to do it because you're told.
That's a really important lesson for kids.
My test here, my litmus test, is if the why question is asked sincerely, then I'll do my best to answer it.
But oftentimes with kids, it's a form of defiance.
You say, go clean your room, and they go, why?
Why?
Well, that's not a serious inquiry.
That's their way of saying, I don't want to do it.
Buzz off, old man.
And that's when you drop the, because I said so.
I'm not going to give you a whole dissertation on why it's better to have the room clean and blah, blah, blah.
I'm the dad.
I told you to do it.
Now do it.
You have another thing that we learn as we become parents.
I've got to tell you again about GetUpsideApp.
I know many of my listeners have taken advantage of this and gone out and got the app, but if you haven't, what are you waiting for?
All you've got to do is go on your phone right now and go to Google Play or the App Store or wherever and get the GetUpsideApp because it's all upside.
You're going to make $0.25 for every gallon of gas every time you fill up.
Just download the free GetUpside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
Use promo code WALSH to get a bonus $0.25 per gallon on your first fill-up.
That's up to $0.50 cash back.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore.
Get cash back using the GetUpside app.
Just download the app for free.
It is, again, free.
And use promo code WALSH to get up to $0.50 a gallon cash back on your first tank.
Some people who drive a lot are making as much as $200 or $300 or more a month in cash back.
And there's no catch.
It really is as simple as that.
The cash gets added right to your account.
And how do you get the cash out?
Well, they send it to your bank account.
They could give it to you through PayPal.
They could give you an e-gift card for Amazon and other brands.
It really is that easy.
And with all the money that we're spending on gas prices, groceries and everything else, if you've got an opportunity to save some money and make money back, then you can't afford to not do it.
So just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
That's code WALSH.
I can't believe I have to tell you this again, but if you're listening to my show and you still haven't subscribed to my newsletter, you're making a huge mistake because not only are you Frankly, hurting my feelings.
I don't want to shed any white male tears.
I'm not going to do that, but it does hurt my feelings.
But also, you are depriving yourself of the opportunity to win something, probably the most special gift that you'll have all year, including the upcoming Christmas season.
You don't even need Christmas if you win this gift, because your subscription to the newsletter will automatically enter you into the running to claim the banjo.
Which sits behind me in the studio, guarded faithfully by our friendly alien in the back of the studio.
This is a banjo that I have spent many, many hours playing, and you can own it yourself.
And then that banjo will then be... Not that any banjo can really be replaced, but my old banjo will then take its rightful place.
This is sort of a passing of the banjo baton.
And if you want to be a part of this sacred process, then head to dailywire.com slash banjo to subscribe to my newsletter, and you'll get the newsletter once a week, and you'll also be entered to win the banjo, so do that right now.
Dailywire.com slash banjo.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we're going to cancel Dr. Jorge Caballero.
Now, I will confess that I struggled a little bit with this cancellation.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to spend a whole cancellation on Dr. Jorge, given that his offense is so commonplace and has been covered so many times on this show that it feels a little redundant, but as should be clear by now, the determining factor for who makes it on the daily cancellation is not the importance of the issue or even the entertainment value.
It's just simply who has most recently annoyed me.
And given that, I saw this tweet from Dr. Jorge this morning, and he has made the cut.
And there are a couple things here that really push him over the top, I think, and we'll get into that.
So, Dr. Jorge is a physician with a relatively large following on social media whose bio says, come for the facts, stay for the snark, and of course includes a hashtag, Black Lives Matter.
The real M. Night Shyamalan sort of twist ending here is that he doesn't have his pronouns listed in his bio.
I'm sure I'll get around to that.
I hope he does actually get around to it because we are rapidly approaching a point where anybody who doesn't list their pronouns is a transphobe by default.
We might already be there, in fact.
So, in any case, a couple days ago, Dr. Jorge tweeted this.
He said, I would like to go into a grocery store with my three-year-old and not have to feel like I'm risking his life or her life.
Is that too much to ask?
I'd like to go to a grocery store with my three-year-old and not have to feel like I'm risking her life.
Is that too much to ask?
But wait, there's more.
Many of the comments responding to the good doctor's paranoid ramblings were all in agreement, commiserating with him.
A quick sample, Tracy says, I shudder when I see two parents taking their unmasked less-than-five-year-olds into a store.
What are they thinking?
And Brooke says, two of my three kids have not been in a store or restaurant in nearly two years.
Honestly, I feel like my mental health will never recover from finding out how awful the majority of Americans are about all of this.
Well, I agree with you there, actually.
I think we're on the same page.
Marta says, so it would seem for now, so it would seem for now, my five-year-old does not remember the inside of places.
Jennifer says, I hear you.
Was in a Target today in Watertown, Massachusetts.
Barely any masks.
I was livid.
Could feel my blood boiling.
However, when I shop in grocery stores in Newton, Massachusetts, almost everyone is masked.
It's so, so hard.
Another comment says, we're in full gear when we go into public.
It's just the way we do it.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to?
And a guy named Eric says, our 19-month-old has never even been in a store.
I fear he'll be too big to sit in the front of the cart by the time it's safe for him to go grocery shopping with me.
And Dr. Jorge responded to that one in a follow-up tweet, writing, I feel this in my soul.
Kids grow up so fast.
It feels like the list of things that I'll never get to experience with my daughter grows longer by the day.
Now, as I said, we have seen this sort of thing many times already.
But here's what sent it over the edge for me.
Dr. Jorge's username, his Twitter handle, is this.
I'm not making this up.
It is data-drivenmd.
Yes, he is the data-driven MD.
He is driven by the data, which is why he feels that he'd be risking his daughter's life by potentially exposing her to a virus that has a 99.999% survival rate for kids her age.
And that actually overstates the risk to her.
It's not that when she goes to a grocery store that there's a .001% chance that she'll die.
0.001% chance that she'll die.
No, 0.001% is the risk of death if she contracts the virus.
But what are the chances that she'll contract it?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Children her age have a very small chance of even contracting the virus in the first place.
Added to the fact that most of the adults that she encounters are vaccinated, added to the fact that at a grocery store she's not having sustained close quarters contact with anybody, added to the very minuscule lethality of the virus for her age group, and for most every age group, by the way, run the calculations with all of those percentages taken into account, And her risk of COVID death from going to the grocery store is much, much, much, much smaller than 0.001%.
I wager that it's something like, you know, 0.0000001%.
Though even that is probably a gross overestimation.
And this risk, a risk so vanishingly tiny as to be effectively non-existent, has the data-driven MD paralyzed with fear.
The data has driven him insane, it would seem.
Except it's not the actual data that has done that to him.
If this data, these numbers, could incapacitate him to that extent, then certainly he would never drive a car.
The car trip to the grocery store is vastly more dangerous for both himself and his daughter than the grocery store itself.
He would never ride an elevator or an airplane or cross a bridge.
He'd never go inside any building for fear of roofs caving in and floors collapsing.
He'd also never go outside for fear of falling trees, lightning strikes.
If a .00 et cetera, more zeros, 1% chance of death is too much to bear, then life itself is too much to bear.
These kinds of risks are built into literally everything you do everywhere, all the time, no matter what.
Sometimes the risks are much larger.
I wonder if Dr. Jorge has ever been on a roller coaster.
Roller coasters are pretty safe, but your chance of injury or death is definitely greater than .001%.
And meanwhile, it's a totally unnecessary, frivolous activity that you're paying money to participate in.
Has Dr. Jorge ever been to the beach?
Again, pretty safe, but there are sharks and riptides and accidental drownings.
And you could avoid the beach your entire life and still live a relatively full and normal existence.
Yet I bet he goes to the beach.
Doesn't think about it.
Has Dr. Jorge ever eaten at a restaurant?
I mean, before COVID.
Food poisoning, allergic reactions, choking.
Has he ever gone for a hike in the woods?
Bear attacks, falling limbs, you could get lost, you could trip and break your ankle.
You could get assaulted by a crazy drifter or by Bigfoot.
Did you know that?
Did you know that your chance of getting killed by Bigfoot in the woods is not 0%?
Nobody can say that it's 0%.
If you're worried about Bigfoot and you come to me and say, I'm going to the woods, I'm worried that Bigfoot might attack me.
Do you think that that could happen?
I would have to say, yeah, it could happen.
I mean, it could, it probably won't.
It's a really small chance, but it's not impossible.
And given that Dr. Jorge is worried about 0.000001% risks, he's now in the realm of having to worry about Bigfoot.
Actually, I don't want to scare him, but even if you stay out of the woods, Your chance of getting beaten to death by Bigfoot is still not 0%.
I mean, technically speaking, it's in the realm of possibility that Bigfoot could break into your home right now, as you sit, pummel you senseless, kill your dog, set your house on fire.
This could happen.
The chance of that occurring is not zero.
Have you taken any precautions?
What is your Bigfoot home invasion contingency plan?
You don't have one?
What are you, anti-science?
See, these are all data points that the data-driven MD has not taken into account, it would seem.
And that's because he isn't driven by data so much as by feelings.
And he even says so.
Remember, he says, I would like to go to a grocery store with my three-year-old and not have to feel like I'm risking her life.
Is that too much to ask?
Which brings us finally to our answer.
Yes, Doc.
It's too much to ask.
It is too much to ask that you be able to do something without feeling a certain way about it.
It's too much to ask us, anyway.
It's too much to ask the world.
Because we can't do anything about your irrational feelings.
We can't control that.
It's too much to ask of us.
It's not fair to us.
It's not fair that we should have to do anything at all, that we should have to in any way whatsoever account for, adjust ourselves for, work around your totally unreasonable and paranoid feelings.
Your feelings are your problem.
They're also your child's problem, sadly.
And that's the real tragedy here.
I frankly don't care if you want to huddle yourself inside for the rest of your life.
That might work out pretty well for the rest of society, honestly.
But I do care that you're doing this to your child.
Who was cursed with an insane, psychologically abusive father through no fault of her own.
And that's why I really hope you do something about those feelings.
You do something.
Not us.
You.
Until then, you are cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
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, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Production manager Pavel Vodovsky.
The show is edited by Ali Hinkle.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, OSHA announces they will be putting their unconstitutional vax mandate on hold.
As cases spike in heavily vaccinated states, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial hits another speed bump, and Democrats vote to censure a Republican congressman for an anime cartoon.
