Ep. 848 - Bestselling Children’s Author Banned From College Campus
Today on the best selling children’s author Matt Walsh Show, leftists at St Louis University have gone to extreme lengths to get my talk tonight canceled. I’ll still be there tonight, but first we’ll talk about what we’ve learned from this whole absurd ordeal. Also, Chris Cuomo is suspended by CNN, yet Zoom sex fiend Jeffrey Toobin remains employed. How do they choose who gets free passes over there? And just a day after Jack Dorsey resigned as CEO, Twitter has already made a major move to censor free speech on the platform. Plus, the Jussie Smollett trial begins as new revelations emerge about just how far he went with his scam. And a CNBC host calls for the military to administer forced vaccinations.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Get my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1j6
Sign The Petition To Keep Matt Walsh on Saint Louis University Campus: https://bit.ly/3Dzeu1f
DW members get special product discounts up to 20% off PLUS access to exclusive Daily Wire merch. Grab your Daily Wire merch here: https://utm.io/udZpp
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Andrew Klavan's latest novel When Christmas Comes is now available on Amazon. Order in time for Christmas: https://utm.io/udW6u
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 best-selling children's author Matt Walsh show, leftists at St.
Louis University have gone to extreme lengths to get my talk tonight cancelled.
I'll still be there tonight, of course, but first we'll talk about what we've learned from this whole absurd ordeal.
Also, Chris Cuomo is suspended from CNN, yet Zoom sex fiend Jeffrey Toobin remains employed, so How do they choose who gets free passes over there and who doesn't?
We'll talk about that.
And just a day after Jack Dorsey resigned as CEO of Twitter, they've already made a major move to suppress free speech on the platform.
Plus, the Jussie Smollett trial begins as new revelations emerge about just how far he went in his race scam.
And a CNBC host calls for the military to administer forced vaccinations.
I'll talk about all of that and much more today as a best-selling children's author on The Matt Wall Show.
Well, it's the holiday season and that's a time for family and for memories.
And that's why Legacy Box.
This is a great time.
If you haven't used Legacy Box yet, or even if you have, this is a great time to think about Legacy Box.
Make sure to visit LegacyBox.com and shop their Cyber Week sale to take an unreal 65% off.
Okay, 65%.
I don't think you're gonna find a deal like that ever again.
You gotta take advantage of this.
Legacy Box is the simple and safe way to preserve your irreplaceable family memories.
Their service couldn't be easier.
Send in your Legacy Box filled with old home movies and photos, and they will get to work creating a digital collection stored on a thumb drive, DVD, or the cloud.
In fact, come to think of it, I have someone in my life who still uses a VCR who maybe could use Legacy Box.
It makes a great gift as well.
Plus, with their Cyber Week sale, you can have everything preserved at a fraction of the price.
Why use Legacy Box?
Well, because everything is professionally digitized.
Each item is hand digitized by a team of over 200 trained technicians right here in the USA.
Their exclusive bar-coded online tracking system provides up to 12 emailed updates along the way.
So you got to go to Legacybox.
Legacybox Cyber Week sale is here and they're giving our listeners the best deal of the year.
Visit Legacybox.com slash Walsh for an incredible 65% off any size Legacybox.
That's Legacybox.com slash Walsh for 65% off.
Don't wait.
This deal will not last.
Legacybox.com slash Walsh.
So I must first of all applaud you for listening to the show today, choosing to expose yourself to me and my words and opinions and ideas.
Opinions are, you know, dangerous things, you know, they're very dangerous.
And I have lots of opinions, as you probably do too, which makes me a very dangerous man.
And that's why my talk tonight at St.
Louis University has become such a complicated, controversial, hotly debated affair.
I was invited on campus, a Catholic campus, I have to remind you again, to speak words and convey ideas, all of which are words and ideas fully in line with Catholic teaching, by the way.
Everything should have followed rather easily and simply from there, you might think.
Or you would think that if you're an especially naive sort of person.
That's not how it's gone.
So before we get to the latest in this saga, let's back up and just review briefly.
I was requested to come to SLU and give a speech on December 1st, which is today, and the event was approved by the administration, but then the leftist groups on campus decided that this Cannot be allowed to happen, right?
My views, especially the views that babies are people and that women aren't men, those two views especially, are so out of line, so outrageous, so toxic, they said, that if they are allowed to be uttered on or near the campus, people might literally die.
So they started a petition, you probably remember, to have my talk cancelled.
That petition read in part, let's just review this again, Conservative speakers have visited our campus previously without issue.
Political discourse is valuable and arguably necessary.
Arguably necessary to our college education.
But Matt Walsh is not simply a conservative speaker.
He's a threat to women, the LGBTQI plus community, and racial minorities on campus.
His Twitter is one example of his dangerous persona.
As you can read from his social media, Matt Walsh holds extremely controversial and harmful opinions.
For example, he calls feminism rotten at the core and one of the worst things to ever happen to Western civilization.
He responds to his dissenters by calling them stupid and morally deranged.
He says gender theory is by far the biggest threat in our schools.
These extreme statements allow no room for healthy conversation.
Instead, they promote dangerous stereotypes.
Okay.
So they want healthy conversation, and their way to have a healthy conversation is to prevent one side of that conversation from saying anything.
Dangerous, harmful, a threat.
And this would be the theme.
The other theme would be total abject cowardice on the part of the leadership at the school, which has, through every step of the process, reviewed all of its options and steadfastly, consistently chosen the wimpiest, most pathetic, most chicken s*** path possible.
And that's why it's responded to the petition, originally it responded, not by shutting down the talk directly, But by imposing a number of onerous and pointless and out-of-nowhere COVID restrictions, which would have turned the event into an absurd display while preventing many ticketed audience members from actually attending, keep in mind that, again, the event was approved
And then it was only after the fact and after the petition that they came back around and said, Oh, by the way, we just remembered about COVID.
And so we decided that this and that restriction have to be put in place.
For example, they told me that I would have to wear a mask while speaking.
To the audience, and we'd have to check vaccine cards, which wasn't going to happen, to get people in, and we'd have to limit attendance, among other requirements that they invented just for my event.
But after I started my own petition, my own competing petition to keep my talk on campus and garnered 20,000 signatures in a day, a new solution arose.
The church on campus volunteered, volunteered, to host the talk.
And they would host it, they said, without any of the arbitrary restrictions that were in place if I went somewhere else.
So it seemed like everything had worked out.
That is, until yesterday.
On Tuesday afternoon, 300 faculty and staff published a quote, statement of solidarity, demanding that my talk be cancelled.
So here's a sample of this lengthy missive.
And of course, statement of solidarity.
No, this is not a statement of solidarity with the Catholic speaker who's trying to speak on the Catholic campus.
No, it's solidarity with the people who don't want me to show up.
So here's what they say, in part.
Matt Walsh is known for making degrading statements about LGBTQ plus identities, including pathologizing non-cisgendered individuals on multiple occasions.
He also has made denigrative remarks that negatively stereotype other marginalized groups, such as on the basis of race.
This rhetoric is dangerous, yet part of a pervasive cultural script that condones bigotry to be upheld by the smokescreen of free speech.
Free speech is a smokescreen, according to the 300 faculty and staff on this campus.
Now, this already sounds so on-the-nose, you know, so much like a parody of woke snowflake-ism, that I couldn't blame you for thinking that I made that up.
But I didn't, I assure you.
This is very much real, and it gets worse.
They continue.
In his upcoming talk at SLU, Matt Walsh plans on discussing the biological ability to carry a pregnancy in order to ostracize transgender women.
Let me read that again.
In his upcoming talk at SLU, Matt Walsh plans on discussing the biological ability to carry a pregnancy in order to ostracize transgender women.
So if you talk about biological science on campus, that is a conspiracy to ostracize transgender people.
That's what they're saying.
Young transgender people face physical violence and discrimination.
They have a disproportionately higher rate of attempted suicide compared to cisgender folks.
And the life expectancy of black transgender women is between 35 and 37 years due to compounded layers of trauma.
Bringing a speaker on campus that targets this already vulnerable demographic is insensitive considering we have already lost two SLU students to suicide since the start of the semester.
Additionally, associating childbirth with womanhood is also dangerous for cisgender women who are unable to carry children, have had one or more miscarriages or stillbirths, or do not want to procreate.
Childbirth should not determine a person's gender identity, nor should it delegitimize their womanhood.
Doing so can be very triggering and lead to mental distress.
Again, this sounds made up.
It's not.
Now, much here warrants comment, I think, but let's focus for just a moment on the mention of suicide on campus.
This is where you see how these people are not merely oversensitive.
In fact, it was always a mistake to refer to this kind of stuff on college campuses as sensitive, being sensitive.
That's the last thing they are.
These people are sociopaths.
Sensitive?
I mean, being overly sensitive is a problem because you're overly sensitive, but of all the flaws for a person to have, it's not the worst one.
I mean, if you're truly, like, a sensitive person, truly sensitive person, then that means that you're, you know, maybe overly empathetic, right?
And you feel for other people, and so that, you know, that's the kind of thing that you have to have in moderation, and for some people, they have immoderate amounts of that, but that's not the worst thing in the world.
That's not the case here.
This is not an overabundance of empathy.
It's the opposite.
And you see it by them using suicide.
These are evil, depraved people.
Because two students really did kill themselves on SLU campus.
And they, as the administration and the staff, they think nothing of exploiting those deaths to score points against me.
Even though I, of course, had nothing to do With those suicides, which I shouldn't even have to say.
Those tragedies were in no way at all remotely connected to my talk, or me, in any way.
There's also no indication as far as I'm aware that these were trans people, as the letter seems to imply.
So this is a gratuitous and shameless effort to wield suicides as a cudgel against me.
It's soulless and disgusting.
I would say they should feel ashamed, but I doubt they possess the capacity to feel shame anyway.
So then it goes on for a long time, and then finally the letter towards the end says, We want to be clear.
Matt Walsh's viewpoints, rhetoric, and tactics do not represent the perspective of the undersigned SLU faculty and staff.
We denounce any narratives that perpetuate insularity or impugn the dignity of the individual, including their vibrant and intersectional identities.
So there it is.
If you were worried that these people might have written a whole three paragraphs without using the phrase intersectional identities, fear not.
You know, if you're playing the drinking game, you can take a drink now.
They fit that in at the very end.
And this last bit of pressure from the faculty and staff apparently was too much for Father Dan White, who's the pastor of the church that had offered to host the event, that had invited me to speak at their church.
Yesterday, he sent this email to the event organizers, which was then forwarded to me.
Here's his email from Father Dan White at SLU.
I need to meet with you today to discuss the cancellation of our ballroom being used as the venue for Matt Walsh's lecture.
I apologize for making this last minute, but over the past two days I have had the opportunity to view carefully his Facebook page and YouTube page.
His content regarding immigration, communities of color, Muslims, and other important topics is not in keeping with who we are as a parish and as part of the Catholic Church.
It is my fault for not doing my due diligence in regards to his background before we booked.
I am sorry for that and for having to make this decision at this late hour.
Sure you are, Father.
You coward.
Now, I would call him a coward, and he is a coward, but I want to distract from the fact that he is also a God-forsaken liar.
It's not true that he just reviewed my background over the last few days.
I think we can really reasonably assume that he knew who I was and where I was coming from when he originally agreed to have me come talk.
He didn't make any new revelations about me or uncover any deep, dark secrets.
He simply caved to the mob.
And he also lies and defames me when he says that my comments about communities of color and Muslims, etc., are not in keeping with the Catholic Church.
What?
I mean, what?
Muslims?
When's the last time I even talked about Muslims?
Is it when I talked about Ilhan Omar?
Is that?
Criticizing Ilhan Omar, I can only assume, that's the only time I can remember, like in the last year, saying anything about Muslims, and it was Ilhan Omar specifically, not Muslims.
In fact, the point of my comment was that criticizing Ilhan Omar is not a criticism of Muslims, because she is not a representative of the entire religion, she is herself.
And she herself is a vile, depraved person.
So what precisely have I said on any of those topics that falls out of line with the Catholic faith?
He can't give an example because it doesn't exist.
It just doesn't exist.
What have I even said on those topics that's wrong, morally or factually?
Again, he can't give an example.
But he thinks nothing of throwing me to the wolves, lying, you know, and everything, in order to cater to the emotional demands of a demented, fearful, bullying mom.
Now, at the end of all this, I'm still going to give the talk.
You know, they put out a petition, they signed a statement, they kicked me out of two venues, put a whole bunch of red tape and all kinds of other things in our way, but I'm still gonna be there.
We secured a third venue now, and so I'll be there tonight.
But still, words simply cannot express how pitiful all of this has been.
And also quite terrifying.
Because, you know, we used to look at all of this kind of thing, The way that college students are coddled and protected from reality and wrapped in swaddling clothes and rocked to sleep and shielded from any ideas or opinions that might threaten to shake them out of their stupor.
And we used to look at all that.
We used to say, ah, well, you know, the real world will straighten them out.
They're in for a wake-up call soon enough.
But the wake-up call has never really come, I'm afraid to say.
Instead, it was us who needed the wake-up call.
Because they didn't have to adjust to the real world.
Instead, the world adjusted to them.
I think we forgot that.
This is like an entire generation of people who are coming into society, and they're going to be running things soon enough.
And so they were able to reshape society in their image, as each successive generation is able to do.
We now live in a society that runs itself according to these same rules that you find on college campuses.
The world didn't make them sane.
Rather, they made the world crazy.
Or helped.
It was a process, in fairness, that was already underway.
And that's all the more reason why we can't bend to this madness.
You know, they call me dangerous.
Anybody else, if you have opinions they don't like, then you're dangerous.
We're all dangerous.
Well, I embrace that.
In fact, I don't deny it.
I don't think any of us should.
Yeah, sure, I'm dangerous.
We should be dangerous.
We should be a danger.
We should be a threat to this obviously quite fragile worldview that they have constructed.
It's very fragile.
It cannot withstand any criticism.
Forget about criticism.
It can't even withstand discussion.
So yeah, we should be dangerous to that.
And that's why I'll be there tonight.
Come hell or high water.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Now a quick word from American financing.
You know, the home you're living in right now can cost you less than it currently does, okay?
And we could all, I think it's something we could all use.
Lower monthly bills, save money wherever you can.
Well, you could save a lot of money on your home.
You could lower your payment and save thousands long-term.
You just have to refinance to one of these incredibly low mortgage rates.
And you should do it now before they're gone.
These rates are expected to rise in the new year.
You can't afford to miss out.
It takes just a 10-minute call to American Financing, America's home for home loans.
You'll work with a salary-based mortgage consultant, someone who will guide you through custom loan options that can save you up to $1,000 a month.
That's right.
$1,000 a month you could be saving.
It's $1,000 a month that you're spending right now that you don't have to be spending.
And you don't have to reset your loan to get those kinds of savings.
You can choose any term, 10 years and over, because you shouldn't pay interest for years you don't need.
So this, again, is all about saving money and it can be done very, very easily and quickly with just a 10-minute phone call.
Pre-qualify for free at 866-569-4711.
866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
That's 866-569-4711.
And you know the worst thing, by the way, about all this SLU stuff is that there is
that really let's not lose sight of the fact that they're trying to get a best-selling
children's author banned from campus.
What kind of world are we living in when a best-selling children's author can't speak on a college campus?
That's my question.
And I am, and I don't know if you heard, I am, in fact, a best-selling children's author.
My book, Johnny the Walrus, which is on sale right now at johnnythewalrus.com.
It did make it, with your help, I have to thank you because we did get all the way to the number three on Amazon.
We got into the top five, into the top three, actually, among all books on Amazon.
My book about Johnny the Trans Walrus.
Easily the best-selling children's book and one of the best-selling books in the entire world right now on Amazon.
And it sold so well that we actually ran out.
We sold out of our entire first run, our first stock of books.
We sold out in less than a day.
Which is why, if you go to Amazon right now, or at least The last I checked this morning, you go to Amazon, it'll say, you know, unavailable.
That's not because Amazon kicked us off.
That still might happen.
I think it probably will.
But no, that's because we actually literally ran out of books.
But the good news is that you can go to johnnythewalrus.com and you can reserve a copy and then that will be shipped out to you.
And lots of people are doing that.
So again, go to johnnythewalrus.com and we're getting new shipment in and soon you'll be able to get on Amazon again until they do ban it.
And we'll see.
Now, The strategy here was...
Normally, you know, this would be the kind of book that you would think Amazon would ban.
But if you can get it all the way to the top, and this just shows how inconsistent and arbitrary the rules are, which of course is no revelation, we know that.
But if we can get it all the way to the top and make it very visible, then it's probably less likely that they'll ban it as much as they want to, because then everybody will notice when they do it and it becomes a big story and it's embarrassing for them.
And then also, it puts them in a position If they were to ban it, where Amazon would have to explain why they ban this book.
And the problem is, for them, is that the book doesn't actually say anything about transgender specifically.
So if they ban a book about a kid pretending to be a walrus and said, well, it's anti-trans, now they're the ones drawing a connection between walruses and trans people, not me.
And so that's the bind it puts them in.
This was all, if this was all part of the plan.
Okay.
And so far it's working well.
I don't want to spike the football too soon, but we were able to stay on long enough, which was only a day, to sell out.
And that's why, I mean, you look at the books they have banned.
There was Ryan T. Anderson's book, When Harry Became Sally, which is an excellent book, but it's very academic.
It's not at all inflammatory in the least bit.
But they banned that because, although it's a very successful book, it wasn't in the top ten, it had been out for a while, which is another thing that made it so stupid that they banned it.
Like, it had been out for a while, it had already done the promotion run on it, and it's just kind of like, all books do after you promote it and everything, it's just kind of like, it's sitting there somewhere on Amazon, and then they banned it.
Hoping that nobody would notice.
So that's what they tried to sort of pick off the books that they think won't be noticed as much when they do ban it.
So again, johnnythewalrus.com and you can reserve your copy today.
This is from CNN.com.
It says a 15-year-old boy is in custody after three students died and eight were injured in a shooting Tuesday afternoon at a high school in Oxford, Michigan.
The Oxford High School students killed were Tate Meyer, Hannah St.
Julian, Madison Baldwin, according to Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.
Eight others were shot.
Three are in critical condition with gunshot wounds, including a 14-year-old girl who was on a ventilator after having surgery.
The story, of course, not a lot has been released.
We haven't been told a lot about the shooter in the case, except that he's a 15-year-old boy.
That's, I think, all we really know right now.
He was captured alive, which is somewhat rare for these school shootings, and now he's in custody, and apparently, according to reports, his parents have gotten him a lawyer, and they've said that he's not talking to anybody.
Now, of course, we will hear after a case like this, we're already hearing about guns, you know, how this is all the fault of guns and so on.
But Waukesha already demonstrated that taking guns away isn't going to stop this kind of thing.
Even if we're not talking about Waukesha because the media is pretending it didn't happen, it did happen, and it's a very good demonstration Of the terrible fact that when someone gets it into their head that they want to kill a bunch of people, there is, as we talked about yesterday, there's really no tool that you can take away from them preemptively that will stop them from at least attempting to carry it out.
Also, one other thing, one other of the very few details we have about the shooter is that apparently he stole his dad's gun.
Which we would assume was purchased legally.
So his dad legally had a gun and then the kid took it and committed this terrible crime.
So what that means is that it was already illegal for him to possess the gun.
And when he went into the school and did what he did, everything about what he was doing, having the gun in the first place as a 15 year old, bringing it into a school, and then obviously shooting innocent people, all of that, is illegal.
And there are many laws against all of that.
And then the question becomes, is there an additional law that we could have passed that would have prevented that?
I don't think that there's an additional gun law we could have passed.
There may have been other policies, like more security for the schools.
That might have been helpful.
But taking the guns away, I don't think would.
What we should be talking about As always, is what drives a person to do this, and for school shooters in particular, it seems often, and I don't know about this case because we have so few details, but very often with school shooters in particular, it seems that they are not driven by rage or even hate necessarily, but even worse, by indifference to human life.
You know, total indifference.
And that's why so often in these cases you hear from the survivors and they tell you the ones that actually saw the shooter and you have these haunting images of these shooters who so often we're told are sort of casual and almost bored looking as they go around killing people.
It's kind of rare with these mass shootings that we're told that the shooter was enraged, you know, spill-flecked, kind of screaming and all that kind of thing.
Normally, that's not the image that we're given.
We're given someone just kind of casually walking around shooting people, totally empty inside, total indifference to human life.
And I believe that that is an increasing problem in our society.
School shootings are still, fortunately, Relatively rare, but there are a lot of very empty, totally indifferent people walking around.
And whether there's guns or not, horrible things happen when you have a society full of those kinds of people.
All right, next, this is from the New York Times.
It says, star CNN anchor Chris Cuomo was suspended indefinitely by the network on Tuesday after new details emerged about his efforts to assist his brother Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, as he faced a cascade of sexual harassment accusations that led to the governor's resignation.
Chris Cuomo had previously apologized for advising Andrew Cuomo's senior political aides, but thousands of pages of evidence released on Monday by the New York Attorney General Letitia James reveal that the anchor's role had been more intimate and involved than previously known.
CNN said in a statement on Tuesday, The documents, which we were not privy to before their public release, raised serious questions.
When Chris admitted to us that he had offered advice to his brother's staff, he broke our rules and we acknowledged that publicly, but we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second.
However, these documents point to a greater level of involvement in his brother's efforts than we previously knew.
As a result, we have suspended Chris indefinitely pending further evaluation.
Okay.
Well, of course, CNN deserves no credit for this whatsoever.
They were back into a corner and did this because they had to.
Also, they're saying they suspended him upon further investigation.
That's also what they said about Jeffrey Toobin after he masturbated on a Zoom call.
And then, famously, he was brought back into the fold.
So, we'll see if a similar thing happens here.
If it doesn't, that would be very interesting.
Trying to sort through, at a place like CNN, what exactly gets you canned and what doesn't.
If Chris Cuomo is never invited back, and his suspension becomes permanent, yet Jeffrey Toobin is still there, then that raises a lot of questions.
But one thing we know for sure, as I have to unfortunately remind you, is that Chris Cuomo will be replaced on air, whether permanently or not.
And I suspect it will be permanent.
And the reason I think it's permanent is because they're going to find, just like they did in New York with his brother, get rid of Andrew Cuomo, who's bad enough, bring in Kathy Hochul, she's even worse, crazier, more far left, more ideological.
Or at least more willing to be a puppet for the far left in her state.
And they're going to do something like that now with Chris Cuomo's slot on CNN.
I mean, the good news is that nobody watches it.
Nobody watched Chris Cuomo to begin with.
Nobody will watch his replacement, but even so, they're going to find someone, I guarantee you, far more obnoxious It seems hard to believe, but they will.
Someone far more obnoxious and certainly far more farther to the left than Chris Cuomo was.
My prediction is they're going to get their own kind of Joy Reid type person.
Maybe Joy Reid herself.
Who knows?
But it'll be somebody like that that they have to replace Chris Cuomo.
Because as we know, the rule here is that these institutions, as we've reviewed, they only ever go to the left.
They never go to the right.
They are on a sort of conveyor belt that is moving perpetually to the left and they never get rid of anybody.
They never turn on their own unless there's someone farther to the left waiting in the wings.
That's the only time they'll do it.
All right, what else we got here?
So let me I'm trying to pull this up Twitter.
Speaking of going further to the left, we know Jack Dorsey stepped down from his position as CEO of Twitter.
And that was another occasion where I had to be the cynical guy and the person focusing on the dark cloud within the silver lining and say that, you know, Jack Dorsey was probably not great for free speech and all that kind of stuff, but it's going to get worse with him gone.
And so within a day, Here's the announcement from Twitter Safety.
They published this yesterday on Twitter.
It says, sharing images is an important part of folks' experience on Twitter.
People should have a choice in determining whether or not a photo is shared publicly.
To that end, we are expanding the scope of our private information policy.
Beginning today, we will not allow the sharing of private media, such as images or videos of private individuals, without their consent.
Publishing people's private info is also prohibited under the policy, as is threatening or incentivizing others to do so.
What does this mean?
Well, what it means is Project Veritas is gone.
This is very specifically targeted at Project Veritas.
They don't say that, but they might as well.
And also, it's not a coincidence that this is happening, number one, right after Jack Dorsey leaves, but number two, right after the Rittenhouse trial, which did not go the way that Twitter obviously wanted.
And the Rittenhouse trial was a story about independent media.
Really, the heroes of that story were the independent journalists who caught all this on film.
If those cameras were not there, Rittenhouse's defense attorney said this on Fox after the trial, that Kyle is very, very grateful that the cameras were there.
And that's one of the ways that you know someone's innocent most of the time, is if something happens and they're happy that it was caught on camera, it's a pretty good indication that they're innocent.
If that was not caught on camera, if those independent journalists with The Daily Caller and other outlets had not been there, then Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for the rest of his life.
Because all we would have is the corporate media version of events.
We would have a he-said-he-said, and as far as that goes, Rittenhouse was outnumbered by Antifa and BLM.
They were the primary ones there.
So we'd have their story, and we would have the corporate media story.
Really, it would be the BLM story as filtered through, as told by the corporate media, and we would have nothing else, and then Rittenhouse is done.
So, Twitter doesn't want that anymore and now they've put this policy in place which means no more of that.
No more independent journalists capturing inconvenient things on camera.
No more Project Veritas capturing a lot of very inconvenient things.
Inconvenient for the far-left narrative on camera.
But you read the policy and you think, well, hold on a second.
Wouldn't this also apply to a lot of the police videos that we've seen?
What about George Floyd?
Derek Chauvin didn't, as far as I know, didn't consent for those videos to be out there.
So, the next time there's a high-profile police shooting, or somebody dies in police custody and it's caught on camera, can the police say, hey, I didn't consent to this?
Well, no, of course not.
Because the rules are vague.
And the ambiguity is the point.
So what they're doing, what Twitter does, is they set the rules up and then, you know, they put it in the fine print that it, of course, will be up to them to decide who has violated these rules and how we define all of these things.
Even something like privacy.
Is this a private individual?
Is this a private thing that's happening?
How do we define that?
Well, it'll be up to them.
And that's the whole point.
So it puts them in a position where they can get rid of Project Veritas and they can kick the independent journalists off the payroll.
I mean, they're not on the payroll.
Corporate media is more on the payroll.
They could kick the independent journalists off the platform, but then they can use their judgment and their discernment to decide when those rules do not apply.
And I think we can guess when that's going to happen.
Alright next, the Jussie Smollett trial is beginning.
This is from Fox.
It says Jussie Smollett because we're getting more revelations about What exactly Smollett did and what went into this scam?
So here's the latest.
Jussie Smollett was allegedly seen on video conducting a dry run of his attack the day before it took place, further lending credence to the prosecution's claim that he orchestrated the whole thing.
During opening arguments on Monday, Special Prosecutor Dan Webb told the jury that Smollett was upset that a threatening hate letter that was sent to the studio behind Empire wasn't taken seriously enough, And by the way, that hate letter was almost certainly written by Smollett himself, it would seem.
So, Smollett sent the hate letter to himself, and nobody cared, and he got upset.
And so he said, okay, now we gotta take it one step further.
And as a result, Webb is hoping to convince the jury that the actor hired brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo I don't even know why I... Why do I try with names anymore?
We'll just call him Brothers A and O. So he hired Brothers A and O to attack him.
One potentially damning piece of evidence teased during Webb's opening argument was that there is surveillance video showing Smollett and the two siblings, who he worked with on Empire, doing a kind of dry run of the attack in the area the day before it allegedly took place.
They are not sending their best with these hate hoaxes.
They really are not.
Thankfully!
You know, so it's always so obvious when they are hoaxes.
He was on camera.
He... I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
He knew the security cameras were there.
And that's why he staged it there.
And that's why he... Rather than simply not involving anybody else and just saying it happened to him.
That would have been the smarter move, by the way.
Don't do it on camera.
Just like... Don't involve anybody else.
Just claim that it happened.
And nobody will be able to prove that it didn't, yet when you involve other people and you intentionally do it on camera, now you're providing evidence that can be turned against you.
So he knew the cameras were there, and yet he still showed up with those brothers the day before to do a dry run of the attack.
My God.
Just for fun, can we play... I have the video queued up.
This is just for fun.
A trip down memory lane as we get to this trial.
Let's play the video of Jussie Smollett.
This was the now infamous interview right after the supposed attack where he's talking about the trauma that he suffered.
And it's always a lot of fun and pretty hilarious.
Let's watch that again.
I heard, as I was crossing the intersection, I heard, Empire.
I don't answer to Empire.
My name ain't Empire.
And I didn't answer.
I kept walking and then I heard, **** Empire ****.
So I turned around and I said, the **** did you just say to me?
The attacker.
Masked.
And he said, this MAGA country n***a punches me right in the face.
So I punched through that n***a's back.
And then we started tussling.
You know, it was very icy.
And we ended up tussling by the stairs.
Fighting, fighting, fighting.
There was a second person involved who was kicking me in my back.
Then it just stopped.
And they ran off.
And I saw where they ran.
And the phone was in my pocket, but it had fallen out.
And it was sitting there.
And my manager was still on the phone.
So I picked up the phone and I said, Brandon.
And he's like, what's going on?
And I said, I was just jumped.
And then I looked down and I see that there's a rope around my neck.
So what you see in a video like that, we have to remember, It's funny that he's so stupid, but this is a sociopath.
And also it's not just a hoax.
I think I was using the word hoax before.
I think we should be careful about that because hoax makes it seem Less serious than it is.
Hoaxes are bad enough.
This was not just a hoax.
This was a scam.
This was a con.
There was a piece, I think, of The Federalist making this point, and I agree with it, that hoax doesn't exactly cover it.
This was a con that he had worked out.
Very stupid, yet very, very intricate, and he was involving other people, and he had both a political, ideological, and financial motive behind it.
So the people saying, oh, why are they going through a whole trial with this?
These are misdemeanor charges.
I think he should go to jail for 10 years for this.
He should go to jail for 20 years for this.
That's not going to happen.
I doubt he's going to serve any jail time at all.
But perpetrating a con like this so that you can blackmail your employer into paying you more money?
And also, you are exploiting, intentionally, and trying to exacerbate racial divisions.
Which is yet another reason.
If it were me, I'd give him 20 years in jail for this.
Alright, what else do we got here?
Let's check in with Jim Cramer on CNBC.
Lord knows what happened if he didn't partake, but back then, anyone who refused to get vaccinated would get ratted out immediately because we knew that person could hurt other people.
The commonweal was a commonweal.
Now we're engaged in a similar struggle with COVID and Eisenhower would be aghast.
We have immunocompromised people who are incubators for every variant to come, walking around lawfully unvaccinated?
That's psychotic.
We have companies that have tried hard to get people vaccinated and now backing down?
We have governors who want to be president by grandstanding on a foolish state's right issue?
The right to get sick and get other people sick?
So it's time to admit that we have to go to war against COVID.
Require vaccination universally.
Have the military run it.
If you don't want to get vaccinated, you better be ready to prove your conscientious objector status in court.
And even then, you need to help in the war effort by staying home until we finally beat this thing.
That's psychotic, he says.
First of all, do people actually listen to that?
People actually watch that show?
You could sit there for an hour listening to that?
I can't imagine that.
Speaking of psychotic, how exactly does this work?
Having the military run the vaccinations?
That's all someone suggests.
Are they, like, shooting the needles out of a helicopter?
Loading them into, like, sniper rifles?
How does that work?
But what we have to understand is that these people, and this should be very obvious by now, these people, of course, do not care about your freedom at all.
At all.
They don't care about you at all.
They don't care about your health.
For Jim Cramer over at CNBC, this is all about him.
He is afraid.
He is petrified.
He's paralyzed in fear.
And so he's willing to burn the Constitution, throw away all of your freedoms for his sake.
He doesn't even see you as a human being.
I mean, none of these people do.
He sees you as, I think he even used the word, an incubator.
I mean, he sees you as an incubator of disease.
He sees you as nothing but a sort of like vessel of disease.
To him, that's what other people are, especially like normal people, people who he doesn't consider to be on his social stratosphere.
And so, who cares?
We should all be lined up like dogs and giving our shots.
Because this is all about keeping him safe, of course.
One other thing I wanted to show you.
This is a tweet that went viral from someone who goes by the name Professor Nalo.
So let's read this.
It says, "My students call me Professor Nalo because I prefer not to use Mrs. or Mr. in
my classroom.
I teach all subjects as a first grade teacher, but my favorite moments are always when my
students ask about my queerness."
She continues, "I was asked recently during a podcast interview why I don't use Mrs. or
Mr. to refer to myself, and I asked her why I needed to."
She said, don't you think it'll be hard for children to adjust?
But the truth is, it has never been children that struggle with adjusting to the complexities of human experience.
My students are six to seven years old, and they're steeped in the magic of curiosity.
My students know about and have met my wife at school.
They know I'm queer, and the turtles will call anybody out for calling me Mrs. Anything.
I told them my story once and never needed to say it again.
If only adults adjusted as quickly and easily, it may save many of our lives.
And then she continues from there.
This is another perfect example of what I've said before about the non-binary phenomenon.
Many different words you could use to describe it, but this is just narcissism by another name.
This is a kind of like sexualized narcissism.
And we see that first and foremost because she's a first-grade teacher calling herself a professor.
So that's, leaving aside Mr. and Mrs. and non-binary, she goes by professor teaching first-grade students, which is something that literally anybody could teach first-graders.
And if you have first-graders yourself, you probably should teach them yourself rather than sending them to Professor Nalo so they could talk about her queerness.
This is narcissism.
You always find that when they start talking about why.
I don't identify with the labels.
And you're always going to hear, as we do in the Twitter thread there, about the complexity.
My personal inner experience is so complex.
I'm such an interesting, fascinating, many-layered individual.
I mean, you, the rest of you, maybe you're fine settling for Mr. and Mrs. He or she.
But that doesn't work for me.
The English language itself cannot properly describe me and all of my many complexities because I'm such an interesting and sophisticated person.
That's really the point.
Somebody totally, utterly obsessed with themselves.
And then you add in the sexual dynamic of this and also grooming children at the same time.
Talking to your kids about your queerness.
It should go without saying, that's not why we send... We don't send kids to school to learn about the personal lives of their teachers at all.
When I went to school, I didn't know anything about any of my teachers.
I knew... I didn't really even know their first names.
It always seemed weird to me that they had first names.
And there was always that weird experience where, you know, you have your, like, you're out at the grocery store and you see your chemistry teacher or something walking down the aisle in civilian clothes and it seems so weird and out of place because this person doesn't belong.
Like, they should just be in a classroom.
That's how you think of them.
It's not about their personal experiences.
You're there to be taught the academic subjects.
So, really your students should know almost nothing about your personal life.
But especially they should know nothing about your sex life.
And especially when they're in first grade.
So this is not teaching.
The word that we would use for this is grooming.
Just to be clear.
Now let's get to the comment section.
When Lauren Boebert got fed up with how things were going here in Colorado, she did something about it.
Throwing her hat in the ring to represent us in an increasingly purple state wasn't easy.
She's fighting the good fight for us.
Sometimes it requires she play the game.
When the going gets tough, would you advise stand your ground or retreat to more friendly confines like Tennessee?
Okay, so this is someone, and not the only comment upset with me for taking Lauren Boebert to task for apologizing to Ilhan Omar.
And you say, play the game.
Yeah, I understand playing the game.
I fully understand that.
And as a politician, you have to play the game.
What I'm saying is, play it smart.
Be smart about how you play the game.
Have a strategy.
This is not a game of chance.
This is not flipping a coin.
This isn't dice.
This is chess, right?
This is a game of strategy.
And so my question with Lauren Bobert is, what exactly was the strategy?
In fact, there are now more videos coming out because the floodgates are open now with the apology, and so now there are even more.
Apparently, Boebert has been going around at these fundraisers and making jokes about Ilhan Omar, the same joke on the backpack and implying that she's a terrorist, and she's made this joke multiple times.
And so now there's more videos coming out, and is she going to keep apologizing?
I mean, she apologized once, so does that mean she has to keep apologizing?
But the point is, this was not like a spur-of-the-moment thing, off-the-cuff, you know, we all have moments like that.
This is a joke that she used multiple times, like it's in her script.
Anyone in public speaking, we all have jokes we, you know, can kind of start with.
And those are not off-the-cuff, and it certainly isn't for her.
Multiple times she's gone out making this joke with apparently no strategy in place for what she would do when eventually people notice that she's made this joke and get upset about it.
No strategy!
And so you're saying play the game?
No, she didn't play the game, she got played, is the problem.
And what experience do you mean?
Political experience?
So, are you saying that I need to have political experience in order to earn the right to criticize politicians?
Is that what you're saying?
Blair, do you abide by that?
I mean, are you a politician?
Have you ever criticized a politician?
Have you criticized Brandon up in the Oval Office?
I bet you have.
Yeah, you have no experience being a president.
So don't play that game.
The whole, you've never been there.
I don't have to be there.
That's not how it works with politicians.
I don't have to earn the right.
There's no credentialism here.
I don't have to flash my credentials in order to criticize a politician.
I pay their salaries.
That's why I get to criticize them.
And also, by the way, I do have relevant experience.
More than you do.
Because the discussion is how to deal with public outrage.
That's the discussion.
I deal with that all the time.
I have a lot of experience.
I am very experienced in that field.
I should have a PhD in that field.
I should have a PhD in the public outrage field, okay?
In fact, I'll just say that I do.
I'm a doctor.
I'm a doctor of outrage.
And so, yeah, in fact, I do have outrage.
I do have experience, and that's why I think I could give my advice here.
All right.
Nick says, Matt Walsh, I'm a firm believer in putting family first.
Matt Walsh, 10 minutes later, makes fun of his poor boomer mother for having a VCR to probably relive her memories of Matt before he was such a sarcastic bastard.
Fair.
Very fair.
That's fair criticism.
Reid says, you're always spot-on, but you missed the one on the officer.
She may not deserve jail time, but an officer who pulls the trigger on their weapon and doesn't know the difference between a taser and a pistol doesn't need to be anywhere near a badge, and that kind of negligence warrants some kind of punishment.
Yeah, I agree she shouldn't be on the force, so we can agree on that.
You make a mistake of that kind, we're not going to put you back on the force.
And probably this is someone who never should have been on the force to begin with.
But I don't think you put her in jail for a mistake that she made in a life or death situation that was created by the other guy, by Dante Wright.
Remember in the Rittenhouse trial where the prosecutors were trying very hard to prove, and they failed obviously because it wasn't true, but they were trying to prove that Rittenhouse was the one who instigated this violent altercation.
Because they knew that if Rittenhouse instigated it, If he's the one who created this violent altercation, then he is not excused in using violent force.
But he didn't.
Right?
It was Rosenbaum chasing him down.
Knowing that Rittenhouse is armed, Rosenbaum decides to chase down an armed person and get into a physical altercation with him.
Meaning that everything that happens from then on out, that's on Rosenbaum.
He chose that.
And I would say a very similar thing with Dante Wright.
He is a wanted felon.
Could have gone peacefully.
They tried to take him in peacefully.
They didn't go in there guns a-blazing.
They tried to just cuff him and bring him to jail because that's their job.
He's a wanted felon on a weapons charge, which stems from an armed robbery.
What else are they gonna do?
Let him go.
And then he chose to escalate it and turn it into a violent altercation.
And by doing that, he took his life into his hands.
And then all the rest of it is on him.
And so am I quote-unquote victim-blaming in this case?
Yeah, absolutely.
If the victim is the one who ends up dead, then yeah, that's on you.
If you had not done that, then you'd be alive today.
Let's see, Poo on Your Shoe, great username there, says, I can't wait to read your book to my kids every night at bedtime, whispering, long live sweet baby gang, as I tuck my twins into bed.
Well, and, you know, I don't know if I mentioned this, but if you want to read this book to your kids, you can get it at johnnythewalrus.com.
And Candice says, the story about what Matt's wife did was actually really heartwarming.
Those little insights just reveal a playfully loving relationship.
I love that.
When she locked me in the room with the deadly spiders?
That's heartwarming to you?
Or when she fat shamed me?
Which one of those things?
I don't find it heartwarming.
Well, I feel so stupid that I have forgotten to mention this completely up till now, but I do have a new book out.
It's called Johnny the Walrus, and you can get it at johnnythewalrus.com.
It's already sold out.
We sold out of the first run in one day.
What this tells me is two things.
It tells me that People are tired of the left-wing brainwashing when it comes to the children's book genre.
They're very tired of that and they're ready for something different and for some sanity and common sense, which you could find in Johnny the Walrus, as well as humor and everything else.
Also, maybe it tells you that there is an untapped sort of interest in walruses out in the public that we didn't know about.
Either way, go to johnnythewalrus.com right now to get your copy of my literary masterpiece.
And one other thing I want to tell you about, if you haven't already, go check out our new comedy series, Truth Yeller, hosted by comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla, over at dailywire.com slash watch.
That's dailywire.com slash watch.
In each episode of Truth Yeller, Adam invites a celebrity guest to join him for an evening of stand-up comedy, improv, and interview all in front of a maskless live audience.
The first two episodes are available now, with the first episode starring none other than Jay Leno.
Adam's most recent episode dropped on Monday, titled Unacceptable Aromas on Airplanes and When to Pour Your Beer into Your Lap.
In this episode, Adam gets a little offensive.
Just a little bit, you know.
Tells a lot of truth and sets the record straight on no smoking laws.
Rob Riggle, the comedian from 21 Jump Street and Step Brothers, joins him to do a little bit of stand-up of his own.
And the live audience loses it when Adam gets an improv request that he can't refuse.
This is a great show.
You can watch it yourself.
These are the kinds of things we're doing at The Daily Wire.
No one else is doing anything like this.
So go to dailywire.com slash watch and enjoy.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So there is no question that I use this segment sometimes, and I mean the whole show sometimes, to complain about unpleasant personal experiences that I have, and I'm not defending that choice.
I'm just confessing to it.
What I want to talk about today is somewhat in that vein, I admit, but I'd like to extend the conversation beyond my annoyance and identify the larger themes at work here.
So with that in mind, today I am canceling the TSA.
Especially I'm canceling one particular TSA agent who I encountered yesterday, though she is not unlike many other TSA agents that I run across in my travels very frequently.
So let's set the scene here.
I was in a Nashville airport on our way to DC.
And I was in the most debasing and humiliating stage of the debasing and humiliating security process.
Because this is the stage where you stand at the conveyor belt and you hurriedly remove apparently dangerous items of clothing like your shoes and your belt and your jacket and everything.
And to make this process all the less efficient, Different airports and different TSA crews have different demands and requirements during this stage.
Sometimes you're told to put everything into trays.
Sometimes you're supposed to put only some things in trays and the rest directly on the belt.
Sometimes they want laptops in a separate tray.
Sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they tell you to put everything together.
If you're wearing a hat, some agents will tell you to take it off.
Some will tell you to keep it on.
Airport security has been unnecessarily farmed out to the federal government, which means that if you didn't know anything about the federal government, you might think that the one advantage to having the federal government do everything at all of these airports is that there would at least be uniformity from place to place.
But if you do know something about the federal government, you know that the only thing consistent and uniform about it is that it is incompetent everywhere.
And that's certainly the TSA.
What this all means is that even, you know, a person, someone who travels a lot like myself, can still get tripped up from time to time, can still, you know, get some of the steps wrong occasionally.
But people who are not seasoned travelers won't necessarily have any idea what they're supposed to do.
What item of clothing that's supposed to come off, what is supposed to stay on, what goes in what bin, and so forth.
And this means that the TSA agents have to explain it to the passenger.
Now this is no doubt a tedious and thankless job, but it's quite literally the job they signed up for.
It may be boring, but it's not difficult.
All they have to do is stand there and clear up any bin or clothing related confusions that may arise.
That's all they have to do.
And yet we find so often Not all the time, but often.
That these government workers, who applied for this job, signed up for this job, chose to do this job, are still put out about the fact that they have to do the job they're getting paid to do.
They're impatient with confused travelers, who are understandably sometimes flustered by the fact that we're all being treated like suspected criminals just because we want to board a plane.
The TSA agents are often irritated and annoyed, and sometimes far beyond that.
Yesterday I encountered one who was in the latter group.
So as I stood at the conveyor belt, shoeless and beltless, the older woman in front of me, elderly woman, she was moving a little bit slower, which is fine.
Fine with me, anyway.
Not with the agent.
Apparently, the old woman hadn't removed her jacket fast enough, so the agent started screaming directly in the older woman's face.
I mean, screaming directly in her face, okay?
Said, take off your outer garment!
Take off your outer garment!
Screaming at her to take off her clothes.
Nothing weird about that.
And I would have thought that her demeanor and approach was a little aggressive, even if she was, like, performing cavity searches on new inmates at a maximum-security prison.
But she wasn't dealing with inmates.
She's dealing with an old woman who simply wants to go through security and go about her day and get on a plane.
That's it.
So the lady eventually got her jacket off and walked through.
I didn't really want to get into an argument with a TSA agent, but my desire to not get involved in an argument with a TSA agent kind of is overridden by my total contempt for overbearing, power-tripping government employees.
So I said to the TSA agent as I was walking through, I said, oh, having a bad day, huh?
And she said, gruffly, busy day.
Busy day.
And I said, so does that mean that you don't have to treat people with respect because you're busy?
And she acted like she didn't hear what I said, so I said it again.
And at this point, somewhat hilariously, she took her badge off and she waved it in my face.
And she says, you want to wear this?
The truth is, the last thing I would want to do is wear that badge and get paid $11 an hour to scream at old ladies for not taking their clothes off fast enough.
But I told her, no, you know, I don't want to wear the badge.
But the badge doesn't give her a pass.
She should still treat people like human beings.
I think really reasonable.
She muttered something that I couldn't hear and I just kept walking through.
Now, as I said, she's far from the first TSA agent to behave this way, though she was perhaps a bit more egregious than most.
And this is what makes the whole TSA experience so grating and soul-crushing and dehumanizing.
First of all, none of these people should be there.
Okay?
There is no reason for the TSA to exist.
It came into being in response to 9-11.
And those who were born after 9-11 especially might not realize just how, and so you've lived in the world with TSA your whole life, you might not realize how totally unnecessary all of this is and gratuitous it is.
Because 9-11 was not really a failure of airport security.
The security failure happened farther up the chain.
It was a failure of intelligence, a failure of the FBI and the CIA and other agencies that should have found out about this plot and stopped it, but didn't.
It's not like the 9-11 hijackers made it on board with guns and bombs.
They took over the planes with box cutters.
But guess what?
Box cutters were legal on planes at the time.
The FAA allowed blades of four inches or less on planes before 9-11.
I know it sounds hard to believe, given that if you've lived in this world where you can't even bring nail clippers on planes, but before 9-11, you could bring a knife on a plane.
It was legal.
But wherever the failures happened, it's certain that it was the government that failed, and yet the answer to the government's failure is more power for the government, which failed.
Now, as a consequence of that failure, we all must go through this embarrassing security theater every time we want to fly.
So much of our lives, of course, have become theater, especially in the COVID world.
Government officials have become like priests, instructing us to perform this or that ritual, whose practical utility is dubious at best.
The other thing that we find in these kinds of experiences is that the old adage about the corrupting influence of power is true, and that it doesn't really have to be all that much power to corrupt somebody.
The woman standing by the conveyor belt, waving her badge around, had power that did not extend beyond the spot where she was standing.
So you are in her grip for about 20 seconds as you stand by the x-ray machine taking your shoes off.
And she is going to milk that 20 seconds for everything it's worth.
Even the tiniest bit of power granted to a person for the shortest amount of time in the most limited capacity can still go directly to their heads.
So how do you end up with, you know, historically someone like Hitler or Stalin?
Well, that's easy to understand.
If some human beings can become ruthless tyrants because you gave them the power to make strangers take their shoes off at the airport, imagine what that same person might do with an army at their disposal.
Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, and you can find them anywhere, I think is the point.
One other point.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it has struck me that these sorts of testy exchanges at airport security have, in my anecdotal experience, gotten worse in the last year or two.
And you might theorize many different reasons for that, but I can't help but wonder whether the masks contribute to it.
For one thing, they make it more difficult for people to understand each other.
And so now there's more screaming, almost by necessity.
And it's also more frustrating.
You can't understand what the hell anybody's saying.
But also, they turn us all into these faceless automatons.
They lend a certain anonymity to personal interactions.
I wonder if this makes it easier for people to treat each other as if they're not human beings.
I wonder if that lady, the TSA agent at the airport, screaming directly in the face of an old woman, would she have done that if she could see the woman's face?
Maybe.
I would also think it's harder to treat people like that when you can see their entire face.
It's easier to treat them like they're not human beings when you can't, because human beings have faces.
The masked hordes that you encounter at airports do not.
TSA agents work all day in airports, interacting with, shouting at, a steady stream of faceless strangers.
And that has to have a psychological effect after a while.
Which is not to let the TSA agent off the hook, not in the least.
Which is why she is cancelled today.
And also, of course, the entire TSA is cancelled as well.
And we will leave it there.
I'll mention again, johnnythewalrus.com to get the book written by a best-selling children's author.
You can go there again, johnnythewalrus.com.
And I will also see you tonight at SLU, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
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 Wall 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.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire.
On today's episode, the trial of Jussie Smollett begins, the Supreme Court considers a case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, and new revelations from the Hunter Biden laptop.
