Ep. 1054 - Rappers Are Dying Left And Right From The Violence They Glorify
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, another rapper was shot and killed this week. More and more, the people making music glorifying violence are falling victim to it themselves. But while the Left warns about the dangers of "irresponsible speech," they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the rap industry. I wonder why. Also, I am featured in yet another mainstream media hit piece. This one from NBC News. I'll tell you about some of the dirty tricks they pulled behind the scenes. And Anne Hathaway goes on the View to talk about why abortion is a woman's "destiny." What the hell does that mean?
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman” and access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/ben
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, another rapper was shot and killed this week.
More and more of the people making music glorifying violence are falling victim to it themselves.
But while the left warns about the dangers of irresponsible speech all the time, they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the rap industry.
I wonder why.
Also, I am featured in yet another mainstream media hit piece, this one from NBC News.
I'll tell you about some of the dirty tricks they pulled behind the scenes.
And Anne Hathaway goes on The View to talk about why abortion is a woman's destiny.
What the hell does that mean?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Inflation continues to plague our economy.
The Daily Wire reports that in less than two years, inflation has soared from 1.4% to 8.6%.
As of May 2022, the price of gasoline was up nearly 49%, the price of meat, poultry, and fish was up 14.2%, and the price of used cars was up 16%.
The current administration's irresponsible spending patterns, including Biden's $1.9 trillion rescue plan, continue to exacerbate the problem.
Now is not the time to have all your money tied up in the stock market.
Don't let your savings wither away.
Hedge against inflation with gold from Birch Gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold.
Birch Gold is giving out a free gold bar with any purchase made by December 22nd, but you must submit your claim for this offer by Black Friday.
With almost 20 years of experiencing Experience in converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metal IRAs.
Birchgold can help you too.
Don't sit around while the Fed devalues your hard-earned money.
Text WALSH to 989898 and learn how you can convert at least part of your savings into a precious metals IRA.
If you place an order by December 22nd, Birchgold will send you a free gold bar.
Don't want to miss out.
Text WALSH to 989898.
We begin today with Deja Vu.
A rapper has been shot and killed.
You are, I suspect, not overly shocked by this development.
This time it was someone who goes by the stage name Takeoff and was part of a popular rap group called Migos.
The Daily Wire has more on the story.
Rapper Takeoff was shot and killed in Houston in the early Tuesday morning, according to TMZ.
The 28-year-old recording artist was part of the group Migos.
Law enforcement sources and several witnesses told TMZ that the fatal incident occurred just after 2.30am, when police were called to 810 Billiards in Bowling, Houston, the sources said Takeoff, whose real name is Kirshnick Carey Ball, was playing dice with bandmate Quavo when a fight broke out among participants.
This led to one person allegedly opening fire and striking Takeoff in or near the head.
He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Two other individuals who were also allegedly injured during the altercation were taken to the hospital, but their condition is unknown.
The sources said Quavo was not hurt.
Takeoff now joins a lengthy list of murdered rappers, and it's a list that seems to be growing with increasing rapidity in recent months.
Just this past September, the rapper PnB Rock was shot and killed at a chicken and waffles restaurant in Los Angeles.
A couple months before that, in July, a rapper named Jay DeYoungin was shot by multiple gunmen who pulled up in a black truck and opened fire while he was sitting outside of his home in Louisiana.
That same month, a rapper named Trouble was killed in a home invasion robbery in Atlanta.
Overall, this year alone, at least seven rappers have been murdered.
That's at least 15 since 2020.
Five a year on average, which is an extraordinary figure when you consider that the murder rate for performers in other genres is effectively zero.
I mean, there are more rappers killed in a year than country singers killed in a decade or a century or ever.
That's not because there's some kind of racist vendetta against rappers.
There isn't any serial killer on the loose targeting hip-hop artists, as far as I know.
The difference between rappers and country stars, of course, is that rappers live lifestyles of criminality and violence.
They promote criminality and violence.
They glorify criminality and violence.
And then they fall victim to the very brutality that they encourage.
In fact, I pulled up the lyrics to one Migos song, totally at random, because I don't know any of their music, I'm not very familiar with the catalog, so I just looked it up, and the first one that came up was a song called Open It Up, and the very first lines in the song are, shoot through your car door.
That's the first line of the song.
Then take off wraps, open it up, open it up, double cup, feelin' the opium, it's AK in the cut, my N word's totin' it, we're tryin' to look appropriate, don't show up and look at me wrong, I'm blowin' it, You try and plot, and we know in it, throw away, I shoot a pistol, then throw it, my n-word, shoot without warning.
Now, we've grown, of course, very accustomed to this sort of content in rap songs.
It's not at all shocking or surprising at this point.
But still, I mean, really think about what he's saying here.
He's bragging about murdering human beings simply because they look at him funny.
He is boasting of, and thereby promoting, murderous savagery.
He's saying that he'll kill you for no reason, and then someone killed him for no reason.
My point is not that this young man deserved to be murdered.
I mean, nobody deserves to be killed over a game of dice.
It's a tragic, senseless waste of human life and potential.
My point is that rap music has helped to create a culture of crime and brutality, and that culture has become so pervasive, so out of control, that even the rappers themselves are falling victim to it every other month now.
They're being eaten by the beast they create.
They're not operating in a vacuum, of course.
I mean, they're merely the front men.
They're the salesmen knocking on your door, peddling this filth.
But behind them is the entire music industry, which is run by much wealthier people who know exactly what they're doing.
They know how poisonous the product is.
And they know that many of their salesmen are dying by it.
And they don't care.
But as rap music gets more dumb and gets more brutal, more violent, more toxic, it also becomes more and more mainstreamed and ubiquitous.
In my brief research into Migos, I found a picture of the three members of the band posing on the red carpet at the Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards.
Because what could be more appropriate for children than music that explicitly encourages them to commit drive-by shootings?
Of course, the apologists will absurdly claim that music lyrics are just words.
They don't influence anyone.
Go into any city in America and you will see legions of young fatherless kids explicitly acting out the lyrics in the music that they are listening to every second of the day, and yet we're supposed to believe that they're not influenced at all.
It is an outrageously stupid claim.
In reality, human beings are influenced by words and ideas.
We are, especially when those words and ideas are communicated through music.
So it's not that they're influential as long as it's not music, it's the other way around.
It's especially influential in music.
There's a reason why brands have, most corporate brands have their own little advertising jingles.
Because words on their own can have immense power, but when you set them to music, they become embedded in your brain, in your soul.
They become a mantra, a slogan to live your life by.
To a young fatherless black kid in the city, Rap music isn't just music.
It's a lifestyle.
It's a message about how to live.
It's a message about how to conduct yourself, how to be a man.
And these are kids who are not getting that message anywhere else.
They don't have role models showing them how to be men.
Or they get it.
They get it from rap music.
It is a guide.
It is a map pointing the child towards his own destruction.
Now, of course, here's the irony here.
The left will agree with everything I'm saying about the power of words and ideas, except when it comes to rap music.
They will say that if you use biologically correct pronouns to refer to a trans person, that you are then directly causing the trans person to kill himself.
If you, say, criticize a hospital for mutilating minors, Your words are directly causing violence and bomb threats against the hospital.
If you, say, question the election results in 2020, your words directly led to the riot on January 6th.
They directly caused a crazy homeless guy to break into Nancy Pelosi's house and assault her husband with a hammer.
In all of these contexts, and in any other context where conservatives are saying anything about any subject, Words, we're told, have enormous consequence.
But when rappers spend decades explicitly glorifying and encouraging street violence, and lots of people who listen to that music commit acts of street violence, sometimes committing them against the rappers themselves, the very people who are just sermonizing about the power of words and ideas will throw their hands up and say, I don't know.
I don't see a connection here.
I just, I don't see it.
I don't know what you guys are talking about.
Words have consequences, unless they're said over a bass-heavy beat, in which case they exist in this kind of consequence-free zone, apparently.
Yet, we know that that's not the case at all.
In fact, in few areas of life do words have greater consequences, or worse consequences, than in the rap industry.
Consequences that even now the people peddling this stuff Can't escape.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You need to fill these roles with the most qualified people, which is no easy task.
Fortunately, not every role has to be that difficult to fill, especially if you're hiring for your business with ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter does the work for you, and you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com.
How does ZipRecruiter make hiring faster and easier?
Well, when you post your job on ZipRecruiter, it uses powerful technology to find and match the right candidates with your job and it sends them to you.
It's as easy as that.
You can easily review those recommended candidates and invite your top choices to apply.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a qualified candidate within the first day.
If you want a better way to find great people for your team, try ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Once again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter.
The smartest way to hire.
The assailant in the Paul Pelosi case has been in custody for a few days, and more information is coming out.
The media's job then, of course, is to organize that information in such a way as to support their already predetermined narratives.
So, here's The Washington Post.
The path that led an attacker to the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was long and meandering, with evidence suggesting that he dabbled in fringe movements of all sorts before embracing the right-wing vilification of Democrats.
The complex history of accused attacker David DePape And his radicalization unfolded over more than eight years and several different ideologies, moving from Green Party support and nudist activism to a hateful mix of racist, anti-Jewish, and misogynistic rhetoric, according to terrorism analysts who've studied his writings and social media posts.
They say DePape's evolving beliefs show how today's extremist threat complicates easy left-right categorization, a shift that's confusing to the public, and a bonanza for trolls who exploit the messiness to push disinformation and justify violence.
Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who heads the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, says, You get stuff that just feels contradictory, but when you understand how online exposure to propaganda works, it makes perfect sense.
It's a choose-your-own-adventure type of radicalization.
By the time DePape 42 allegedly broke into Pelosi's residence on Friday and attacked 82-year-old Paul with a hammer, his writings were laden with far-right messaging that indicated a dark conspiratorial spiral.
His blog posts in October were a mix of bloody images and hateful screeds aimed at a variety of targeted groups, including Jewish, black, and trans people, as well as Democrats.
He also shared delusional thoughts about an invisible fairy that sometimes appeared as a bird.
A purported former romantic partner, Oxane "Gypsy" Tobe,
has told reporters that DePape is mentally ill.
Well, he's talking about an invisible fairy, so I think that's probably a pretty good indication.
But, Washington Post says, "Those details were largely ignored by right-wing figures,
"including elected Republicans and MAGA stars "with millions of followers,
"who instead reached years back "to portray him as a leftist, hemp-bracelet-peddling hippie,
"perhaps part of a false flag operation "to blame the right for the assault."
Now, alright, so a couple of things here.
Just to be clear with you, Washington Post, we aren't ignoring the details.
It's not about ignoring the details.
The point and the problem for us and for you, I suppose, is that we don't trust you.
So the task is always to discern which details are correct and which are lies, which are out of context, etc.
And there's no perfect way to figure it out.
I mean, how are we supposed to know?
That's the thing.
Something like this happens.
It's at Nancy Pelosi's house in San Francisco.
I have no direct access to information about it.
There's no way that I can really investigate it on my own.
I'm not going to show up to the crime scene with a notepad and start doing my own investigation.
I don't think they'd allow me to do it anyway.
So I, along with everybody else, we have to rely On the disseminators of the institutions that have positioned themselves as the official kind of disseminators of information.
And that would be like you.
But the problem is that you have shown time and time again that you are totally untrustworthy.
And so that's the spot we're in.
You just... I don't know.
I mean, maybe what you're telling us is 100% correct.
Maybe it's 80% correct.
Maybe it's 50-50.
it's 80% correct, maybe it's 50/50, I don't know.
And so all of the speculation, what you call conspiracy theories, these are just people
who are aware that they can't trust you lying hacks, and so they're trying to make sense
of it on their own.
What else are they supposed to do?
I mean, it's either we ignore these stories completely and just say, I don't care, move on with our lives.
That's certainly a valid option, you know.
Or we just accept everything you tell us.
Oh, I know we can't do that.
And so the only third option is to, if we don't want to ignore it, we can't accept everything said, it's just to try to make sense of it, as I said, make sense of it ourselves.
And so that's what people are doing.
It is all your fault.
I mean, it's really 100% your fault.
All of the so-called conspiracy theories online, what you call misinformation, disinformation, it is 100% all your fault.
You have yourselves to blame for that.
When you put yourself in the position being the arbiters of information, the arbiters of what is
true and what is not, but you don't live up, you don't even come close to living up to that
to that to the responsibilities of that position, then you know, it's a it's a free-for-all.
Now all that said, personally, and I said this from the very beginning, I have no problem accepting the basic
outline presented by the Washington Post and other mainstream media
outlets about this story.
The basic outline of a guy breaking into Nancy Pelosi's house, getting into a physical altercation with her husband.
From the very beginning, there was nothing about that that seemed strange to me.
And the reason why it doesn't seem strange to me is that this is San Francisco.
And this kind of thing happens in San Francisco all the time.
Now, it might not happen to politicians all the time, but it happens all the time.
This is a city overrun by criminality, overrun by violent criminals, overrun by drug-addled, crazy homeless people.
And so I hear this and I think, yeah, well, I mean, she lives in San Francisco.
And the details that we're getting now just only confirm that.
So this conversation, was he on the left, was he on the right?
He was crazy.
This is a crazy person.
This is not, he was radicalized by right-wing rhetoric.
Okay, despite what we're told from the extremism experts that work at these universities and have now just positioned themselves, you know, the media's position itself is the arbiters of reformation, then you have people in universities who, they're now the experts on extremism.
What made you the expert on that?
Like, what do you know about this topic that anyone else doesn't know?
Well, because that's what I am.
So, the experts tell us that, yeah, there's a pipeline that takes someone from, this makes perfect sense, someone goes from a far-left nudist activist in the Green Party to a MAGA extremist.
There's a pipeline that goes right from one to the other.
No, there's not.
There's no pipeline there.
In between those two You know, spots on the spectrum, it's not even, can't even call it a spectrum because there's this vast canyon divide between the two.
So this is not radicalization, this is not, you know, he was responding to stuff that Ted Cruz said or, you know, I think they also tried to blame Jesse Waters on Fox News.
This is just a crazy, drug-crazed, homeless guy, and that's what he is.
Okay, he believes that there are invisible fairies all around.
Who radicalized him into that belief?
I'll tell you what radicalized him into that belief.
Crack cocaine.
Heroin.
Something like that.
This is a crazy, violent person doing what lots of crazy, violent people in San Francisco have done.
Which is why the real story here, again, as I said from the beginning, is that in its proper context, this is understood as a local crime story in San Francisco.
Not unlike so many others that we hear of every single day.
This is a consequence not of Fox News, Or conservatives, or people being skeptical about the 2020 election results, or conservatives tweeting things.
It's not a consequence of that.
This is a consequence of local democratic leadership in San Francisco that allows violent, crazy, drug-addicted homeless people to just run rampant with no consequence.
And from what I understand, even this guy apparently was a Canadian citizen who's overstayed his visa.
He's here illegally.
Should have been deported.
Well, we know the Democrat leaders in these cities are not quick to do that either.
It's a sanctuary city, San Francisco is.
Sanctuary city, not just for illegals, but for violent, crazy homeless people.
If they were enforcing the law in this city and focused on law and order, this wouldn't happen, because this guy would be in jail, or he'd be in a mental institution, or he would have been deported up to Canada.
Let him be their problem.
So this is a Democrat politician, Nancy Pelosi, who has helped to facilitate the destruction of law and order.
Now falling victim to the anarchy and chaos that she has helped to create through the policies that she supports.
That's the story here.
And all the other details about what this guy believed or what he posted on his blog while he was imagining that invisible fairies were flying around, that means nothing.
How about enforce the law in your damn city?
How's that for an idea?
Republicans cannot be blamed for any crime in San Francisco, okay?
That's not on any Republican.
That's entirely on the Democrats.
You own every part of that.
Everything that happens in San Francisco, you own it.
That's yours.
Speaking of not being able to trust the media, here's another reason why.
Here's a story from NBC News by a reporter named Matt Levitas.
Here's the headline.
Far-right figures appear to be testing Twitter's boundaries for anti-LGBTQ speech.
Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, has billed himself as a champion of free speech and vowed to prevent Twitter from becoming a free-for-all hellscape.
So this is a story that he wrote, he tweeted it out to, and he said in his tweet, he said that, you know, there are a bunch of conservatives and far-right figures who are tweeting slurs against LGBT people now.
So that's the way this is being framed.
It's hate speech.
We're engaging in slurs and all that kind of thing.
Here's the article.
In the few days since Elon Musk closed his deal to buy Twitter, far-right users have started to celebrate what they hope will be the ability to freely use homophobic and transphobic rhetoric and make threats on the social media platform.
On Saturday, former UFC fighter Jake Shields, who has over 340,000 Twitter followers, appeared to be testing the boundaries of the company's moderation apparatus by posting a photo of a drag queen smiling at a young drag performer with the caption, This is a groomer.
Shields added, I was suspended for this exact tweet a month ago, so we'll see if Twitter is now free.
The word grooming has long been associated with mischaracterizing LGBT people, particularly gay men and transgender women, as child sex abusers.
On Friday, conservative podcaster Matt Walsh, who describes himself as a theocratic fascist, lauded Musk's acquisition of the company and encouraged his over 1 million followers to start misgendering trans people.
We've made huge strides against transgender, Walsh tweeted.
In just a year, we've recovered many years of ground conservatives that previously surrendered.
The liberation of Twitter couldn't have come at a more opportune time.
Now we can ramp up our efforts even more.
Laws are changing and public opinion is changing.
Walsh, who held an anti-trans protest in Nashville attended by thousands last month, continued, we have done all of this intentionally.
It was all part of the plan that we laid out and executed.
Okay, so I'm making it to the article, of course, and now I could go on and he gets to libs of TikTok and a couple others.
At no point does he actually provide an example of a, quote, far-right person using a slur.
And at no point does he give any example of anyone making threats or encouraging threats.
There are no examples of that.
That's how the article is set up.
There are no actual examples of it.
The word groomer is not a slur.
It is an accurate description of what these people are doing.
It's not a compliment either, but when we're accurately describing your evil behavior, there's no complementary way to describe it.
I did say that I'm looking forward to going on a misgendering spree on Twitter.
I've been saying that all along.
But of course, by misgendering, I mean correct gendering.
So, that's not a slur either.
No actual examples, even though that was how it was framed.
But here's the point.
In the original article, now this apparently has been changed, but the original article says, after the part where they're quoting me, The reporter claims that he reached out to me and I didn't respond to a request for comment.
Okay?
Well, and that language has been removed.
But it was there originally.
Well, this reporter, he reached out to me yesterday morning and told me that he's working on an article, he's writing an article about, you know, the anti-LGBT rhetoric and he'd just love, he'd love to get my take on it because I'm gonna be included in the article and he'd love to get my perspective as well.
In fact, he begins his message, hope you're well, exclamation point, but he'd love to get my, he'd love to get my opinion on it, he says.
In fact, I can pull it up.
I'll tell you exactly what he... I'll tell you exactly what he said.
Okay, so he wrote me yesterday.
He said, this is yesterday at 8.21 a.m.
He says, Hi Matt, hope you're well.
I'm writing an article for NBC News regarding the uptick in what many would call charged rhetoric over LGBTQ issues.
What many would call.
That's what he is calling it, but he said it's what many people are saying.
I'm going to be quoting a tweet of yours from the other day, and therefore want you to reach out for comment.
Let me know if you'd like to expand on your thoughts on this topic.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
So it was yesterday at 8.21 a.m., and I got this message, and I've been around the block a little bit with these people.
I know how it works.
So he says he's writing an article.
I got the message at, I don't know, I saw it 10 minutes later.
And so I went and checked.
I went to NBCNews.com, and what do you know?
The article's already been posted.
And it was already posted long before he sent the request for comment.
They posted it at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon the previous day.
And then he waits for the afternoon and evening to pass, and then the following day reaches out to me and says that he's writing the article right now and wants to get my comment.
And not only that, but in the original version of the article, again, it said that they reached out to me and I didn't respond.
But they didn't reach out to me at the time when they published it.
They had not reached out to me.
They were just anticipating that I wouldn't respond, and so they claimed it as if it had happened.
And I saw this and I messaged him back.
I said, hi Matt, I see that you've already published your article.
Timestamp seems to indicate it was published the day before you reached out for comment.
Is that correct?
He says, yes, the original version of the story was published yesterday.
We'd appreciate your comment on this topic if you have anything to add.
And I did have something to add, and I messaged you back.
I said, I think you understand that it's a b**** tactic to publish a story, wait until the initial push of traffic has died down, and then ask for comment from the people you've smeared in the article.
I don't care if you guys are partisan vultures masquerading as journalists.
I just preferred if you didn't insult my intelligence by pretending that you want to hear my perspective for an article that you published yesterday.
Haven't had a response after that.
This is the tactic, of course.
They publish the article with all the smears and everything, making claims.
You made threats.
You engaged in slurs and all the rest of it.
Then you get the initial push of traffic, get the traffic overnight.
You wait till the traffic has died down and no one's reading the article anymore.
Now, it's NBC News, so not that many people are going to read it to begin with.
But, like, 90% of the people who will read it will read it in the first few hours.
That's just the way that it works.
That's just, that's the nature of the beast when you're in the content creation space on the internet.
And they know that.
So, the following day, it's like, no one's reading it anymore.
And then we'll update it with your comments.
These people are, as I said to him in my response, these people are partisan vultures.
And then, and then they have the nerve As I said, it annoys me the fact that there are soulless lying hacks.
I get that part of it, okay?
I accept that.
But yeah, it's just insulting my intelligence I don't like.
You know, don't insult my intelligence.
You think I'm stupid enough to buy this?
You use a tactic like this and I'm not gonna notice?
It's like I say to my kids sometimes when I, you know, I tell them to go clean their room and then they go up there and they just shove everything right under the bed.
And I can see it poking out from under the bed.
And I come up and I say the same thing.
Don't insult my intelligence, kids.
This is, this is, you think, you know, I was a kid myself.
You want to get away with not cleaning your room?
You're just going to put everything under the bed?
Like I'm not going to notice that?
Like I didn't do that myself as a kid?
Come on.
They're going to try to fool me.
At least put a little bit more effort into it.
Say the same thing to these people in the media.
But then on top of it, they have the nerve to be offended when people don't believe them.
When they tell us the official version of a story, like with Nancy Pelosi, and we don't immediately accept it.
They pull stunts like this, and then are upset when we don't immediately accept everything they say.
All right, Hillary Clinton really might be running in 2024.
I didn't believe it at first.
You know, I thought, as naive as I am, I thought that I just I didn't think that she would go for a third time around.
But she's been all over the place recently.
And here she is with Joy Reid expressing her concern for Nancy Pelosi.
I want to take this a step further away from the incident that terrible incident with Paul Pelosi and broaden it out because what we have with the rhetoric coming from the Republican candidates from their party right now is so disturbing.
I didn't see a big outpouring on the part of elected officials to stand with Nancy Pelosi the way she has stood with Republicans as well as Democrats in times of real terror, like on January the 6th.
And so ask yourselves, please, why would you entrust power to people who are either themselves unable to see how terrible it is that someone would be attacked in their home or don't really care because they think it will somehow get them votes that will get them elected.
This is a real threat to the heart of our democracy.
Threat to, I'm shocked to hear her say that it was a threat to democracy.
You know, those words have a lot of power and they resonate a lot because, you know, Democrats, they rarely call anything a threat to democracy.
You rarely hear them say, they only say it in every single sentence they speak, okay?
It's only every time they open their mouth, they call something a threat to democracy.
And so, given that they bring it up so rarely, when you hear that, it really, it sinks in, doesn't it?
You sit up and you listen.
Threat to democracy.
And the threat to democracy in this case is that she says not enough Republicans are concerned for the well-being of Nancy Pelosi.
She was concerned.
She was concerned on January 6th.
She was concerned about them.
She was concerned about... Well, she was concerned about Republicans on January 6th.
She was concerned about herself, if anything.
And not even really herself.
She was concerned about how this can be politically exploited.
I don't think there's anyone in America happier about January 6th than Nancy Pelosi.
I mean, really, all the Democrats.
They're thrilled.
They could not be happier about it.
It's the best thing that ever happened to them.
They're so happy that it happened.
Obviously.
Now, has Nancy Pelosi... What about actual violence against Republicans?
When Rand Paul was attacked.
When Bernie Bros shot up a GOP baseball game.
Conservatives and Republicans being canvassers and campaigners being assaulted.
You know, there's been several different cases of that.
One kid was run over by a car.
What has Nancy Pelosi said about that?
Where has her concern been?
Thoughts and prayers, she's keeping it to herself.
But she's really deeply concerned, sure, okay.
Joe Biden also, it's the other thing, you know when Democrats are getting desperate, we know about all the threat to democracy stuff, but the other thing they do right on cue as we get close to the election is they start ranting and raving about the dastardly Republicans that are coming to take away your social security.
Let's listen a little bit of this.
Then along came Senator Johnson from Wisconsin.
He says five years too long to wait.
No, it's hard to believe.
No, I really mean it.
It's hard to believe.
He says, that's too long.
Every year, every single year, it should be on the chopping block, along with veterans' benefits and everything else in the federal budget.
If Congress doesn't vote affirmatively to keep it, it goes away.
Gone.
You've been paying the Social Security your whole life.
You earned it.
Now these guys want to take it away.
Who in the hell do they think they are?
Excuse my language.
Yeah, get them.
Just imagine what that would mean.
Imagine a child care worker in her mid-sixties.
So you get the idea.
You've been paying Social Security, they want to take away your Social Security.
No one, no Republican is talking about taking away Social Security.
That does not exist.
Okay, that's why we always hear them quoted.
It's the interesting thing is that anytime you hear about a Republican who wants to take away Social Security, it's always coming from Democrats who are insisting that the Republicans are doing it.
But you don't see the Republicans.
You're not going to find very many clips of Republicans in front of a microphone talking about why we need to just get rid of Social Security altogether.
Because none of them are saying that.
That just doesn't exist.
Republicans and Democrats together both understand that it would be electoral suicide to actually advocate for getting rid of Social Security.
Because for one thing, you would be directly ticking off the demographic of people who are most likely to vote, which would be older people.
So they're just not going to do it.
Now, I'm not a Republican elected official, and I can say that there are many things that I will say and do say that you can't blame Republicans for because they're not going to say these things.
But I am willing to say that I do think we need to get away from Social Security.
I think the whole thing is a Ponzi scheme.
I don't think it is.
It is.
It's a Ponzi scheme.
It's a scam.
And of course, we know that this whole idea that you're paying into Social Security and then you're taking out what you paid in.
No, the money you paid into it is gone.
It's been spent already.
It's not like they keep it in some box somewhere in a safe and it's got your name on it and then when you turn, you know, when you become of age, they just open up the box and they start doling it back out to you.
That's not how it works.
They already spent the money.
It is a scam.
And I also know that 30 years hence, when I'm eligible for Social Security, it's not going to be available to me because it just can't go on.
It's doomed for failure eventually.
The whole thing's going to implode.
So I am paying substantially into a system that I almost certainly will not benefit from.
If politicians in either party had the courage for it, then we would really be having a conversation about how do we get away.
You can't pull it away all at once.
I'm not saying that, but we've got to figure out a way.
The system has failed.
It's ridiculous to begin with, the idea that we want the government to take our money and store it away for us for retirement.
No, thank you very much.
I'd like to do that myself.
I'd like to have that money myself.
I'd be better off just keeping it under a mattress than letting you have it.
Yeah, saving for retirement's a good idea.
I'm not going to entrust that to you.
I don't want to entrust my retirement plan to you.
I'm not given a choice, though.
So, it's a crazy system.
It's a failed system.
And we should get away from it.
But no one is talking about getting away from it.
Except for me and a few other crazy podcasters.
Okay.
Speaking of ranting and raving on the campaign trail, I want to play this for you also.
This is the actress Jennifer Lewis, who was on the campaign trail in, I don't know where this is, I think it's in Florida.
And, anyway, there's no way to really set this up, just listen to what she says.
Marco Rubio is a liar!
He is, y'all see that debate?
Light his ass off!
[laughter]
Val Demings will win.
[applause]
She will win!
She will win!
So I say to Marco and all those other weak men, before you lie to us, remember Rosa sat on that bus.
What?
Before you tell your tale, remember Mandela sat in that jail.
What does this have to do with anything?
You remember Dr. King?
Before you cheat and steal, I dare you to Google Emmett Till.
Emmett Till, there it is.
Okay.
Alright, so we can turn it off.
Fine.
I was waiting for that.
You knew Emmett Till was going to make its way into it.
Just to show you how cynical and ridiculous these people are, Emmett Till was killed 70 years ago.
Almost 70 years ago.
And yet, the Democrats bring him up every day.
I mean, he comes up on the... Emmett Till comes up as a campaign issue.
70 years later!
That's how cynical and ridiculous these people are.
What does Emmett Till, which occurred 70 years ago, what does that have to do with a race in Florida?
I mean, it also shows you, by the way, that when they want to absurdly tie Republicans to hate crimes or whatever, and never mind the fact that back then, of course, the people who were actually lynching black people were Democrats, but never mind that for a moment.
So they want to find a way to link Republicans to hate crimes.
They've got to go back to Emmett Till.
They've got to go back 70 years.
Because where else?
They're not going to go back to Jussie Smollett.
I mean, even they won't bring him up anymore.
That's how far back they have to go.
And they're willing to do it.
They'll use him as an applause line on the campaign trail 70 years later.
All right, I also wanted to mention this.
This is from Variety, before we get to the comment section.
It says, at the height of the backlash against J.K.
Rowling over her views on the transgender community, Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe published an open letter in which he proclaimed, trans women are women.
In a new interview with IndieWire, Radcliffe opened up about why he decided to speak out publicly against the author who essentially gave him his acting career.
He said, the reason I felt very, very much as though I needed to say something when I did was because, particularly since finishing Potter, I've met so many queer and trans kids, and young people had a huge amount of identification with Potter on that, and so seeing them hurt on that day, I was like, I wanted them to know that not everybody in the franchise felt that way, and that was really important.
Okay, now, even aside from the fact That he's totally wrong on the transgender issue.
Of course, he's completely wrong about that.
And he's, you know, he's defending the transing of kids, and he's wrong to do that.
He also, just, even putting that aside, you owe it to J.K.
Rowling to keep your stupid, ungrateful mouth shut, actually.
You actually owe that to her.
Because she did, in fact, give you your career.
Like, you wouldn't exist in the industry.
Nobody would know your name without her.
So she gave you everything that you have.
And so you actually owe it to her.
You owe some loyalty to her.
So see all these Harry Potter actors, and there were a few that didn't speak out against J.K.
Rowling.
There might have been one or two that actually defended her.
And I think one of them died recently, and the left was dancing on his grave, obviously.
But most of the Harry Potter actors came out against her.
Which, again, they're wrong on the facts.
They're wrong about the issue.
But also, where's the loyalty?
How about having some loyalty to a woman who gave you your whole career?
Everything that you have is because of her.
How about a little bit of loyalty for that?
Now, that doesn't mean that if someone is your friend or if someone helped you professionally that you can never, under any circumstances, criticize them.
I mean, there might be something really horrific they could do where you feel like you need to speak out.
But just jumping on a dog pile on someone who, again, gave you everything that you have, on top of you being wrong, you're also a disloyal rat along with it, which is worth noting.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
I'm still waiting for apologies from family members who accused me of being a murderer for choosing to be around my parents who weren't even in the more susceptible age range.
Pretty sure I'll be waiting forever.
Yeah, so many stories like that in families.
I mean, this is one of the saddest things is how this COVID stuff just tore families apart because you had some members of the family that decided to be You know, who became just radically paranoid and were willing to cut off communication and to cut off seeing their own family for years if necessary because they're so afraid.
Now, unfortunately, I didn't have to deal with that in my family because we were all You know, we were getting together at the height of all of this, and of course we're not wearing masks or anything like that, but I always felt bad for the families that had to deal with that.
Kelly says, my mother died alone in a hospital after being denied any visits at the assisted living facility where she resided.
I spoke to her every day, but did not get to see her or hug her for over a year.
I couldn't even honor her last wish, which was holding her hand when she passed.
She never met her first great-grandchild.
I know what she died of.
It wasn't COVID.
I know that it says as her cause of death that it was COVID, but I also know she died of loneliness.
They want amnesty?
Oh, hell no.
That's a horrific story, and there are so many like it.
And this is one of the reasons why there can't be amnesty or forgiveness, because you took something away that cannot be given back.
I mean, you have caused harm that cannot be remedied.
Jess says, Matt's ability to pick apart the most random, irrelevant things, such as an almost 100-year-old Disney story, is what makes him totally relatable to us and infuriating to the left.
It really is a level of genius not many have reached.
Well, okay, I'll accept that.
Although I won't accept, I mean the genius part, I will take that humbly, but I will not accept that, for example, the fact that Snow White directly Promotes felony breaking and entering and kidnapping Is irrelevant.
I don't I don't see that as an irrelevant fact at all My Lamber feed ease says you have to accept you were wrong admit you were wrong feel actual remorse then apologize and then forgiveness can start Yeah, that's true, and you know actual reconciliation Okay, so there's forgiveness Which is which is offered?
By the aggrieved party.
But for there to be actual reconciliation in order to move on, as that article said yesterday, that's a two-way street.
And the other party concerned here is not participating.
Mark says, Matt, I'm curious about your opinion of the manosphere and the commentators thinkers who speak specifically to men and about masculinity.
I've heard you mention some figures from that world in passing, but do you have an opinion on them in general?
Well, I think it's great that there are people out there thinking about issues that affect men and talking to men and speaking up for men and about men.
That's all great.
You know, I'm pretty sure that manosphere is a term used by the left, at least I think it is, kind of pejorative to describe anyone in that world.
I don't know if people in that space identify with it themselves or not, but either way, yeah, I suppose my general opinion is that it's good that it exists.
What I will say, again speaking generally, Is because I know that there are, you know, there are some men out there, figures who, this is what they do.
They talk about, they talk especially about issues that affect men.
And again, I think it's good.
But when it comes to men who speak about masculinity or purport to defend it or model it, I am personally not going to look to you for insight on the subject.
If you aren't married with kids.
I mean, with a few exceptions.
I'm just not looking there.
Because as a married man with six kids now, I just haven't found that a single dude has much to say about masculinity that's going to be enlightening or useful to me in my station in life.
Because one of the most fundamental expressions of masculinity is, you know, its fulfillment is to get married and have kids.
It's something that nearly every man is called to.
Not all.
But nearly every.
And even the men who are not called to marriage and family life are still called to fulfill a father-like role.
You know, a role of paternal service in society.
And there are other ways to do that, like in religious life, for example.
I mean, in Catholic Church, we call priests fathers, and we use that term for a reason.
So, I personally need to see that you're doing that before I'm going to look to you for wisdom.
And if I have one criticism, maybe, of some of the guys who have taken this on as their vocation is, and this again, this is not true of all of them, but if you're going to talk about masculinity, then I think this has to be a central part of your message, is encouraging marriage, family, and fatherhood.
And there are plenty of men who talk about these issues and do encourage that, Jordan Peterson being one of them.
But then there are others who don't.
They have some interesting things to say about masculinity, but either they just don't factor that in at all, or sometimes they might actively discourage it.
Which means that you are, while trying to defend masculinity, you are discouraging its most important expression.
Which doesn't make any sense to me.
Recessions aren't recessions.
Inflation is good.
Men are women.
If you're more confused than usual lately, it's by design.
The left thinks they have a monopoly on the definition of words and can silence you, but they can't.
And if you simply push back, the house of cards collapse.
Just look at my film, What is a Woman?
It caused a rift in the space-time continuum just because I asked a question.
You know, the month it came out, the Daily Wire had more members sign up than at any other time in its history, more than 5,000.
Audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes later and the film still has people talking, which is great because the more we bring these conversations out into the open and the more we confront the madness, the sooner we'll hopefully end.
If you haven't seen it yet, go to dailywire.com slash Walsh to become a member and watch the film today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I'm very excited about this daily cancellation.
I finally get a chance to cancel Anne Hathaway.
I've held a grudge against this woman ever since my wife, early in our marriage, forced me to go to the theater with her and with her mom and her sister to watch Les Miserables.
It was the worst experience of my life.
Every actor in the film was deeply and painfully annoying.
None of them would stop singing at all.
They sang the entire time from start to finish.
Yet even amidst all of that, Anne Hathaway managed to be irritating and insufferable on a level that even Russell Crowe's blubbering off-key performance couldn't reach.
A couple of years later, I went with much higher hopes to go see Interstellar.
And there was Anne Hathaway again, helping to ruin the film with her cringy saccharine speeches about the transcendent power of love.
I wanted to see a movie about deep space exploration.
I was hoping there'd be aliens.
Instead, I got no aliens, only a little bit of space exploration in exchange for a lot of scenes of Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain sulking and whining and giving corny sermons.
The only thing that would have made it worse is if they started singing, which thankfully they didn't.
All that to say, This cancellation is a long time coming.
Hathaway's appearance this week on The View has, I think, finally provided me the opportunity that I've been waiting for.
Let's watch.
You know, The Devil Is Proud did turn 16 this summer.
Yes!
The time flies, boy.
So you wrote this on Instagram.
Quote, I am struck by the fact that the young female characters in this movie built their lives and careers in a country that honored their right to have choice over their own reproductive health.
See you in the fight.
So why did you write that?
Why was it important to you to write something like that?
Because we're in the fight.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
We're in the fight every day.
We're in the fight every minute.
And you mentioned the Devorah's Prada turning sweet 16.
Yeah.
Some 16-year-old's life has been irrevocably changed.
Yeah.
Because of the current overturning of Roe v. Wade.
And in this character, I played a young woman who was starting out her career.
And when you are a young woman starting out your career, your reproductive destiny matters a great deal.
Of course.
Yeah.
And I just...
It had just happened and I just I think about it all the time.
I think we all think about it all the time, and what its implications are, and what it
means to live in a country that puts us in this position.
Again.
Yeah.
Again.
And so if I were to play that role nowadays, I couldn't take that for granted.
I couldn't take that freedom for granted, the freedom of choice.
And by the way, I'm not, this is not a moral conversation about abortion.
This is a practical conversation about women's rights.
And by the way, human rights, because women's rights are human rights.
And the freedom that we all need to be able to choose and build our lives and have access
to excellent health care.
See, this is exactly what she did in Interstellar, just babbling incoherently.
Of course, if you listen to any leftist when they talk about abortion, or really any other subject at all, all that any of them do is babble incoherently.
So, let's try to sift through this.
She says that it grieves her to consider that the young female characters in Devil Wears Prada would not be able to have abortions if the film was set in the current day.
It is, to begin with, extremely strange to worry about the availability of abortion for fictional characters.
Now, I've never seen the Devil Wears Prada, but I'm pretty sure that the film is largely set in New York.
Women in New York can still get abortions, unless they don't exist, because they're fictional, which is a logistical problem that will prevent them from doing a lot of things, including getting abortions.
Also, again, not having seen it, my impression is that the movie has a rather dim view of selfish, career-obsessed people.
That's like the devil wears Prada.
Part of the moral of the story, from what I understand, is that there's more to life than professional ambition.
Yet Hathaway's takeaway is that women need to be able to kill their children so they can focus more on career advancement.
There seems to be a little bit of a disconnect here.
She also speaks about reproductive destiny, which of course is exactly the sort of asinine, hackneyed phrase you would expect Anne Hathaway to use when discussing abortion.
It's not the sort of wording that I would ever choose, but since she brought it up, let us ask this question.
Reproductive destiny.
Okay, well, once a woman has conceived a child, What is her reproductive destiny?
The word destiny implies a force outside of the individual, a message, a mission from beyond ourselves.
So, what is this force?
Call it nature, call it the universe, call it, as I do, God.
What is this force trying to say to the woman?
What is her destiny, now that she has conceived a child in her womb?
Is it her destiny to partake in the joy and beauty and fulfillment of motherhood?
Or is it her destiny to pay some abortionist to kill her baby and throw his body into a medical waste dumpster?
I would say the former.
Indeed, how could it be anyone's reproductive destiny to reject their reproductive capacity and violently destroy the human life that they have reproduced?
To call such a choice reproductive destiny seems bizarre, to say the least.
Hathaway also claims that she's not interested in having a moral conversation about abortion, but rather a practical conversation about women's rights.
Well, except that a conversation about rights is automatically a conversation about morality.
You cannot extract the concept of morality from the concept of human rights.
A practical conversation, a real practical conversation, is one that is not concerned with theories or ideas at all.
But human rights are a theory.
They are an idea.
They're a moral idea.
That isn't to say they don't exist, but rather that they exist in the moral realm.
They don't exist physically, practically, like a chair or a rock or the ocean exists.
So to say that you don't want to talk about morality, you just want to talk about human rights, that is to speak gibberish.
Human rights are a moral concept.
The minute you bring them up, you have entered into the moral realm.
But that's not where Anne Hathaway wants to be, because she knows that she can't actually defend abortion on moral grounds.
None of these people can.
And that's the issue.
But she had more to say, and it only gets dumber from here, so let's continue.
Another thing, and just without going into too many details, my own personal experience with abortion, and I don't think we talk about this enough, abortion can be another word for mercy.
We don't know.
We don't know.
It's not a world in which... We know that no two pregnancies are alike, and it follows that no two lives are alike, that follows that no two conceptions are alike.
So how can we have a law?
How can we have a point of view on this that says we must treat everything the same?
And where I come at it from is when you allow for choice, you allow for flexibility, which is what we need in order to be human.
So that, anyway, I just wanted to include that part.
Especially for health.
Especially for that.
It's not set in stone.
Just because you get pregnant doesn't mean you get to keep that baby.
Yeah, it's a health decision.
It can be.
It really can be.
Abortion is another word for mercy, she says.
But mercy for whom?
Mercy for the child who's being killed?
That's not mercy.
The child has an entire life ahead of him.
Or he should.
You're taking that away.
You're deciding for him that his life is not worth living.
You're erasing all of his potential.
All that could have been.
And you're not giving him a choice in the matter.
There's no mercy in that.
It's the opposite of mercy because it's the opposite of empathy.
And you can't have mercy without empathy.
Or do you mean that it's merciful to the woman?
Are you saying that killing a child is an act of mercy to the child's mother?
Well, no.
Mercy to the mother is to help her, to give her the resources she needs.
Mercy is what pregnancy centers provide.
Mercy is their ministry.
It's what they do.
Abortion clinics, on the other hand, are vultures.
They prey on fear and misery.
They cash in on it.
They feed off of it.
They profit off of it.
They sell guilt, they sell regret, they sell loneliness, while taking away the love and joy of motherhood.
That's not mercy, it's mercenary.
So, whichever way Hathaway meant it, she's wrong.
Though I'm not sure she knows how she meant it, because she's just babbling, which is what most defenses of abortion boil down to.
Incoherent babble.
And that is why Anne Hathaway is today, finally, after all these years, canceled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
