Ep. 1083 - Libs Recoil In Disgust At The Taste Of Their Own Medicine
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media panics as a handful of libs on Twitter are briefly suspended. One thing we've learned is that the Left really cannot handle even the smallest dose of its own medicine. Which is why we should keep serving it to them. Also, the word "woman" is declared the word of the year. A Christmas-themed all ages drag show is horrifying and shocking even by the already horrifying and shocking standards of these kinds of events. Trump unveils his major announcement. And a country star explains why she had no choice but to divorce her husband after five years. It turns out, the glitter had worn off.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for a FREE Goldback with every $5000 purchase, when you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold by December 22nd.
PajamaGram - Get a FREE matching Naturally Nude NIghty with your order: https://www.pajamagram.com/
Relief Band - Get 20% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/.
- - -
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 Night Wall Show, the media panics as a handful of libs on Twitter are briefly suspended.
One thing we've learned is that the left really cannot handle even the smallest dose of its own medicine, which is why we should keep serving it to them.
Also, the word woman is declared the word of the year.
A Christmas-themed, all-ages drag show is horrifying and shocking, even by the already horrifying and shocking standards of these kinds of events.
Trump unveils his major announcement, and A country star explains why she had no choice but to divorce her husband after five years.
Turns out the glitter had worn off.
What else are you gonna do but get divorced?
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Well, the lack of a red wave during the midterms leads to more reckless spending
by a more emboldened administration, higher taxes, deeper inflation.
If you're unsure how the next two years will unfold, talk to Birchgold Group about protecting your savings with gold.
Birchgold makes it easy to convert your IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals, so you can own gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account.
Gold is the world's oldest, most proven form of currency.
When inflation soars and all other assets go sideways, gold is still there.
This month, you can get a free gold back with every $5,000 purchase when you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA with Birchgold by December 22nd.
Just text WALSH to 989898.
Birchgold will help you own gold and silver in a tax-sheltered account.
It's all you got to do.
It is text WALSH to 989898 to claim your free info kit on gold and talk to one of their precious metals specialists.
With every purchase you make before December 22nd, you'll get a free gold back.
This is a great stocking stuffer just in time for Christmas.
Text WALSH to 989898 and protect yourself with gold today.
We wake up this morning in a shattered country.
All is broken, all is lost.
We stagger about, traumatized, terrified, with glazed eyes and vacant expressions sifting through the wreckage.
Can we rebuild?
But with what?
There is only debris, only the pieces of what once was.
We still can't comprehend what we've experienced, what we've seen.
We can't confront the horrors that we all witnessed last night when the apocalypse came and a few libs were temporarily suspended on Twitter.
Nothing will ever be the same again.
Yes, if you haven't heard the news by now, as it was reported in screaming headlines by NBC News, ABC News, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, USA Today, The New York Times, every other corporate media outlet, a handful of left-leaning journalists had their Twitter accounts suspended last night for a few days.
Among the fallen are Vox journalist Aaron Ruppar, who's a leftist hack known for generating outrage mobs by disseminating out-of-context videos.
Also, CNN reporter Donny O'Sullivan, New York Times reporter Ryan Mack, Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell, The Intercept journalist Micah Lee.
And then, of course, blubbering human-sized wart Keith Olbermann was also suspended.
The media has, without a hint of irony, Decried these suspensions, and again, put them in their, like, the leading headline story on their publications, which were all passed down at about the same time last night, a kind of red wedding of Twitter libs.
And they're saying that it's an attack on free speech.
It's an assault on freedom.
It's, of course, a threat to democracy.
There have even been calls for congressional investigations into this.
Many elected Democrats have joined the outraged brigade, including Representative Dean Phillips, who called the suspension, quote, Other Democrats haven't been any less melodramatic.
tactic of the most disturbed, deranged, and destructive men in human history.
Other Democrats haven't been any less melodramatic.
December 15th, yesterday, the day of the Twitter suspensions, is the new January 6th.
And 9/11 combined.
A day that will live in infamy, in the minds, anyway, of the whiniest, most self-obsessed, overgrown babies to ever walk the earth.
Now, the reason for the suspensions was not simply that these people are a bunch of blabbering
left-wing tools.
They did not violate any don't be a blabbering left-wing tool policy, which still has not
been technically added to the terms of service for Twitter.
Instead, as the Daily Wire explains, they violated the rules against doxing.
Reading now from the Daily Wire report, it says, Twitter CEO Elon Musk suspended multiple
high-profile left-wing media figures from the platform Thursday for violating a rule
about posting information that revealed the location of his private jet.
Mike Solana, editor-in-chief of PirateWires, wrote on Twitter, so far I've been able to confirm about half of the accounts suspended posted links to the jet tracker thing in violation of the new doxing policy.
Unclear just yet about the rest, but I think it's safe to say the rule Is for real.
Musk responded to Solana's tweet by saying, Same doxing rules apply to journalists as to anyone else.
They posted my exact real-time location, basically assassination coordinates, in obvious direct violation of Twitter terms of service.
Musk continued, Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not.
He later added, Musk clarified that the accounts were not permanently banned, but were instead suspended for seven days.
The suspensions came after Musk announced a new policy change Wednesday after an incident happened involving his child.
Quote, any account doxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended as it is a physical safety violation.
This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info.
Posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn't a safety problem, so it's okay.
Last night, a car carrying Lil X, that's what he calls his child, in LA was followed by a crazy stalker thinking it was me, who later blocked my car from moving and climbed onto the hood.
Musk continues, legal action is being taken against So, to review, there are rules against doxing.
Musk made it clear that posting real-time coordinates counts as doxing.
And these accounts did it anyway, and so they were banned.
Or suspended.
From what I've read, also, the exact coordinates and real-time location of his private jet, this is not publicly available information.
I mean, it's publicly available because they're posting it in public now, but this is actually private information that various accounts on Twitter had, you know, obtained and had been posting and passing around.
Despite the fact that there is obviously no news value or any legitimate reason why the public needs to know precisely where Elon Musk is physically located at any given moment.
It is very clear they were posting the information to harass and intimidate him, and so they got banned.
Personally, my only complaint against the anti-doxing rules on Twitter right now is that they're not strict enough.
They should be a whole lot stricter.
Posting real-time coordinates may count as doxing.
I certainly buy that argument.
But it's even worse to post a person's home address, whether they're currently in their home or not.
And yet my home address, the addresses of many other conservative commentators, get posted all the time.
Often by accounts who are very explicit that they are posting it in hopes that somebody will come and kill us.
I mean, again, there's no other reason to post that, but oftentimes they'll just come out and say it.
Someone go kill this person.
Here's his house.
And yet in many cases, the posts are allowed to remain up.
You can report it and be told that it doesn't violate any policy.
So hopefully that will change now with this renewed focus on getting rid of doxing on the platform.
Because yes, doxing in any form should be banned.
Period.
So all that needs to be said here is that these journalists broke the rules and faced the penalty.
Simple as that.
You know, they're treating this like a traumatic, earth-shattering event because they've never actually been forced to play by the same rules as everybody else.
They've always been given special treatment.
They don't know how to cope or what to do when those privileges are revoked.
They can spend years advocating for rules that everyone else must follow, but the first time that those standards are applied to them, they literally call for congressional hearings and FBI investigations.
The EU has announced that it's considering sanctions on Twitter for these suspensions.
Did they ever do that for conservatives who are banned?
No, they sick the dogs on us and laugh while we get torn to pieces, but then they scream out in shock and horror when those same dogs turn back around and start chasing them.
Not only that, but they expect us to step in and pull the dogs off of them.
They look over to us demanding that we save them from suffering the fate that they wanted us to suffer instead.
If they sick the dogs on us and then the dogs turn around, they accuse us of hypocrisy if we won't save them from the fate that they wanted us to suffer.
And the problem is that too often, conservatives are willing to do just that.
Conservatives are willing to play white knight to the very people who want them silenced and destroyed.
And that's the most important point here.
Because for a moment, okay, this is the overarching point.
It goes beyond Twitter.
And for a moment, forget about the fact that the suspensions were perfectly justified according to the rules.
So forget about that for a second.
I'll tell you right now that even before I found out why they were suspended, I didn't care.
You know, I wasn't going to run to their defense regardless of the reason.
It could have turned out that they were suspended just because Elon Musk wanted to suspend them and just was annoyed with them and decided to do it.
If that had been his reason, I wouldn't have cared.
I would not have defended them.
I wouldn't have been one of these conservatives, we must stand on principle and run to the defense of Keith Olbermann.
Yet that's what many conservatives were doing last night, even still today.
You can always count on some on the right to rush to the left's defense when they finally get a dose of their own medicine.
No, don't hold them to their own standards!
We're better than that!
We have to be better than that!
Well, if we are better than that, we shouldn't be.
Okay?
This is war.
Get your head in the game.
If you're better than that, stop being better than that.
Here's what I know.
The left laughed and cheered while conservatives were arbitrarily deplatformed for years.
Okay?
And in many cases, people are getting deplatformed, like these journalists that work for the Washington Post, New York Times, whatever.
They're gonna be fine.
Okay, they're making money, they're gonna keep making money, they're gonna be fine.
They still have every other platform available to them, they've got everything.
Meanwhile, you've got conservatives who, they get deplatformed by everything, it ruins their lives, their livelihood, everything is taken away from them.
And these same people who are now crying about getting suspended for a few days, we're cheering that along.
And now they cry when they get deplatformed even for non-arbitrary reasons.
But again, even if it was arbitrary, I would not be speaking up in their defense.
Why?
It's very simple.
Because I believe that you should be held to your own standards.
Okay?
That's not hypocrisy.
So, when I am held to the left's standards, I complain about it.
I object.
Because I think that the left's standards are insane and stupid.
But they aren't my standards.
Okay?
I have every right to object.
They're trying to impose something on me that they came up with.
So of course I'm going to object to that.
However, I do think the left should be held to their standards because it's their standards.
I don't want to reap what they sow, but I want them to.
That's not hypocrisy.
That's fairness.
That's justice.
You sowed it, you reap it.
It's not up to me to be the one reaping what you sow.
Now, I'm not calling for leftists to start getting banned from Twitter en masse.
I don't want that, mostly because if they're all gone, then there's no one left to troll and it's not fun anymore.
But if it did happen, I make my solemn pledge that I will not speak up for them any more than they spoke up for me.
And this conservative instinct to rescue the left from getting hit with their own boomerangs needs to die.
It needs to stop.
Okay?
If somebody on that side gets deplatformed after spending years trying to deplatform and destroy you, all you need to say to them is, hey, freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence, right?
Isn't that what you've always said?
Anyway, bye.
That's all.
Is that hypocritical on our part?
Does it show that we lack principles?
No.
It is perfectly consistent.
Perfectly principled.
Make them live and die by the rules they have set.
There is nothing more consistent than that.
Again, it's called justice.
It's called fairness.
One other point, for the record, and this is important also.
My primary objection to the deplatforming of conservatives is not that it violates free speech.
That's not my primary objection.
Okay?
But rather, that conservatives were deplatformed, and are still deplatformed, for saying true and correct things.
Okay, we have been banned for saying things like, trans women are men.
And, you know, the vaccines don't stop the spread.
And many other statements just as accurate as those.
The reason why it's so Orwellian and oppressive and bad to ban people for saying such things is not simply that people have the right to express themselves, but even more so that the truth should not be suppressed.
The left doesn't merely ban free speech, it bans the truth, which is much worse.
The same thing I say about college campuses, trying to keep conservatives off of college campuses.
I get protested on college campuses when I'm there on the What is a Woman Tour.
Okay, my objection to that is not just, we need open dialogue on college campuses.
We do need open dialogue, but it's worse than that.
Because I'm not just saying anything.
I'm saying things that are objectively correct and true, and that's what they're protesting.
And that makes it so much worse.
And so, when someone on that side is banned, or censored, or whatever, It is automatically not the same as when someone on the other side is banned, because people on our side are banned for saying what is true.
And while we can have a conversation about what sort of speech should be prohibited on social media platforms, what I know for sure is that the truth should never be prohibited anywhere.
Now I personally am in favor of allowing all content on social media except for doxing, death threats, and porn.
Okay?
If it's up to me, those are the rules and they're very simple.
Everything is allowed, but you can't dox, you can't issue death threats, and you can't post porn.
That would be the rule if it was up to me.
I think all opinions outside of those, which those things are not opinions anyway, should be allowed.
But my point is that there is no moral equivalence here.
Because the campaign of censorship that conservatives have endured for years has really been a campaign of truth suppression.
And that is how we should refer to it.
So while we laugh righteously at the libs who are banned, and we enjoy the spectacle of them clumsily trying to walk around with the shoe finally on the other foot, That's the thing that we should keep in mind.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Pajamagram, I don't know how to pronounce it.
Is it pajama or pajama?
So I'm just going to rotate between the two.
Makes it really easy for us men.
This year I'm getting my wife a set of pajamas from their Naturally Nude line.
The texture and feel of these pajamas is so silky and smooth that I know she's going to love them.
If you have no idea what to get your girlfriend or your wife this year, trust me, she wants these pajamas.
But you need to order today because last year they sold out before Christmas.
Order today and Pajamagram will include a free matching Naturally Nude Nightie with your order.
That's $75 in savings on their best-selling holiday gift.
Pajamagram offers free gift packaging, so your present comes ready to put under the tree.
You don't have to do any work at all.
Go to pajamagram.com right now.
Order the Naturally Nude Pajamas.
That's pajamagram.com for Naturally Nude Pajamas.
Don't forget to tell them Matt sent you.
All right, big news to start with from CNN.
Woman is Dictionary.com's word of the year.
A word so simple and so common, but nonetheless, according to the site, inseparable from the story of 2022.
This year's pick is a reflection of the ongoing cultural conversations around gender, identity, and language, and how people turn to Dictionary to make sense of these complex issues, the online reference site said in Tuesday's announcement.
This year, the very matter of the definition of the word woman was at the center of so many consequential moments, discussions, and decisions in our society.
John Kelly, Dictionary.com Senior Director of Editorial, said in a news release, "...our selection of woman as the word of the year, and how the word is defined, who is included in that definition, and who the word applies and belongs to, highlights how important the work of a dictionary is, and how dictionaries can impact people's lives."
First of all, it's interesting that woman is the word of the year when, you know, what's happened to the word woman this year and years prior is that there's been an attempt to abolish it, get rid of it, get rid of its meaning, which is the same thing as getting rid of the word.
But it will not surprise you to learn that neither the announcement from Dictionary.com, nor this CNN article, nor I imagine any other article that mentions this thing, acknowledges Me or the film, What Is A Woman?
But even so, we know that we are the reason why woman is the word of the year.
Everyone knows that.
Just like What Is A Woman, of course, is going to be left off, has been left off, every year-end list of best films of the year.
Even though it is, now I know I'm biased, But it's also just objectively true.
It's one of the best films and most influential films of the year.
And one of the most influential and important documentaries of the century.
But they're not going to acknowledge that and that's okay because the effect, the impact of the work that we've done and the content we put out is being acknowledged.
And, you know, in a way, I mean, even though there's this irony in the fact that it's Word of the Year, even though it's like the word that was abolished this year, it is, it's a reflection of the importance of that work.
All right.
So an independent journalist named Taylor Hanson reports on, and we've seen a lot of these, unfortunately, but this one, This one still somehow shocked me.
This is an all-ages drag show, another one.
This is in Austin, Texas.
It's a Christmas-themed drag show.
A show that's apparently touring through 18 different states, 36 different shows this month.
And I can't even show you most of the videos and images he posted.
I mean, suffice it to say that they are just blatantly sexual, even more so than some of the other footage that we've seen.
No mistake.
We're talking about barely clothed performers simulating sex acts on each other on stage, talking graphically about sex.
A explicitly sexual performance with kids in the audience.
Kids who are invited, because this was advertised as an all-ages drag show.
So here's actually, we'll play one clip.
This is one of the tamer clips.
This is one of the clips that we, that I can play.
And even this, it has to be bleeped and censored and all the rest of it.
And remember, there are young children in the audience.
And this deviant scumbag who you're going to see here is actually at one point talking to a young child in the audience.
Anyway, here it is.
Oh, wow.
Oh, I'm feeling moody tonight.
I'm so happy to be here.
Thank you all for coming out.
Oh my god, so many of you.
Ooh, I'm so excited.
Hello, are you reaching for my d***?
Are you hungry?
Oh, say mommy.
Mommy.
Trust me, the milk's gone bad.
You don't want this milk.
I know.
I've been on tour.
We've been on the tour bus.
I've been on refrigerated.
Thank you so much for this donation.
I'm going to put this to good use.
I'm going to buy more breasts.
I need more.
No, I brought for you some of my best breasts.
I brought for you my grandmother's breasts.
Yes, handed down to me generation to generation.
Oh my god, hello Grey, you sexy beautiful.
Nice to see you.
I had the best time today with Grey and Weston in the Glass Coffin.
Has anyone been to the Glass Coffin?
Well, if you haven't, you can go check it out.
They asked me, do you want to see the haunted section?
I was like, hello?
Do I want to see the haunted section?
I feel like I am a haunted section.
I was like, let's go.
No, but I've been having the best time.
Turn around, I've been working so hard, I've actually worked my butthole right off.
Look at that!
Look at that.
It's gone.
It's smooth.
Don't cry, sir.
Don't cry.
Okay, so he, yes, he did show off his bare butt to the audience there when he said that.
And earlier in the clip was talking to a child saying, are you hungry?
In reference to his fake breasts that he was showing off there.
I'm at a point now, I'm almost like a single issue voter on this.
It's not the only issue, but it's the litmus test.
It's a perfect litmus test.
And I'm not, I don't want to vote for anyone, we get to 2024.
I'm not going to vote for you unless you promise me that, like, that sort of scene, that you're going to be sending federal agents into there to arrest every adult in attendance.
Every adult in attendance and every adult on stage.
Okay, I want law enforcement agents running up onto that stage, tackling that piece of garbage, that scum, dragging him off the stage by his feet while he's in handcuffs.
That's what I want.
I'll vote for any presidential candidate who promises that.
What you need to understand here is that we are dealing with pure evil.
This is pure evil.
The people who are doing this, Are evil, the people that are attending it, and the people who support it.
I know people don't, you don't want to think this way about your fellow Americans, especially if you go online and you see the number of just seemingly normal Americans who will defend this, and you think, I can't believe that there are so many evil people in this country.
There are.
And they are evil people.
Who we should not want to compromise with, not want to reach an understanding.
I don't want to be nice and polite with you, and I'm not going to say, well, we disagree on these issues, but we can still be nice to each other.
I don't want to be nice to you.
I don't want to be around you.
I want nothing to do with you.
I don't want to share a country with you.
I don't want to share a planet with you.
That's how much I despise everything you represent.
So with this, this is not compromise, okay?
All we can do with this is crush it.
Destroy it.
That's what you do with evil.
And that's what we have to do with this.
That should be our objective.
Because this is, very plainly, the mass sexual abuse of kids happening in plain sight.
And they're not sorry, and they're not ashamed, and they're not ever going to stop until they're made to stop.
By the way, GLAAD tweeted this a couple days ago.
That's quoting a drag queen.
People are angry at our community!
Well yeah, you're sexually grooming children in front of everyone.
in over a decade, if ever. That's quoting a drag queen.
People are angry at our community.
Well, yeah, you're sexually grooming children in front of everyone. People tend to get mad
about that. That's right. I can't believe this.
I can't believe it.
We can't prance around on stage half-naked in front of kids without people getting upset.
You know, as I've been saying all along, you could just—here's an idea to the, quote, drag queen community.
It's not a real community.
The fact that you all have a thing for wearing women's clothes, that doesn't make you a community.
It's not a community.
But here's an idea.
If you don't like the reaction you're getting from the public, maybe just stop doing that.
How's that for an idea?
Stop doing it.
None of this backlash is happening.
None of this scrutiny is being directed at you guys if you aren't doing this.
Keep the kids out of it, you perverts.
Keep them out of it, and there's no problem.
Nobody was talking about drag.
Drag's existed for a long time.
No one was talking about it until you started involving kids.
And that's when it became an issue.
Have you noticed the connection?
Keep the kids out of it and no one cares.
You want to go to your gay clubs or whatever and do your, uh, your, your drag, your, your dumb drag shows with just a bunch of adults.
No, I don't want to see it.
No one wants to talk about it.
Nobody cares.
You bring kids into it and now it's a problem.
Stop doing that and it's not a problem anymore.
So, I mean, just think about this.
If it's true that they're in fear for their lives and they're getting all these threats and everything, and most of this is just invented and made up.
But even if it's true, and so, according to you, you're getting threats and all that because of your exposing kids to drag, and you're still doing it?
So what, like, it's this important to you?
You're going to risk your life?
To expose children to drag, that's how important it is to you?
To use the phrase that's always heralded at me, this is the hill you're going to die on?
Well, that just makes me all the more determined to oppose you.
Drag phobia, they say.
First of all, it's not phobia.
It's drag, I don't know, drag disgust, drag nausea, one of those words.
It's not a phobia.
You don't scare me.
I'm scared on behalf of the kids.
I'm scared for the kids that are being exposed to this stuff and the effect it's going to have on them.
No one's afraid of you.
You don't scare anybody.
A bunch of men in women's clothes dancing around the stage, you think that scares us?
They try to have it both ways.
I'm still terrified these people are being so mean to us, and they're afraid of us.
Which is it?
But drag phobia, so now that we have the phobia attached to it, that is now...
Confirmation that the metamorphosis is complete, and now drag queen has become its own identity.
Okay, this is the final step in inducting, you know, bringing a new identity into the fold, baptizing, christening a new identity.
The final step is to give it its own phobia.
And as soon as that happens, now drag queens are their own identity.
I guarantee you, and I'm not saying this as a joke, in very short order, they're going to add D for drag queen to the LGBT alphabet soup.
It's going to be in there.
They're going to get their own stripe on the increasingly cluttered pride flag.
All that's being added in as its own thing, its own identity.
And we knew that was happening, too, because you see how, even, you know, media articles that talk about the drag queens, they always refer to the drag queens, if you notice, with the female pronouns, as if they actually are, I mean, they are men performing as women, and yet, when we talk about them, we're supposed to talk about them as if their characters are real, and they really are women.
That's because it's finally changed over now, and Drag Queen is an identity.
And the reason why they're making this shift is that once they call something an identity, then you can't criticize it.
Now, if it's just a hobby, if it's just a fetish, if it's just a recreation, if it's just something like this, then you can criticize that all day long.
If it's just a profession, you know, you can criticize that.
But identities, you can't criticize.
And so how do they take something, take a fetish, take something, and make it above criticism?
Just say that it's identity.
Unfortunately, I don't play along with those rules.
I don't care if you call it identity or not.
I'm still going to criticize it.
All right.
This is from Daily Wire.
Former President Donald Trump teased a huge announcement this week, but when it turned out to be a limited run of digital trading cards featuring Trump's face on the bodies of superheroes, hilarity ensued on Twitter.
The former president teased the news in a video, showing himself with lasers coming from his eyes, claiming that America needs a superhero.
He then made the official announcement via his platform, Truth Social, declaring the release of a limited series of Trump digital trading cards that were very much like a baseball card, but hopefully much more exciting.
Only $99 each for the digital trading cards.
Yeah, this was announced two days ago that he had a major announcement.
People were talking about what could the announcement be?
Some people speculated maybe he's announcing his VP selection, maybe something like that.
And I was skeptical that it would be anything actually exciting like that.
And it turns out that it was the digital trading card.
So Trump is selling NFTs now.
So that's what that is.
Now, the full story is that on the same day, a few hours after releasing NFTs, he also announced a serious policy proposal that's quite good.
It's his free speech policy proposal to combat big tech censorship.
And it's focused largely on, I mean, there are multiple sort of platforms or pillars to this platform, but it's largely focused on prohibiting government agencies from interfering on these platforms.
So we're not going to have another Hunter Biden's laptop sort of situation.
Which is a good idea, and it's something that should be done.
And Trump, if he's president again, I really hope that he does it.
And there are some Trump fans who are claiming that the major announcement he teased was actually this.
And so this is all a false narrative, that it wasn't, no, he wasn't talking about the digital trademarks, he was talking about this.
Except the problem is that he teased a major announcement, quote-unquote, with a picture of him as a superhero, and then the next day unveiled the NFTs, calling it a major announcement, and selling images of him as a superhero.
So it's just, you can't get around the fact that that's what he was talking about.
Or, I mean, either he meant Either he meant the NFT thing to be the major announcement, or he didn't, and he meant for the policy proposal to be the major announcement, but for some damn reason, unveiled the NFTs first with the phrase major announcement attached to them, and so it was the clumsiest, most self-defeating policy rollout of all time.
I mean, in other words, either he stomped all over his own policy rollout on purpose, or by accident.
He stole his own thunder purposely or, you know, unintentionally.
Either way, it's like, it's just the kind of unforced error that you shouldn't be making when you've been in the game this long and have already been president.
And it makes me again, it makes me wonder, like, who is around Trump at this point that has good political instincts and can, would be able to step in in a situation like this and say, no, hang on a second.
Don't, don't, you know, you just announced your campaign.
Don't announce a major announcement and then come out with an NFT.
Like, don't do that.
You want to have the NFT?
I mean, I don't think you should have the NFTs at all.
NFTs are a scam.
But you want to do that?
Just, you know, just put them out there.
You don't need to.
Why is there no one around Trump who can tell him that?
Is there anyone left who can or will say it?
The other issue here is with the policy proposal itself.
I mean, it's a good policy.
I like it.
But the problem politically is that Trump needs to convince the electorate, particularly, you know, in a primary, if he does have a serious primary challenge, he needs to convince them that he will actually do these things.
And in order to convince us, he also needs to explain Why he didn't do them, or anything like it, the first time around.
I mean, the Republicans owned the White House and Congress for two years, and there was no serious effort to, you know, get a grip on big tech or any of these kinds of issues.
I don't put that entirely on Trump.
Like I said, Republicans own the White House and Congress.
They didn't do any of this.
They didn't do much.
I mean, they passed a tax cut, and that was about it.
So this is a hurdle you're going to have to get over, and he's going to be susceptible to that and vulnerable to that, especially in a primary, if he's getting attacked from the right.
Now, I think the best-case scenario politically for Trump is that in a primary—and there will be some kind of primary challenge.
We know that, but best case scenario for him is that in the Republican primary, he only gets attacked from the left, which is basically what happened in 2016.
All of the Republican challengers were attacking him from the left, or they were attacking him just on style points, or saying that he's being too mean, mean tweets and all that.
If that's all he gets, then he'll coast to victory.
On the other hand, what has never really happened to him, and didn't happen to him in 2016, is an attack from the right.
somebody saying You're not going far enough or you didn't do enough or you
know, here's what I did to advance this kind of
Conservative policy and you didn't do that's the kind of thing he never had and so it remains to be seen how he'll
respond to that All right
This one the daily wiretap film director Darren Aronofsky is defending his choice to cast actor Brendan Fraser
to play an obese gay man in the Golden Globe nominated drama The Whale
The movie tells the story of Charlie, a middle-aged man who gains weight following the death of his boyfriend and works on repairing the relationships with his estranged daughter.
It received critical acclaim, but one common reaction in the Hollywood community was to question whether Fraser was the best choice for the role, given that he's not actually gay or obese.
Aronofsky said he was surprised by the reaction, but still stands behind his decision.
He said, the film director said, actors have been using makeup since the beginning of acting.
That's one of their tools.
And the lengths we went to portray the realism of the makeup has never been done before.
One of my first calls after casting Brendan was to my makeup artist.
I asked him, can we do something that realistic?
Because it's going to look like a joke.
If it's going to look like a joke, then we shouldn't do it.
This is the kind of thing I was... When I heard about this film was coming out, and it is getting some awards buzz and some critical acclaim, and I thought, like, are they actually going to be able to get away with this?
I have no issue with it.
It sounds like an interesting idea.
Take Brendan Fraser and put him in, like, in the fat suit and try to pull off an actual dramatic performance.
Sounds interesting to me.
And I'll probably give it a watch when it's available on streaming.
But I was wondering, can you get away with this now?
Are you allowed to even do this?
Because he's not actually morbidly obese.
So they put him in the fat suit.
And then I didn't even realize this until I just read the article, but apparently he's portraying a gay man.
And he's not gay.
So not only do you have the appropriation claim, but then also is it body shaming?
Because if you're going to have a dramatic story about a morbidly obese person, a lot of the drama is going to be grounded in the fact that it's not good to be morbidly obese.
This is something that he's suffering with this.
I would think that that's how it's portrayed.
He's not going to be dancing to Lizzo songs the whole film.
He's not going to be giving, I assume, he's not going to be giving speeches on body acceptance and fat acceptance and all the rest of it.
So, can you do that in modern Hollywood?
And it turns out, eh, maybe, sort of, but not really.
Because the backlash, I guess it took a little bit while for the backlash to generate, but now it's finally here.
And of course, it's completely ridiculous.
I mean, the value, if there's any value to acting as an art form, and I think there is, by the way.
You know, when it's done well, it is a true art form, and it can be a very powerful art form.
But I think one of the things, again, when done well, one of the things that makes it so powerful is that it's empathy, you know?
Acting is, it's almost empathy as an art form.
Because you have to inhabit someone else who isn't you and, you know, sort of try to understand their motivations and inhabit that character.
I don't know, I'm not an actor myself, but that seems like that's kind of the process.
Which is why, for so long, before we got into this obsession with appropriation and representation and all this nonsense, it's usually the critically acclaimed performances are the ones where an actor is portraying something that's much further away from who he actually is.
That's when you're the most impressed.
You're not impressed with the fact that an actor is portraying something very similar to what they already are.
There might be a certain skill involved in that.
But when you can put an actor in a role that's the total opposite of them, and they pull it off, then that's the whole art.
That's what the art is.
And it's a good thing, because it's empathy.
To put Brendan Fraser in a fat suit, and have him really pull off that performance, and turn him into a protagonist that you kind of feel for and root for, that shows that he has empathy.
He's understanding people who struggle with obesity.
So it should be something that we celebrate, but oftentimes it's not.
not. All right let's get to the comment section.
You know for something that actually relieves your nausea which is something
I was always looking for with struggling with nausea and cars and
carsickness until I finally found relief band.
Reliefband is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband, clinically proven to quickly and effectively prevent or relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, and chemotherapy.
Whether you need everyday nausea relief or an occasional cure, you've got to check out ReliefBand.
Like the name says, ReliefBand is legitimately a band you wear on your wrist to give you relief from nausea.
You can even change the intensity depending on how you're feeling.
ReliefBand has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and over 100,000 satisfied customers.
If you want the band that actually works to relieve your nausea, you've got to check out ReliefBand.
If I've worked out an exclusive offer just for my listeners, if you go to reliefband.com,
use promo code Walsh, you get 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked 30
day money back guarantee.
Go to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com, use promo code Walsh for 20% off.
Jessica Hartsell says, "Yesterday I listened to a handful of your old episodes from three
or four years ago.
In one of those episodes, you discussed capital punishment and claimed to waffle on the subject,
not firmly on one side or the other."
Today's episode bring back public execution lol.
I agree with today's view.
Yeah, I've I've been pretty open about that that I've I've kind of been on both sides of the issue and for a while I waffled on it wasn't exactly sure but in recent years, I've come much more firmly down on the side of Of being in favor of capital punishment.
And, you know, advocating for public execution, by the way, I don't think that that's... I've always felt that if you're going to have it, like, if you're going to have it, if there's an argument for it, then there's also an argument for having public executions.
Because part of the value of having that, it's not the only thing, but it is, there's the deterrence element, and that will help with the deterrence.
And I think it also is, it's justice.
I actually think that, you know, if you're going to do this, and you're going to pass down the ultimate penalty, which is to take someone's life, which I am in favor of, for crimes that warrant it, because I think there are crimes where there just is no other way of addressing it.
There's no other response that makes any sense.
But if you're going to do it, then I do think it should be in public.
I think the idea of kind of The state just taking someone to a back room somewhere at the prison, and maybe there are a few witnesses there, but no one really sees it, and just dispatching of them.
I think that's a lot worse than doing it in public and letting people see that this is what's happening.
Here's what's happening to this person, and here's why it's happening.
And we got nothing to hide, you know?
We're also not going to hide from the fact.
We're not going to try to execute somebody in a way that kind of sanitizes it or medicalizes it.
We got to inject poison to make it look like they're just getting a, you know, they're just going to the doctor getting a shot.
No, we are we are killing them.
This is what's happening.
It is a violent act and we are in fact killing someone and we're gonna do it in a way that does not hide from that fact because that's what it is.
So, all right.
Scott says, Matt, your wife might actually be a bigger troll than you.
Step up your troll game, man.
Erica says, Matt's face while being handed a teddy bear scarf and subsequently serenaded by an Elvis impersonator wins the internet today.
Kara says, Elvis serenading Matt was the best thing I've seen on the Daily Wire.
We need a sequel.
Walsh's wife is the ultimate.
I do believe there was a moment when Matt was second-guessing taking the Walrus home.
Ruth says, Matt, be honest, the Elvis moment was staged.
Kim, Matt, what happened to the Elvis clip?
You took it out?
I wanted to show my husband.
So disappointed.
Okay.
So to address the Elvis in the room, it was not staged.
Not at all.
I would never be involved in staging such a thing.
You guys know me.
If they'd asked me, I would have said no.
I don't want any part of that.
So this was entirely my wife's idea in doing.
She dreamt this up in her twisted little head and it was a plan.
Perfectly calibrated to annoy me from every possible angle.
And as far as that goes, I have to admit it was brilliant.
I didn't want to say that to her.
I didn't want to give her the satisfaction.
And when I saw her later that night, she was so proud of herself, I wasn't going to give her that credit.
But, you know, don't tell her I said this, but it was a work of evil genius.
And I have begrudging respect for and emphasis on begrudging.
Now the plan did have one flaw, though.
She was so focused on whether she should troll me with an Elvis impersonator, she never stopped to think about whether she could.
Legally, according to copyright policy.
So, sadly, she didn't obtain the necessary clearances to have those songs performed, and so it had to be taken down.
Otherwise, YouTube would take the whole show down, and we'd get sued or whatever.
So, that was not my call.
I promise you that.
It wasn't my doing.
I love my wife.
I know how proud she was of this.
Rightfully so.
I would have left it up, but it was out of my hands.
As for revenge, I sort of got some last night, but I pulled my punch a little bit because my wife was texting me while I was still at work, and she had suddenly become concerned that the producers may have gotten in trouble for this whole stunt.
Like, she thought of that after the fact.
And so she was texting me about it, you know, is everything okay?
Nobody's in trouble, are they?
And at first, I was going to respond by saying, what do you mean?
Everything's fine.
No one cares.
But then I thought about it.
And so I texted back and I said, I don't know.
Sean just got called into Jeremy's office.
I don't know what's going on.
I don't know.
And she started freaking out.
She was like, what?
Oh, no.
And I didn't respond for a while.
Let it just kind of linger.
And then a few minutes later, I text again.
And I said, yeah, he just walked his car.
I think he was in tears.
Yeah, he didn't say anything to me.
I don't know what's going on.
And then she called me up and she was panicking and she felt very guilty.
And that's when I, I could have gone for the, I could have gone all the way there and really sold it.
But that's when I pulled back because I'm a man of mercy.
Ultimately.
So I admitted that I was just making that up.
So that means that the revenge, that there still has to be revenge.
That didn't count.
That was only, that was only half.
That was a half measure.
So, to be continued.
Um, Crocodile Grundy says, I told people back in the late 1990s when political correctness and hate speech laws were becoming common that those things would be the death of free speech.
I was told that I was a conspiracy theorist.
Well, here we are.
I guess we need to start calling everything they say about us hate speech.
It's no different than what we're saying about them.
Right.
And you can't, there's, there's no version of free speech that can exist.
While you still have policies and laws against hate speech.
If free speech means anything, if the First Amendment means anything, it exists.
Specifically to defend the kind of speech that would be labeled hate speech.
That's what you need free speech for, is to defend.
I'm not the first person to point this out, as I've been pointed out so many times.
It exists to defend the sort of speech that people don't like and makes people angry.
You don't need free speech policies or a First Amendment or anything to defend speech that everyone agrees with.
You're always going to be fine in any kind of society saying things that are acceptable and mainstream.
It's the things that people don't like that make people angry that you need that.
need that for.
And finally, Kelsey says, Matt, does the SPG know that you admitted to crying recently?
Why isn't this big news?
Matt Walsh cried.
He's a crier.
He cried like a baby.
Okay, more disinformation here.
I did not admit to crying.
This was during All Access last night.
A lot, it was a weird day yesterday.
A lot of weird things happened.
And I mentioned how recently, the weekend before, we took the kids to a restaurant for
dinner and we got sushi as an appetizer because my kids like sushi for some reason.
And my son dared me to eat a whole giant tablespoon of wasabi all at once.
And so I did, because I was dared, and then my eyes started to water, which is a normal physiological reaction to something like that.
And my eyes are watering, and then my daughter pointed at me and said, wow, look, Daddy is crying.
I've never seen Daddy cry before.
And she was thrilled to see this.
No, my eyes are watering, okay?
This is not the same.
There's a distinction, okay?
Find distinction between eyes watering and crying.
This is not you seeing me cry for the first time.
You will eventually see that.
Everyone can tell a story about the one time they saw their dad cry.
It's a big moment.
In your life.
Maybe it's when I walk you down the aisle years from now.
Maybe that'll be the time.
But it's not this.
You are not going to tell my grandchildren that this was the time when you saw, you know, Grandpa cry for the first time and it was because of wasabi.
Just for the record.
This year was a big one for me.
My documentary, What Is A Woman, exposed the effects of corrosive gender ideology.
Our rally to end child mutilation is leading to very real actions on the part of Tennessee legislators.
All of this was accomplished despite the wicked forces that are trying to silence me and all of us.
And all of this was accomplished largely in part because of those of you who joined the fight.
And I thank you for it.
This holiday season, you can save 30% on new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships and gift memberships when you use code HOLIDAY at checkout.
If you haven't joined the fight yet to be a part of this team, now's the time.
If you're already a member, we thank you.
If you're not yet a member, now is the time to join.
I'm planning to have an even bigger year in 2023.
So you don't want to sit on the sidelines and miss out.
Go to dailywire.com/walsh.
Use code HOLIDAY at checkout to get 30% off new Daily Wire Plus memberships.
That's dailywire.com/walsh today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we must cancel a woman named Kelsey Ballerini, who
I'm told is a country star.
I know nothing about her music, but I do know everything I need to know about her personally, based on a conversation she recently had during an episode of a podcast called Tell Me About It with Jade Iovine.
Now, as reported by the Daily Wire, ballerina spent, ballerini rather, spent some time during the interview explaining her reasons for divorcing her husband, singer Morgan Evans.
And they just got divorced after five years of marriage.
Now, the brief clip of this exchange, which we will play for you now.
Could be an extremely valuable tool, especially for young couples, okay?
In fact, young people in dating relationships, they ask me all the time how they can know if they've selected the right partner for marriage, right?
That's the big question.
Well, here's one way.
This is a good litmus test.
Sit your girlfriend down or your boyfriend down, play the following clip for them, and then ask if they agree with the attitudes and perspectives they hear in it.
And if the answer is anything but, oh, hell no, are you kidding me?
Run.
Don't walk, run in the other direction and never look back.
So with that set up, here it is.
Is this person right for me?
Like, am I good with this being forever?
Am I good with him never doing the dishes ever in my life, you know, for the rest of my life or whatever those stupid things are?
How did you know that it wasn't relationship anxiety or negative intrusive voices in your head and that it was actually like your heart speaking?
That's a good question.
I'm really like intuitive and in tune with myself and like my gut and my heart.
And I think for a while, you're right.
It was kind of like, okay, this is just a new phase of a relationship because relationships go through seasons, right?
And like, it's not always going to be rainbows and butterflies.
Like, that's just not it.
And I, and I think for a long time, I, I was like, oh, this is just, The glitter wears off.
That's what happens, you know?
And then you just, you get into a phase where you just, you wait for, you wait for it to come back.
And then, you know, and then sometimes it doesn't.
But at the end of the day, it is such a disservice and a dishonoring of yourself if you know something is not right and you stay.
But your life is so loud.
You know, you have so much going on all the time.
I think when people hear about couples counseling, then they hear about a couple getting divorced, they're like, oh, it didn't work.
But oftentimes that is actually couples counseling working, you know?
Because you realize that this isn't the relationship for both of you.
And I think what's so hard is having to break your own heart and someone else's in the process of saving yourself.
So hard.
Okay, so the glitter wore off after five years, and then Kelsey, patient woman that she is, waited around for a phase to see if the glitter returned, but to her horror, it never did.
She must have spent hours, maybe even days, Potentially a week waiting to see if the magical marriage glitter would fall from the sky.
But it didn't.
And she doesn't want to be in a non-glittery marriage.
Who would?
Indeed, she says that it would be dishonoring and a disservice to herself if she were to honor her marriage vows and remain loyal to the man that she pledged her undying love and devotion to.
But who cares about things like vows and oaths and everything else?
I mean, think about the glitter.
That's what matters.
So she got up and left.
Of course, the other woman in the exchange, Jade, fully understands and agrees with this approach to the marriage sacrament.
In fact, she adds that this is one of the great benefits of marriage counseling, is that so often, as she explains, it can help you to understand that you need to leave your spouse.
After all, if you aren't happy, then what else is there to do?
You just have to leave.
Do one more glitter check before you head out the door.
Stop for a moment, look around.
Do you see any glitter?
No?
Well, then that's it.
Time to go.
Like I said, play that clip for the person you're dating.
If they roll their eyes and scoff and say something like, who are these dumb bimbos, you know you found yourself a keeper.
But if they listen intently and nod their heads and say, wow, yeah, glitter in the marriage, they make some good points.
Promptly get up, inform the person the relationship is over, and just leave.
No need for a long emotional conversation.
Simply end it now before this person ruins your life, because they will.
Now here's the issue with the marital insights offered by Kelsey and Jade.
Well, there are many issues, but it's a Friday.
I don't want to be here all day, so let's boil it down to just a few.
What we heard in that clip is the very common and very wrong passive view of marriage and romance.
That your relationship with your spouse is fueled by some sort of mysterious emotional force, which is often incorrectly called love, and that as soon as your marriage runs out of this mystical fuel, all you can do is abandon it on the side of the road and hitch a ride with the next car that happens to drive by.
This view is popular in our society because it removes all responsibility and all blame from the individual.
Marriage is presented as a passive endeavor.
It's something that's established and then destroyed by forces outside of our control.
Love is something that you fall into, right?
Like a puddle.
And then out of.
And there's not much you can really do to cause the one or prevent the other.
We chalk it up to irreconcilable differences.
It's all just stuff that happens.
Oops, I'm married.
Oops, I'm having an affair.
Oops, I'm divorced.
Oops, I'm married again.
Oops, I'm divorced again.
Oops, I'm lonely and isolated and everyone I've ever known resents me.
Oops, silly me.
I'm so clumsy.
But here's the reality.
These were choices every step of the way.
And the state which you find yourself in, falling in and out of, this is not love.
Because real love is an act of will.
It's a decision.
It's a conscious activity.
It's something that you do.
It's something that you live.
Okay, love is chosen.
And if it's protected and nurtured, it grows.
Love is sacrifice.
Love is effort.
Love is everything St.
Paul describes in 1 Corinthians.
Love is dying to yourself.
Love is many things, and none of them happen by accident.
But most of all, it's a thing you do.
It is an activity.
So if you stop loving your spouse after five years, it's because you chose to stop and most likely you never started.
The fundamental confusion is that people think that emotional infatuation that they feel for someone that they first met is love.
You know, that's what they think.
They might even describe this as falling in love or love at first sight.
But infatuation is not love.
Infatuation actually has almost nothing to do with love.
You can be infatuated with somebody and not love them.
A stalker can be infatuated with somebody and then kill them.
I'm not saying that the infatuation phase is bad.
I'm simply saying that it's a phase.
It happens at the very beginning.
It's the fuel that's supposed... There's a reason for it.
It has a function.
And the infatuation phase is supposed to help launch the rocket and get it off the ground.
But it's not going to sustain you for the whole journey or even for any significant part of it.
Because infatuation has to give way to love, which isn't to say that love is less exciting or less intense or less thrilling.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Infatuation is fleeting.
It's thin.
It's hormonal.
Love is much realer, it's much deeper, it's much more meaningful.
I love my wife today, in spite of the Elvis incident, after 11 years of marriage, in a way that I could never have loved her when I first met her.
I didn't know her when we first met.
Only thing I knew when we first met is that she's hot, and she has a fun personality, which was more than enough to be infatuated with.
Okay, it doesn't take much to be infatuated.
That's, and that's really, especially if you're a guy, that's like all it takes.
You don't even need the personality part.
It's just, just the first part is really all you need.
But that's not love.
So Kelsey, when she talks about the glitter, What she's really describing is the infatuation phase.
But it's all she ever had with her husband, and once it died, rather than work towards a truly loving and self-sacrificial marriage, she just bailed.
Many such cases.
Of course, the other problem with this approach, aside from the fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and meaning of love, is that it's entirely self-centered.
If your own immediate and uninterrupted happiness is the focal point of your marriage, it will fail.
And there's nothing unique about that.
Literally any endeavor will fail if your immediate and uninterrupted happiness is the focal point.
You will never be able to do anything worthwhile in life, or achieve anything of note, ever, if you insist that the whole point of the enterprise is for you to simply be happy.
Okay?
If the only thing you care about is your own happiness, you will never do anything worthwhile in your life.
You will be a failure.
You'll be a miserable failure for your entire life.
You will live a pathetic, meaningless life and you will die and nobody will even remember that you existed.
If you live entirely pursuing your own happiness and nothing else.
Now, the irony is that Kelsey is apparently a successful musician, which means that she understands this point.
She has certainly had to wade through many unhappy moments in order to have a success in her music career.
Nobody can achieve anything notable in any career if their own happiness is their sole motivation and goal.
I don't know anything about her music.
I don't know if it's any good or not.
I mean, I suspect it's probably not.
But either way, you can't become a very successful musician without working really hard.
It's just impossible.
So if we can see why that would be the case in a career, why is it so difficult to see how it would apply to other areas of your life?
That's not to say that happiness is irrelevant or unimportant in a marriage.
It's just to say that marriage Doesn't exist simply to make you happy.
That's not the primary function of a marriage.
It's not the primary function of your spouse.
It's not your spouse's job to make you happy every second of the day.
It's not anyone's job to do that.
There is no one on this earth who exists... Scratch that.
There is no one who exists in the entire universe And whose only job is to make you happy.
That doesn't exist anywhere.
It's not anyone's job to do that.
And so it's not fair to put that burden on your spouse, especially since the sort of people who expect others to make them happy all the time are also the sorts of people who are never happy.
Which means that you have given your spouse a literally impossible job that you will then blame them for failing to accomplish.
All of that is wrong.
And if it was just Kelsey Ballerini who had these misconceptions about marriage, it wouldn't even be worth addressing.
But tragically, these misconceptions are shared by many in our culture, and it's why so many marriages fail, and so many others never even begin.
And that's why it's still worth saying today, unfortunately, Kelsey Ballerini is cancelled.
