Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Daily Show hosted by Chelsea Handler defends and promotes childlessness. We're told that not having children is great because it means that you can sit in hot tubs and go on vacations, among other things. I'll pick through all of the problems with that argument today. Also, our sports show here at the Daily Wire, Crain and Company, is breaking some news today about Lia Thomas, the male swimmer who claims to be a woman. The details are repulsive, but important to here. Plus, the White House now says that the UFOs invading our airspace are probably just used car balloons. In our Daily Cancellation, a New York Times columnist dedicates an entire essay to responding to one of my tweets.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 40% off to access the entire content library of movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at http://puretalk.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 Matt Wall Show, The Daily Show, hosted by Chelsea Handler, defends and promotes childlessness.
We're told that not having children is great because it means that you can sit in hot tubs and go on vacations, among other things.
I'll pick through all the problems with that argument today.
Also, our sports show here at The Daily Wire, Craning Company, is breaking some news today about Leah Thomas, the male swimmer who claims to be a woman.
The details are repulsive, but important.
Plus, the White House now says that the UFOs invading our airspace are probably just used car balloons.
Right.
And our Daily Cancellation and New York Times columnist dedicates an entire essay to responding to one of my tweets.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
We all know big business, especially big wireless, is always looking to lock you down into multi-year contracts with huge penalties.
Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
They're the only wireless company that offers a 100% money-back guarantee.
They're so sure you're going to love their service that if you don't, they'll give you your money back.
But I have a feeling you are going to love the service.
Stop paying for Verizon AT and Tier 2 mobile.
Cut your bill in half with Pure Talk.
Their US-based customer service team makes the switch really easy.
Switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone number and your phone as well.
Your first month is guaranteed risk-free.
So go to puretalk.com, enter promo code Walsh to save 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com, promo code Walsh.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
If you want to understand modern American society, the first thing you need to realize
is that lots of people are very unhappy.
And those unhappy people tend to think that their unhappiness can be cured by majority vote, essentially.
If they can convince other people to live the way that they live and do the things that they do and become as unhappy as they are, then, magically, it will have the effect of making them happy.
And in a similar way, they believe that if they can convince everyone else that they are not unhappy, Even though they are indeed deeply and tragically unhappy, then they will become happy.
And if none of those strategies work, of course, which they don't, then there's always antidepressants, which also don't work.
What I've just described could, of course, be summarized by the cliche, misery loves company.
And that, as it happens, would also be a great title for Chelsea Handler's autobiography, if she ever writes one.
Not that the title of a book that nobody will read really matters.
Chelsea Handler, of course, is a comedian, at least I've gathered based on context clues that she's a comedian, or trying to be one anyway.
I've never actually heard her tell anything that can be immediately recognized As a joke.
That is unless we step back and view her career through a wider lens and see that her entire career is the joke.
Maybe this is some sort of like performance art that she's doing.
And if that's what she's going for, then she is pulling it off, and masterfully so, I have to say.
Now, recently Handler took the job of guest host on The Daily Show after Trevor Noah's departure.
And we can't be sure what the producers had in mind when they hired a shrill, unfunny spinster with all the wit and charm of a bitter middle-aged woman standing in line at Target while loudly complaining that they don't have enough registers open.
I can only assume that there are Maybe some Trevor Noah loyalist still on the staff who wanted to find someone who could manage to make him seem funny in retrospect.
Maybe that's what's going on.
Whatever the thought process, it didn't take Handler very long to steer the show in the only direction she knows how to go, which is desperately justifying her own life choices.
Especially her choice to not have children.
Actually, I need to amend that slightly, because it's not that Handler has chosen not to have children, it's that she's chosen not to allow any of her children to live.
She is childless today, thanks to the three abortions that she often brags about.
She doesn't have any living children, we should say.
She is, however, the mother of three dead children, babies who were sacrificed on the altar of her quote-unquote freedom, a freedom that was purchased with the blood of her own children.
Just to clarify, that's what we're talking about.
Recently, as many people have seen in viral clips of the show, Handler dedicated an episode to defending and promoting her child-free lifestyle.
Now, normally, nothing involving Chelsea Handler, or the Daily Show for that matter, is worth talking about.
But in this case, she inadvertently raises, I think, a few points, a few important points, that are worth discussing.
So I think it's worth spending a little bit of time on this.
So, here's Chelsea.
One thing that I have made abundantly clear is that I do not want children.
I say it on stage, I say it in interviews, it's the first thing I say to myself in the
mirror when I wake up each morning, right before I tell myself, "God, you're a dynamic
woman."
Kids don't respect me, and quite frankly, the feeling is mutual.
(audience laughing)
And the fact is, there are millions of women just like me, but for some reason, every single one of us, at some point in our lives, is shamed by society for not wanting a baby.
And that's what I want to talk about in tonight's installment of Long Story Short.
Well, actually, Chelsea, society wouldn't know or especially care that you don't have kids.
Nobody's running up to you on the street screaming, hey, where are your babies?
You better have babies.
Rather, you know, you often talk about your decision to be childless, and you talk about it in the most obnoxious ways you possibly can, which gives everyone else in society the right to give their own opinion about your choices and the reasoning behind those choices.
This is the way it works, and it's something that everyone needs to understand, because a lot of people struggle with this.
You see, when you present your lifestyle choice to the public, When you go on TV and talk about it in front of millions of people, or at least hundreds of people in the case of The Daily Show, you have submitted that lifestyle choice for public discussion.
You cannot go to the public and say, hey, guess what?
Here's a fact about me and the way that I live my life.
You can't do that and then get offended when people say, well, here's my opinion about that.
You gave that information to us.
People naturally form opinions about the information you tell them.
Now, nobody has the right to go banging on your front door and demanding to know how many kids you have, but everyone has the right to form opinions about the unsolicited information you give them.
Don't want their opinion?
Well then, don't tell them about it.
Now, let's listen to her continue to tell us about it.
In America, and honestly everywhere, motherhood is treated as a woman's essential purpose in life.
As if our destiny is to let a tiny stranger rip a hole through our Pikachu from the inside out.
And then as soon as we turn 18, we're just supposed to sit back and wait for Nick Cannon to impregnate us?
Yeah, you see, it's funny because she made a reference to pop culture.
We all know that a statement is automatically hilarious when it refers to something in pop culture that we all recognize.
You don't need to have an actual punchline.
No joke is needed.
Simply say, hey, you guys remember this thing from pop culture?
And then wait for the uproarious laughter to commence, especially if you're in front of a studio audience where they're instructed to laugh.
And it really works.
Next, we hear testimonials from other childless women who have been viciously discriminated against by society, they claim.
And the ode to childlessness goes on for a while longer, and it leads eventually to this.
But these Fox News trolls are right about one thing.
I am miserable.
In fact, I was just scrolling through my Instagram feed the other day, realizing how miserable I am.
I'm miserable on the beach.
And then here I am, miserable on the top of a mountain.
And then here I am, miserable scuba diving.
And then I'm miserable again, smoking a joint in a hot tub.
[cheers and applause]
Every day is truly a new circle of hell for me.
[LAUGHTER]
The simple truth is that I'm not having a kid because I'm happier without them.
And that's really not of anyone's concern, but my own.
[applause]
And no, I don't hate kids.
I just don't want them.
That's what's so great about nieces and nephews.
I love being an aunt.
I'm crushing that role.
Guess who gave each one of them their first edible?
This girl!
Yeah!
You see, Chelsea, you're 47 years old.
So giving drugs to kids doesn't make you a cool aunt.
It makes you a creep.
And worse.
Also, if your decision to not have any living children is not anyone's concern but your own, then why did you dedicate a 10-minute segment on national TV to it?
Once again, that's the question.
Well, you did it, as we established at the beginning, partly because you're trying to convince yourself of your own happiness.
This partly explains virtually everything that any leftist says about almost any subject.
It's almost always, at least in part, a game of them convincing themselves that they're happy with the way they've chosen to live their lives.
And also you did it because you wish to promote your empty, miserable lifestyle in the hopes that more people will join you in it.
And it's for that latter reason that I feel compelled to make two points in response.
First, I must again point out that you're 47 years old.
Nothing wrong with being 47.
The point is that you could have had kids and yet still be at this point climbing all the mountains and hanging out on all the beaches that you want.
Because children don't stay toddlers forever.
They grow up.
Okay, if you had a child at the age when the average woman in America has children these days, even though that average age is going up and it's getting older and older, but even now, after that process has happened, your child would be about 21 years old right now, if you follow sort of the average trajectory.
And if your child followed the average trajectory, by the time you're in your early 50s, your child would be married with a child of their own.
The point is that at your age, you could have all of your precious freedoms, all of your vacations, all the time in the hot tub that you want, all the time to sleep in that you want, especially if you don't have a job, and also a family.
See, you're too old now to use this argument that you want to make.
To use the argument of like, you see, you see how easy my life is?
I don't have to get up in the morning with a screaming baby.
That might work when you're, still not a compelling argument, but like, at least it's relevant when you're 28, because if you were 28 and you had a kid, there's a very good chance the kid would be a baby.
You can't do that when you're 47.
There are very few 47-year-olds, even ones with lots of kids that are waking up in the middle of the night with a baby.
You know, it's like going up to somebody who just finished a marathon and bragging that you get to sit down and relax and you don't have to run a marathon.
Well, the person who just finished it also can sit down and relax, yet they get to do it with the knowledge that they finished a marathon.
So you're both relaxing now, but only one of you ran a marathon.
Who's in the better spot?
Indeed, who can enjoy that relaxation more?
See, that's a factor that isn't often taken into consideration, but it's an important life lesson.
As a childless person, you don't get to experience the joys of having children, obviously, but you also don't really get to experience the benefits of not having children.
You don't actually experience that.
Or I should say, you might experience them, but you don't appreciate them.
You can't.
You see, you've always been able to sleep in.
You've never had to wake up in the middle of the night with a crying baby.
You've always been able to sit in the hot tub whenever you want.
You've always been able to take vacations wherever and whenever you want.
You've never known what it's like to not have any of that, which means you can't experience all of the joy of having it.
The only people who can truly enjoy not running a marathon are those who've run marathons.
It only makes sense for someone who's run marathons to wake up in the morning and say, man, I'm glad I'm not running a marathon today.
For all the rest of us, that's just that we've never experienced it before.
So every day is not running a marathon.
So we never really have that moment of, wow, thank God I'm not running a marathon.
This is the catch-22 of life.
Only the people who've done something can enjoy not doing that same thing.
So, older people who've raised young children and have now moved past that phase of life certainly do feel relief that they no longer have to deal with some of the challenges that come with that phase.
They also look back and miss a lot of that, okay?
You talk to any 47-year-old who's had kids and they've moved past it, you're going to hear them say a lot about how, I miss those days, man, I really miss those days.
But there are also parts of those days that they don't miss.
They don't miss having to wake up in the middle of the night or wake up early in the morning with a kid.
They don't miss that.
They're relieved to be past that.
But you don't have that relief because you never were in that phase.
You didn't earn the relief.
They did.
So they feel it in a way that you never will.
Then again, I should also note that even parents of young children can still sit in hot tubs and go to the beach and enjoy and even climb mountains if they want.
It may take more planning.
It may involve complications that you don't have to deal with if you don't have kids.
But despite popular misconceptions, you don't have to put your life on hold when you have kids.
You don't have to give up really any of the things you like to do or any of your passions.
I mean, provided that they're, you know, they're fruitful and good things.
Instead, you learn to be intentional with your time.
You learn to make good use of the time that you have.
And that's a skill that you, Chelsea, would have done well to acquire, but you clearly never did.
Second, and finally, having children.
And this is maybe the most important point.
Having children will not automatically make anyone happy.
That's true.
Okay?
Nobody is claiming that if you have a baby, you will immediately become unspeakably happy, and you'll remain that happy forever, experiencing an unbroken chain of pure, uncomplicated joy until the day you die.
That is not the case.
And nobody has ever said that it's the case.
In fact, if you're determined to be miserable as a parent, There will be many opportunities presented to you to be as miserable as you want to be.
No, the point is that parenting opens up the possibility for joy, unique kinds of joy that are simply not available and are indeed in some ways inconceivable to non-parents.
So the happiness that you're talking about, Chelsea, vacations and hot tubs and so on, These are self-centered things.
You're happy because of the comfort and entertainment that's being provided to you.
There's nothing wrong with that in moderation.
Everyone is familiar with that kind of happiness.
And it's available to everyone, parents and non-parents alike.
But the joy of parenting and of family life is a joy found in caring for someone else.
And that is a joy that you, Chelsea, have never in your life experienced, ever.
You can't conceive of it.
You don't know what it is.
You have lived your whole life without it, and will die without it, and will be worse for it.
This is the joy in giving, in loving.
It's the joy found in the bond that holds families together.
It's a simple joy, and it's free.
And it's more pure and more beautiful than any joy that can be provided to you by a vacation resort.
It's a joy that, if you open yourself to it, makes you a better person.
It makes you less selfish, less superficial, less focused on your own needs and wants.
In other words, a parent who opens themselves up to the joy of parenthood will become, well, a lot less like Chelsea Handler.
And that is perhaps the best advertisement for parenting that I can offer.
Now let's get to our headlines.
Well, I hope you had a good Valentine's Day.
I think that ours was pretty good.
I don't know what my wife would say, but she said she wanted to watch a romantic comedy
last night.
Very cliche, stereotypical Valentine's Day type of thing.
It's after we ate dinner, the kids are on the bed, she said she wanted to watch a romantic
comedy.
And then she even said there was a new one with Jennifer Lopez.
I was like, I didn't even know that she was still making movies.
Apparently she is.
But I convinced my wife instead to watch the 1997 Kurt Russell action flick, Breakdown,
which is a movie where Kurt Russell gets kidnapped by evil truckers and he has to go and kill
them all and rescue her from the kidnappers.
And it's a great film.
It's seriously underrated, by the way.
I think it's one of my favorite films, certainly one of my favorite action flicks of the 90s.
And I talked her into watching that instead, and she was not impressed.
Which, look, I understand it's not a romantic comedy, but it is a romance.
He rescues his wife from evil murderous truckers.
What is more romantic than that?
And there's, you know, it's not a lot of comedy.
There is a scene at the end, spoiler alert, where Kurt Russell throws the main bad guy over a bridge, and then he's, like, lying at the bottom, you know, in this ravine, and his body's broken on all the rocks, but he's still alive.
And then this semi-truck falls right on top of him.
And it's pretty funny.
Like, to me, it's funny.
So you've got romance and you've got comedy together.
Maybe not in a holistic way, but it's there.
And so, I thought it was a good Valentine's Day viewing, but apparently not.
You live and learn.
No Kurt Russell action movies on Valentine's Day.
It's fine.
But at least, you know, last year we went to Cracker Barrel on Valentine's Day.
So, you know, this was at least a step up from that.
All right, so I want to start with this.
Our friends over at Craney Company, this great sports show here at The Daily Wire, are breaking some news this morning.
And it starts with Riley Gaines, who is one of the female collegiate swimmers.
Who competed against Leah Thomas, who is the male swimmer pretending to be a female and was allowed to compete against women.
Riley Gaines is one of the few women who was directly impacted by this and has had the courage to speak out.
Not the only one, but one of the few.
And they had an interview with Riley Gaines.
I think we have a brief clip of that interview.
Let's go ahead and play that.
If we let it, there will be men pretending to be women that ruin women's sports.
But ranking first was a person I had never heard of before.
And of course, this name was Leah Thomas.
Leah Thomas did, in fact, formerly swim on the men's team for three years.
I thought, surely the NCAA wouldn't let this person compete with us.
The NCAA official looks at me and says, great job, y'all tied.
The trophy goes to Leah.
And he said, well, for photo purposes, Leah has to have it.
Wow.
Leah Thomas, who used to be Will Thomas, is now dating someone that used to be a man that's now a woman, and they consider themselves lesbians.
Very interesting dynamic.
The things they practice actively are interesting.
They cut off parts of their male parts, but left other parts.
These testicles are in a jar.
Stop.
We were being sidelined to validate the feelings and the identity of a man.
Okay, so there's some of what was revealed, and Jake Crane, on his Twitter account, has laid out a thread this morning with a lot of this information, at Jake Crane underscore, if you want to go see for yourself.
So I'll read a little bit from this, and this is what it says.
This is a thread we never expected to write.
We sat down with NCAA women's swimmer Riley Gaines and she shared some info about Leo Thomas.
So we did some digging and now we have a lot of questions.
Is this what the NCAA thinks a woman is?
Warning, what we found is jarring.
I don't know if that's an intentional pun given some of the information we find out later the jarring part
But there's some literal jarring that has gone on apparently
Leah Thomas appears to have two Instagram accounts as public account Leah Kate Thomas featuring a small handful
of generic photos promoting messages like let Trans kids play then a private account, which is Leah
Basically Leah Tim is with an eye rather than a no in our research. We found the observance
someone Nicole Walrose the name who identified multiple IG posts
about autogynephilia that Leah Thomas under the account Leah Tim is
allegedly engaged with AGP autogynephilia is a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.
A similar image liked by Leah Timmis is still found on Instagram account of Gwen Weiskopf, which is Leah's alleged romantic partner.
Gwen, who identifies Leah as his girlfriend, is also a quote-unquote transgender woman.
According to a GoFundMe for Gwen's breast augmentation, he's also an unlicensed social worker living in Philadelphia.
And then more information about this person.
Lots of, some of the stuff I don't even want to read, it's so disgusting.
Are Gwen and Leah in an exclusive couple or in a polyamorous sex pod?
One user called crybabyhellb*** writes, nice polycule, liked by Gwen on a photo of Leah, Gwen, and two other trans people.
In the post, Gwen tags a third member via stuffed animal in bed with Leah.
So then apparently there's some sort of polyamorous thing going on and later on we hear about Gwen posted a mysterious round shaped organ looking item in a clear ball jar.
So does this mean that testicles were removed and put in a jar?
I guess we're We'll have to speculate about that.
There's some Satanism stuff.
A lot of very disturbing images as well that they dug up.
And all of this is, you know, it's posted to the internet, but a lot of the stuff is on private accounts.
Some of it was on public accounts, just nobody took the time to go and find it.
Now, so what's the point here?
I think the point's rather obvious.
It's not surprising to me, anyway, that Leah Thomas is a depraved pervert, according to the information that they found here.
That doesn't surprise me.
But what it reveals, and rather what it confirms, that any thinking person should have already known, really, Is that this is a fetish, okay?
This is a fetish community, if we can even call it a community.
And that's what it is.
Autogynephilia.
Okay?
As it says there in the thread.
Autogynephilia is the men who are thrilled by the thought of themselves as a woman.
Okay?
They get off on the idea of themselves being a woman.
Which, by the way, that is not the same thing as actually thinking that you are one.
That's the important point.
Now, even if Leo Thomas actually believed that he is a woman, that wouldn't at all make him a woman, and so it wouldn't change much, or it shouldn't.
But it becomes all the more grotesque and absurd when you consider the fact That even these people who claim to identify as women, many of them really don't.
They don't even believe what they're saying about themselves.
And yet we're supposed to believe it.
This is a fetish.
He gets a thrill out of pretending to be a woman and walking around like a woman and going into the women's locker room.
It's a thrill.
It's a fetish thing.
And so what we're being told is we have to participate in your fetish.
Leah Thomas becomes sexually excited by the idea of other people seeing him as a woman and by competing against women in, you know, in women's sports.
It's all part of a fetish.
And what the women in these sports are being told is that you, it's not even that you have to affirm his self-perception, as twisted as that would be on its own, it's actually that you must participate in this man's fetish.
Okay, he gets turned on by the idea of himself as a woman, and even more so if you participate in that charade, and so you have to participate.
Because he has a right to act out his depraved fetish in public and with your participation.
That's what the women are being told.
And as I've been saying for so long, this is the case.
It's impossible to know for sure, of all the people these days who claim to be trans or whatever, we can't see inside their minds, so we don't know exactly what's going on.
We can't say for sure.
All we could talk about is what is the physical reality, and so we know that they are not, they claim to be a certain thing and they're not that thing.
We know that because we understand physical reality.
But there's a lot of very good evidence, some of it in this thread here, that even if we could see inside their minds, They are misrepresenting in public what their own perception is.
And for a lot of these men in particular, they don't even actually see themselves as women.
They know that they aren't.
That's the whole point of the fetish, is to pretend to be something that they're not.
Autogynephilia explains, can't say what the percentage is, but it's a large percentage of these trans, quote-unquote, trans men.
Especially, especially the men who quote-unquote transition later in life, even if it's when they're 19 or 20.
But in particular the cases, you know, think about someone like Rachel Levine transitions as middle-aged man.
This is not someone who the whole time really thought of himself as a woman and perceived himself that way.
This was a sexual fetish that he finally decided that he was going to dedicate his entire life to.
And also require everyone else to participate in that.
That's what so much of this is.
Now, for women, it's often a very different thing, especially adolescent girls who get caught up in this.
For them, it is social contagion, it is self-loathing, it's fear about their own bodies and the way that their bodies are changing.
It's a lot of that.
It's a fear and loathing of who they are that's being expressed in this way.
So, there are many different kinds of motivations that lead a person to this conclusion of claiming to be trans.
But the really important point, again, is that, you know, we often talk about these people and say, well, they're confused.
In many cases, they're not even really confused.
You know, they understand what the reality is, but they have other motivations.
And that's the case for Leah Thomas, pretty clearly.
Nikki Haley announced her candidacy for president yesterday, and here's Whoopi Goldberg on The View trying to explain why she opposes it.
You know, the Republican... I hate to ruin it for you, but the Republican playing field for the 2024 presidential race just got a little bigger.
Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley released a campaign ad making her pitch to the people.
Take a look.
My parents reminded me and my siblings every day how blessed we were to live in America.
Some look at our past as evidence that America's founding principles are bad.
They say the promise of freedom is just made up.
Some think our ideas are not just wrong, but racist and evil.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Joe Biden's record is abysmal, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.
The Washington establishment has failed us over and over and over again.
It's time for a new generation of leadership.
You should know this about me.
I don't put up with bullies.
And when you kick back, it hurts them more if you're wearing heels.
I'm Nikki Haley, and I'm running for president.
So, Nikki, you know, since you have been asleep all this time, and you just woke up, You're just finding out that there are things about our country that are not perfect.
And for us to pretend that it is and that nothing happened is ridiculous.
So you're not saying anything new.
And you of all people should know better.
Because you used to actually have some sanity and knew right from wrong.
And then you lost your mind and went in some new direction.
So don't do that.
What?
What are you basing any of that on?
Why is that your response to the clip that you just played?
See, this is just, and I don't support Nikki Haley's candidacy, as I said yesterday, and I'll talk in a minute about some more specific reasons why I don't, but this is just people on the left, Democrats, trying to find a reason To oppose Nikki Haley, who's a very, you know, very kind of benign, establishment conservative type figure.
And they're trying to find a reason to oppose her.
They don't really have a reason.
It's just like, it's a reflex.
All they know about her is that she's a Republican.
That's all they really need to know.
And this is in spite of all the efforts that Nikki Haley has made to appeal to people like that.
Nikki Haley's made many efforts to appeal to the Whoopi Goldbergs of the world, and the women of The View.
And even after all that effort, this is what she gets in response.
Which is why it's a very bad idea to waste your time trying to appeal.
You sacrifice your integrity and your principles for the sake of appealing to people who will never accept you.
Ever.
Unless you abandon entirely, even the facade of being conservative, and say, I denounce all of that, I renounce all of that, now I'm a left-wing progressive, I'm sorry for everything I ever said.
If you do that, then, yeah, maybe they'll accept you.
Sort of.
But they're never going to let you live down the fact that you—they're never, even then, they're not going to really forgive you for having ever dared disagree with them.
But that's the most amount of acceptance you could ever hope.
If you don't do that, anything short of that, there will be no acceptance at all, so there's no point.
A guy named Gavin Sample compiled a tweet thread of all the reasons that he opposes Nikki Haley's candidacy, and I happen to agree with many of these reasons, and it kind of illustrates the point that I was just making.
So, I'm gonna run through.
What some of what he is compiled for those of us who don't you know, maybe have not been keeping very close track of
Nikki Haley, I don't remember everything she's ever said. Here's
just a few few highlights or maybe we should say lowlights Gavin sample writes Nikki Haley's running for president.
Here's a list of a few reasons. No one should vote for Number one Nikki Haley fell for the Bubba Wallace hate hoax,
and then he reposted this tweet from 2020 Extremely embarrassing in hindsight and in fact was
embarrassed not hindsight. It was embarrassing in the moment
Because any thinking person knew in the moment that the whole Bubba Wallace story was ridiculous
and I'm gonna be back. I'm gonna The claim that someone planted a noose in a NASCAR garage was always absurd, but this is what Nikki Haley wrote at the time.
We should all stand with Bubba Wallace today against the cowards who secretly put the noose in his garage stall.
Watch your back, cowards.
Bubba has a bigger army than you do.
Hashtag hate won't win.
Hashtag we stand with Bubba.
Then he writes some other examples.
Nikki Haley opposes combating big tech censorship.
She wrote in 2020 also, censorship by big tech companies, especially censorship of conservative opinions, violates the spirit of the law and the First Amendment, but more regulations would go too far in the other direction, putting bureaucrats and lawyers in control of what gets said online.
Either way, free speech loses.
Nikki Haley has been a squish when it comes to immigration.
He brings that up.
Nikki Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's state capitol after the 2015 Charleston church shooting.
And Gavin writes, her decision can easily be seen as the first monument removal that sparked the entire movement.
This has led to many more statues and monuments of Confederate generals, also Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and even George Washington being removed.
That's an important point, that this was not, it wasn't like she got caught up In the hysteria of taking down all the confederate flags and monuments and everything.
It wasn't even that, she actually kicked it off, arguably.
She also wrote this again in 2020 after George Floyd.
We spent the last couple of days celebrating our son's graduation.
Tonight I turned on the news and I'm heartbroken.
It's important to understand that the death of George Floyd was personal and painful for many.
In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.
That is precisely what the left, people like AOC and Ilhan Omar and others, Rashid,
Tlaib and all the rest of the squad. That's precisely what they were saying.
To justify looting and rioting.
Well, these people feel pain and so everyone needs to feel their pain.
Even though they actually aren't inflicting that, they're inflicting that pain on other people in their community, not even on the rest of us.
Now there are other things that he brings up, but I think these three alone really tell you everything you need to know about Nikki Haley and any other Republican who did the same thing.
You know, it's just, I could never trust you.
I could never trust you as a leader when you failed in these moments.
Bubba Wallace.
The Confederate, taking down the Confederate flag, and then George Floyd.
Those three things.
You got those three things wrong, and that's just it.
It doesn't mean I'm going to hate you forever as a person, but it means that I can never trust you as a leader.
Because those are the moments when your leadership is needed the most, and if you're not there when it's needed the most, then how can I trust you in any other situation?
For all this stuff.
You know, going along with the bubble walls thing shows, number one, a willingness to go along with the crowd.
It also shows that you are easily duped in a way that is very concerning.
Either you're easily duped or you're willing to pretend that you've been duped to go along with the crowd.
George Floyd, again, you know, going along with the crowd, saying things that can only be construed as promoting and justifying rioting and looting.
And then when it comes to the Confederate flag, this is an important one, too, because There are even some conservatives that would defend that one and say, oh, it shouldn't be a Confederate flag flying.
What I've always said about this is that when it comes to any monument, anything like that, you know, no one is saying that every single flag that's ever been raised, every monument that's ever been erected has to stay forever and that we can never take it down under any circumstance.
No one is saying that.
So if there's something you want to take down, You make your argument.
You explain why you should take it down.
But you do that on your own terms.
What you never ever do is do it in response to the mob.
So if you've got a good argument for taking down a monument, you make that argument at a time when the mob isn't demanding it.
The fact that the mob demands it is reason enough to not do it.
Even if otherwise you could make an argument for it.
If the mob demands it, you don't do it.
That again is leadership.
You never cave to the demands of the mob.
So, Nikki Haley, not the one we need in this moment or any other moment.
This is from the New York Post.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of unknown objects soaring in the skies, but they're likely just used car balloons or other benign crafts and not aliens visiting Earth, according to White House officials on Monday.
White House Homeland Security Adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall said in a virtual briefing, quote, there are no UFOs.
This is not an invasion of aliens.
I mean, it's funny, but it's not funny because people are communicating this on platforms that are widely viewed.
But despite Sherwood Randall's assurance to the elected officials, the government is still unable to identify the trio of recently downed objects.
The first was shot down off of Alaska's Arctic coastline on Friday, the second over Canada's Yukon Territory Saturday, and the third over Lake Huron on Sunday.
On the call to governors on Monday, Sherwood Randall said there are hundreds if not thousands of objects in the sky.
Most are believed to be mundane and could be things like used car balloons.
Or aircraft launched by commercial businesses, she added.
Well, like I said yesterday, if you needed any more confirmation that these are definitely aliens, then this has to be it.
Used car balloons?
Yeah, there's a balloon from a used car lot has become dislodged and is now 40,000 feet in the sky and is moving around in a way that utterly perplexes Navy pilots.
Yeah, say what you want about the UFO theories, but keep in mind that in many of these cases, including what happened over the weekend, You've got trained pilots who, this is what they do, and they have laid eyes on these objects, and they come back and report, I can't, I don't know what that is, and I don't know how it's moving around the way that it is.
I'm pretty sure that a Navy pilot knows what a balloon looks like, and could easily, at a used, are you talking about, what used car balloons are we talking about first?
Are we talking about those ones, the crazy, the ones with the wacky arm ones?
I assume that's what they're talking about, because that's like when you think of a used car balloon, that's the first thing that comes to mind, right?
Wouldn't that be really distinct?
If you saw that somehow floating in the sky 40,000 feet in the air, I don't know how it gets up that high.
Like, I know that a wind gust can take a balloon pretty far, but like, give me a break.
But wouldn't that be the most distinct and obvious thing in the world?
I mean, it would be pretty clear that's what it is.
Now, you might have a lot of questions about how it got up there.
Maybe.
Maybe it was aliens that brought it up there.
But I think you'll know that's what it is.
And when you've got the Navy pilots coming back and saying, you know, this was a cylindrical object.
I don't know how it was.
There were generals, you know, a general in the Air Force.
Just a couple of days ago was saying, I don't know what these things are.
I don't know what their propulsion method is.
I don't know how they're staying in the sky.
And I'm not ruling out alien activity.
It was from a general in the Air Force only a few days ago.
And now they're saying, oh, no, it was a used car balloon.
That's all it was.
Look, I'm not saying it was aliens.
Well, I am saying it.
I've been saying that the whole time.
But, even if you still are not convinced by my many compelling arguments in that direction, it is, it's, like, clearly there's, there's something going on and they are hiding it.
I mean, I think we can all agree on that.
Whatever it is, they're not being honest about it, and it seemed like they were caught off, whatever it is, they were caught off guard by it, and they didn't have the story straight initially.
Because if they were expecting it, and they were competent people, and they didn't want us to know it was really going, then they would have come out from the beginning and said, oh, it's just a bunch of balloons, don't worry.
Yeah, as a child, in fact, as a kid, Chuck E. Cheese was having a birthday party.
And a bunch of balloons, the balloons go in the sky, that's all it was.
It's on our radar, you know.
It happens all the time.
Happens all the time that kids have birthday parties and balloons go in the sky and then we dispatch jets to go investigate, you know.
All the time it happens, that's all it is.
They would have said that from the beginning.
They would have said that if that was the case, or even if they were determined to cover it up and they had their wits about them and they were not caught off guard, then they would have said that from the beginning.
The fact that we're seeing this drastic change Again, just a few days ago, they would not rule out, they wouldn't publicly even on the record rule out the possibility of UFOs, alien spacecraft, and now they're saying use car balloons.
Whatever it is, they know more than they're telling us, and they don't want us to know what they know.
Alright, I have one other thing, but I think we're going to save it for tomorrow, because we have to get to the comment section.
Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage.
Who's to blame?
It's a sweet baby gang.
You know, there's a certain holiday in February, very near and dear to all of us
It's normally meant to show appreciation for a special someone.
They've had a lot of influence in your life, so some recognition is warranted at the least.
We haven't quite taken that usual approach here.
Of course, the holiday I'm talking about is President's Day, right now over at dailywire.com.
We're celebrating the Our President is for Sale sale.
You'll find great deals up to 40% off on select Daily Wire merchandise, including highlights from my swag shack like the Johnny the Walrus plushie bundle, which is at its lowest price ever, and the Matt Walsh superfan bundle.
They're alongside other bestsellers like the Leftist Tears tumblers and the Daily Wire dog bundle, too.
What is that exactly?
Is that stuff for your dog?
Why did they put that in my copy?
So anyway, don't wait on taking advantage of this sale.
Head over to dailywire.com slash shop today.
CJ says the decline of understanding love everyone to mean let people do whatever they want and don't interfere is a direct consequence of people not having children.
As a parent, you learn what that statement truly means.
You love your children beyond description, yet you don't let them do whatever they want.
You're often the bad guy in their lives as you stop them from destroying themselves on a regular basis because of the love that you have for them.
Yeah, that's how good parents operate, anyway.
And you're right.
I think that there is an interesting connection that you've drawn there.
It becomes very clear. It's not that you can't understand this without having kids, but it does become
very clear once you have kids that Oftentimes the most loving thing to do is is to offer
correction Even punishment like the I so you can understand maybe
intellectually that correction and punishment can can often be
Fueled by the love for the person that you're correcting and punishing
But it's an intellectual exercise and then you have kids and you really understand it
You really understand what that what that means that you love
Your your children you love your child more than life itself
And because of that you're forced to correct them. You're forced sometimes to punish
I know that and I'm not alone in this but as a parent I You know, I there are times when I've had to come down
pretty hard on my kids Because they've done something that warrants, you know a
more more severe response
And I hate it.
I don't like it.
I don't like punishing my kids, which is good.
I think if you enjoyed it, there'd be something wrong.
But I really don't like it.
I find it actually quite painful because it's not the kind of, it's not what I wanted, it's not what I want to do.
And especially if I, you know, there's days where I come home from work and one of the kids was acting up and of course, you know, dad comes home from work, I have to deal with that sometimes.
But it's not what I want to do.
I don't want to have to have that kind of interaction.
I do it because I'm the father, and this is what we are supposed to do.
I also understand, as I become a parent, I understand parents that spoil their kids and let the kids run wild and do whatever they want.
That's not how I parent, don't get me wrong, and it's the wrong way to parent.
But I can understand the emotional inclination that leads you in that direction, because it's hard to correct your kids all the time, and it's even emotionally painful at times.
Um, but that is, that's what it means to love someone.
That's what, if you want what's best for them, it also means you want them to be a better person.
You want someone to be a good person.
You really want, if you love someone, that's what you want for them.
You want them to be good, fulfilled people.
Which means you don't just leave them to wander the earth on their own and figure out things as they go along.
You have to cut a path for them.
And when they go off that path, you have to correct them.
And sometimes, like, drag them kicking and screaming back to the right path.
Samuel says, Matt, I agree with almost everything you espouse, but I'm confused.
The ad simply said, love your enemy.
It didn't say love their sin or love their actions, just love them.
As Christians, we need to bring people into Christianity gradually.
We cannot cold turkey people into Christ.
Also, the ad serves its purpose.
Whether there was hate on both sides or not, there was hate, and that is what the ad was targeting.
I don't think that you quite understood my criticism.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't love our enemies.
You immediately went to defending your side from imaginary attack instead of using the ad to realize that you could do
with a bit of Loving your enemies all love. I
Don't know. I don't think that you quite understood my criticism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't love our
enemies. What I am saying is that I'm saying a few things
First of all, that is, when it comes to the Christian message, that is the easiest thing to say.
It's the thing that's going to be the most crowd-pleasing and popular.
Even though in this case, you know, because AOC is a ditz, she still found a reason to complain about it.
But generally, it's the most kind of crowd-pleasing message.
Doesn't make it wrong, it's just that's what it is.
And so I think that if you're going to go with that, then it behooves you to say a little bit more about it.
To say something useful about it.
To simply say, and leave it at this.
You know, to simply say, well, love your enemy.
Here's a bunch of people yelling at each other, that's bad, love your enemy.
I'm sorry, I just don't see that as a useful message because you're left people wondering, well, what does that mean?
Like, how do we love them exactly?
Does it just mean think nice things about each other and hold hands and say kumbaya?
Because that's what people think and that's the kind of message they often get from the Christian churches.
Keep in mind that in the Bible, Jesus says, love your enemy, but he doesn't just leave it at that.
If you read the entire context of Scripture, you get a pretty good idea of what loving your enemy really means.
And so I simply think that a message like this, where you've got the music in the background, is very inspirational.
Don't yell at each other, love each other.
Alright, I mean, fine.
It's fine.
It's, you know, it's inoffensive.
But I also just don't, I do not think it's useful.
What people need is to understand what loving your enemy actually means.
And they need to understand that sometimes loving your enemy does involve anger.
It could even involve raising your voice and yelling a little bit.
Sometimes that can happen out of love, yes.
That can be fueled by love, absolutely.
And I think that that's a message that needs to be understood.
I just think that this, that ad, again, basically benign, inoffensive, nothing about it that's explicitly wrong necessarily, but it all adds up to this sort of general picture, which is quite wrong.
That Christian love means basically getting along with everyone and never getting angry.
And I think we've had quite enough of that.
I don't think we need more of it.
If you are going to spend $20 million on an ad for the Super Bowl, like, how about say something How about say something that people aren't already gonna hear everywhere?
Like, everyone has heard that.
Kumbaya, get along.
Everyone hears that.
How about say something, a message that they won't hear anywhere else?
You know, beggars can't be choosers and all that when it comes to Super Bowl ads, so it's like, at least it wasn't depraved and overtly sexual and all the rest of it, but...
I do think we've reached a point in this culture where we got to do more.
We got to do more than kumbaya.
That's all.
To celebrate Presidents Day this year, The Daily Wire is running our Presidents for Sale sale, which you probably hadn't heard about this.
You heard about it five minutes ago when I just talked about it.
But anyway, once again, with 40% off for new annual memberships.
The big guy got 10%.
We're giving you 40%.
Get access to the world of Daily Wire Plus with fearless documentaries, gripping movies, Dennis Prager's The Masters program, and the entire library of Jordan Peterson's work, including New productions like Exodus, Logos & Literacy, and On Marriage all available to watch right now as soon as you become a member.
Coming down the pipeline to a TV or laptop near you, we've got new episodes of Ben Shapiro's The Search, Exodus Part 2, our much-anticipated DW Kids content, and much more all coming up.
And to sweeten the deal like ice cream, well, we're going to give you up to 40% off select items in the Daily Wire shop.
Take advantage of the Our Presidents for Sale sale today.
You know he would, so just go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and become a Daily Wire member today.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, it should perhaps tell you something about the cultural relevance of the New York Times, that a New York Times columnist wrote an entire editorial responding to one of my tweets, and I just found out about it today, a week after it was published.
I didn't even know that it happened.
And that writer is David French, a man who still pretends to be a conservative and yet is notorious for articles like the one he wrote in October for the Dispatch, where he complained that laws being passed to protect children from the trans agenda are taking the culture war too far and, quote, threatening foundational American rights.
So he's a conservative who is deeply repelled by anything or any idea that can be remotely described as conservative.
That's exactly what earned him a spot at the New York Times, because the Times, like CNN, is only interested in conservatives whose conservatism consists of complaining about, attacking, and strawmanning conservatives.
That's exactly what David French did in his latest New York Times op-ed, which was written in response to my now infamous tweet a couple of weeks ago, where I made the apparently radical claim that men want loving wives and they appreciate hot meals.
Really offensive stuff, and French could not let such extremism stand unchallenged.
And that's why he wrote this.
It begins, This month the popular conservative podcaster Matt Walsh tweeted a thought that rapidly went viral with approximately 18 million views.
All a man wants, he wrote, is to come home from a long day at work to a grateful wife and children who are glad to see him and dinner cooking on the stove.
This is literally all it takes to make a man happy.
We are simple.
Give us this and you will have given us nearly everything we need.
The message, French says, was obviously trollish and intended to generate outrage.
Bringing back Leave it to Beaver is not a serious strategy for renewing American masculinity, but it touched on an important question.
How much should a man's self-worth depend on the respect or gratitude of others?
Right.
Trollish and meant to generate outrage.
Why else would I suggest that men enjoy coming home to a happy and loving family?
I mean, why?
Why should such an outrageous claim be made except to troll people?
That's the only reason, right?
It's a deliberate provocation intended to sow chaos.
Now, there are really only two possible reasons why French would frame my statements this way.
One is that he's an intellectual coward who isn't confident in his ability to actually articulate a rebuttal to my ideas, and so he must frame them as unserious and beneath him from the outset, even though he's dedicating his entire column to responding to them.
The other possibility is that the conservative quote-unquote David French is such an extreme leftist, so radically far left in his thinking, that he really does consider my incredibly normal description of a normal family to be somehow shocking and outrageous.
I can't say for sure which of these options is closer to the mark, but I'd guess that the truth is maybe a combination of the two.
French continues.
I raise this because an overwhelming amount of evidence, from suicide to drug overdose to education achievement gaps, indicates that millions of men are in crisis.
Simply put, while many men demand respect, what they need is purpose, and the quest for respect can sometimes undermine the sense of purpose that will help make them whole.
To put it more simply still, what men need is not for others to do things for them, they need to do things for others, for spouses, for children, for family, and friends and colleagues.
Okay, now, he's not wrong, obviously, that men need purpose.
I say that all the time.
I never suggested that they don't need purpose.
In fact, in the tweet that he's responding to, I suggest exactly the opposite.
The reason why a man finds joy in returning home from a hard day's work to a warm and loving home is that it strengthens and vindicates and validates his purpose in life.
In that moment, he feels fully grounded in his purpose.
He knows what his purpose is.
A man who returns home to a loving family returns home to his purpose.
Now French either doesn't understand that or again is pretending to not understand it.
We'll read one more passage just to get the full context of his argument.
Quote, "The demand for respect is a hallmark of much right-wing discourse about masculinity.
In this narrative, too many women don't respect their husbands and the culture more
broadly devalues men.
Part of this argument has merit.
Yet there's a danger in the quest for respect."
Finding happiness in another person's regard is elusive and contingent.
After all, we have little true control over how others perceive or treat us.
Yet, when we're denied what we demand, we're often filled with helpless rage.
More important, a demand for respect or honor should be conditioned on being respectable or honorable.
When a man demands respect without being respectable, that often looks like domination and subordination.
To elevate himself, he must belittle others.
Virtuous purpose is worth more than any other person's conditional and unreliable respect.
It is rooted in service and sacrifice, not entitlement.
And those qualities bring a degree of meaning and joy far more important than the gift that others, the grateful spouse who cooks dinner, the implausibly reverential children, can ever offer.
What we do for others is infinitely more rewarding than what we ask them to do for us.
Okay.
All of that is response to the tweet that I wrote.
Now again, not everything he's saying here is wrong.
I'm not going to play the French-ian game of pretending that some relatively normal idea is outrageous and offensive.
But you have to read between the lines a little bit, and also keep in mind the statement, my statement, that his argument is supposed to rebut.
And when you take into account that context, you see that French's point is one that, in fact, every left-wing feminist would agree with.
Though even they wouldn't put it as explicit as he has here.
Men should not want anything.
Men have no right to desire anything.
Least of all should they have any emotional needs.
Men are meant to operate in a vacuum where they pursue purpose entirely unaffected by their surroundings.
Now on the surface it may sound like French is, if anything, making the mistake of being too tough.
You know, having standards that are too high.
Expecting men to be too duty-bound and stoic.
But that's not the case at all.
In fact, he's calling men to submissiveness.
He considers it outrageous that a man should hold his wife to any standard at all.
Remember, all he said in the tweet was, a grateful wife.
That is a standard that I am putting on the woman.
That is something that I am saying a woman should do.
God forbid we mention one single thing that a woman should do herself in a marriage.
French doesn't like that.
The idea that a man should have any expectations that a man should want anything is offensive.
Even wanting your children to be happy to see you is, French says, implausible.
Remember again what I said, what French has responded to.
The only thing I said about children.
I didn't say that when you walk in the door, children should bow, should do a profound bow and say, Father, we are grateful to be in your presence once more.
No, I said that fathers want their children to be glad to see them and grateful for them.
French dismisses the very idea that your children should want to see you, calling it implausibly reverential.
Maybe we're learning something about how his own kids treat him.
I don't know.
I can't understand otherwise why you would consider it implausible that your children would be happy you walked in the door.
Because a man who simply wants his family to be glad that he walked in the door is, according to French, engaging in some kind of leave-it-to-beaver fever dream.
Men should instead just shut up and do as they're told.
Men should focus on doing for others without being remotely affected by how they are treated in return.
Talk about implausible.
I mean, if my vision for men is leave-it-to-beaver, then his is like Spock.
He envisions men as unfeeling, inhuman creatures, no desires or emotions to speak of.
And you'll notice that French This is what's most important to see.
He has never and would never say anything like this about women.
He would never, not in a million years, lecture women for wanting respect.
He would never say that a woman who wants gratitude from her husband is being an outrageous troll.
He would never say that a woman who expresses her emotional needs is engaging in some kind of ludicrous fantasy and shouldn't even be taken seriously.
That's because this is not French being like a hard-ass drill sergeant barking at everyone to stop whining and just get on with it.
If it was, I'd be sympathetic to his approach, even if I disagreed with his argument.
But instead, French is cowering to the feminist double standard, which says that men can never talk about what they want.
Only women can do that.
Because that is the thing that upset everyone.
That's why they're still talking about that tweet two weeks later.
Because I dared to say one single thing about what men want.
You're not allowed to do that.
Ever.
And David French is here to enforce that rule.
Now, in reality, of course, in this contest between purpose and respect, a contest that French has created largely because he feels compelled to find some reason to disagree with me, the answer is both.
Men need purpose and respect.
You cannot remove one from the equation without severely diminishing the other.
A man who has respect will be more likely to understand his purpose, and a man with purpose is more likely to have respect.
What this means for a wife is that if you are a wife and you want to help your husband live with purpose, then you should respect him and show that respect and make sure that he sees it and feels it.
That doesn't mean respect is entirely unconditional.
It doesn't mean that a man should be respected no matter what he does at all.
It simply means that if you love your husband, and you want him to be happy, and especially if you realize that he's trying his best, even if it's not perfect, he's not a perfect person, but he's trying, and you want him to be the best version of himself that he can be, then you will help fuel him in that direction, which means showing him respect.
You know, my wife Will often say to me, not every day, not following some kind of script or timeline, but she will often say that she appreciates how hard I work for the family.
She's grateful for the sacrifices I make.
She'll sometimes say that to me in person, sometimes she'll send me a text just randomly during the day when I'm at work with a message like that.
She lets me know that she notices and she cares and that it matters to her.
And that yes, she's grateful.
These kinds of acknowledgements, they fuel me and motivate me in a way that nothing else can.
I'm very happy to have a loving and grateful wife and children.
Guess what?
Yeah, my kids are also happy when I walk in the door.
I never knew that was implausible, but this implausible fantasy has come into fruition in my own life, if you can believe it.
And there are many other men who have the same happiness.
And I want those who don't have that happiness to experience it.
That was my whole point.
And yes, it was a point that focused on the needs of men.
Much could be said about the needs of men, or rather what men should do.
There are plenty of things that could be said about the responsibilities of men.
Much could be said about what men should do for their wives.
And much is said about that all the time.
It's okay to flip the coin over and look at the other side from time to time.
It's not only okay, but necessary.
Even if it offends guys like David French with the New York Times, who is today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Members Block, hope to see you there.
