Ep. 1196 - Our Descent Into A Banana Republic Continues
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Trump is indicted once again. This is all part of the Left's plan to criminalize their political opposition, and the conspiracy goes far beyond Donald Trump. Also, a new poll shows that high school boys are becoming more conservative. Why is that happening? We'll discuss. And Michigan moves to abolish the First Amendment by passing a "hate speech law." In our Daily Cancellation, prominent scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims that gender is on a spectrum. It falls to me as the podcaster without a college degree to once again fact check a scientist.
Ep.1196
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the latest episode of Master’s Program with Dennis Prager: https://bit.ly/3NvHehC
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
- - -
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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Trump is indicted once again.
This is all part of the left's plan to criminalize their political opposition, and the conspiracy goes far beyond Donald Trump.
Also, a new poll shows that high school boys are becoming more conservative.
Why is that happening?
We'll discuss.
And Michigan moves to abolish the First Amendment once and for all by passing a hate speech law.
In our daily cancellation, prominent scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson claims that gender is on a spectrum.
It falls to me as the podcaster without a college degree to once again fact-check a scientist.
We'll talk about all that much more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Profiling surveillance and data harvesting are just a few things I don't like about
But what can you actually do about it when you rely on so many of their products?
Well, the good news is, it doesn't take much for you to take a stand.
For less than $7 per month, you can join me and fight back against big tech by using ExpressVPN.
Make their money by tracking your searches, video history, everything you click on, and then selling your personal data.
ExpressVPN helps you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP address, a unique identifier that every device has that allows Big Tech to match your activity back to you.
That's why I use ExpressVPN on all my devices to make it much more difficult for them to exploit my data for their own profits.
Best part is how easy it is to use the ExpressVPN app.
I just tap one button on my phone or computer, Turn it on, and that's it.
Your data is your business.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh right now to get three extra months free.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh to get protected now.
ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
See if this story sounds familiar.
A charismatic populist runs for president.
He promises to end corruption, close tax loopholes for the rich, prioritize his own people over foreign interests.
Contrary to all expectations, this insurgent candidate performs well in the election.
That terrifies the establishment, so they pursue a series of criminal charges against him.
First, they accuse him of rape.
Then, when he's acquitted, they charge him again, this time with the crime of fomenting an insurrection.
They say he led an illegal freedom caravan to a protest in the Capitol.
Mass demonstrations break out because people recognize what's happening.
The government prosecutors, who are claiming to fight election interference, are in fact the ones engaging in it.
Which is what banana republics do.
They jail their opponents when they can't beat them.
Now, the situation I just described is unfolding right now in the West African nation of Senegal.
The government in that country is eager to throw an opposition leader, someone named Ousmane Sonko, who I'm probably mispronouncing, in prison.
He organized a mass protest in Senegal's capital Dakar, but it was quickly shut down, and now the government is seeking to disqualify him from office by bombarding him with criminal charges.
Now, if you read press reports, there have been a few, you'll find that most of the Western media that's paying attention to this story claims to be disturbed by all of this.
Quote, Senegal authorities arrest opposition front-runner, reported The Guardian.
Human Rights Watch called the developments an assault on democracy ahead of elections.
NPR complained that, quote, in Senegal, the government is cracking down on human rights.
And they're doing that, NPR explained, by criminalizing political dissent, which NPR insists is a very bad thing to do.
Which it is a very bad thing.
But the question is, do they really believe that?
Does anyone in the media or any of these NGOs really believe that?
Well, let's see.
As you've heard by now, yesterday, the DOJ again indicted the leading political opponent of the conspicuously wealthy career politician who runs the DOJ, Joe Biden.
This is the third indictment that's been brought against Donald Trump this year, and the second that's been brought by Joe Biden's DOJ.
And yet, curiously enough, of the human rights defenders in the media, none of those reporters who wept for Senegal were concerned by this latest development.
In fact, they celebrated it.
Quote, Trump charged with four felony counts for attempt to overturn the 2020 election, wrote NPR.
You can imagine the gloating that went on on MSNBC, and we'll spare you the examples, but you already know what you'll expect there.
So, Senegal can't arrest its opposition leaders, but Joe Biden can.
Why is that?
That's an important question.
In fact, it may be the only question that really matters here.
The media's justification for these indictments is that Donald Trump is just a really bad guy.
He's so evil, he's so dangerous, he's so orange, that he must be kept out of office at all costs.
Even if it means the total destruction of those democratic norms, quote unquote, that the left once pretended to care so much about.
Now, if all those claims about Trump were true, you'd think that the indictment against Donald Trump would be convincing and thorough, unimpeachable.
You'd expect that the indictment would be premised on a reasonable application of a law with airtight precedent backing it up.
But that's not what we have here.
What we have is somehow even flimsier, arguably, than that indictment out of New York, the one that accused Trump of committing multiple felonies because his accountants made a bookkeeping error seven years ago.
Essentially, the latest indictment from Joe Biden's DOJ accuses Donald Trump of lying about election fraud, which is not illegal, by the way, as the indictment itself admits.
The document goes on to say that Donald Trump didn't really believe the election was stolen because other officials told him it wasn't stolen, so therefore he must be lying.
And then the indictment suggests that Trump somehow broke the law by using various levers of government to contest the election results on the advice of his attorneys.
This legal theory, if you can call it that, criminalizes political speech.
There's no way around that.
It justifies locking up Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi for lying about Russian collusion for four years.
And pursuing investigations and impeachments based on that fraud.
It justifies imprisoning every Democratic Party lawmaker, and there have been a lot of them, who ever objected to the certification of election results.
It justifies throwing all those Democrats in jail who tried to seat alternative slates of electors both times George W. Bush took office.
It justifies imprisoning Stacey Abrams, who still pretends to be the rightful governor of Georgia.
But the really incredible thing about this indictment is that it justifies jailing Trump even if you concede that he was right about election fraud in the 2020 election.
The premise of all the charges against Trump is that it's illegal for the president to reject the electors that are submitted to Congress under any circumstance.
So, the DOJ isn't just objecting to Donald Trump's claims about the voting machines.
They're not just denying his argument that, with COVID as a pretense, Democrats perverted the entire system of elections in this country to such a degree that Joe Biden, a senile old man who campaigned from his basement, somehow received 10 million more votes than Barack Obama.
The DOJ is saying that even if Donald Trump was right about everything, and the 2020 election was rigged, then he still has no right as president to do anything about it.
Which is pretty shocking, or at least it would be shocking if we weren't already so used to this level of corruption.
And that might be why in announcing the charges, the special counsel, Jack Smith, didn't talk about the specifics of his indictment at all.
Instead he talked about all the brave officers at the Capitol on January 6th.
Even though Trump is not accused in any way of causing those officers harm or of inciting violence against them, still, that was the focus of his press conference.
Watch.
Today, an indictment was unsealed.
Charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail.
I encourage everyone to read it in full.
The attack on our nation's Capitol on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies.
Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S.
government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.
The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th are heroes.
They are patriots and they are the very best of us.
They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it.
They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people.
Right, so what are we watching here?
Well, there are three things, really.
First, we have, once again, the grotesque charade of Democrats pretending to care about the well-being of police officers.
These are the same people who, as we remember, cheered as rabid mobs bashed cops over the head with bricks and set police stations on fire during the BLM riots.
So that's one thing.
For another thing, this is an awfully convenient political distraction for the government.
Just a day before Trump was indicted, a business partner of Hunter Biden testified that Joe Biden was on the phone with Hunter while his son was peddling his father's influence while he, Joe Biden, was vice president.
And the defense from the Biden team and the Democratic Party is that Joe Biden, well, he was just on the call to talk about the weather.
He's just a proud father who wanted to, you know, check in with his son's business partners for no reason other than to just talk about the weather.
Which, as we discussed yesterday, would not absolve Joe Biden of the influence peddling accusation, even if it were true that he only talked about the weather.
Because that's how influence peddling works.
It doesn't matter what Joe Biden says to Hunter Biden's business associates.
The point is to just make the connection.
That's the whole point.
The major networks and newspapers barely covered that story, and they didn't need to, because the very next day it was all out of the news cycle, conveniently, because of this new indictment.
We've seen this pattern play out before, many times.
In fact, earlier this summer, Congress received whistleblower documents from the FBI alleging that the Bidens took a multi-million dollar bribe from that Ukrainian oil company that was paying Hunter Biden.
Shortly afterwards, Jack Smith indicted Trump for storing classified documents in his home, the same thing that Mike Pence and Joe Biden have both admitted to doing.
Then on July 26th, Hunter Biden's plea deal blew up in court after the judge noticed that no plea deal of its kind had ever been agreed to in the history of the United States.
That was embarrassing to the DOJ and to the Bidens.
The very next day, on July 27th, Jack Smith charged Donald Trump with more crimes.
He even charged Trump's maintenance guy at Mar-a-Lago.
Now, you can choose to believe that these are all coincidences somehow.
That the political timing, just like the DOJ didn't notice it, the fact that it just so happens to bury inconvenient stories to them, inconvenient stories to the Biden administration, that, you know, that's all, they didn't notice that.
It's all a coincidence.
You can pretend that's the case.
But what you can't deny is that what we're seeing has implications that will long outlive Donald Trump and his political career.
We are witnessing the criminalization of all political dissent for all Americans, no matter how powerful or well-off they may be, or may not be.
Now consider that one of the federal statutes that the DOJ now accuses Donald Trump of violating, 18 U.S.C.
241, is the very same law that was used to throw Douglas Mackey in prison.
Now, 18 U.S.C.
241 is the law that prohibits people from engaging in a conspiracy against the rights of Americans.
Specifically, the statute makes it illegal for, quote, two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person so that they cannot exercise their constitutional rights.
The point of that law, when it was originally passed in the 19th century, was to prevent the KKK and state officials from interfering with the rights of black Americans to vote.
Now what did Douglas Mackey do to violate 18 U.S.C.
241 all these years later?
Is he a member of the KKK?
Was he standing outside of the polls with a gun preventing black Americans from going in?
No, he posted some memes on social media that made fun of Hillary Clinton voters.
One of his memes told his followers to text a fake number to vote instead of showing up to the polls.
So it's like an obvious joke.
Like, you people are so stupid that you'll believe this and you'll text your vote in rather than actually showing up.
At least one major left-wing account run by a woman named Christina Wong created a similar meme mocking Trump supporters.
Hey Trump supporters, she wrote, skip poll lines and text in your vote.
So it's the exact same thing.
Christina Wong was never charged for that because she has the right politics.
Douglas Mackey was charged though.
And unlike Donald Trump, Douglas Mackey is not wealthy.
He's not famous.
He had 58,000 Twitter followers when the FBI decided to arrest him.
He's facing 10 years in prison after a scam prosecution for a meme, for a joke.
The same joke that people on the left have told.
The prosecution withheld evidence to make sure the jury convicted Mackey, including information about the key witness in the case.
In the end, they got what they wanted, which was a conviction that sent a message to every conservative in the country.
And the message is simple.
Cause enough of a problem for us, and you go to prison.
Whether you're Donald Trump or a guy with 58,000 Twitter followers.
That's also why Mark Hauk faced a decade in jail after Joe Biden's DOJ raided his home with a 25-member SWAT team.
We've talked about Mark Hauk many times.
What was his crime?
Why did he deserve to have rifles pointed at his face in front of his kids?
He carted out of his house at 7 a.m.
Well, he pushed a worker outside of an abortion clinic who was harassing and endangering his 12-year-old son.
That's it.
No state prosecutor, no local prosecutor would take the case because there was no case, there was nothing there.
Then many months later, Joe Biden's DOJ comes along and says, we're going to pursue that, as though Mark Halk had personally set the abortion clinic on fire.
Meanwhile, some pro-life pregnancy centers actually are getting set on fire, are getting firebombed, but Joe Biden's DOJ does nothing about it.
In one case last summer, the Compass Care Pregnancy Service Center in Buffalo was torched, and the FBI responded to that blaze by seizing surveillance footage from the center and refusing to return it for six months.
So, this was all happening right out in the open, a long time before Donald Trump's third indictment yesterday, or even his first indictment.
And there are many more examples.
Republicans watched as Joe Biden purged the military of wrongthink, They did nothing as he sent grandmothers with cancer to prison for the crime of walking around the Capitol building.
They went on TV for meaningless three-minute hits as the FBI rounded up Donald Trump's aides one by one in parking lots and fast-food drive-thrus.
Try asking someone from Senegal when precisely their democracy failed.
Ask them when exactly their system of representative government became a global laughingstock.
You could pose the same question to someone from, say, Venezuela, or any number of other countries that have devolved into tin-pot dictatorships in just a few years.
Now, the odds are you'll never get a precise answer.
There will be no singular prosecution that they'll point to.
Instead, they'll point to systemic failures like complacency, corruption, incompetence from people who are supposed to keep their system of government intact.
Where have we seen that lately?
Just a few days ago, the 81-year-old leader of the Republican Party in the Senate was incapable of finishing a press conference.
He just began staring blankly ahead for reasons that remain unexplained.
That is the state of the opposition that Joe Biden faces right now.
Joe Biden is practically catatonic.
His opposition somehow is even more useless.
He and his handlers know it.
And they're taking full advantage of the opportunity.
If all they get in return are more harshly worded letters from Republican lawmakers, then pretty soon, we're not going to have to ask Venezuelans or people from Senegal how it's possible for a democracy to fail so quickly.
Because we'll know.
First hand.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Innovation Refunds has been helping small businesses that qualify to get a business
payroll tax refund through the Employee Retention Credit Act, or also known as the ERC.
The ERC is a tax refund for businesses that kept employees on payroll for parts of 2020 and 2021.
If you own a business with more than five employees, you could have money waiting to be claimed right now.
You just have to know how to claim it.
That's where Innovation Refunds comes in.
Innovation Refunds is dedicated to helping business owners navigate the process, and their independent tax attorneys can help your business stay compliant with IRS guidelines and regulations.
Innovation Refunds does not provide tax or legal advice.
They work with an independent network of tax professionals, and they will share information with them to evaluate and process your claims.
Go to GetRefunds.com to determine eligibility.
If you qualify, you could be on your way to receiving money for your business.
There's no upfront charge since they don't get paid unless you get paid.
So go to GetRefunds.com or dial 1-843-Refunds.
That's GetRefunds.com or 1-843-Refunds.
Terms and conditions apply.
The Hill has this startling headline, startling for them anyway.
High school boys are trending conservative.
Oh no, dear God.
A popular narrative suggests young people, I'm reading now from the article, are liberal and getting more liberal.
Thus, social media buzzed when a chat surfaced in spring that seemed to suggest 12th grade boys have become overwhelmingly conservative.
As with many Reddit posts and viral tweets, the tweet was more complicated.
The truth was more complicated, but the numbers do say this.
12th grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservative versus liberal, according to a respected federal survey of American youth.
In annual surveys over the last three years, roughly one quarter of high school seniors self-identified as conservative or very conservative on the Monitoring the Future survey, a scholarly endeavor that dates to the 1970s.
Only 13% of boys identified as liberal or very liberal in those years.
The figures represent a striking shift in the political views of boys.
As recently as the late 2000s, Liberal boys occasionally outnumbered conservatives.
Back in the Carter era, both boys and girls leaned liberal.
Nowadays, it's girls who are drifting to the left.
The share of 12th grade girls who identified as liberal rose from 19% in 2012 to 30% in 2022.
Only 12% of girls identified as conservative in the last year's survey administered by the University of Michigan.
Young women too are trending liberal.
Women ages 18 to 29 are more likely to identify as liberal now than at any time in the past two decades according to Gallup surveys.
Young women are also almost twice as likely as young men to claim the liberal tag, a widening gender gap and political beliefs.
So that's kind of the headline.
That you've got overall young men and boys are trending conservative.
And when you narrow it down to 12th grade boys, they're twice as likely to identify as conservative versus
liberal.
Which is a striking difference from the past, as they point out.
Now, I think there are a few things happening here.
A few reasons why teenage boys and young men are increasingly becoming conservative.
And the first is that conservatism is rebellious, okay?
It's edgy.
It's offensive in our culture.
By our culture standards, it's the rebellious, edgy, offensive thing.
And if you have that kind of renegade instinct, that desire to rebel, as many young people do, especially boys, then this is where you go.
As I pointed out before, if you're a kid in high school and you want to be edgy and cool, you can't do that by adopting the same position as your middle-aged math teacher.
Like, the moment that your math teacher starts waving a pride flag and talking about how the Bible is evil is the moment that it becomes extremely uncool to love the pride flag and hate the Bible.
This drives towards, you know, there's a drive among the youth, obviously, towards rebellion.
That's not news to anybody.
And historically, it's been harnessed by the left against the right.
And that's the reason why if you go back, as they point out, you go back to the 60s and 70s, you're going to find that the situation is completely reversed, where young boys are much more likely to identify as liberal versus conservative.
That's because that was the rebellious thing at the time.
For a long time, you know, what we consider now to be conservative ideals were the popular mainstream ideals.
The conservative position, as we consider it now, was the dominant cultural position, which is not the case anymore.
Which means the left is in control, it means they're the dominant cultural force, which is bad, but the good thing is that they lose their rebel status.
That's the one good thing.
Even if they pretend to still have it, which they do, so you end up with, like, aging punk rockers still going out and pretending to rage against the machine by saying everything that your HR rep at work would say.
But it's all a charade, and kids for the most part see right through it.
So this is a great advantage for us, that we should be harnessing much more than we are.
And you have to harness it in a smart way, obviously.
I mean, you can't actually go up to kids and say, hey kids, want to be edgy and cool?
Be conservative!
You can't say it in a way as on the nose as that, because that makes it sound lame.
But that is basically the message and the truth.
Conservatism is edgy.
It's much cooler.
And partly because it's the only place where you can have a sense of humor.
And that's the other thing about teenage boys.
I know this from having been one not that long ago.
Well, pretty long ago.
I mean, really long ago.
But still, I was one at one time.
I can still remember that as a teenage boy, you have a very outrageous, offensive, kind of morbid, aggressive sense of humor.
Teenage boys amuse themselves by insulting each other, like among friends, just insulting each other in extremely vulgar and personal ways.
And to some extent, you never grow out of that.
Even as you become a man, as men, we never quite grow out of that.
We still think it's funny to, like, make fun of each other and stuff.
But there's no room for that on the left at all.
I mean, you cannot have a man's sense of humor on the left.
You just can't.
In fact, as it turns out, you can't have a man's sense of anything on the left.
You cannot be a man on the left.
Which brings us to the second factor, which could explain why boys are increasingly becoming conservative, which is that the left If you are a high school boy, the left is doing nothing but heaping scorn and contempt on you, telling you to be ashamed of yourself, of your masculinity, calling you toxic, lecturing you, scolding you, yelling at you, on and on and on, a constant never-ending harangue.
Another difference between now and back then in the 60s and 70s, it used to be that when you thought of the The humorless scolds, what immediately comes to mind is like the church lady, right?
The conservative, you're thinking of conservatives, so it's supposed to be the humorless scolds, don't have a sense of humor, they're offended by everything.
Writing angry letters because they're offended by this and that.
That is now, that's the left, that's what the left does.
That's their gig.
And they're very excited to explain to you why everything you think and say is offensive.
Especially if you're a male.
If you're a teenage boy, what else are you going to do?
You've got these people over here who hate you and don't even disguise their contempt.
And meanwhile, on the other end of it, they're doing nothing but heaping praise and adulation and celebration for every other group.
They're constantly saying, oh, you're so special.
You're great.
You're wonderful.
You should be accepted exactly as you are.
Everything about you is perfect.
You're the most wonderful thing on the planet.
That's their message to everyone.
But then they turn around to you and say, oh, you scumbags.
Why don't you be more like them?
Except you can't be more like them, because that would be appropriation.
And I think teenage boys hear that, and they respond exactly as you would expect them to.
Which means that, again, on the right, the goal here is to harness this to our advantage, and ultimately the advantage of the culture and truth.
Because the really good thing is that in this case, it's not just that going over to the right is now rebellious and edgy and all the rest of it, but that's also where the truth is on all these issues.
When we see these, what I find to be extremely encouraging videos of, again, high school boys, you know, tearing down the pride flags and mocking attempts by schools to, you know, groom them into the LGBT cult, and these videos come out, very encouraging.
But it's not just because it's politically advantageous for us, it's because they are rejecting falsehood in favor of the truth.
And the question is, how are we going to harness that on the right?
There hasn't been nearly enough of that.
All right, Daily Wire has this report.
A Michigan hate speech bill that has passed the Statehouse and is now in the hands of the Senate is alarming conservatives, people of faith, and legal experts.
The bill, HB 4474, is part of a package of legislation that would replace Michigan's existing Ethnic Intimidation Act and make it a hate crime to cause someone to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.
Under the bill's framework, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are included as classes protected against intimidation.
If passed, the hate speech legislation would make violators guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Many conservatives have voiced concern that the bill infringes on Americans' First Amendment rights, and I mean, like, obviously it does.
This is obviously a horrific assault on free speech, a total—not just an assault on free speech, it's an obliteration of free speech.
It is the criminalization of speech.
It is the abolition of the First Amendment in Michigan, if it passes.
So that's effectively what's happening, is we are abolishing the First Amendment.
It doesn't exist in Michigan if a bill like this passes.
And if it does pass, there's no way that it doesn't ultimately get struck down by the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court is currently assembled.
But still, it shows where the left wants to take us.
And if they can flip the court back their way, these laws will be passed everywhere and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and it'll be codified into law on a federal level, and that's what's going to happen.
Because it's really simple.
If you don't have the right to say things that make other people feel bad, then you don't have free speech.
Your speech is controlled by the feelings of other people, which is to say that it's not remotely in any way in any sense free.
It's a basic fact of free speech that shouldn't need to be explained, which is that we don't need free speech rights to protect speech that everyone is okay with.
You don't need a First Amendment for that.
You can go anywhere in the world and say things that the dominant culture and the people in charge agree with and like.
You can go to North Korea and do that.
You can go anywhere and do that.
Now, those things are going to be different depending on where you are.
But you can go anywhere and say things that the dominant culture approves of.
The way you detect free speech rights, the way that you know that a place has free speech rights, is if you can go there and say things that the dominant culture does not approve of, and not face any legal persecution for it.
So the goal here is to get rid of that.
And this was always inevitable.
I mean, it was inevitable that it would go this direction.
And the stage was set for this in two ways, really more than two, but there are two main things here.
The first is when we decided as a culture, and I say we as a universal we, I don't include me in that, or probably you.
But when we decided as a culture that the listener, not the speaker, gets to determine the motive and meaning behind the speaker's own words.
And we see this all the time.
So many examples of somebody getting cancelled and then they apologise because they said something that wasn't supposed to be offensive at all, and then somebody was offended by it and then they apologise.
And the person who was offended, what do they always say?
They say, well, you know, it doesn't matter how you meant it, this is how I took it.
You might have thought that this was inoffensive.
You might have meant it a certain way.
You might have meant it as a joke.
You might have meant it as an innocuous statement.
But I was offended by it.
And because I was offended by it, that means that your remarks are inherently offensive.
As the listener, I get to decide what you meant by that.
And it doesn't matter what you say.
Your testimony about your own motives are irrelevant.
I mean, that's been the approach in this culture for a long time.
And so that's the first piece that they needed to put in place before laws like this could be passed.
And the second happened before that, so this is really the first, I guess, when we accepted the very idea of hate speech and hate crimes.
I mean, you even hear conservatives going around using these terms, unironically, calling things hate speech.
The moment that happened, really all the rest of this was already basically locked into place.
It was just a matter of time.
The moment we accepted hate speech as a category, as a coherent category, the rest of this was bound to happen.
Essentially criminalizing hate.
But here's the thing, and this should not be a shocking statement.
Hate should not be criminalized.
Okay?
Hate is not illegal, or it shouldn't be.
And in a free country, it wouldn't be.
So you could accuse somebody, oh, you're being hateful.
Okay.
Because I'm allowed to be hateful.
I shouldn't even have to defend myself against the charge of being hateful.
Well, maybe I am.
Maybe I do hate.
Maybe I'm talking about something and I do hate that thing.
I'm allowed to do that.
I'm allowed to hate things.
I'm allowed to hate people.
I should be allowed to in a free country.
Hate itself should not be criminalized.
It doesn't need its own special category.
Well, we've got regular crimes and then we have crimes that have hate behind them.
Well, who cares if they have hate behind them?
The problem with criminalizing hate, which is distinct from... Obviously, if you kill somebody or you assault someone physically, that should be a crime.
And if you kill someone or assault them because you hate them, then yeah, it should be a crime.
The assault and the murder should be a crime.
But the fact that you felt hate in your heart should be basically irrelevant.
It doesn't matter what you were feeling when you did it.
The point is that you did it.
And in many cases, when it comes to assault and murder and all that, and the crime epidemic in our cities, the people who are committing these crimes, do they have hate in their heart?
Do they hate the people they're doing this to?
You know, you go in and you murder a gas station attendant and you steal $17 from the cash register.
Is that a hate crime?
Do you have hate in your heart when you do it?
Probably not.
In fact, you don't feel anything towards that gas station attendant at all.
He's nothing to you.
It's indifference.
It's a crime of indifference.
Those crimes are a lot worse in many cases.
And people like that are much more dangerous.
You know, I'd rather have a culture full of people, I'd rather have a society full of people who have hate in their hearts, than a society where everyone's just like indifferent to human life.
That's what you find when you go into the cities.
Go into the inner city, you got a whole bunch of people that are essentially, they're not hateful, they're just indifferent.
They don't care about you.
They'll kill you for your shoes.
It doesn't matter.
Not because they have any problem with you.
Nothing personal.
They just want to take the shoes and they don't care about you.
You're nothing.
So hate never should have factored in at all.
Hate should not be criminalized, whether it's hate speech, hate crime.
I mean, part of the problem here is that hate is also something that exists in the human heart, okay?
And so, in order to prosecute it, they require someone on the outside to determine whether you had hate in your heart.
How could they possibly know that?
How can they speak to what's in my heart?
How can they speak to the state of my soul?
How can they possibly know that?
The only way to know it is to ask.
That's really the only way to know.
The only person who could testify to whether or not I feel hate towards someone or something is me.
No one else could possibly testify to that.
I'm the only expert on that subject.
There is one expert on the subject of what's going on inside my mind and my heart, and that's me, and nobody else.
When you criminalize, when you have hate speech and hate crimes, that puts Other people, the court system, in charge of like peering into your soul and determining what's going on in there.
Which they can't do.
But even if they could, once again, why is it automatically wrong to have hate?
There are things in this world that are worthy of hatred.
And the thing is, we all agree with that, don't we?
Everyone agrees that there are some things in life that you should hate.
Not everything is good.
There are things that are just really bad.
And how should you feel about those really bad things?
Hate.
So really, when you have hate speech and you criminalize hate speech, you're putting yourself in the position to judge what's in someone else's heart.
Putting yourself in the position to decide if someone else has hate in their heart.
And then, you're also putting yourself in the position of not only determining what's in someone's heart, but then to decide what kind of hate is good and what kind of hate is bad.
Here's the hate you're allowed to have, and here's the hate you're not allowed to have.
The whole thing is, but as I said, the groundwork has been laid for a long time with all of this.
Let's see, CNBC has this report.
Barbenheimer isn't the only phenomenon at the July box office.
Over the last four weeks, Angel Studios' Sound of Freedom, an indie film that has drawn the support of former President Donald Trump and other conservatives, has captured nearly $150 million in domestic ticket sales.
The figure may seem small against Hollywood blockbuster performances from Warner Brothers' Barbie, Universal's Super Mario Bros., each of which have grossed several hundred million dollars, but it's a solid theatrical run for a film that only costs $14 million to make.
A lot more than the solid.
$150 million from a $15 million budget is, I mean, extraordinary.
It's especially impressive considering Paramount's Tom Cruise vehicle, Mission Impossible Dead
Reckoning Part 1, has tallied less than $140 million since its July 12th release.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And DC Comics tentpole The Flash barely topped $100 million domestically.
So, I saw this, I first saw this headline and I actually thought that, I didn't quite believe it at first, that this film, that Sound of Freedom has outgrossed Mission Impossible.
When I first saw the headline, I thought, okay, well, you must mean, like, profit-wise.
It has, it's, it's, it's gained more, it's, it's profited more.
The profit is greater than, um, than, uh, uh, than Mission Impossible.
And that I would certainly believe.
You know, what they're saying is just, no, when you stack up how much they've made, period.
Overall gross of the films, Sound of Freedom has made more than Mission Impossible.
And of course, when you factor in profit, the differences are even more stark because Mission Impossible has not turned a profit and probably never will at this point.
I don't know what Mission Impossible's budget was, but it was more than $150 million that we could be sure of.
Now, talk about people having hate in their hearts.
This just shows you how much Hollywood hates conservatives and people of faith.
That you see these kinds of movies, a movie like Sound of Freedom, huge, incredible success.
And you can have this kind of success on an almost non-existent budget.
$15 million is nothing compared to these films where the budget is $200 million, $300 million.
$15 million.
It's pocket change.
It's what you pull out of your pocket.
You can make a movie with that.
So you can make a movie on that kind of budget, reap enormous profits from it, the audience is interested, and yet Hollywood still will not make these films.
I mean, Sound of Freedom is made by Angel Studios.
It's not a Hollywood studio.
And every time there's another success with a so-called faith-based film, and you start to think, well, you know, next thing you know, Hollywood's gonna start churning these movies out.
Over the next 10 years, we're gonna see, like, 20 Bible movies.
And it just doesn't happen.
Because they hate us.
They hate us so much that they don't even want our money.
You know, you can dangle bags of cash in front of their faces, and they won't take it.
These money-grubbing bastards who care, you would think, care for nothing but money.
They will not, they don't want our money.
Because it would be very easy for Hollywood to attract, you know, the audience that goes to watch Sound of Freedom.
It would be very easy for Hollywood to get that audience back into the theater, like once a month, by just putting out films that actually appeal to that audience.
And they could start by going, go to the Bible.
The other thing about the Bible is the best-selling book of all time.
And there are many stories in the Bible that are, that, I mean, aside from the incredible, the truth and the spiritual significance as people of faith, there are also just great stories as well that have, of course, more than stood the test of time.
It would make great films.
And you could go into the Bible and there's a hundred amazing films in there.
That from Hollywood's perspective could make them billions of dollars.
You know, the Bible to Hollywood could be worth billions of dollars.
And people would go watch these movies.
Not that I would trust Hollywood to make Bible films.
And every once in a while when they attempt it, it often doesn't go well.
You would think from their perspective that this is what they would do.
Just from a cynical, profit-motivated perspective.
And they just won't do it.
Because they don't want our money.
They feel like they can't be proud of it.
They don't want to make something that someone like you or someone like me would actually enjoy.
And they will forgo that.
So my prediction is that Even though this should be, for Hollywood, maybe like a literal come-to-Jesus moment for them, where they stop and think, like, wow, we're putting all this money into these franchise films.
It's supposed to be blockbusters, Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible.
I mean, these are franchises that in the past have made billions of dollars for us, and it's getting beat by Sound of Freedom with a pocket-change budget?
And you would think they would stop and say, well, we gotta make some changes, okay?
So that we don't go bankrupt.
But I don't think it's going to make a difference.
They're going to continue on exactly as they have been.
Because they don't want our money.
Which is fine, we don't have to give it to them.
I'm fine with that too.
Let's get to the comment section.
[Music]
Jomah Homo says, "I remember in my old school they had, still have, a therapy room."
Kids can just sign up for therapy.
No proof of mental health problems needed.
No parent consent needed.
It also had trans flags and pride flags all around.
I feel like the education system also feeds in this issue.
Oh, very much does.
And offering actual therapy.
Now, I know that schools have guidance counselors offices.
And that can be a problem enough in its own right, but offering actual Alleged therapy to students and not telling the parents?
Yeah, that's a big problem.
And why, as we were talking about therapy a couple weeks ago, why would kids want to go and go into the therapy room?
Well, one, you get out of class.
Like, that's something that I, even with all my thoughts about therapy and mental health and everything, when I was in high school, I would have taken advantage of that.
If there was a therapy room, Where you could go and, you know, for the sake of your mental health and just hang out.
I absolutely would have done it.
So that's mainly the motivation for the kids, I assume.
But then it becomes an indoctrination center.
Like, they go in just because they don't want to go to math class, and next thing you know they're getting all the LGBT pride and everything else.
Another comment says, as a black woman, please understand that we all aren't out here looking to be perpetual victims.
I hate this crap personally.
I don't need anyone's pity, and I don't need a perpetual boo-hoo party.
Well, of course you're not all looking to be... In any group, if it's one of the privileged groups, one of the protected groups on the left, this is what they want everyone in the group to be like.
This is the attitude they want all of you to have, is this desire to be a victim.
But they're never going to get 100% or even close to 100% buy-in.
Hopefully they won't.
And I, you know, as we just talked about, the fact that white males are the one excluded group, like the one, we talk about marginalized, when they talk about marginalized groups or diverse groups, what they really mean is everybody but white males.
Which of course, in reality, makes us the only marginalized group.
When everyone gets to be marginalized but us, then actually the situation is reversed.
And that's bad, but at the same time, I don't really, I don't want to be in that group.
I wouldn't want to be constantly told.
I would rather be told all the time, if I had to choose, I would rather be painted as the villain than the victim.
If I had to choose between those two things, if I had to choose a cultural narrative that I'm getting thrown into against my will, And the culture makes me the victim or the villain?
Well, I guess I'd rather be the villain.
Because pity, pity is the last thing that I want.
Like, I would rather have your hatred than your pity.
It's just the last thing.
It's repulsive to me.
And it sounds like it is to you, too.
Which is good.
It should be.
Desiring pity is not a healthy thing.
Go Chasing Waterfalls says, having a job is literally someone paying you to not lean into your identity and do exactly what you want to do.
You would think that most people would understand that.
The job is, you're getting paid to do, there's certain things that are laid out in your job description and you're getting paid to do those things.
So this is specifically a time when you're not just doing whatever you want.
That's how it used to be anyway.
Lorraine says, having mental health issues is just today's version of another identity accessory.
My cousin was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 17.
She wanted to go to college, so she took whatever medication they gave her.
She went to university out of state to avoid the stigma.
She told no one.
Every single day she took her medicine.
She learned behavior modification and coping skills and overcame the family curse.
She still has a disorder, but she is not bipolar.
Mental health issues are simply a gateway to America's new favorite drug, victimhood.
You're exactly right about that.
And this is the healthy attitude to have.
If you are diagnosed with some sort of mental illness, I know we've got this intense focus these days on de-stigmatizing.
We want to make sure we don't stigmatize mental illness.
But now we've just ended up on the other extreme, where instead of stigmatizing it, it's now fashionable.
It is, as you say, an accessory.
People are proud of it.
And this is another one where if I have to choose between the two, where mental illness is stigmatized or essentially fetishized, I think the stigma is a lot better.
That's a healthier society.
Like, if we have to choose between it's really uncool to have a mental illness or it's really cool to have a mental illness, I think neither is probably the right approach, but if it has to be one or the other, as a society, then uncool is better than making mental illness cool, which is what it's become.
And it's why people talk about it so openly.
Now, yeah, if you're diagnosed with a mental illness, should you be ashamed of it?
Should you hate yourself because of it?
No.
But should you be proud of it?
Should you go around telling everybody all the time?
Definitely not.
And it would be better and healthier to be ashamed of it than to be proud of it.
And Diane says, I want to thank you, Matt.
I went off my anxiety meds.
Now I actually enjoy a tear or two when appropriate.
I feel human again.
Also, I laugh and chuckle for silly reasons.
Again, all this was robbed from me when on medication.
Well, I'm happy to hear that you've unshackled yourself and freed yourself, and that makes me feel good.
So there is some good that comes out of babbling on a podcast, I suppose.
You know, the left believes that good intentions absolve them of bad behavior.
This type of thinking is incredibly hypocritical, but being a good person requires more effort than just virtue signaling.
We know that for sure.
You have to be self-aware, for starters, but there are more attributes you need to cultivate, and many of them you probably haven't even thought about.
That's why you should watch the final episode of PragerU's Master's Program, streaming only on Daily Wire+.
In PragerU Master's Program, Dennis Prager has gathered 40 years worth of wisdom and is sharing it on a number of wide-ranging subjects.
How to be a good person is this week's episode, but Dennis also covers different subjects, like the differences between men and women, the consequences of secularism, and so much more.
Remember, the world wants you to be woke.
The Dennis Prager wants to make you wise, on the other hand, and PragerU Master's program does just that.
All episodes are now available, so don't wait.
Go to dailywireplus.com to become a member and watch PragerU Master's program today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, I find myself in the position of having to correct a scientist again.
This happens rather frequently these days, where I, as a community college dropout, must educate a highly educated and credentialed scientist.
Now, if we lived in a sane world where everyone accepted basic facts about reality, and scientists concerned themselves with doing actual science, then I wouldn't be in a position to issue these corrections.
In fact, I wouldn't have a show or platform at all, probably.
I would have no public profile.
Instead, I'd be working at a tackle shop somewhere and everyone, myself included, would be happier.
But that is not the world we live in.
And so I must put my fact-checker hat back on and turn my attention to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
The astrophysicist and so-called science communicator was on Stephen A. Smith's podcast recently when the conversation, for whatever reason, turned to gender.
That's when the man, who's made a career by explaining scientific concepts to mass audiences, decided to abandon that mission entirely and attempt to confuse the audience instead.
I'm going to show you what he said, and we'll play the whole clip, and then we'll go back and respond to it piece by piece.
But here's the whole thing first.
Watch.
My point is, apparently, the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient!
Because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is!
And so now, just to tie a bow on this, I say to you, somewhere I read, somewhere I think I read, that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness.
Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female, 20% male.
I'm gonna put on makeup.
Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
Why do you care?
What business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?
My favorite thing in the video probably is Stephen A. Smith in the background going, mm, yeah, amen, wow, mm, yeah, while this moron is just babbling nonsensically.
And there it is, the entire pile of nonsense, the whole flaming garbage heap of stupidity.
It's important that we go back and break this down.
I want you to see the whole thing first.
But we have to break it down because Neil here is, however erroneously, trusted as a scientific authority by millions of people.
It's extremely damaging to have someone like him endorsing gender ideology pseudoscience.
So let's go back and sort through this bit by bit, starting at the beginning.
My point is, apparently, the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient!
No, Neil, that's incorrect.
Chromosomes are quite sufficient and reliable in differentiating male from female.
In fact, if we just put chromosomes XX or XY on the bathroom door, that would clear up a lot of confusion.
I'm not in favor of actually doing that, simply because I don't think we should give up on using the words man and woman for the sake of gender ideologues like yourself.
But the point is that chromosomes are indeed sufficient.
There's more that we could say about sex.
They aren't the only difference or defining feature.
Yet, that only goes to show just how different the two sexes are and how impossible it is to travel from one category to the other.
This is all somewhat of a moot point because chromosomes are insufficient isn't really the position you're attempting to defend, Neil.
You don't believe that they're insufficient.
You believe, or are pretending to believe, that they are irrelevant.
Everything else you say from here on out is premised on the assumption that chromosomes are complete non-factors, totally irrelevant in determining whether someone's a man or a woman.
That's the actual position you have staked out for yourself, just so you know.
Because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
I have literally never done this in my life.
I have never in my life stood in front of my closet and said to myself, hmm, what gender do I want to portray today?
I don't think you've ever done that either, Neil.
You didn't pick the shirt you're wearing in this video because you wanted to exaggerate any feature or portray yourself as a man.
You picked it because you have horrible taste.
And I'm not judging you.
This is why I play it safe and stick with flannels.
And I wear the flannels because I like them, because they don't get wrinkled as easily, so I don't have to iron them.
But one thing I've never done in my entire life is pick out a shirt because I'm trying to portray myself as a man, much less am I trying to exaggerate.
I simply am a man.
You're painting a picture that isn't grounded in reality.
It's not even the reality of your own life.
You've never thought of yourself as portraying a man.
You've never, until now, believed that gender is a choice.
And I know that because you've been on TV talking about science for decades and you never once mentioned this incredibly earth-shattering theory that males and females don't exist and it's all a choice that we make.
You never brought this up before.
That's because you don't believe it.
Didn't believe it then, I very much doubt that you believe it now.
You have adopted this position because it's fashionable and you're afraid that you'll get in trouble if you don't.
You coward.
Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is!
And so now, here, so, so now just tie a bow on this.
No, before you tie a bow on it, what do you mean assign?
Neil, who is assigning sex?
Who has this power?
Do doctors assign male or female, or do they observe it as a physical reality?
And if you tell me that it's not a physical reality, then does that apply to all biological organisms?
Is it legitimate to talk about female dogs and male dogs, female cats and male cats, female birds and male birds?
If you go out and adopt a dog from a shelter and you bring it home, do you get to assign the dog sex to it?
Is that how it works?
You're suggesting that human beings are born as biological blank slates and sex is decided by an outside force arbitrarily.
My question is whether it works like that anywhere else in the known universe or for any other organism.
Are we magical?
Do we exist in some kind of special bubble where the normal male-female distinctions don't apply?
Tell us more about this, Neil.
It's a fascinating theory.
Also completely insane.
I say to you, somewhere I read Somewhere, I think I read that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness.
What?
What does that have to do with anything?
The pursuit of happiness is a philosophical idea, a moral claim.
It's not a scientific concept.
You should know this, Neil, as an alleged scientist.
Science isn't concerned with anyone's happiness.
Science is concerned only with what is and what isn't.
Science is supposed to be a process for understanding the physical world.
Whether anyone is happy or unhappy with the realities of the physical world is irrelevant.
The sun has a diameter of about 865,000 miles.
Now, I can make that statement without checking to make sure that everybody is happy with it.
It doesn't matter if your neighbor down the street has some weird fixation on pretending that the sun is smaller than it really is.
It might make him happy to think of the sun as having the diameter of a basketball.
He might prefer to see it that way.
But the sun is as big as the sun is, and that's all.
Happiness has nothing to do with it.
And the same goes for sex differences.
A man is what a man is.
A woman is what a woman is.
And from a scientific perspective, it doesn't matter whether anyone's happy about it or sad about it.
By the way, this is the speech that you're supposed to be giving, Neil, as the scientist.
Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female, 20% male.
I'm going to put on makeup.
I'm going to do that.
Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
What?
What does that mean?
80% male?
What does it mean to feel 80% male?
How can you feel 80% of what you are?
Explain those feelings.
Explain how you can feel only partially yourself, and then even break it down into exact percentages.
And how can a man feel 20% female?
If you aren't a female and have never been a female, then how do you know that your feelings are a female's feelings?
Even if you do feel like a female, or 80% of one, or 20% of one, or 17.5% of one, that still wouldn't mean anything scientifically.
You still are what you are, which is a male.
But my question is, how a man could ever identify his own feelings as being a woman's feelings, given that he isn't a woman?
By definition, don't we have to say that any feelings a man has are a man's feelings?
Let's go back to some basic scientific concepts, Neil.
Where do feelings come from?
Do they come from magical feelings, fairies?
Or do they come from your brain?
And where is a man's brain located?
In his head.
So any feeling that a man has is coming from his man brain inside his man head, which means that all of his feelings, 100% of them all the time, are a man's feelings.
He cannot have the feelings of a woman, and if he thinks he feels like a woman, he's confused.
If he declares that he's 20% woman, or having 20% of a woman's feelings, he is confused and also incoherent.
Just like you.
Why do you care?
What business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?
Why do I care?
Well, I care because the truth matters, but also, this again is scientifically irrelevant.
Going back to an example from astronomy, if I declare that there are only 10 stars in the Milky Way galaxy, you would probably correct me and point out that there are in fact many billions of stars.
It wouldn't make any sense for me to shoot back, why do you care, huh?
Why do you care so much?
Let me have my pursuit of happiness.
Whether you should or shouldn't care about the fact that I'm deeply confused about some basic cosmological realities is totally irrelevant to the question of whether there are only 10 stars in the Milky Way Galaxy or not.
I'm simply wrong about that, no matter if you should care or not.
And for the record, you should care.
You should care about the truth, about all truth.
And you should guide people away from falsehood wherever you can.
Except in this case, when it comes to gender, you're guiding people into falsehoods.
And I care about that because it's evil.
Now, you're right about one thing, Neil.
I do have an inability to think of gender on a spectrum, just as I have an inability to think of the number blue or the color 12.
I cannot think of incoherent nonsense.
There's nothing to think about.
Speaking of colors, that's something that does exist on a spectrum, okay?
There is a color spectrum, and you can follow the color spectrum and see as blue becomes green, and green becomes yellow, and yellow becomes orange, and orange becomes red.
Like any true spectrum, there are many stages along the way, and it can sometimes be difficult to pinpoint exactly where one stage begins and the other ends.
They all bleed into each other.
So I ask you, Neil, what are the many other varieties, the other colors, besides male and female?
To me, it seems like we have a binary system, not a spectrum, that has only two distinct and definable categories that are extremely easy to differentiate.
You claim there are many other categories that all bleed into each other, making it difficult to tell one from the other.
So, what are those other categories?
What is the third sex, the fourth sex, the fifth sex?
There must be many more, just like there are many colors, in order to make a spectrum.
Is this where you're going to tell me about intersex?
I hope not, because that would be totally irrelevant to your argument.
You were suggesting that a biological male with XY chromosomes could exist somewhere else on this spectrum if he feels 80% female, whatever that means, and puts on makeup.
Trying to defend the spectrum by throwing intersex into it would be a cheat.
But it's the only move you have left, so I'll assume that's probably where you go with it.
The problem is that intersex people don't prove a spectrum because intersex is not a third sex.
These are tiny minorities of individuals who suffer from a genetic defect that, in some cases, makes it slightly more difficult to determine their sex on the surface at first glance.
That doesn't mean that they don't have a sex.
They still are on one side of the binary or the other.
They have a deformity.
Deformities are not a third sex.
Much less do they provide evidence of a sex spectrum.
So where is the spectrum, Neil?
Who is the blue, the green, the orange, the yellow?
Tell us more.
In fact, I invite you to come on this show and educate my audience on this subject.
As I said, I'm just a community college dropout.
I have not a single college credit to my name.
I have not formally studied any of this.
And yet here I am with this large audience spreading the hateful idea that men and women exist.
I think you should leap at the chance to talk to me face-to-face.
And expose all of my bigoted, ignorant lies.
And it'd be very easy for you to do, wouldn't it?
After all, what do I know?
I'm just a guy.
You're the scientist.
So let's talk about it.
Until then, as is the custom for this segment, you are today cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
Let's move over to the Members Block.
Hope to see you there.
You can become a member also if you want to see us there by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
