Ep. 1222 - Big Pharma Once Again Makes Billions Off Of A Drug That Doesn't Work
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it's been revealed that some very popular cold medicines that many people have been using for years are effectively useless. They don't work at all, reportedly. This is just the latest example of Big Pharma making billions on a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. This is a bigger story than you may think, and I'll explain why. Also, Apple goes for gold in the cringe olympics with a new skit touting their green initiatives. A prominent professor has been revealed as a fraud after he faked data that was supposed to prove systemic racism. And the internet is on fire with the news that Matt Walsh will appear on this season of Dancing With The Stars. Dance has been my passion for my whole life and I'm excited to share it with the world.
Ep.1222
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Episodes 1-4 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Good Ranchers - Get $25 off your order PLUS free ground beef for 2 years! Promo code Walsh at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
Headrest Safe - Save $100 today with code WALSH at http://www.theheadrestsafe.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
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it's been revealed that some very popular cold medicines that many people have been using for years are effectively useless.
They don't work at all, reportedly.
This is just the latest example of Big Pharma making billions on a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
It's a bigger story than you may think, and I'll explain why.
Also, Apple goes for gold in the cringe Olympics with a new skit touting their green initiatives.
A prominent professor has been revealed as a fraud after he faked data that was supposed to prove systemic racism.
And the internet is on fire with the news that Matt Walsh, Will appear on this season of Dancing with the Stars.
Dance has been my passion for my whole life and I'm excited to share it with the world.
We'll talk about that today and much more on the Matt Wall Show.
So you know a company is looking out for you when they actually upgrade your service
and don't charge you for it.
This is great news for new and current Pure Talk customers.
Pure Talk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered Pure Talk before but haven't made the switch, take a look again for just $20 a month.
You'll get unlimited talk text and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
This is why I love Pure Talk.
They're veteran owned and they only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great USA.
Most families are saving almost a thousand dollars a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network in America.
You vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies that don't support you.
When you go to puretalk.com slash Walsh, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month because they actually value you.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Pure Talk.
Wireless for Americans by Americans.
When the government suddenly announces a recall, or even talks about pulling a product from the shelves, it's normal to assume that some unexpected defect has recently been discovered.
Maybe the feds have noticed that a car's airbags don't deploy during a crash, or that a certain brand of fish tank is prone to spontaneous implosion.
Whatever the case, you're inclined to think that some new information has come to light that necessitates the recall, and in most circumstances that's true.
But there's one industry, Big Pharma.
That has consistently been the exception to this rule.
This is an industry that happens to enjoy a lot of special treatment from the federal government, including immunity from lawsuits.
In the pharmaceutical industry, a recall doesn't necessarily mean that some catastrophic defect has just been identified.
Instead, it often means that there's been a known problem for a very long time, one that's been deliberately hidden from the public until finally it's impossible to deny any longer.
After COVID, most of the country realizes that this kind of thing can happen and does happen all the time.
What they might not realize, because there's a mountain of propaganda designed to hide this fact, is just how frequent this is.
So, here's the latest example.
Right now, the pharmaceutical industry is debating whether to issue one of the biggest recalls in modern history.
The recall would affect a wide array of over-the-counter cold medicines, including some products bearing the brand names of Mucinex, Tylenol, Sudafed, NyQuil, Benadryl.
The reason?
Well, according to the government, these products don't work.
At all.
Now, to be clear, as we'll explain in a second, some Benadryl and Sudafed products do work, according to the government.
We're talking about a certain but very popular subset of these over-the-counter products that use a specific ingredient.
At the same time, if you're one of the hundreds of millions of people who have consumed these products over the past decade, this is a big headliner.
At least it should be for you.
I mean, you paid money for a product that you thought worked on assurances from the government and Big Pharma.
You ingested this product into your body based on those assurances.
And now you're being told that these pills had all the effectiveness of, like, eating a cookie and drinking some warm milk.
One of the first questions you think to ask under these circumstances is when exactly the regulators and the pharmaceutical companies figured out that these products are completely useless and ineffective.
If you listen to most news reports on the subject, you'd be left with the impression that some kind of new information came out.
But that impression would be completely wrong.
Yet it's what they're presenting.
So here, for example, is CBS News giving off this impression watch.
Popular over-the-counter medicines that many of us use for cold and allergies, they don't work.
That's according to an FDA committee looking into phenylephrine.
It is the main ingredient used in over-the-counter nasal decongestants that many of you probably have in your medicine cabinet right now.
I know I do.
It's in Sudafed PE, Mucinex Sinus Max, Theraflu, Vix Dayquil, NyQuil Severe Cold and Flu, among others.
The committee looking into the drug says it's ineffective in oral medications.
If the FDA ends up agreeing with the committee, those products with that in it could be removed from store shelves.
In a statement, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association says the ingredient is safe and effective.
Talk to your local pharmacist, local provider about what the alternatives are because there are that can be used effectively.
And the panel of advisors told the FDA that using the drug at higher doses is not an option because it can raise blood pressure to potentially dangerous levels.
What's left unmentioned in that report is that this significant alleged defect in these drugs, the fact that they don't do anything, has been widely known for years.
It's not new information.
Nearly a decade ago, in 2015, researchers at the University of Florida said that they found conclusive evidence that many non-prescription decongestants didn't work.
Quote, scientific evidence continues to show that the most popular products on the market containing phenylephrine are ineffective.
Phenylephrine, to be clear, is used in certain drugs like over-the-counter Sudafed.
It's not used in the brand of Sudafed that you have to get from the pharmacist, and we'll talk about that in a second.
The researchers continued, quote, We think the evidence supports that phenylephrine's status as a safe and effective over-the-counter product should be changed.
We're looking out for the consumer, and he or she needs to know that science says that oral phenylephrine does not work for the majority of people.
Now that was back during the Obama administration.
Again, that was in 2015.
The findings raised a lot of uncomfortable questions, such as, why would the FDA approve a drug that's effectively a placebo?
Why were regulators still allowing Big Pharma to sell it?
Why were people continuing to buy drugs that didn't do anything?
Where are the prosecutors?
Where's the court system?
I mean, isn't it fraud to advertise products that don't work?
Should there be penalties for making billions of dollars off of something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do?
By refusing to do anything about phenylephrine, the federal government dodged all these questions.
They also helped cover up their role in causing the problem in the first place.
You know, you rarely hear this discussed, but the supposedly useless ingredient in question, phenylephrine, wasn't always used in medications like Sudafed.
20 years ago, the key ingredient in the most popular form of Sudafed was a very different decongestant called Sudofedrin.
And this ingredient, we can be reasonably confident, actually does work.
But in 2006, the federal government made it a lot harder to get real Sudafed with this ingredient.
Congress passed a law effectively requiring people to undergo a background check before they could walk out of the store with it.
Real Sudafed was no longer an over-the-counter medication after this law.
Before that, it was.
And the justification for this restriction, ostensibly, was that they were trying to stop people from using the ingredient to make meth.
We'll be taking a lot of dangerous drug kingpins off the streets, they told us, if we just take this kind of Sudafed and we put it behind the pharmacist counter.
Once Congress passed that law, Big Pharma needed an alternative.
Most customers don't want to wait in line for a pharmacist every time they need to decongest it.
They don't want to have to, you know, they don't want to go through all that.
So they'll leave the CVS without making a purchase.
So very quickly, Big Pharma came out with a new form of Sudafed using a different ingredient called phenylephrine.
Big Pharma and the federal government told us that it was the best of both worlds.
This new form of Sudafed can't be used to make meth.
At the same time, we were assured, it's just as effective as real Sudafed.
Now, shortly after that law was passed, there were reasons to doubt the narrative that the government was pushing.
For one thing, because of all these changes, a lot of innocent people were arrested for no reason.
One of them, just as one example, was named Tim Nouveau, and he was charged with a federal crime for buying too much Claritin.
He wanted to get some extra pills for his son who was going away to camp, and in response, local officials arrested the man.
They didn't care that he wasn't making meth, and he wasn't.
They charged him anyway.
Because he was collateral damage, I suppose, in the larger meth war, which this legislation would help the federal government win.
Nearly two decades later, we learn that nothing we were told turned out to be true.
For one thing, meth has never been easier or cheaper to obtain in this country than it is right now.
It's not coming from domestic meth labs, for the most part.
Instead, it's coming from Mexico, across a border that the federal government has deliberately left open.
And on top of that, according to the government, the substitute Sudafed and related drugs were not effective, as we were promised they were.
They're useless.
The new narrative is that Big Pharma made billions of dollars every year selling products that did not work, and they knew it.
The federal government let them do it.
Why are they telling us now?
Is anything they're telling us true?
That's a question we can't answer because both big pharma and federal regulators have lied so routinely, so consistently, that there's no reason to take anything they say at face value.
If recent history is any indication, it's probably not a good sign for us.
I mean, normally, when the federal government says a drug doesn't work, there are two possibilities when they say this.
The first possibility is that they're trying to drive up sales of some other drug.
We saw that during COVID.
Don't take that therapeutic.
It's a horse tranquilizer.
Take our shot instead.
In the case of these decongestants, there's long been a push to require prescriptions for these.
You know, in various states, activists and politicians have said that it's not enough to hide these decongestants behind the counter and to track their sale.
They say that it's necessary to require people to get a prescription first.
And this has been going on for a while.
Here's one report in Indiana from a decade ago, for example.
Watch.
Sudofedrin is one of the main ingredients in making methamphetamine, and some agencies want it off the shelves.
But many are discussing whether this issue is a law enforcement situation only, or if it should affect the medical field as well.
News 10's Sarah Schaefer has more.
In 2013, one box of Sudofedrin was sold about every 15 seconds.
That's according to officials with the Indiana State Police.
They're one of the agencies in the group known as Indiana's Coalition Against Meth-Making Meds.
Along with them, the Mayor of Terre Haute.
is a coalition of multiple groups across the state of Indiana that want to encourage the legislature to make this change, make it a prescription med so that we can fight the meth problem that we have in Indiana.
So this is the first possibility for why they're pulling these drugs or they're gearing up potentially to pull them anyway.
Maybe it's part of a larger effort to shift these decongestants to prescription model so that more people are seeing doctors and pharmacists.
And then also, by the way, there's more money being made by everybody involved in that case.
That's one theory.
The other possibility is that the FDA's fraud simply couldn't go on any longer because the evidence that they're lying about these drugs' effectiveness was becoming too overwhelming.
And if that's the case, it wouldn't exactly be the first time something like this has happened.
It was just a couple of years ago that the FDA unanimously approved an Alzheimer's drug called Aduhelm that didn't work.
This is one of the most expensive drugs available on the market.
It costs more than $50,000 per year per customer.
But the approval process didn't go as smoothly as the FDA and the drug maker called Biogen would have liked.
Several of the FDA's experts resigned in protest after the agency approved Adderhelm, even though there was no evidence that it did anything to actually treat Alzheimer's.
Here's one of the experts who quit.
Watch.
Does Adderhelm really do anything to stop symptoms?
So the new drug that the FDA approved in June targets amyloid plaques very effectively.
Unfortunately, the drug doesn't seem to have any clear effect on the progression of Alzheimer's disease.
Dr. Aaron Kesselheim is professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
He was on the FDA advisory panel on Adjahilm until he quit in protest when the agency gave the drug a green light, a move he calls probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S.
history.
But how can you say definitively that it doesn't work any more than the FDA could say definitively that it does?
You can't say definitively that it doesn't work.
You can't say definitively that it does work either.
And in that circumstance, you need to do some more testing of the drug.
The system in our country is that in order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, it has to show substantial evidence that the drug actually does work.
And in this case, there isn't good evidence that the drug works.
As you just heard, the entire premise of the drug was that you can cure Alzheimer's by removing so-called sticky plaques in the brain, but it later emerged in the research supporting that theory, which appeared in Nature magazine, that it later emerged that all this was doctored.
On top of that, serious side effects of the drug emerged, including brain bleeding.
So, why did the FDA approve the drug if there's no evidence that it actually works?
It turns out the agency had a close relationship with the drug company Biogen that made the drug throughout the approval process.
This relationship, Congress later determined, broke the FDA's own rules.
But it worked out for Biogen.
And we see this phenomenon again and again.
The federal government tells us that a drug works.
And that they know exactly how it works.
And by the time we find out that they're lying, the drug company has made a ton of money off of it.
We saw something similar happen with SSRIs.
For decades, we were told that low serotonin levels were linked to depression.
Therefore, SSRIs would fix that problem by allowing more serotonin in the brain.
Even as mass shootings and depression and suicide rates all went up, as more and more people were put on these drugs, we were assured by Big Pharma and the media that despite all appearances, the SSRIs are working.
That was what the science said, they claimed.
And if you disputed it, you're some kind of anti-science troglodyte.
It only emerged last year that, in fact, low serotonin isn't linked to depression at all.
And somehow, that wasn't a major scandal.
SSRIs, which stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, were never pulled from the shelves.
Even though the official position of the scientific community is that low serotonin doesn't cause depression.
There were no massive class-action lawsuits that bankrupted the companies that made billions of dollars from these SSRIs that don't do anything.
Just as Biogen hasn't been held accountable for its worthless Alzheimer's drugs.
And just as no one in the Sackler family went to prison for lying about the effect of the addictiveness of opioids.
For all those reasons, we can assume Big Pharma and the government will continue to lie to us.
If they don't face consequences, they have no reason to change what they're doing.
That's why at this moment, our political leaders are gearing up for a new round of COVID decrees.
These decrees have already arrived in Canada, where public health officials are now calling for children as young as six months old to receive COVID shots.
Now, there are no clinical trials or studies that demonstrate that it's safe or necessary in any way to give COVID shots to six-month-old children.
Not a single one, not a single study.
And to be honest, even if they had conducted trials, even if there were these studies, there would be reason to doubt those as well.
I mean, we're now at the point where whatever the class of drug we're talking about, whether it's Alzheimer's treatments, COVID shots, SSRIs, all the gender transition drugs on the market, even decongestants, whatever the drug is, you can just assume you're being lied to.
If you consume drugs that Big Pharma and the federal government are pushing, you're running the risk that 10 or 20 years from now, you'll learn what that drug was actually doing.
And it might not be what you thought it was doing.
And you'll learn what the actual side effects might be.
Whatever you take, and whatever your kids take, you simply have to factor that doubt into the equation.
You have to keep in mind that if something bad happens down the line, you'll be told that it's breaking news.
No one saw it coming.
Even though the people who made the drug, in fact, knew it was coming.
Now, is this an ideal situation from a public health perspective?
Of course not.
But it's the system we have.
And if there's any upside to the news this week, it's that no one, not even people who are just shopping for a decongestant, can deny it anymore.
Let's get to our five headlines.
Innovation Refunds has been helping small businesses that qualify to get a business payroll tax refund through the Employee Retention Credit, 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.
Innovation refunds, independent tax attorneys can help your business stay compliant
with IRS regulations and guidelines.
Innovation refunds earn the highly coveted SOC II certification.
The SOC II certification is a compliance standard developed by the American Institute of CPAs.
It specifies how trusted organizations should manage customer data in the areas of security,
processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.
Innovation refunds has hundreds of five-star trust pilot and Google reviews.
They're also accredited with the Better Business Bureau.
Innovation refunds does not provide tax or legal advice.
They work with an independent network of tax professionals and will share information with them
to evaluate and process your claims.
Go to innovationrefunds.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.
Go to innovationrefunds.com or dial 1-843-REFUNDS.
That's innovationrefunds.com or 1-843-REFUNDS.
Terms and conditions apply.
So we'll start our five headlines, our five-ish headlines, with what may be, what may be, may be the cringiest corporate virtue signal of all time.
And I realize that's a bold statement.
I understand they're competing with some real heavy hitters.
In that arena, you know, to make a statement like that, the cringiest corporate virtue signal of all time.
I mean, you're in the arena now with Bud Light, the reigning champion.
But I think it may emerge victorious with this.
So first, here's the article from Business Insider.
It says, you might be surprised to learn there was a Jeff Bezos cameo in Star Trek Beyond.
You probably missed it, his face was hidden behind an alien mask after all.
Not to be outdone, Apple CEO Tim Cook acted opposite Oscar winner Octavia Spencer sans mask in a surprise skit during Apple's big iPhone event on Tuesday.
Apple held its fall event, Wunderlust, on Tuesday, where it unveiled new products, including the iPhone 15 and new Apple Watches.
This year's event, however, featured a rare skit on Apple's sustainability initiative, starring Cook and Spencer, who also stars in the Apple TV drama series Truth Be Told.
Now, OK, before we play the clip, this is their event to roll out the iPhone.
So we're on the iPhone 15 now, which I mean, it's a cliche at this point to point this out.
But it's also true that this thing is exactly the same as the iPhone 14, which is exactly the same as the iPhone 13 and the 12 and the 11.
I mean, this is and it's relevant to because to what you're about to see, because this is a company that is totally out of ideas.
They have not had Like, what was the last interesting, exciting innovation that we've seen from Apple?
It's been a very long time.
They haven't had any interesting ideas in many years, so the pitch for every new iPhone is basically just, hey, remember the iPhone you have right now?
Well, you should get this one.
It's exactly the same.
If you like that iPhone you have now, well, then you'll love this one, because it's literally the same phone.
So, there's no innovation here.
There's nothing new.
I've mentioned before Ross Douthat's book from a few years ago called The Decadent Society, which outlines his theory that we aren't really, we're not exactly collapsing as a society.
It's not some big, dramatic collapse that we're experiencing, he says, but rather we are languishing in decadence.
And by decadence, he means that we are treading water.
We're going around in circles, repeating ourselves.
We're just out of ideas.
And the constantly updated iPhone that's no different from the iPhone before is just a perfect example of this.
And this means that Apple has to look for other ways to get attention and to make themselves seem fresh.
And I guess to try to incentivize people to buy their products.
And that's where this skit comes from.
Let's watch a little bit of it.
I hope we didn't keep you waiting.
Mother Nature.
Mother Nature, welcome to Apple.
Apple.
How was the weather getting in?
The weather was however I wanted it to be.
Let's cut to the chase.
In 2020, you promised to bring Apple's entire carbon footprint to zero by 2030.
Henry David Thoreau over here said we have a profound opportunity to build a more sustainable future for the planet we share.
I think our ten o'clock's up the same value.
They all do.
All right.
This is my third corporate responsibility gig today, so who wants to disappoint me first?
Well, we've got some updates we're excited to share with you.
Materials?
Status?
Is there a materials person here?
Yes.
We are in the process of eliminating all plastic from our packaging by the end- Let me guess.
Fifty years from now when someone else is left holding the bag?
By the end of next year, actually.
We're also currently using 100% recycled aluminum in the enclosures of all our MacBooks, Apple TVs, Apple Watch.
What about iPod Shuffle?
It's a joke.
Don't you people make Ted Lasso?
That's a different group.
We're also phasing out leather in our iPhone cases.
What about Brando over there?
They phasing you out too?
What's next?
Electricity.
Electricity.
Status.
We're operating on one hundred percent.
I think we've seen enough.
So that goes on for like five minutes.
And first of all, I know that I've I've been skeptical recently about the concept of toxic work environments.
But if you work at a place where you're asked to participate in a skit like this, then that really is a toxic work environment.
I mean, you need to get out of there.
That's traumatic.
I don't know if the other people in that sketch were actual Apple employees or if they were actors, but either way, it's horrible.
Yeah, let's not be distracted from the uber-wokeness.
I mean, the wokeness on steroids on display here.
This is what we've come to, okay?
This is what it's come to with corporate woke purchasing.
A company CEO groveling to Mother Nature represented by an overweight black woman.
The only thing they're missing, when it comes to the woke bingo card,
the only thing they're missing is the LGBT tie-in.
And honestly, I mean, like I said, the thing goes on for five minutes.
I haven't watched the whole thing.
So maybe they throw that in there somewhere.
They must. I'm not exactly sure.
All that said, I do appreciate the video in some ways because it makes clear for anyone who hasn't been paying
attention that these people really are full-on pagans.
I mean, this is full-on paganism.
This skit really isn't a skit.
It's more like the leftist version of a video you might play for kids at vacation Bible school.
It's not supposed to be funny.
I think that's why people are confused.
So this kind of went viral for all the wrong reasons, you know, as far as Apple's concerned.
And everyone was sort of confused and saying, is this supposed to be funny?
What's happening here?
Am I supposed to be laughing?
And the answer is no.
This is an expression of religious worship more than anything else.
Now, I may not be entirely sincere from Apple since they're a soulless corporate behemoth, but that's the idea.
And here's what you have to understand.
What you see in the video is not really a metaphor.
Like, they really do think of Mother Nature as an entity, as an individual, as a goddess of some kind.
And for some on the left, an increasing number on the left, this is explicit.
I mean, they are explicitly pagan.
For others, it's a bit more ambiguous, even to themselves.
They don't quite understand how they feel about it, but ultimately they worship nature.
Because this is inevitable, right?
Everybody worships something or someone.
You know, you've got to serve somebody, as Bob Dylan said, and the instinct to worship is embedded deeply in our human nature.
The question is only whether you will worship the Creator or the creation, and the modern left chooses the latter.
I mean, that gets maybe more philosophical than we need to get, because ultimately, again, this is just really, I mean, on the surface, this is just a cringy corporate virtue signal.
And at least Apple, maybe we'll say that, they are innovating.
When it comes to the realm of cringy corporate virtue signalings, they are innovating there at least.
There's a little bit of innovation, so they've gone farther than most have.
So at least they've done that.
All right, moving on to this.
Donald Trump was interviewed by Megyn Kelly, and it was a good interview.
She actually pressed him on things, challenged him, which is what you're supposed to do when you interview a politician, whether they're on your side or not.
That's what you're supposed to do.
And she especially pressed him on his COVID response, Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine, Fauci.
And here's just one clip of this exchange.
off.
By the way... You made him a star.
You made him a star.
This is the criticism of you.
That you made him the face of the White House coronavirus task force.
You think so?
That he was out at every presser, that he was running herd for the administration on COVID, and that you actually gave him a presidential commendation before he left office.
Wouldn't you like a do-over on that?
I don't know who gave him the commendation.
I really don't know who gave him the commendation.
There's a presidential commendation, so the president gave it to him.
Well, I mean, there's a presidential combination.
So the president gave it to him.
So just to just to clear that up.
What she says there is correct, because, yeah, there are some who claim, well, he didn't
have the authority to fire Fauci.
I don't really buy that.
And I just don't buy it.
But even if it's true, it's the real issue is, you know, I mean, prior to COVID, most people had never heard of Fauci's name before.
They'd never heard of him.
During COVID, he becomes this star, right?
He becomes this media star, media darling, this saint.
And that was thanks entirely to the White House at the time putting him on TV every single day.
Every day.
It's easy to forget maybe now because we block it out of our memories, such a miserable time, but every day this freaking guy is on TV.
You didn't have to do that.
There was no law saying you had to do that.
You could have kept him off TV entirely, but you made him like, you gave him a primetime show every single day.
And so that's the criticism, and it is an entirely valid criticism.
Of course it is.
And this is where, and I know that Trump is constitutionally incapable of saying this, he's not going to say it, but I would love for him to say when pressed on this, like, why'd you make Fauci a star?
Why did you hand the government over to Fauci?
I'd love for him to say, yeah, you know what?
I got that one wrong.
I got that one wrong.
Not perfect.
Not a perfect person.
Nobody is.
Every president makes mistakes.
That was my biggest one.
That was my biggest one.
Hey, you know something?
I get back in the office, I'm not going to make that mistake again.
Guarantee you that.
There's not going to be any new, even if Fauci's retired, there's not going to be a new Fauci.
In fact, I'm looking for the Fauci's and I'm getting them out of there.
That's what I would love to hear.
And I think it's very important to say that because it might give people confidence that even though from the years 2016 to 2020, The swamp was not drained.
It just simply was not.
It wasn't.
But to acknowledge these missteps, then you can make the case that, yeah, you know what?
I got that wrong.
But I'm going to do it differently in the future.
And so then maybe you can have a little bit of confidence that, OK, the swamp wasn't drained between 2016 and 2020.
Maybe it'll be drained on the next term.
If there's no acknowledgment that, oh, I've got to do things a little bit differently this time, then there's no reason to think that things will be done differently, because you're not even acknowledging that they need to be.
Now, from a political perspective, I think the political argument that people will make in defense of Trump, entirely from a political perspective, is they'll say, well, look, he's up by a zillion points in the polls, he's almost certainly going to be the nominee, and that's true.
And just politically.
So, and then once you get to the general, to the general election, you know, this issue of like denouncing Fauci, it's not, it's not like, it's not like Biden's going to challenge him on that.
And so, you know, that's the kind of thing you only need to do potentially in the primaries to appease conservative voters, but he's already going to win the primaries and so he doesn't need to do it.
That's the political argument.
I think, I think that that is misguided because I think that, yes, Trump is, Nothing is certain in life, nothing is certain in politics, but obviously the smartest money is on Trump winning the nomination, and then we're going to get this rematch.
I think the issue for both Trump and Biden is going to be an issue of turnout, like mobilizing your voters and making them excited to come vote.
I know, again, that might not be conventional wisdom because allegedly in 2020 there were, you know, 600 billion people voted or something like that.
The entire universe voted.
The entire universe came out to vote, and part of it is because they didn't actually have to come out, because they can mail in their votes three months ahead of time.
So I think people might look at that and say, well, there's not going to be a turnout issue.
But I think that is going to be the issue.
It's like mobilizing your own people to come out and be excited to vote for you.
That's going to be the issue.
And acknowledging something like this and saying, I'm doing it differently next time, that might help with that.
And if you're not going to make that acknowledgement, then I think it's a serious mistake.
I do.
All right, this is from the Postmillennial.
This kind of takes us out of the pharmaceutical and medical field, but it's kind of a related story in a lot of ways.
Postmillennial says, a renowned criminology professor who proved, quote unquote, that racism is systemic in America's law enforcement and American society has been fired for faking data and his studies have now been retracted.
Eric Stewart, 51, a now former criminology professor at Florida State University, Tallahassee, is now out of work due to extreme negligence in his research.
According to Google Scholar, Stewart and his work were cited over 8,500 times by other researchers.
Now the W.E.B.
Du Bois fellow at the National Institute of Justice is out of a job on account of extreme negligence and incompetence.
Retraction Watch obtained the termination letter from the university which said that due to Stewart's conduct, decades of research previously thought to be at the forefront of the field of criminology has been shown to contain numerous erroneous and false narratives.
In the July 13th letter that informed Stewart of his termination, The letter said, "The details of problematic data
management, false results, and the numerous publication restrictions
have negatively affected the discipline on a national level."
Clark noted that Stewart's actions had also impacted the recruitment of students and faculty,
and that now the university's researchers are concerned that their papers will not be published in major journals
writing in the termination letter.
Quote, "The damage to the standing of the university, in particular the College of Criminology,
Criminal Justice, and its faculty, approaches the catastrophic and maybe unalterable."
Clark added, quote, "I do not see how you can teach our students to be ethical researchers
or how the results of future research projects conducted by you could be deemed as trustworthy,"
adding that six of the studies have been retracted while his other work was in doubt.
For, let's see, some of the stuff that he fakes.
Stewart, which was honored in 2017, was fired after nearly two decades of his data was found to have false results, which included information used in a study in which he claimed that the history of lynchings made whites perceive blacks as criminals and that the issue was more prevalent among those who are politically conservative.
Okay, and there are other studies as well.
I think this story is important because there are two big takeaways, and they're both things that I've said many times and now I get to say again.
The first is that, of course, obviously, systemic racism is a myth.
Systemic racism in modern America is a myth.
Not only that, like many myths, it is unfalsifiable.
It is an unfalsifiable myth, much like the climate change narrative.
Unfalsifiable, right?
Whatever happens, so the left has their narrative about climate change, literally anything that happens with the weather, if it's cold, if it's hot, if there's a hurricane, if there's no hurricane, if there's more hurricanes than usual, fewer than usual, whatever happens, it automatically proves climate change.
Because it's all baked in.
Systemic racism is exactly the same way.
No matter what happens in the culture, it proves systemic racism.
And that's why it's always an interesting question if you're talking to a believer or a proponent of the systemic racism myth, if you go and you ask them, okay, what would you need to see?
Like in your, if you could, your ideal scenario, what would you need to see to prove to you that systemic racism doesn't exist or at least it's getting better?
What would be some indicators for you that things are trending in the right direction, at the very least?
And they can't answer that.
They won't answer that.
Because the other part of the systemic racism myth is that not only does it exist, even though it can't be proven, but it's always somehow getting worse.
No matter what happens, it's always worse.
So that's the first thing.
The second is that, you know, I have an opportunity to jump back up on my soapbox about studies.
I...
I mean, at this point, if someone throws a study at you in any context, and it means anything to you, then I don't know, you're hopeless.
If you hear someone say, well, a study proves—this is the point where I—this is where I am now.
You tell me that a study proves this and that, I don't care.
It doesn't mean anything.
None of it means—all of this stuff is faked so often, especially if we're talking—if we're in the realm of sociology.
Or psychology.
We're talking about human behavior, human tendencies.
And you come to me with a study.
It's like, that doesn't mean anything.
This stuff is so easy to fake.
It retracted so often that it just doesn't mean anything.
But we also saw, as we talked about in the opening, even in a realm where you would think it's, okay, now it's like a hard science of medicine.
Even there, you hear, well, studies prove this is effective.
And then 10 years later, oh, no, it wasn't effective at all.
Sorry about that.
It happens so often that it just doesn't mean anything anymore.
The fact that there was a study done means absolutely nothing.
And that is the consequence of people lying so much.
You get to a point where there is so much fraud that now you have no choice but to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's indistinguishable now.
And this proves that yet again.
All right, we just had a Trump interview.
DeSantis has also been making the rounds, of course, doing interviews.
And I figure I might as well make both sides mad at me today because I want to play some of this clip for you where he was interviewed by CBS.
And this was, I think, last night.
And I want to tell you what I think DeSantis is doing wrong.
But let's play a little bit of this first.
The NAACP issued a warning earlier this summer saying that Florida is, quote, openly hostile for African Americans, people of color, and LGBTQ individuals.
As president, you would represent the entire country.
Can everyone feel welcome in a DeSantis America?
A hundred percent.
And that is politics.
That's a stunt that they're playing.
They obviously have very left-wing agenda, which I don't begrudge them that.
But in Florida, our unemployment rate amongst African-Americans is way lower than New York, California, and these blue states.
We have more black-owned businesses in Florida than any state in the United States.
I have more African-American students on scholarships for our school choice program than any other state in the United States.
And so we've shown people can succeed in Florida regardless of their race, ethnicity, any of that.
We will judge people as individuals.
We want people to rise up based on their merit.
But here's the thing.
Because of your policies in Florida, there are minorities, black Americans,
and there are people who are part of the LGBTQ community who think that you would discriminate against them.
Well, part of the reason they think that is because of narratives that are put out by media.
I was a real quick-- - Can we first--
If they think that, then they're stupid.
I mean, and I'm not saying he should.
I know that he, that wouldn't be the right thing for him to say.
If you're running for president, you probably don't want to say that, but I'm not.
So I can say, when she says, well, there are black Americans and minorities who think that they're going to be horribly discriminated against in Florida.
Well, then, well, then those particular black Americans and minorities who feel that way are very, very stupid.
That is a stupid thing to think.
Um, and yeah, they're being lied to, but if you are that easily misled, then you are a moron.
I mean, if you, oh, I can't go to Florida, I'm afraid to go to Florida, then you're just a freaking moron is the problem.
Uh, and you're being lied to, but we got, we got to hold people more accountable than that.
You know, yeah, yeah.
We hold the media accountable for their lies and false narratives and we hold the government accountable for that.
Uh, yes, we put, but, but, but.
We can, individual Americans cannot be helpless, you know, adults, individual American adults cannot be helpless children that are so easily misled.
What I would like to see DeSantis do here is, is, and his answer is fine, and that's going to be the theme here.
Like nothing, okay, I'm not, we're going to play a little bit more of this clip in a second, Nothing DeSantis says here is wrong.
This isn't some great meltdown where he embarrasses himself.
It's fine.
It's fine.
It's a fine exchange.
It's a fine interview.
I'll tell you what my issue is with it in a minute.
But right here, I think it would be a good move to throw it back at her.
And she says, well, they feel that it's unsafe.
Why is it unsafe?
You can explain to me why, you know, I can't even answer the question.
What do you mean it's unsafe?
Florida's unsafe for black Americans?
You know, it's like, what, is Florida's disproportionately unsafe for black Americans?
For example, when we had the fight with Disney over the elementary education, about should you have things about sex and gender identity, telling a second grader that their gender is fluid, we said absolutely not.
Parents in Florida agreed and throughout the country, I think, agreed with that.
That was termed by the media as don't say gay.
The bill did not mention the word gay.
I never said that gay people wanted kindergartners to be told they can change their gender.
That was the media that created that and the left that created that.
There were a lot of gay people in Florida that felt that was unfair to them because they didn't think it was appropriate to have that kind of... So when is the right age to talk about gender identity?
Well, I think the idea that a teacher would say, yes, you can change, and there's some schools around the country where they say it's okay to transition a kid without the parent's consent or knowledge, and as a parent, that is just unacceptable.
I mean, schools serve an important function, but to be intruding into a family matter like that, I think goes beyond what is appropriate.
And here's the thing, are we doing so When is the right age to talk to kids about gender identity?
There is no right age.
There isn't a right age.
The right age is non-existent.
Never talk to them about it.
It should never come up in school.
It should never come up at all.
Because gender identity is a made-up, radical, left-wing concept.
Now, DeSantis and that exchange there, again, his answers are fine.
Like, these are fine answers.
They aren't bad.
This is not some sort of embarrassment.
You're not going to watch that and think, oh man, he really made a fool of himself.
Of course not.
It's fine.
But it's just fine.
And DeSantis, if he has any hope of winning the nomination, he needs chunk plays.
Okay?
He needs chunk plays.
He needs to hit triples and home runs to mix sports metaphors.
He needs big moments.
Big moments.
And a fine interview is not enough.
It's almost like, why even do it at that point?
It's a lateral move at best.
So I think you get into those positions.
Again, there's no way around it.
Even if you're a big DeSantis fan, you have to admit that he's way, way down in the polls.
And so there's a massive gap that needs to be closed here.
There just is.
You have an opportunity where you're sitting across, you know, you're sitting right there with some left-wing propagandist journalist, so-called journalist.
You got to go after them aggressively.
I get what he's going for here is, well, you know, I'm going to be civil, I'm going to be calm, I'm going to explain my position in a very clear and concise way.
Again, that's all fine.
There's nothing objectively wrong with that.
It's not going to be enough.
And here is an opportunity.
You've got to go after her.
Go after her aggressively.
So, an example.
He brings up the media's invention of the so-called Don't Say Gay Bill.
Well, he's being interviewed by CBS News.
And it took me five seconds on Google to look up, well, what did CBS News say about this bill, which was actually a parental rights bill?
And here's just one headline that CBS News ran.
He was being interviewed by CBS.
CBS News ran this headline.
Florida Senate Passes Controversial Don't Say Gay Bill Despite Protests.
Many headlines where that comes from.
Well how about throwing it back at her?
You work for CBS News.
This is a CBS News interview.
I mean, you're asking why.
You work for CBS and you're asking me why Americans are confused about what's happening in Florida?
Well, it's because of you people.
Because you're lying to them.
Hey, do you remember last year when you published this headline?
Florida Senate passes controversial don't-say-gay bill despite protests?
That bill doesn't exist, Nora!
You guys made that bill up!
Let me ask you something.
You guys reported on the Don't Say Gay Bill.
Where in the bill does it say that you can't say the word gay?
Go ahead.
You tell me.
Is it in there?
Oh, no, you can't.
So you lied about that.
Are you going to denounce your employer, CBS, for lying about this bill, for inventing legislation that I never signed?
And now you're going to sit there and you're going to ask me why people are confused or why they have this impression of Florida?
You're the reason they have this impression, and you know that.
That's something like that, I think.
Maybe turned down slightly, maybe.
But that's what people want to see, and that gets you the headlines.
People are going to see that and they're going to be motivated, like, okay, finally, finally someone is doing this.
And I also know that DeSantis has the ability to go after the media like that.
This is what put him on the map in the first place.
Well, there was the COVID, of course, but as part of that, doing this press conference is being challenged by the corrupt and dishonest press and like throwing it back in their faces very aggressively.
This is what put him on the map to begin with.
It's what put him in position to run.
The only reason he's even thinking about running for president is because of the popularity that he gained from those sorts of moments.
And now he's running for president, he's not doing that anymore.
And I just don't get it.
I don't get it.
I mean, you compare it to Trump, for example.
Trump understands what people want to see from him, and he plays the hits.
He knows why he's popular.
He knows what people like to see, and he knows that.
He has intuition about that.
It's not that you need a lot of it.
It's pretty obvious people like him, and so he does that.
This is just the confusing thing to me about the DeSantis campaign.
All right, let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
When it comes to carrying your valuables or self-defense items in your vehicle, most people feel they have to choose between safety and convenience.
Someone breaking into your car will typically check the glove box under the seats in the center console.
Now we can outsmart them with the Headrest Safe, which gives you convenience and peace of mind.
The Headrest Safe is exactly what it sounds like.
You can replace your standard headrest in your car with their easy-to-access safe.
To access the safe, you just pull the side part off, then you can either use your fingerprint, use a key, or manually type in the code to open the safe.
There's no way that anyone could know your headrest safe is even there.
And even if they did, there's no way that they could get it open without using one of the three methods to unlock it.
So it's very safe, very secure.
The headrest safe has a universal design that allows it to fit all vehicles.
And the best part is, these come in a variety of colors to match the interior of your car.
I have their black leather Vulcan headrest for my vehicle, and I love it.
I took my family out to dinner a couple weeks ago, and the restaurant only had valet parking.
Well, thanks to my headrest safe, I was able to leave valuables in my car that I wanted to keep extra safe, and I had peace of mind as well.
Depending on the day, I'll put self-defense items, cash, or medications in the safe.
It gives me peace of mind knowing that it will stay out of the hands of our kids, valets, or intruders.
So, what are you waiting for?
Save $100 today at theheadrestsafe.com with promo code WALSH at checkout.
Theheadrestsafe.com, promo code Walsh.
I'm not saying we should know everything about someone's private life if they're a private person, just a normal citizen.
In fact, we shouldn't.
Most people volunteer much more about their private life than they should, but if you're running for president, if you want to be president, that's where, yeah, we should basically know everything about your private life.
We should, because you don't have a private.
Once you become president, you are not a private person.
I mean, let me ask you.
When someone is elected president, four years in office, is there a time during those four years when they aren't president, when they don't wield the powers of the presidency, at any point during those four years, unless they're incapacitated?
And as we see, even if they're incapacitated, as Biden has been this entire time, he still wields the power of the presidency.
So, you don't have it.
I mean, you live where you work.
That's your house now.
There's no private life anymore.
So that makes every aspect of your life relevant for public discussion.
It just does.
William says, Matt, you call porn cyber prostitution as an argument for banning it, as if it's self-evident that prostitution should be banned, but I don't see it that way at all.
Why should I care if an adult wants to pay another adult for sex?
Look, I don't know, this kind of libertarian weak sauce argument, with all due respect, is, it's hard to even take seriously anymore.
It's the kind of thing, I think you've got to grow out of this mentality.
You know, I understand going through a libertarian phase, many of us did.
I don't know how old you are, so maybe you're in that phase right now.
But as you get older, you start to understand, what does it matter what people decide to do?
Look, you could use that logic about anything.
I mean, you could use that logic about murder.
Well, if a person's killing a person over there, it doesn't affect me.
What do I care?
And like, it probably doesn't.
It doesn't directly affect you that that is happening.
We live in a country of 330 million people, and there are many things happening every day.
Millions of things are happening, and almost none of them directly impact you.
Does that mean none of them matter?
So, why should you care about prostitution being legal?
Well, I don't know, because the industry rests entirely on sex trafficking, on, you know, abusing and grooming and trafficking in children included, because every prostitute is drugged, is just, you know, they're in that position.
It's not like this is not a decision that somebody makes.
When their life is going great, this is almost always, this is just, it's an industry that just runs on despair and abuse and coercion and objectification and all these terrible things.
That's what the industry runs on.
So why do we, why would it be legal is a better question.
How does society benefit from it being legal, from embracing it?
What are the benefits of that?
I see no benefits.
I mean, when you look around, I'd ask you, you look around at society right now, and you see what's going on, do you say to yourself, you know what would help some of this?
To make prostitution legal.
That's what would really help.
Is that really what you think?
That should honestly be reason enough to be opposed to legalizing prostitution.
If you cannot imagine any conceivable way that it would make society any better, then why would you legalize it?
There's no argument for it.
W. Day Walker says, "Even though I don't support the prostitution and cam work is just that,
technically they were correct with the terminology saying that it was leaked."
So this is the Virginia State delegate candidate who was a cyber prostitute, a porn star, uploading videos of herself.
having sex on camera, before running for office, and then apparently even some of these videos
went up while she was running for office. And now people are criticizing her for these videos,
and she says that these videos have leaked, even though she put them up on this website.
She put them up on the internet herself. That's what he's referring to.
They were technically correct in their terminology saying it was leaked because the sites they use
to sell their bodies do not store and save the videos for rewatching as they are live streaming
Basically, she, as many other stupid people nowadays, didn't bother to think of is the fact that people record everything on the internet and even though the site itself does not store the videos, there are people out there Okay, so I don't think we're that far apart.
We don't disagree very much, but you're looking to save her a little bit by at least saying, well, technically these are leaked videos if they were streaming and she didn't know that they'd be recorded.
But no, that still doesn't count as a leak.
I don't think we're that far apart.
We don't disagree very much, but you're looking to save her a little bit by at least saying,
well, technically, these are leaked videos if they were streaming and she didn't know
that they'd be recorded.
But no, that still doesn't count as leak.
When you say that a video is leaked, what everybody imagines and what you're trying
to get people to imagine is that there was some kind of private video that you had on
a device somewhere you want anyone to see.
Which, by the way, is already stupid enough.
I think everyone would understand this by now.
You shouldn't have any video or picture on your phone or computer that would ruin your life if the whole world saw.
That video shouldn't be taken in the first place.
Because really, nothing is private in this world of ours.
Especially if it's on any electronic device, you should just assume it's not private.
But, what people are going to... What you put in people's mind is the idea that when you hear a leaked video, that it was stored on a device somewhere privately, and then someone hacked it or stole it or something, and then put it out for public consumption.
That's not what happened.
When you take the video, whether it's streaming or not, And you say to the world, hey, check this out, then that's it.
That's all she wrote.
You have presented that to the public.
It's going to live forever, and that is entirely on you.
You're not a victim at all.
We all have a lot on our schedules with how much we have to do every day, but you can take one big thing off your plate by putting great meat on your plate with Good Ranchers.
You care about what your family eats, and so does Good Ranchers.
That's why they spent years building relationships with local farms to source the best 100% American beef, chicken, pork, and now, wild-caught seafood, too.
The best of the land and sea can now get conveniently delivered to your door.
Right now, they're offering two years of free ground beef to anyone who subscribes.
That's a $480 value.
It's two years of free, high-quality ground beef at a locked-in price.
No other meat company guarantees you 100% American meat at a locked-in price as well.
That's because no one else is Good Ranchers.
You can save on your beef, chicken and pork by locking in your price today.
Every single steakhouse-quality cut is individually wrapped and flash-frozen to make mealtime easy.
Gotta go to GoodRanchers.com today.
Use my code WALSH for $25 off and free ground beef for two years.
Remember, subscribe to any box to lock in your price on America's best meat for two whole years as well.
That's GoodRanchers.com today.
And use my code WALSH for over $500 in savings.
Subscribe to Good Ranchers.
American meat delivered.
Also, critics and fans alike are raving about Convicting a Murderer, calling it one of the best documentaries of 2023.
It's been a massive success, reaching over 8 million views and ranking number two in documentaries on Rotten Tomatoes.
We're blown away by the response.
If you haven't begun the series, absolute must.
Episodes 1 through 4 are available right now on DailyWirePlus.
Without giving too much away, it's a wild ride to see how the filmmakers of Making a Murderer are exposed by Candace in Convicting a Murderer.
It'd be comical if the consequences weren't so serious for the people involved.
Episode 4 is available now, and we have a sneak peek for you.
Take a look.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
What would be the upside for this man?
I mean, he just got out of prison.
He has this new lease on life.
What would be the motive for something like this?
We're talking about somebody with unexplainable, impulsive behavior.
A pattern of violence and aggression.
There were a lot of coincidences on the day that Teresa Halbach was killed and Making a Murderer either completely omitted them or only presented half of the story.
Stephen Avery leaves work and doesn't tell his brothers.
He'd never used his sister's phone number to book an appointment before.
Stephen Avery makes two phone calls to Teresa's phone.
Why is he blocking his caller ID?
I don't think Teresa liked Steven the way Steven wanted her to like him.
You are the murderer because you turned your ass down.
Make sure you're caught up on all available episodes.
You don't want to miss a minute of the expose Candace has done on Hollywood and the filmmakers of Making a Murderer.
New episodes are released every Thursday exclusively on Daily Wire+.
Head over there now to start the series if you haven't already.
If you're not a member, go to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe to join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
We live in an imperfect world, a world where things are never as simple as you want them to be,
where triumph is often accompanied by tragedy, where there may be a silver lining,
but you can't forget the dark cloud inside of it.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Which meant that, in my life yesterday, an occasion that should have been joyous and celebratory was marred by hatred, bigotry, and cruelty.
Now first, the good news.
Many outlets, including Variety, announced yesterday the all-star cast for this season of the ABC hit show Dancing with the Stars.
There are a number of names that you may or may not recognize, but probably not.
Tyson Beckford, Adrian Peterson, that girl from American Pie, and also, right there, plain as day, Matt Walsh.
Yes, Matt Walsh will be on Dancing with the Stars.
As you may or may not know, my name is Matt Walsh, which means that, yes, I will be on Dancing with the Stars.
Told you that I had some big projects on the way.
Remember I told you that?
And now you know about one of them.
Now, there were some people on the internet when this was announced who started to engage in wild speculation, spreading false information about there being another Matt Walsh out there who is some kind of actor who appeared allegedly in the show Veep.
And they tried to negate my own achievements by claiming that this other Matt Walsh is the one who will appear on Dancing with the Stars.
This sort of fake news was bad enough, but even worse were all the many people There were a great many of them, who rightly assumed that I was going to be on the TV show, but were for some reason extremely upset about it.
To appear on Dancing with the Stars has been my dream since I was a very young child, and yet these people danced all over my dream, the way that I will be dancing on that stage when Season 32 starts.
Just a quick sample of some of the things that these haters said on Twitter, just reading a few of the comments.
Why the F is ABC giving a platform to far-right bigot Matt Walsh?
Another says, why the F is Matt Walsh on Dancing with the Stars?
A lot of comments like that.
Also, something tells me that Christofascist and transphobic and homophobic Matt Walsh will regret making a fool of himself on Dancing with the Stars.
Like, who told you this was a good idea, Matt?
You're literally gifting the people you hate with enough ammo to launch a war.
Another says, I'm sorry, why the F is Matt Walsh here?
Another says, I think it's ridiculous that this huge show, Dancing with the Stars, is letting racist, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ plus commentator Matt Walsh be filmed.
Be better.
I mean, we missed out on some horrible content from him while he practiced, but still.
Another says, this dork calls Disney execs groomers and then joins the cast of an ABC reality show?
Another says, I'm done with Dancing with the Stars.
Matt Walsh is going to be on it.
Is Disney struggling that they need a transphobic on their show?
WTF!
Now, there were many, many more where these came from as the left cried out in protest against my very real inclusion in Dancing with the Stars.
I was trending nationwide on Twitter due to the outrage about this.
All of these leftists were convinced, and rightly so, that it must be me and no other Matt Walsh, because there is no other Matt Walsh.
I am the ultimate Matt Walsh.
I am the only Matt Walsh.
The others have faded into dust, blown away by the wind.
I am the last of the Matt Walshes, still standing.
Still dancing.
Now this is the most important thing to understand.
For all those on the left who have been asking, why is Matt Walsh on the show?
Why do they give him a platform?
What is he doing there?
The answer is that I'm there to dance.
I am on the show to tell my story and to reveal what is hidden deeply in my heart through the art of dance.
You know something?
Dance transcends politics.
It breaks through ideological barriers.
It speaks to a deeper truth that lies inside all of us.
This is why I have always turned to dance, even in my darkest moments and moments of turmoil and confusion.
I've always had dance there to bring clarity and light.
And that's what I intend to do on Dancing with the Stars when I appear on the show, which I am really going to do in real life because this is an actual thing that is true and that is happening.
Look, I'm not going to claim that I'm the best dancer who has ever danced, though I did perform for one summer with the New York City Ballet, so I'm certainly no novice, but my dance is not meant to be technically perfect.
My dances are bold, innovative, sometimes provocative, even shocking.
I want you to watch me dance and admire the beauty of the routine, but I also want you to think.
I want you to be challenged.
You know, I learned to dance under the tutelage of the great Russian choreographer Victor Korkivlyov, and he told me something that's always stuck with me as a dancer.
He said, to dance is to speak, and to speak is to dance.
I don't think that really means anything, but the point is that dance is self-expression.
Intensely personal, and yet paradoxically public.
I can go on and on about dance, about my passion for it, my relationship to it, about my years learning dance from the Russian guy I just made up, but I think that misses the point.
The point is that these people complaining about my appearance on the show are missing a real opportunity for unity, a chance to be elevated above their petty political concerns.
And either way, they need to just accept it.
I am appearing on the show.
Me, Matt Walsh.
Now I will warn you, I might look a little different when you see me on the show.
I've been practicing pretty hard.
It takes a lot out of me.
All this dance practice might make me look older, balder.
It might make my beard fall off.
And even for some reason, it might change the color of my hair.
And I want you to be prepared for that because it can be a little bit jarring.
But when they announce Matt Walsh and I come dancing up on that stage, you should know that it's really me and nobody else.
Unless he sucks, in which case it's that Veep guy.
Anyway, what matters most is the dance.
And to those who can't see that, who are focused more on their personal resentment towards me than the opportunity to experience the magic of dance together, all I can say is that they are all today cancelled.
