Ep. 1242 - The Left Accidentally Destroys Its Own Narrative With 'National Coming Out Day'
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in the midst of all of the chaos in the world, the Biden Administration and many corporate media outlets took time this week to celebrate "national coming out day." But the occasion actually undercut their own narrative. I'll explain. Also, today is supposedly a Day of Jihad. How should we respond to these kinds of threats? Vivek Ramaswamy and Sean Hannity get into a heated debate. And Dylan Mulvaney wins a prestigious "woman of the year" award.
Ep.1242
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Watch Episodes 1-8 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation - Text WALSH to 200-300
Good Ranchers - Get $30 off your order! Promo code Walsh at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
- - -
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, in the midst of all the chaos in the world, the Biden administration and many corporate media outlets took time this week to celebrate National Coming Out Day, but the occasion actually undercut their own narrative.
I'll explain.
Also, today is supposedly a day of jihad.
How should we respond to these kinds of threats?
Vivek Ramaswamy and Sean Hannity get into a heated debate, and Dylan Mulvaney wins a prestigious Woman of the Year award.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know every Halloween you hear about the dangers in the candy that your kids will get
which is why if you're a loving father like myself you eat half of the candy so that you
can mitigate those dangers to your child.
But this year, you know, the real tricks are in the meat aisle.
Good Ranchers wants to take the trick out of your meat, and they're throwing in a treat for my listeners for $30 off your order with promo code WALSH at GoodRanchers.com.
Lab-grown meat is growing more and more popular.
Foreign meat can be labeled as a product of the United States, and the mRNA vaccine development is on the rise for agriculture.
What's in your meat is even more in question than ever before.
Amidst these haunting truths, the real hero arises, Good Ranchers.
The number one place to get America's best pork, beef, chicken, and seafood is with Good Ranchers,
and they deliver it right to your door.
Their products are transparently sourced, all American and delicious.
When you shop at goodranchers.com, you don't have to question what's in your meat
or where your meat is coming from.
You already know they have a 100% American guarantee and a transparent vaccination policy.
Take the mystery out of the meat aisle.
Visit goodranchers.com and use my code Walsh to get $30 off with free express shipping
on your box of America's best meat and seafood today.
That's Code Walsh for $30 off your box today at GoodRanchers.com.
American meat delivered.
Well, we may have missed it by a few days, but it's never too late to celebrate National Coming Out Day.
This is a fake holiday that officially took place a couple of days ago on Wednesday, October 11th.
And if I'm being honest, it was everything I hoped it would be, and more.
It's almost like the holiday was invented as a form of performance art by someone who wants to expose the gender cult and demonstrate how absurd the whole thing is.
In fact, that's not a completely inaccurate way to describe the origins of National Coming Out Day, and I'll get to that in a second, but first, It's important to make clear that this holiday was not just some fringe event that nobody cared about.
Well, I mean, nobody did care about it, really, but it wasn't fringe because the White House once again celebrated the occasion, held a meeting this time with the Latino LGBTQI plus leaders to mark National Coming Out Day.
Various media outlets and social media personalities promoted it.
The largest school system in the city of Los Angeles decided to hold an entire week of events to celebrate.
National Coming Out Day, which doesn't even really make sense.
It's supposed to last just one day, but they said let's make a week out of it.
And in any event, the idea behind this day or week of celebration is of course to encourage young people to tell everyone that they're gay or trans or non-binary or one of the other infinite sexual identities.
Apparently there was no way that people could have done that during Pride Month or International Pronouns Day or the Trans Day of Remembrance or International Lesbian Day, which was also this week, by the way, or any of the other dozens of days on the calendar set aside specifically for LGBT people.
They need a separate day just for coming out in mid-October.
And this past Wednesday, we're led to believe, a bunch of people did just that for the first time in their lives.
I guess that's the idea.
They announced to the whole world that they're an L or a G or a B or a T or maybe a plus.
So, What happened next?
What grand consequences resulted from this momentous event?
Well, that's the good part.
As far as I could tell from reviewing all the available data on this, literally nothing happened at all.
There was no discernible response whatsoever.
There were no reports that anybody was beaten in the aftermath of National Coming Out Day.
Nobody was fired from their job for proudly declaring on social media that they're a non-binary or pansexual or whatever.
No homosexuals were accosted.
None of them were suspiciously crushed by pianos while they were walking down the street, as far as I know.
The world just kept on turning, and nobody cared.
That's why I'm finally getting around to celebrating National Coming Out Day a couple days late.
In one fell swoop, this holiday has basically debunked every left-wing narrative of LGBTQ oppression that we've been force-fed for the past several years.
Consider that it was just a few months ago that we were told by the so-called Human Rights Campaign that there's a nationwide state of emergency because, quote, LGBTQ plus people are endangered, they claimed.
Watch.
The country's largest LGBTQ plus civil rights group is sounding the alarm tonight, saying their community is in a nationwide state of emergency.
CBS 2's Jessica Moore reports on the laws and boycotts prompting the declaration.
In the middle of what should be a joyous month celebrating pride, The human rights campaign just issued a first-of-its-kind emergency declaration for the LGBTQ plus community.
HRC President Kelly Robinson saying quote, the multiplying threats facing millions in our community are not just perceived, they are real, tangible and dangerous.
So there's a nationwide state of emergency because there are real, tangible, and dangerous threats to the, quote, LGBT community.
That was just four months ago that they were saying that.
They said that, you know, before four months ago.
They've been saying that for a long time.
And then despite those threats, this week these same activist organizations told everyone to publicly announce that they're part of this supposedly victimized club.
And a lot of people did heed that call.
In fact, NBC News just published an entire list of celebrities who came out of the closet, not just on National Coming Out Day, but throughout the year of 2023.
And this happens every year, and every year there are more and more.
Some of them are coming out for the second and third and fourth time.
Some are coming out as sexualities that don't mean anything, like Wayne Brady, who we talked about declared that he's a pansexual recently.
And yet none of these people, the celebrities, the random kids on social media, None of them have faced any consequence whatsoever, any oppression.
Nobody responded to them with bigotry or violence or any of that.
Now, does anyone in the corporate media or at the human rights campaign think that that's maybe a little bit odd?
You'd think that they'd be thrilled by this news, actually, despite a supposed nationwide terror campaign against LGBTQ plus people.
A bunch of people just publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity or whatever, and they were perfectly fine.
Nothing happened to them.
They somehow survived the week totally unscathed.
How could that be?
Now, if you listen to what these activists are saying this week, you won't get an answer to that question.
They won't grapple with any of that.
They won't stop and say, hey, you know, I wonder, is it actually true that LGBT people are oppressed?
They're not going to ask that question, but you will get a very clear window into how they think and how effortlessly they will lie to the public and to you.
So here, for example, is one representative of the so-called Human Rights Campaign doing the rounds on local news stations to promote National Coming Out Day.
And as part of the shtick, it's explained that the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 is one of the reasons that the organization is so adamant about promoting National Coming Out Day.
And here's that clip, watch.
And tomorrow, marking 25 years since a heartbreaking yet critical moment for the community.
In 1998, 21-year-old openly gay college student Matthew Shepard died after he was brutally beaten, tortured, and tied to a fence in Wyoming.
His murder shocked the nation, but galvanized change.
Can you talk about that change and the work that still needs to be done?
Yeah, so many people in the LGBTQ plus and allied community remember where they were when they learned that Matthew Shepard had been murdered.
And it's in large part because they could see themselves in Matthew.
They could see their families in his family.
They could see their parents in his mother's tears.
And so it did.
It galvanized a community.
It reminded us the cost of unbridled hatred in this country.
And it created change, right?
We ushered in new hate crimes legislation.
It helped us to have real conversations about how we want to treat each other.
And yes, we've made a ton of progress in the wake of Matthew's murder, but we're also seeing an incredible amount of backlash.
And so As I like to say, we have to honor Matthew not just by remembering him with words or with platitudes, but we have to honor him with action.
We have to honor his legacy by creating a world where no one has to be afraid that they're going to face violence or discrimination simply for being who they are.
And that's our work right now is to honor him again, not just with words, but with action.
Now, if you were to parse what the anchor lady and the HRC spokesman are saying, it becomes very clear what's going on here.
Neither one of them explicitly states that Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay.
They imply it.
They don't come out and say it.
What that tells you is that they know that they're lying.
And I talked about this case the other day on the show, but the basic facts of the case are, as you heard me talk about a couple days ago, are completely different from what the leftists at HRC and the corporate media will tell you.
Many years ago, an investigative journalist named Stephen Jimenez looked into the Matthew Shepard case, and he found that Shepard was a high-value meth dealer and prostitute who was killed by one of his gay lovers.
So, the whole narrative lionizing Matthew Shepard, which Bill Clinton and the entire news media pushed at the time, and the left has not stopped pushing, all of that was false.
And yet, decades later, activists are still citing his case and implying that he was murdered because he was gay, when they know that that is not the case.
They know that that's not true.
All of corporate media is doing the same thing.
The other day, the Associated Press ran an article, which was picked up by NBC News and other outlets, stating the death of Matthew Shepard was, quote, or rather has been, quote, memorialized as an egregious hate crime.
Now, again, they're playing with language.
And on the left, they're very good at this because this is all they ever do.
Now, they know that Matthew Shepard's death was not a hate crime, but they're telling you it was memorialized as one, and they're refusing to give you context.
It's actually a clever trick, because even I would have to admit that that statement is true.
If I had to do a fact check on that statement, I would have to say, true, but missing context, as Snopes would like to say.
Because it was indeed memorialized as a hate crime, that's true.
It's just that it wasn't actually a hate crime.
So what's the point of all these lies?
They're lying about the dangers faced by LGBTQ plus youth, quote unquote.
They're lying about Matthew Shepard, lying about everything.
What's the goal?
Where is all this leading to?
Well, a year ago, the president and CEO of GLAAD, in her attempt to promote National Coming Out Day, spilled the beans as it were about that.
And here's her explanation of what this whole charade is really all about.
Watch.
So it's a really important day for us to continue to come out, to continue to share our stories.
And you know, for this year, for me at least, what I'm putting out there is not only is it important to come out, it's also to come out for the vote.
Really important at this moment in time.
Today is the final day to register to vote in over 12 states.
You can visit GLAD.org to find out what those states are.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So don't just come out, says the CEO of one of the largest gay activist groups
Come out to vote!
It's, of course, incredibly transparent.
They can't hide it.
They're not even trying to.
This isn't about anyone's sexuality or oppression or whatever.
It's about marshalling more votes for the Democratic Party.
It's about reinforcing the left's ideological stranglehold on the culture.
It's as simple and as cynical as that.
Now, to be fair, later in the interview, the same woman, the CEO of GLAAD, does attempt to offer another reason as to why National Coming Out Day is so important.
And she manages to dig an even deeper hole for herself in the process.
Really, she completely blows up the whole premise of National Coming Out Day without even realizing it.
Watch.
It's not an equal playing field yet.
And I think that we're trying to get there.
And one day we will.
I know we will.
And then we won't have to come out.
And then it won't be a big deal.
But unfortunately, I continue, even as the President and CEO of GLAAD, no matter where I go, I'm continually coming out, telling people that I'm married to my wife and that we have two children.
So it's an ongoing journey.
Well, first of all, the two of you don't have two children.
One of you has children.
So, not to get technical, but you don't both have those children, because that's not physically possible.
But what this GLAAD woman is otherwise describing is just normal human interactions.
That's not coming out.
So, the entire idea of National Coming Out Day, according to the CEO of GLAAD, is really complete nonsense.
It's designed to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.
These people aren't even pretending to be persecuted, or they're pretending, but they're pretending very unconvincingly.
They're just complaining about having to introduce themselves.
So it's reasonable to ask, how did this fake holiday even come about in the first place?
Who came up with the idea?
Well, that's kind of interesting.
Elsewhere in that interview, the GLAAD CEO briefly goes into some of the details about the history of National Coming Out Day.
She lies about it, so there's no point in showing that to you.
But if you dig into National Coming Out Day, you find that it was actually founded by a woman named Jean O'Leary.
Who is Jean O'Leary?
Well, she was a feminist.
Who, as it happens, really didn't like transvestites or drag queens.
And we don't have to guess about that, she actually said it on film at a rally in 1973.
And it's a little bit hard to hear some of this audio, but the whole thing is pretty interesting, so watch this.
When men impersonate women for reasons of entertainment or profit, they insult women.
We support the right of every person to dress in the way that she or he wishes.
But we are opposed to the exploitation of women by men for entertainment or profit.
Men have been telling us who we are all our lives.
They have tried to do it with scholarship, with religion, with psychiatry.
When all else fails, they have used humor to tell us, and each other, who and what we are.
What we object to today is another instance in which men laughing with one another at what they present as women are telling us who they think we are.
We all want to know.
Men have never been able to show us ourselves.
We are coming into a time and a place as women in which we can and do show one another who we are.
Now a few seconds later, Gina O'Leary there was forced off the stage by a couple of guys in drag.
And there's a lot of feminist gibberish in what she was saying, but the substance of what she says, it's worth repeating.
She said, quote, we're opposed to the exploitation of women by men for entertainment or profit.
Men have been telling us who we are for all our lives.
Men have never been able to show us ourselves.
And this is what the founder of National Coming Out Day stood for just a few decades ago.
She said at the time, men with fetishes are not, in fact, women.
That's what she was saying, and she couldn't have been more clear about it.
Of course, now, later in life, she recanted, and she bent the knee to the trans mob, but that's what she stood for at the time.
And now the gender cult is papering over that little inconsistency.
They're lying about the history of this fake holiday, just like they lie about what happened in Stonewall, just like they lie about Matthew Shepard, just like they lie about the national state of emergency facing their supposedly marginalized fanbase, just like they lie about literally everything all the time.
And they're lying so much, and so desperately, because the truth could not be more obvious.
The LGBT club is not oppressed.
A country does not have 50 fake holidays to celebrate a group of people that it is oppressing.
Generally, if a country is oppressing a people, it has no holidays to celebrate them whatsoever.
Certainly not 50 of them, or however many it is now.
And celebrities don't go out of their way to be a part of a truly marginalized and bullied community.
That's not what celebrities do.
A club does not grow in membership so rapidly, like the LGBT club is, if being in the club is a ticket to persecution.
No, it goes the opposite way.
For the individual identifying as LGBT, it means social capital and cultural influence.
And for the powers that be, the more people who identify as LGBT, the more votes they get, just like the GLAAD president said, and the more power they wield.
This is what it's all about.
And has always been about.
And now that couldn't be more clear.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
want to do, but rather something they have to do.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've done before and for many it isn't something they
Well, look, if you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news for you.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer experience possible through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable, quality, affordable windows.
Or also patio doors for zero dollars down, zero payments, and zero interest for a year.
Text Walsh to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting Walsh to 200-300.
That's Walsh to 200-300.
Texting privacy policy in terms of conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
So we just talked about the National Day of Coming Out, and today is apparently another holiday called the Day of Jihad, or the Day of Rage, which is not related to LGBT.
Although it could be, because in fact, You may remember a few months ago, the trans mob had their Trans Day of Vengeance, so maybe eventually they'll have their own Day of Jihad, I don't know.
But this is from Newsweek.
Conspiracy theories are flooding the internet as October 13th was designated a Day of Jihad or Day of Rage around the world by Hamas supporters.
On October 7th, Hamas led the deadliest Palestinian militant attack on Israel in history.
Khaled Mashal, the Ex-Hamas leader who heads the Milton Group's diaspora office in Qatar this week, advocated for Muslims globally to head to the squares and streets of the Arab and Islamic world on Friday as part of a mass protest supporting Palestinians against Israel.
And there have also been calls for this so-called Day of Jihad that would happen outside of the Arab world.
Look, there's been a lot of hype on social media around this Day of Jihad thing.
I'm not sure, people who don't spend a lot of time on social media, I'm not even sure if they're aware of it.
But on social media, and especially on Twitter, a lot of hype around it.
Some Hamas terrorists called for it, and now a lot of people, at least on social media, seem to be very afraid of it.
I've seen people online recommending that you stay out of cities today, that you keep your kids home from school, and all of that.
And look, Maybe a bunch of horrible things will happen today.
I don't know.
Maybe by the time you listen to what I'm saying right now, horrible things will have already happened.
Maybe a big terrorist attack will have already happened in the United States.
And then you can turn around and accuse me that I should have taken it more seriously or whatever.
If that happens, then it does.
And I don't know.
I mean, horrible things happen, can happen any day.
They do happen every day, actually.
So who really knows what's going to happen.
But it does trouble me to see the fear, you know, that we're advertising to terrorists that all they have to do is make some arbitrary threat.
And apparently some people will start adjusting their daily movements around it, living in fear because of it.
That you could have some Hamas terrorist in the Middle East says, there should be a day of jihad and the next thing you know it's trending nationwide in the United States on social media.
No, did you hear about the day of jihad that's coming?
It's just, it's a, it's a really bad precedent, I think.
And so what can you do when you hear about a day of jihad?
Well, you continue living your life is what you do.
Take normal precautions, that you should be taking all the time anyway, and live your life.
Staying out of cities, if you can help it, that's just a good way to live always.
And it's also true that today and any other day, if you're going to encounter violence in the city, it's almost certainly not going to be from a terrorist, but from the everyday average criminals and thugs who live in those cities.
And I also have to say this.
There is, in general, a day of jihad aside.
There's a lot of anger and fear out there right now.
A lot of it, obviously.
People are very emotional.
I see this on the right.
You know, people who are usually on the same side, culturally, tearing each other to pieces right now.
And this has been going on all week.
People getting ripped to shreds for being reasonable.
We'll play a clip from Vivek Ramaswamy in a minute, and he's getting crucified by some on the right for basically not wanting World War III.
Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, is out there.
He wants to bomb everyone.
He wants to just bomb Iran.
Doesn't matter.
Just level the entire Middle East, as far as he's concerned.
And that sentiment is definitely very strong right now, just, you know, hey, bomb everyone, kill everyone, bomb Iran, whatever, World War III, doesn't matter.
And the thing is, I can think of a couple of times in my life when the country was overcome by fear and anger.
Really, two other times that come to mind, COVID, the early days of COVID, and then right after 9-11.
And in both of those cases, it was the same thing.
People were swept up in emotion.
They were demanding extreme action.
And they were less concerned about the long-term effects of those actions.
They just wanted action.
Just do something.
Something.
Something must be done.
Right now.
Right this minute.
Now.
Do it.
And in both of those cases, I can remember that anyone who said Hey, wait a second.
Let's think about this.
Let's talk about what the consequences of this might be.
Anyone who said that was attacked, as if they were proposing some sort of radical, dangerous course of action.
When really, when they were proposing the opposite.
They were just saying, let's think about this.
Let's talk about it.
Let's be thoughtful.
Let's not simply act out of anger.
And in both cases, COVID and 9-11, we ended up, on a national level, we ended up responding in ways that proved disastrous.
20 years of war after 9-11, and then we all remember what happened with COVID.
And I am worried about the same thing happening right now.
I'm worried about the same thing playing out.
I am worried about World War III actually happening.
In part because of Although it wouldn't be entirely this, but in part because of the sentiment by some in the United States, led by the Lindsey Grahams of the world, that, hey, we're angry this horrible thing happened, let's just jump in and do something.
And if that happens, you know, five years from now, ten years from now, people are going to look back on it and say, how did we get so caught up in that?
Speak up and stop that.
Why didn't anyone... The thing is, there are always people speaking up.
There are people who spoke up after 9-11.
People who spoke up in the early days of COVID.
And the thing is that they are ignored.
Or not just ignored, they are castigated for not being as emotional as everybody else.
For trying to be more thoughtful than emotional.
And that's my worry right now.
Speaking of which, moving on to this, as alluded to, Sean Hannity and Vivek Ramaswamy had an interesting debate last night.
Ramaswamy is getting some heat from some on the right, as I mentioned, because of his stance on the Israel situation.
But his stance to me is totally reasonable.
He condemned the attacks.
I haven't listened to every single thing he said about it.
So, if he said something horrible or delusional or deranged about the situation in Israel, I haven't heard it.
All I've heard him say is to condemn the attacks, say that Israel has every right to defend itself, but he wants to avoid World War III.
And he doesn't want America to needlessly get involved and potentially make the situation worse and bring in other world powers, and then you have World War III.
Which is also my stance.
Happens to be correct, I think.
But even if you disagree with it for some reason, I mean, even if you think that America should put boots on the ground, even if you are with Lindsey Graham, let's go bomb Iran, you should still admit that the Ramaswami approach, the non-intervention approach, it's at least reasonable and rational and worth taking into consideration.
It's not a crazy point of view.
Yet some Republicans are quite mad at him, including Sean Hannity.
And I want you to listen to a little bit of this exchange between Hannity and Ramaswamy.
Listen.
Needs to be a party where, if your campaign is principally being run by super PACs, people who can give unlimited amounts of money to your campaign, I don't think that befits the Republican Party.
I think we need to be better than that.
So, Sean, you and I may have a different view on that.
I actually have a different view.
My view is, if you're making money off your time in government, then I don't think you're fit to be President of the United States.
More importantly, though, what's our policy?
Stand with our allies while avoiding World War III.
And that's where I'm at.
A lot of people don't think you're qualified because you weren't even a Republican or voting Republican until what, 2020?
Well, Sean, I think it depends on what your objectives with this interview are.
I voted libertarian in my first election.
I voted Republican in 2020.
You're right.
I'm not a partisan hack.
I come in from the outside.
I'm an independent minded patriot who speaks the truth.
It sounds to me like you just want to jump from the private sector yourself where you made a lot of money.
By the way, I applaud capitalism.
I applaud successful people.
Sean, I applaud you for being so transparent about your objectives.
And the defense of our country and the defense industry are playing a vital role for the
cause of freedom.
So I don't really call it a corrupting influence.
I suggest that somehow that's a corrupting influence.
I actually like the experience that goes along with working for defense contractors.
But I've got to listen.
One of the things I loved about that interview with Tucker, one of the things I love about
the interview with Tucker was we were actually able to have a thoughtful conversation and
go deep into issues rather than this kind of political gotcha.
The point is this, you go on these interviews, yeah, I have nothing but nice things to say, but here's your problem.
You go on these shows, people quote your exact words and you deny your own words.
I do love the fact that Vivek brought up his interview with Tucker Carlson.
That was great.
I think that's got to be the first time since Tucker left that anyone at Fox has even said his name.
That anyone has openly acknowledged his existence.
And set his name, and it's great that the person who says his name is Sean Hannity.
Sean Hannity, who pretends to like Tucker Carlson, but I think we all, I mean, you could even, you could tell when Tucker was there, just the handoff between the two.
Sean Hannity could barely contain his disgust with Tucker Carlson.
But putting that aside, I will say on Sean Hannity's part that, you know, It takes a lot of courage.
I think we should applaud his courage and his boldness to speak up for marginalized communities, to speak up for people who are really victims, the powerless in our world.
And in this case, he's speaking up for defense contractors and career politicians.
I applaud defense contractors.
They defend freedom.
This is, here's what I love about Sean Hannity, and I use the word love and I mean the opposite of it, but he's just been saying the exact same thing since like 2002, but it's not the kind of consistency that you applaud, okay?
It's not the kind of consistency where you say, well, he was stuck by his principle.
No, it's just basic You know, early 2000s neocon establishment Republican talking points.
And he just sticks to them.
No matter what happens, he sticks to them.
They don't change.
And it's only ever talking points.
Have you ever in your life, this is a sincere, I mean this is a sincere question.
Sean Hannity has been on air for, I don't know, 25 years?
Have you ever heard him offer anything approaching an actual insight?
Have you ever heard him say anything even remotely interesting?
Have you ever heard him offer something that sounds like an actual thought, and isn't just talking points that he printed out from the RNC?
Have you ever heard that?
Have you ever thought, one time, I mean in 25 years, have you ever thought to yourself, wow, Sean Hannity made a great point.
Have you ever heard, have you ever said to someone else or heard them say to you, you know, uh, Hannity had a great insight the other night.
It was, and then they, have you ever heard that?
Never, never.
And it's kind of, it's an amazing, again, consistency, not, not a consistency that we applaud, not the kind of consistency we applaud, but it's still an amazing consistency that he's been talking for 25 years and has never said one interesting thing.
You would think that in 25 years of talking, you would accidentally say a few interesting things and he never has.
It is very similar to, as we've marveled before over someone like Trevor Noah, who was on air for, he wasn't on air for as long as Sean Hannity, but still he was on air for six or seven years on a comedy show, never managed to say one funny thing.
And that was also pretty impressive.
So it's kind of a similar situation.
So what do we hear from Hannity there?
He's sticking up for defense contractors and career politicians.
And he's also implying that Vivek is unqualified because he's coming from the private sector.
God forbid.
God forbid he had a real job and he's been out in the private sector and he's had success there and now he wants to, you know, and now he's entering politics.
So he's getting attacked for that and also for not voting Republican in the past.
Which, who does that remind you of?
Does that remind you of a politician, a current politician, who Sean Hannity has professed himself to be a big fan of and a big supporter of for years now?
Like Donald Trump?
Donald Trump got into politics.
He was not a career politician.
He came from the private sector, right into running for president.
Same thing for Ramaswamy.
And he was voting not just libertarian, but voting Democrat.
Up until a few years before he ran for president.
You don't hear Sean Hannity criticizing Trump for that, do you?
But the real issue here, even putting all that aside, the real issue is like, what's the problem exactly with what Vivek has said about the situation in the Middle East?
Again, unless he said something that I haven't heard that's truly crazy, all I've heard from him is just, listen, what happened is terrible.
Condemn it.
It's awful.
It's evil.
Israel has to defend itself.
In the United States of America, we have to continue always to put our own security, put our own people first.
Always.
Because this is our country, and the people that run our country are supposed to be representing our people, and so we have to put our people first.
And what that means is not that we don't care about what's happening to other people.
It doesn't mean that we don't condemn evil when it occurs elsewhere in the world.
It just means that we can't do something that's going to needlessly put our own people in harm's way, or harm our country in some other way.
That's it.
Not only is that not controversial, but that is actually the baseline That's a position that every American should have, and certainly every American politician should have.
And that baseline position doesn't mean that we never go to war under any circumstance.
I don't think anyone's saying that there's never been a justified war that America's been involved in.
It's just a matter of what are our priorities, and are we going to be cautious and thoughtful Or are we going to be Lindsey Graham just running over there and bombing everybody?
All right, The Hill has this report.
President Biden edged out former President Trump in a poll released this week, leading by just one point.
Biden's support is between 45% and 49% against each Republican running for the White House, including the narrow lead over Trump.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, however, Has a two-point edge over the sitting president, according to a Fox News poll.
And former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley tops Biden by four points, the survey shows.
Fox News also noted that the poll results published Wednesday marked the first time in the cycle that Trump has fared worse against Biden than the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination.
All right, now, so that's just the latest poll, and this one, the headline on this is what I just read, that it has Trump losing to Biden by a narrow margin, and it has two other Republicans beating Biden by a slightly bigger margin.
Now, Trump supporters, of course, will ignore this poll, and they'll declare that it's bunk.
Trump critics will say that it's 100% accurate.
The five or six Nikki Haley fans out there are going to love this.
For my part, I don't know how accurate it is for sure.
I'm always skeptical of all polls.
We're still months out from any kind of voting going on, and so you take it all with a grain of salt.
I'm highly skeptical, highly skeptical of a poll that puts Nikki Haley at the very top.
Anyway, it doesn't even matter, okay?
Even if Nikki Haley in the polls was beating Biden by 20%.
It makes no difference because she's not going to win the primary.
That just simply is not going to happen.
It's not there.
There's no path for her.
It's not going to happen.
Period.
So it doesn't even matter.
But the poll having Trump losing to Biden, to me, that makes sense.
And as I've said all along, I don't see for Trump what his path to a general election victory is.
Regardless of what the polls say.
Some of them have him winning, some of them have him losing.
Razor-thin margins, one way or another.
I'm not saying he'll lose in a landslide.
I'm not saying that he would definitely lose either.
I can't say for sure.
But if I had to put my money on it, I think chances are that he loses.
And I don't see what exactly his path to a general election victory is, and I've been asking this for months.
I haven't had any Trump supporter really explain to me what the path is.
And for me, just break it down this way.
Okay, each party has its baseline support, its baseline voters.
So no matter who the Democrat nominee is, no matter who the Republican nominee is, there's a certain group of people who will vote for the Democrat or vote for the Republican regardless, like the baseline voters.
And Democrats probably have more baseline voters than Republicans do.
But once you get past the baseline, that's when you start asking questions like, and for me the basic question is this, are there more people who will vote against Trump than will vote for him?
That's, you know, obviously, this is not any great.
On my part, this is not any great.
I'm like Sean Hannity now.
This is not much of a brilliant insight.
But that is the question.
Are there more people to vote for him than against him?
And another way of phrasing that is, at this point, we know that Trump mobilizes.
We know for a fact that he mobilizes voters.
There's no doubt about that.
And he mobilizes people.
To a degree that we've never seen before in modern political history.
Maybe that's never been seen before in American history, period.
So he's a very unique figure in that way.
He mobilizes voters.
But the question right now, as we get into 2024, does he mobilize?
The problem is that he mobilizes voters for him and against him.
And does he mobilize more against him than for him?
That's the question.
And I think at this point, the answer is probably that he mobilizes, that more are mobilized against him than for him.
And if he's the nominee, then I certainly hope that I'm wrong about that.
It does also trouble me that, you know, of the Trump supporters who are definitely going to support him in the primary, when we get into this question of the general election, like, how is he going to win the general?
How does that work?
What is his path?
The fact that Trump supporters are reluctant to even have that conversation, that troubles me.
It's almost like some of them are saying, well, I don't know, he probably will lose, but we don't care.
Let's see, one other thing before we get to the comment section.
I think this is probably the most important news of the day.
This is from New York Post.
Critics are bashing star ballerina Misty Copeland, who started a petition to add more inclusive shades of color to the traditional pink apple ballet shoe emoji.
Copeland, 41, the first black woman to become a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre.
You probably already knew that.
I know I did.
You hear Misty Copeland, you immediately know that she's the first black woman to become a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theater.
If you didn't know, now you do.
But she posted about the initiative to her 1.8 million Instagram followers.
So this is a petition she's starting to get different shades of the ballet shoe emoji on Apple.
It's very important.
I think we have the video of her talking about this petition.
Do we have it?
I think we do.
Let's play that.
For my entire 25-year career, I have pancaked my pointe shoes to match my skin color.
Until recently, the only color option for pointe shoes was European pink.
I am so happy that several of the pointe shoe brands have expanded to include a wide range of flesh-colored pointe shoes that are more reflective of the variety of skin color tones that dance ballet.
We've seen enough of that.
So there it is.
Got this petition going.
I don't know how many people have signed it.
I think thousands have signed it.
This is very important.
And this is mostly what we're used to, right?
People desperate to be victims because of the social capital that comes with it, and also because it gives their lives meaning.
Feeling victimized gives their lives meaning, but the demand for racism exceeds the supply, so they're stuck with complaining about a lack of options with ballerina emojis or whatever.
But here's the thing.
We live In a very safe and insulated society, relatively speaking, becoming less safe all the time, but still generally safe, generally insulated, generally prosperous, also becoming less prosperous all the time, but still prosperous.
What we've discovered is that people who People live in this kind of bubble and don't have any underlying sense of meaning in their lives because they don't have faith, they don't have any even real coherent worldview, they don't have purpose.
You take those people, you make them very safe and comfortable, they get really bored and they start to kind of fetishize suffering.
And they come up with all these kinds of sort of luxury fears and concerns.
And they start petitions over emojis and so on.
And this can only happen in our very comfortable Western bubble.
But the bubble is not, well, it's not bulletproof, literally or figuratively.
And if it ever pops completely, It's very disturbing to think how unprepared we will be.
How shocked and helpless.
I know I just said we shouldn't live in fear, and we shouldn't.
But this is a reality that I see coming in the future, and it's a very interesting contrast.
When you do see war and death and destruction happening right now, but not in this country, and then you've got people here worried about ballet shoe emojis.
And if ever these worlds really do collide, and these realities do collide, I think there's a lot of people that are not going to be prepared for that.
Let's get to the comment section.
We talked about living with your parents, the adults just to live with their parents, and here's some comments about that.
Risen2258 says, living with your parents and living under your parents are two completely different things.
It's a good way of putting it.
I spent 14 and a half minutes talking around the issue, but I think that's basically I think that pretty much sums it up.
This cache says, it's so nice to hear a father that feels as I do about the children not
just going away because they are grown up.
Multiple functional families under one roof is not the crisis that it seemed to be in
the 60s and 70s.
Yeah, I just, now look, my kids, my oldest kid, we haven't gone through the teenage years
yet that all parents always complain about.
But even so, after, you know, we've got 11 years under our belt of being parents and
six kids, when I, this kind of like typical parent thing of, I can't wait for my kids
to leave the house, get them the hell out of the house.
I don't relate to that at all.
And I've always been taught, the parents keep telling me, ever since we first had kids,
parents have insisted that, oh, you'll understand one day.
You won't be able to, you know, you'll be so excited to get these little brats out of the house.
And 11 years later, I still don't, I still don't relate to it.
I don't, not that I want my kids to, like we talked about, I want them to stay in a state of perpetual adolescence and be helpless, become adults, and they're still overgrown children sitting in my house and playing video games and watching TV all the time.
Like, that's not going to be allowed.
So that's not what I'm talking about.
But I don't have any Like the idea that they turn 18, I just want to get the hell out of the house.
I don't want to be around them anymore.
That to me, you know, that's not, that's how you feel.
It's not because you really, because you think it's the best approach for your kid.
It's just because you don't like being a parent and you're kind of selfish.
That's what it is.
And I liked it.
I'd love to keep my whole family.
It doesn't mean it's going to work out this way, of course, and in my case, you know, I live in Tennessee and the rest of my family lives 800 miles away, so who am I to talk?
But still, if I could script it out exactly as I would want, I'd love for my whole family, all my kids, you know, They become adults, they get married, they have kids, and we all stay close by, you know, we have our own, you know, and we have our community, and I think that that's the way it has usually been done historically, and I think that that's
The way it should be.
Psyche8187 says, I think it makes sense for a young woman to live with her parents until she gets married.
Meanwhile, developing her skills, her place in the broader community, and contributing to the management of the home.
You bring up a good point, too, because when we talk about this issue of should kids move out of the house or not, or should they stay in their parents' house until they get married themselves, we talk about Men and women, we don't lump everyone together, but I think I think you're right that there is also a difference.
There are many differences between men and women, as we know.
And on this issue, there's a difference as well.
I think there's more that there's probably more value in your son reaching adulthood and then going out and living on his own somewhere and finding his way in the world for a few years before he gets married.
There's probably more value for that for a young man than there is for a young woman.
All right.
On the issue of feminism and women feminists wanting to split the bill on dates we talked about a couple of days ago, David says, My wife claims to be a feminist.
It's cute and frustrating at the same time because the debate always ends the same way.
I present facts.
She gets frustrated and exits the conversation claiming that I just don't understand because I'm a man and I don't understand a woman's struggle.
Well, I'm glad that you could be positive about it and call it cute, because if my wife... I can't imagine my wife saying something like that to me unironically.
You don't know a woman's struggle.
But I don't know that I would find it cute.
Frustrating is more, I think, probably a more accurate description.
Although I will say, my wife is not a feminist in the slightest bit.
But she did, a couple of days ago, drop the term mansplaining on me, and I just stopped in my tracks.
Did you just use the phrase mansplaining?
Did that really just happen in the Walsh household?
And then I realized, of course, that she said it because she knows how much it would annoy me, so I have to respect that at least.
And on Jada Smith, a comment says, when you look at a relationship from the outside that consists of a pathological narcissist and their victim, it always looks crazy from the outside.
Will Smith is unable to stand up to what is happening to him because when your life force is being drained and your soul is being mined, your mind doesn't belong to you.
If he dares to pull back the curtain, Jada's mask will crumble and her evil will become even more obvious.
It's hard to understand unless you've lived this nightmare yourself.
Okay, well, she doesn't have magical powers, okay?
She's not Voldemort.
Even if she kind of looks like it, she's not.
And so I think you're letting Will Smith off the hook here way too much.
Jada Smith, as we've discussed, certainly worst wife in America.
She has earned that title.
I think she deserves it.
She should win that award.
But the issue is that she has no respect for her husband and is a resentful, awful person, always humiliating Will Smith.
And at the same time, he is this cuckolded, pathetic man who is allowing this to happen to himself.
And I think it's actually much more simple than you make it out to be.
Right, it's, any one of us, we can watch a video of Jada Pinkett Smith, and we can hear her talking about, especially when she talks about her relationship, but really anything, you can watch any video of her for like a minute, and you've got her figured out.
You know what kind of person this is.
Did Will Smith not realize that?
When he married her, and I think of course he did.
I think that most, and there are exceptions to this, there are men who get married to a woman who they think is a wonderful woman, and she was fooling him the whole time, and she was hiding what she really liked, and she hid all of that.
And there might be also cases of someone who's married to a woman, and she's a wonderful woman, and then she becomes a horrible person.
And it can also happen with men, too.
So, like, that does happen, but I think most of the time, if somebody's just a bad person, Then they were probably a bad person before you married them.
And also, if you are at all perceptive, you were probably at some level aware of it.
Yet you made the decision to marry them anyway.
And I think a lot of men make that decision not because they're the victims of some kind of magical mind control.
It's much more simple than that.
You know, they're with a woman, they can tell that she's terrible, and all these things, like they can, all the red flags are there, they can see them, but they're physically attracted to the woman, and so they decide to overlook all of that.
And I think most of the time, that's what ends up happening.
Most of the men who end up with a Jada Pinkett Smith type of woman, they knew at some level going in, and they did it anyway, because they were attracted to the woman, and they decided to put that concern above all the rest.
Never a good idea, as Will Smith is discovering.
Are you still getting your chocolate from woke companies?
Well, you can get Jeremy's Chocolate instead.
And right now, you can save big with 25% off.
Get great deals on our famous He/Him with Nuts and She/Her Nutless, because whether it's Halloween or not,
Jeremy's Chocolate knows not everyone can be a mummy.
Great joke.
Get yours in full size or our shareable microaggression size.
Perfect for giving out to friends, family, and neighbors.
Time is running out, so stock up in time for Halloween.
Go to jeremyschocolate.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Well, it's been a while since we've talked about our old friend,
Dylan Mulvaney.
He hasn't even made an appearance in the Daily Cancellation in quite some time, surprisingly enough.
Mulvaney was all over the place in the early part of this year, a ubiquitous cultural presence, but then Bud Light got involved, and we all know how that worked out for them.
We know how it worked out for Mulvaney, too, who responded to the controversy by dropping off the map for a while.
It was a much-needed respite for all of us.
And now Mulvaney is back in action.
In fact, he has just won a prestigious award.
Fox News reports, quote, a British LGBTQ magazine and Virgin Atlantic recently named trans woman Dylan Mulvaney Woman of the Year.
Mulvaney received the recognition at the Virgin Atlantic Attitude Awards in the United Kingdom on Wednesday, an award show put on by LGBTQ Attitude magazine and sponsored by the British airline company.
At the podium, Mulvaney marveled at receiving the award.
Noting that it had only been 560 days since the biological male influencer came out as trans.
The influencer noted how grateful she was to receive the honor from a queer publication like Attitude, saying that it means so much more to me.
In an Attitude magazine piece recounting the winners from the evening, the outlet profiled Mulvaney, stating, through her Days of Girlhood series, Dylan Mulvaney shared the everyday highs and lows of her transitioning experience with the world and gained 12 million followers in the process.
Fame, advertising campaigns, and controversy followed.
While speaking, Mulvaney said hateful people had made things a struggle.
Okay, well this isn't the thing that we're going to focus on, but I do have to note once again how Fox uses the she-her pronouns for Mulvaney.
Fox continues to try and have its trans cake and eat it too.
The only reason they're reporting on Mulvaney's Woman of the Year award in the first place is that it's absurd, right?
That's the only reason why it's newsworthy.
It's because of how ridiculous it is.
And they know that their entire audience will find it ridiculous and outrageous, rightfully so.
So, on one hand, this is red meat to their conservative audience, but on the other hand, they're undercutting criticism of the award by referring to Mulvaney as a woman.
Fox wants to be able to point and laugh and mock men who win Woman of the Year awards and go into women's bathrooms and so on, but they also want to affirm the womanhood of those same men.
They want to have it both ways, because they are disgraceful, embarrassing cowards.
Too afraid to tell the truth, too chicken s*** to just come out and be fully pro-trans, but by not telling the truth, they are effectively pro-trans anyway.
They have backed, they've kind of backed into that position passively in a defensive and whimpering way.
Rather than just embracing it and letting their trans flag fly.
And the end result is the same, however.
Fox has totally sacrificed any shred of journalistic legitimacy that it might have had.
And they have done this by denying reality and by denying the rules of the English language in support of an ideology that it pretends to reject.
And for that reason, Fox is today cancelled.
But that's not the subject, actually.
Back to Dylan Mulvaney.
He, and notice how I say he because it's really not that difficult to say, he was on the scene to accept this Woman of the Year award, an honor bestowed on him after just a year and a half of pretending to be a woman.
There are about, I think, four billion women on planet Earth.
Four billion actual real women, I mean.
And they've all lived as women their entire lives.
They've experienced the world as women.
They are women.
And yet, none of them were deserving of this honor, apparently.
All four billion women were disqualified, and the award was handed to a man who plays dress-up.
And here's what that man had to say.
Hello, London!
I am so honored to be here with you all tonight.
And, you know, some see me as the woman of the year.
Some see me as a woman of a year and some change, as I only publicly came out online 560 days ago.
And some people don't see me as a woman at all.
I know.
Which is why receiving this honor from a queer publication like Attitude means so much more to me.
Because here's what I've realized.
You ready?
Okay.
So, no matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of womanhood by those hateful people's standards.
Well, yes, that's exactly right, Dylan.
Just swap out the word sane for hateful, and you're right on the money.
According to us sane human beings, yes, it doesn't matter what you wear, or what you say, or what surgeries you get, your fundamental biological identity remains the same.
Reality remains the same.
And womanhood remains something more than the fashion statement and the charade that you want it to be.
So you're correct about that, Dylan.
More correct than you realize, or want to be, actually.
Let's continue with a little more of this.
I came to London on holiday this summer after months of feeling isolated.
And when I arrived, I didn't feel that baggage that I was carrying back in the U.S.
And I didn't feel like the trans beer girl.
You know, I didn't walk into rooms and wonder, oh, does that person hate me?
I was just another gal walking around in a Burberry Trench on her way to a West End musical.
And you know, I romanticized this country as a safe place.
And as dangerous as it is for trans people here right now, like the hate that was spewed last week, maybe it's less about where we are and more about who we're with.
And that if I'm surrounded by people like you all, that this still can be one of my safe spaces.
So...
When you have a win for trans rights, that's a win for us back in the States too.
And I think if we all just adopt a girl's girl mentality and we say goodbye to the scarcity complexes, that we have a better chance of getting through this.
Okay, so we've heard enough of that.
We didn't really need to hear any of it, honestly.
But I wanted to get to that scarcity complex part because I'd never heard that phrase before, so I had to look it up.
And according to Google, a scarcity complex or scarcity mindset is when you obsess over what you lack, you know, what you don't have.
And usually this refers to people who worry overly much about not having enough money or other material goods.
But it's an interesting phrase coming from Dylan Mulvaney.
Because he's not worried about money.
He's been able to do pretty well for himself.
He's been able to monetize his faux womanhood to an extraordinary extent.
Women don't often get paid just for being women, but this man does get paid for pretending to be one.
So it's not money that he lacks, instead it is womanhood itself.
He lacks all the things that make someone a woman.
He feels insufficient or lacking in his womanhood.
And that's because he is insufficient and lacking.
He has no womanhood.
He is not a woman.
And that is the source of his, what he calls, scarcity complex.
We also hear again about the hate that Dylan says he encounters back in the U.S.
And that's because in this country there's a powerful movement against gender ideology that has been gaining ground every day for the past couple of years.
And Mulvaney calls us all hateful.
I said a moment ago that we should swap the word sane for hateful, because that's really what he's talking about.
And that's true.
When anyone on the LGBT, the trans activists, when they talk about hateful people, what they're actually referring to are sane people.
And so anytime they use the word hateful, you can just, in your mind, sub in the word sane, and the sentence makes sense.
But also, I think it's worth saying that We don't need to swap the words out, actually.
In fact, you could keep the word hateful in there, because hateful works too.
We do hate.
We do have hatred.
We hate the lies of the trans agenda.
We hate what it does to children.
We hate the grotesque, degrading caricature of womanhood that people like Dylan put on display.
We hate his entitlement and his arrogance.
We hate everything about his worldview and everything he does to promote and spread it like a virus through the culture.
We hate lies.
And we hate lies as much as he hates truth.
See, there's nothing wrong with hatred as long as it's directed at things worthy of being hated.
Now, the good news for Dylan is that these things that we hate, you know, we hate the things that he's choosing to do.
Which means that he can stop doing them at any time and he won't feel the hate anymore, at least not from us.
He can stop appropriating womanhood.
He can stop lying to the world and to himself.
He can stop making himself a mascot for a deranged and dangerous ideology.
He can stop doing those things and then we'll stop hating what he's doing.
In fact, he could have gone up on that podium and he's never done anything heroic in his entire life.
But he had a chance for some real, maybe not heroism, but at least a moment of the most bravery he's ever displayed in his entire life if he had gotten up at the podium and said, listen, I can't accept this award.
It wouldn't be fair for me to call myself Woman of the Year when there are so many real women who deserve that accolade.
I won't take what doesn't belong to me.
He could have said that.
And the people he considers hateful would have praised him for it.
But that would require the kind of humility and honesty that he simply doesn't possess, because he chooses not to possess them.
And so, this sort of hate will continue coming his way, directed at the things that he's doing and saying.
And he will deserve all of it.
And that is why he is today, once again, cancelled.
And that'll do it for the show today and this week.
