Ep. 1278 - It's Time To Hold The Biden Crime Family Accountable
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats are crying foul as Republicans open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. But they're really just complaining about finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Also, the mayor of Boston throws a Christmas party where no whites are allowed. The White House confuses and disturbs the nation with its bizarre holiday video. Jada Pinkett Smith is back at it, publicly embarrassing her husband once again. And a popular YouTuber discovers why "open marriages" are a terrible idea.
Ep.1278
- - -
DailyWire+:
Order your copy of Christmas Karol here: https://amzn.to/3ZD40K8
Watch Lady Ballers the #1 Streaming Movie in America here: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 to check out Birch Gold’s Holiday Deals! Get FREE Silver today! https://birchgold.com/Walsh
Cozy Earth - Use code WALSH40 for up to 40% off your order! http://www.cozyearth.com
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation. Text WALSH to 200-300
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
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, Democrats are crying foul as Republicans open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, but they're really just complaining about finally getting a taste of their own medicine.
Also, the mayor of Boston throws a Christmas party where no whites are allowed.
The White House confuses and disturbs the nation with its bizarre holiday video.
Jada Pinkett Smith is back at it, publicly embarrassing her husband once again.
And a popular YouTuber discovers why open marriages are a terrible idea.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
This Christmas season, don't let the government be the Grinch of your savings.
Right now, you can diversify your savings with physical precious metals while stockpiling free silver in your home safe.
Don't miss out on Birchgold Group's most popular special of the year.
Now through December 22nd, for every $5,000 you spend with Birchgold, they'll send you a one-ounce Silver Eagle coin for free.
Text WALSH to 989898 to claim your eligibility now.
You can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home or Have Birch Gold's precious metal specialists help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
And they'll send you free silver for every $5,000 you purchase.
Keep it for yourself or give something with real value as a stocking stuffer this year.
text the keyword Walsh to 989898 to claim your eligibility with an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau,
thousands of happy customers.
Now's the best time to buy gold for Birch Gold.
Text Walsh to 989898 and claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases
before December 22nd.
That's Walsh to 989898.
Shortly after the 2018 midterms, Jerry Nadler, who was about to become the chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, boarded an Acela train from New York to Washington.
And when he got to his seat, he began loudly speaking on the phone with someone who remains unknown to this day.
Unfortunately for Nadler, though, the editor-in-chief of the conservative website The Federalist, Mollie Hemingway, was seated nearby, jotting down notes about the whole conversation.
And Hemingway overheard Nadler outline, in no uncertain terms, Democrats' plans for going, quote, all in on investigating and ultimately impeaching Donald Trump.
It was much more important for Democrats to impeach Donald Trump than Brett Kavanaugh.
Nadler said at the time, because going after Kavanaugh might remind voters of Joe Biden's
disastrous handling of Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas,
and that could harm Joe Biden's chances of becoming president.
So Nadler said the safe play was to impeach Donald Trump for colluding with Russia, which
is an accusation that Jerry Nadler has never had any evidence to support, because it's
totally made up.
Now, if Democrats went with that strategy, Nadler said on the phone at the time, it would
clear the way for a Joe Biden presidency.
Now, in one sense, what Molly Hemingway overheard wasn't surprising.
More than a year earlier, just minutes after Donald Trump was inaugurated, The Washington Post announced that, quote, But in retrospect, Jerry Nadler's remarks on the train back in 2018 didn't just foreshadow Donald Trump's two impeachments or the presidency of Joe Biden.
They also established the blueprint for how leftists would treat all political investigations moving forward.
They have no interest in the evidence.
They don't care about the law.
Their goal instead is to use the force of the legal system to punish their enemies.
This was a shift that was much bigger than Jerry Nadler.
The same year that Nadler made those remarks on the Acela, Letitia James was campaigning to become New York's Attorney General, and she said pretty much the same thing.
She promised to find some way to take Donald Trump to court, however implausible it may be, and, well, she found a way.
Now, one of the many problems with this strategy is that it's short-sighted.
Democrats failed to ensure that they would hold on to political power forever.
That's certainly their goal.
It's the entire justification for their immigration policy.
They haven't achieved it yet.
So right now, Republicans are in control of the House of Representatives.
And yesterday, they announced their own impeachment inquiry.
And they're looking primarily at whether Joe Biden sold favors to overseas interests, particularly in Ukraine and China.
Now, in a moment, I'll go into some of the evidence that justifies this inquiry, and there's plenty of it.
But really, we don't have to go into all that, because once Jerry Nadler adopted the Stalinist standard for impeachment, basically, show me a man and I'll show you the crime, evidence became moot.
Impeachment is all about raw political power now.
It's not about evidence.
Certainly not about fairness or rule of law or any of that.
The White House and the Biden family know all of this.
That's why they're not even pretending to defend themselves.
Hunter Biden went in front of the cameras and announced that he's not going to comply with the congressional subpoena that he was served.
He's just not going to do it.
Watch.
There's already been a five-year investigation of me.
Yet, here I am, Mr. Chairman, taking up your offer when you said we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose.
Well, I've chosen.
I'm here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee's legitimate questions.
Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say.
What are they afraid of?
I'm here.
I'm ready.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Hunter, are you ready to go to the street?
Why not testify now, sir?
Why not testify now?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So Hunter Biden received a lawful subpoena for closed door testimony.
Same kind of subpoena that Donald Trump Jr.
and many other Trump aides were forced to comply with for hours on end.
But he just doesn't want to do it, so he refuses.
And his justification for refusing is completely absurd.
There's no legal basis for it.
Hunter Biden isn't even pretending there is one.
Instead, he's saying that he wants to testify in front of the news media instead of a closed-door session.
It's just his preference, and he seems to think that his preference is somehow bidening on Congress.
It was just a couple of years ago that former Trump advisor Steve Bannon defied a congressional subpoena.
And unlike Hunter Biden, he had reason for doing so.
He argued that it was unlawful for Congress to compel him to testify about his work in the White House citing executive privilege.
Now, whatever you make of that defense, it's clearly rooted in the law.
There is a legal reason for it.
And it's working its way through the federal appellate process as we speak.
But what happened to Steve Bannon because he asserted that defense?
Well he was sentenced to four months in prison.
Watch.
Good morning and thank you so much for being here with us on Live Now from Fox.
My name is Christy Larson and we have some big news to report here to you today.
Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, he's been sentenced to serve four months behind bars after defying a subpoena That was from the House Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection at the U.S.
Capitol.
A judge allowed Bannon to stay free pending appeal and also imposed a fine of $6,500 as part of the sentence.
Now Bannon was convicted in July for two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a deposition.
Okay, so the question is, is that going to happen to Hunter Biden?
documents. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols handed down the sentence after
saying the law was clear that contempt of Congress is subject to a mandatory
minimum sentence of at least one month behind. Okay so the question is is that
gonna happen to Hunter Biden? As of now congressional Republicans are
threatening to hold him in a contempt of Congress which they obviously should. But
then there's the question of whether Joe Biden's DOJ will pursue criminal charges.
Will they throw Hunter Biden in prison for this?
Will they demand that he testify under oath about his father's involvement in his business?
That's an open question.
Right now, the DOJ is pursuing charges against Hunter Biden about his fraudulent gun form and his tax evasion.
But those charges don't directly relate to the main issue in this impeachment inquiry, which is where Hunter Biden got all of his money from, and more importantly, Joe Biden's involvement in procuring that money.
Now yesterday, a reporter at Fox asked the White House press secretary about all of this, and she proceeded to make it clear that Joe Biden knew that Hunter would defy the congressional subpoena.
And beyond that, you know, she just made light of the whole situation.
It's all a big joke.
Watch.
He said that President Biden was familiar with what his son was going to say on Capitol Hill.
If I called my dad and said, I am about to violate a congressional subpoena, he'd probably say, son, you shouldn't do that.
Was there any attempt by President Biden to talk Hunter out of it today?
You're going to call your dad Steve?
I don't have anything else to add.
The president was familiar with what Hunter was going to say today.
Look, he's proud of his son.
He and the First Lady are proud of his son, how he's rebuilding his life back.
He's going to focus on what is needed on the American people.
Hunter, and I've said this many times as a private citizen, and so certainly I would have to refer you to his representative.
I'm just not going to get into private conversations because what you're asking me is actually a private conversation.
I'm just not going to.
Now this is the kind of question that should be extremely easy to answer.
If you're asked whether the president told his son to defy a congressional subpoena, you should be able to respond and explain yourself.
Instead, the White House press secretary cracks a joke and starts talking about how much Joe Biden loves his son and is proud of his crackhead son.
What this means, almost certainly, is that Joe Biden did advise his son to defy the congressional subpoena without any legal basis whatsoever, because if he didn't, then you would just say that.
Under the standards Democrats established with Steve Bannon and several other Trump aides, that's a crime.
You should go to prison for it.
And there's an obvious motive for why Joe Biden would want his son to commit this crime.
Hunter Biden himself made that motive very clear during his remarks to reporters yesterday.
Watch.
Let me state as clearly as I can.
My father was not financially involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer.
Not as a board member of Burisma, not in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist.
So did you catch the qualifier there?
Hunter wants you to know that his father was not financially involved in his business dealings with corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine and China.
So this is not a denial that Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden's business dealings in general.
It's a denial that Joe Biden was financially involved.
This is a very different claim from the one that Joe Biden has been making for years.
Let's remember that again.
Watch.
How many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their businesses.
Period.
And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration.
There will be an absolute wall between personal and private and the government.
Do you stand by your statement that you did not discuss any of your son's overseas business dealings with him?
Yes, I stand by that.
Okay, so we went from, I didn't talk to my son at all about this, there was no conversation to, well, I wasn't financially involved.
And the reason for this change is that the Biden family knows that they can't deny a direct link between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's influence-peddling operation.
Devin Archer, one of Hunter Biden's business associates, has already testified in front of the House of Representatives saying that Joe Biden spoke with Hunter Biden's business partners roughly 20 times.
Now those conversations, according to Archer, took place while Joe Biden was the sitting Vice President of the United States.
The Wall Street Journal also reported that Archer testified that, quote, Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the Biden brand attached to it.
Burisma is a Ukraine oil company that paid Hunter Biden tens of thousands of dollars a month for a no-show job, despite Hunter Biden having no oil expertise whatsoever.
Burisma was being investigated by Ukraine's Attorney General up until Joe Biden threatened to withhold money to Ukraine's government until they fired him.
And then there's the fact that Joe Biden used a fake name to email with Hunter Biden's business partners.
There's also the many public comments of Tony Bobulinski, the Hunter Biden business partner who has repeatedly said that Joe Biden personally profited from Hunter Biden's influence peddling.
Bobulinski, who had no reason to lie whatsoever, told Tucker Carlson that Joe Biden was the, quote, big guy referenced repeatedly in emails on Hunter Biden's laptop.
The big guy, according to the emails, was slated to receive 10% of the profits from one business venture in China.
Now, it's important to recount all this because even now Democrats are claiming that there are no witnesses to support the idea that Joe Biden could possibly be corrupt.
Here's AOC, for example.
That not only is the committee not allowing Hunter Biden to testify publicly, but they have
not called a single witness, a single first hand witness to any of their allegations.
They haven't allowed anybody to testify publicly because they do not have a single witness to any
of their alleged allegations, they don't. So there are no witnesses except for
for the witnesses.
This is how the left plans to respond to the congressional investigation into Joe Biden.
They'll deny reality.
They'll pretend that witnesses don't exist, even when those witnesses have appeared before Congress and on primetime television.
They'll make fun of you, as Karen Jean Payer did yesterday.
All this was foreseeable when Jerry Nadler, Letitia James, and other top Democrats decided to use the legal system and the impeachment process to punish their political opponents.
It was inevitable that soon enough, They'd be forced to admit that they can't possibly live up to their own non-existent standards.
Just five years after Jerry Nadler's conversation on that Acela, that moment is here now.
Conservatives can either take advantage of it, or they can do what they usually do.
They can make a big show for the cameras and completely fail to follow through.
It's clear that Karen Jean Pear and Hunter Biden, that's what they think is going to happen.
Total lack of follow-through.
They don't believe that their political enemies are anywhere near as ruthless and cynical as they are.
And I think for once, it's time for conservatives to prove them wrong on that point.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Cozy Earth's sheets are the most luxurious sheets I've ever owned.
My wife and I have their white bamboo sheets, and when I say that they're the softest sheets we've ever owned, I mean it.
These bamboo sheets are temperature regulating, which help us both sleep better at night.
If you're a hot sleeper or a cold sleeper, whatever it is, you can be comfortable at night,
especially during these cold winter nights.
Cozy Earth Sheets offers an array of sizes and 11 colors to match your unique style and preferences.
Their sheets are made to withstand the test of time.
My Cozy Earth Sheets, my Cozy Earth Sheets gets softer and softer with every wash,
but I'll just take my word for it.
They have over 5,000 happy customer reviews on their site.
So what are you waiting for?
Cozy Earth offers a 100-night guarantee, so there's no harm in trying them out.
Make every night a cozy one with Cozy Earth.
Right now, you'll save 40% off your next purchase with promo code WALSH40 at CozyEarth.com.
That's WALSH40 at CozyEarth.com.
Okay, I was going to save this for the end of the headlines, but since we're on the topic of Joe Biden's White House, I think now's an appropriate time.
It's our top headline of the day, I suppose.
So the White House just released whatever this is.
Jill Biden posted it, and it's some kind of Christmas dance thing that was performed at the White House, and if you're just listening to the audio podcast, you will Be deprived or be spared anyway, however you look at it, from the visuals here.
But let's just watch a little bit of this Christmas performance thing that Jill Biden apparently put together at the White House.
And here it is.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Okay...
[Clapping]
Okay...
That's probably enough of that.
It goes on for like 14 hours.
It doesn't stop.
And it's the worst thing I've ever seen in my life.
So thank you for that, Joe Biden.
I mean, Biden should be impeached just for that.
There should be impeachment proceedings just based on what you saw there.
And I don't even know, what's the idea?
What's the inspiration?
Are you trying to combine the Nutcracker and Eyes Wide Shut?
Is this what Christmas looks like on Epstein Island?
Watching that, I felt like I had just been selected for the Hunger Games and they were being held this year by the Who's down in Whoville.
If Santa was having a bad acid trip, it would look like that, is what I'm trying to say.
I felt like I was being haunted by the ghost of gay Christmas.
And this is why I prefer tradition.
Okay, this is the point.
I'm a traditional man.
I prefer traditional things.
And that's not a simple closed-mindedness.
It's that traditions are traditions for a reason.
Like, they're time-tested.
People have enjoyed them for generations.
And so you have the testimony of your ancestors supporting traditions.
I think it's the democracy of the dead.
C.S.
Lewis, I think, or G.K.
Chesterton.
So, Christmas time.
I don't need some dystopian jazz fusion Christmas thing.
How about You get a choir together, and they stand outside the White House, and they sing Christmas carols.
That would be nice.
I would like that.
I would actually watch that.
That would be the only Jill Biden tweet that I'd watch it.
Who doesn't like a good Christmas carol?
Have them sing Silent Night, Hark the Herald, Angels Sing, Away in the Manger.
Okum Okum Emmanuel, really, because that's in Advent.
I mean, we are still in Advent.
So, if you want to be a stickler, you say there shouldn't be any Christmas.
I'm not a stickler like that, but that's what you could do.
You can't get better than that.
That's the thing.
You can't improve on that.
It's the same thing at churches around Christmas.
I'm like, I've never seen anything that bad at a church on, you know, you go to Christmas Mass.
I've never seen that.
But you go to a lot of churches now, and they try to do modern interpretations on old Christmas hymns, and it just never works.
The most you could hope for is a pale imitation, but usually you end up with something like that, which is just bizarre and horrifying.
And it could have been delightful.
Just a Christmas carol is delightful.
Even an old Grinch like myself would appreciate that.
Alright, Fox News has this report.
Boston's Democratic mayor has come under fire after she sent out invitations for a holiday party intended only for minority city councilors.
Michelle Wu, the city's first Asian American mayor, recently had her aide, Denise DeSantos, send out an email for the event.
Email said, Honorable Members, on behalf of Mayor Michelle Wu, I cordially invite you and a guest to the Electeds of Color Holiday Party.
That's what the email said.
The city leader quickly drew criticism after it became apparent that the email was sent to all city councilors, seven of whom are white.
The invitation was meant only for the city's six councilors of color.
Fifteen minutes after the email was sent out, DeSantos apologized and clarified that the invitation was only meant for minority city councilors.
So, just to be clear, she was not apologizing for having a racially segregated holiday party where whites were not invited.
She was only apologizing for sending them the invitation.
The apology was, oh sorry, you white devils weren't supposed to get that.
Apologies.
DeSantis said, I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a holiday party for tomorrow.
I did send that to everyone by accident.
I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
No, it's not that the invitation that's offensive.
It is the party itself that is racially segregated.
The revelation about the holiday party quickly received responses from Boston City Council.
Outgoing City Councilor Frank Baker, a white man, called the Mayor's exclusion of certain members unfortunate and divisive.
Citing recent tensions on the City Council, Baker did not speculate about the reasoning behind the Mayor's decision to host the party, but said he did not think it was a good move.
Black City Councilor Brian Worrell held a different opinion and defended the invitation, suggesting the holiday party was merely a way to represent all kinds of special groups.
Oh, like that makes it better.
No, no, no, this is just for special groups.
You don't understand.
We get to be at this holiday party because we're special, because we're black, and you're not.
So that's all.
Nothing to be upset about.
Five-term Boston City Councilor Michael McCormick said the party was not typical of the mayor's office and said former city leaders would have invited the entire chamber, not just the black ones.
Uh, that was me.
That last part was my own editorial.
Okay, so first of all, this is not the most outrageous aspect here, obviously, but I, you know, I can't quite move past the phrase, electeds of color.
You know, that's the most offensive thing about this to me.
Even more than the racism.
Electeds of color.
Like, what is, nobody speaks like that, okay?
Nobody, nobody, and this is actually a good thing about leftists, good for us, I mean, bad for them, but it's an advantage that we have in fighting against these people, is that they're hamstrung by the fact that they insist on speaking in ways that no human being actually speaks.
Like, I was just reading an article on the Daily Wire about a new book about Hillary's failed campaign in 2016, and some of the Democrat insiders interviewed for the book, The Democrats complained about this fact.
They said that, you know, Democrat politicians like Hillary, they use phrases and words that normal people never use.
And that's not because the Democrats are so smart and they have such a big vocabulary and they're using big words that us normal dumb people don't know.
No, it's that they make up, they invent their own language, essentially, and it's intentionally exclusionary.
Which makes them sound out of touch.
It's intended to make them sound out of touch.
Which is fine.
I'm glad they're doing that to themselves.
Again, it gives us an advantage.
Electeds of color.
I mean, can you imagine how bizarre that would sound if some normal person in conversation actually used that phrase?
Like if you were talking to a normal person and they said, yeah, I was out at the State Capitol yesterday and I saw some electeds of color walk by.
You'd say, what?
You saw what?
Ooh, what?
And by the way, this is something that, for all of their flaws, Republicans don't actually really do this.
You know, they don't speak like, like, Republicans will speak like normal.
Now, a Republican will use maybe a tone and a cadence that sounds artificial and, you know, politician-y, but they don't use words that nobody uses in real life.
They use simple Normal everyday words.
Like, there is no latinx equivalent on the right.
Okay?
Like, we're not making up buzzwords and phrases like that that would never be uttered by a real human in actual conversation.
That's something that only the left does.
Much to their detriment.
But anyway, this is also something only the left does, which is racial segregation.
And that's the real point about this, is the segregated holiday party, the no-whites-allowed party.
And the real point with that, I think, is the near total lack of justified outrage by the people who have been discriminated against.
Like, you've got one white guy who calls it unfortunate and divisive.
Basically condemning it in the weakest possible terms that he can.
This is a government office holding a holiday party where you are excluded because of your race.
And your only response is, oh, that's unfortunate.
No, that's unfortunate.
I don't know about that.
Oh, gee, gee willikers, I don't know.
And, you know, yeah, that's better than the other sycophants who apparently have no problem with it or are pretending to have no problem with it.
But you should be a lot more upset about it than that.
It's divisive.
You know, in these situations, we always say, imagine if the roles were reversed.
Imagine it!
Imagine!
Just imagine if the situation was reversed.
And it's true that if the situation was reversed, there would be a volcanic explosion of outrage like you can't imagine.
If anyone, especially if any government office or politician had a holiday party for whites only, okay?
Like, if there was some white mayor who sent out a holiday party invitation to the city council and said, no, it's just for the white ones.
Then sent a follow-up apology.
Sorry, I only meant to send that to the white guys.
Didn't mean for you blacks to get that invitation.
This party's not for you.
I don't know, it's okay.
No, it's because we're a special group, that's why.
Don't you understand?
We're special because we're white.
There would be a nuclear detonation of anger.
We cannot fathom the level of indignation.
There would be people self-immolating in the street over this.
There would be congressional hearings and FBI investigations.
MSNBC anchors would be weeping on air.
They'd be like committing ritualistic Harry Carrey or something on air in protest of this.
Whatever you imagine would be the reaction, it'd be a thousand times that.
And then compare that to the reaction in the reverse, and the most you get is one guy going, that's unfortunate.
That's unfortunate.
But we can complain about the double standards all day.
It doesn't matter.
The left isn't going to suddenly decide to be consistent.
They aren't going to hear what I'm saying right now and say, oh wow, you know, we are being hypocritical.
I didn't realize that.
Good point.
Thanks for calling us out on that.
That's not going to happen.
So we need to be the ones who respond appropriately to things like this.
We don't need to weep and set things on fire the way the left does.
We don't need to go and loot some random business that has nothing to do with it, the way that they do.
But we need to be the ones who are actually as angry and outraged as we should be.
The mayor's office saying, no white people can come to my holiday party, is the kind of thing that deserves outrage.
There's a lot of fake outrage out there.
There's a lot of faux outrage.
There's a lot of outrage over silly, ridiculous things.
But this is not a silly or ridiculous thing.
The mayor of a major American city saying this is not for whites is outrageous and infuriating.
And that's how we should respond to it.
You can't wait for the left to respond to it, that way they're not going to.
It needs to come from us.
And we need to use terms not like it's divisive or, you know, politics as usual being divisive.
No, that's not, we need to call it what, this is anti-white racism.
This is bigotry.
This is not reverse racism either.
This is just racism, just straight up racism against white people.
And it is unacceptable and outrageous.
And this person, you know, there should be an investigation into this person.
How is this even legal?
So we need to be the ones who react that way.
We can't wait around for the left to do it.
All right, there was a rather harrowing local news report in Oakland a few days ago that I wanted to play for you.
Well, let's just go ahead and watch it.
Emotional and gut-wrenching scene in front of 7-Eleven.
A young woman devastated over the killing of her father.
She goes by the name Snow and says the security guard was 59-year-old James Johnson.
I was interviewing a long-time customer when we heard screams in the background.
I've been talking to James all the time.
He's a good person.
I'm very sad because I don't see any more James.
People were walking past her, so I went up to check on her to make sure she was okay.
Police say just after 10 o'clock on Friday night, someone shot the guard inside the store as he tried to stop a person from taking merchandise.
Police say James died at the scene.
Snow says her father worked at the store for roughly two years.
He lived in a building right behind 7-Eleven.
He was protecting the family at 7-Eleven because I know who my father is.
They would do that for anyone who cared and loved.
She and longtime customers described James as a protector and a kind man.
He was a great man.
He was a very great man.
James is the good person, good for the community, and this guy, you know, help to everybody and take care of everybody here.
He was a nice man, giant man, pretty tall.
He would talk to everyone that came in.
Criminals have repeatedly targeted 7-Eleven stores in Oakland.
On Monday, investigators say someone killed a man pumping gas at the International Boulevard store.
Two weekends ago, witnesses say eight gunmen robbed a cigarette delivery driver and a security guard in front of the Grand Avenue 7-Eleven.
Well, obviously tragic, gut-wrenching.
You know, you feel uncomfortable with Putting a woman on camera like that when she's obviously distraught doesn't even quite capture it.
But at the same time, it's important for people to see things like that because these are the consequences.
These are the consequences of not enforcing the law.
These are the consequences of letting criminal scumbags roam the streets.
And, you know, I hate to be constantly harping on this.
It's hard not to harp on it when we're watching the destruction and decay of civilized society in real time.
But this is what mercy for criminals gets you.
This is your mercy.
So all you merciful people, you know, who want to give criminals second chances and third chances and fourth chances and Makes you very uncomfortable when, you know, I talk about putting criminals away for life and saying that they need to be locked in a cage for life or we need to start executing people.
You know, it makes you very uncomfortable because you want to be compassionate and merciful.
Well, that's your compassion and your mercy.
That's what it looks like.
A woman collapsed on the ground mourning the death of her father, who was an actual contributing member of society, a good man by all accounts, and someone who was doing something worthwhile and productive.
And once again, we are just trading that people in.
We're making this trade one trade after another.
Taking someone who is good and law-abiding and productive, and we are trading them in, trading their life in, in exchange for the worst people in the world.
The kinds of people who, if they all died tomorrow, we'd all be better off.
Okay?
The kinds of people that get together with their friends to rob a cigarette truck, like we just saw there.
The kind of person who shoots a security guard.
The kinds of people that are terrorizing small business owners.
Criminal, degenerate scumbags.
If they all just were vaporized tomorrow, everyone's better off.
Contribute nothing of value to society.
But we're taking them and we're saying, let's have more and more of them.
And let's have less and less of the good people.
That's the choice that we're making.
And it is an active and deliberate choice.
That's what we have to understand.
Okay, one other thing to mention briefly.
Daily Mail has this.
When a marriage hits a rocky patch, couples find different ways of bringing back the magic.
Date night or perhaps counseling.
For Jada Pinkett Smith and her husband Will, it took a public scandal to reset the relationship.
Pinkett now says in an interview, quote, I nearly didn't even attend the Oscars that year, but I'm glad I did.
I call it the holy slap now because so many positive things came from it.
She is, of course, referring to the 2022 Oscars, at which her husband had been nominated, and he slapped her.
We know about that.
She says, quote, that moment of the S hitting the fan is when you see where you really are.
After all those years of trying to figure out if I would leave Will's side, it took that slap for me to see that I will never leave him.
Who knows where our relationship would be if that hadn't happened.
So, it's another interview that Jada Pinkett Smith is doing, and in this interview she says that she's glad that the slap happened because that's when she decided that she's not going to leave Will Smith because it was strengthening of their relationship or something like that.
So first of all, Jada Pinkett Smith just will not stop talking.
She won't stop.
She apparently subscribes to the school of PR crisis management that says, when you're in a PR crisis, just keep talking.
Which is the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do in these situations.
But her idea is like, just say more and more things.
And I guess the hope is that you'll win the public relations war by attrition.
Or maybe the idea is to say so many insane and disgusting and repellent things that nobody can keep track anymore.
So I'm not sure what the strategy is, but this woman will not stop, and now she says the slap was a great thing for their marriage, and it's when she decided not to leave Will Smith.
Except that she did leave him.
So, she did leave him.
She decided not to leave him, except in the sense that she actually did leave.
Like, she left the house, and moved in somewhere else, and announced to the world that they're not together anymore.
So in that sense, she left him, but in some other sense, some mystical, ephemeral sense, she didn't leave him.
You know, if that makes sense, which it doesn't.
But the real takeaway here is that she sees the slap as a positive, as holy.
It destroyed her husband's life and career.
Like, his career is over.
And it's probably never really gonna... At least, it's never gonna get back to what it was.
It made him into a disgrace, a punchline.
Like, that is the thing that people will remember Will Smith for forever.
That is his legacy now.
And she sees it as a positive.
And why is that?
Because she obviously enjoys watching this man debase himself.
As we know, she takes a great deal of pleasure in Will Smith's public humiliation.
Like, it really is amazing how evil this woman is.
She's like a cartoon.
She's the kind of person who, if she was a character in a movie, Like, it would take you out of the story, because she's too evil.
You would say, like, it's not even believable.
But she continues to be, at least, a great cautionary tale for young men.
And that's why I always say, anytime that there's a story about Jada Pinkett Smith... Now, she's quite an extreme case, to a somewhat, maybe, lesser degree.
This is not uncommon in relationships.
Where you have one member of the relationship who, like, enjoys the other person being embarrassed.
And there are plenty of men who find themselves in relationships with women who are like this.
And yeah, it happens in the reverse too.
But just talking about the Jada Pinkett-Smith, like, there are many Jada Pinkett-Smiths.
Maybe not quite.
She's the...
Yeah, she's the ultimate supervillain, but there are many who are kind of in her, you know, sort of in that vein.
And you can see, you know, you see examples of it all the time.
Like, we've all been around, you know, you're around a couple and maybe the wife or the girlfriend brings something up.
Supposedly in a joking way, but that's actually embarrassing for the man, and you can tell that he's really embarrassed by it.
And yeah, you can do that in a way that's actually joking, you know, and you can't take yourself too seriously in a relationship, and so you tease each other or whatever, and that can happen even publicly in a way that's obviously well-meaning.
But there are plenty of times when we've all seen this and it's very awkward to be around it.
When you see a man get kind of like cut down and embarrassed by his wife or his girlfriend.
And you can tell, you know, Jada Pinkett Smith loves doing it.
She loves to just embarrass this man.
And this is, it's red flag, you know, if you're with a You know, men are always, I get questions from young men all the time, what should you be looking for in a woman, what should, you know, there's a lot to be looking for, but when you talk about red flags, you're dating a woman, if there's like one time, even once, when she does or says anything that is intended to legitimately embarrass you, even in a small way, then get the hell out.
Just get out immediately.
You got a Jada Pinkett Smith on your hands.
And it's not going to get better, as Will Smith, unfortunately for him, has discovered.
Alright, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
For most homeowners, window replacement is not something that they've done before, and for many, it isn't something that they want to do, but rather something they have to do.
If you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and a 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, Renewable by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on durable, quality, affordable windows or patio doors for $0 down, $0 payments, and $0 interest for a year.
Text WALSH to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 on every window and $750 on every door.
These savings aren't going to last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Sandy says, continuing to punish Bud Light for a marketing campaign which failed to recognize and identify their target audience seems excessively punitive to me.
Time to move on.
Well, I'll happily move on, Sandy.
They just need to apologize.
You know, that's all.
Pretty simple.
And that's all they have to do.
Acknowledge what they did and apologize for it.
That's how you move on from when someone does something wrong.
That's how you move on.
You can't really move on until there has to be an acknowledgement.
There has to be an acknowledgement and an apology.
In any relationship, that's the case.
If you want to repair the relationship, the person who did something wrong has to acknowledge and apologize.
If they don't, you can't move on.
And even in the relationship, if you want to call it that, between a company and consumers, this still holds true.
So, and if we get bored and move on without that concession, without that acknowledgement and apology, then what was the point?
So that's all they got to do.
And look, if they did that, I'm not going to start drinking Bud Light, because I, that's, I, as I said, I have functioning taste buds, so I'm not going to, but yeah, I would say, Okay, I'm not going to go out of my way to rehabilitate the brand.
I'm not going to try to help them.
But then I would say, okay, as far as I'm concerned, boycott's over.
We'll all go our separate ways now.
The Bud Light chapter has closed.
But that hasn't happened yet.
Devin says, I thought free speech was to protect the speech you don't agree with.
If putting a display at a state house isn't speech, then shouldn't it refrain from any display?
I think displays of any kind should be limited to local governments at most.
Well, nobody is saying that Satanists don't have free speech, Devin.
If they want to run around talking about Satan and how great Satan is, they're allowed to do that.
You know?
But the displays at the Statehouse are for legitimate religious holiday displays.
Satanism is not a legitimate religion.
It is a troll of religion.
Okay?
It is an anti-religion.
And again, even the Satanists themselves will tell you that.
They themselves will be the first to claim that they don't actually worship Satan.
They don't actually believe in him.
Now, they do worship Satan, but they don't think they do.
Okay?
Their conscious intent Is to troll religion, is to make a mockery of religion, not practice it.
That's why this whole thing was funded and facilitated by atheists.
What interest do atheists have in religious freedom?
You think they care about that?
That's because they don't consider it to be a religion.
And also, by the way, how many practicing Satanists are in Iowa?
Okay, Iowa is like 80% Christian, less than 1% Jewish, 1% Muslim, Hindu, right?
And the rest are non-religious.
It is a predominantly Christian state far and away.
It has a Christian display around the holidays in the statehouse.
That represents, like, the predominant faith and viewpoint of the citizens of the state.
It makes sense.
How many practicing Satanists are in Iowa?
Are there any?
Like, are there any?
Maybe there's one or two?
So, again, the display was pushed and funded by national atheist groups.
So you have a national atheist group who rejects religion funding a supposedly religious display in a statehouse to represent a community that doesn't exist in that state.
And the idea that we have to be accepting of that, of that total absurdity of this, you know, no pun intended, but this bad faith argument.
We have to accept that if we want to have a manger or whatever in a state house, which represents almost, you know, the belief system of almost the entire state.
I just find that to be absurd.
No, you know, this is predominantly a Christian state.
We have a Christian display.
And, you know, the two Satanists in Iowa who then complain about it and say, well, I want to have a display that makes fun of you guys because it makes me feel... I don't give a damn what you want.
And also, let me also say, if there was a state or a community Um, where it was like almost entirely some other religion in that community.
And there was one Christian in the community.
And he wanted to put a, you know, a manger up on display somewhere in a public place.
And they had a display for the religion that represents almost the entire community.
Then, like, I would understand why they had that religious splay, not the major, because there's almost no, there's like this one guy here, and this community is almost entirely this whatever other religion.
Now, in that case, I would say that the one Christian in the community has a much, a much stronger case than the Satanists do, because Christianity is still, number one, a legitimate, real religion.
And number two, it also happens to be the religion that, you know, helped form this country.
There's a historical, I mean, that very much lays foundationally and philosophically at the foundations of this country.
So even if you reversed kind of the The population, you know, percentages, Christian would still have a much stronger case.
But my point is simply that, you know, somehow that is getting overlooked in all this.
But on top of the absurdity and how objectionable Satanism is, and the fact that even the Satanists themselves will tell you it's not a religion, aside from that, there's like none of them anyway.
So why should they be represented in the State House?
It's ridiculous.
Christmas is coming, and while you're out shopping for your family and friends, don't forget to shop for your pets, too.
Give your dog the gift of a healthier and happier life with Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
So let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
Supports healthy joints.
Improves bad breath.
Ooze energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
Get a free Jumpstart Trial Bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens.com slash Matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Also, Faith Moore, Andrew Klavan's talented daughter, has written a new rendition of the age-old Christmas classic, Christmas Carol, except this time it's with a K. It's a modern twist on the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, except with a female protagonist in a world where boss babes are champion at the expense of family.
Faith is making the case that having what matters is far better than having it all.
Christmas Carol is now available to order.
You can order now on Amazon or wherever you get your books today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't know anything about Destiny.
The name sounds familiar, like someone who's probably come up during this segment in the past, but I couldn't tell you much about him.
What I do know is that apparently his wife is leaving him, and I also know that, by his own admission, he had been in an open marriage, quote-unquote.
Here's the Daily Caller with the details.
The wife of popular streamer and YouTuber Destiny, who previously bragged about the pair's open marriage, is reportedly leaving him for a man she met in Sweden, according to online reports.
Screenshots from what appears to be messages from Destiny in a Discord channel show him complaining about his wife, Swedish internet personality Malina Gorenson, and her alleged new lover.
In the leaked Discord chat, Destiny Appeared to lament his wife's choice to leave him for a toxic, abusive guy.
Quote, the last two months and two weeks have been a massive mind-eff for me, watching her become obsessed with a toxic, abusive guy.
When I visited Sweden last, he gave Mel an ultimatum to divorce me and then threatened to kill himself when she didn't do it, among 20 other abusive, manipulative things he's done, and endlessly makes excuses for him, so I'm out.
The political YouTuber appeared to write according to the Twitter post.
Now, um, In the past, Destiny had been very open about his open relationship, appearing on different podcasts to talk about it.
So here he is with Lex Friedman a year or two ago, along with his wife, explaining their open arrangement.
Watch.
One interesting aspect of your relationship is you're in an open relationship.
What's that like?
From a game theoretic simulation perspective, what went into that calculation?
And like, how does that?
Like how it started or?
Yeah, how did that start?
Sure.
Um, the only relationships I've ever done has been open relationships since I was like in high school.
Cause I didn't really understand like, why wouldn't you be able to like do other things with other people, but then just like have your main partner basically.
So what is an open relationship, generally speaking?
That means you have one main partner?
Not a monogamous relationship.
You're somehow allowed, in different ways, you can see other people sexually.
Sexually, but there's one main station?
It doesn't have to be there for some people, but I think it's probably easier and we probably don't really have time or the energy for more than one person to really Well, I said that destiny explains the arrangement, but actually, as you heard, his wife does most of the talking.
And that's interesting because, though I don't know who first decided to open the marriage in his case, I do know that most of the time, one participant will seem to be much more into the idea than the other.
That's because an open relationship is rarely a mutual decision, no matter what they might claim.
Both spouses are not usually going to simultaneously come up with the idea that they should have sex with other people and then, in unison, blurt it out.
In reality, one or the other is going to make this proposal.
And the one who makes it, in doing so, has already announced that they want to have an affair.
So, if the other supposedly agrees to the open marriage, they'll agree as someone who is shell-shocked and blindsided and devastated, whether they fully reveal those feelings or not.
Now speaking of feelings, in that same interview, they talk about the complicated, quote-unquote, problem of emotional attachments in an open marriage.
Listen.
What about like emotional?
It's really complicated.
There's a lot of complicated stuff going on under the hood there.
Yeah.
Um, I think broadly speaking, you've got like polyamorous relationships and you've got like open relationships where polyamorous is like, Oh, I've got like three different girlfriends and we all hang out or sometimes even live together or three boyfriends, whatever.
And then you've got like open relationships, which is like, Oh, you know, like you can basically hook up with other people and then you've got like your main relationship and that's it.
I think ours is probably somewhere in the middle of that.
To where like we've got like long-term friends some of them we hook up with and that's kind of how we yeah, it's a delicate dance that Explodes every six months on itself.
You guys fight over we fight over some things.
Yeah I think it's mostly because a lot of people can't handle it and They they agree to something and then they realize that we're way too cool And then they get really obsessed and they think that they can like get in there and then it gets really dramatic Do you guys experience jealousy?
Usually, like, whenever I feel like he's not spending the, like, the amount of time that I'm asking for, and he spends it on his video games or his stream or, like, he sees someone else, like, more than he sees me or something like that, that would, like, not be good.
Because then it affects, like, our relationship.
Now, um...
Obviously, the whole idea of an open marriage is absurd.
Not just absurd, it's a contradiction in terms.
Marriage cannot be open like a square cannot be circular.
It's not because we've come up with arbitrary rules to stifle a square's creativity and individuality.
It's just because a square is a certain thing, and by definition, if it's circular, it's not the thing that a square is.
The same is true of marriage.
A marriage that is open is no longer the thing that a marriage is.
So I've explained before that a marriage can't be open for the same reason that you can't build a house without walls or a roof.
The walls and the roof are the whole point of the house.
So get rid of those and now you're homeless.
A blanket laid out on the pavement is not an open house or a new house or a consensually non-walled house.
It's just not a house.
It's a non-house.
A marriage cannot be open.
The whole point of the union is that it is closed.
It is exclusive.
It has walls around it.
Tear down the walls and you have obliterated the entire structure of the thing.
But I don't need to harp any more on that point, you know, that marriages are an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.
I probably also need to explain that infidelity doesn't become something other than infidelity just because it's mutual and consensual, supposedly, and happening out in the open.
Unfaithfulness is unfaithfulness.
Cheating is cheating.
You haven't found some ingenious way of gaming the system simply by announcing that you're going to cheat.
Rather than doing it, you know, in secret as adulterers have traditionally done, infidelity is a cancer in your marriage that will eventually kill it.
The fact that you have embraced the cancer and welcomed it doesn't make your situation any less terminal.
Now, there's a reason why you never hear about couples celebrating their 50th anniversary of an open marriage.
Because open marriages burn quickly.
And then burnout.
They can't be sustained as Destiny is apparently finding out.
He says himself in that interview that it explodes every six months.
Well, that's not normal.
Your marriage should not explode every six months.
And that cannot be sustained.
One day it's going to explode and you're not going to be able to put it back together again.
And that's going to happen pretty quickly.
Now, however, as I said, these are points that probably don't need to be dwelled on.
Instead, I'd like to briefly consider one other, perhaps slightly more interesting or surprising point.
You heard, in the last clip, as Destiny and his wife talk about how they deal with emotions.
And Destiny said, well, it's really complicated.
His wife talked about the problems of jealousy.
And this is something you hear pretty often from open marriage advocates.
In fact, any discussion about open marriages will always, ultimately, center around the problem of feelings and emotions.
That's why if you go to Google, you'll find hundreds of articles about how to deal with emotions in an open relationship.
Articles like this one from Elite Daily, titled, Five Ways to Handle Jealousy in Open and Poly Relationships According to Experts.
Now, we're not going to go through all five coping mechanisms as outlined by experts, but here's the first one.
Quote, communication is the foundation of any relationship, and it's even more important when there's more than two in a relationship.
So, if there's an issue, particularly jealousy, you need to talk about it.
Courtney Watson, a poly-inclusive sex therapist, breaks the process down to Elite Daily in four steps.
Clarify your feelings of jealousy and explore where they're coming from.
Arrange a time to sit down with your partner.
Pick a neutral setting, especially outside the bedroom, where you have enough time and privacy to discuss your feelings.
Tell your partner and negotiate a solution that addresses your feelings and takes into consideration their feelings and needs.
See if the solution works and reconvene as needed.
Now, if that sounds like useless nonsense, then wait until you hear the next recommendation, which says this.
Rewrite your jealousy narrative.
Another way to get to the bottom of this is to outline your jealousy, literally.
With your partner or alone, make a little guidebook to your jealous feelings and then rewrite it.
Quote, draw a picture or describe in detail a personified version of jealousy to clarify how you experience and relate to the feeling, they said.
What does your depiction of jealousy look like and sound like?
Is jealousy bigger or smaller than you?
Do you get along well or hate each other?
Are they angry, mean, scared?
What do they tend to say to you?
What are your physical cues that jealousy is present?
Once you have a good sketch of your jealousy narrative, as Sketchinger calls it, work on reframing it in a less threatening way.
Confront what you've laid out and re-evaluate what about these attributes or behaviors makes you less jealous.
Quote, when met with support and non-judgment, the discomfort generated by envy and jealousy can increase self-awareness and highlight a need that may not be being met.
So just to make sure we're all on the same page here, what this expert is suggesting is that you draw a picture for your spouse to help explain why you're sad when she has sex with other men.
So grab some colored pencils and draw a picture of like a big scary monster and hand it to your wife and say, this is how I feel when you commit adultery.
It makes me scared and sad.
This is how the relationship experts think that adults should communicate with one another.
Now, this advice obviously is terrible, but there's something to be learned from the fact that this advice is given in the first place, and that there's so much of this kind of advice for those looking to open their relationships.
A recent post on Medium has this headline, Well, yes, you can use Buddhist practices.
You can draw pictures.
Using a Buddhist practice as a tool to explore feelings Well, yes, you can use Buddhist practices you can draw
pictures You can climb to the top of a mountain and consult with a
polyamorous guru or
You can just stop trying to force yourself to be okay with something that you know is not okay
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, that's the point.
We often say, and I've certainly said this, that people these days are always chasing their feelings, doing whatever makes them feel good.
Well, what we find is that in so many cases, something closer to the opposite is actually happening.
Oftentimes, especially when it comes to sex and relationships, people are running away from their feelings.
They're running away from what would actually make them feel good.
They're trying to close themselves off from their natural emotions.
This is necessary in order to maintain a promiscuous lifestyle.
Whether you're in a so-called open relationship, or you're just participating in hookup culture without pretending to be in any relationship at all, in either case, you are going to be constantly at war with your own emotions.
You're not really following your feelings.
You're following pleasure, temporary physical pleasure, but not emotions.
Emotions are an obstacle.
You have to close yourself off from developing connections to anyone.
You have to be emotionless.
And that's because, as human beings, you know, we naturally desire a committed, loving, faithful relationship with one person who is devoted to us and loves us in return.
That's what we all want.
It's what our hearts long for.
If you're actually following your feelings, that's where it would lead you.
Now, you can't be guided entirely by your emotions in a relationship, but you shouldn't see them as an impediment either, or as some kind of enemy.
The emotional attachment that naturally forms with another person, you know, who you're in a sexual relationship with, that's a good thing.
It's natural.
It's human.
And that's why, unlike destiny, I would never say that my emotions for my wife are complicated.
Like, if I was talking to Lex Friedman and he said, you know, what about emotions in your marriage?
Oh, it's complicated.
Man, there's a lot going on there.
It's really complicated.
It's actually not complicated at all.
Sure, you know, we have tension and disagreement sometimes, like any married couple, but there's nothing very complicated about our emotional situation.
I love my wife.
I like being around her.
It's actually pretty simple.
Our emotions aren't complicated.
Which isn't to say that they're superficial or insignificant.
No.
Your emotional attachment to your spouse is a simple thing, but it's also deep and profound.
It's something that you nurture.
Something to be cherished.
You know, feelings are not a problem if you're in a monogamous, committed, loving relationship.
You don't need experts to tell you how to navigate them.
And you don't need to draw pictures to explain them.
That only becomes necessary when you've decided to do something that you know in your heart you shouldn't be doing.
Feelings are a problem once you've decided to sever love from sex and commitment from relationship and attempt to experience these things separate from each other.
It can never work.
And if you listen to your common sense, you would know that.
And if you listen to your feelings, you would know that too.
Which is why, in the end, open marriages are, once again, today, canceled.
