Ep. 1426 - Cacklin’ Kamala’s Newest Rebrand Is A Total Joke
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has tried to rebrand Kamala Harris as the candidate of "joy." But one look at the DNC shows that this party is anything but joyful. Also, some audience members are upset after the trailer for my movie “Am I Racist?” played in front of Elliot Page's new trans film. I will respond to that controversy today. And the UK is now staging a major crackdown on what it calls "extreme misogyny."
Ep.1426
- - -
DailyWire+:
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | Get tickets NOW: https://www.amiracist.com
Get 35% off an Annual Membership NOW with code FIGHT: https://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit. Qualifying purchases will get an exclusive GOLDEN Truth Bomb.
Helix Sleep - Get 25% off your order + 2 dream pillows. https://helixsleep.com/Walsh
Reliefband - Get 25% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has tried to rebrand Kamala Harris as the candidate of joy, but one look at the DNC shows that this party is anything but joyful.
Also, some audience members are upset after the trailer for my movie, Am I Racist?, plays in front of Elliot Page's new trans film.
I'll respond to that controversy today in a very heartfelt and sincere way, as always.
And the UK is now staging a major crackdown on what it calls extreme misogyny.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Anybody with a basic understanding of economics can see that the economy is in bad shape right
I'm not saying the sky is falling, but would you jump out of a plane without a parachute?
No?
Well, consider this your economic parachute warning.
I've been telling you for years to diversify your portfolio with precious metals.
If you haven't yet, now's the time.
Birch Gold makes it easy to convert your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA.
It's a smart way to protect your hard-earned savings from the impending economic disaster.
But hey, if protecting your financial future isn't motivation enough, How about this?
Backed by popular demand, now through the end of the month, you can get your very own 24-karat gold-plated truth bomb on qualifying purchases.
A little reminder of the truth bombs we here at The Daily Wire deliver every day and the smart decision you made to invest in gold.
Here's what you need to do.
Text WALSH to 989898.
You'll get a free info kit and learn how you can get rather own gold in a tax-sheltered IRA account.
Let's all put our financial parachutes on before the economy takes a nosedive.
Don't wait for the crash to hit.
Text WALSH to 989898 now and claim your eligibility.
Qualifying purchases made before August 31st can get a golden truth bomb to serve as a reminder of the great decision you made to protect your savings with gold.
That's WALSH to 989898.
At the beginning of the year, before it was clear that Kamala Harris would replace Joe Biden on the ticket, the Washington Post ran an op-ed entitled, For the Country's Sake, Vice President Harris Should Step Aside.
The editorial called Harris a colossal failure and specifically criticized her for cackling at strange and unsettling moments.
Now, around the same time in April, a CNN panel also discussed whether Joe Biden should ditch Kamala Harris.
And again, they didn't just discuss her job performance, which was abysmal.
They also cited her frequent Joker-like cackling as one of the reasons that she's so unappealing to voters.
Watch.
Because it's not just focus groups that are down on Harris right now.
In a recent poll, national poll, 40% approved of the vice president's job performance, while 55% disapproved.
One of the things that people objected to was her voice.
They said they found her voice, especially her laugh, annoying.
Even the feminists on the panel conceded that Kamala Harris has issues communicating with voters.
This was an unusual moment of honesty that came about because at the time Democrats were still fantasizing about swapping Kamala Harris out for a candidate the voters might actually like.
Now, of course, that opportunity came and went following the coup that took down Joe Biden.
As a result, these types of discussions have mostly disappeared from places like CNN and the Washington Post.
Criticizing a woman's tendency to cackle at inopportune times is considered sexist now, because, you know, she might become the first female president.
She's the one they're stuck with, and so now all the things they were saying before are verboten and sexist and horrible and probably racist.
But the underlying issue still never went away.
Just because the press doesn't want to talk about Kamala Harris' cackle anymore doesn't change the fact that most people think it's extremely off-putting.
It still projects the image of an airhead or a day-drinker rather than a competent presidential candidate.
So CNN and Washington Post, they were right about this when they said this a few months ago.
And obviously she can't bring herself to stop doing it no matter how many times they've probably tried to tell her to knock it off.
So the Kamala Harris campaign needed to come up with some kind of solution to this problem.
They had to find a way to put a positive spin on their candidate's behavior, especially if they were going to accuse the other side of being weird.
So, over the past few weeks, it's clear what solution they came up with.
They've decided to rebrand Kamala Harris as the candidate of joy.
Joy.
So instead of disturbing voters, we're now led to believe that her laugh is a completely normal and healthy sign of how happy she and her supporters actually are.
And so, just a few months after the corporate press told us that Kamala Harris's laughter was one of her biggest liabilities, there's now been an incessant drumbeat from the media to convince us that it's actually somehow an asset.
There have been about a million contrived articles to this effect over the last week or two.
Rolling Stone, for example, declared that Kamala Harris has adopted the politics of joy.
Which is apparently the best way to fight fascism.
As Rolling Stone put it, "History shows that joy and mockery are key to taking down existing or would-be authoritarian
regimes."
Now, never mind the fact that the Nazis set up an organization called "Strength Through Joy,"
which would seem to be a factoid from history that contradicts Rolling Stone's thesis, but never mind that.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reported, "Democrats' joy is unconfined as Harris and Walz take
upbeat message on tour."
The article quoted Tim Walz as saying, "Thank you, Madam Vice President, for the trust you
put in me, but maybe more so, thank you for bringing back the joy."
Bringing back the joy is what Kamala Harris has done.
For its part, Salon ran a similar headline, Why Joy Matters.
Kamala Harris hopes happy women can defeat Donald Trump and MAGA's male rage.
Kamala Harris bets the election on women's joy.
Donald Trump stakes his hopes on men's anger.
Now to illustrate the point even further, just in case the other 10,000 articles didn't drive home the message enough, The New Yorker's latest cover featured Donald Trump and J.D.
Vance looking forlorn going down on a roller coaster.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are going up the roller coaster and they're waving their hands around with a gust of wind behind them very joyfully.
You can see The picture there.
Now, this is, you know, maybe semantics, but I don't know how many roller coasters the editors of the New Yorker have been on, but the fun part is going down.
That's when you get all the momentum and everyone goes crazy.
That's when the theme park takes your photo and you share it on social media and everyone says, oh, look how joyful that guy is at that theme park.
On the way up, there's supposed to be anticipation.
You know, it's also supposed to be a lot slower going up than going down because of the laws of physics.
So, it doesn't really make any sense, but the New Yorker is willing to suspend the laws of physics and the rules of good cartoon making to play their small role in the media-wide rebrand of Kamala Harris' cackle.
They're willing to completely debase themselves for the privilege of selling this narrative that nobody actually believes.
So speaking of overselling the narrative, Tim Walz has taken to wildly gesticulating and prancing around at every rally he attends.
It's maybe the most unnatural display of fake sincerity by a vice presidential candidate since John Edwards was around.
Especially from a guy who's supposed to have, what did they say on CNN or MSNBC, big dad energy.
Okay, dads don't prance around.
You don't see dads prancing.
Dads don't prance.
That's not a thing dads do.
But Tim Walz does a lot of prancing.
And he has to do it because the rebrand states that Kamala Harris' campaign is joyful now.
So, you know, he's got to play along.
Watch.
We believe in the promise of America.
We just have to fight.
We just have to fight for it.
Because as the next President of the United States says, she says it often, when we fight, we win!
When we fight, we win!
When we fight, we win!
Thank you, Nebraska!
Let's go!
You know, it was, uh, what, like a year ago that Donald Trump saying, fight like hell, was supposedly evidence that he's a violent insurrectionist who belongs in prison.
And now we have Tim Walz repeatedly telling his supporters to fight, and they repeat the chant back at him.
And this time around, it's supposedly a sign of joy.
Not only is it not criminal, it's something to celebrate.
It's joyful fighting.
And then Tim Walz starts clapping and waving his arms hysterically, you know, because he's so joyful.
It's obviously choreographed and disingenuous, but they keep doing it at every single rally and public appearance.
So we get tons of images of Tim Walz like this one.
That's the goofy guy who helped create the gay club at his high school.
I mean, when I say his high school, the high school where he was a teacher, not a student.
Before he'd then go on to require that tampons were distributed in boys' bathrooms.
So nothing to see here.
Nothing weird about that.
He's just joyful.
Along with the rest of the Democrats.
In order to buy that Democrats are now the Party of Joy, you don't just have to overlook how fake and thrown-together this whole act is.
You also have to ignore what Democrats are saying and doing.
You have to set aside all of the examples of the Democrat Party going out of its way to spread guilt and resentment and fear.
For instance, you'd have to completely overlook the first page of the DNC's 2024 platform, which amounts to an apology for the existence of America.
The very first thing they do before they get into how they're going to institute price controls and raise the corporate tax rate and so on is recite a land acknowledgement.
And quoting from it now.
The Democratic National Committee wishes to acknowledge that we gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and descendants of the tribal nations who have been here since time immemorial.
While we meet in Chicago, we also recognize and honor the traditional homelands of the Anishinaabe, also known as the Council of the Three Fires, the Ojibwe, Odawa, the Patoatami Nations.
We acknowledge the many other tribes who consider this area their traditional homeland, including I did pretty good with that.
Not great, but I did pretty well.
Better than you thought I was going to do.
Now, in case you're wondering, yes, this land acknowledgement was copy-pasted from somewhere else.
You can find those same tribes in the same order all over the internet.
So whoever put this in the DNC platform has no idea what the Ho-Chunk is supposed to be or if it even is a tribe.
I don't know.
Is it actually a tribe?
It sounds like something on like a Japanese food menu.
But who knows?
And for that matter, the person who wrote this land acknowledgement in the first place has no idea either.
The point of this document is not to celebrate these tribes, it's not to condemn conquest either, since these tribes weren't the first ones to exist on this continent.
And they certainly didn't exist since time immemorial, okay?
So-called Native Americans that were like, what do you think?
That the land masses came into being and the Indian tribes just like grew out of the ground like trees?
That probably is what these people think.
No, they came here at some point in the past, just as the European settlers did.
They came here and fought and conquered the land, and then the Europeans came and just did it better than them, and won.
So, that's it.
But the point of all this is to condemn the United States for existing, and to instill guilt in as many Americans as possible.
And that's not joy.
That's a pretext for the destruction of our civilization.
Of course, the destruction of civilization also entails a complete breakdown of law and order, which we've also seen already during the DNC.
The Washington Free Beacon's Joe Simonson reported early in the evening that scores of people were filing out of the DNC because of how dangerous it was becoming outside.
Quote, insane security failures, people all turning around and leaving, all because of fear about protests.
Clown show.
Meanwhile, the Daily Wire's Brent Sherr Observe that people were getting trampled and jumping over barriers during the panic.
He reported that one floor delegate called the situation absolute chaos and the DNC is the worst event I've ever been to.
Not a very good review, I would say.
And outside the United Center, left-wing agitators were destroying fencing and clashing with police.
Watch.
Yeah.
[crowd shouting]
[MUSIC]
Shame on you, pig!
Shame on Now, instead of condemning any of this, Joe Biden said last night that a lot of these protesters have a point.
You may remember that, you know, there weren't rows of boarded up buildings during the RNC in Milwaukee.
Riot police didn't fight with protesters who tore down security fencing.
There were no riot police there.
They didn't need to be there.
Nobody spat on the cops.
None of that happened.
Interestingly enough, those are only scenes that are reserved for the party of joy.
When you're joyful, you destroy property and attack the police.
That's what people who are experiencing joy do.
You also apparently invite a bunch of speakers to the DNC to explain, one after the other, why you should be irrationally fearful at all times.
That's what happened last night with Steve Kerr, the same coach who refuses to badmouth China because the NBA makes a lot of money there.
You know, just a profile of courage.
Claimed that it's dangerous to speak your mind in America today.
A state senator warned that Donald Trump would inevitably weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents.
Imagine that.
Who would ever do something like that?
Well, it's only Donald Trump.
Andy Beshear said that Donald Trump and J.D.
Vance don't believe in the concept of freedom.
Joe Biden himself screened his way through every single debunked hoax he's repeated of them all before.
The very fine people hoax, the suckers and losers hoax, the dictator on day one hoax, the bloodbath hoax.
And he did all of this to incite as much division as possible.
And so on.
And all of this is supposedly joyful, is what we're told again and again and again.
Now one of the reasons Democrats are pushing this message so aggressively, even though it's obviously false, Is that it helps reframe the national political debate.
Just by talking about joy, and by baiting their opponents into responding to this fraudulent narrative, Democrats are distracting from a series of problems that they have, including a historically unlikable candidate with Venezuelan politics.
So, even a debate over whether Democrats are really joyful or not, indirectly, kind of helps them out, because it takes the conversation away from them.
Away from all these other problems that they're having.
So we should reject the premise.
Spreading joy isn't the job of the President in the first place.
Okay, the President has a lot of responsibilities, but that's not one of them.
We don't look to the President to find out what emotional states we should be experiencing.
Whether I experience joy or not throughout my day has nothing to do with the President.
I don't check with the President first.
I don't know about you.
But even if we did, even if we accepted this strained, artificial attempt to reframe Kamala Harris's obvious weakness, then we certainly wouldn't look to the modern Democrat Party for joy, as the DNC has already demonstrated.
They are, without question, the least joyful political party that has ever existed.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
My days are incredibly full between the show, being a dad, various other responsibilities.
I can't keep up with my day if I don't get a good night's sleep, which is why I appreciate my Helix mattress.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress because why would you buy a mattress made for someone else?
Helix knows there's no better way to test out a new mattress than by sleeping on it in your own home.
That's why they offer a 100-night trial and a 10- to 15-year warranty.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
But trust me, you will.
Helix's financing options and flexible payment plan make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
For a limited time, Helix is offering up to 25% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
Go to HelixSleep.com slash Walsh.
That's HelixSleep.com slash Walsh.
It's their best offer yet, and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
So the first night of the DNC last night, as we just talked about, Biden spoke around midnight, way, way past his bedtime.
It was an awful, slurring, embarrassing speech.
There's no point even talking about The speech anymore, playing clips or anything like that.
Now that everyone admits he has dementia, like there's no point in discussing it.
And that's not to say that the point is irrelevant, however.
He is still the president, allegedly.
This guy is currently still, and will be for several more months, the president of the United States of America.
And he can't speak or walk or think or do anything.
But he is the president.
And that's a fact that should matter.
And yet it apparently doesn't.
In fact, we've learned that I guess, functionally, not having a president is an option.
Like, I think a lot of us thought that wasn't really an option.
But it is, because that's what we're going with right now.
We're just not going to have a president.
And, okay, maybe we should make that an official option on the ballot going forward.
Maybe every presidential election there should be, like, you know, the Democrat, the Republican, and then there should be a third box.
Not for a third party, but for nobody.
If you're voting that you just don't want to have a president for the next four years, let's have no president at all.
Let's just skip the next four years.
Maybe we might as well put that on the ballot now that we know that it's an option.
So we don't need to bother with the Biden speech.
Instead, I want to play this one from a little bit earlier in the night.
Here's a union leader delivering One of the most ear-piercing speeches that you'll ever hear.
So if you have any pets, especially any dogs in the house, just to not disturb them too much, you probably want to turn the volume down a little bit for this, but here it is.
Listen.
I am April Barrett, and I am the president of SEIU, representing two million service and care workers.
We're all in for Kamala Harris because Kamala Harris has always been all in for us.
Vice President Harris joined fast food workers on the picket line and she walked today in the shoes of a home care worker.
She shares our vision for a modern day labor movement.
A movement that meets the needs of workers in the 21st century and an economy that is ready for the future.
It is going to be together that we write new rules to make it easier for all workers to join a union.
And we, y'all, we are going to build a younger, darker, hipper, fresher, sneaker-wearing labor movement!
Yeah, I mean, well, you can't deny she has a smooth and pleasant voice.
It very much reminds me of the The reassuring sounds of, like, a thousand cats murdering each other.
Her voice sounds like... It sounds like an argument between five feminists in one voice.
But, you know, I'm not gonna... Look, I remember when I went through puberty, so I'm not gonna make fun of her for this.
Pretty amazing.
Less amazing is the open, overt racism on display, though.
There's nothing amazing about that at the DNC, as we've already covered.
It's to be expected.
She says that they're gonna build a younger, hipper, fresher Darker labor movements?
Like, you can't be any less subtle than that.
We want to make it darker.
And we can only assume that she means darker in terms of skin tones and not darker in terms of being more disturbing.
Which it will be the latter, inevitably, but that's not what she meant.
She meant that they want fewer white people in the labor movement.
And this is blatant racism.
It's totally despicable.
It goes without saying that There would be an outrage explosion to rival the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs if a speaker stood on stage at the RNC and said they want to make any institution younger, hipper, fresher, and whiter.
If you can imagine someone saying that.
So, blatant racism, blatant hypocrisy, we know that, but the more critical point is the opportunity that this sort of language presents.
Now, we know that Republicans, if you remember, at the RNC brought a union boss up to speak at the convention, which is an unusual thing at a Republican convention.
And this was supposed to be a sort of like reaching across the aisles sort of moment, and they were making a play for union votes, which is fine.
I mean, if you can get union members to vote for you, then absolutely, you should Get them to vote for you.
Everyone's vote, you know, you'll take any vote you can get.
But, rather than simply pandering, why not use this as an opportunity to make an overture to these union members?
Like, if you're Donald Trump, why not come out and say, hey, if you're in a union and you're white, Your own union leaders don't want you in the club.
You just heard them say that.
They hate you for the color of your skin.
Well, come vote for me and I'll fight against this kind of evil anti-white racism.
Why not say that?
What do you have to lose in saying that explicitly?
Which is not the same thing, I mean, coming out and saying, oh, these union leaders are radical leftists.
Yeah, they are, but that's not specific enough.
I think very specifically saying, hey, she wants to kick white people out.
This is like the Great Replacement.
We know the Great Replacement, which is happening in the United States generally.
It's also happening institutionally, at the institutional level.
And, you know, it's happening in the unions.
So you don't lose anything by just coming out and saying, this is anti-white racism.
It's evil.
It's a terrible thing.
Racism in all of its forms should be condemned.
If this is Donald Trump, you're saying, I'm the only candidate who is willing to condemn racism in all of its forms.
Has Kamala Harris ever condemned anti-white racism ever in her life?
Does she even acknowledge that it exists?
That would be a good question to ask her at the debate.
I mean, it's not gonna be asked by the moderators, of course, but there's a question.
Hey Kamala, does anti-white racism exist?
Is that a thing?
Do you condemn it?
Okay, so a couple of days ago, there was this post on Twitter from somebody who goes by the name Julie Rae Goldstein, and it says, and we'll show you on the screen there, but it says, Seriously, AMC Theaters?
I come to the single showing you have today of the Elliot Page's new film, Close to You, within a 20-mile radius, and you find it appropriate to play the only instance of the trailer for Matt Walsh's movie I've even seen in a theater?
Read the mother effin' room!
Meanwhile, you can see in the picture that there's, like, nobody else in the room, so it's a little bit hard to read it.
That's maybe the first problem.
But, yes, apparently the trailer for my film is playing in front of Elliot Page's new trans drama called Close to You.
And this has upset some of the audience members.
It hasn't upset very many audience members, because there aren't very many audience members, but it has upset a few of them, and there were other tweets responding to this from other people who were in that showing, or maybe in different showings, I don't know, complaining about the same thing.
Another guy posted, Me and my boyfriend were in this very screening and had the same reaction.
Skull emoji.
So these people are upset that my film is being advertised in front of Elliot Page's film.
But I personally think this is a wonderful thing.
And I don't know how Elliot Page feels about it.
I'm not really sure, but I'm thrilled by it.
We're both on our own personal journeys of self-discovery.
We've both made films that are raw and honest and, I think, devastatingly emotional.
We're both very vulnerable right now.
I think we're both very vulnerable and sensitive people.
In fact, I'd even say that I think that Elliot Page is probably really happy that our films are tied together in this way.
Again, I don't know.
Maybe that's why the trailer was there.
Maybe Elliot Page requested it.
I don't know that.
I'm not saying that happened.
But to me, it seems within the realm of possibility that it's possible that Elliot Page is the one who requested it.
Saw the trailer and said, this looks fantastic!
Put this in front of my movie.
I don't know.
I don't know if that's how it works.
I just don't know.
But that's my best guess.
So... Could there be some kind of collaboration between the two of us in the future?
Maybe.
You know?
We're both... We're fellow truth-seekers.
Fellow travelers.
Fellow movie stars, frankly?
We have a lot in common.
And hey, we're both fellow men, right?
So anyway, I'm very proud of this.
Very proud to be unofficially partnered with Elliot Page.
In fact... Well, I don't want to give anything away.
I'm not going to give any spoilers away.
I wasn't planning on bringing this up, but...
I will say that you may remember, back when Elliot Page was Ellen Page, that very powerful moment on Colbert's show back in 2019, condemning the vicious hate crime assault of Jussie Smollett.
Well, in our film, there's a scene where we deal with that incident in, I think, a very powerful way.
And again, a very emotional, for me it was very emotional, and you'll see it was a very emotional scene to shoot.
And that's all I'm going to say about that, but that's another tie, I guess.
It's kind of... I don't know.
It was meant to be.
So, maybe we'll reach out to Elliot Page.
See if we can work out some kind of cross-promotion thing for our films.
I don't know.
Sky's the limit at this point.
So, just wonderful stuff.
Really, really great.
Let's see.
This is from BBC.
BBC.com extreme misogyny will be treated as a form of extremism under new government plans the home office has
said Yvette Cooper the home secretary has ordered a review of
the UK's counterterrorism rather counter extremism strategy to determine
How best to tackle threats posed by harmful ideologies?
The analysis will look at hatred of women as one of the ideological trends that the government says is gaining
traction Miss Cooper said that there's been a rise in extremism both
online and on our streets that phrase the very fabric of our communities and
our democracy The review will look at the rise of Islamist and far-right
extremism in the UK as well as wider ideological trends including extreme
Misogyny or beliefs which fit into broader categories such as violence
We'll also look at the causes and conduct of the radicalization of young people.
So, extreme misogyny is now in their crosshairs of things to deal with in combat.
The interesting thing here is that I agree with one of the claims being made, actually.
I agree that hatred of women is probably on the rise.
Now, I don't think that's something the government needs to deal with.
I don't think that saying hateful things about women makes you a terrorist or an extremist who should be arrested.
I don't think that speech should be, along these lines, should be punished by the state.
But are there more people today who hate women and are vocalizing that hatred?
Probably.
I think that's probably true.
But that's only half the picture.
The other half is that hatred of men is also on the rise.
Many women, in turn, hate men.
There are women haters and there are men haters.
And, anecdotally at least, they seem to be more numerous, both groups, and more vocal than they have been in the past.
And these things are really impossible to actually measure in any kind of objective, reliable way.
So who really knows?
But I would at least personally, from my vantage point, agree with that kind of starting point, with that claim, with that one single claim.
But although, again, I don't agree with anything that they're trying to do about it, but the basic claim I can see.
Why is that?
Like, why is that happening?
Is it because of Andrew Tate or whoever?
No.
It is because of an intentional decades-long effort by all of our major societal institutions, both in the UK and here in this country, in the West generally, to deliberately cause this division and this suspicion and this resentment between the sexes.
This is the fruit of those efforts.
Efforts to drive a wedge between the sexes, to destroy the nuclear family, to undermine and destroy the sacrament of marriage.
If you have a healthy society where men and women are meeting each other, and typically, historically, meeting each other as young adults, rather than when they're 40 or whatever, and then they're getting married and they have kids, Which is how it's supposed to work, then you will not have nearly as much of this resentment and this hatred between the sexes.
I'm not saying you have none of it, but you won't have nearly as much of it.
Like, it's not a surprise that the majority of the woman-hating stuff comes from men who are not married.
So when you see something on Twitter from someone posting something, and they clearly do hate women.
And I know, even that, it's like...
There are a lot of things you can say where you'll be accused of hating women for saying it.
Like, if you say you shouldn't kill your baby, the left will call you a woman hater for that.
That's absurd, but... We all know, if you spend any time on Twitter, you're gonna see comments from accounts that are expressing, like, actual disdain for women generally.
That is a thing.
And I think if you were to do a poll of all those accounts, you would find that probably almost all of them are unmarried young men.
And then, on the other end of it, the majority of man-hating comes from bitter feminists who are also not married.
So, getting married, I think what that tells you is that it generally causes you to form an appreciation Uh, for the other sex.
So, as much as I'm accused of being a misogynist, or whatever else, the truth is, I don't hate women, obviously.
I have a wife, I have daughters, and, um, so I can see for myself the beauty and happiness that women bring into your life, and women who are happily married to men see the same thing with men.
And so they are unlikely to become man-hating harpies because they have a husband that they love and respect.
But when you tear that apart, when you take that away, when you take away marriage, which is a forum where members of the opposite sexes can come to understand each other in a very intimate way, you take that away and it's no big shock that you're left with resentment and suspicion and bitterness between them.
Because also without marriage, if someone's not getting married, it means either that they are really having no romantic interactions with the opposite sex at all, which means that they're kind of on an island, and that alone is going to breed a lot of resentment, or if they're not married and they are having You know, romantic relationships, I don't even want to call them relationships, because often, you know, if they're hooking up, let's say, with the opposite sex and they're not married, well, yeah, then they are having, if you want to call it intimate, you know, experiences with the opposite sex, but in a way that is very self-centered.
And so they are conditioning themselves to use the opposite sex for their own sexual gratification and nothing more.
You have men and women conditioning themselves, who have already been conditioned, to use the opposite sex as essentially nothing more than like a glorified masturbatory aid.
And, again, no surprise that when you've got a lot of that going on in your culture, you also have men and women who don't respect each other.
And if they don't respect each other, they're gonna come to hate each other, blame each other, and all of that.
And mostly, again, not really understand each other.
And I've commented on this many times, but this is the most glaring thing that I notice from the feminists, from the man-hating feminists, who go on and on and on about all the reasons they hate men.
And when they're talking about men, it's like, I don't even recognize, as a man myself, I don't know what you're talking about.
They have all these ideas about men, and how men act, and they just bear no resemblance to how men actually are.
They don't know anything about, obviously, our strengths, our positive points, and they don't even really understand our weaknesses, and our negative points, and our flaws.
They just don't understand men.
So, when I hear these bitter feminists going on and on, it's always the same question, have you ever even met a man?
What are you talking about?
And the answer is no, not really.
I mean, they've met men, they've been around men, but they don't really have any, they're not married, they haven't had the experience of actually Being bonded to a man in a faithful marriage, committed to him, and in that context actually coming to understand who that individual man is, but then by extension understanding more about who men are generally.
And then the same thing happens in the reverse with women.
But that's not going on, and so that's why you end up with a lot of this sort of thing.
Okay, I wanted to play this clip for you, just because I think it's really good.
Charlie Kirk recently explained at an event why America is a Christian nation.
This is something, this is a point that conservatives have made, rightly, importantly, many times.
I think often when you hear it explained, it's not explained very well.
But this is one of the best and most succinct explanations and defenses of the notion that America is a Christian nation that I've ever heard, honestly.
Let's listen to it.
Because the Declaration only refers to God four times, and the Constitution doesn't refer to God at all.
And it only articulates the structure of government.
So first of all, remember that we were a collection of states and colonies, and you need to read the state constitutions before anything else.
13 out of 13 required a Declaration of Faith.
9 out of 13 required you to be a Protestant, except Maryland, which was Catholic, which still required a Declaration of Faith.
Every single one of the original state constitutions, Pennsylvania included, they had I profess Lord and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in the original state constitutions.
Secondly, 55 out of 56 of the original signers of the Declaration were Bible-believing, church-attending Christians.
You asked about common law.
So common law is inherited from Blackstone, who was Christian.
Common law is an outgrowth of the scriptures.
So let's go to three principles of common law.
Presumption of innocence.
Due process and jury of your peers, all three are biblical principles.
And all wrapped into the ultimate biblical principle that you shall not favor justice if you are rich or poor, which is in Leviticus 19, right before the most famous part of Leviticus 19.
Which is that you should love your neighbors as yourself, but before that is that in the administration of justice, you shall not favor the rich or the poor, which is the idea of blind justice.
We get that in the West, which is incorporated also in the New Testament ideal.
Neither slave nor Greek nor Jew, you're all one in Jesus Christ, which is the idea of human equality.
These are all biblical ideas.
They're not enlightenment ideas.
But more importantly than that, they say that God was only mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence.
Well, that's a big deal.
Okay.
Laws of nature and nature's God.
The last paragraph of the Declaration reads as a prayer.
It says we appeal to the supreme judge of the universe.
Who's the judge of the universe?
Jesus Christ.
It says in Revelation that Jesus will judge the earth on his throne.
So in the Declaration they were praying to Christ our Lord as a prayer very specifically.
Thirdly, as I said on stage yesterday, Deuteronomy was by far the most quoted book, religious or non-religious, in the time of the founding, when they were putting together the Constitution.
More than John Locke, more than Montesquieu, more than Blackstone.
The Book of Deuteronomy, which talked about laws, customs, traditions.
It was Moses' farewell address, as he's about to say goodbye.
Say, hey, good luck in Canaan, guys.
Here's how you should set up your form of government.
But finally, and most importantly, Let's look at actually what the founders said
John Adams seamlessly said the Constitution was only written for a moral religious people
It was wholly inadequate for the people of any other the body politic of America was so Christian and was so
Protestant That our form and structure of government was built
For the people that believed in Christ our Lord one of the reasons we're living through a constitutional crisis
Is that we no longer have a Christian nation, but we have a Christian form of government and they're incompatible
So you cannot have liberty if you do not have a Christian population
Not a lot to add to that.
I think he summed it up very well.
And that's not easy to do, by the way, to tackle a subject like that.
It's a big subject.
Explaining why America is a Christian nation and explaining it historically and doing it in about two and a half minutes takes a lot of skill, so a lot of credit to Charlie on that one.
And it is an absolutely critical point, one that the left Won't accept, cannot accept, but it's just a fact that this country was built by Christians and based in the Christian faith.
And if you break it down, any attempt to separate Christian faith from this country and from The system of government that we have in this country, it always breaks down into incoherence.
That's why I always talk about even this notion of human rights.
Because usually the left will say, well, we don't need any of that anymore.
You don't need to be Christian, we don't need any of that.
All that matters is that we have rights as human beings and the government is supposed to protect our rights.
But that, that is also, that is a doctrinal statement.
That's a statement of faith.
What else could it be?
When you're talking about your human rights, you're not, that's not something you're observing.
That's not a scientific statement, is it?
Like you can't, you can't use science to prove that human rights exist.
Science has nothing to say about human rights one way or another.
Science can't disprove them, can't prove them.
Human rights are just irrelevant.
Science can tell you a lot about a person, biologically, anatomically, but whether or not that person has this mystical idea of rights, science has nothing to say.
So, it's not a scientific concept.
It's not, in that sense, an objective physical concept.
It's not something you can objectively observe in the physical world.
It's a belief.
It's a belief that is grounded at the most fundamental level in faith and in belief in God.
I mean, the whole idea is endowed by the Creator.
We have human rights because we are made by God.
And with that comes a certain dignity because we were made in the image of God.
But you take God out of that, then who cares about your rights?
And then you're left with these absurd notions of social contracts and all these kinds of things.
But all that breaks down, ultimately.
If the rights don't come from God, then where do they come from?
Of course, the problem is if you say, well, they come from the government.
Okay, but then you can't complain.
You can't complain when the government takes them away, if they come from the government.
Then the government can never infringe on your rights, because that's where they come from.
The government decides if you have the right or not.
That means if the government did decide tomorrow that women can't vote anymore, then it wouldn't make any sense for women to complain about that.
You can't say, oh, I have the right to vote.
No, you don't.
You don't have that right.
What do you mean you have the right to vote?
The law was passed.
Now you don't have the right anymore.
What are you complaining about?
So that's why you don't want to say rights come from God.
If you try to go to some more abstract idea of a social contract or whatever, it still doesn't work.
Because first of all, who signed that contract?
I don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't consent to any... I don't know what contract you're referring to.
I didn't sign one.
But also, that would mean that if society generally gets together and says, okay, we're not going to give rights to this particular group anymore, then again, you can't complain.
There was a time when the social contract said that black Americans basically don't have rights.
Society generally once agreed upon that.
And if you're saying, yeah, well society says that, and the government says that, but it's wrong, and these people should have rights, well then you're appealing to something above society, above the government.
And what is that?
If you're approaching it from a secular perspective, there's nothing else.
Above them is just like the ether.
It's just nothingness.
There's nothing there above them.
So anytime you talk about human rights, you are making a religious... you are making a statement of religious faith.
And if you have no religious faith and you're still talking about human rights, well then you're just babbling.
It doesn't mean anything.
So that was a less succinct way of basically restating what Charlie already said.
So, you know, my fishing trips often involve spending extended periods on a boat, which
can lead to feelings of queasiness, especially when the waters are choppy.
And I found that using relief bands significantly enhances my experience on the water.
Relief band has helped keep the nausea at bay, allowing me to focus entirely on the
thrill of fishing.
But it's not every day that you're on a boat and get seasick.
Relief band treats more than just that.
It can help carsick kids in the backseat, parents who are suffering from motion sickness
at an amusement park, and even chemotherapy patients.
Originally developed for use in hospitals, Reliefband gently stimulates the underside of the wrist to minimize feelings of nausea without any drugs or side effects.
I found that it's better to have a Reliefband and not need it than to need it and not have it.
That's for sure.
Join hundreds of thousands of customers who have experienced life-changing relief with Reliefband.
Right now, I've got an exclusive limited time offer just for my listeners.
Visit reliefband.com and use my promo code Walsh to receive 25% off plus free shipping.
Visit r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com.
Use promo code Walsh, reliefband.com, promo code Walsh.
If you've already visited MIRacist.com and grabbed your tickets for September 13th, then thank you.
Or, you know, you could even go back and grab more tickets.
But I'm hearing from some of you that your local theater isn't showing MIRacist, the Daily Wire's first theatrical release, yet.
Here's how we change that.
Every ticket sold right now helps add more theaters nationwide.
Think of it as the free market actually working, which is always a wonderful thing.
Wait until you see what we've uncovered about the weird world of DEI and what they really think about you and America.
The response to this movie so far has been phenomenal, but we're just getting started.
If Amiracist is playing at a theater near you, head to Amiracist.com and buy your advance tickets today.
Let's get this movie into every theater across the country by September 13th.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[Music]
For our daily cancellation today, we must cancel someone for reasons that will become extremely obvious the moment
that I play the video of this person.
In fact, you could watch the video on mute for two seconds and you would understand why this cancellation was necessary.
Cancellation is so self-evident that there isn't much to say in explaining it, which is a problem for a segment that requires me to say stuff.
But, you know, we'll try to get through it anyway.
The clip in question comes from a school board meeting in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
And for a little background, here's the local ABC affiliate.
A Wisconsin community clashed last week over its school board's hesitation to adopt new Title IX rules.
School leaders across the country are grappling with the Biden administration's new Title IX regulations.
The regulations, which went into effect this month, broaden the federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in all public education institutions.
The updated rules also prohibit school districts from creating blanket policies banning students from using bathrooms based on gender identity.
The Oshkosh Area Board of Education decided in a 3-3 vote last month not to adopt the new regulations.
However, community members on Wednesday clashed over the board's decision pointing to a risk of losing federal funding.
So in other words, the Biden administration is trying to impose radical gender ideology onto every school system in the country by fiat, requiring that girls' bathrooms and sports teams be opened up to boys, etc.
The school board has declined to go along with that, which has greatly upset the local LGBT activists.
And one of those activists is named Cora Novy, president of Oshkosh Pride.
Novi identifies as a woman and is dutifully referred to with female pronouns in this local news article I just read, but rather than read what he has to say, the audio and visual experience are going to be much more enlightening, I think.
So, if you're only listening to the audio podcast, you will not get the full experience, which may be for the best, but here it is.
Why is this such a roadblock?
Why is it, why have we spent an hour discussing this?
Especially, you say you care about the students, but half of you are not sure what gender is.
Especially transgender.
I know the lawyer said transsexual earlier, that's not the correct term.
It's transgender.
I'm a transgender woman, my pronouns are she, her, and I will only accept those pronouns.
I will not be addressed any other way.
And in the workspace, I'm protected by that.
Our students should be too.
Especially when they're not over 18 and don't have a voice.
So I'm just...
I'm imploring you to go beyond what, just really consider, what is this fight really about?
Why is it such entrenched?
I know we hear a lot about religious liberty, and quite honestly, I grew up in Christian education all through college.
I don't remember any of my doctrinal classes Mentioning only male and female, and that's the way it should be.
If you feel it is, awesome!
Good!
You get to believe that.
You don't get to impose those beliefs on anybody else.
That's actually what religious liberty is, is that your right to believe that is protected, but the other person that identifies as something else also has a right to be protected.
So, I guess what I'm here to say is, with Oshkosh Pride, we're paying attention.
And we're going to be involved in this conversation if it keeps on going.
But we've spent an hour on this conversation when clearly there are other issues on this agenda.
There are other issues that we need to be doing for students in the area.
Thank you.
Now some people are having fun with this individual, but I have to say that at first I was really sad to see that Newman from Seinfeld had fallen on such hard times.
And then I was relieved to find out that it's not Newman.
And there was someone online who reacted to this clip actually by saying that they love this guy's work as the villain in the Dune movies.
And I found that comment to be extremely offensive from that person, so I'm not going to repeat it here.
The point is that this individual is not Newman or the evil floating guy from Dune.
He also isn't Ursula from The Little Mermaid.
I just want to be clear about that.
So I want to head that off of the past for anyone, any rumors that might start about that.
So please don't go around saying that or any of those things because it's really highly offensive.
Let's move on from the looks and focus on what he's saying.
I think there are three points that he makes that might be worth briefly responding to.
Well, actually there's four, because the first one is that he took doctrinal classes on theology and he doesn't remember anything being said about how God has only made people male and female.
Well, did your theology classes cover the first chapter of the book of Genesis?
It's the first chapter of the book!
Did your theology class skip that?
So there's that.
But he really begins by accusing the school board of not knowing what gender is.
Now, admittedly, he's kind of right.
They probably don't know what it is.
I don't either.
Nobody does.
Nobody knows what the word gender means when it is used by LGBT activists like himself.
So when he uses the word, nobody knows what he means by it.
Because gender in their universe is an undefinable, hazy abstraction.
It is a concept distinct from biological sex, but also basically the same as biological sex.
Nobody can define that because it's nonsensical gibberish.
This guy himself doesn't know what he means by the word gender when he uses it.
Second, he says that he will only accept female pronouns, which I thought was interesting.
It's also fine.
That's totally fine.
He can choose not to accept biologically and grammatically correct pronouns.
He can choose not to accept he him in the same way that I might say that I don't accept that I'm currently sitting in a chair in a room.
Or I don't accept that I'm living on planet Earth and that we're orbiting the Sun and that we're in a solar system situated within the Milky Way galaxy.
I might not accept any of that.
I might not approve of it.
I might not like it.
I might not welcome it or regard it in a positive way.
In that sense, I might not accept these basic facts or any number of other facts, but they're still basic facts.
You can refuse to accept reality, but reality still exists.
So the proper response to a man who says that he will not accept male pronouns is to say, okay, that's fine.
I'm still going to call you by male pronouns because you're a male.
Whether you accept them or not is irrelevant.
It's not like an offer that I'm making you.
I'm not making you an offer that you could say, I don't accept that.
Well, okay.
The pronoun is a label used by other people to describe you based on Our perception of your biological sex.
Yes, that, it's not about your, our perception, actually when we use pronouns for you, our perception is what matters.
Your perception doesn't matter at all.
Your perception of your own sex is completely beside the point.
You can feel however you want to feel about it.
We're still gonna call you a he because that's what you are.
And finally, he asked why they're spending so much time on this issue, which we always hear this from these activists.
And it's a good point, once again.
We've spent way too much time debating whether men are men, whether women are women, whether boys should go in the girls' bathroom, and so on.
Up to about ten years ago, there was no time spent debating this at all.
It may shock this gentleman to learn that back in the old days, schools didn't dedicate any time to these sorts of deliberations.
Even when I went to school, it wasn't all that long ago.
There was no time spent on this topic at all.
There were no debates at any school board meetings anywhere over the question of who should use the girls' bathroom and who should have access to the girls' sports teams.
Because the answer is right there in the question.
Girls use the girls' bathroom.
Girls have access to girls' sports.
No time was wasted discussing that issue.
That was the advantage of living in a time when everyone agreed on at least the most basic facts of life.
When everyone was living in and recognized and accepted the same fundamental truths of existence.
It was not a utopia.
We disagreed about a lot of stuff.
But we had a shared reality.
And so it was within that reality that we argued about all the other stuff we argued about.
It was only when people like this guy broke away from the shared reality that it became necessary to spend so much time talking about the basic facts of reality.
They made the conversation necessary, and now they complain that we are having the conversation that they have made necessary.
This is another one of their manipulation tactics, and manipulation is all they have.
Because they certainly don't have anything resembling logic, reason, or truth on their side.
And that is why our friend with the purple hair is today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
I'm gonna sort this out.
I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
There's more for you in this field.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
We're going to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument.
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently?
Yes.
This country is a piece of...
White.
Folks.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
