Ep. 1626 - It’s Time To Put Barack Obama In Handcuffs
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Tulsi Gabbard provides evidence of what she calls a “treasonous conspiracy” by Barack Obama and his top officials. We’ll go over the evidence today. And then we’ll get to the most important question: What is the Trump Administration going to do about it? Who is going to prison, and when? Also, the media mourns as Stephen Colbert’s nightly propaganda show is canceled. WNBA players demand that they are paid what they owe. Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for. And I get into an argument with Andrew Tate over the subject of monogamy vs polygamy.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1626
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at DailyWirePlus.com.
Check out Jordan B. Peterson’s new show, Parenting, exclusively ON DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4moWlu0
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Go to https://expressvpn.com/walsh and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Ammo Squared - Take the work out of buying ammo. Visit https://ammosquared.com today for a special offer.
Everyday Dose - Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee+ or Bold+ and you’ll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts by going to https://everydaydose.com/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout. You’ll also get FREE gifts throughout the year!
Tax Network USA - For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit their website at https://TNUSA.com/WALSH
- - -
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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today in the Matt Wall show, Tulsi Gabbard provides evidence of what she calls a treasonous conspiracy by Barack Obama and his top officials.
We'll go over the evidence today, and then we'll get to the most important question, which is what is the Trump administration going to do about it?
Who's going to prison and when?
Also, the media mourns as Stephen Colbert's nightly propaganda show is canceled.
WNBA players demand that they are paid what they owe.
Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for.
And I get into an argument with Andrew Tate over the subject of monogamy versus polygamy.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Ever feel like you're being watched online?
You're not being paranoid.
You actually are.
Your internet service provider can see every single website you visit.
And in the U.S., they're legally allowed to sell that data.
Yes, even your incognito browsing gets tracked.
Who would have ever guessed that that would be the case?
But it is.
Until privacy laws catch up, you need to protect yourself.
And that's why I use ExpressVPN.
It encrypts all my internet traffic and routes it through secure servers.
So my ISP can't see what I'm doing.
They literally have nothing to sell because they can't see my activity.
I use it when I travel and need to connect to public Wi-Fi, but also in my day-to-day life doing research for the show and much more.
ExpressVPN also hides your IP address, which is how companies track and build profiles on you.
With your real IP hidden, data brokers can't connect your browsing to you personally.
Your data therefore stays yours.
ExpressVPN is also incredibly simple.
Just one tap to connect.
They have apps for every device you own, and they're rated number one by CNET, The Verge, and tons of other tech sites for good reason.
ExpressVPN is a necessity for me when traveling, and I can't recommend it enough.
So if you want to start taking your online privacy seriously, don't wait.
Use my special link to get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free at expressvpn.com slash walsh.
That's expressvpn.com slash walsh.
Around noon on Donald Trump's first inauguration day in January of 2017, while every other Democrat in Washington was either destroying store windows or sobbing uncontrollably or a bit of both, Barack Obama's outgoing national security advisor was hard at work.
She logged onto her computer and sent a lengthy email to her own government email account, even though very soon she wouldn't be able to access that account.
So yes, the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, wrote an email to herself.
And to be clear, this email wasn't a reminder to pick up dog food at the store or a motivational quote for herself as she headed towards unemployment or anything like that.
Instead, the email that Rice sent to herself amounted essentially to a lengthy statement claiming that nobody in the Obama administration had committed any kind of treason whatsoever, nor would they ever dream of doing such a thing.
Why would you ask?
In other words, it was exactly the kind of email you'd send if you had just committed treason.
Short of outright confession, it does not get any more incriminating or bizarre than this email.
Just a few miles away, at exactly this time, Donald Trump was taking the oath of office.
Barack Obama was getting ready to board a helicopter and leave Washington.
The wailing Democrat lady from the meme was screaming in the street, entering into eternal internet infamy.
And contemporaneously with all of that, this is what Susan Rice was sending to herself.
The email describes a meeting that took place in the Oval Office back on January 5th, in which several senior Obama administration officials met to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 election.
So for some reason, we're summarizing a meeting that took place more than two weeks earlier.
But here's what Rice wrote, quote, President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book.
The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating, or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
Now, shortly after the Trump administration declassified this email, it was obvious to everyone that Susan Rice had written the document because, in fact, Barack Obama had not ordered the investigation into Russia Gate to be conducted by the book.
Instead, he had done the opposite.
He had invented Russia Gate out of whole cloth with the intention of sabotaging the incoming Trump administration and discrediting the populist movement that Trump represented.
And in an attempt to cover for her boss, Susan Rice was engaging in some last-minute CYA.
That's what this email is all about.
After all, if everybody was doing everything in accordance with the law, there'd be no reason to say that.
There'd be no reason to say twice, in fact, that this was by the book.
It was by the book.
That's supposed to be the default assumption.
It's a very bad sign when you have to note in the official logs that you're totally not committing any crimes at all.
But despite this evidence and a lot of other evidence like it, no document directly linked Obama himself to the creation of the RussiaGate fraud.
The evidence of Obama's involvement up to this point has been overwhelming, but it's also been mostly circumstantial.
That all changed on Friday when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified hundreds of new documents that leave no doubt about this.
Obama deliberately orchestrated RussiaGate and his top lieutenants in the intelligence agencies, all of whom are now open partisan hacks, willingly carried out this fraud.
So this is one of the greatest crimes that a president has ever committed in this country.
That's not an exaggeration.
As Gabbard put it, this is a, quote, treasonous conspiracy.
And it is.
The same people who claim to care deeply about American democracy had, in fact, met in secret to begin a sustained campaign to subvert and sabotage the will of the voters.
Now, before we get into the new documents and how they prove this conspiracy, we'll start with this news report, which I found while I was looking through old footage from late 2016.
This is how the RussiaGate fraud began.
Now, by now, we've all probably blocked this period of time from our memory, so it's worth a quick look back to frame what was happening.
So this is footage from the Today Show on December 11th, 2016.
Watch.
The election has been over for weeks, but this new report is raising questions about how the Russian government may have interfered, not just in general, but specifically to help Trump win this election.
Trump is fighting back overnight, but members of his own party are promising that they're going to keep digging into it.
By the way, I don't need the hat either, right?
Who wants a hat?
This morning, President-elect Donald Trump is at war with the intelligence community.
The Washington Post reported late Friday the CIA thinks the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election to help Trump win by hacking emails from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.
The Trump campaign reacting to the report within minutes, dismissing the claim, saying, quote, these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
This kind of coverage, as I probably don't need to remind you, was nonstop for the next several years, and it had a very observable effect on tens of millions of people.
There was a YouGov poll that found in 2018 that, quote, 67% of Democrats believed it was definitely true or probably true that Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.
This was the narrative that led to multiple criminal investigations that destroyed the lives of several Trump advisors, solely on the basis that they had supposedly lied to investigators who were looking into a non-existent crime.
And we could be sure that RussiaGate, along with the magic of untraceable mail-in voting, was a big part of the reason that Joe Biden ultimately became president.
All of that has been known for a while.
What's new is the timeline that's created by Gabbard's document, which directly implicates Barack Obama himself.
Again, that clip I just played is from December 11th, 2016.
By that point, the leaks in the Obama administration about Russia collusion were all over the media.
Here's a document which was just unsealed by Gabbard dated December 8th of that same year.
This is an email in which intelligence officials are preparing the president's daily brief that's about to be sent to Barack Obama.
And according to these officials, as of December 8th of 2016, the conclusion is that, quote, Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.
The officials say that the brief will be published the following day due to high administration interest.
Documents that were just declassified by Gavard show that this was not a new conclusion by the intelligence agencies.
For months in various internal emails and reports, they had concluded that Russia did not have the capacity to hack the election in any way.
Here's just a small handful of those assessments from August.
This is from August through early December.
And as you can see, the intelligence agencies were not talking about Russian Facebook memes or Russian blackmail on Trump or WikiLeaks emails or anything like that.
Instead, they were assessing whether Russia had hacked voting machines or other U.S. infrastructure or had the capacity to do so.
And they concluded that it didn't.
So really, this latest conclusion on December 8th of 2016 was just affirming their assessments from before the election.
But interestingly enough, this president's daily brief was never published.
Within hours of the email about the draft daily brief, somebody at the FBI said the agency would dissent from the conclusions in the draft of the presidential daily brief.
And then around the same time, the deputy director of the intelligence of the Office of National Intelligence wrote, quote, based on some new guidance, we are going to push back publication of the president's daily brief.
At the time, it wasn't explained what this new guidance was or where it came from.
A day later, though, it was obvious to everyone what was going on.
Obama assembled all of his senior intelligence officials for a meeting, including James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe.
And all these people, of course, are rabid left-wing activists.
Immediately after that meeting concluded, the assistant to James Clapper, the director of national intelligence at the time, sent this email to senior leaders of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
And let's put that up on the screen.
You can see it here.
The email is entitled, POTIS Tasking on Russia Election Meddling.
And right there in the email, all of those senior officials are told to prepare, quote, an assessment per the president's request.
This is proof in writing that Obama personally directed all of the intelligence and national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS, to investigate Russian election interference after they had indicated that Russia did not hack the election machines.
You keep in mind, by this point, Obama's director of national intelligence had already issued a statement about the DNC emails that were released by WikiLeaks.
The Obama administration concluded, probably fraudulently, that Russia had orchestrated that hack.
That was back in early October of 2016.
And then after that statement, the intelligence agencies went on to conclude that Russia didn't hack any election machines or infrastructure whatsoever.
So there was no need at this point for any additional investigation to occur.
The big fear of the intelligence community that Russia would somehow hack voting machines just as easily as the DNC servers were supposedly hacked had turned out to be unfounded.
But Obama wasn't satisfied with that conclusion from the intelligence agencies.
So here are the specific areas Obama told them to go back and investigate.
This is also from the Clapper email.
Quote, how did Moscow seek to influence the U.S. presidential election in 2016?
What tools did they use?
Then the email runs down several domains of election interference, hacking, leaks, cyber activity, media spin, trolls, fake news, domestic Russian intelligence efforts.
Then it ends with this question.
Why did Moscow direct these activities?
The prodding is pretty overt.
Now the agencies are told to assume that Moscow directed all these activities, including hacking and trolling.
They're told to make this assumption, not because of any evidence, but because the president told them to assume it, even though they knew at this point that it wasn't True.
All of a sudden, online trolling is something that the intelligence agencies are supposed to take seriously and to present to the public as a vector of election interference.
Now, this was never a serious idea, but it didn't have to be.
The absurd suggestion that trolling has impacted the 2016 election would easily be laundered through the national news media.
Within just a few hours, the leaks began.
As Gabbard's report reveals, the CIA went straight to the Washington Post and leaked that the intelligence agencies had, quote, concluded a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help President Trump.
Yes, Russia intervened.
Don't worry about how exactly.
They just intervened.
We just know that they did.
That reporting from the Washington Post led to the footage from the Today show that I played at the beginning of this segment, along with thousands of reports like it.
Russia had attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election, is what the Washington Post claimed.
Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, reported NBC News, citing anonymous intelligence officials.
So you see how all this works.
The details of the interference are left vague and unsubstantiated.
It's something about cyber warfare, though, and that's all they had to say.
And from this point on, the floodgates were open.
Within a few weeks, we saw additional hysteria over the Steele dossier, which was an obvious fabrication with funding from the Clinton campaign.
And as all these leaks were underway and the hysteria was ramping up, Obama went out of his way to promote the lie.
On December 16, 2016, several days after he ordered the intelligence agencies to commence the hoax and after the frantic reports about Russian collusion had been published in the Washington Post, Obama was asked directly about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Specifically, he was asked, did Clinton lose because of the hacking?
Now, he had an opportunity to explain that actually the intelligence agencies looked into this and they did not think that Russia had interfered with the election, but instead, Obama strongly implied that there was hacking, even though he knew that there wasn't, but that he couldn't talk about it because it was all classified.
Watch.
Did Clinton lose because of the hacking?
I'm going to let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election.
It was a fascinating election, so I'm sure there are going to be a lot of books written about it.
We will provide evidence that we can safely provide that does not compromise sources and methods.
But I'll be honest with you, when you're talking about cybersecurity, a lot of it is classified and we're not going to provide it because the way we catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not want us to know.
Now, a few weeks after this press conference, the intelligence agencies under Obama announced that, quote, we assessed with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
Put another way, Obama told the intelligence agencies to allege that Russia had impacted the election one way or another.
They could even say that trolling had impacted the election if they wanted to.
And indeed, the intelligence agencies, all of them run by lunatics who would go on to become MSNBC personalities, did exactly what Obama asked them to do.
And this is about as overt and explicit as a conspiracy can be.
Everybody involved in this fraud knew exactly what they were doing.
When given the opportunity to pull back, they kept pushing the lie.
They doubled down.
Solely to undermine the incoming administration, Obama told his deputies to go back to the drawing board to find some other way that Russia could have influenced the election.
Now, he knew that it was absurd to suggest that Trump had won because Russia spent $100,000 on Facebook memes or that Russia wanted Trump to win because they could blackmail him.
He also knew there wasn't any real evidence that Russia had ever hacked the DNC.
But Obama knew that he didn't need to prove any of this.
Instead, he could simply order the intelligence agencies to start leaking about their phony investigation.
The media would just take it from there.
Now, it's clear that Tulsi Gabbard understands all this, and here's what she had to say the other day about it on Foxwatch.
The implications of this are, frankly, nothing short of historic.
Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office, after President Trump had already gotten elected.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue.
This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our Democratic Republic.
What we saw occur here as the documents we released detailed was that we had a sitting President of the United States and his cabinet and leadership team, quite frankly, who were not happy with the fact that President Trump had won the election, that the American people had chosen Donald J. Trump to be the next President Commander in Chief of the United States.
And so they decided that they would do everything possible to try to undermine his ability to do what voters tasked President Trump to do.
Everything Tulsi just said is obviously true.
This was a treasonous conspiracy.
It's in writing.
It's all based on a fraud.
That's why every single analysis that would follow, even the Mueller report and even the bipartisan Senate report on election interference that liberals cite all the time, failed to demonstrate that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia or corrupted the election in any way because it was all a fabrication.
From the beginning, the objective of Russiagate was to spread fear and uncertainty when it was all completely unfounded.
If a Trump official spoke to a Russian or shared publicly available polling data, it was supposedly proof that the election was rigged.
If a random person with a bank account living within 5,000 miles of Moscow spent 10 rubles to promote a gay Bernie meme on Facebook, then it was more proof that the election was compromised.
This was not insanity.
This was not mass hysteria.
This was premeditated political sabotage.
It was, as Tulsi Gabbard said, a treasonous conspiracy.
So what then?
What of it?
What's next?
That's the question.
The Trump administration is making a claim on the record about a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels in Washington, D.C. to undermine Trump and subvert the will of the voters.
And it's far from the first criminal conspiracy that people in the Trump administration or Trump himself have claimed.
I believe them.
I mean, I believe this conspiracy happened.
The evidence is overwhelming.
So what then?
What will the consequences be?
Right now, President Trump is making a bunch of posts on Truth Social depicting Obama officials in orange jumpsuits.
Tulsi Gabbard is doing hits on Fox News and posting these threads on Twitter.
They're sounding notes of indignation and outrage.
All that is fine.
But none of that matters if they fail to actually go and make arrests.
Barack Obama himself should be in handcuffs.
You cannot allege a treasonous conspiracy and then do nothing about it.
Now, if I seem a bit cynical here, the typical pattern by Republicans since forever is to make these kinds of claims, but to make them only on social media and Fox News and to never actually bring it to a court of law so the parties responsible can be held accountable for their crimes.
And I'm tired of it.
I'm sick to death of it.
Go arrest these people and bring them to justice.
Funny memes and outraged soundbites on Fox News are not going to cut it anymore.
Go make an arrest.
Put somebody in prison.
And if you won't do that, then what does any of this matter?
Why should we care about any of this if you won't follow it up by putting people in prison?
In fact, I'll say this.
The consequences of these allegations from Tulsi must be one of two things.
Either top Obama officials are arrested or Tulsi Gabbard should be fired.
Now, I like Tulsi.
I hope she's not fired, but the only valid reason to not make any arrests is if the claims that she made are false.
And if the DNI is falsely alleging treasonous conspiracies publicly, then clearly she should be run out of town.
But if what she's saying is true, and I believe that it is, as I just outlined for 15 minutes, then failure to make arrests would make top Trump officials complicit in the conspiracy after the fact.
There is no legitimate reason to make no arrests if the claims are true.
So something must happen here.
Someone has to be punished.
Or else none of this means anything at all.
It's just fodder for cable news and nothing else.
Go make an arrest.
Put somebody in handcuffs.
Put Barack Obama in handcuffs.
Not just in a meme, not in some AI-generated funny video.
In real life.
Now, they did it to Trump with far less justification.
So what are you going to do, Trump administration?
What are you actually going to do about this?
Maybe something will happen, and I hope it does.
But the pattern has always been that Republicans allege high crimes and misdemeanors only to punish precisely no one for them and to hold no one accountable in any way whatsoever.
And this has to change.
It has to change.
Right now, Democrats just spent years trying to imprison the president of the United States for fake crimes.
They pursued fake charges shamelessly and relentlessly for years.
For once, Republicans should apply that kind of intensity towards pursuing Democrats, including Barack Obama, who have all clearly committed actual crimes.
Enough with the tough talk.
Go kick down some doors.
It's time.
Way past time.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
you Do you remember the great ammo shortage of 2020?
Shelves were bare and even online options were wiped out.
Well, there's a company making sure that that never happens again.
It's called Ammo Squared, and they've been helping over 100,000 members stockpile ammo automatically since 2015.
Here's how it works.
You sign up, pick your ammo from over 70 different calibers, set an auto-buy budget and choose a shipping frequency or just let it grow.
Over time, your ammo accumulates and is stored for free in AmmoSquared's climate control facilities in Texas and Idaho until you're ready to ship.
No minimums, no extra fees.
It's perfect for small budgets or anyone who wants to build up a stockpile without spending thousands or hundreds of dollars up front.
I'm in the process of setting up an account right now and has been so simple and straightforward.
Everything is right there waiting for me when I need it.
It's the easiest way to stay prepared without the hassle.
Head to ammo.com and take the work out of buying ammo 100,000 members and thousands of five-star reviews.
Can't be wrong.
That's ammo.com.
Check them out today for a special offer.
If you feel like you keep juggling expensive supplements that are just getting more unaffordable to keep up with, then Everyday Dose will be a lifesaver for you.
Everyday Dose transforms your morning coffee into a powerhouse of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids all in one affordable cup.
Just 30 seconds to prepare, and you're getting your caffeine fix plus all the nutrients your body needs.
One delicious cup, one simple solution.
Everyday dose isn't just coffee, it's coffee plus benefits.
They've infused their 100% Arabica beans with lion's mane, chaga, collagen protein, and brain-boosting nootropics for clean, sustained energy without the crash or jitters.
You can choose between their mild coffee plus, which is light, smooth, and gentle on sensitive stomachs, or coffee plus bold, which is a rich, full-bodied medium roast with an extra energy kick.
Both deliver the same functional benefits and undergo rigorous third-party testing to ensure you're getting the best quality.
Your brain and body will thank you.
It tastes great.
I drink this stuff every morning, actually, and I know that you'll love it also.
Get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee Plus or Bold Plus.
You'll also receive a starter kit with over $100 and free gifts, including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com slash walsh or entering walsh at checkout.
You'll also get free gifts throughout the year.
That's everydaydose.com slash walsh for 45% off your first order.
All right, we've got some big entertainment news.
It was announced on Friday, I believe, that the late show with Stephen Colbert is coming to an end.
CBS is canceling Colbert and the whole late show franchise in May of next year.
So here is Stephen Colbert on the late show on Friday making the tragic announcement.
Oh, hey, everybody.
We got a great show for you tonight.
Senator Adam Schiff was my guest.
We harmonized on Seven Bridges Road.
What a voice, I cried.
But before we start the show, I want to let you know something that I found out just last night.
Next year will be our last season.
The network will be ending The Late Show in May.
And...
Yeah, I share your feelings.
It's not just the end of our show, but it's the end of The Late Show on CBS.
I'm not being replaced.
This is all just going away.
It's all just going away, he says.
It's all just going away.
And I'm going to, I, for one, I'm going to miss, I'm going to miss the show.
I missed every single episode that's ever aired, and I'll keep missing it.
And now everybody will.
Although everybody was already missing it, which is sort of the whole problem.
Now, naturally, the cancellation of Stephen Colbert was treated like a national tragedy by the media and Democrat politicians.
Colbert was the most overtly political and left-wing of all the late-night hosts, which is saying a lot.
So the left has been very upset about it.
And the other thing people have to understand is that when you're looking at the reaction from the media to this and from Democrat politicians, and we're used to them being hysterical about dumb things, they're even more hysterical about this than maybe you would expect.
The reason is that is very simply that Stephen Colbert would have those people, look at any Democrat politician or journalist, news anchor who has expressed outrage and indignation at the fact that Stephen Colbert's show is canceled.
Look at any of them.
Every single one of them has been on Stephen Colbert's show.
He would have them on his show.
He treated them like celebrities.
And that's why they're really so upset about it is that this was their one opportunity to sit, you know, to go on a late night show and be treated like a celebrity.
Somebody on X said that Elizabeth Warren, for example, who was of all the elected Democrats is maybe the most upset about this.
And Elizabeth Warren had been on the late show, interviewed by Colbert like 14 times or something crazy.
I don't know if it was a bunch of times, Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren has been on this late night comedy show, not just once, but multiple times.
Now, Lennarman and Leno back in the old days, what qualifies as the old days now, they used to interview big popular movie stars and musicians.
And meanwhile, Stephen Colbert was interviewing Elizabeth Warren once a week.
And then on other days, he'd have some random CNN reporter that nobody's ever heard of or cares about.
And that explains both why the show is canceled and also why the media and these politicians are so heartbroken about it.
Because now they don't get to pretend to be celebrities anymore, which is what they all want to be.
That's what they all actually want to be.
There's a lot of speculation that Colbert got canned by CBS for criticizing Trump too much, which is, I mean, total nonsense, obviously, for a lot of reasons.
Starting with the fact that they're letting him stay on for almost a year.
Okay.
So if you've got any kind of conspiracy theory about why they're canceling the show, well, if you're firing somebody because you don't like what they're saying, if you're firing them because you're trying to silence them, you're not going to give them another year on the air.
It's like when you're firing someone, especially if you want to silence them, you fire them and they're gone.
So I guess the theory here is that they're silencing him, but they're going to give him another year on the air to, you know, with nothing to lose now to continue criticizing Trump.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
No, he got he didn't get fired for that, mostly because criticizing Trump is about the safest thing that somebody in Colbert's position can do.
No, he got fired because apparently the show cost more than $100 million to make a year and was losing $40 million a year.
Now, how in God's name can you manage to spend $100 million a year on a show where people sit in chairs and talk?
I have no idea.
Where is that money going?
Like, what were they doing with it?
Were they paying audience members 50 grand apiece to show up every night?
I mean, that would explain how they managed to fill the room every night, I suppose.
But I don't know.
Do they have a furnace in the basement where they're literally burning pallets of cash to keep the place warm?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
Colbert's exorbitant salary is part of the expense.
We know that.
And the other problem to go along with The production costs is that ratings for the late show and late night shows in general are way, way down from what they used to be.
Way down.
Like these late night shows have never cost more money to produce and they've never produced lower ratings.
And that is a very bad combination.
If you want to keep your job, you know, but the cost of having you around is going like this while your production's going like that, that's not a good combination.
That doesn't give you a lot of leverage.
So why are the ratings down?
Well, there's, you know, there's the obvious reason, especially for Cole Bear.
He's a partisan hack, an ideologue, a guy that never even tried to appeal to about half of the country.
He was essentially, you know, he's essentially Rachel.
He was a feminine version of Rachel Maddow.
Okay.
He was like the womanly version of Rachel Maddow.
And there are many examples of this that have been sort of circulating online.
People going down memory lane, remembering what a hack Colbert was.
Probably the most infamous example, which is also one of the most humiliating moments in the history of broadcast television, is, of course, when he would dance around on stage, which I think was a recurring bit, if you could even call it that, but he would dance around on stage back in 21, 22 as a tribute to the COVID vaccine.
Let's watch that again.
The vaccine.
you you Now, if I were Stephen Colbert and there was video of me doing something as humiliating as that, you would not need to fire me because I would have already, I would have performed, you know, Harakiri to atone for my sins and to preserve my family's honor.
And if Colbert did that, by the way, I'm not advocating for it.
I'm not advocating, but if he did that, all I'm saying is that it would easily be the highest rated late show episode, at least since Letterman left.
I mean, you could argue that that should be, like, maybe that's, maybe that should just be the tradition, is that when your late night talk show comes to an end, you have to perform, you know, Japanese-style ritualistic suicide on air.
I'm not advocating.
I'm just saying that there's, but there's some people who would say that that's, that that would be an interesting way to wrap things up.
Not me, though.
I would not support that.
Anyway, so, but this still is not the full story.
It's not just that Colbert is a partisan tool.
It's also that he's just not funny.
The show isn't funny.
Late night shows in general aren't funny.
And politics aside, because conservatives tend to focus on, oh, it was so partisan.
It was.
That's not just it.
I mean, you can be partisan and still be funny.
You could, I mean, it's possible to be an audiologue.
So you're only making jokes about one side, but you're also funny.
It is possible to do that.
But these shows have just forgotten how to be funny entirely.
So for example, I saw somebody posted this, I forget who, making the point that if you want to know why late night shows are tanking, this video I'm about to play is a good example.
And this is a very, this is like a recent skit.
I think it's from the last couple of days.
It was from last week.
Skit, I don't know, whatever you call it.
And it's from it's from the tonight show.
It's not from the late show.
But it just goes to show how abysmal the comedy has gotten in the late night world.
If you don't watch these shows at all, as I don't, because I'm under the age of 70, which by the way, that was the average age of a Colbert show viewer was about 70.
I think it was 68.
So when he came on, the average age was 60, which was already too old.
And so CBS brought Colbert on because they're thinking like, okay, well, the idea is that you're going to make the average age of our viewer go down.
We'd like for the average age to be like 45, maybe.
That's right in that key demo.
That's what we want.
And it went the other way.
Now the average age is 68.
Okay.
But so if you're not in your 70s and you probably don't watch these shows and you don't realize just how bad it's gotten, and I think that this will show you.
Okay.
This will be revelatory.
So this is the latest comedy skit from Jimmy Fallon over on The Tonight Show.
Watch this.
I'm in my jorts.
I'm in my jort shorts.
I'm in my jorts.
Jean shorts.
That means jorts.
My name's Carl and I wear jorts.
I like all sorts of racket sports.
Jorts.
I got my jort shorts on the course.
I'm in my jorts.
I'm in my jort shorts.
I'm in my jorts.
Jean shorts, that means jorts.
My name's Tony and I wear jorts while I'm giving cook reports.
Jorts.
I got my jort shorts and I'm smart.
Yeah, you watch that and you have to ask, why does that exist?
Why does that exist?
And I'm not even saying, oh man, that was weird.
That was so bizarre.
That's the reaction we're supposed to have.
We're supposed to think that it's quirky and random.
We're supposed to think that, oh, look at this.
This is eccentric.
It's trying to be that, but it's not.
Because this is a product.
What you just saw there, this is the product of a bunch of hacky, bad millennial writers sitting around in a room trying to think of something quirky that two Gen X past their prime comedians can do to appeal to Zoomers on TikTok, even though their actual audience is baby boomers.
Okay.
So that's how all the generations are implicated.
that's the weird calculus that you've got millennial writers, Gen X past their prime comedians, trying to do stuff that appeals to Zoomers, even though really the audience are boomers.
Okay, that's what this is.
And it just fails across the board.
It's unfunny, witless, not charming, not interesting, dumb, dumb in the worst kind of way, dumb and contrived at the same time, worst of all worlds.
If you're going to be dumb, at least be unique, but dumb and contrived, dumb and tired, dumb and lame at the same time.
And why are they trying to do viral skits to appeal to Zoomers in the first place?
Because the only people watching broadcast TV, especially late night shows, are, again, boomers.
So even if you succeed and you come up with some viral hit on TikTok, it doesn't actually translate into audience.
And that's the quandary, right?
That's the, if you're going to do anything, if you're going to create any kind of anything creative, you have to be able to say, you have to be able to answer the question, who is this for?
Now, you hope that like anybody will enjoy it, but who is it primarily for?
Who is your audience?
And I think with these late night shows, they just have no idea anymore who their audience is or who this is for.
Now, there were rumors all last week that some media outlet was working on some kind of explosive report relating to Trump and his ties to Epstein.
And then on, I guess it was Thursday night, the explosion allegedly came, right?
The Wall Street Journal came out with this report.
And, you know, to read from Colin Rugg's report on X right now, it says, the Wall Street Journal releases an alleged letter from Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein for Epstein's 50th birthday.
President Trump says the letter is a fake thing.
The letter allegedly involved a hand-drawn woman with text that read, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.
So this is some kind of birthday note, supposedly, that Trump sent Epstein 20 plus years ago.
There's also a really weird dialogue or script or something that they're claiming Trump wrote, depicting himself and Epstein having some sort of cryptic, ominous conversation where they reference secrets and enigmas.
And then there's this doodle, this picture that Trump wrote, drew of a woman.
Now, notably, there's no screenshot of the actual letter.
There's no image, no proof.
They saw the letter, supposedly.
They didn't take a picture of it, which means that there's no way because the letter was signed, supposedly.
So we should be able to look at it and be able to analyze the handwriting at least.
But we can't do that because there's no image.
There's no picture of the letter.
So we just got to take their word for it.
And of course, I do not take their word for it, not for a single second.
I don't think anyone really bought this, which is why this whole thing fizzled in a couple of days.
This was supposed to be the big bombshell, right?
And by Saturday, nobody was talking about it anymore.
So it's just pathetic all around, completely fake, clearly.
It doesn't sound like Trump.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, none of it makes any sense.
It doesn't make sense that they didn't take a picture of the letter.
It doesn't make any sense that this thing has existed supposedly for 20 years and hasn't come up before.
Trump's been on the political scene for a decade.
He's run for office three times.
He's won twice.
And yet this letter of where Trump wrote to a famous sex trafficker and said, you know, hey, let's make sure we keep all of our secrets.
Somehow that letter never, no one ever thought to mention that before.
So it's all nonsense and not much more to say about it than that, I suppose.
This is not how people talk to each other if they actually have dark secrets, I would think.
Like if you're a powerful person with dark secrets, I would assume that I've never been in the smoky dark rooms where they have these conversations, but I would assume this is not what you do.
Like you're not going to write a letter that says, hey, how about all those evil secrets, huh?
Let's hope no one finds out about those.
Am I right?
Hey, do you like this picture of a naked woman I drew?
It's just makes no sense.
It goes back to my point that I made back when Elon accused Trump of being in the Epstein files.
And as critical as I have been towards Trump over the Epstein stuff, I have never bought that Trump himself is criminally implicated.
That's never made any sense to me because if that were the case, there is just no way.
I'm sorry, there is no way in hell.
There is no possible way that they wouldn't have used that against him by now.
Like, it's just not, it's not possible that he could run for president three times and they had this on him and it never came out.
If they had the slightest evidence that Trump, you know, abused minors on Epstein Island, then that evidence would have made it into the public domain years and years and years ago.
So there's no way they sit on it.
Not remotely plausible.
A lot to criticize, I think, with the way the Epstein files have been handled.
And there's a lot you could speculate about why they've been handled this way, but this is not it.
I don't believe that for a second.
All right.
Finally, we'll mention this briefly.
The WNBA All-Star Game happened on Saturday.
Of course, you didn't know that.
Nobody knew that.
But the WNBA All-Star Game is a bit like, it's like talking about the best-dressed person at Waffle House or something.
It's like the best dressed Waffle House customer that's about on par with saying you're an all-star of the WNBA.
Very low bar.
In WNBA's case, they don't have any all-stars except one.
They have Caitlin Clark, who I think wasn't even playing, I don't think.
Or maybe I'm wrong about that, but nobody cares about any of the rest of them or even knows who they are.
But that didn't stop them from taking the court in this attire.
Here it is.
Check it out.
So the shirts say, pay us what you owe us, which I actually thought was pretty admirable and selfless because these ladies are volunteering to work for free, it would seem.
Because that's what that means.
With one exception, that is what they're owed.
Nothing.
Less than, actually, they're owed, they should be paying to play.
They should have to pay their way in like it's Little League, right?
That's how it should go.
Because the WNBA loses tens of millions of dollars a year every year.
It's propped up by the NBA, as most people know by now.
And that's still the case, even with record levels of interest in the sport due entirely and solely to Caitlin Clark.
Still, the league loses money by the truckload.
It lost $50 million last year on a record year for ratings.
So what does that tell you?
So how much are the rest of these ladies worth as basketball players?
Literally nothing.
I mean, not a dime.
Caitlin Clark should be, I mean, she really should be getting paid many millions of dollars, not because I'm interested in watching, but just because the fact that she's been able to generate any interest in the WNBA is a, I mean, you could argue it's one of the most impressive feats in human history.
I honestly didn't think it was possible.
I didn't think it was possible that anyone could generate even the slightest interest in the WNBA.
And she's generated a little bit.
And so I think that that is, I mean, that is really moving a mountain.
So she should, they should pay her, you know, exorbitant sums.
But for all the rest of them, it should be like Caitlin Clark has paid whatever, I don't know, 20 million a year.
And the rest of them, actually, the rest of them should be.
Really, what it should be is that all the other WNBA players are paying Caitlin Clark.
They should all be, there should be a pool, right?
They should all be putting money in a pool and then it all goes to Caitlin Clark as tribute.
That's what it should be.
But, you know, they demand raises anyway, which is a, which is a common problem, of course.
People who bring nothing to the table and contribute nothing at all still want to get paid like they do.
They still want raises.
You know, I hear this from employers all the time, this complaint that, and I mean, people have always done this since time immemorial, for as long as there have been anything like jobs, people.
But I think these days it's worse than it's ever been that people just have absolutely no clue what they're worth in the context of their profession.
Okay.
As a human being, you have infinite value.
You're a child of God.
Sure.
You can't put a price tag on a person as a person, but in your job, there is a price tag.
And you got a lot of people in the working world these days, in all professions, really, just have no concept of what they're actually worth.
And here's what you have to be able to do.
You got to be able to do kind of the theoretical math.
And you have to say, okay, if I wasn't here in this organization, what would happen?
What would happen to this organization if they didn't have me?
And in Caitlin Clark's case, her departure would be devastating to the organization.
It would be a catastrophe.
It would be the apocalypse if Caitlin Clark were to leave.
And if that's the case for you and your job, then you have leverage.
I mean, you've got a ton of leverage.
And then you can kick down the door and march in there and say, hey, pay me what I'm owed.
You can do that because you have immense value in the context of the organization where you work.
But unfortunately, for literally every other player in the WNBA, if they left, nothing would happen.
I mean, not a single thing would happen.
It would have no effect at all.
They'd be replaced by somebody else and that would be it.
So they have no leverage.
And it just astounds me to see the number of people.
It's not just the WNBA, again, who have no concept of this, no idea how to reasonably and honestly assess their own professional value.
I saw a tweet with like 60,000 likes that said, and I'm not, this is what it said, that basically the WNBA player salaries shouldn't have anything to do with the profits they generate.
I don't have the tweet in front of me.
It was like 60,000 likes saying that, you know, the profit for the business you work for is not your problem.
It shouldn't have anything to do.
It shouldn't have anything to do with your salary.
It's delusional.
It's a totally delusional attitude that people have and they're living in a fantasy land.
People, like they're walking around on a permanent 24-7 acid trip, and you see this anywhere you work.
You see these useless people who expect to get paid and promoted no matter how little they contribute.
On the other hand, you work with some people, right?
The Caitlin Clarks, and you're like, man, we can't lose this person.
Don't leave us.
Please don't leave us.
But then there are other people who, for them, it's like they could leave and I don't, we wouldn't know.
Like they could not be here.
They could evaporate and I'm not, it would change nothing.
We wouldn't even, it's like office space, right?
You could be working.
We wouldn't even know that you were gone.
And yet it's often the people in the latter category who go around talking about what they're owed.
So that's the thing.
It's the people that that's why, and there was a, there was a clip from some other WNBA player, some salty player who said that talking about the shirts, and they're really proud of the fact that they wore the shirts and say, pay us what you owe us.
And there was some WNBA player, again, I don't have the clip, it doesn't matter, who said, said, well, you know, I'm not tattletaling, but Team Clark, Caitlin Clark's team, they weren't really on board with the shirts.
Like they didn't really want to do, they weren't excited about wearing the shirts.
Now, I think Caitlin Clark did put on the shirt ultimately.
And she's, you know, because she's no courageous hero herself, by the way.
She's paid the tribute many times, the woke tribute.
She's bowed to the mob and all of that.
And it looks like she did that in this case.
But do you know why Caitlin Clark wasn't excited about wearing the shirt, according to you?
Because she doesn't need to.
Okay.
Only the people who are owed nothing and worth nothing need to put on the shirt saying, pay us what you owe us.
Right?
It's the most useless people who go around constantly talking about what they're owed.
That's the number one way to know if somebody is useless is if you constantly hear them talking about what they are owed.
Okay, there's this inverse correlation between how often you talk about what you're owed and what you're actually owed.
Now, if you have great value in your profession, then you need to advocate for yourself.
So sometimes those are conversations you need to have, but you shouldn't need to be constantly saying it.
If you're a real contributor, you don't have to constantly do it because your work speaks for itself.
Caitlin Clark, what she should have done, and she just doesn't have the guts to do this, but she should have been the only one not wearing that shirt.
Because her thing is like, hey, I'll let my play on the court speak.
I don't need to put this dumb shirt on.
Okay.
I'm not going to join all you people with your dumb, stupid shirt.
I'll go out and contribute.
Okay.
I'll make myself undeniable.
I will be undeniable in the way that I, in, in the way that I conduct myself, in the way that I perform and produce.
It's only the people who do nothing.
You know, and then you hear these people say, everywhere I work, everywhere I go, I'm never paid what I deserve.
Nobody appreciates me.
I'm always taken advantage of.
Well, it's because you're useless.
Okay.
That's why.
Okay.
Everywhere you go, every relationship I'm in, it never works out.
Everyone's always backstabbing me.
It's because you're a terrible person.
You're awful to be around.
You do nothing and you're a loser.
That's why nothing works for you in your life.
No one wants to be around you.
No one wants to pay you.
No one wants to be in a relationship with you.
Like, it's because of that.
It's because you're a loser.
You're an awful person.
And you are the common denominator in this life of you've made for yourself.
And so get it together and stop complaining.
That's the message.
That's my general message.
It's also a message to the WNBA players who are not named Caitlin Clark.
All right.
Let's get to the daily cancellation.
If you're stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a mess, don't wait.
The IRS is cracking down.
Penalties add up really fast.
5% per month up to 25% just for not filing.
But there's health.
Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.
They've helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years.
Messy books, no problem.
They've seen it all.
They know exactly how to clean it up.
With direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side, Tax Network USA knows how to win.
You'll get a free consultation.
And if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.
More importantly, they'll help to protect you from wage garnishment or bank levies.
So don't wait for the next IRS letter.
Call 800-9581000 or visit tnusa.com slash walsh to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.
Take the pressure off.
Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues for you.
It was the Kiss Cam scene around the world.
As everyone in America and every other country on earth knows by now, the CEO of a tech company called Astronomer Andy Byron was caught on the Jumbotron at a ColdPlay concert in a romantic embrace with the head of his HR department, Kristen Cabot.
Both of them are married, just not to each other, although we can expect that their marital statuses may be rapidly changing after this video went mega viral, massively, massively viral.
We haven't seen anything this viral since Hoctua.
Okay, this is Hoctua territory.
And that's how viral went over the weekend.
And here it is.
If somehow you've managed to not see it, I'm going to ruin that streak for you now.
Watch.
Yeah.
Oh, look at these two.
All right, come on.
You're okay?
Uh-oh, what?
Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy.
Absolutely shameful display.
It is just shocking and incomprehensible that two people would go to a cold play concert.
And now, I know that a million people have already made that joke, but as a dad, I have no aversion to repeating worn-out jokes.
Anyway, as you saw, they were caught cuddling up to each other and then panicked when the camera panned to them.
Andy hit the deck like somebody just threw a grenade.
Kristen turned away and covered her face, but it was too late.
I mean, the train had left the station along with half of their net worth in the divorce settlements.
Granted, there is no good way to react when you end up on the Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert hugging the coworker you're having an affair with.
But of all the bad options, these two chose the absolute worst one.
Now, if only they'd practiced improv or something, then they might have thought to pretend like Kristen was choking and Andy was doing the Heimlich.
Maybe she could have pretended that she passed out from sheer boredom.
It is a cold play concert after all.
Andy was dragging her out to receive medical attention.
Any of those tactics or any other tactic at all would have been better.
Now, I'm making jokes, and so is the rest of the planet.
And rightfully so.
These two did something evil and shameful, and they did it brazenly in public in an arena surrounded by thousands of people.
And now they're experiencing the consequences.
And there is something incredibly absurd about the whole thing, which makes the jokes justified and inevitable, if not perhaps very nice.
But amid all the mockery, we should not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about adultery, and adultery is incredibly harmful and deeply wicked.
That's why when this first went viral, I responded on X with a take that will surprise nobody in my audience.
I said that adultery ought to be against the law.
There should be not just personal and professional, but legal repercussions as well.
This is the kind of statement that shocks and appalls the modern mind, but would not have shocked or appalled anyone in the world until very recently.
Laws against adultery were commonplace for centuries everywhere.
And I'm not saying that we should criminalize adultery solely for that reason, but when the voices of our ancestors speak up unanimously on a subject, it's wise to at least listen to them.
Maybe everybody in the world was wrong for thousands of years until you came along.
I mean, it is possible they were wrong about certain things, but there's a very good chance that they had a very good reason for approaching things the way they did.
In the case of criminalizing adultery, the reason is exceedingly clear.
It's quite simple.
Adultery is a deeply evil act that causes grave harm to other people, namely your spouse, your children, your family, and to a lesser, though still very real extent, especially in this case, your friends, your colleagues, and your community.
Now, I would argue that if an act is A, deeply evil, which adultery is, and B, it causes grave harm to innocent third parties, which adultery clearly does, then by definition, it should be illegal.
Laws quite literally exist to prohibit such behavior, which is why I could provide a laundry list of things that are an order of magnitude less harmful than adultery that are nonetheless illegal and should be.
Things like shoplifting, littering, obvious examples, but even something like assault, you know, walking up to a stranger and punching him in the face is clearly, in my mind, less evil and usually less harmful than adultery.
With adultery, you're destroying the lives of the people closest to you in the world.
With the punch in the face in this example, you're causing probably temporary physical damage to a stranger.
So if the latter is obviously illegal, then how much more obvious is it or should it be for the former?
In any case, this is what I wanted to talk about for our daily cancellation.
And I guess I already have talked about it for a while at this point.
But the conversation took an interesting turn because of some of the feedback to my post.
A number of men, including some prominent ones, responded that my idea is bad, not because adultery is okay universally, but because it's okay specifically for men.
This is the point that Andrew Tate made in a reply to me on X. It's worth responding in some depth because his perspective on marriage and family life has proven, we must admit, quite appealing to a large number of young men.
And I think that that is a very troubling thing because his perspective on this topic is wrong and I'll explain why.
So here's Andrew Tate reading, quote, great way to put the nail in marriage's coffin.
Nobody gets married anymore because of women like her.
Men are men, always have been and will be.
He's allowed.
She isn't.
Telling men if they touch another girl at any point in their lives equals financial decimation is why nobody gets married anymore.
Now, I responded and said, I disagree.
Loyalty and integrity are essential virtues for a man.
If you make a vow before God, you keep it.
Sneaking around with another woman while your wife is at home with your children is a violation of the promise you made to her and to God and therefore unmanly and weak.
I have four sons and raised them to always keep the promises.
Never make a promise you don't intend to keep.
This is fundamental.
Now, Tate had another rebuttal.
He wrote, agreed on this point about teaching our sons to keep the promises, which is why any man with a brain doesn't hand over keys to his castle to a misandric legal system and over-emotional, unchecked females.
The world's changed, Matt.
Women are a fraction of what they were.
Telling men to just get married and just be loyal gets men wrecked.
The only way they hold the relationship together is to give up any ounce of masculinity, living hell.
The smartest move on the chessboard for a man now is to get rich and have as many children as he wants or as many women as he wants and take care of them all.
Second world, avoid first world courts.
Own your empire and women will respect you in return for their provision.
Four sons isn't bad.
I have more and I always will.
And no woman can steal my hundreds of millions.
Marriage is suicide.
Feminists built a world where females have no duty as wives and every possibility to destroy you.
If you can't change the game, win the game.
Now, I've already made the argument that laws against adultery, which I support, have a lot of historical precedent.
I must acknowledge then the same thing here.
The setup which Andrew Tate describes and promotes, where men have children by many different women, has lots of historical precedent.
It does.
This is the way that primitive societies have operated for thousands of years.
And today, this strategy, if we can call it that, is very popular in certain communities in this country.
And you could always spot those communities because they're the ones that are the most dysfunctional, the filthiest, most destitute, and crime-ridden places in the country.
Show me the murder rate and the average yearly income in any neighborhood, and I will tell you whether most of the children in that neighborhood have a father in the home or not.
And I will never be wrong.
Andrew Tate talks about this kind of lifestyle as though it's natural.
In a post on Sunday, he made that claim explicitly.
He said, quote, monogamy isn't natural for men.
Men are men.
This is how they'll always be.
And he's right in a certain way.
It is natural.
It's natural in the sense that it appeals to our most base and uncivilized impulses.
Another word might be primitive.
An even better word would be animalistic, which is why it's so commonly found in the animal kingdom.
Reptiles and fish behave this way.
You're not going to find a monogamous lizard or shark.
Monkeys are almost always non-monogamous.
Go down the list of animal species and they almost all approach family formation the way that Andrew Tate prescribes.
But the problem is that we are not monkeys or lizards or sharks.
We are human beings.
And my controversial contention is that we should act like it.
Is monogamy natural?
Even better, it's supernatural.
Man and wife become one at the altar.
They are bound together by the vow they made before God.
This is above our base instincts.
And so is composing a symphony or sculpting the statue of David out of a massive hunk of marble.
These things are achieved, just like any great thing is achieved, by rejecting temptation, subordinating our base desires, embracing some measure of hardship for the sake of something far greater than whatever momentary pleasure we can experience by giving in to them.
And there is nothing in this world more manly, more masculine than that.
In fact, I would say this is the very definition of masculinity.
Can you do the harder thing for the sake of the greater good?
If you're going to impart one thing to your sons and your daughters as a father, it should be this.
Teaching them how to do the harder thing for the greater good.
And if you can't or if you won't, then you aren't manly.
And no matter how much money you have or how much you can bench press, it doesn't matter.
Now, Tate says that men will be men, and yes, that's true, but will they be good men?
Will they be men of virtue and fidelity and discipline?
They can be if they pursue the higher thing.
In a similar way, I might say that many men will father children.
That's easy to do.
But will they be fathers?
They have children.
Will they raise them?
That's the hard part.
Now, I keep talking about hardship and difficulty, rightly so.
But I don't want to make it sound like being a faithful husband and father is nothing but misery and drudgery and all you can do is just grit your teeth and bear it.
That's not the case.
I love being married.
I love being a dad.
It's a lot of fun much of the time.
It's a source of great joy.
That's what happens when you simply let go of your childish need to put your own immediate gratification before anything and everything all the time.
You discover an ability to do the harder thing and actually enjoy it.
The way that guys like Tate describe marriage makes it seem like, you know, we're living in entirely different universes, and perhaps we are, because he describes marriage like it's a labor camp.
A man is imprisoned by his controlling, ungrateful, promiscuous wife who runs out to cheat on him as soon as he leaves for work in the morning.
He makes it seem or outright claims that it's essentially impossible for a man to find a good, faithful woman who will bear his children, stay true to her vows, and respect and love him until he dies.
But how could it be impossible?
I am currently in such an arrangement.
I know many men in the same boat.
If you don't know any truly happy and faithful marriages, then I would suggest that the problem isn't with marriage.
It's that you are surrounding yourself with awful people.
Now, finally, back to the subject of raising boys.
I will say that if you want boys to become men, you cannot leave them to be raised almost entirely by women.
Boys need the daily guidance and example that can only be provided by a man who lives in the home and has committed himself to that family and that family alone.
Now, Tate says that he has more sons than I do.
I believe him.
But my sons and my daughters have more of me than Tate's children will ever have of him.
I come home to them every night.
Their home is my home.
I sit at the head of our table when we eat dinner.
We say our prayers before bed.
I give them a kiss goodnight.
And every night, every night for years, as I'm turning off the lights in their room, they say to me, Dad, will you stay up for a while?
Because they want to know that I'll be there awake watching over the house so they can rest easy.
And my answer is always yes, no matter how tired I am.
You need to be at home with your children.
You need to be the captain of the ship, which means you have to be on the ship.
You need to eat and sleep there and walk the deck with your crew and share in the hardship and the struggle and the joy and the triumph.
And most of all, you need to be there when the storms come.
And they will come.
And that's why I have one wife and one family.
And they will be mine until I die.
And I'd rather die than leave them or betray them or frankly go to a Cold Play concert just to bring this all full circle.
And that's why all adulterers and fornicators and polygamists and Cold Play fans are today canceled.
