Ep. 1673 - POLITICO Releases An Egregious Hit Piece And Many Republicans Are Falling For It
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Politico publishes a hit piece against a few Young Republicans who made edgy jokes in a group chat. Meanwhile leftists openly celebrate political violence and the murder of children. They want us to take their handwringing over a random group chat seriously. We shouldn't. Also, leftist protest ICE in the nude. Why do they always feel the need to take their clothes off? There's actually an answer to that question. And CNN worries that the "male gaze" has made a comeback. What does that even mean?
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1673
- - -
DailyWire+:
Go to https://dailywireplus.com to join and get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout.
Mark your calendars — Friendly Fire premieres October 16th at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively on DailyWire+.
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Prize Picks - Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/WALSH and use code WALSH and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup!
Boll and Branch - Get 20% off Bed Bundles at https://BollAndBranch.com/walsh
Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com/pages/podcasters and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
Equip Foods - Equip’s Prime Bar is a real food protein bar with nothing to hide: just 11 ingredients and 20g of clean protein - made from ingredients you can pronounce like collagen, beef tallow, colostrum, cocoa butter - and sweetened naturally with just date and honey. Matt Walsh listeners will get 25% off one-time purchases, or 40% off first subscription orders for a limited time by heading to https://equipfoods.com/mattwalsh and using code MATTWALSH at checkout.
- - -
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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Say the Matwall Show Politico publishes a hit piece against a few young Republicans who made edgy jokes in a group chat.
Meanwhile, leftists openly celebrate political violence and the murder of children.
They want us to take their hand wringing over a random group chat seriously.
We shouldn't.
Also, leftist protest ice in the nude.
Why do they always feel the need to take their clothes off?
There's actually an answer to that question, and we'll talk about it.
And CNN worries that the male gaze, quote unquote, has made a comeback.
What does that even mean?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
This episode is brought to you by PrizePix.
You and I make decisions every day, but on PrizePix, being right can get you paid.
Don't miss any of the excitement this season on PrizePix, where it's good to be right.
I'm excited to see some of these teams match up this year, and I love how PrizePix has all their player projections, so I can watch the games and keep track of how well the players do versus how well they're not doing.
Plus, I have a shot to win money, and who doesn't love that?
PrizePix is the daily fantasy app that makes football even more exciting by letting you create lineups in less than a minute, Just choose more or less on at least two player projections, and you are in the game.
This season brings something brand new, stacks.
The only feature that lets you select the same player up to three times in one lineup.
So if you're confident in a quarterback's passing, rushing, and touchdowns, you can put all those projections together with options like flex play for added wiggle room or power play for big bigger potential payouts, plus features like injury reboots.
That protect your lineup if a player leaves early.
Prize picks puts you in control.
Available in over 40 states with fast and secure deposits through Venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard, and more.
It's America's number one fantasy sports app for a reason.
Download the PrizePix app today.
Use code Walsh to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.
That's code Walsh to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.
Prize picks.
It's good to be right.
In just the past few months, conservatives have seen tens of thousands of Democrats openly celebrate the murder of Charlie Kirk, just as they celebrated the murder of the United Healthcare CEO and just as they celebrated the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
We've seen Antifa mobs surrounding ice vehicles and assaulting officers, only for Democrats to order the local police to stand down.
We've seen Democrats vandalize dozens of cars because of Elon Musk only to suffer no criminal consequences whatsoever in states like Minnesota.
We've seen Democrat politicians react to transgender mass shootings at Christian churches by defending the so-called trans community rather than the Christians who are being slaughtered.
We've also seen the entire Democrat Party rally around their nominee for Attorney General of Virginia, Jay Jones, after he openly fantasized about the murder of children, specifically the children of his political opponents.
To this day, not a single prominent Democrat has called on Jay Jones to drop out of the race.
Not a single one.
In fact, the Democrat candidate for governor of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger, grinned like a sociopath when she was asked about Jay Jones during a recent debate.
There are two conclusions that we can draw from all this.
First, Democrats are the party of political violence.
They commit political violence all the time.
They celebrate it.
We know that.
And secondly, Democrats stick together.
When Democrats are caught on camera attacking federal officers or talking about killing children in text messages, the leadership of the Democrat Party doesn't issue any kind of condemnation.
Instead, if they decide to say anything at all, Democrats will blame their victims.
After all, their victims are fascists and Nazis.
They deserve what they get in the eyes of the left.
In a political environment like this, if you can even call it a political environment, the only way for an opposing party to survive is to understand the situation that we're in and the rules that the left is playing by.
Now, that's not to say that we should endorse political violence or celebrate violence.
Obviously, we don't do that under any circumstance, but at the same time, we need to adopt a kind of wartime Footing.
Okay, because this is a, we are in a this is a culture war.
We have to avoid unnecessary infighting.
Yeah, we can't place a premium on decorum or civility right now.
We don't have the luxury for that.
We have to start acting like a movement that is going to be slaughtered in the literal sense if we don't recognize the nature of our enemy and unite in an effort to defeat them.
Because that's exactly the position that we're in.
What we saw yesterday reveals that a lot of powerful conservatives, even after everything we've seen this year, are still somehow blind to this reality.
In response to a hit piece published in the Virginia-based newsletter known as Politico, several conservatives lost their jobs or were condemned by various GOP organizations, including the Young Republicans, which builds itself as the oldest youth-focused political organization in the United States.
They're supposedly key to the Republican Party's outreach to young people, which is obviously a critically important objective.
And they just completely caved right away.
Now, I'm not going to quote extensibly from the politico hit piece or use any of the conservatives' names that are mentioned in it.
Instead, I'll show you the precise moment that everybody on the right, from the party's leaders on down, should have just stopped taking this article seriously.
And here it is.
It's the headline.
Okay?
And the headline reads this: quote, I love Hitler.
Leaked messages expose young Republicans racist chat.
Well, this is the point where, you know, you you can close the browser window.
End of discussion.
When these people say there's a racist chat, they have nothing.
There's nothing for us to take seriously.
They define all conservative speech, every bit of it, as racist.
And that means that the accusation coming from the left has no meaning.
They have lost the right to be taken seriously when they use that term.
That's the stance we should take.
If you're on the left, you have lost the right to ever be taken seriously when you call something racist.
That word coming from you is gibberish.
Does that mean racism doesn't exist?
Does that mean that there's that there is no possible objective definition of the term?
No.
You have lost the right to be taken seriously.
After decades of the left calling anything conservatives say racist, the very least we should be doing as conservatives is the moment they open their mouths and say, well, that was racist, we tune out.
Oh, but don't you want to hear the racist?
No, I don't care.
Don't care.
You have lost the right to be taken.
You haven't lost the right to say it.
You can say it.
You have lost the right to be taken seriously when you say it.
Throwing that word around like confetti for 30 years tends to have that effect.
So that's what the response from the right should have been.
That's where response from conservatives should have been.
Oh, you found something you think is racist?
I don't care.
I don't kick, because you're the one saying it.
I don't care.
Don't care.
You know, if they're not talking about, especially a named political figure, and if they're just going after nameless young Republicans, then that's all the more reason why you could just ignore this and save yourself the time.
And indeed, uh, if you continue reading for some reason, you'll discover that this article is worse than useless.
It's about a bunch of college students and recent college graduates in a in a uh private group chat making edgy comments and dumb jokes.
There's a grand total of one guy who's mentioned in this article who works in the Trump administration.
And he didn't make a single comment that political quoted.
So they're faulting him for, I don't know, reading some random kid say, I love Hitler.
Actually, they're not even doing that because they don't even know that he read any of these messages.
I mean, any of us who have experience with being in group chats, you could have a group chat that's going for years and you never even look at it.
The idea that you're even aware of every single thing that's in the group chat is ridiculous.
Here's the claim the Politico uh makes in the article, quote.
At least one person in the Telegram chat works in the Trump administration.
He Serves as a senior advisor in the office of general counsel within the U.S. Small Business Administration.
He did not have much to say in the chat, but he didn't offer any pushback against the offensive rhetoric in it either.
He declined to comment.
Oh, he didn't offer.
He didn't send any messages in the group chat saying, say, fellas, this is inappropriate.
Hey, fellas, let's, hey, come on, guys.
He didn't do that.
And so he's guilty.
This is the purest possible form of guilt by association.
If you're a member of a massive group chat, then according to Politico, you're responsible for everything they say across tens of thousands of pages of messages over a period of seven months.
You need to know every single thing that was said.
And if there's anything in it that was inappropriate, you need to speak up right there in the group chat and denounce it.
And of course, within seconds, this became a Democrat Party talking point.
Here's Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, quote, uh, this is some vile stuff, and these aren't teenagers.
Many are Republican staffers.
At least one works for Trump.
Yes, the guy who works for Trump who didn't say anything quoted in the article is now being smeared as a racist who loves Hitler.
That's how this works.
And by the way, buried around 50 paragraphs down in Politico's article, you'll find this line, quote, many of the slurs, epithets, and violent language used in the chat often appear to be intended as jokes.
Yes, jokes.
Which is, which is, by the way, remember Jay Jones was not joking.
And he was clear that he wasn't joking.
He was very serious.
He wants his political opponents to die.
He actually wants them to die, to be shot.
He'd be happy to do it himself.
And he was very clear that he is not joking.
Now, here's one example of these uh of these jokes, these actual jokes, as reported by Politico.
Um, someone in the Michigan Young Republican says that he had some back and forth with a vice chair in Michigan who told him that the current chair of the organization isn't working out.
But on the bright side, he says, my delegates will vote for the most right wing person.
So they're excited about replacing the chair with someone who's very right wing.
And then somebody replies, Great, I love Hitler.
And in response, somebody replies with a laughing emoji.
Pretty pretty good indication, by the way, when you see the laughing emoji that uh that it's a you know it's a joke.
But this is what Politico put in the headline of the article.
They made it seem like there was some serious discussion among young Republicans about how great Hitler is.
But then when you read the context, they're obviously joking, using an extreme example for effect.
You know, it it's saying, oh, yeah, I'm uh, you know, I'm really right wing, you know, I love Hitler.
It's like, it's like that.
It's clearly a sarcastic joke, very much in the vein of the kinds of sarcastic jokes that right wingers make all the time.
You know, it's a bit like somebody going to use a porta potty or something and coming back out and announcing to his friends that you know he really dropped an atom bomb in there.
No one who hears that is gonna think, well, my God, this guy endorses the use of atom bombs within the borders of the United States.
This is violent rhetoric.
But if you take the remark out of context and blast it in a headline in Politico, then you're probably going to convince a lot of people that this person is a domestic terrorist who's planning uh planting dirty bombs in public toilets.
That's why, in general, it's a bad idea to take private jokes between small numbers of people and and many of whom are not public figures at all, and not relevant publicly at all, and then publish them in a news article.
Now, as you read on, uh, as you read on in the political hit piece, which which really there's no reason to, um, you get paragraphs like this: quote, the private rhetoric isn't happening in a vacuum.
It comes amid a widespread coarsening of the broader political discourse, and as incendiary and racially offensive tropes from the right become increasingly common in public debate.
Last month, Trump posted an artificial intelligence generated video that showed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero beside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose fabricated remarks were about trading free health care for immigrant votes, a false long-running GOP trope.
The sombrero meme has been widely used to mock Democrats as the government uh shutdown wears on.
Okay, so that's the official position of Politico.
And if you're a conservative who has taken this article at face value and spread it around and amplified it and issued your denunciations, this is what you're going along with.
This is what you're amplifying.
You're amplifying the whole thing.
Congratulations.
Politico, they're upset about the sombrero meme meme, which was up with you know objectively was hilarious.
They say it's false that Democrats are handing out, uh, use it offering handouts to attract votes from foreigners, even though it's clearly true.
In fact, it's their entire platform.
So this is the news outlet that we're supposed to take seriously, and incredibly, some Republicans are taking it seriously.
According to the article, quote, since Politico began making inquiries, one member of the group chat is no longer employed at their job, and another's job offer was rescinded.
Prominent New York Republicans, including Representative Elie Stefanick and state Senate Minority Leader Rob Ort have denounced the chat.
So has Ed Cox, the chair of the uh New York State GOP, along with the North Carolina Federation of Young Republicans, the Republican Party of Arizona, the Missouri GOP, the Kansas GOP, and many, many others.
All of them lining up to say, I denoun, I denounce this.
I denounce it too.
Hey, I also denounce it.
Who are you denouncing it for, by the way?
Who is that for?
Who are you who you who are you doing it for?
You're doing it for the left.
You're doing it for the mainstream media.
You're doing it for their approval.
It's the only reason you're doing it.
If you have an actual problem, I don't I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp.
If you have an actual problem with something that someone says, someone on the right says, and you're offended by it or you think it's problematic or whatever.
You know, you can reach out to them in private.
Not everything has to be in public.
You don't need to stand.
Um, you don't need to jump on the dogpile with the left.
You don't need to stand in front of the left performatively and saying, I would like everyone to know that I also think this is bad.
Oh, good for you.
Do you want a cookie?
What do you want?
You want a ribbon?
You want they're gonna give you a little pat on the head?
Well, good, good, good boy, good boy.
Is that what you're looking for?
All these Republican organizations have condemned the young Republicans mentioned in the political hit piece and many others.
Additionally, the board of directors of the National Young Republicans group put out this statement.
Uh it says, quote, we're appalled by the violent, inexcusable language revealed in the political article published today.
Such behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents.
Those involved must immediately resign from all positions within their state and local young Republican organizations.
We must hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity, respect, and professionalism.
That's from the board of directors.
All involved?
Really?
So what do you mean all it?
So everybody in the group chat?
All of them should should lose their jobs?
Should be done.
This is how quick we are.
Anyone who's even like in the chat, you're ready to just throw them all to the wolves.
Now, this this response is indistinguishable from the statements released by various Democrats in response to this story.
None of whom have condemned Jay Jones for wishing death on the children of conservative parents.
None of them have.
Chuck Schumer posted this statement, for example, in response to the political hippies, quote, sickening, revolting, vile.
This makes you want to throw up.
This is the kind of garbage that the worst kinds of people say when they think nobody is watching.
And where are Republican leaders from Trump on down condemning these comments swiftly and unequivocally?
I'm waiting to hear it.
I mean, you almost have to stand in awe and admire the sheer gall of a statement like this.
He's stating in no uncertain terms that Democrats can, Democrats can wish death on their political opponents, but conservative college students can't make offensive jokes in a private group chat.
That's when he's sickened.
Okay, this scumbag, this son of a had nothing to say when you got the the future attorney general of the state of Virginia is saying that his political opponents should be shot in the head and killed along with their children.
Was Chuck Schumer sickened?
Was he sickened by that?
Did he want to throw up?
No.
When you had thousands of leftists, thousands of them for weeks celebrating the fact that one of the most prominent conservatives in the country was shot in the throat and killed on camera.
And wishing for the same fate to befall other conservatives.
Was Chuck Schumer sickened?
Was he sickened by that?
Did he want to throw up?
Did his tummy hurt?
No.
Nothing to say about it.
Nothing at all.
And yet some random jokes in a private group chat that nobody even saw, except for the people in it, between people who are not even relevant, making comments, most of which are clearly jokes.
That all of a sudden is, well, this is, oh, I can't believe I'm tossing and turning at night.
I'm having nightmares.
No, if you're on the right, you do not join in to this performative nonsense.
Okay, these scumbags, these dishonest scumbags with no honor and no integrity.
You don't join with them.
You don't stand next to them and say, yes, I agree.
I agree with you on this.
I'm not like them.
You don't do that.
But this is the position of the entire Democrat Party.
And until that changes, I don't want to hear a single word from any Republican about how horrible these telegram messages supposedly were.
It's not even worth saying, well, you know, it's inappropriate.
It's really bad, but boys will be boys.
Don't even say that.
Don't even qualify it.
Okay?
Don't even qualify it by saying, well, I certainly am opposed to it.
I think it's bad, but Democrats are worse.
That's giving these people far too much credit.
Democrats have so degraded our civic discourse and our civic life to the point that Republican events now have to be held indoors with metal detectors at every campus because there's a legitimate risk of a Democrat sniper on the roof.
Okay.
These people are the reason I have to have 24 hours security at my house to protect my children.
And you think these people are actually concerned about jokes in a group chat.
I have to condemn jokes in a group chat for their sake.
Like we're pretending that that has any relevance at all, that it even matters in the slightest bit in the face of everything that we're seeing.
No, they aren't actually concerned about any of these jokes in the group chat.
No one actually cares.
They simply want to use every available method to destroy us.
And they're especially interested in destroying youth outreach organizations.
That's why they killed Charlie Kirk, celebrated his assassination.
They understood the threat posed by Turning Point, and they understand the threat posed by this young Republicans' group as well.
Democrats have realized they have a real problem with support among young people.
They've managed to destroy one of their most reliable demographics through their sheer insanity.
And rather than address that problem by changing their policies, they decided to start dismantling youth-focused conservative groups with acts of terrorism if necessary.
That's how the left intends on taking back the youth taking back the youth vote by force.
And in response, we should be defending young people from malicious dishonest attacks like this.
Or at the very least, refusing to take part in it.
Now, J.D. Vance, to his credit, saw this hit piece for what it was.
He immediately put out this response, pointing out the Democrats have embraced Jay Jones.
Quote, this is far worse than anything said in a college group chat.
And the guy who said it could become the AG of Virginia.
I refuse to join the pro-clutching when powerful people call for political violence, close quote.
Which is a great statement.
And you notice what he does, he's not playing the game in that statement.
He's not doing the denunciation and then saying, yeah, but you know, Democrats are worse.
What he's saying is, no, I'm not playing the game.
I'm not going to play the game.
Not going to do it.
I'm not going to abide by rules that you people set, but don't abide by yourselves.
I'm not going to do it.
The young Republicans of Texas put out a similar statement hitting Jay Jones.
And that's the only appropriate response when Democrats attempt to use our morality against us.
Don't apologize.
Don't fire anyone.
Don't give them what they want.
You don't have to be happy about the group chat.
You don't have to go through one by one in each piece and like defend each part of it.
You don't have to do that and you should do it.
But realistically, if you want to defend against the leftist onslaught against our lives and our freedoms, it's it's, you know, uh what you cannot do is join in this attack.
And I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right.
I'm saying that we can either stick together or we can lose everything.
That that's the choice the leftists have created for us.
They're waging a highly asymmetric war at the moment.
And in every case, they're defending the most vile and overt corruption imaginable.
They're defending violence.
And when you're up against an opponent like that, you simply cannot abide by whatever um rules of polite political discourse you think are still in effect.
They're not.
Political discourse is already broken down.
We're at the point where every day or so we learn of a new effort by Democrats to cover for one another.
In fact, before this ridiculous political story broke yesterday, my first thought was to do an opening monologue on Letitia James, the Democrats' flagrantly corrupt attorney general in New York.
Here's how the New York Times is covering the fact that she's just been indicted for falsely claiming that she was using a House of Virginia as her second home.
Uh, this is the Times headline.
Quote, in the eye of a political storm, a tiny yellow house in Norfolk, Virginia, uh, Attorney General Leticia James of New York purchased the 137,000 home for a grandniece who needed tranquility.
Prosecutors say it's an impermissible investment property.
An impermissible investment property.
So they're portraying Letitia James as a saintly figure who purchased a home for a relative who needed tranquility.
Meanwhile, here's how the New York Post is covering the same story.
Quote, New York's top law enforcer is housing a cop-hating fugitive, uh, fugitive relative with a lengthy felony Rhapsody, who was twice arrested for assaulting police officers at one of her Virginia homes, according to court documents.
State Attorney General Letitia James's grandniece, Nakia Thompson 36, is currently wanted for absconding from North Carolina after failing to complete the terms of her parole following the 2011 arrest in Winston-Salem.
Uh Thompson has also been repeatedly arrested and cited in Virginia since moving there with charges including possession of burglary tools, contributing to delinquency of a minor, and grand larceny.
Oh well, that changes things a little bit.
If you read the New York Times, you'll come away with the impression that Letitia James is being prosecuted because she's too thoughtful.
She's just too nice to her grandniece.
So the Trump administration wants to throw her in jail.
And then you learn that in reality, she's harboring a wanted criminal.
This is how the left operates.
Even when they commit crimes, even when they house criminals, even when they call for the murder of their political opponents, they they circle the wagons.
They put out stories that flagrantly lie about what's happening.
And they don't even contemplate the possibility, even for a second, of admitting fault.
They understand that Letitia James tried to bankrupt their primary political opponent, Donald Trump, and that's all that matters to them.
It's all that matters to New Yorkers as well.
Take a look at the reception for Letitia James at a uh Zoran Momdani rally.
at us.
We got you.
I love you.
I love you.
I appreciate you and I've got your back.
*crowd cheers* You
Think about this scene for a second.
This woman ran on a platform of taking down Donald Trump by any means necessary.
It was obviously a corrupt promise for a candidate to uh for attorney general to make, but it resonated with New Yorkers who wanted to see Donald Trump bankrupted and imprisoned.
And then ultimately, as we all know, Letitia James failed.
Trump won the presidency and he won the civil case.
She failed to deliver on her one campaign promise, which was to abuse the power of her office for partisan reasons.
And yet, despite her failure, the communists at this rally still worship her.
On the left, you know, that that's the level of party loyalty that they have.
Even when you fail, if you're a member of the party in good standing, they have your back.
And as Letitia James said, she has their back too.
Now there aren't many tenants of uh tenets of of leftism that the right should adopt.
In fact, there are no tenants.
There are no tenants of leftism the right should adopt.
But there is a strategy or two.
And this is one of them.
Now we shouldn't be blindly loyal to political figures.
We shouldn't outright defend immoral conduct.
We shouldn't cover for criminal behavior like the left does.
But a basic level.
Okay, I'm talking about a basic level of unity of having each other's backs is necessary.
A unified movement will always defeat a fractured one.
It's just that simple.
And there's no way around it.
And if we're going to become fractured over some jokes in a group chat and over the next thing that the left throws at us.
If we're going to take our eye off the ball every time they come along with another hit piece, while our enemies openly commit crimes and celebrate murder, then we simply we're not going to make it.
The messages in that group chat were not a story.
Even the left doesn't really think that those messages were a story.
If you're on the right and you come to any other conclusion, then you're a liability.
And and from a leadership perspective, you need to step aside so that someone, even someone who might make the occasional off-color joke, is able to actually lead and help us defeat our common enemy.
One month after Charlie Kirk's death, there is no shortage of conservatives who want to meet that challenge.
And regardless of what they think about us over at Politico's headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, we should let them do it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Honestly, I never thought much about switching up my betting with the seasons.
Sheets are sheets, right?
Well, wrong.
One bowl and branch bundle upgrade later, and my bedroom actually feels like a retreat instead of just where I crash after a long day of uh talking about the stupidity in our culture.
They're 100% organic cotton, isn't some flimsy stuff that falls apart after a few washes.
And I'm actually looking forward to those crisp fall nights.
I'm not usually the guy who gets excited about betting, but you know, bowling branches bed bundles just make a lot of sense.
Instead of piecing together sheets, blankets, and whatever else one by one, like you're building IKEA furniture, you just click once and get everything you need for a decent night's sleep.
They've got different bundles depending on whether you're the type who runs hot, cold, or just want to feel like you're sleeping on a cloud.
And before you ask, yes, it's all made from 100% organic cotton, so you can feel good about yourself while you're passed out for eight hours.
Plus, they uh throw in a 30-night guarantee because they're confident you won't want to return to your old sad sheets.
Honestly, it's probably the easiest room upgrade you'll ever make.
We just added these sheets to the kids' room also, and wife keeps commenting on how they actually get softer with every wash.
It's pretty much the opposite of every other bedding we've ever bought.
After trying them, we c you know, we just can't go back.
Cannot go back to the old ways.
Bolin Branch makes upgrading your bed easier than ever with curated bundles for a sanctuary of comfort for limited time, get 20% off.
Uh bed bundles plus free shipping and returns at Boland Branch.com slash walsh.
That's Bolin Branch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash walsh to save up to 20% and unlock free shipping exclusions apply.
All right, let me paint you a picture.
It's Tuesday morning.
You reach for your supplements and vitamins and empty bottle.
Great.
Well, now you gotta spend your lunch break, drive into some overpriced vitamin store because you forgot to reorder again.
Or hear me out, you could just make it automatic.
I became a balance of nature, preferred customer because honestly, I have better things to do uh better things to do than remember when I'm running low on supplements.
Every 28 days, they just show up, like clockwork, no brain power required.
And here's the part that it's actually pretty great.
You get the lowest price they offer every single time.
No coupon hunting, no flash sale nonsense, just the best price automatically every time.
Oh, and shipping, totally free every month.
Nice to see a company that doesn't nickel and dime you to death.
But here's what really surprised me.
You get your own personal health coach, an actual human who checks in with you and helps keep you on track.
They look at the whole picture, mind, body, spirit, pretty solid approach, if you ask me.
And look, uh consistency isn't about being perfect, it's about showing up every day on the easiest routines are the ones that you don't have to think about.
Go to balance of nature.com, use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as per customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's Balance of Nature.com, promo code Walsh, your future self, we'll thank you.
All right.
You know, it's funny because I posted about this politico thing on X, and of course a bunch of liberals responded, some conservatives too, and said that.
Well, I'm just being defensive of uh the group chat because I'm worried about my own group chats coming out.
And uh that what's her name?
The who's the overweight Mexican chick, the uh Olivia or something.
She posted that in response to me, and and others have she others have said the same that oh, Republicans are worried about.
But here's the thing, jokes on them.
Uh I hate group chat group chats, okay?
I I never participate in group chats.
I get added to group chats constantly.
I either leave them or just say nothing.
And not because I object morally to whatever's bad, but just because what is a group a group chat is a constant, never-ending string string of small talk that that just is beamed directly into your phone at all hours of the day.
It there's very rarely any kind of real substantive conversation going on.
Of course, that's not what it's for.
It's just for it's like a never, it's like your your small talk line.
So if I am in a group chat, I'm the guy who says nothing in the group chat.
And you wonder if I'm dead or changed my number.
And then sometimes, just happened recently, a conversation will start in the group chat about why I'm not participating in the group chat.
And there'll be people speculating, did he change his number?
And I still, I still just say nothing.
I observe.
I'm like uh Batman standing on the edge of the building at night looking down over Gotham, cape blowing in the wind.
That's me in the group chat.
My my favorite group chat move is to say nothing at all for years.
Like years.
And then six and a half years later, send one meme with no additional comment, no context, and then disappear into the night for another six years.
I'm like uh I'm like a cicada in the group chat.
Every 17 years I I emerge.
I treat group group chats like uh Daniel Day Lewis treats films.
You know, it's every at once a decade, you'll get something.
Um, which means that if Politico released seven months of my group chats, it would it would just be nothing.
There'd be it would be me not saying anything.
So you need a much longer, you need to get, it's like you'd have to get like 20 years to find two or three messages from me somewhere buried in there.
So it'll be a challenge.
It'll be a challenge.
New York Post says this a pair of crazed climate activists were busted Sunday after hurling red paint at a mural of Christopher Columbus in a bizarre caught-on-camera art attack at a Spanish museum.
The two Vandals, members of the radical group, Futoro Vegetal, were caught on shocking video throwing red paint at first tribute to Christopher Columbus, a massive mural of the Italian-born explorer painted in 1892.
So we have the well, here's the footage of that.
Watch that.
Yeah, there you go.
So apparently, as I understand it, they actually did real damage to this painting.
Um, in many cases, when you see these these uh these these vandals doing this, they're not despite their best efforts, they're not actually harming the painting because that the painting is protected.
And as far as I understand it, they they did actually harm the painting.
And you know, so I see this, and the problem I run into is that I realize I understand that I'm constantly calling for people to be executed for random offenses.
So after a while, legally, like legally, they'll put on trial and executed for and justifiably.
But I I do realize that that's um that is it becomes something of a theme, and so it loses its impact when I say it.
But even so, I say with sincerity that the penalty for vandalizing a priceless work of art should be the amputation of both hands.
And then your head.
But at least the hands, at least the hands.
Why don't we do that?
Why don't we why don't we, again, legal legal penalty?
I'm not calling for any vigilante violence.
I'm saying the legal penalty should be arrested, tried, convicted, and then this is the penalty, the legal penalty.
Why don't we do that?
What is the argument against it?
In all seriousness, I'd like someone to explain it.
You know, it's a fair punishment.
We don't have to put you in prison, so we're not filling up jail cells with these people and taking on that tax burden if you're worried about that.
Uh we can leave the more of the jail cells open for the uh quote unquote violent criminals.
I mean, I you could argue this was an act of violence.
But you know, it's obviously a huge disincentive for everyone else who's thinking about doing this.
You really only have to do it once.
That's the thing.
You'd have to do it one time.
Enact this punishment one time, one time, two hands, and that's it.
And you're done.
It'll literally never happen again.
I mean, I'd be willing to consider, you know, I'm I'm merciful, so I would consider you lose one hand and then you lose maybe three fingers on the other hand.
So I'll leave you two fingers.
I'll leave you like pinchers.
So you have this.
So you can scratch your nose or give thumbs up, you know.
Um, so I I would do that.
That's how merciful I am.
Am I not merciful?
Now you could make a very reasonable argument for the death penalty in in these cases.
I do think you could make that argument.
I probably have made that argument before.
I don't remember.
But if I haven't, the argument goes like this destroying a work of art, a painting, a statue, um, is an attack on all of humanity.
It's a crime against 8.1 billion people.
I think it's a literal crime against humanity.
Now, the art itself is not owned by everyone, right?
I'm not saying that.
I'm not a communist for God's sake.
But nonetheless, when you deface or destroy timeless art, you are robbing billions of people of the opportunity or the potential opportunity to experience the art.
And even worse than that, it's a crime against our ancestors.
You're essentially defiling the graves of all of our ancestors who produced this great art and preserved it through the centuries for us.
I mean, not only was this produced, but it was all of the effort to preserve this through the generations, and then you're coming along because you're upset about something and destroying it.
I think it's a crime that demonstrates a level of narcissism, a level of callous indifference and cruelty that uh I think puts you on the same moral plane as a murderer.
Which is why you could make the argument that people who spill paint on a piece of art, you know, it's uh especially old timeless, a classic, a masterwork, uh deserve to be tried, convicted, and given capital punishment.
I mean, you could make that argument.
I think it's a reasonable argument.
Speaking of crimes against humanity, leftists in Portland decided to protest ice uh in the nude over the weekend.
So this was a nude bike ride, which uh turned into a nude dye-in or something.
So they they rode on their bikes in the nude and then pretended to be dead.
And so here are what we have the images, we have the video, we have the images.
So you see some of these images here.
These are the images that uh my editors deserve hazard pay for having to deal with.
And they decide so I wasn't sure how they deal with it.
Would they just blur the whole thing?
Or would they go through individually and blur each grotesque naked body?
It looks like they went through individually and blurred all the bodies, so that's sorry you had to do that, but anyway, so there it is.
Um, of course, you look at that and it's like, can you imagine the stench in that crowd?
It's like a porta potty baking in the sun.
Like a like a badly maintained petting zoo, it probably smells like a refrigerator packed with meat that where the power's been out for 95 days.
Just awful is what I'm saying.
And I was also thinking about this.
You know, if I if I had to describe or explain the left-right divide with one fact, it would be this.
That if you see a protester, and I know this is not, this is not revelatory, but if you see a protester waving an American flag, he's conservative.
Right?
He's uh he's on the right.
And it wasn't always that way, but it is that way now.
You don't know what they're protesting, you have no idea what they're upset about.
If if he's waving an American flag, it's conservative.
So you know that right away.
If you see a conservative protester take off his clothes, he's a liberal.
Like a hundred percent of the time.
100%.
If you see a naked person in public doing any, well, doing anything at all, really, but especially engaging in any kind of political demonstration, you automatically know that you don't have to know, you don't know what they're talking about, you don't know what they're upset about.
You know that they're liberal.
And the entire history of naked political protests, 100% of them, without exception, have been on the left.
You know, I I've attended a lot of right wing political protests and demonstrations in my day.
I've never seen a single naked person at any of them.
Thank God.
And that's kind of an interesting fact.
We we take it for granted.
But why is it?
I think it's worth thinking about.
I mean, you don't want to think about it.
No one will imagine it, but it is like, why does it work that way?
Why why do you people keep taking your clothes off?
I mean, I mean, you know, we can debate who is responsible for the most uh most of the political violence.
It's not really a debate.
The answer is the left by far, obviously.
But there's no debate to be had about who's responsible for the most indecent exposure.
Who is the most likely to flash their genitals in public in an effort to make a political point?
The answer is always the left.
100% of the time.
Literally never the right.
And again, I think that that's a disturbing fact.
It's also an interesting fact to ask.
Like, why?
Why are you doing this?
Why do you keep doing this?
And there's a simple reason for it, which is that for the left, everything comes back to sex, always.
Everything's about sex.
You know, for the left, the thing that drives them, the thing that animates them, the thing that lies at the center of their whole political project is just sex.
That's what it always comes down to.
Even an issue that seems totally unrelated, totally non-sexual, ultimately still comes back to sex.
Immigration.
Like what are they upset?
Well, I think this was, yeah, this is an ice protest.
So what is being naked have to do with it?
Why why do you need to show people your naked body to make a point about ice?
What does it have to do with anything at all?
And you would think that, well, these things are not connected.
I mean, how so they so the left they have this they can't think beyond uh their own genitals.
They they cannot think beyond their own sexual desires, their own often perverse sexual desires.
Everything comes back to that all the time.
They can't, they can't get they can't get past it.
And you would think with immigration, you know, how is that connected?
Well, it's not exactly clear in in their minds.
Like if you were to ask any of those people, if you were to go up to them, if you were to brave that storm and go up to one of those naked people on the on the road and say, why?
What are you doing?
And they would say, Oh, I'm protesting ice.
And then you say, Well, why, but why?
Why are you doing it?
Why do you have to do it naked?
They wouldn't, I don't, they wouldn't be able to explain it.
I don't think they'd be able to explain why they need to flash their genitals in order to make a point about immigration policy.
They wouldn't be able to explain it.
But if they were to try to make, if if if we were to try to make some kind of sense of it, the answer is that they desire to erase our borders and undermine our sovereignty because they want to destroy our national identity.
They want to destroy traditional American culture.
And why do they want to destroy that?
Well, because they believe that it's patriarchal and oppressive.
And they want to get rid of this patriarchal oppression so that they can run around naked and have sex with anyone they Want.
So you see, it only it only takes like three, it's like three or four turns it takes to get from immigration policy to sex.
And uh, and usually it doesn't even take that many.
Usually it's like one to one.
Connecting the dots is usually one dot here, one dot there, and boom, you're right back at sex.
That's usually the way it goes with the left, but uh with something like immigration, it takes a couple more.
You know, it's a couple more turns, it goes there and there and there, and oh okay, yeah.
Because that's all these people care about.
It's really the only thing they think about.
The only thing they care about.
This is what it always comes back to.
Do you guys ever read protein bar labels and feel like you're reading off a candy bar?
Most protein bars are loaded with sugar and processed junk that leave you bloated and unsatisfied.
My team was hunting for something better, a clean protein bar that actually keeps us energized.
Well, now enter Equip Foods Prime Bar, the first grass-fed beef protein bar made with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide.
Sorry today, my listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Bar, which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market with 20 grams of protein in every bar.
I've tried a lot of different protein bars on the market, and none of them taste like real food.
They taste artificial and strange, but Prime Bar actually tastes like real food, and uh it's good.
With just 11 clean ingredients, including collagen, beef tallow, and colostrum, naturally sweetened with dates and honey.
You get 20 grams of clean protein without the bloat.
No whey, no seed oils, no gluten, no artificial junk.
They're third-party tested for heavy metals, microplastics, and pesticides, so they can actually back up their cleanest bars on the market claim.
If you want to try the cleanest protein bar on the market that are already sold out once, go to Equipfoods.com/slash Matt Walsh and use code Matt Walsh at checkout to get 25% off one-time purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for limited time.
That's EQUIP Foods.com slash Matt Walsh and use code Matt Walsh at checkout.
October is packed with new releases on Daily Wire Plus, and tomorrow night is a big one.
The premiere of Friendly Fire.
Join me, Ben Chapiro, Michael Knowles, and Andrew Claven.
Unscripted, unfiltered, no moderators, nothing off limits, live at 7 p.m.
Eastern.
Plus, special appearances from Isabel Brown and Jeremy Boring with your first look at the Pendragon cycle at long last.
It all kicks off tomorrow night.
Don't wait, join now and get 40% off.
A new annual membership with code FAL40 at Daily Wire.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we have an article in CNN written by a woman named Madeline Holcomb with this rather hilarious title.
After years of progress on gender, the male gaze is back.
Now, the um the article itself is very long, appears to have been written with the help of AI.
I can't prove that.
I don't know for certain that it's the case, but as someone who's suffered through the experience of reading the entire thing for some reason, I can say that it seems like the writer uh fed a few prompts into Chat GPT and told it to spit out a 3,000-word feminist essay.
And if that's not what she did, she may as well have done that.
There's really no reason to waste your time actually writing a soulless, banal, needlessly wordy wordy essay that just repeats the same tired talking point over and over and over again.
Chat GPT can handle that just fine.
I'm very against AI taking over and doing everything, but if that's what you want, if you if you're looking to make a pointless soulless essay, then you might as well just have AI do it.
Um anyway, here's how Madeline uh GPT begins the article.
This summer I got cultural whiplash.
As a child of the 90s and early 2000s, I grew up with my mother's and grandmothers' generations' fight for legal and workplace equality, helping shed social misogyny.
In the past decade in particular, I saw the evidence of progress in my media diet.
The movies, shows, books, and advertisements I consumed were increasingly giving women a seat at the table.
Heroin chic fell away, and body positivity entered the fashion world.
Stories about a woman stealing your man were traded for celebrations of the girls' girl who resisted the competition for men's attention.
My husband and I got married earlier this year.
Our vision of what our life could be included wide-ranging possibilities, influenced in part by the movies and shows we grew up with.
We saw, read, and listened to stories of involved fathers, successful mothers, and well-matched partners who supported one another.
It seemed like women were taking a deeper breath without such heavy cultural restrictions.
Well, you see what I mean.
I'm not gonna harp on the point, but I just refuse to believe that an actual human person wrote this paragraph.
It's the perfect combination of cliche and meaningless.
it was either generated by an algorithm or by a person whose brain has been hijacked by algorithms.
And the results are the same.
In any case, Madeline claims that when she got married, she and her husband were excited by the wide ranging possibilities in their lives because they were influenced by the movies and shows they watched.
Without the movies and shows, they wouldn't have known that life has possibilities.
They would not have known that if they hadn't been able to watch all those movies and shows.
Madeline needed to see women on TV pretending to do different things in order to know that it's possible for women to do different things.
She watched Gray's Anatomy and learned that women can be doctors.
She saw, you know, Tomb Raider and learned that women can be archaeologists.
She watched Monster with Charlize Theron and learned that women can even be successful serial killers if they want to be.
Madeline's brain was programmed by pop culture, and she's apparently proud of it.
But she's confused because after all this girl power propaganda, why do heterosexual men still exist?
How can this be?
She continues, then there was a shift.
Was it around the 2024 presidential election or since the overturn of Roe v.
Wade?
Maybe when men's rights activists pushed back against me too.
Whatever the catalyst, a change in the political environment seemed to connect with a social change that brought back narrow and at times constrictive ideas of womanhood depicted in media.
The recent rise of weight loss medications coincided with social media influencers sharing ways to get smaller and no longer celebrating bodies of all sizes.
Advertisements followed suit, making men's desire once again a dominating factor in how stories are told and how women are portrayed.
How had these discarded ideas made their way back into circulation?
Didn't we all agree we were through with them?
The culprit, I have learned, is the male gaze.
It was always there, but now it's stepped back into the spotlight.
Now, the rest of this interminable diatribe just circles around this idea that the male gaze, which apparently had gone away for a while, is now back.
And that's bad because you know the male gaze is bad.
Males are not supposed to have a gaze.
We aren't supposed to look at anything or notice anything or want anything or have any preferences or desires of any kind.
Every bad thing that happens, including and especially the bad choices that women make, are really the fault of men and their gaze.
G-A-Z-E, by the way, just to clarify.
She goes on to explain.
This year saw viral content around an OnlyFan star's attempt to break the world record for most sexual partners in one day, a lucrative career move made even more viral by her bashing the wives and girlfriends of her sexual partners and suggesting that men cheating is the fault of the women who aren't available enough for sex.
Most typically, the male gaze is about representing women in media solely to satisfy heterosexual men, said Dr. Linda Tunkey Zaire, professor of marketing and John F. Smith junior chair in business administration at the Quinlan School of Business at Loyola University Chicago.
That was the longest title.
That was the longest title for the most meaningless position that you could possibly imagine.
So anyway, the point is when a woman decides to pimp herself out for money, the fault really lies with men.
You know, the only fan star in question cannot be blamed for her own decisions.
Much less can she be accused of exploiting the men who appear in her videos or consume her content.
I mean, you could make that argument.
If anyone's being exploited there, it's actually going the other way.
No, no, no.
Somehow she's the one being exploited, even though she is the one with all the power in that relationship, and the only one who profits financially from it.
Madeline also uses the example of the infamous American Eagle ad.
Infamous for no reason.
It was like no reason for it because it was totally inoffensive, but uh Sidney Sweeney was evidently compelled through the hypnotic force of the male gaze to appear in the ad and objectify herself.
So this is your typical feminist clap trap where women are presented as both empowered and utterly helpless at the exact same time.
But I want to focus very briefly just for a moment on the question that the author posed that we read a couple minutes ago.
And she wrote again how had these discarded ideas made their way back into circulation.
Didn't we all agree we were through with them?
Now the idea again is just heterosexuality.
That's really it.
That's the idea she's talking about.
Men are attracted to women.
Women are attracted to men.
Men do things to attract women.
Women do things to attract men.
That's the idea.
This basic fact of human existence.
And guess what?
That basic fact of human existence was never discarded and can never be discarded.
It was denied by the ideological movement that Madeline has unthinkingly aligned herself with.
But human society itself can never get rid of it.
And the most the most telling part of it is when she said, well, hadn't we all agreed?
Oh, really?
You think we all agreed?
Living in such a bubble, she thinks everyone agreed.
Like we all agree that we're just done with heterosexuality completely.
We all agreed to this total rejection of the only thing that keeps human civilization going.
Hadn't we all agreed?
Hadn't every single person on the planet agreed to this?
Well, no, we certainly never agreed that we were all through with this fact of existence.
Even if we had agreed, it wouldn't change the fact.
There was no agreement.
There was instead a demand from Madeline's side to...
And now she's lamenting that that demand was not met.
She is lamenting, essentially, normalcy.
And that is what this is really about.
And that is why she is today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
We'll be right back.
Hey there, I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
We're going to bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
