The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1059 - How The Red Wave Became The Red Ripple

Episode Date: November 9, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the red wave did not come to pass. But it wasn't a decisive win for the Democrats either. So how do we interpret this? And where do we go from here? We'll talk about that today. Also, voting machine were having "hiccups" in Arizona. Well, hiccup is one way to put it. And there was a red wave in Florida at least. What can we learn from that? The women of the View try to explain what qualifies as "okay" free speech. And in our Daily Cancellation a New York Times writer accuses Jennifer Lopez of feminist heresy for taking her husband's last name. - - -  DailyWire+: Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Give it to Jeremy instead. Get 40% off your Founder’s Shave Kit at jeremysrazors.com today.  - - -  Today’s Sponsors: 40 Days for Life - Check out 40 Days for Life – locations, podcast, and free magazine: https://www.40daysforlife.com/en/ Black Rifle Coffee Company - Get 10% off your first order or Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ EdenPURE - Save $200 on EdenPURE Thunderstorm 3-Pack with code ‘MATT3’ at http://edenpuredeals.com/  - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the red wave did not come to pass, but it wasn't a decisive win for the Democrats either. So how do we interpret this and where do we go from here? We'll talk about that today. Also, voting machines were having hiccups in Arizona. Well, hiccup is one way to put it. And there was a red wave in Florida, at least. What can we learn from what happened in Florida? The Women of the View try to explain what qualifies as OK free speech. In our daily cancellation, a New York Times writer accuses Jennifer Lopez of feminist heresy for taking her husband's last name. How dare she? All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. Rovi Wade has been overturned and this battle is now finally leaving D.C. and going to the grassroots. No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life to deal with that. With about one million volunteers in 1,000 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities. They have a larger presence in blue states with California being their largest state. Some former abortion facility directors say that these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which is detrimental.

to their abortion business. These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America, and nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities where abortion remains legal, including closures in San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. 40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds

in the grassroots to end abortion. Check out their locations, their podcasts, and their free magazine at 40 DaysForLife.com. And you know, it's more important than ever, especially now after the election, what we find is that the fight for life has entered a new phase, a critical phase. It's all the more reason to get more information

with 40 Days for Life at 40 Days for Life.com. After our marathon election coverage last night, I emerged from the studio and looked up to see the promised red moon, or I was hoping to see it, but I couldn't see anything because it was overcast. It was, I think, a perfect symbol. The red moon blotted out by clouds and fog, just as the red wave lost steam

and became in the end at most a red one. ripple, a small red splash maybe in the shallow end of the pool. Now, as I speak right now, we still don't know we don't have the final results. Control of Congress remains up for grabs. Republicans are inching closer towards the 218 seats in the House needed to take control. But the Senate sits at a 48-48 split right now, while the results in four states are still pending. Once again, it may all come down to a runoff election in Georgia, as at this moment Raphael Warnock leads Herschel Walker by 40,000 votes or so. Now, Republicans had decisive victories in some races and in some states.

Stacey Abrams lost convincingly to Brian Kemp, though she is, of course, still the governor of Georgia this morning. Beto O'Rourke once again showed off his skill as a professional political loser, getting demolished by Greg Abbott in the Texas governor race. In the Ohio Senate race, rising Republican star J.D. Vance knocked out incumbent Tim Ryan in South Dakota. Christy Noem doubled her Democratic challengers vote total. in New York. Republicans did manage to flip a few house seats. And then, of course, there's Florida, where Ron DeSantis beat Charlie Criss by 20 points, not only taking the governorship, but effectively flipping the entire state red. So Florida is no longer a swing state. It is a red state. And that's something that even the media had to begrudgingly admit. Can we just talk about Florida?

Because we really haven't had a chance to do that. I was texting, with a source in Florida, political source, who pointed out to me that this will be the first time since Reconstruction, that Florida won't have any Democrats in statewide office. Period. And DeSantis' victory? Miami-Dade.

Florida wants a perennial swing state. It turned blue for Obama twice, then red for Trump twice. Now it appears solid red, thanks in part to a huge effort in voter registration on the Republican side, and the powerful Latino vote leaning further and further red. Even the Democratic stronghold of Miami-Dade County turned red for the first time in 20 years. Can I ask you while we've got you, if there's any single result or any single trend that's evident thus far that surprised you the most tonight?

Obviously, all of us looking at this stuff and hearing both sides make their projections, you sort of weigh everything based on what you know and what you can view yourself. But as somebody who's been inside these kinds of campaigns, what has struck you as? as legitimately unpredictable in tonight's results. Well, first of all, the divergence between Florida, which, you know, can't sugarcoat a disaster for the Democrats. Disaster for the Democrats, indeed, in Florida, but the entire election nationwide was not. In fact, the disaster went the other way in some cases.

Dr. Oz may now lay claim to the most humiliating Republican political defeat in American history, losing his Senate race to a man with brain damage. Fetterman, an oafish, ridiculous manchild, who lived off of his parents' money until recently, and campaigned on releasing violent criminals from prison, and then suffered a stroke, almost entirely destroying his ability to understand English or speak it, both of which skills that he hadn't quite perfected even before the stroke, still managed to win. He was one of the weakest candidates ever fielded by a major political party in the United States, and somehow Republicans managed to field an even weaker one.

So we'll return to that in just a moment. But staying on the depressing side of things, both Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and Kathy Hokel in New York won their races. Now, you can say that both races were uphill battles for Republicans, and that would be true. You could try to find a moral victory in the fact that Lee Zeldin, the Republican challenger in New York, made it within striking distance. In fact, he did better than any Republican gubernatorial candidate in that state in years. But there really are no moral victories in politics. there are only victories and defeats, wins and losses. And the fact is that Nurse Ratchet in Michigan and her awkward aunt in New York both won their races.

That's it. So no matter what happens from here, it will not be the Republican blowout that many of us expected. Neither will be a resounding victory for the Democrats. The voters certainly are not giving the Democrats a mandate. They might not even give them control over Congress, let alone a mandate. But they also aren't delivering a sharp rebuke. So where are we left? We're left with an electorate, divided, confused, uninspired. And here are my takeaways at this point. First, as a believer in personal accountability, we cannot ignore the

role of the voter in their own voting decisions. In fact, one might even say that the voter is 100% responsible for his own vote, which means that voters in New York and Michigan, for example, chose feckless tyrants who locked them down during COVID but refused to lock up violent criminals to keep their communities safe. They chose moral incoherence and tyranny. In Pennsylvania, they chose a vegetable. In many states and in many races, they chose to reward the people who are actively making their lives worse. Exit polls for whatever they're worth, which clearly isn't much, did consistently show that voters are angry, they're dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and yet in so many cases, they chose more of what they chose more of what.

they're not satisfied with. They think we're on the wrong path, and they decided that we might as well keep driving down it. This is the kind of election post-mortem analysis that nobody really wants to give because it's unpopular to blame the voters for their own choices. We'd rather treat voters like children who are not responsible for their own decisions, but I'm not a fan of infantilizing adults in that way. And so I must point out, however unpopular it might be, that there is a sickness in the minds and souls of many people in this country. It compels them to choose tyranny, to choose dysfunction, to choose things that are anathema to their own well-being. And this election isn't, that isn't, you know, breaking news from this election. We've known that's the case

for a long time now. And we have to confront that fact, whether we like it or not. And I certainly do not like it. Second, all of that said, we cannot let the Republicans off the hook, not by a long shot. Yes, it is actually in a literal sense insane for Pennsylvanians to choose a cucumber to represent them in the United States Senate. But it's not as though the Republican alternative was highly appealing. I mean, Dr. Oz is a snake oil salesman fraud, as I said during the primaries. He's a carpetbagger phony who didn't even live in the state he wanted to represent. I actually largely agree with, and there are some conservatives that are making fun of this, but I largely agree with this assessment from Claire McCaskill on NBC. Listen.

I think we should leave the conversation of Oz and Federman without talking about authenticity. Yes. John Federman kind of oozed authenticity. He was who he was. He dressed how he dressed. He was comfortable in his own skin. Meanwhile, we had cruditets. And then maybe the biggest sin of all, the Sunday before the election, or Saturday before the election, he makes reference to people, Oz does in Pennsylvania.

He says, go out and find 10 voters before the Steelers game tomorrow. The Steelers had a buy. They didn't even play the next day. He didn't even know the Steelers' schedule. Now, that is really political malpractice in a state like Pennsylvania. That's basically right. I mean, John Federman's regular guy schick wasn't nearly as authentic as she claims that it was. But he was more authentic than Oz.

Most importantly, Federman was a leftist. and for the most part, he didn't try to hide it. Now, with a few exceptions, flip-flopping on fracking and all of that, but he mostly ran on a platform that he believed in. It was an insane, destructive, radically crazy platform, but it was his platform. Oz, meanwhile, ran on a conservative platform that he was making up on the fly. Oz, too, is a radical leftist.

I mean, he was shilling for transing the kids 10 years ago. He was ahead of the curve. except he decided 15 seconds ago to pretend to be a conservative. Now, voters shouldn't want to vote for a radical leftist, but if they do, why would they choose the one pretending to be a conservative when they have the authentic article available to them? Right? The authentic leftist who embraces his leftism. That's what they want. That's what they're going to take. Oz's campaign had no message. It had no point. It couldn't justify its own existence. Oz had nothing to say. He could even explain, like, why are you running for Senate again in Pennsylvania, of all places? You don't even live here? Like, what do you? Why? You could never explain that. He was fighting for nothing but his own political advancement, and that was incredibly obvious to everyone. Everyone except Republican primary voters in the state, apparently, and Donald Trump, who endorsed Oz. Yet, this is symptomatic of a much larger issue with the Republican Party nationwide. It has no message. It has no point. It has no coherent. platform. It has no leadership. It has leaders, you know, warm bodies filling those roles,

I mean, but they're not actually leading, which is why they should all be fired and sent off into exile and disgrace. I mean, it's one thing to campaign on the fact that Democrats are bad. And they are, and that's easy enough to point out, we know they're bad. Apparently, even many of their voters know they're bad. We also have to be able to explain, number one, why they're bad. and why you are better, and what exactly your vision for the country is. You need to have a complete message. But what is the Republican message? It's a day after the election.

They still haven't figured it out. Third, all of that said, there is one place at least where the Republican Party has a message and knows how to communicate it. And as we already covered, that place is Florida. In fact, Ron DeSantis conveyed that message very concisely, I think, during his victory speech last night. Let's listen to this. We have embraced freedom. We have maintained law and order. We have protected the rights of parents.

We have respected our taxpayers and we reject woke ideology. We fight the woke in the legislature. We fight the woke in the schools. We fight the woke in the corporations. We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where woe goes to. Now, these election results are shaking out in such a way as to guarantee that both parties learn exactly the wrong lessons.

Democrats will decide that losing by less than expected counts as a historic paradigm-shifting victory, and they will proceed to double down on left-wing radicalism. Republicans, on the other hand, will likely determine that they lost because they leaned too heavily into the culture war. They'll decide that they should simply stick to the country war. talking about taxes and leave it at that because that's what they learn after every election. But Florida proves both assumptions wrong. You heard it there in his speech. Ron DeSantis ran on and governed on a commitment to freedom, law and order, the rights of parents,

opposing leftist indoctrination in education and rejecting woke ideology wholesale. On that final point, he is one of a few Republicans on the national stage who made gender ideology, especially as it targets kids, into a central campaign issue. and do you know what those few Republicans all have in common? They won, and they won big. Ron DeSantis fights the culture war. He fights it boldly, and he fights it not just with speeches, but with law and policy, and he wins.

He doesn't just win. He flipped deep blue parts of his state red with his strategy. He took entire Democrat voting blocks away from them. He won the Latino vote. And not by pandering, but with a cultural family-first message. And it turns out that's what Latino voters are looking for. Many of them live in multi-generational households.

They value family. So they don't need to hear Latinx and they don't want to hear the LGBT. They don't want to hear about that. They want to hear about the rights of parents, protecting kids. That's what many Americans want to. want to hear about. DeSantis is perceived as the governor most invested in the culture war and most willing to fight it. And this was the result. That was the result. And on top of that, he is simply an effective and competent governor in a country that has too few of them.

And you need to have both of those. Okay, because you can't just talk about cultural issues and all of that, you also have to govern. He does both. The common thread connecting the underperforming Republicans is that most of them, not all, most of them were empty vessels with no coherent vision or message. And despite of what you'll hear in the coming weeks,

they mostly shied away from the cultural issues. Or they were too busy, you know, sucking up to Donald Trump, thinking that that would bring them over the finish line. And that brings me to my final point, which is that we can whine and cry about this and throw up our hands and defeat, you know, and that's it. Or we can see this as an opportunity. Because again, neither party has a mandate. Neither party came away with a landslide victory on a national scale.

The voters, as I said at the top, are listless, confused, apathetic, uninspired. they're looking for leadership, for a message, for something and someone to rally behind. Are we going to give that to them or not? Now let's get to our five headlines. Do you have a mystery smell in your home that you just can't get rid of? You've tried candles and cover-up sprays, but nothing seems to work. The best-selling Eden Pure Thunderstorm Air Purifier uses proven oxy-technical. that quickly seeks out and destroys any odor, whether it be from litter boxes, trash cans,

dirty diapers, or cooking smells. Even if you don't know where the smell is coming from, the thunderstorm will get rid of it in minutes. Unlike candles and cover sprays, the thunderstorm doesn't mask or cover up bad odors. It completely eliminates them. Best of all, the thunderstorm doesn't require any separate purchase of a filter. It plugs directly into the wall so as not to take up any floor space. It's compact design makes it great for traveling as well. Right now, you could save $200 on an Edenpure Thunderstorm 3-pack for a whole home protection. You'll get three units for under $200. Put one on your basement, you know, your bedroom, your kitchen, anywhere that you need fresh, clean air. All you got to do is go to eatimpuredeals.com. That's Edenpuredeals.com.

Use code Matt 3 to get three units for under $200. That's Edenpuredeals.com. Discount code Matt 3 to save $200 and shipping is free. All right. Well, it wouldn't be. an American election in the modern age without hiccups, you know, voting machine hiccups. You know how they always have those hiccups. And so this is a report from Fox News. It says the campaigns for Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Lake, U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters, and the RNC are suing Maricopa County, Arizona over issues with voting tabulation machines.

The GOP lawsuit SOTK pulls open until 10 p.m. in the county. It also asked the state court to instruct the inspector to every poll in location that voters, whom the e-poll book have recorded as having previously voted in selection, must be permitted to complete and cast a provisional ballot. So that was the lawsuit. And what this comes from is, as we say, or as the Maricopa County Board of Supervisor Bill Gates told Fox News, there was a hiccup. And the hiccup led to 20% of the voting machines going down. down just like that. The GOP lawsuit said that the issues hit at least 36% of all the voting centers. Now, the fact that we always have these kinds of issues, the fact that they are so often in the same places, like Maricopa County is always a problem, like at a certain point it becomes a conspiracy theory to claim that or to assume that there's no intentionality behind any of it. That becomes the conspiracy theory. You have these kinds of issues every single time, burst water pipes, whatever. You just, you know it's going to happen, and it does.

And it's happened here too. So, as I've said many times, like, first of all, is there cheating in an election? Of course they're, absolutely. That's just a fact. The only question becomes, where is it happening? On what scale did it happen? but just to deny it wholesale as Democrats like to do, again, that's just, that's the conspiracy theory. Because now, they don't want to talk about voter fraud.

For them, they say they talk about voter suppression. And in fact, they were doing that last night. There were left-wing pundits on, there was one on MSNBC, for example, blaming voter suppression. And in fact, saying that this doesn't count as a fair and equitable election. in Georgia because Stacey Abrams didn't win. The thing about voter suppression is that, you know, to use a term I find myself using a lot recently, that is unfalsifiable. That's an unfalsifiable theory to say voter suppression because what you're claiming is that,

well, there are a whole bunch of voters who would have voted, but they didn't. And the reason they didn't is because the vote was somehow in some really abstract way suppressed. like they were convinced in some kind of mind game to not go and vote. You can always just claim voter suppression. It's unfalsifiable. Now, on the other hand, when we talk about potential issues of voter fraud, cheating, rigging, that sort of thing, you can point to actual things that are happening, like a voting machine hiccup, for example. And also, we can look at what they're doing in broad daylight, you know, opening up

voting, turning election day into election month, election two months, election three months, going out of their way to make the election less secure. These are all attempts to in effect rig the election. And then that's to say nothing of the media and big tech, as we know, they did Hunter Biden laptop. That's the most infamous example. It's certainly not the only example. It's a full court press all the time, but especially around elections.

to get rid of and suppress anything that might be inconvenient or embarrassing for Democrats. They did with Hunter Biden laptop, but they do that with everything. And all of these are efforts to influence and in effect rigby election. All of that is happening. There's also this. A lot of the analysis this morning focuses on Trump, and a lot of that analysis is like this from CNN. This is a typical article here. It says, former President Donald Trump's endorsements for political candidates in close, high-profile races, have not yet given Republicans the swift and sweeping victories they had anticipated for this election cycle, despite many GOPPPOPEO's banking on his support to propel their campaigns.

Many critical midterm races have got to be called as of Wednesday morning, but so far, no Republican endorsed by Trump in a toss-up gubernatorial U.S. Senate or House race has won. Among those toss-up races where Trump had publicly backed a candidate, CN projects the governor's seats in Wisconsin and Kansas, a Senate seat in Pennsylvania, and four House seats are going to Democrats. The Trump-backed candidate with the highest profile who pulled out a win was J.D. Vance in Ohio, who was projected to become the next U.S. senator from Ohio after defeating Tim Ryan. Trump was traveled across the country, stumping for Republicans at huge rallies that mirrored event programs of his past presidential campaign stops and so on and so forth. Now, right, not all of Trump's candidates did poorly. J.D. Vance, a good example of one who did well. And we say Trump's candidates, it's like he endorsed them, but he didn't own them.

and J.D. Vance in particular. Now, you're not going to take the credit away from Trump. So that's the thing you can't give him. That's what the media wants to do. And Trump pointed this out yesterday. And of course it's true that if the candidate loses, then that's Trump's fault. But if it wins, it's not, you know, Trump doesn't get any credit for that. So you can't do that.

J.D. Vance, the endorsement helps. but J.D. Vance also was a really good candidate and ran a very good campaign on top of that. So there's a candidate that won. And some of the ones who may or may not lose were still good choices in my view. I mean, I like Blake Masters in Arizona. I would have chosen him too if I was Trump. I would have endorsed him. And I don't know if he's going to win or not at this point. It's still, I guess it still hasn't been decided. and you also can't blame Trump entirely for a candidate's loss, obviously. But the fact is that he made some awful choices. Principle among them was Oz, but that's not the only one.

And these again are, it's not, it's one thing to come along during the general election and endorse the Republican, okay. And then the Republican loses, well, you know, you can't be blamed for that, obviously. But Trump actually, you know, Trump is the reason, most likely, that Dr. Oz became the Republican nominee, endorsed them in the primaries. And then that nominee went on to lose to a vegetable. It's not like this was unforeseeable. Okay, it's not like this is some sort of twist ending that nobody could have seen coming. Many of us were saying all along, it cannot be Dr. Oz. Whatever you think of the other candidates in the GOP primary, Oz cannot be the guy.

He's a fraud. He's a phony. He doesn't even live. in the state. Nobody's going to take him seriously. The fact that he was on TV doesn't matter. Nobody cares about that. No one's impressed with that anymore. And we said that and it was to no avail. So what does this mean? Does it mean that everything Trump, that every pick Trump makes is wrong? No, but it does mean he doesn't have a Midas touch far from it. And then there's the bigger point that Trump sort of reasserted himself into the election conversation in the days leading up to Tuesday.

And that doesn't appear to have help very much either. The other thing you keep in mind is you look at Trump now in 2022. You look at him after 2020. And there's been a definite change. Because Trump in 2016, this is one thing people miss. Yeah, he was a sensation. Yes, he was a celebrity and all of that. And he still is all those things.

But he also, it was a very message-driven campaign in 2016. You knew what the message was. It was a forward-looking message-driven campaign. And people forget that it's not just a personality cult. People got behind Trump because they believed in his message. And he hammered that message home constantly. Immigration. Build the wall. right? That was probably the number one thing, but also drain the swamp. Dismantle the establishment.

Now, we can talk about how well he followed through on any of those things when he was actually president, but that was the message, and it was a message-driven campaign. And there's this, the media wants to pretend that Trump of 2016 was entirely personality cult. That's all it was. Yeah, there's a... some element of that. There's an element of that with every, with every, you know, politician on national scale. With Trump being at the, being at the level that he is, it's a much, much greater element. But even so, it's message driven. You look at him now, though, and what is the message? I'm not even sure, but we talk about the problem with Republicans not having a message.

What's your point? What's your message? That includes Trump. He's one of the principal violators here. What's your message? What does all this mean? Well, it means it needs to be a real primary in 2024. You know, if you're a Ron DeSantis supporter, there's no point in complaining and saying that Trump should just not run and should endorse DeSantis. It's not going to happen. And if you're a Trump supporter, there's also no point in saying, well, DeSantis should stay out of it and just this rightfully belongs to Trump. It doesn't rightfully belong to anyone. No one's a king.

You got to run. You got to win. And so now that's what we should be pushing for. This is what we're gearing up for. It's a primary for 2024, knock down, drag him out. It's not just going to be Ron DeSantis is Donald Trump either, by the way.

There's going to be a bunch of them jumping in there. We might as well embrace that. Let the best man win. All right, not all bad news. Actually, some very good news. Here in Tennessee, where our incumbent governor, by the way, Bill Lee won easily. Bill won. This is the first,

well, Bill Lee won easily. We also have the legislative. which is bill number one that has just officially been filed, the first piece of legislation of the season, which bans the gender transition of minors in the state. We've been fighting for this, and now we have it. Now it's here. So here's the press release from majority leaders, William Lamberth and Jack Johnson. We pull it up. It says Tennessee majority leaders, William Lamberth and Jack Johnson, today introduced the Protecting Children from Gender Mutilation Act, providing the nation's strongest protections against the removal of

a child's healthy body parts. House bill one, Senate Bill one, bans medical interference that alters a child's hormonal balance and procedures that remove their organs to enable the minor to identify as a gender different from their biological sex. So this is not just banning the surgical procedures on minors. Of course, it does ban that, but very crucially, it also bans the drugs, you know, puberty blockers, hormone drugs and all that. That's all bans. It creates a private right of action, allowing a minor injured due to a violation of the law to sue for damages. The legislation also allows courts to impose an additional $25,000 for each violation. Republican leaders committed to ban gender-discfiguring procedures for minors after troubling

video surface on social media in September. Reports from DailyWire's Matt Wall showed a local medical provider promoting so-called gender-affirming care as a huge moneymaker. The report raises nationwide awareness and serious ethical concerns about procedures performed about minors at pediatric transgender clinics across the country. And then we've got the bullet points. The statement goes on for a while, but the bullet points, just to review, the Protecting Children for Gender Mutilation Act filed today.

One creates a private right of action allowing a minor, parent of a minor injured as a result of the violation to sue for damages, allows a child to bring a civil cause of action against a parent if a parent consented to the violation on the minor's behalf, allows courts to impose a $25,000 penalty per violation. requires a state attorney general to establish a process for reporting violations of the law, allows the state attorney general to bring an action against a health care provider for knowingly violating the law within 20 years of the violation. Within 20 years, that's important too. And then also the bill makes exceptions for children born with chromosomal anomalies or congenital defects.

Now, so there's two key points here. Well, three. I mean, the first is that these procedures are banned. That's the most important thing. The second is the financial compensation aspect of this, which I think is really important. Because there are a lot of people, a lot of minors that are being victimized by this stuff, but they have no recourse. They have nowhere to go. Because the law doesn't allow it.

The law doesn't allow them to sue for medical malpractice. Because according to the law in these states, technically, even though what is happening to them is this Frankenstein butchery. it's technically legal, and so they can't sue. So there's just, there's no recourse, there's nowhere to go for justice, nowhere to go for compensation. Not that you can ever be fully compensated when your body is altered in this way and disfigured permanently, but there's nowhere for them to go, that's going to change in Tennessee. So they have somewhere to go and they can sue.

I also think it's great that they, that children, they can not only sue the medical providers, who did this to them, but they can also sue their parents if their parents were complicit. And I don't know how people are going to react to that or take that. But as far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what needs to happen. Because in many of these cases, not all, but in many of these cases, these parents are the number one villains. Yeah, there's the doctors, okay, and they're in it for the money, and it's a big cash cow and all that. We know that from the videos that we posted. But the parents, like, at least you can, so you've got corrupt money-hungry doctors.

I get that. It's not good. It's evil. It's terrible. But I sort of understand the concept that there are corrupt, money-hungry people out there that will do terrible things because they get paid. And you understand their motivation. It's the motivation shared by many evil people who have done many evil things over history. but the parents

I mean, what's your motivation to consign your children to this? And I'm being somewhat rhetorical here. I know some of the motivation. It's a form of virtue signaling. It's a lot of different things. But they need to be held accountable to. And there's one other point in the way that this bill was written

that I also want to point out, which is that the bill makes the gender transition of minors it makes it a prohibited medical practice, okay, bans it as a medical practice. And what does that mean? It means that, well, it means you can't do it. It's your ban.

If you do it, you lose your medical license, along with all these other penalties that will come down as well. But it's not criminalized. It hasn't been made a criminal matter. And I talked to some of legislators about this, and they were explaining to me, you know, when they first shared the bill with me and, you know, the fact that it's not actually criminalized,

Of course, because I'm gung-ho and like, I want to take these doctrines. Throw them in prison for 50 years. You know, for life in prison is what I would like to do. And what they explained to me, and I thought, I found it very compelling, is that if you don't make it a criminal matter, then you are sidestepping the DAs. Because one of the big problems that Republicans have is you got these woke, often Soros-funded DAs that come into these cities. and yeah, there are a lot of things that are crimes, but the DAs have the power to decide what they're going to enforce. And they could just say, well, I'm not enforcing that.

You know, it's a crime and I'm not going to enforce it. You say that it's a crime, but I say I'm not going to enforce it. And then what do you do? You're just, you're just, you're handicapped by that. You've put yourself at their mercy. So this is a way of getting around that problem. You're not going to make yourself, you're not going to put yourself at the mercy of democratic left-wing DAs relying on them to enforce this law, which they simply just will not do.

I think this is a clever way of getting around that by saying, well, we're going an entirely different direction. So, of course, if you, you know, you take away the medical license. If you continue practicing medicine without medical license, that is a crime, and you go to prison for that. So it's, in effect, it's still even criminalized. But then you also have the civil penalties, and you are initially. stepping around the DAs, which I think is a smart idea. All right. So the women over on The View were squawking this week about free speech.

And I want to go through a couple of these clips. First of all, here's Whoopi Goldberg announcing, tragically, that she's leaving Twitter. It has been a little over a week since Elon Musk took over Twitter. And the place is a, it's a mess. He's already called back some of the workforce. He fired a few days ago. He's putting his $8 charge for blue check verification or hold. First it was going to be $20.

Now it's going to be $8. He also suspended Kathy Griffin for impersonating him on a parody account, which has started a free Kathy hashtag to Trent. I mean, I'm getting off. I'm getting off today because I just feel like, you know, it's so messy. and I'm tired of now having had certain kinds of attitudes blocked, and now they're back on. And I just, I'm going to get out,

and if it settles down and I feel more comfortable, maybe I'll come back. But as of tonight, I'm done with Twitter. Of course, if you're like me, you hear that, and you think, oh, you were on Twitter? I didn't even know that. Like, what are they, what do you? I just want to know, if I can get in their own hands,

get in their heads, which is not really a place I'd want to be. But how do you think people are going to react to this? Do you think people are making some big dramatic announcement? I'm done. You know, I might be back later, but I just, for now, I'm out of there. Which, by the way, when it comes to dramatic announcements, that's kind of an anti-climatic way to go about it. I'm done.

I mean, I might come back later, but I'm done for now. I will not be on Twitter again until at least tomorrow morning, if not a little bit sooner, but at this moment right now, I'm not going to be, I am not using Twitter at this moment when I'm on TV. But what do they expect? Do they think that people are going to, like, the people who think it's good that Elon Musk took over Twitter, are they going to say, well, never mind. I mean, if this scares Whoopi Goldberg away, I can't imagine Twitter without Whoopi Goldberg. And then you also see once again just the total absolute fragility of these people. She says, oh, all these people that were, they were, I was insulated for them,

from them. And now, and now their, their ideas are going to be, I'm going to maybe be exposed to some of their ideas and opinions and their words. And I can't, I, I can't deal with that. She also has some thoughts on the nature of free speech. I think this is in clip six. Communications Act, which a lot, which basically allows this to happen. I think it's section 230, it allows, you know, protection of social media as just platforms. Under the freedom of speech. Under the freedom. Well, they just say that their third party platforms, they're not the ones that are putting

it out there. And that can only change by legislation. And if the Republicans rule the Senate, that will never change. It's a bit challenging because if you treat it like a publication, then that means they're liable for any crazy things. Someone else, which there is a public. It is a way to craft it. They keep saying that it's free.

speech and some speech is not all for all speech is not free speech some speech is not okay free speech so everybody has to agree on that but if people keep saying well you're heard by free speech it's going to be a problem but you know what this is going to be this is our problem but ain't my problem today because some speech is not okay free speech that's that's it so that there's been this debate for centuries, really, about free speech, what is free speech, what counts is free speech, and is free speech absolute? And Whoopi Goldberg has, I guess, settled the debate entirely. She says that, you know, some speech is just not okay. And how do we know if it's not okay or not? I guess she'll tell us. Meanwhile, although this maybe has been a debate, I've never found the debate

all that interesting because to me now they're always around the margins, they're always going to be the harder kind of cases. But for the most part, you know, like 99.9% of all the speech that goes on, it's really easy to determine whether it, quote, counts as free speech or whether it ought to count as free speech or not. Okay. And the things that shouldn't count as free speech, generally speaking, if you're making direct violent threats against someone, actual threats, and using a pronoun you don't like, that's not a threat, disagreeing with you is not a threat, saying something like, I'm going to come to your house and kill you.

Like saying the things that trans activists say to me almost every day, that's a threat. That's clearly a threat. So that's not free speech. At least it shouldn't be. trying to explicitly encourage other people to cause harm to someone or to commit a crime. Again, that clearly shouldn't count as free speech. Defamation, slander, liable, any form of speech written or spoken where you're lying about someone in order to cause them harm, not free speech. And those are pretty much all the exceptions.

You might be able to come up with a few here and there, but you know what the exceptions are when you see them. It's pretty rare when you come across an actual hard case of trying to determine, oh, does that qualify as free speech or not? Because, again, I think 99.9% of it we all know. And most of the speech that goes on on social media, people might be vulgar, they might be, you know, they might be cruel, they might be rude.

But they're essentially just expressing their opinion. And if you're expressing your opinion, that's free speech. And that ought to be allowed on social media. It ought to be allowed on Twitter. If Twitter is saying, I mean, if Twitter is saying that they've got, if Elon Musk is saying, is a commitment to free speech, if that's what he's saying, that's what he wants to run his company, then that means that people should be able to simply just express their ideas and their opinions and that's it. And if you don't like what someone says, you can disagree with them.

You can even block them. There's a lot of, you can choose not to read it. There are a lot of ways around it. But to me, it's not all that difficult. Let people speak. Let them voice their opinions. That's it. That's all.

Speaking of letting people speak, let's get to the comment section. Who makes a Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage. Who's to blame? Sweet baby gay. You know, while today's coffee often comes with hints of soy, Black Rifle delivers an entirely different experience. Bold, strong and delicious black rifle coffee is the coffee that I choose to get me through the day. Black Rifle Coffee is veteran founded and operated. Their mission is to help service members successfully transition from the military

into entrepreneurship. They provide assistance to veterans who seek to launch businesses of their own with the goal of helping more companies like Black Rifle become a reality. Black Rifle is committed to hiring 10,000 veterans and they're well on their way. As for the coffee itself, Black Rifle is very selective about where they source their coffee beans and very disciplined. When a comes to ensuring the freshness of every bag. So go to black riflecoffee.com. Use promo code walls for 10% off your first order or when you sign up for a new coffee club subscription. The subscription gives you free shipping in all coffee club orders, early access to club deals and promotions and special discounts from their partner brands. That's black rifle coffee.com

with promo code walls for 10% off your first order or when you sign up to become a coffee club member, Black Rifle Coffee, supporting veterans and America's Coffee. But J. Magic says, Matt is the worst of all the DW hosts when it comes to pretending to be excited about the sponsors. I don't know why I'm always accused of that, but my excitement is deeply sincere. Dakota says, after watching the Rogan episode, I think you really planted the seed to get his mind going in the right direction. Well, you know, and that's in a conversation like something like gay marriage, that's the that's what you're looking to do. To my mind, anyway.

It's very unlikely, it's unlikely in any debate, but especially of something like gay marriage, a really contentious topic like that. It's unlikely that the person you're talking to in the moment will say, you know what, you're right, I'm going to change all. I have completely changed my mind about this fundamental issue. So what you want to do is plant some seeds,

say a few things to get them thinking. And if, you know, of course, in the context of a Joe Rogan episode. It's not just talking to Joe Rogan, but to tens of millions of other people. Even he can't plant a seed in his mind, maybe in the minds of others. Amanda says,

my biggest criticism of Matt's appearance on JRE is that aliens didn't come up, not once. I can tell you that is also my regret as well. I just, I'm not the one leading the conversation. It's not my interview. I was hoping for a pivot point. But then once we got on the marriage topic, even I could, it seemed very difficult to like,

how do we get from here to space aliens invading and UFO sightings? And I just couldn't figure out how to bridge that gap. But if there's ever another appearance, maybe we could talk about it then. Let's see. Sarah says, side note, why does Matt look so small at his desk?

Did he get a new desk, a broken chair? This is driving me nuts. Steve says, excellent show, Matt. Thanks. Is your chair seat, seat closer to the floor lately? MetFreeks says, for some reason, Matt looks like he's a little person at a giant desk, like he's shrunk about half a foot or something. We had this conversation before he went on it, and I'm very upset by this because I know that Sean's in the control room right now celebrating because I said I wanted to put the chair down a little bit so that I could pull my my chair in and get it underneath the day. It just bothers me. I can't get it all the way underneath the. desk. And so I put the chair down and then we had this conversation before on the air where Sean said that I look, you know, I look like a little person at the desk now. I look like a small child, small beer. I look like the sweet baby ganglowe. I look like a bearded baby at the desk because

it's too, too low to the ground. And I was hoping that the audience wouldn't notice it or if you did, you wouldn't make comments about it, but I should know better. So, Patrick says, finish listening to the Rogan conversation before listening today. The DailyWRour article didn't capture how well you handled yourself in the discussion on gay marriage. Rogan consistently changed between hypothetical, moral, and legal arguments. You stayed constant. You even started defining which argument it was as it went on. The longer it went, the better you look. Still, room for improvement, though. For example, when Rogan asked if God makes gay people, I really wanted you to ask if God makes kleptomaniacs, and if he does, is stealing still wrong?

Yeah, to me the question about whether people are born gay, and that kept coming up in the conversation. To me, it's kind of irrelevant to the marriage question. Right? Like, are people born gay? Where does that come from? All of that, that's not directly relevant to the question of how you define marriage. And it's yet another road that takes us away from the main point that I wanted to stay focused on and I wanted to hammer home. But, you know, But room for improvement? Yeah, absolutely. There's always room for improvement. Look, one thing you have to know about me is that I am not satisfied with anything ever, you know. It's any show, any interview I do, anything at all. I'm going to go back. It's like a football player watching game tape and you start picking yourself apart. That's what you have to do, though.

I think that's what you have to do to be successful. It may not be to never be satisfied with anything and to constantly be picking yourself apart and looking for weaknesses and looking for things you can do better. that may not be the key to, you know, always being the happiest, the most satisfied person in life, but I do think it's necessary for success. Are you still giving your money to woke razor companies that hate your values, see masculinity as toxic, and think that you should teach your daughter to shave her beard? Well, there's a better way. Jeremy's razors are 100% real and 100% woke-free. The premium Matt tungsten handle has more heft than the left.

The razor head pivots without caving and has six blades that are sharper than truth. Those other razor companies, they keep virtue signaling to the totalitarian left and using your money to do it. But you don't have to let them. When you buy Jeremy's Razors, you aren't just making Jeremy Richer. You're making the woke left poorer. 75,000 people have already made the switch. Visit Jeremy's Razors.com to get 40% off your founder series Shave Kit. That's Jeremy's Razors. Shut up and shave.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, we turn to the New York Times and a writer by the name of Jennifer Weiner. Back in July, Ms. Weiner wrote an article reflecting on a very important national issue that Jennifer Lopez had gotten married to Ben Affleck and taken his last name. I only became aware of this article because Lopez reacted to it this week in an interview with Vogue Magazine. And as you know, I am an avid reader of Vogue magazine. Before we get to Lopez's response, let's first review Weiner's piece, which is titled, Why It Matters that J-Lo is now J-F. She writes, the second chance romance leading up to last week's nuptials between Jennifer Lopez and the actor and director Ben Affleck

was a pandemic gift that kept on giving for romantics and celebrity gossip addicts alike. Every chapter of the Benefer 2.0 love story gave us something new to chew on. The most recent nugget, J-Lo's decision first announced in her subscription only on the J-Lo newsletter to change her last name. Quote, love is a great thing, maybe the best of things, and worth waiting for, she wrote, signing off with love, Miss Jennifer Lynn Affleck. True love wins, except also oof. Weena writes.

And just so you know, except also oof, will be about as insightful as this essay gets. She continues, Miss Affleck may be surrendering to the power of love with this, her fourth marriage, but given the cringy history behind the practice, a woman taking her husband's last name, feels to me like a submission,

a gesture that doesn't say I belong with him so much as I belong to him. And at this fraught moment for feminism in America, a woman like the former Jennifer Lopez deciding to change her name feels especially dispiriting. Sure, taking your husband's name might be a way of saying,

this is for keeps, but it's also a gesture inextricably rooted in peak patriarchy, specifically in 11th century law of coverture, which held that a married woman was, for legal purposes, merged with her husband with no standing or identity of her own. That notion hung on for centuries

and still indoors in various forms around the world. Now, it will not shock you to learn, as Weiner reveals later on the article, that she herself has been married multiple times. She explains that she didn't take the last name of her, in her words, current and final husband. It will also not shock you to learn that she references The Handmaid's Tale, writing, quote, The idea of taking a husband's last name always made me uncomfortable, reminding me of the handmaid's tail. And Margaret Atwood's Gilliad, the Handmaids, who exist to carry the babies of the elites, are stripped of anything that identifies them as individuals, including their names. As we know, if not for Harry Potter and the Handmaid's Tale, leftists would not be able to make any literary references at all.

Just as if not for Hitler, they would be unable to make any historical references at all. But in any case, Weiner goes on for several more paragraphs, explaining why Jennifer Lopez should have made a different decision about her own last name and why her decisions are somehow relevant to the public. Indeed, she says, Jennifer Lopez's name is whether she likes it or not, a political issue. She concludes, whether or not to take a spouse's name is a personal decision. But the personal is political now more than ever, and especially for celebrities. Like every star or every mortal with an Instagram account, Ms. Affleck has constructed a persona for public consumption. She has used her platform to tell the tale of the upward trajectory of a strong, independent woman, a woman who has gone from backup dancer to global superstar.

Her brand is intense competence and hardcore self-sufficiency, in control and loving it as she sings in Jenny from the Block. Whoever Jennifer Affleck is in her private life, J-Lo is a woman who might love a man but doesn't need one. Imagine if in her newsletter she had said, I love my husband. Right now, though, women are under attack, and I won't participate in a tradition that's historically rooted in women relinquishing their identities and their legal standing. I'm giving my husband my heart, but I'm keeping my name. Or imagine if Ben Affleck had become Ben Lopez. Now, admittedly, I'm sort of surprised that he didn't go that direction.

And I'm also surprised, pleasantly slow, so, by Jennifer Lopez's response in vogue this week, where she offers a defense of family and of tradition. She says, reacting to the New York Times article, what, really? People are still going to call me Jennifer Lopez, but my legal name will be Mrs. Affleck because we're joined together. We're husband and wife. I'm proud of that. I don't think that's a problem. And then when asked about the idea of Ben Affleck becoming Ben Lopez, she says,

no, it's not traditional. It doesn't have any romance to it. It feels like it's a power move. You know what I mean? I'm very much in control of my own life and destiny, and I feel empowered as a woman and as a person. I can understand that people have their feelings about it, and that's okay too. But if you want to know how I feel about it, it just feels romantic. It still carries tradition and romance to me, and maybe I'm just that kind of girl.

Well, well said. And now admittedly, Jennifer Lopez has been married something like 14 times. Under most circumstances, you would not consider her to be an advocate or defender of the sanctity of marriage and the beauty and importance of tradition. on this issue at least, she's correct. And Ms. Weiner in New York Times is like so many other left-wing feminists, frivolous, ridiculous, spiteful, despising what is traditional simply because it is traditional without being able to articulate any reason beyond that. So there are three points we made here. First, you notice how quickly the let women make their own decisions facade falls away. As we see time and time again, the feminists left. They respect and value a woman.

choice, provided she makes exactly the choice that they want her to make. If she makes the personal choice they prefer, then it's good that, you know, she made a personal choice and they should respect their choices. If she makes the personal choice they do not prefer, then the personal is political, and they have every right to attack her for it. That's just the way the game is played. Second, Lopez is correct that sharing a last name is about unity. It's about being joined, bonded together.

The modern, enlightened, quote-unquote, marriage is one where nothing is shared. Separate finances, separate names, separate lives, and eventually separate houses and separate divorce lawyers. Because the whole point of marriage, the reason it exists is to bring man and woman together as one. That's its beauty, it's mystery, its reason. If you're determined to maintain an entirely separate identity from your spouse, then you're really determined to close yourself off from the true nature and the greatest joy

of the marital union. Now, you could say that a last name is just a last name. What does it matter? But a name is a symbol, and symbols are deeply important and meaningful to human beings. The choice to share a name is symbolic, as it as discussed, but it symbolizes unity and fidelity. The choice to not share a name is also symbolic, then. And what does that symbolize? Well, the opposite of unity and fidelity. One of my favorite Avid Brothers song called Murder and in the city says, always remember there was nothing worth sharing like the love that let us share our name. And that's what it symbolizes. Man and wife share a name because of the love that bonds them together. Third point, finally, to Jennifer Lopez's point, tradition does matter.

Now, it may not always be enough to defend a tradition merely on the basis that it is a tradition. not all traditions should continue indefinitely just because they're traditions, but traditions matter. They tie you to your ancestors, to your heritage, to your past. Our ancestors speak to us through tradition. Traditions are their voice, the democracy of the dead, as Chesterton said. What this means is that if you're going to tear down a tradition or get away from one, you better have a very good reason. We may not come. continue every tradition, but there needs to be a reason to discontinue it, a compelling reason. But because, you know, even if at first you're doing something and you're saying, well, why are we

doing this? And the fact that generations and generations and for centuries and millennia before you, people did that thing, that's, that's like an indication that there's something worth doing here. And again, that's not always going to mean that you should continue it, but to just reflexively say, oh, we're not going to do this anymore. That's the problem. And the left reacts reflexively to tradition. Only their reflex is to reject it. It may not always make sense to defend traditions merely on the basis that they are traditions, but it makes even less sense to attack them merely on the basis that they are traditions. In the case of marital names, the tradition is good because, as we've already covered, it fosters unity and a shared purpose and a shared identity.

it's also good because it is a tradition. It became a tradition because it's good and meaningful, and the fact that it is a tradition only makes it all the more good and meaningful. And that ultimately is why the left wants to dismantle it, because they seek to dismantle everything that is good and meaningful, especially if it's traditional. And that is why Jennifer Wiener, not Lopez, is today canceled. And that'll do it for this portion of the show.

show as we move over to the members block. Hope to see you there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.