The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1078 - The Biden Administration Is Lying About The Brittney Griner Trade

Episode Date: December 9, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, shocker of shockers, it appears the Biden Administration is lying about the Brittney Griner trade. Evidence suggests that they did indeed choose her one other Americans trapped in Russia, like former Marine Paul Whelan. Also, Elon Musk releases more documents revealing the truth about how Twitter was run behind the scenes. And with this latest release, yet another right wing "conspiracy theory" has been confirmed. Plus, the Biden Administration's most notorious luggage thief is at it again. And Jennifer Lawrence applauds herself for being the first woman ever to star in an action film. Apparently Jennifer Lawrence has never seen any movies aside from the ones she stars in.  - - -  DailyWire+:   Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0     Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout and get two Black Angus New York Strip Steaks + two chicken breasts FREE: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh Black Rifle Coffee - Get 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or a Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ Balance of Nature - Get $25 off your first order as a preferred customer plus a FREE Fiber & Spice. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.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, shocker of shockers, it appears the Biden administration is lying about the Brittany Griner trade. Evidence suggests they did indeed choose her over other Americans trapped in Russia like former Marine Paul Whalen. We'll talk about that. Also, Elon Musk releases more documents revealing the truth about how Twitter was run behind the scenes. And with this latest release, yet another right-wing, quote, conspiracy theory has been confirmed. Plus, the Biden administration's most notorious luggage thief has added again. And Jennifer Lawrence applauds herself for being the first woman ever to star in an action film. Apparently, Jennifer Lawrence has never seen any movies aside from the ones that she's been in. All of that. And more today on The Matt Wall Show.

You know, I know as well as anybody that it can be really hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle when you've got a busy schedule and you're always looking for excuses and life can provide those excuses. But you've got to get rid of them. And that's why I'm a huge fan of balance of nature. Balance of nature, fruits and veggies are the best way to make sure you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day. Their products are 100% whole food. Balance of nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural phytonutrients in whole fruits and vegetables and encapsulates them for easy consumption. Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the studio for my team to try and we all love them. So when you're disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all

the kinds of benefits that are available, more energy, less fatigue, better focus. Consuming the right balance of fruits and vegetables every day is an important first step. So go to balance of nature.com. Use promo code Walsh for $25 off your first order as a preferred customer, plus a free fiber and spice That's balance of nature.com. promo code Walsh for $25 off your first preferred order. When we first heard the news that WMBA player Brittany Griner was being released from the tainment in Russia in exchange for the world's most notorious arms dealer, a man, our own government has nicknamed the merchant of death. Some of us were immediately suspicious about the reasoning behind this decision. This was especially the case given the fact that other

Americans like former Marine Paul Whalen, schoolteacher Mark Fogel, were left to languish in Russian labor camps while the basketball player was brought home. As we talked about yesterday, the Biden administration claims that they didn't choose to leave Whalen out of it. As far as Fogel goes, they're not even acknowledging him his existence at all, really. They say that Russia never gave them any option. It was either trade for Griner or for no one. And of course, if that was the case, given what they're being asked to give up, they should have just chosen no one in that case. I mean, Joe Biden literally hours before finalizing this deal, and not a lot of people know noticed this yesterday, but hours before finalizing this deal, he was speaking at a vigil to

honor victims of gun violence and then proceeded to orchestrate the release of the world's most notorious gun runner. So if they really took gun violence seriously, they wouldn't be so willing to release a man like that back into the wild, especially why, while they also tell us that Putin is a crazed dictator bent on global destruction and that the war in Ukraine is just the first step in Russia's attempted takeover of the world. I mean, I've always been quite skeptical of that claim, but if it's true, you probably don't want to give him back his merchant of death at a time such as this. And perhaps, you know, what we're learning here, shocker of shockers, is that the Biden administration, when it comes to the topics of Russia or gun violence or

anything else, doesn't take its own hype seriously. But at any rate, most of the analysis, even the critical analysis of the Griner swap has assumed that it's true that they could only bring home Griner or no one. If indeed it is true, the trade is still scandalously stupid, but it becomes a scandal of an entirely different level if it isn't true. If, in fact, they chose Griner over other Americans who had been, by the way, suffering in captivity for far longer than she had been. But personally, I assumed that was the case from the beginning. I assume it because I reflexively disbelieve everything this administration says. Also because a griner or no one offer from Russia makes it easier on the White House. Russia would actually be doing the White House a favor

by saying, we'll give you her or we'll give you nobody. It just makes it a simpler choice. But Russia is not interested in making things easier. It puts Biden in a more precarious and politically difficult situation to make him choose which American he wants. And so it just makes logical sense that Russia would prefer to put him in that situation, especially because they likely knew that he would humiliate himself and his country by extension by choosing the lesbian basketball player over the Marine. And by the way, I just saw, we can't play the clip because it's in Russian, you wouldn't understand it, but it saw a clip circulating of Russian media last night.

They had a woman on Russian media talking about this case and doing exactly this, mocking Biden for choosing. You know, she says that Biden was offered a choice between Waylon or Griner chose Griner. And as the woman on Russia TV points out, you know, they made that choice because, you know, Waylon goes to the back of the line because he's a white male and heterosexual. So they're mocking him. They're mocking Biden for this. This, of course, is what the Russians wanted. They wanted the opportunity to mock Biden for making this choice that they knew he would make.

And this seemed clear to many of us from the start. But evidence is now emerging, which strongly suggests that our instincts were correct. A journalist named Jordan Satchel is following the trail. He reports on his substack. He says, for several months, the Biden administration had been publicly indicating their intent to try to secure the release of both Griner and Whalen in exchange for Mr. before announcing Thursday that they had secured Griner in a one-for-one exchange. Did the Biden administration choose Griner over Whalen? Although Biden officials and the president himself have denied that that was the case,

several pieces of evidence seemed to indicate that Griner was indeed prioritized over Whelan and that Moscow allowed the Biden administration to choose either individual for the one-to-one swap. The corporate media citing senior Biden officials have delivered clues about the prisoner swap option. NBC News, a known regurgitator of state propaganda, stealth edited its story about the decision to choose Brittany Griner over Paul Whalen. For reasons unknown NBC News, citing a senior U.S. official changed its entire narrative about the prisoner exchange. The key paragraph in question for NBC's story first read before being stealth edited. This is what it read originally.

Quote, a senior U.S. official told NBC News that the U.S. government had sought to have both Griner and Whalen released as part of a swap with the Kremlin, which wanted the return of Victor Bout. a Russian arms dealer who served 11 years of a 25-year sentence to the U.S. But the official said Russia has treated Whalen differently because he is an accused spy, and the Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whalen or no one. So it wasn't Griner or No One, but Griner or Whalen or no one. That was NBC News Report originally. Then they edited it, and this is what the current version says.

But the official said Russia has treated Whelan differently because he's an accused. spy that the Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed. Huh. After different options were proposed. Wonder what those other options were. So we know they're rolling at full speed with the cover-up when they start rewriting paragraphs of news reports after the reports have already been published.

But there's more. Going back to this report, it says the NBC report also cites Whalen's Russian lawyer. Quote, Whalen's Russian lawyer, Vladimir Zerrenbenkov, will say, also said that the deal was in exchange of one-to-one and that choosing Griner 32 appeared more humane, quote-unquote, because she's a woman and an Olympic champion while Whelan was in the military, and it's easier for him to be in custody. Zerrenbinkov has previously said that Russia offered a one-to-one swap for Whelan in exchange for bout prior to Griner's attention. This offer was apparently rejected by U.S. officials. Additionally, Whelan's brother has indicated that just days ago, the former U.S. service member was being considered for a one-to-one swap. And these are reports that have surfaced elsewhere that originally, before Griner had ever been arrested, the U.S. had the opportunity to bring Whalen home in exchange for bout and said no.

But then said yes when it was offered for Griner. So it's pretty clear what actually happened here, and that they're now lying about it. And why would they choose Griner over Whalen or any other American incarcerated in Russia? Well, that is clear also. In fact, a reported Politico seemed to accidentally acknowledge the reality here. It says this moment ends a brutal nine months for Griner who was detained at a Moscow airport for possession of vape cartridges containing hash oil. She was sentenced in August to nine years in prison, so and so forth. Along with her sports fame, the fact that she is, was a gay,

black woman, the fact that she was a gay black woman heaped immense pressure on the Biden administration to get her state side. So those of us who noted immediately that she got the call because she's gay and black, we were castigated by the left. We were accused of bringing race and sexuality into it. But as always, we didn't bring it into it. We only noted the fact that they had been brought into it already. There's a reason why the White House made a special point of noting these demographic details about Reiner yesterday. Listen. In recent weeks, it became clear that while Russians were willing to reach an agreement to secure Britney's release, they continued to treat Paul Whalen differently given the nature

of the totally illegitimate charges they have levied against Paul. Unfortunately, the choice became to either bring Britney home or no one. As the president said this morning, he will never stop working. to secure polls release and return home, and he will not give up. On a personal note, Brittany is more than an athlete, more than an Olympian. She is an important role model and inspiration to millions of Americans, particularly the LGBTQI plus Americans and women of color. She should never have been detained by Russia.

And we are, I am, deeply proud of the work. out of the work that the president has done, this administration has done, to get her home. Yeah, we want to get Paul Whalen home. Sure. Yeah, yeah, fine. But hey, by the way, Britney Greiner is gay. Did you hear about that? A role model to the LGBTQI community had to get that I in there for intersex. Griner is an inspiration to those with genital deformities for some reason. So the claim is that she wasn't chosen because she's gay and black, but gee, isn't it so great that we brought this woman home who is gay and black? Let us all celebrate her homecoming for these specific reasons, yet they had nothing to do with the decision-making process. That's what we're supposed to believe.

CNN also joined in the parade. Let's listen. I think I would be remiss if we did not mention also the importance this plays for the LGBTQ community. As we've been talking about black women, this is big. So this is for the LGBTQ community. Glad releasing a statement, obviously. just I'm summarizing here that they're happy and that shows the struggles and the danger that members of the LGBT community face around the world. But when you look at what is happening with the LGBT community specifically here in the United States, what does this say, does this bring attention to that? And it shows us, hey, look, we're all Americans. Listen, Brittany Griner represents everything in this country.

She's female. She's LGBTQ. She's black. And she's extraordinary. She's excellent. She's overcome. She's an icon. She's done everything you can do in her sport and more.

And yet she still wasn't safe. She represents everyone, he says. She's LGBT, black, a woman, everyone. though it seems he may have left a few people out of the everyone category. We've got LGBT people, black people, women. Who's missing here? Hmm. No, never mind.

I guess that is everyone. I guess that's the whole, that's all people that exist. We're also told that she's an icon. She's a hero. She's a saint among sinners. But why is that exactly? She plays basketball moderately well against a bunch of women. I think she averages.

I had to look this up. Apparently they keep stats for W. NBA players, which I didn't realize that. And so she averages 17 points a game against a bunch of women. In a league where nobody, when there's been like three dunks in the last 30 years. So she does that. And then in her personal life, she's a convicted domestic abuser who had to enter into a 26-week domestic violence counseling course a few years ago before getting arrested for bringing drugs into a foreign country. Icon, sure. But in a certain way, you know, she is an icon, I suppose. icons are, what are icons? They're symbols. And Greiner symbolizes the demographic hierarchy in this country. She's a symbol of the racial and sexual pecking order. That's what she's a symbol of, the ranking system. And that has never been more clear than it is now. Let's get to the five headlines.

It's been a hard year on the economy, and that means that essential practical gifts will be in high demand this year. Well, you can give the most essential gift of all America's best meat and seafood from Good Ranchers. With discounts on orders of five boxes of more, you can save on gifts for the whole family. When you give a box of Good Ranchers, you're giving them a true steakhouse experience with 100% American USDA, prime and upper choice cuts of beef, chicken, and seafood. Other meat delivery companies and even your local grocery stores, they import lower quality meat from overseas. Don't give your friends and families less than America's best this year. Not sure what to order?

Well, Good Ranchers now offers gift cards. can let your friends and family members choose for themselves or give the gift of a subscription and inflation-proof someone's meat budget. Go to good ranchers.com. Use code walsh to checkout to get $35 off your order. That's good ranchers.com code walsh for $35 off. Good ranchers. American meat delivered. All right. This had to be, I want to before I move on to the Griner, move on from the Griner news. I wanted to mention this had to be some kind of record, I think, competing anyway, maybe not directly, but competing for fastest cave to the woke mob. Micah Parsons, who's a place for the Cowboys, a pass rusher.

He tweeted immediately after the Griner News was made public, he tweeted in reaction to it and made the point that many of us are making and are still making. He says, wait, no, we left a Marine, hell not. That's what he said. Okay. So he was upset that we left a Marine that we were bringing Ryan and Herbert, we're leaving Paul Whale. And he tweeted this. Left was very upset. Even though this is the same thing many of us were saying, it's like thousands of people on

social media all at once making the same point. But Micah Parsons is an athlete. And so therefore, as far as the left is concerned, he belongs to them. You know, they own him. And also he's black. So he's a black athlete, famous guy. And so he's not, this is, this is, this is not allowed. You're not allowed to express a viewpoint like this that's, that's slightly outside of the, you know, the accepted talking points. And so the cave began shortly there after about an hour later, he said, my last tweet was no shot at Brittany Griner. I'm super happy she's back home as she should be. I just have family who've served. And it's crazy to me, the president wouldn't bring him home to. I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, but I'm not a fan of Biden either. And there was nothing in the original tweet that would indicate that he's not happy that Bernie Griner's coming home.

He just wants this other guy to come home too. He has family that serves in the military. It's very reasonable position to take. But they weren't happy with that. And so the left kept coming after him. And then finally comes the ultimate cave. And this is very clearly not something that was written by him. And so there's a reason why these apologies always sound the same.

because they're written by, you know, PR people. Says, just spoke to some people that I respect and trust. I should have been more educated on the topic and not tweeted out of emotion for my family and others who have served. For that, I apologize. Also, if what I'm told about the attempts to bring retired Marine Paul Whalen home are true, then the best outcome was accomplished. I pray Mr. Whalen comes home, but I'm extremely happy for Brittany and her family.

I am not too prideful to admit when I've made a mistake. Yeah, this is Micah Parsons talking, right? His original tweet was, what, hell nah? What is this? Multiple exclamation points, emojis. And then his apology is, I pray that Mr. Whalen comes home, extremely happy for Brittany and her family. I'm not too prideful to admit my mistakes.

They don't even try to make it sound like this as him talking. And then the cave is ultimately completed. I will say, the left at least, they came up with a couple clever nicknames for Michael Parsons. I'll give him credit for that. You know, they started calling him Maga Parsons, which is, that's okay. But then someone came up with pass rush Limbaugh. Pass Rush Limbaugh is a nickname, which is clever, maybe even a little too clever for a nickname because you have to kind of think about it for a second. Anyway, that was enough to get them to back down. It doesn't take much.

All right. The other big news of the day happened last night. Daily Wire has the report about this. The latest release of the Twitter files Thursday evening revealed that leftists at the highest levels of the company who have all since been fired or been forced to resign, targeted one of the most popular right-wing accounts on the platform with repeated suspensions despite the fact that they secretly admitted that she did not do anything wrong. Journalist Barry Weiss released a long Twitter thread in which she showed how Twitter built Blackliss, which by the way they actually called Blackliss, prevented disfavored tweets from trending on the platform and active limited the visibility of entire accounts and even trending topics in secret without informing

users. Weiss noted the different layers of censorship that existed at Twitter that the highest level was the site integrity policy policy escalation support known as SIPPS, SIPPES, I guess. Weiss said this secret group included head of legal policy and trust, the global head of trust and safety, subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agarwal. and others. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. Think high follower account controversial, another employee told us. For these, there would be no ticket or anything. And White showed how Libs of TikTok was placed on a trends blacklist and that a special note was placed on the account that said action could not be taken on the account without consulting

the SIP-PES. The account which Chai Rijik began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers, was subject to six suspensions in 2020, 2022 alone. Each time, Wrightchick was blocked for posting for as long as a week. Twitter repeatedly informed Wrightchick that she had been suspended for violating Twitter's policy against hateful conduct. However, those at the highest level secretly admitted that they knew that lives of TikTok did not violate any of the site's rules, yet they wanted her suspended anyway. And then Barry Weiss's thread goes on and there's a lot of documentation. It shows the behind the scenes correspondence that was going on. And it shows how the head honchos at Twitter, they knew that she wasn't violating

any of the hateful conduct policy. They didn't have any specific tweet. They were looking for saying. They were looking for, they wanted to permanently suspend her, suspend her, but they needed, they needed an ammo to do it. And so they needed a specific tweet that directly violates their hateful conduct policy. But she never gave that to them. And so then instead they, they settled on just continually suspending her for a week at a time with the reasoning that she was indirectly violating the policies. What is indirect violation of the policy? What is that exactly? What constitutes an indirect violation of a policy? Well, obviously anything can constitute that. That's just whatever they decide is an indirect violation. And it's not just a

lives a TikTok. And in the thread, it shows how there are a few other examples were given. Charlie Kirk was placed on a blacklist. Dan Bongino was placed on a blacklist. Most egregiously of all, actually, the most outrageous example are, although not surprising, are certain doctors who in the early days of the COVID panic were placed on different blacklists and had their content suppressed because they were tweeting things that were. were not accepted by the left at the time, though have been vindicated by the facts. There was one doctor in particular who tweeted that shutting down schools will be harmful to children, which is a fact that, by the way, everyone agrees with now, even on the left.

But at the time that he tweeted that, they decided they're going to suppress his account because of it. And all this is being done without informing anyone, it's being done in secret, and it's being lied about. This to me is bigger than the Hunter Biden laptop stuff. I think they probably should have led with this. As Elon Musk is going through and giving these scoops to different reporters that he can trust, I think this should have been the first one. This to me is bigger. This is documentation, this is evidence of widespread systemic bias targeted at conservatives on political grounds, censoring them secretly while lying about it. Yes, we all knew this was happening. We knew that shadow banning was a thing, but the left mocked us for talking about that, said it was a conspiracy theory, and now we have documented evidence that was happening.

And we also know, again, they were lying about it. They denied it. Jack Dorsey, when he was still running things at Twitter, was asked many times whether conservatives are shadow banned, and he said, no, here's just one example of him apparently lying about it. The president called you out for shadow banning. What is the truth around? that idea? So I think a lot of the statements behind the statement and the question behind the question is look shadow banning is a very widely defined term there's not one single definition so the definition that we found that seems to resonate with the most people is you know not amplifying particular messages or if someone puts out a tweet hiding that tweet from everyone without that person who tweeted it knowing about it.

So, but the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not, period. We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior. And we use that behavior as a signal to add to relevance. We need to constantly show that we, are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is left, is more left-leaning.

And I think it's important to articulate our bias and to share it with people's that people understand us. But we need to remove all bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement. People have these assumptions that you're out to get them or something. That and which is why transparency matters. transparency matters, although all this was being done behind closed doors in secret and is now being brought to light by Elon Musk. Now, it is true that Jack Dorsey was kept out of the loop on a lot, it would seem. There's this vast bureaucracy that was built up on Twitter.

And I heard someone on Twitter put it as, you know, Twitter had its own, effectively its own deep state. But the advantage of Twitter being a private company can be taken over and just all those people can be fired, which is a exactly what Elon Musk did. So Jack Dorsey was kept out of the loop on something. But at the same time, I think that it's pretty clear that he knew what he was saying there is not true. Especially the idea that the shadow banning and all of that was not ideologically biased. I mean, now we have the documented evidence of the conversations that were going on behind the scenes. And they were targeting certain accounts and looking for reasons to get rid of them. And if they couldn't do that, then they would just suppress them. And we know that now. Now, I will admit,

to a certain amount of jealousy, you know, that's, that they, they released the, the, the, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, blacklist files for certain accounts like, you know, Charlie, Dan and lives of TikTok, I would love to see my own blacklist file. That's, uh, I, I, I would, I would love to see what that looks like. It's, I, I know for 100% certain, obviously, that I've been targeted the same way. I also know, as I mentioned before that they did this, you know, Barry, Barry Weiss's Twitter thread. She says that they also targeted Twitter. There were certain trends that they would target people that they would shadow ban and suppress, but then also trends. They're like things they didn't want trending. And one of those things I know for 100% certain was what is a woman.

You know, because when we first announced the film and we were promoting it and it was climbing up the trending list and made into the top 10 when we first announced the movie, put the trailer out. And then in like 30 seconds, it just disappeared from the trending list completely. and never returned, which is pretty clear that something was done behind the scenes saying, we're not going to allow this to trend. So I'd like to see my blacklist file, I think, but not just mine. You know, we need to see all of this. So it's good that Elon Musk is doing what he's doing. He's already done more to expose the way things are rigged behind the scenes. he's doing more in that area than anyone else in my lifetime.

Certainly more than any other than any elected Republican, for example, has ever done. But we got to go all the way. And so we need to see all of this. Release all the files. Everybody that was on a blacklist, release that everything. Put a database out there so that we can access it and we could see everything. Put it all out in the open. There can't be any half measures.

If you're going to do this, then you've got to go all the way. And we have to see it all. All right. Here's a, this story is being reported by local CBS News in Las Vegas. It says, an energy department official, this is going to sound like a little bit of deja vu. An energy department official is accused of stealing luggage from Harry Reid International Airport. The eight news now investigators learned on Thursday. A felony warrant was issued for.

Sam Britton, a deputy assistant secretary, sources said the charges for grand larceny with a value between $1,200 and $5,000. Britain is a deputy assistant secretary of the official of office of spent fuel and waste disposition. Britain faces charges for a similar incident at the Minneapolis airport. He was on leave after charges were filed in connection with that incident and energy department spokesman said in November. So this guy was arrested for stealing a suitcase. and the original theft was in, was that in Washington, or doesn't know, Minneapolis. And now he's arrested again for doing it again.

Now, it's not clear when, like, did this theft happen in the last week? After he was already arrested for the first one, or did this happen earlier? So the timeline isn't exactly clear. But what we do know is that he's stolen at least two suitcases now. That on top of everything else we know about him, about him being a dog fetishist, BDSM enthusiast, gives classes on spanking. And, you know, it goes to give spanking 101 classes at colleges and all that. So all that stuff we know.

And now he's also a serial luggage thief on top of it. And by the way, just to be clear, again, I see some people accusing him of being a kleptomaniac. Like he has some sort of compulsion to steal. That's not what this is. He is being driven by compulsion, but it's not a compulsion to steal. It's pretty clear what he's doing here. He's stealing luggage from women because he's a cross-dressing fetishist, and he has a thing for stealing women's clothes and wearing them,

which is why when the first item was taken, when the first piece of luggage was taken, they never did recover any of the clothes. I wonder why that is. So that's what's going on here. It's even creepier, a lot creepier, than simply being a kleptomaniac. This is a, a person.

who is being driven by his perversions and has no control over them, apparently. To steal luggage from an airport in the first place when the whole, when, you know, there are 10 cameras watching you at any given moment, that's already insane. But to do it again, after you've already been arrested the first time, this just shows this is someone who has no control over their actions, a pervert who is driven by those perversions. and yet was a high-ranking official with a high-security clearance. Now, this is a point I might flesh out a little bit more next week because it's an important point, but I do want to mention one other thing about this, which is that I think the San Britain case,

I mean, it shows a lot. It shows why it's suicidally stupid to hire people based on diversity, equity, and inclusion for that to be the litmus test. So it obviously demonstrates that. I think it also demonstrates why we need to bring back bullying in this country. We need a lot more bullying, not less. I think we've made a massive mistake by our anti-bullying efforts have been misguided, I think. We've made a mistake by raising our kids and telling them that the worst thing you can ever do, that's the worst thing. Bullying and is the worst thing. You know, you should never mock or belittle something that's weird,

something that's strange. And even the freakiest weirdos among you, don't make fun of them. Don't point and laugh. Don't mock them. Right. Treat them like it's normal. Even the weirdest, strangest things treat it like normal. Because if you don't, then you're bullying. And that's the worst thing in the world. And then what happens? you end up with people like Sam Britain, who feel totally empowered to act out their weirdest, most disgusting compulsions in public. At a point now, they have no control over it because they've been empowered this way. Sam Britain is someone who would have benefited from a lot of bullying when he was younger. And probably if you listen to his story, he'll tell you, I was bullied a lot.

No, it's pretty clear that he wasn't. He needed to be. He needed people to point at him and say, the way you're acting right now, this is freaking weird, man. Stop it. You're acting like a freak. Stop all this. He needed to feel that shame. And he needed to stop and say, well, why is everyone pointing and laughing on me?

I'm ashamed. Like there's something wrong with me. He needed to feel that. And then it needed to be told not that, oh, no, everything's fine with you. No, yeah, there is something wrong with you. You know, we need to get you some therapy, some counseling. You get a thing for wearing dog masks and leather in public. Like, that's not, that's not, that is strange.

That is something that we should mock and laugh at. That is, that's an appropriate natural reaction, right? Mockery, laughter, all of that. That's an appropriate natural reaction to bizarre, perverted things. And we should, that's the reaction we should have. But we like beat that reaction out of people. and insist that they treat everything like it's normal, even if it's not. And then you end up with Sam Britain.

All right. John Kerry, whose official title is U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for the Climate, was asked this week about the possibility of the U.S. paying climate reparations, whatever those are. And not just on its own behalf, but on behalf of other countries too, footing their bill to pay money to heal the climate, to appease the nature gods. And here's what he said.

So back on the loss and damage fund, though, I mean, is there going to have to be U.S. taxpayer money that helps the United States? Presumably the United States is going to have to be one of the nations that contributes to the... Well, it would be great if there were some. It's... I mean, the United States of America, proudly,

is the largest humanitarian donor in the world. The American people already do an enormous amount around the world. So we should be doing some of that, he says. We should be paying for other countries. We all need to be paying climate reparations. And again, it's not exactly clear what that is or how that would. So you pay money and then it changes the weather.

Not sure I see the connection there, but we should be doing it on behalf of other countries too. And then I always love when these people say, well, the American people, they're already contributing so much and doing so much. Yeah, we are, because this is our money. But you make it sound like it's our choice, which it isn't. You're making it sound like this is our, all the foreign aid that we give out, all the money that we give to foreign governments. No taxation, you know, there's no taxation. There's no representation in this taxation where we're giving money to foreign governments. I have no idea how they're going to spend it, have no control over how it's spent. We don't benefit. American families don't benefit from that money because we're giving it to foreign governments. And yeah, we're doing it to foreign governments. And yeah, we're doing it. doing all of that, but it's not our choice. This is all happening against our will. But, you know, we've long since normalized this idea, and a lot of people have grown accustomed to this idea of the United States government handing out checks to foreign governments, billions and billions and billions of dollars to dozens and dozens of foreign governments every single year with no accountability whatsoever.

All right. What else do we have here? I think we got to skip right ahead to this, because I don't want to make sure we don't lose our opportunity to talk about it. Okay, here it is. From The Washington Post. Lisa Whitnack loved sharks as a kid. She spent rainy days leafing through a guide to sharks and readers digest. Every summer, she would watch Shark Week, which is Discovery's annual TV event that spotlights the ocean predator with seven days of dedicated programming. But when the scientists appeared on her TV screen, she rarely saw any women she could look up to.

Why would I know I could do that, Whiteknack said? I don't come from a family of scientists. I didn't see very many people that look like me on television. Whitenac, now a biology professor at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania, found her way into shark research anyway. When the pandemic lockdowns began in 2020, she saw an opportunity to study the sources of her old misconceptions. Was Shark Week feeding audiences, the wrong messages about sharks? and who studies them? Whiteneck led a team of researchers to examine hundreds of Shark Week episodes that aired

between 1988 and 2020. This is the kind of research that's being done. This is the kind of scientific research that's being funded these days. If you wonder what the scientists are working on, you know, like why haven't we gotten back to the moon yet? Why don't we have a cure for cancer yet? Well, the scientists are working on this sort of thing. looking into the diversity in Shark Week programming.

In a study published last month by the Public Library of Science, their research claims that Discovery's programming emphasized negative messages about sharks, lacked useful messaging about shark conservation, and overwhelmingly featured white men as experts, including several men with the same name. The programming featured more white experts and commentators named Mike than women. So they're even looking at, there are not just too many white men who are studying sharks, but there are too many white men named Mike.

Can we at least get some other names in there? Anyway, it goes on. Let's see. David Schiffman is a conservationist at Arizona State University, was a co-author on the study. When there are hundreds of people of color interested who work in this field, and when my field is more than half women, maybe it's not an accident anymore, that they're only featuring white men. Discovery did not respond to a request for comment on the study's findings.

And by the way, that's not because Discovery is just going to laugh this off as they should. It's not because they're laughing it off and saying, what their response should be, yeah, the response should be like, are you kidding me? I don't know, who cares? But no, they're just, they're talking to their PR people. And eventually they're going to issue some, you know, mea culpa, come to Jesus, a great grand apology. If they haven't already, I haven't even looked up.

This story's a few days old, so they may have already done this. Outlining all the steps they're going to take to make sure there's more diversity in Shark Week programs. That's what's going to happen. The company told NBC Boston that it wouldn't comment on a study that has yet to pass any scientific approvals after preliminary version was presented in 2021. It has since undergone a scientific review. Okay. Well, we can continue reading that if you want, but I think we probably don't need to. And we are so far beyond the bounds of parody at this point that I did.

I read through the entire thing because I was honest to God expecting that they would also say that the focus on Great White Sharks in particular is racist, or that there's some kind of encoded message there that were always taught, oh, great white. I was really expecting that. Unironically, I was expecting that would be in there. And it wasn't, but nearly as absurd as that. And remember, it's not just that there's not enough diversity among people who are talking about sharks,

but also that it is painting a negative message about sharks. Sharks are actually quite friendly. Like, nothing to worry about. If you're swimming in the ocean and you see that dorsal fin go by, nothing to worry about. Don't make assumptions. Don't make biased stereotypical assumptions just based of the fact that there is this prehistoric death machine swimming right next to you. One thing for sure, next year's shark week, okay? After this, next year's shark week, you've never seen diversity like what they're going to do. Every single shark expert, I guarantee you there will not be one white male shark expert allowed in next year as a shark week.

Certainly none named Mike. You're going to see, there's going to be black shark expert. They're going to find women, they're going to throw in some trans shark experts. And if there aren't any trans shark experts, they'll just bring in some trans people in general, whether they know anything about sharks or not. Maybe they'll bring in a trans person who's seen the movie Jaws and get their comment on it. You've never seen diversity like what we're going to see next year. All right, let's get to the comment section. Twas a show before Christmas and through the studio, no other host was stirring, not even Shapiro.

All the merch was set on the shelves with care in hopes to. that sweet daddy soon would be there. The sweet babies were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of walruses danced in their heads. Then over on Twitter there arose such a clatter. I was trending on the timeline for some erroneous matter, but I ignored it like every other time, shrugging off the satanic unhinged blue hair slime.

Then my merch-making elves created a collectible new back, adding to my coveted program the Sweet Santa Baby Patch. They'll sell out for my store, so don't wait, don't stop. Just head on over to dailywire.com slash shop. Black Rifle Coffee Company is helping you knock out your holiday shopping with a ton of awesome new products this year. Shop the best brewing gear, thermosies, mugs, and apparel. Design for folks who love country and coffee.

Black Rifle sources the most exotic roast from around the globe. All coffee is roasted here in the U.S. by veteran-led teams of coffee experts. You can stuff your Christmas stockings with the latest roast from America's coffee for 10% off with My Code Walsh. Better yet, sign your secret Santa up for a coffee club subscription. Imagine the joy of a pre-scheduled coffee delivery, your favorite roast when you need the most. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Black Rifle Coffee Company is veteran founded and operated. They take pride in serving coffee and culture to people who love America.

Every purchase you make with Black Rifle help support veteran and first responder causes. So go to black rifle coffee.com. Use promo code Walsh for 10% off coffee, coffee gear apparel, or when you sign up for a new coffee club subscription. That's black rifle coffee.com with promo code Walsh for 10% off. Black Rifle Coffee, supporting veterans and America's coffee. Tie My Shoe says, I'm convinced Dylan is a top-tier troll. He's playing the long game.

And then Reg Pithor agrees. Dylan Mulvaney is clearly playing a character role to the hilt like Sasha Baron Cohen's Borat or Bruno. and he's laughing at everyone who is embracing his clearly ridiculous portrayal of girlhood while also raking in the dollars, some kind of twisted genius. I've seen this a lot of there are other comments like this, and this to me seems like a cope. This is just cope. I heard there was similar theories were bandied about that the Canadian teacher with the ridiculous

prosthetic breasts, and there were people theorizing that maybe this is a troll. Maybe this is actually someone who's conservative and is trying to make a point about, you know, the excesses of gender ideology. So that seems to be the theory here as well. Again, the theory really is that, so if this is true, then Dylan Mulvaney, not only a comedic genius, but this is actually quite heroic, because if this is a troll and he's doing all of this to mock gender ideology, he's getting all of these sponsorships and everything, when eventually he says, hey, I got you, this was all a troll.

When he says that, he's going to be deplatforms. from everything. He's just pissed off like every corporation that's sponsoring him right now. And he's going to be public enemy number one. So this is kind of like a kamikaze mission to expose the absurdity of gender ideology. That's, I suppose, you're a theory. And I think that's a cope. I don't think that's the case at all. I think you want that to be true because you look at Dylan Mulvaney and you say to yourself, like, there's no way this can be sincere. I mean, we're actually supposed to take this seriously. There's no way. This has got to be a joke. You're just because you're a normal person and you don't want to deal with how insane the

culture has gotten. And so you see something like this and you think it's got to be a joke. But it's not. Just like that the Washington Post article I just read about the lack of diversity in Shark Week, you might hear that and say, well, that's got to be a joke. It's not a joke. I mean, it is a joke in a certain sense, but it's not intentional. Let's put it that way. Now, on the other hand, if what you're saying is, well, Dylan Mulvaney, he's not really trans. Well, sure, in a certain sense, you're right. He's not really trans because nobody really is.

Like, he's not actually a woman. He's claiming to be a woman. He's not really that. So we know that. But is this intended by him to be some kind of troll? I think, no. I think it's entirely sincere. All right.

Duel says, you're jealous, Matt, angry, bitter, and jealous. So I'm trying to think who I talked about in yesterday's show that I would be jealous of. Sometimes you see these comments and they're outside. I have no context for them because they're reacting to a certain part of the show, but they don't tell me what part it is. So who am I angry, bitter, and jealous? Who am I jealous of my, you're saying I'm jealous of Brittany Griner?

That's who we started the show with yesterday. And you know what? I kind of am. Because she's, you know, she's made millions of dollars with her mediocre basketball talent. And I'm somewhat jealous of that. I'm probably as good at basketball as she is. And yet she's making millions of dollars off of it. So, yeah, in a way, I kind of, I guess I am.

Jack says ADHD isn't just inattentiveness. It's a deficiency of certain receptors in the brain to process dopamine. Most people with ADHD only get that high from dopamine when engaging in novel or exciting things and can quickly lose it when those things get boring. Hence the struggle with homework but not video games. It also presents as extreme hyperfixations and hobbies when they find something that gives them that hit of dopamine. Medication for ADHD increases dopamine levels in the brain to baseline levels so they can regulate mood and focus better. It's very easy to mistake, especially in children, with just being hyper or bored.

It's wildly overdiagnosed today, but it is a real thing. Being an adult with severe ADHD sometimes verges into being debilitating, especially when working from home. But the best medicine isn't microdosing meth. It's going outside, exercising regularly, and balancing your diet. Okay, so at the very end there, I can, I agree with you that the best medicine for something, the best medicine for a, quote, condition like this is not, you know, psychotropic drugs. It's lifestyle changes and all that. So that I can agree with you.

But connecting ADHD to dopamine and receptors in the brain and all of that, I mean, you're stating this like it's a fact. But when I look into it, what I find are, you know, reports about studies that indicate a potential link maybe between ADHD and dopamine, but they don't even know what exactly the link is. So you are making a much stronger case than what the evidence actually allows. It's actually quite similar to the serotonin theory of depression, which of course has since been revealed to be essentially a myth.

But that was built from there. There were a few studies done that indicated maybe there's a connection, possibly maybe. And the next thing you know, according to doctors and pharmaceutical companies, it's a 100% fact. And that's just, that's not how it works. It's not how science works. And by the way, if ADHD, and this is the same point I always made about depression, it's the same point I make about a lot of these supposed mental illnesses. If it is something that is entirely based in brain chemistry, if it's something that can be located in the brain,

Then why don't they diagnose it with brain scans? Why not? That's not how they diagnose it. They don't diagnose ADHD by looking at the child's brain. They don't do that at all. What they ask you are questions about his behavior. That's all they ask. And then they make the diagnosis based on that. Are they going to, you know, do they do the behavior survey? And then they say, well, we think your child, this child might have, ADHD, let's do some brain scans and take a look. And then would they look at the brain scan and say, well, you know, it looks like it's not actually ADHD? No, they don't do that. And that's because it's not based in brain chemistry.

It's based in, you know, this is entirely an invention based on behavior that we find troublesome or inconvenient. So this is a diagnosis of behavior. It's not a diagnosis of the brain. You know, we recently launched a brand new biblical series by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. This series is called Exodus, and in it, Jordan Peterson sits down with other scholars to read the book of Exodus and to discuss what it means and why it remains significant thousands of years after it was written. Scholars at the table include Dennis Prager, Jonathan Pagot, and many more. The first few episodes are available to stream right now, and there are more new episodes coming soon. Trust me, you don't want to see to miss this. Check out the trailer.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Turns out that a book is more durable than stone. It's more durable than a castle. It's more durable than an empire. You don't get away with anything. And so you might think you can bend the fabric of reality and that you can treat people instrumentally and that you can bow to the tyrant

and violate your conscience without cost. You will pay the piper. It's going to call you out of that slavery into freedom, even if that pulls you into the desert. God is ethics-centered, not ethnic-centered. Well, do you want the Pharaoh on your side or do you want God on your side? That's kind of the question. There's a profound sense here that what is going on with the Israelites is the contrast to Pharaoh, right?

Like under no terms where you go, and the Israelites have to say, we will go under any terms. And we're going to see that there's something else going on here that is far more cosmic and deeper than what you can imagine. The highest ethical spirit to which we're beholden is presented precisely as that spirit that allies itself with the cause of freedom against tyranny. Yes, exactly. I want villains to get punished. But do you want the villains to learn before they have to pay the ultimate price? That's such a Christian question. Well, you've got to be a member to watch. The head of DailyWire.com slash Walsh to become a member and watch Exodus today.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. We spent a lot of time focusing on the fact that Hollywood constantly churns out woke propaganda pieces disguised as cinema. And that's, of course, true. And a large part of the reason why audiences are losing interest in movies. This past Thanksgiving box office tally, a time when theaters typically rake in massive amounts of money, saw the weakest performance in over 25 years. This, in spite of the fact, that there, or maybe because of the fact, there were multiple sequels to blockbuster franchise films showing. There was a new Steven Spielberg movie. there was a Disney cartoon about a gay teenage boy and a disabled dog.

You know, all these things were at theater, and nobody went. Like I said, wokeness is certainly part of the problem here. But not the whole problem. Because the other issue is that so many movies are boring and dull and simply not anything to get excited about. And it seems that the people involved in making these cinematic versions of bland, stale gram crackers are aware at some level of how boring and uninteresting it all is.

And that's why they have to go to increasingly desperate lengths to pretend that their films are somehow revolutionary and provocative, even as they serve up the same under-seasoned dish that we've had a million times before. And I think that's part of what was happening this week when Jennifer Lawrence, now somewhat infamously sat down for an interview with Variety, and ended up claiming a title for herself that people older than 10 years old might find surprising, as it doesn't quite gel with our memories. Lawrence declared that she is the first actress to have ever starred in a Hollywood action film. Now, Jennifer Lawrence is 32, okay? She's not in her 70s or 80s, which she would have to be in order for that claim to have any chance of legitimacy. But let's watch the clip first. I remember when I was doing Hunger Games. Nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn't work.

We were told girls and boys can both identify with a male lead. But boys cannot identify with a female lead. Oh, absolutely. And it just makes me so happy every single time I see a movie come out that just blows through every single one of those beliefs and proves that it is just a lie to keep certain people out of the movies, to keep certain people in the same positions that they've always been in. And it's just amazing to watch it happen and watch you at the helm.

Yes, The Hunger Games released in 2012. was the, that was the first action film with a female lead. Lawrence then noted that it was also a great honor to co-star in the Silver Linings Playbook so that she could get a front row seat to Robert De Niro's first film role. And she's especially humble to realize that when she played Mystique, an X-Men first class, she was starring in the first superhero movie ever made. Truly, an historic career in her own mind, if not in reality. Because in reality, of course, Sigourney Weaver exists, Linda Hamilton exists,

Angelina Jolie exists. There have been many female action stars over the decades, going back to Carrie Fisher and Star Wars, even before her, there were others. Jennifer Lawrence is not the first to do anything, nor the best. She didn't even come up with a new way of doing something. She just followed a script that had long since been written, trying to pretend that she's breaking glass ceilings that have been laying in shards on the ground for decades.

Glass ceilings that, in this case, we should note, never mattered much to begin with. Okay, the fact that there are more men starring in action films and women, who cares? It makes sense that most action stars are men as men typically make more compelling and believable action stars, typically. Okay, it's a lot harder to make a female action here into anything but a silly cartoon. Sigourney Weaver pulled it off, which is why her performance is still remembered by everyone except Jennifer Lawrence, apparently.

And yet more often it ends up being a kind of goofy, girl power routine. Men can also, see, a man, it's easier for a male actor to elevate goofy action plots and lend them a certain gravitas. Batman is an absolutely ridiculous concept, okay? It is just absurd. You've got a guy who dresses in a rubber costume as a bat running around. It's ridiculous. And yet every man in the role, except maybe George Clooney, has pulled it off with varying degrees of success. Meanwhile, there's not. There's no. never been a bat girl that was anything but cringe on steroids. Because men are more natural for these roles. And generally speaking, they're just better at them. All that to say,

there was never a problem of too many men acting in action films. There were more men than women acting in them up until recently now, because now you can't have a white male lead for anything. But that's not a problem. It wasn't a problem. any more than there was ever a problem of there being too many men who are roofers. You know, you notice that the feminists are always very selective about the professions where they demand representation. I think I've seen maybe one female in my life riding on the back of a trash truck through the neighborhood. Somehow, though, there's no national discourse about the representation problem in the waste disposal industry. So it's okay for gender disparities to exist in certain contexts for feminists.

But in reality, it's okay in general. Gender disparities are natural because men and women are different. And they gravitate towards different things, and they have aptitudes in different areas. Women are better in certain areas generally. Men are better in certain areas generally. That's just, that's the nature of, that's human nature. It's the attempts to artificially even everything out that tends to always cause more problems than it solves. But this is somewhat immaterial because the point here is that Jennifer Lawrence came along after females had already made their entrance into the action film genre.

She's trying to recycle progressive victories from a generation before her. And we've seen this similar charade with, we've seen this all the time with the left, but we've seen it in Hollywood. We've seen it with other movies, such as when Black Panther was celebrated as some kind of breakthrough because it was a film with a mostly black cast, even though such films have been made by Hollywood for years, for decades. there have been black superheroes before as well. We had them in the 90s. So Black Panther didn't pioneer anything. Ross Douthit made this point in his book, Decadent Society, which he quoted in response to Jennifer Lawrence's flub. And reading from the passage is what he says. The reality of recurrence may be slightly harder for progressives to acknowledge than conservatives

because progressivism is more invested in its supposed position at the vanguard of cultural change, pressing boldly on to new frontiers. This makes it difficult for the left. recognize the generational recycling of its ambitions and anxieties. The fact that many progressive breakthroughs are just the cultural cycling, the culture cycling back to something that we did not that long ago, up to and including kick-ass female action heroes such as Wonder Woman, who followed a path blazed by Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the alien movies or the robot wrangling Sarah Connor in the Terminator movies or even the blaster wielding Princess Leia

in the Star Wars 40 years before that, or the African-American heroes in Black Panther. In truth, black stars were arguably more important in the years of Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor in the Cosby Show and the young Denzel Washington than in our officially representation-obsessed age. Now, his book, Decadent Society is about, as you may have guessed, decadence. We are a decadent society in the sense that we, as doubt it has it, are locked in this kind of cultural stalemate, treading water, adrift, bored, recycling the same ideas and themes. Now, I don't agree with all of his thesis, but when it comes to our art, artistic output. There is no question about it. A decadent society with decadent celebrities, clamoring to be cultural revolutionaries, in a culture that they have already won. They already own it. And that ultimately is why Jennifer Lawrence is today, cancer. And that'll do it for the show today. We'll talk to you on Monday. Godspeed.