The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1095 - Dems Outraged That Republicans Want To Provide Medical Care To Infants

Episode Date: January 12, 2023

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats prove once again that they are the most evil political party in American history by voting against legislation that would guarantee medical treatment to infants born alive after an abortion. They tried to come up with other reasons to object to the bill, but as we'll see today, all of those reasons are absurd. Also, after another transportation-related catastrophe, there are even more questions about what exactly Pete Buttigieg does all day. Plus, a business owner faces the pitchfork mob after video surfaces of him spraying a homeless woman with a hose. In our Daily Cancellation, the Golden Globes were hosted by a gay black man, which means his performance was automatically praised as brave and inspiring. But I have a slightly different take. - - -  DailyWire+:   Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire content catalog of movies, shows, documentaries, and more. Use code WALSH and get 2 months free on annual plans: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0   Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj  - - -  Today’s Sponsor: 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/ Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/  Helix - Get up to $350 OFF + 2 FREE pillows with all mattress orders: https://helixsleep.com/WALSH  - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF  Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA  Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA  Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs  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, Democrats prove once again that they are the most evil political party in American history by voting against legislation that would guarantee medical treatment to infants born alive after an abortion. They tried to come up with other reasons to object to the bill, but as we'll see today, all those reasons are absurd. Also, after another transportation-related catastrophe, there are even more questions about what exactly Pete Buttigieg does all day. Plus, a business owner faces the pitchfork mob after video services of him spraying a homeless woman with a hose. In our daily cancellation, the Golden Globes were hosted by a gay black man, which means that his performance was automatically praised as brave and inspiring, but I have a slightly different take. We'll talk about all that and more today on Matt Wall Show. The American Heart Association recommends four to five servings each of fruits and vegetables every

single day. That's no small task, especially given my busy schedule, you're probably in the same boat. 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 veggies and encapsulates them for easy consumption. Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the office for our team to try, and everyone loves them. You got to go to balanceofnature.com. Use promo code Walsh for $25.com. Use promo code Walsh for $25.com for the next few days as we prepare to welcome to

new children into the first preferred order. family. My wife is scheduled to be induced tomorrow. So at this time tomorrow, we will likely have two newborns on our hands. And many people, you know, have asked me how do we do it? How do we go from four kids to six kids and manage such a roster expansion without becoming totally overwhelmed? And the answer is, well, I don't know, but we'll figure it out. Like, that's the answer, as is so often the case in life, that is the answer. Nobody plans on having a second set of twins or even a first set, so these are decisions made above our pay grade, and all we do is accept it with gratitude. Take the rest day by day. I honestly have no idea how exactly one manages life

with six kids, nine under, and two infants, you know, over the span of the next year. But the good news is that we don't have to manage it for a year. We only have to manage it for a day and then another day and another day, et cetera, and figure the rest out as we go. That's the best advice I can give to new parents or feeling worried or overloaded with new responsibility, and now I'll get another chance to try and follow my own advice, which is always good. Now, the impending birth of our fifth and sixth children was very much on my mind when I read about the story that we're opening the show with today. Actually, it's two stories related and both happening in the House of Representatives. First, the House of Representatives now under GOP control,

voted on and passed a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers across the country. There are dozens of these attacks that have happened, often including vandalism, arson, and they've been carried out over the past six months, especially since Roe was overturned. They are not only crimes under state laws, state laws that prohibit things like vandalism and arson, but they're also federal crimes in violation of the FACE Act. And you may recall the FACE Act, you may have heard about it recently, as it's the federal law that has been wielded recently against pro-lifers who have been charged with allegedly getting too close to the entrance of an abortion clinic.

One pro-life activist in Pennsylvania was arrested at his home in the middle of the night by federal agents because of this act. You violated this act allegedly. Needless to say, the groups waging a terror campaign against pro-life pregnancy centers, even though those predacy centers are covered under the Face Act, and these terrorists are blatantly violating

that very same law, they have not been pursued with the same vigor. In fact, it doesn't seem like they're being pursued at all. The resolution condemning the attacks then is, of course, symbolic. It has no actual teeth. The terrorists are already breaking the law, multiple laws. It's not as though an additional law is needed or would have any effect anyway. But it is very notable, if not surprising, that nearly every Democrat voted against the measure.

All but three, 219 in total, voted no on a resolution which simply declared that the House of Representatives, is opposed to setting pregnancy centers on fire. That's the basic gist of the resolution. And they voted no, obviously, because they're not opposed to setting pregnancy centers on fire. Now, there were a few Democrats who countered with a different idea. They said, well, let's have a resolution that condemns attacks on both pro-life centers and abortion clinics. They would not condemn the former unless the latter was also condemned, they said. But that compromise would be no good because, for one thing, attacks on abortion clinics have already been sufficiently condemned by all of the most powerful institutions and people in the country. We already know that the system condemns attacks on abortion clinics. We hear it every day. Okay. Anytime the conversation comes up about abortion, any time pro-lifers are mentioned, we hear condemnations on these alleged attacks that are happening. So it's not needed. That's already been happening.

we do not know that these same people actually do condemn attacks on pro-life centers actually and now we know that they explicitly do not condemn them. Also, when we talk about an attack on a pro-life center, we mean that it was vandalized or it was set on fire. But when the other side talks about attacks on abortion clinics, they include protesters standing peacefully outside the building. To them, that's an attack. And this is why conservatives can never join with leftist condemnations of attacks, because to them, any form of opposition is an attack.

Yet this somehow was not the most shameful moment the Democrat Party had yesterday. For that, here's the Daily Wire report. In one of its first acts this session, the GOP-controlled House passed a bill Wednesday geared toward ensuring steps are taken by health providers to protect infants born alive after an attempted abortion. The bill, called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, establishes that health care practitioners who do not reasonably act to preserve the life and health of the child after an attempted abortion as they would any newborn face fines or up to five years imprisonment. The bill also outlines civil remedies for the mother of an abortion survivor. This reasonable legislation will protect a baby born alive following an abortion, said Carol Tobias, president of the national right to life. The bill isn't about interfering with a so-called right to abortion. It's about stopping infanticide.

Congress must act now to pass this legislation and protect these vulnerable babies. The bill ultimately did pass through the House anyway, but nearly every Democrat once again voted against it. So not only will they not condemn setting pregnancy centers on fire, they also will not vote to condemn or criminalize killing a newborn infant who has survived an abortion. Now, part of their argument against this act is that they say it's not necessary because this isn't happening, right? There's no abortionist who would ever kill a newborn baby. It's just not happening.

But that is pure gaslighting. Abortion clinic representatives themselves, when given the opportunity, have not ruled out infanticide. Let us not forget the case of Alyssa Lapult Snow, Planned Parenthood lobbyist, testified in front of a Florida House of Representatives subcommittee in 2013. Maybe you saw this video back when this first happened. but let's refresh our memories. Here's how she responded. Again, she's a representative for the abortion industry, and when she was asked,

what happens when a baby is born alive? What will the abortionists do? Here's how she responded. It's just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would play in parenthood want to have happened

to that child that's struggling for life? live. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician. Chair Davis, and then we'll come back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I believe you're in the committee room whenever I asked Representative Pigman the question about what happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point? Do not have that information. I am not a physician. I'm not a abortion provider. So I do not have that information. Oh, go ahead, sir.

I understand that you're not a physician, but you do represent physicians who do perform this activity. And can you tell me what happens when a baby is alive on the table at that point? What do they do with the baby that is struggling to live? I don't know. And as it's been referenced earlier, you know, we don't know even how prevalent this situation is. Well, that goes on for another five minutes. Now, if babies are born alive and they're provided care, she would simply say so. It would be a very easy answer. She would say, well, of course we provide care to a child in that circumstance. But she would not say so because it is not so. Of course it isn't so. Of course, the abortion clinics would prefer to kill the infant or let him die.

They obviously have no moral compunction about murdering babies, and they realize it'd be very bad for business to be delivering life-saving care to a child in the middle of a clinic dedicated to killing them. They certainly don't want any ambulance pulling up outside with paramedics rushing in and taking a barely breathing infant to the hospital. They don't want that. Such a scene would cause, you know, for one thing, the other women in the waiting room to ask lots of questions that the clinic doesn't want to answer. It is also a recognition, like trying to save a baby's life, rushing him to the hospital, that is a recognition of the humanity of the baby, and they don't want to recognize that. Their whole business rests on not recognizing that. So it's easier to solve the problem another way, and that's exactly what they do. And it's what the Democrats want them to continue doing.

There was a series of Democrat lawmakers who stood up on the House floor to register their shock and dismiss. over this bill. They were not only opposed to giving medical care to dying infants, but they were outraged and offended the very suggestion of such a thing. Democratic Representative Suzanne Bonamichi denounced the legislation by saying that it's extreme and dangerous. A woman from Oregon is recognized for one minute. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is extremist, dangerous, and unnecessary. Extremist because it would criminalize doctors with up to five years in prison and put them in fear of providing life-saving medically necessary procedures to those who are pregnant.

Dangerous because the bill has no exceptions to protect the health of the patient and no exception for cases where there is a serious fetal anomaly. And unnecessary because, as Mr. Nadler said, it's already a crime to kill a baby born alive. Well, I agree with her to a certain extent. We should not criminalize doctors who kill infants or let them die from neglect by giving them five years in prison. We should not do that. That, Actually, that's outrageous. We should criminalize them by giving them the death penalty. That's what we should do.

As for the rest, we see again what Democrats mean when they call something extreme. Extreme, extreme is basic moral decency and common sense. That's extreme. Treating human life like it has meaning rather than treating it like garbage to be tossed in the trash is extreme. All that's extreme, say the Democrats. Representative Nadler had an even more interesting take on this bill and a more fascinating objection. Here's what he said. The problem with this bill is not that it makes anything, that it is not that it provides any new

protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant, or it may be. may not. That is the problem with this bill. It directs and mandates a certain medical care, which may not be appropriate, which may be in danger the life of an infant in certain circumstances. That's why we oppose this bill. Did you get that? It might endanger a child's life to bring him to a hospital. Now, if Nadler was actually concerned that the legislation doesn't do enough to

protect children, he could have proposed an amendment, making it even more bulletproof. Change it to say something along the lines of the child must be offered whatever medical care is most likely to preserve his life, or worse, that effect. If that language isn't already in the bill. That'd be a simple way to allay his alleged concerns, but the Democrats weren't interested in adding language like that to the bill. They didn't want the bill at all. And the reason is clear.

they do not wish to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child. They are, the Democrats are, in a very literal sense, anti-human, anti-life, anti-child. And they prove it more and more every day. Now let's get to our headlines. Well, you know how I feel about New Year's resolutions. You set out with lofty goals. You stick to them for two weeks. Then you fall right back into your old habits.

Well, lucky for you, I have a goal that you can accomplish today. complete your will with Epic Will. It's just $119, and you can do it in as little as five minutes. Epic Will can help you create your last will in testament, your living will, and even health care power of attorney. Their step-by-step online form makes it incredibly easy. All you got to do is fill in the blanks. 50% of Americans don't have a will. Choose today to be in that smarter half. Go to epicwill.com. Use promo code Walsh to save 10% off on Epicwill's complete will package. That, again, is epicwill.com promo code Walsh. Okay, a lot to cover in the headlines.

And I suppose we'll start with this, with a controversy in San Francisco. Here's the ABC headline, Art Gallery owner who hosed down homeless woman in San Francisco finds it, quote, hard to apologize. The art gallery owner is seen in a now viral video spraying water from a hose onto an unhoused woman. Remember, not homeless, unhoused. What's the difference between homeless and unhoused? Nothing at all.

is no difference. Those are like synonyms. It's just that unhoused sounds more clunky. And yet, that's the politically correct term now. For that, it's distinction without a difference, but we've just decided, like, it's, it's time to update that language arbitrarily. And so this is the new thing. Hosing down, an unhoused woman is stopping short of apologizing and is defending his actions. Edson Garcia, the co-owner of Broche Cafe, recorded the cell phone video while he was on his way to delivering a catering order just after 6 a.m. on Monday. He said incredulously, I turned to the side and saw the guy pouring water on the lady. Garcia, who's seen the unhoused woman in the North Beach neighborhood before,

sometimes asks her not to block the doorway to his cafe and has never found her to be belligerent. He adds that given the weather conditions, the man's actions appeared especially cruel. It was cold and raining. She was screaming, okay, I'll move, I'll move. It's not fair to see people doing stuff like that. Although, interestingly enough, if you've seen this video, and I've seen it, I don't recall in the video, this Garcia character actually like stepping in or saying anything and said he just stands at a distance and records it. ABC 7 news anchor Dionne Lim tracked down the man with the hose, art gallery owner Collier Gwynn, who admitted to his actions. Quote, I totally understand what an awful thing that is to do, but I also understand what an awful thing it is to leave her on the streets. Gwyn says there were repeated attempts to help the woman over the past couple weeks

and that other nearby business owners have complained about her presence, blocking the sidewalks, and entryways. He says the police reports don't seem to help. We called the police. There must be at least 25 calls to the police. It's two days in a homeless shelter, two days in jail, and then they drop them right back out on the street. Monday, when Gwyn says she refused to move and resisted his help in moving her belongings

down the street, he sprayed her down as a last resort. This woman is a very, very sad situation. She's very psychotic. All right. So there's, again, this video, and it's been made. making the rounds online and people are very upset and saying what a horrible man this is. Now, I'm not saying that he responded the right way here, or he did what I would have done in that situation, but I am saying that as a society, we have shown, I think, a lot of sympathy

to the homeless, to drug addicts, to criminals. I think that, again, as a society, we sympathize more with people like that than that. any other society ever has. It'd be hard to sympathize more. It would be hard to be more lenient. It would be hard to be more welcoming and all of that and enabling than we already are. So there's a lot of sympathy. But my point is, what about sympathy with an understanding for law-abiding citizens who are trying to live their lives and trying to run their businesses and are simply fed up and desperate and they don't know what to do. How about sympathy for that?

Okay, what about sympathizing with that? If you are capable of sympathizing with some strung out drug addict on a street corner or a criminal who's like, you know, victimizing those same law-abiding citizens, if you're able to find sympathy for those people, can you not sympathize with just normal human beings who manage to follow the law, be productive citizens? care for their families. They're trying to contribute to their community. And yet they find themselves stymied every step of the way by these people in their communities

who are not contributing and who instead are making themselves into a strain and a drain. Is there any sympathy for that? Because for me, you know, that's where my sympathy goes first. My sympathy first goes to the law-abiding people, that just normal people are trying to live their lives and be productive. That's why I sympathize with first. And that's the first thing I thought when I saw this video. I think a lot of people, they see that first thing they think is, oh, that poor woman, first thing I think is like, this guy's been driven to the brink. And he's trying to run a business. And he's got homeless drug addicts just setting up encampments right outside his business. And he's not the only one. His business owners all over these communities in

nearly every city dealing with this. They're just trying to live their lives and provide a good or a service to people in their neighborhoods. And they look outside and they've got just homeless drug addict refugee camps on the sidewalk. And nothing they do. Like, what else can they do? I think that's what they're saying. That's what this guy's saying. He's like, what am I supposed to do about this? I called the police. I take her to the shelter. I offer to help. Nothing matters. It always ends up back here. What am I supposed to do? And business soldiers who are having their livelihood stolen from them, taken from them, because their communities are being overrun and, you know, people don't even want to walk down the street anymore.

Like, no one's going to go to the business because they don't want to have to walk by the homeless drug addicts laying on the sidewalk, and they don't want to have to walk their children by that. And so these businesses are going under, what do you want them to do? Just accept it and say, well, that's how it is. I guess my life is destroyed. So people are desperate. And when people get desperate, they do things that might make you queasy and uncomfortable, and that's what happens. But I blame the people in power who are responsible for causing this state of desperation.

That's who I blame. So all these people who just instinctively look for excuses for the societal parasites and the leeches and the criminals and all that, the dregs of society. Everyone instinctively looks for every excuse for those people. Can you take a little bit of that grace? What I'm saying is take a little sliver of that grace that you will give to someone who has decided to live their entire life dedicated to their favorite drug.

And so that you can't even help them because no matter of whatever help you give them or money you give them, they'll spend it on the drug. Take a sliver of the grace that you show to that person who contributes absolutely nothing to your community and only helps to destroy it, a little sliver of that grade, not even just like a little bit of it, a little portion of the grace and sympathy, and give it to everybody else who's affected by this. That's what I'm asking for. And I don't know anything else about this guy. Maybe it'll turn out that he's a serial killer. He's a psycho himself. Maybe there's all kinds of details about him and he's just the worst guy in the world. I don't know. I don't know anything about him. All I know is what we see in the video, and it is possible, it is very possible to imagine a scenario where someone is just driven to the brink and they don't know what to do anymore.

Update on a big story yesterday, Associated Press, computer breakdown so's chaos across the U.S. air travel system. Thousands of flights across the U.S. were canceled or delayed Wednesday after a system that offers safety information to pilots failed. and the government launched an investigation into the breakdown, which grounded some planes for hours. Federal Aviation Administration said preliminary indications trace the outage to a damaged database file. The agency said it would take steps to avoid another similar disruption. So there was a damaged database file, and that's what caused the disruption. And Pete Buttigieg, he was doing interviews yesterday. He's had quite a tenure.

There was the rail worker strike recently, which happened as Buttigieg went on vacation. there's the truck driver shortage. Of course, the supply chain crisis that happened right as he was going on maternity leave. And it also didn't make him, you know, he wasn't going to cut his maternity leave short because of that. And now every flight grounded for the first time since 9-11. But don't worry, he's still doing a great job. At least this is what we've been told by his defenders on social media and in the corporate media. All you know is look at his resume. He's obviously doing a great job.

The leftist group of vote vets tweeted this, and this has kind of been the talking point about Buttigieg. Secretary Buttigieg is a Rhodes Scholar, Harvard at Oxford alum, and served in Afghanistan for the U.S. Navy as an intelligence officer. If anyone is up for the task, it's him. He's by far extraordinarily qualified for his job. We can't say that for everyone in Washington. Now, I think this is a great tweet, and I love it because it is the best argument. and it's very succinct, but it is the best argument against credentialism that I've ever read. Because that's what this is. This is credentialism.

Yes, he hasn't done anything. He hasn't demonstrated any aptitude at all in his job. There is no evidence that he has been successful or that he's even slightly competent. Now, yeah, can you blame him 100% for everything that? that happens in the world of transportation when he's the transportation secretary? Obviously not. Okay, he's not personally sitting there checking all the computer systems at the FAA every day. But the buck's got to stop somewhere, and he is the transportation secretary. And he's getting paid accordingly. He's getting paid quite handsomely. He's taking, he had, you know, 18 private jet trips in 2022, so he's flying private jets all over the world and all of that.

And so that means the buck stops with you. And you can try to mitigate. his culpability here to whatever extent you want to if you're desperate to find excuses. But the point is that there's lots of evidence that he's very bad at his job. There is no evidence that he's good at it. And they try to bail him out by pointing to all of his credentials and all the classes that he took and the degrees that he has. And look at all these impressive institutions that are on his resume. Yeah, and none of that means anything. doesn't mean anything.

You can be a road scholar, you could go to Harvard and Oxford. You could get a Ph.D. at every Ivy League school in the world if you want to. And that will not even come close to proving or demonstrating that you have any skills or any actual aptitude in any area at all. Because an ability to read about something, write papers, regurgitate information, also the ability to pay for all this schooling, if you're even paying for it. You can have that ability, and yet that's really your only ability.

There are very many people who are very educated in an official kind of sense. But then it turns out that's their only skill. Their only skill is in that. It's like being a, they have a certain skill at being a student. And so they can thrive in that particular environment when they're sitting in a class and they're listening to lectures and they're repeating information and then they're writing papers. Like that is, that's a certain skill it is, but it doesn't necessarily translate anywhere else in life. Pete Buttigieg is probably the prime example of that.

Next we got this. Representative Byron Donald's has been under intense criticism from the left because he deserves it, right? Because he's committed the sin of being black and Republican. And so that's just no good. He appeared on Joy Reid's show and leftists on social media. They said that the whole interview was just a smackdown. She owned him. She destroyed him. She tore him apart.

And this part in particular has them cheering. Let's watch it. My friend Jody Arrington, who's going to chair a budget. He wants to look into the budget and also look into entitlements. Do you know that Social Security is going to be insolvent in 2035? Yes, it is not true. That is actually not true. No, it's actually not true.

Now, Joy, I'm a finance professional. I do more than just Congress. I'm not to the financial community. That's actually not true. Social security will go and solve it. That's actually not true. Those are the facts. That's not true.

Should we not prepare for that? What the Republican Party and what the Tea Party have proposed is privatizing social security, which would actually subject Social Security to the whims of the market, which I don't think that people, that's not what they pay it into. If you look at the returns of the S&P 500 since 2006, that includes $2,000. the returns of the S&P 500 since 2006. You're saying so you support privatizing Social Security. I want to explain to you. I am a financial professional.

I'm securities license. Actually, I just lost my licenses because I'm not allowed to trade anymore because I'm a member of Congress. But let me assure you, if you look at the S&P 500 from 2006 until today, the growth rate in the S&P 500 would have more than taking care of Social Security, way more than the federal government. And each time that you had a crash, it would subject people's social security. Funds to crash. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. We're not going to have a whole long thing on Social Security, but let me just be clear. You are in favor of privatizing Social Security. No, I'm not in favor of privatizing. But you just argued for it. I said you brought it up and I brought you the facts. But you argued. So if a bill came forward

to privatize Social Security you before. No, because what we should be doing. Okay. Then it's a move point. Then it's not a move point. You're trying to put words in my mouth. But you just explained that the S&P would be a better return than Social Security. So then you're for privatized. That is a fact. Okay. So don't cheap in privatization when the data is crystal clear that the returns would have been better. Okay. You're for it.

You've said that you're for it. That means that it would have been a better situation than what we've seen to this point. That's what counts is winning an argument on the left. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's all she did the whole time. This is, this is cable news.

Like that's, I don't know who won the argument there. I'll tell you that cable news did not win the argument. That's a good argument for like getting rid of cable news. It's just that that's everything wrong with cable news, right? there. And by the way, do you know from that? I'm actually interested to know. I'd like to know how would Byron Donald's vote if there was a bill to quote unquote privatized Social Security. He said no, but let me tell you what I would do. And she wouldn't let him finish it. But I'd like to know. Actually, I'm interested to know what is take is on that.

So asking questions that you will not allow the other person to answer is that's MSNBC. That's Cable news in general. And shouting, not true, not true. It's, I mean, literally it's how my kids argue with each other. That's what it. Cover your ears. Not true. I'm not listening. That is how nine-year-olds argue. And even for them, it's, if they act that way, I say, you're nine years old, you're too old to be acting that way. This is something as a parent happens quite often. I am constantly telling my kids, whether the nine-year-olds or the six-year-old, that you are too old. You're too old. old to be acting a certain way, but it's a way that these adults act all the time. Once again, society, not doing parents a lot of favors, you know. Because I tell my kids,

you should act that way, you should act this way, you should be more mature. And they can look out, once they're able to really be exposed to the culture, they'll see that. What do you mean? These adults are way older than me. They act like this all the time. Like, he said, I was too old for this, dad. He is right about Social Security, by the way. And what will really make it insolvent or what will really bring the system down is that, eventually there won't be enough workers to support it. You know, the people that are defenders of Social Security will say that, well, it's not going to be insolvent. It's not going into insolvency.

That's all a false narrative. That's not true because, you know, it's not as though people paid in Social Security. And then the money that they paid in went somewhere and it's being stored somewhere. And now the government is robbing that storage box and we're going to run out of money. Right. government is robbing Social Security, but that's, but that's, but it's, the point is that it's constantly being funded by the current crop of workers. That's what they say as a way of defending it, but it can't be, well, yeah, but the problem is that eventually as our, as our, as our,

as our country becomes more and more top heavy generationally, people are having fewer and fewer and fewer children. They're just, and there are fewer and few people even getting jobs in the first place, people dropping out of the workforce, we're going to get to a point where there's just not enough workers around to support it. Or in order to keep, or in order to support it, the taxes would have to be so high while on the other end, what you're getting out of it, if you're on Social Security is so low that it's not worth it anymore. That is where we're heading. It's just, whether it's going to be in 20 years or 30 years or 50 years, it's just, it's a matter of demographics. It's a matter of, just look at, there were,

replacement rate, the population replacement rate. That's how we know. That it's not, in the long term, it's not sustainable. It's just, it's simply a question of at what point do we have to, do we officially have to confront the reality that this doesn't work anymore? We keep putting it off, but putting it off and putting it off because no politician wants to deal with this because it's very unpopular. It's unpopular on both sides. And also older people, they vote, you know, they vote much more than younger people do. And so if you say anything about Social Security other than let's keep doing it exactly like we're doing it now. If you say anything outside of that, you're going to pay the price politically, which is why all these cowards,

or most of them anyway, won't address it. Personally, I'm in favor of privatizing. And although I don't really like the phrase privatize. That's not how I would put it. You know, privatize, you know, privatized makes it sound, it's just, it makes it sound more complicated than it actually is. And for me, it's very simple. Like, I want to be in charge of my own retirement. Okay. Thank you, government, for offering to take care of that for me, but no thank you. I don't want it. I just don't want you to do that. I don't, I want to opt out of that system. I don't want to be a part of it. I want to keep my money and let me worry about it. I'm even willing, I'll sign some sort of contract if you want, where I am pledged.

that I will take care of my retirement, and if I don't do it, if things go wrong, if I say that I'm in, I don't, I'm not allowed to get any government assistance when I'm older. Give me that contract, and I will sign it right now. And I will live and die by that. So that's what I mean by privatizing it. And also, by the way, my concern about Social Security, here's my concern about it. I think a lot of people missed the point. My concern is less about the fact that eventually it won't be there anymore. That's part of the problem. But my bigger concern is right now. It's that younger people and young families, they need that money now. They can't afford this. Six percent of your paycheck, that's substantial,

especially over the course of a year. You just can't afford it. You've got young families who already can barely afford to go out and buy a carton of eggs and some milk. They can't afford to have this massive amount taken out of their check every year to keep this system. They just can't afford it. They need that money. It's their money and they need it. That's my concern. So I'm not even worried about 40 years from now. I mean, I am worried about that. We should be worried about it more. But there's also the issue of right now that somehow gets lost in this conversation entirely. That you've got young families who are, like, they're just starting out their lives. Their economic and financial stability is very important.

arguably it's the most important. That's the group who are the most, it's the most important for them to be stable and for them to be solvent. And they cannot afford it. All right. I want to play this quick clip. It's rather disturbing, but Prince Harry, so he's got his memoir out. And we talked about Prince Harry a little bit to start the week. And we mentioned how he very much wants his privacy or claims that he does, and yet he's, he did three quote unquote major interviews just this week.

He's all over the place. Now he's got this memoir out. And even though he's someone who claims he wants privacy, in his memoir, he's not only airing dirty laundry about his family, but he goes into a very intimate detail about himself and providing information

that nobody asked for. And so I said that there was, there's one part of parents, the memoir where he talks about frostbite that he suffered on his genitalia, which is already too much information, already TMI. But then this was making in the rounds on social media yesterday. Here's the audio book clip of that little passage. And it's way more disturbing than I even anticipated. Listen. My penis was oscillating between extremely sensitive and borderline traumatized. The last place I wanted to be was Frost Nipistan.

I'd been trying some home remedies, including one recommended by a friend. She'd urged me to apply Elizabeth Arden Cream. My mum used that on her lips. You want me to put that on my todger? It works, Harry, trust me. I found a tube, and the minute I opened it, the smell transported me through time. I felt as if my mother was right there in the room. Then I took a smidge and applied it down there.

So it was reminding you of your... I don't know, we don't want to break that down. I don't want to break that down anymore than what we already heard there. And except to say that... Yeah, it's just like, it's an interesting clip because it starts... It starts disturbing.

Okay, we're beginning... At the beginning of this little 30-second clip, we hear about his penis being traumatized, which is already too much. But then, like, as it continues, just layers and layers. It's this, it's like a very creepy onion. And as you peel back the layers, it just gets worse and worse. And by the end, you're, you're left with many more questions than you have answers. And there are questions that you never really wanted to ask to begin with.

Except to say, maybe the ultimate answer here is that this is actually very disturbed. This is like a disturbed person. Prince Harry is. And I also don't, I don't understand why we still call him Prince Harry, maybe because nobody knows what's his last name? So just saying Harry sounds weird, so that's the reason he still has the prince thing going on. But it is a very disturbed person, and he's somebody with mommy issues and daddy issues and all kinds of issues. It might also explain how he ended up with Megan Markle in the first place. When we talked about this on Monday, I said that Megan Markle is like the perfect, she's really the perfect model. She's really the perfect model. for men to look at

so that they can look at her and everything about her and the way that she is and especially the way that she conducts herself in a marriage as a wife and then look at that and then find the opposite of that.

Just find the opposite of everything about her and you'll be doing okay because all the red flags are there and one of the major red flags for Megan Markle is that she has no respect for Harry's family.

She hates his family. family has no respect. There's another viral clip, and I was looking for it, and I couldn't find it. It's been not much time looking for it. But there's another clip that in their Netflix miniseries that came out as part of their quest for privacy, and that came out back in December. And there's now sort of infamous clip where she is making fun of Queen Elizabeth and making fun of, like, making a joke about the first time that she met Queen Elizabeth and just,

just like in this very mocking kind of eye-rolling way. And meanwhile, Prince Harry is sitting there, and you could tell he's not comfortable with having his family made fun of this way, especially in public on camera. But he's just sitting there like a, you know, a little tame puppy dog. And so I said, one of the red flags you're looking for as a man when you're trying to find a wife is if you find a woman and she doesn't respect your family, she hates your family, she wants to isolate you from your family and from your friends and people closest to you, that's a red flag. The question for Harry is like, did she, did he not know this about her? And more and more, I'm starting to think, well, he did know this about her. And that's one of the reasons that he married her. For him, the red flag was what attracted him because of all his family issues.

And the fact that that she resents his family is part of the reason he married her. It was meant to be, you know, a finger in the eye of his family and all the rest of it. That's the cycle analysis. But I'll believe most of that for someone. else. All right. I don't have a lot of time, so I got to choose. This is from the Miami Herald. Headline, she was catching a flight in Florida, then TSA noticed her emotional support, Snake. Snake on a plane? Almost. This isn't the plot of a sequel to the action flick. Last month, a woman traveling through Tampa International Airport attempted to stow her boa constrictor in her

carry-on luggage. It was a boa constrictor. According to Transportation Security Administration, a TSA tweet shows the x-ray of the four-foot creature that passed through the screening machine passengers must navigate before getting to the gate. The reptile is lit up in orange, coiled up in a figure eight. Nearby are images of a laptop and two pairs of shoes. The agency said that after the snake was discovered,

the pet owner was called out of the line. She reportedly told guards that the boa constrictor named Bartholomew was her emotional support pet. the post reports our officers at Tampa International didn't find this hysterical well that's not a bad pun and also not a bad name for a boa constrictor if you're going to have a bow constrictor pet which I don't recommend Bartholomew not a bad name now here's what I'll say you know I'm actually okay I'm actually okay with this um if we're going to do the the emotional support animal thing at all and if you're allowed to bring your dog on a plane,

then I don't see any reason why you can't bring the snake to. Okay, the special status and privilege we give to dogs doesn't make any sense to me. And so if we're going to do that, like if I have to sit next to your dog on a plane, okay, if the plane can turn into a kennel, then why can't it turn into a, you know, reptile house? Because I don't see any, like, you might see a difference.

You might say, well, dog's totally different. I don't see it. To me, an animal is an animal, and I don't want to fly with an animal. So if we're allowing that, then, yeah, bring the snake on too. Now, you know, we make exceptions. So dogs are capable of actually providing a real service to human beings. So a seeing-eye dog or something like that, then that's different. But anything where it's emotional support, it just makes me feel good to have this animal around.

If you can do that with a dog, then why not with an animal? So if anything, we should have more of this. Just like make the plane. to a full-on petting zoo. Bring your goats on, chickens, whatever. Bring a cow on board. Maybe they say, hey, they run out of, if they're not doing a beverage service, then you've got a cow there, you can, for milk and whatever. Keep doing it until everyone's had enough of it. And then we can all go back to a civilized society where we do not allow animals at all on the plane, unless you put them in the cargo hold or something like that. Don't bring them up with

everybody else. All right. Let's get to the comment section. With everything going on in the world right now, you could really use a good night sleep. That's why you need to check out Helix mattress. I've had my Helix for years now, and I absolutely love it. I sleep like a baby. That's about to change when we have babies. But still, when I get a chance to sleep, it's great with this mattress. The mattress should never be a one-size-fits-all solution because why should you have to compromise on comfort you shouldn't?

Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you, because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else? Go to helixleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz and find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type. Your mattress will come right to your door for free. Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free.

They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will, I guarantee it. Helix has over 12,000 five-star reviews. Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so easy for a great night's sleep, and it's just not that far away. All you've got to do is call Helix. is offering up to $350 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.

This is an amazing offer. Take advantage of it at helix sleep.com slash walsh. With Helix, better sleep starts now. Evan says, only Matt can describe bronies with that level of dry disdain. How else would I describe them? Is there any other way to describe bronies than with, well, I guess you could have enthusiastic disdain or more sort of colorful disdain. So yes, my disdain is of a more dry.

flavor, but disdain is, no matter what kind of disdain it is, it ought to be disdain when you're talking about bronies. Sam says, Matt, pit bulls kill a total of 30 people a year. 30, mostly just their bad owners. That is not nearly enough to create the kind of panic

you're engaging in. Okay, so this was, this is an interesting conversation as we, and, you know, I think enough has been said about pit bulls. Apparently, I didn't even realize this, but we'd be talking about pit bulls a little bit, and I mentioned it on Twitter. And so it's become a big thing on Twitter now. It's been trending all week, I guess, is a conversation about pit bulls. And probably enough has been said about it. But there's this exact argument that I've heard from multiple people that, well, you know, there are X number of pit bulls in the country, you know, millions or whatever.

and only 30 people a year are killed by them. And so it's just look at the percentages. It's 0.0 whatever percent, and it's just not enough to justify. Well, it does raise the question of, like, well, how many people need to be horrifically malted death by pit bulls before you would admit that it's a problem? But so I'm thinking about this.

And so here's my, here's the way that I would, I think about this. Because that's always an interesting question. Anytime you're talking about the threat that something poses or, you know, a danger in a certain area of life, and you're trying to figure out, is this a reasonable danger or not, that's always kind of a question. How do you, you know, if X number of people are killed by Y activity, well, is that too many or is it not that many? Or if it is, like, where is the line? Where do you draw it? I think part of the problem is that people are very often, when they're asking this question about something, they're making apples and oranges comparison. you know, taking this one thing and comparing it to something totally outside of its own category in order to make the argument that this thing is safe or it's dangerous either way. What you have to do is compare things within their categories. Right.

So the question is not, how many people are killed by pit bulls? And by the way, it's not just killed. Like, there's the number killed. And this person says 30. Some people on Twitter were telling me it's 20 a year. I think last year it was close to 50 that were killed. Let's just say 30. Let's just say 30. Let's just go with that. 30 a year. Okay. The conservative estimate.

So 30 are killed by Pipples. And you could say, well, look at the number of people killed in car accidents. This is just astronomically more. And you don't want to ban all cars, do you? Well, that's different, though, also because if you get rid of cars, for example, you have completely upended society. like modern civilization can't function without the automobile. So if all automobiles disappeared overnight, society would come crashing down. If all pit bulls disappear, the same thing is not going to happen. But the real problem is that that is something outside of its category. It's not a relevant comparison.

So what you have to look at is how dangerous are pit bulls not compared to automobiles or lightning strikes? How dangerous are they compared to other domesticated dogs? And that's how you can judge whether this poses an unreasonable danger. And when you make that apples to apples comparison, you find that the danger is certainly overwhelmingly unreasonable. Because pit bulls kill, say, 30 a year, all other dogs combined. All other dog breeds combined kill far less than that. So they are responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of not only faith,

malings and fatal attacks, but also attacks that lead to hospitalizations. They are responsible for almost all of them, while all other dog breeds combine for almost none of them. And so that's the point. It's not how much more dangerous is a pit bull than some other thing that is not a dog, but how much more dangerous is it than every other dog? And when you find, when you find something that's an outlier like this, that tells you that there is something seriously catastrophically wrong. the analogy that I made yesterday is, just to put this in perspective, imagine for a moment that Burger King, this is not the case, but just hypothetically, what if Burger King was responsible for giving 30 people a year fatal food poisoning? And then hundreds more, it put in the hospital with food poisoning. So 30 a year, hundreds more every year are given fatal or very serious food poisoning from Burger King.

and what have you looked and you saw that every other fast food restaurant combines to account for almost no other fatal food poisoning. So almost all of the fatal food poisonings that happen in the country are from Burger King specifically and that they account for a vastly, vastly disproportionate number of fatal food poisons. And so it's 30 people every year, year after year after year after year after year, are killed. by food poisoning from Burger King. Now, here's the question.

Would you still eat at Burger King? Yeah, Burger King might still be, in that case, safer than, like, skydiving or bungee jumping, or it might even be safer than driving down the road. But when compared to every other fast food option, of course you're not going to eat at the place that kills 30 people a year. So there is a chance with Burger King, whereas the chance with every other fast food place of dying from food poisoning is almost zero. So I think that's the kind of apples to apples comparison.

And that's how you can tell that there's something seriously. Ashley says, my son just said Matt is canceled because dad cooks scrambled eggs on our electric stove all the time. I guess you have to have more talent for that, Matt. Life is rough as a as a pauper. Well, listen, you can do it. Okay, there's lots of things that can be done. But the question is, can it be done well?

And scrambled eggs brings up a whole other. conversation that we don't have time for, but I take scrambled eggs very, very seriously. And what I found is that most people, when they think of scrambled eggs, they just break some eggs into a bowl, they mix it around, they dump it in, and then they just, you know, they scramble it, and that's it. Okay, the fluffiness is not there. It's not cooked the right way. It doesn't have the flavor it's supposed to have.

It doesn't have the right. There's supposed to be a kind of fluffy and creamy texture to it, and that's not there. And so what that tells me is that your husband just doesn't take a scrambled egg seriously. That's the problem. You know, it's a new year, but leftist companies are still up to their same old dirty tricks. Ladies, it's time to help your guys wash out the woke once and for all with Jeremy's Razor's new line of men's staples. He'll love the tea tree and argon oil-infused shampoo and conditioner, expoliating charcoal body wash. Or if he's a soap traditionalist who prefers something to hold on to, he's got the oatmeal and citrus soap scrub.

They smell great, and they're all made right here in the USA by a men's grooming company that doesn't hate men. shop the new Jeremy's hair, face, and body wash collection and kick woke out of his bathroom. And when you visit the store, do it through my URL, so I get the referral bragging rights as well. You got to go to dailywire.com slash walsh. Treat your man to some great Jeremy's Razors products today. That's dailywire.com slash Walsh. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. The Golden Globes happened two nights ago, and I'm telling you this because the chances are you didn't already know.

I only knew because part of my job is to scour the internet for all the news of the day, the most obscure bits of news, like the Golden Globe Awards, and if the ratings aren't any indication, it would seem that most people were unaware or aware and totally uninterested in the Golden Globes. Now, they didn't air last year at all because the people who run the show had to take a year off to confront their racism or whatever. But this year's show was down 20% compared to 2021's broadcast, and that show in 2021 was down exponentially compared to the year before. So nobody cares about this stuff anymore, and fewer and fewer people care every year. I'm not here to tell you that you should care. I'm only here to cancel someone, because that's the

segment. And today, it must be the host of the Golden Globes for 2023, Gerard Carmichael. Carmichael is an alleged comedian, best known for coming out of the closet during one of his Netflix specials. The Golden Globes needed to find someone who checked multiple diversity boxes, and as a gay black man, Carmichael fit to bill. But is he actually a good? comedian or a skilled show host. Well, that consideration was not important, and it became very obvious that it wasn't important very quickly during Carmichael's opening monologue, which you can see part of here. I'm here because I'm black.

I'll catch everyone in the room up if you settle down a little bit. I'll tell you what's been going on. This show, the Golden Globe Awards, did not air last year. because the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which I won't say they were a racist organization, but they didn't have a single black member until George Floyd died. So do with that information what you will.

I'll tell you how I got here. Why am I here on the stage with you guys tonight? Well, I was at home. Just drinking tea. and I got a phone call from my man Stephen Hill. Stephen Hill is a great producer, and he said, Gerard. Really, I'm honored to be making this phone call. He said, I'm producing the 80th Golden Globes,

and it would be an honor if you would agree to join as the host. I was like, whoa. You know, like one minute you're making mint tea at home. The next, you're invited to be the black face of in battle white organization. Hilarious stuff. All the jokes. And this goes on for another six minutes as Carmichael recounts the story of how the fascinating story, of how he was offered the job because he's a brilliant comedian, but he knew it was really

because of his race. And then he told the guy that it's because of my race. And the guy is like, no, you're great. told him he's really great. And then he called his friend and he asked her friend about it. And she told him to take the job because he's making a lot of money for it. And so ultimately, that's what he decided to do. Though he wants the Golden Globes to know that this does not absolve them of their racism. And that was the whole monologue. That was it. The audience members laughing uncomfortably the whole time, terrified that the cameras would show them reacting in a way

that Twitter deems inappropriate. That's the only funny thing about the monologue potentially It's nothing to do with what he's saying. But it's just because people in the audience, they're like, I don't know. Because they know that at any moment the camera could show them. And so they're listening to a gay black man. And they're not sure, is he trying to be funny? Am I supposed to laugh at this? Or if I laugh, am I in trouble?

I don't know what to do. Am I supposed to be crying? What am I supposed to do here? So what are the problems? Well, first of all, comedians are supposed to be funny. And, you know, I know this is a controversial statement these days. and certainly will come as a great shock to most modern comedians, but comedians are supposed to be funny.

That's the whole job. Gerard Carmichael isn't funny. So he doesn't seem to have understood the assignment. Now, you might object to my comedians are supposed to do comedy theory by saying that, well, sometimes a comedian might want to make a more serious or insightful point. They don't all have to be Mitch Hedberg up there delivering a bunch of one-liners and non-sequiters. This is true, though we can only wish that most modern comedians were as good as Mitch Hedberg. But the point is that a comedian is supposed to make those serious and insightful points while also being funny.

That's difficult to do, but those in the profession of being funny are supposed to be able to do that because that's their profession. I mean, literally anyone can stand up on stage and ramble. It takes skill to not only make an insightful point, but to do it while being funny. That's the skill that comedians, by definition, are supposed to have. it doesn't make any sense for a comedian to not even try to be funny. It's like going to see a juggling act. Instead of juggling, the juggler stands in front of you and delivers an economics lecture. Now, even if the lecture is good, it's got nothing to do with juggling. Now, if you talk about economics while juggling, that might be interesting. That would take some actual talent. But we see this sort of thing all over society and not just with comedians.

There's a severe lack of talent, particularly in the arts. So we lack talented comedians, artists. painters, musicians, poets, filmmakers. These are the people who don't actually have the talents necessary to perform their craft at a high level, so they compensate by pretending that they're being bad on purpose. That's like our whole culture now. It's just you're bad at it, but you're pretending it's on purpose. We've made bad into its own style, its own genre, so that we can all pretend that the artist is engaging in some kind of bold,

deconstruction of the art form, instead of facing the fact that he just simply sucks at his job. Second, Carmichael allowed himself to be the token black guy, the diversity hire. He thinks he can get around this or negate it by acknowledging it up front. He thinks that, you know, that makes the whole performance meta and subversive, when in reality he's just a sellout without an imagination. This is another thing we see all the time now in art, especially anything involving Hollywood. Hollywood is constantly making bad films and there are films that acknowledge their own badness

and that acknowledgement is supposed to in itself transform the badness into something good. Superhero movies are the worst offenders of this sort of thing. These films, they wink at the audience constantly admitting to the corny and cliched nature of the whole thing while continuing along doing the corny and cliched thing. Now this might have been funny the first time. it was done 20 years ago, but 100 movies and a thousand winks later is just a crutch

used by lazy, boring writers. In fact, it's gotten so bad now that the finale of the Sheehawk series, the season finale, which, of course, I didn't watch, but from what I read, it actually had the character Shehawk walk through the screen and confront the writers of her own show to complain about the bad writing. Now, this was supposed to be subversive, once again and self-aware and funny, but instead it was just a direct admission by the writers that they are not good at their jobs. It's not just superhero movies. In Glass Onion, the sequel to Knives Out, the detective solves the murder, discovering that it was the most obvious culprit all along. Like, it's the guy that was obviously that guy the whole movie. And then in the end,

they say, yep, it was that guy, right? You had it solved from the beginning. And then he repeatedly acknowledges the detective does in the film that the murderer is stupid and obvious and lazy. which is just another way of acknowledging that the writer of the film is himself stupid, obvious, and lazy. These people have so thoroughly run out of things to say that now they're actually talking about how they have nothing to say. Third, most importantly, even if we can forgive Carmichael for being an unfunny sellout and we're willing to sit back and listen to his lecture, we'll discover that what he's saying about race is not the slightest bit brave or bold or risky. That's how it was sold. That's how the media reacted to it. they said it was blistering.

It was a blistering monologue. And there were people on social media say it was brilliant. It was brave. It was courageous. Well, it can never be brave for a liberal black person to confront a bunch of white people about their racism. There is no version of a white people are racist speech delivered by a black person that can ever be brave in our culture. The reason it cannot be brave is that it has been done a million times already. And every time it's done, it is guaranteed to be applauded.

by all of the most powerful people in the country, including and especially the ones you're calling racist. You cannot be brave if you're saying something that every Hollywood executive and Fortune 500 CEO and politician would publicly agree with. Even if what you're saying is right, it can't possibly be brave. There's nothing brave about your willingness

to be applauded for being brave. Now, if Carmichael wanted to actually be brave and subversive and transgressive, he would have stood in front of that audience and it would have told them that as a black man, he is not oppressed in America, that anti-black systemic racism is imaginary, and that white guilt is a disease infecting a large portion of the population, including everyone sitting in that room. Now, that would have been a bold statement on a stage like that. It would have also easily been, you know, much funnier. Or you know what?

Maybe strike that. Because even more subversive and certainly more funny would be to say nothing at all about race. The truly bold move would be for the first black person, and not only that, but a black gay person, to host the Golden Globes, and then give a monologue that isn't about being the first black person to host the Golden Globes. In that environment, in that atmosphere,

for that guy to stand up there and give a monologue where he's telling jokes that aren't about the fact that he's black. Now, that would be a curveball. That's something that nobody would see coming. But instead, he went the safe route and the unfunny route, and that ultimately is why he is today canceled. That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.

You can become a member today and use Code Walsh at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Hope to see you over there, if not, talk to you tomorrow. Or rather, talk to you next week, but we have two more kids. Godspeed.