The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1121 - New Poll Shows How Widespread Anti-White Racism Has Become

Episode Date: February 27, 2023

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip has been canceled and exiled from polite society for comments he made about a new poll which shows that a large percentage of Americans don't think it's okay to be white. But I think the poll itself is far more important, and far more troubling, than whatever comments anyone made about it. Also, Zelensky scolds Americans who don't want to continue shuffling billions of dollars into his government's pockets. Ron DeSantis lays out exactly how he would drain the swamp as president. Woody Harrelson speaks the truth about COVID and Big Pharma on SNL, but is it too little, too late? And John Fetterman's wife goes on a journey of self-discovery while her husband suffers in the hospital. Is she the rightful winner of the "worst wife in America" title?  - - -  DailyWire+: Take advantage of your LAST CHANCE to get 40% off DailyWire+ annual memberships and gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d  Shop the Jeremy’s Razors Presidents’ Day sale and get 30% off any razor: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43  Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit. ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.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, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip has been exiled and canceled from polite society for comments he made about a new poll which shows that a large percentage of Americans don't think it's okay to be white. But I think the poll itself is far more important and far more troubling than whatever comments anyone made about it. We'll talk about that today. Also, Zelensky scolds Americans who don't want to continue shuffling billions of dollars into his government's pockets. Rhonda Santis lays out exactly how he would drain the swamp as president. Woody Harrelson speaks the truth about COVID and Big Pharma on SNL. But is it too little too late? And John Federman's wife goes on a journey of self-discovery while her husband suffers in the hospital. Is she the rightful winner of the worst wife in America title?

We'll discuss all that and much more today on the Matt Walsh. As you may have heard, the U.S. blew through the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in December. And still, the White House refuses to reduce spending. To dig our country out of this mountain of debt, every single taxpayer in America would have to write a check for $247,000. So just, you know, if you got that laying around in the bank, that's the good news. Our economy is in trouble, in other words. It's time to start thinking about your investments and your future. You need to consider diversifying into gold with Birch gold.

Birch gold is a leading dealer of physical precious metals in the U.S. Their dynamic team of former wealth managers, financial advisors, and commodity brokers can help you diversify your portfolio into gold and silver. They'll even show you how to convert your IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals. Text Walsh to 98-98-98 to claim your free info kit on gold. and then talk to one of their precious metal specialists. With your retirement at stake, you want to be confident in the financial services companies that you work with, including who you choose for purchasing physical precious metals.

Text Walsh to 98, 98, 98, and protect your savings with gold today. Scott Adams, the man behind the Dilbert cartoon, had a successful career as of this past Friday, emphasis on had. His comic strip was published in hundreds of newspapers, thousands, I think, actually, emphasis on was. Today, his career is effectively over. In the span of two or three days, he was dropped by every major newspaper and most of the non-major ones, too. And then finally last night, dumped by Andrews McNeil Universal, which is Dilbert's longtime distributor. They also have severed ties with Scott Adams. It's one of the fastest and most thorough cancellations we've yet seen, rivaled perhaps only by the short span of time when Kanye West lost well over half his net worth, I think even more than that.

For Scott Adams, his cancellation was prompted by comments that he made on his YouTube live stream. And this was a live stream that he was published, I think, on Wednesday, and then for whatever reason took a couple days before people noticed it. And then they noticed it. And he was canceled. On this live stream, he advised that white people should, quote, get the hell away from black people. He warned that, quote, there's no fixing this. And that, quote, white citizens can no longer help, quote, black citizens. Now, if you're curious about the this he's referring to, what exactly we can't fix, according to Adams, the daily wire covers that in its. report. Quote, in a real coffee with Scott Adams' video posted on Wednesday, Adams discussed a Rasmussen poll that nearly half of black Americans were unable to agree with the phrase, it's okay to be white. Adams' video in which he suggested that poll results indicate that blacks are a quote hate group went viral. Adams in the video joked that he's been identifying as black for some time, but must have accidentally joined a hate group based on a recent Rasmussen poll. The poll which surveyed 1,000 people, show that 53% of black people agreed with the statement

it's okay to be white, leaving 47% unable to say they agree. Now, call me a contrarian. I've been called worse than that. But it would seem to me that the headline of this story is not what the Dilbert guy said on some YouTube video, given that he's just one guy expressing a viewpoint that is clearly rejected by every powerful institution in our society. But rather, the story is the survey, which would seem to indicate, widespread racial animosity in the American population. So when I heard this, that's the first thing that I noticed.

They said, well, wait a second. What about this survey? The mainstream media would have us believe that the roundly rejected and condemned opinion of one man is a greater concern and a much more urgent national crisis than the racist viewpoints revealed in the poll that he was reacting to. But I would argue that we should probably take some time. I mean, once everyone has had their turn jumping on the Scott Adams dog pile, and I think by now everyone has had their turn because that's where the cancellation goes.

Like one guy says something that lots of people don't like, and then everyone jumps on it. It's like even after three or four days and 10 million people have already jumped on the dog pile and said, I too disagree with this statement. I think it's horrible. Still, you got, someone else has to come along and say, I also disagree. Well, now that we've done that, can we talk about this survey and what it purports to reveal?

In fact, I think the time to talk about is probably right now. So let's do that. Looking at that Rasmussen poll again, it asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with the statement, it's okay to be white. Now, among black respondents, a slim majority, which is 53%, strongly or somewhat agree that it's okay to be white. but 26% strongly or somewhat disagree, while 21% aren't sure. That leaves, as we said, 47% who cannot definitively say that it's okay to be white. Which is to say they cannot agree that white people should exist, because that would be the implication.

If it's not okay to be a member of a certain race, then what you're saying is that it's not okay that that race exists. In fact, even among white people, only 67% would strongly agree, that it's okay for them to be the race that they are. Another 14% somewhat agree, is it okay to be what you are? Maybe, sort of. Leaving 20% who cannot say that they agree at all

that it's okay for them to be the race that they are. Now, if these numbers are accurate, they reveal a truly dangerous level of hatred and animosity against whites and even shared by a large percentage of whites against themselves as well. as well. Now, you could argue that this poll only surveyed 1,000 people, doesn't represent a true and accurate cross-section of the American people, therefore. You could also argue that Rasmussen

is a conservative firm. I've heard this on the left. It's a conservative firm. It's a conservative firm. And so they conducted the survey in a way that would skew the results in their ideological favor. Now, on that second point, if you're right that they were skewing the results to get, you know, to get the results that they favor, it only makes the results more concerning. After all, Rasmussen reported these results triumphantly as an indication that most Americans reject woke racial indoctrination. So if they were trying to prove anything with the survey, they were trying to prove that anti-white racism is not widespread, as that would show that normal Americans reject wokeism. Their own headline about the poll results, that's what it declares. Americans reject woke racial indoctrination.

and yet even in that effort, they inadvertently showed the opposite. The sample size is small, though. You know, that I would grant. But the whole science of polling is to ascertain general sentiments by quantifying the opinions of a small group. Now, your faith in that science or pseudoscience may be rather limited. I mean, I know that mine is. But I can't help but notice that many people who regularly tout poll results are, when it comes to this particular poll, eager to declare that the result.

must be wrong. I'm willing to listen to an argument that the results are wrong because I'm naturally skeptical of all polls. But that would require contrary evidence, right? Evidence that anti-white beliefs are not widespread. But I haven't seen any skeptics provide such evidence. So you can say that, well, no, there's no way that there's no way that black people feel that way about white people or even that many white people feel that way about them. There's no way that's true. Okay, well, why do you think it's not true? Based on what? You're assuming that it's not true, based on what do you assume that? Indeed, the evidence seems to go the other way.

What makes the results especially disturbing is that they are not a shock, that they don't seem to be an aberration. Instead, they comport with much of what we see in society, including from other polls. Just recently, the Washington Post conducted their own survey, finding that 70% of black Americans believe that half of all whites are white supremacist.

Over 49% of, or rather over 40% of black respondents claim that all or most whites are white supremacist. In fact, across two different polls, the number of black Americans who believe that it's not okay to be white and that most white people are white supremacist is almost identical. They're off by a few percentage points. That's either an incredible coincidence or an indication of something very troubling. We don't need polls. You could see the anti-white sentiment everywhere. in plain sight. Take this infamous video, which happened to go viral this week as well, along

with Scott Adam's stuff, where anti-white racism is casually paraded right in front of our faces. Watch this. What are white people's superior at? What exactly the white people's superior at? They're real good at violence. Violence. Genocide. It's like stealing people's lives just because they feel like it. If you are white and you know this is happening and you say nothing, then you're a killer too.

What exactly are white people superior at? Insecurity? Pretending? Fear. Being fearful of nothing. Being ignorant. Blame. Letting their egos control their every move.

Superior being . What exactly are white people superior at? Oppression? Gaslighting. Lack of empathy. Intellectualizing oppression. Did I say oppression? What exactly are white people superior at?

Taking what's not there? Taking our ideas. Copycat. Gensurification. Appropriating things that do not belong to them. Taking over other people's cultures. making you believe that they invented it. Maybe they're thinking it as repurposing.

It's like recycle and repurpose. As my grandma would say, then white folk, they'll take it if you don't copyright it. They are very good at destruction of land, destruction of people, destruction of humanness. Public, whether you're different, whether conservative, like white people are really good at upholding white supremacy.

How about claiming that, you know, they are actually a whole separate race when actually white DNA comes from the black female? So what exactly are white people's superior? Honey, lying, stealing and cheating, manipulation. Withholding information. Lying. Tilling lies.

Hmm. Now, the point is not just what the bigots in the video said. It's that the video exists in the first place. You would never see a mainstream outlet, or even a non-mainstream outlet, produce and publish a video with the racist swapped. And that is so obvious that it's become a truism. The racial double standard is so apparent that even people who oppose the double standard gets sick of hearing others pointed out because, you know, like we know it.

But the double standard is so clear to everyone is yet more evidence to support the results of the poll. The reaction to Scott Adams proves it too. Now, we all know that if Scott had darker skin and had instead been advising blacks to get the hell away from whites, he would not have lost a single newspaper. If anything, he would have gained a few more. We know for a fact, this is not me assuming this. We know for a fact that it's true because race hustlers on the other side regularly declare that black people are not safe around white people. And this is something that's said all the time, despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support that.

But this is something that's always said. And none of the people who say that ever suffer the slightest consequence for saying so. Why? Well, because the most powerful forces in our society have been working for years to get exactly the results that we see in that Rasmussen poll. That's perhaps the best evidence that the poll is tragically accurate because it simply reveals the racial animosity and anti-white hostility that our culture has been dead set on instilling in black and white people alike. This doesn't emerge from a vacuum. Kids today are raised in schools and they consume media and they watch films and shows that all carry the explicit message that white people, are history's great villains, that white people are inherently racist, that whiteness is a scourge,

a disease. In fact, a psychoanalyst named Donald Moss published a paper a couple years ago that argued explicitly that. Here's the first line of the abstract in this paper. Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has, a malignant parasitic-like condition to which white people have a particular susceptibility. The last line laments that despite their best efforts, they've yet to come up with, quote, a permanent cure for whiteness. Those are the exact words, permanent cure. If that sounds genocidal, it's because it is. Just like the statement, it's not okay to be white, reveals genocidal hatred, as there is only

one cure for a race that it's not okay to be. If it's not okay to be a member of a certain race, well, how do you cure that? What do you do about that? This is what's brewing. One racial group has been tagged as the enemy, the cancer, the cause of all our social ills. Far from the first time in history that a racial group has been scapegoated in this way. And so we know from history where it leads. And I think perhaps this is what we should really be talking about.

Now let's get to our five headlines. Let's talk about, as we already have, about cancel culture on social media sites and what you can do about. The left wants to silence and boycott any voices they don't agree with. Social media is supposed to be an open platform. I don't need their content moderators acting like the op-ed section of the New York Times. But that's so often how it works. And that's why I use ExpressVPN. If you've ever wondered how free-to-access sites make all their money,

it's by tracking your searches, your video history and everything you click on, and then selling your valuable data. When I use ExpressVPN, my online presence is anonymized, making it difficult for anyone to track my online activity and to try to shut me down. It couldn't be easier to set up. just tap one button on your phone or computer and you're protected. It's as simple as that. ExpressVPN works on all your devices, your phone, your tablet, your computer, wherever you are in the world. ExpressVPN can and will protect you.

I won't back down. It's time to say no to censorship. You should do the same by visiting ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh and get three extra months free. That's EXBRESSvPN.com.com slash Walsh to learn more. If you're watching the video podcast, you've perhaps already noticed that things look more harmonious than they have in recent weeks. The energy is just, the energy is right, as the kids would say, the vibe. The vibe has been restored to the Matt Wall show. And that's because I am wearing my beloved flannel on a Monday, even though it's not Flannel Friday. Now every day is Flannel Day once again. The great flannel wars have come to their conclusion.

And I'm proud to, excited to announce, the pro-flannel faction has won out in this epic struggle. And I tried. Look, I tried for a few months to look professional on this show with the sports coat and all that kind of stuff. And we're done with that now because those days are over. I'm not, that's not who I'm not professional. I'm not a professional person. This is I am a flannel wearing dad all the way. The only thing I'm missing is the white new balance sneakers. I haven't quite transitioned to that yet. Eventually I will. So I am. So I've always been. That's who I was when I was born, as we know from the Sweet Baby Gang logo. You can't, you can't try to take that away from me. And so we're back, ladies and gentlemen. Well, that's the good news, but we go over

to some sad news today. It's also, it's a great day, it's a great day of celebration because it's flannel, you know, the flannel has been restored. Also a sad day with some very pitiful news that the feds, they had planned a special occasion over the weekend. a special day over the weekend, and nobody came. You know, it's kind of the equivalent of having a birthday party at a Chucky Cheese for a child and none of his classmates that you invited show up. That's basically what happened to the feds, to the FBI. And I feel very bad for them.

It was supposed to be called the Day of Hate. Right? So last week, late last week, we started hearing about, and I say we started hearing. I mean, this started popping up on social media, and the media started talking about this thing called the National Day of Hate. where an alleged, quote unquote, far-right groups were going to march or do something. It was never quite clear what they were going to do, but there was going to be some widespread national day where lots of far-right groups are going to be out in the streets,

showing their hatred for minorities, especially Jewish people, but not just them. This is going to be a day of hate for just like expressing your hatred. And it was supposedly being organized by far-right groups and neo-Nazis organizing, and that's what they said. except that, of course, any thinking person could smell the SIOP from a thousand miles away. Like, it's not even subtle at this point. Yet the media was running with this. Even though, you know, I am, I'm told a member of the far right, and I've even been told many times that I'm a Nazi. So I don't, that's not how I see myself.

I never, but that's what people tell me. And yet, I never heard about it. this day of hate. I had to hear about it from the media because nobody on the right was talking about it or knew about it because it was invented by the media and probably by the feds. This story from the Boston ABC affiliate is representative. This is what they were pushing. White supremacist groups are trying to organize a national day of hate to coincide with the Jewish Sabbath this weekend, according to the Anti-Defamation League. This particular effort originated with a small neo-Nazi group based in eastern Iowa, the ADL said.

While ADL is not aware of any specific threats, we know that these groups are hoping for increased anti-Semitic flyer distributions, protests, and graffiti. In Massachusetts, several police departments said they were aware of the reports, but had no information about anything planned for the area. Right now, there's no specific threats that are known. We don't have intelligence that leads us to believe there's any particular targets, but they said they're being vigilant and they're aware. And so there's a lot of reports like this, that the far right, they're going to have a day

of hate. knows who is doing it or what it's going to be, but it's happening. Then the big day of hate came and it was, you know, and it was trending on Twitter and all that. But then the day comes and nobody shows up. Nothing happens because it never exists in the first place. But how's the media going to spin that? Well, they're going to say, well, this only proves that that we scared the anti-hate brigade away. They were going to show up, but we put a stop to it. So here's the Times of Israel. This is what they said. No major anti-Semitic incidents were immediately reported in the United States on Saturday, despite widespread alert over a national day of hate that had been planned by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.

Instead, officials issued statements of solidarity and demonstrations of unity, which were held in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, while Jewish communities defied the threats by sticking to their normal Shabbat activities, law enforcement and Jewish groups had urged vigilance ahead of Saturday after the white supremacist called for followers to distribute anti-Semitic messaging with banner, stickers, flyers. and graffiti. A statement that's attributed to the hate groups, although we're still not told who the hate groups are, but this is a statement attributed to them. Take a stand and expose the international clique of parasitic vermin that infest our nation. Make your voices heard loud and clear that the one true enemy of the American people is the Jew. This is what we're told, a statement attributed to the hate groups, although they don't tell us who the hate groups are.

Then the day comes and nothing happens. You know, there's a lot of reasons why we could know going into this. This is basically an invention of the media. Now, when the media invents something, sometimes there's a shred of truth to it. Sometimes there isn't. So is it possible that someone somewhere posted something on some obscure chat room or message board? And then that's what they're basing this on? That's possible. Would that justify, you know, the extrapolation that there's some sort of national incident that's about to occur? Of course not. Better like that. next time feds okay at a press conference a couple days ago president zelensky of ukraine was asked about americans who don't want to keep shipping money to uh to his country there are some americans if you

can believe it that after a year of this some americans because they're all stooges of Putin um of which apparently i am a stooge of Putin because i agree with them that no we don't want to continue shipping money and weapons or anything else to ukraine i don't think we ever should have started. Zelensky has some thoughts about those Americans like myself and probably like you. This is what he says. What would your message be on the anniversary to those Americans? Thank you. I would like to thank the American people.

I would like to thank all of the American people that are supporting Ukraine, the Congress, the president, the TV, channels the journalists and everyone that has been supporting us and that percent of Americans as you've mentioned is increasing I can tell them only one thing if they do not change their opinion if they do not do not understand us if they do not support Ukraine they will lose NATO they will lose the cloud of the United States they will lose the leadership position that they are joined in the world that they are joined for a very fair reason and they will lose the support of the country with 40 millions of population with millions

of children are American children any different than ours? Don't Americans enjoy the same things as we do? I don't think we're that different. Do we enjoy the same things as you do? I mean, maybe. We might have similar hobbies to lots of people all over the globe. Are we supposed to shipping them all money because of that? I mean, we do ship almost all of the money, but is that a good enough reason? This is really, this is everything you need to know from, you know. Inadvertently, he has told you everything you need to know Zelensky has. Because remember what he was asked?

He was asked, well, what about Americans that don't want to support Ukraine anymore? They don't want to keep sending money and all the rest of it. If there was an argument to be made, even a unlikely argument, but if there were implausible, though it may be, if there was an argument to be made that doing this, sending the money to Ukraine, is in the best national security interests of, America, that doing it would actually benefit the American people in a direct way, that you need to do it because if you don't do it, then America will be at risk. Maybe because Putin will, you know, he'll take over Ukraine, then he'll keep marching, it'll take over all of Europe and then launch it. You know, if there was any argument to be made for that, I wouldn't buy it, but if there was, then that would have been the time to make it. He doesn't even pretend. You notice that? He's not even pretending that it's in the direct personal interests of the American people. to support Ukraine. He's not even pretending that it will make us safer to support Ukraine. Instead, he says, well, we like a lot of the same things. We all love to, you know, walks on the beach. We like to go for, we all love to walk through meadows on a lazy Saturday afternoon. You know, he gives us that. And then he also says that we'll lose the clout. We'll lose our,

we'll lose our national clout. So? So that's what we have to spend billions of dollars on is for clout? How do you measure the clout of the globe exactly? And why should I care? Why should I care if America has clout? Especially if this is how you get it. So the way that we get clout internationally is by paying for it, by buying it,

that's all he's got. Like I can't conceive a how. How could anybody with a brain at this point still support sending money to Ukraine? You just heard President Zelensky. He gave his best sales pitch. And he's not even pretending that it's going to make us safer that it's best for our own well-being. It's all about him. His real argument is, well, you should give us money because we really want it.

And I love the threat also that he says that if we don't, we'll lose the support of the Ukrainian people. So when did we ever have your support? What do you mean? We'll lose your... What have you ever done for us, Zelensky? What has Ukraine ever done for the United States? One thing? Is they doing one thing? Okay, because I can name billions of things we've done for Ukraine.

What have they ever done for us? All of these countries that we're constantly shipping money to... What are they doing for us? What are they doing to show their support for us? Nothing. You'll lose the support of Ukraine. Number one, don't care. Number two, we never had it.

This is a one-way relationship. It always is. All right, Ron DeSantis was interviewed by Mark Levin over the weekend. And I want you to listen to, you know, very often interviews with politicians are not very interesting, but there was one part that I want you to hear because this is important. It is. I think they wanted to exercise power over other people. So if you look at like all these entrenched bureaucrats, CDC, NIH, FD, they need to be cleaned out because they totally failed.

and they're not advocating for the best interests of the people of this country. It's been a total disaster. Yeah, it's hard to remove them, you know, with the civil service rules and then the union rules and all the rest. Well, there was one, you know, there was a proposal that I think a lot of us wanted to see under the prior administration to do a Schedule F. So anybody that has any policy role is classified as a Schedule F, and they can be removed by the president.

The left would litigate that, but I honestly think we would win on that in the Supreme Court. And I also think it's one thing to have some type of job rules for the bowels of the bureaucracy, like your supervisor, what they can do. President of the United States has Article 2 power. Who controls the executive branch? Is it the elected president or is it some bureaucrat in the bowels of the bureaucracy that can't be fired?

And so I think push needs to come to shove on this, but whoever gets a majority of the electoral college has the right to impose their agenda through the executive branch. And what they did with President Trump was basically try to nullify the election through not only bureaucratic intransigence, but malfeasance with the collusion hoax and some of those things. And so reconstitutionalizing government starts with reconstitutionalizing the executive branch under Article 2. Okay, so a lot of that might sound kind of wonky, but it is important. And listen, if you want to know why I would take the Sanders over Trump in a primary, of course, I would support either one in general. If you want to know why I would take DeSantis over Trump in the primary, it really, there are other reasons that we've talked about, but really this is the only reason you need.

It is the desire to actually clean out all of these bureaucrats, all of these entrenched bureaucrats to clean them out of the system, right? You need like, it's like cleaning out your, you need some, it's like, how do you get some drain-o to clear all this gunk out of the pipe stream? And that's what he wants to do it. Not only the desire to do it, but the knowledge of how to do it. And this is what he's done in the Florida state government. He's done exactly this.

Now it's harder to do on a national level, but we know that he knows how to do it because he's done it. and also from giving explanations like that, the desire and willingness and follow through to actually use the powers of the executive branch, knowing how to use those powers and being interested in using them to get rid of many of these corrupt swamp things. Trump, listen, Trump never did that. He just never did. He was elected to drain the swamp.

He never did anything to actually drain it. Or very little, I should say. Very little was done. and whatever he did do was was was was was undone within about 12 hours of him leaving office so that's what you get from de sands i mean can you imagine to be honest can you imagine trump calmly explaining as de sands just did how we would actually get rid of these people have you ever heard him that we know we get the you know we get the the platitudes and we get the the the bumper sticker slogans and we get the rally speeches and

all that and the talking points. And of course, you get that from any politician. And that stuff is important, too. But what about sitting down and saying, listen, this is how I'm going to go about doing this and being able to explain it? You don't get that from Trump very often. You do get it from DeSantis. All right. I guess we'll move to this. Woody Harrelson and SNL are getting some props this week for really this moment from Harrelson's monologue while he was hosting the show on Saturday. Here it is. Okay, so the movie goes like this. The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes and people can only come out if they take the cartels drugs

and keep taking them over and over. I threw the script away. I mean, who is going to believe that crazy idea? Okay. It's a good moment on the... And if you watch the rest of the clip, there's a few more seconds there, but you really need the rest of it

because then you hear the reaction from the crowd, which is mostly... It's a little bit of awkward laughter and then silence, because they are thinking, like, we're not supposed to hear this kind of... This is not what we're supposed to hear on SNL. Okay?

And this is from a Hollywood celebrity. not supposed to be saying stuff like this, and they don't know how to react to it. But Woody Harrelson is getting a lot of credit for that, for saying this. And again, I'm glad that he said it. I'm glad that he said it in the forum where he said it. It's important. But I also have to say that I just, I can't give anyone credit for being this late to the party. Now, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't tracked Woody Harrelson and his viewpoints very closely or at all. So maybe he came out back in, you know, April of 2020 or May of 2020 or even sometime in 2021 and said this and talked about the, you know, refer to the pharmaceutical companies as a drug cartel. They were forced to be, you know, maybe he was saying this all along.

I don't remember ever hearing him say that. So if he did, then I'll give him credit for that. But if he didn't, and this has yet another example of somebody years later saying what many of us have been saying for years up until now. And even SNO. I don't know if he got clearance for that line before he went up there. Maybe he was going off script a little bit. I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if they knew.

The writers knew that he was going to say that, if that was written on a teleprompter. and it was already known, because S&L has also in the last few months, they've done a few bits, a few skits where they're kind of making similar sorts of points. But it is so late. And it's just, yeah, if you're right, if you're, if you say something that is correct now, when it's easy and popular to say it, then you're still correct. I'm not going to act like it's not correct. I'll say, well, good, that's true.

I'll agree with it. But that's exactly the point. Once it's easy and popular to say, and there's no real risk in saying it, then the credit for saying it is out the window. And there are so many examples of this, not just with COVID. But you've got a lot of these kind of, I don't know, I guess we'd call them old school. I even hesitate to call them old school liberals because they're only old school liberals in comparison to the leftists of, you know, of the blue hair TikTok leftists. So old school in that sense. There are plenty of examples of these old school, quote unquote, liberals.

you know, making points like this. I mean, Bill Maher's another one, whether it's on this, on some of the gender stuff, the same thing. You get a little bit of sanity. And conservatives are very excited by that. They want to embrace these people. But it's like, yeah, I mean, you're saying these, you can say this now. Okay? And I'm not going to hold it against it. I'm not, this is not even like if somebody was wrong about COVID two and a half three years ago, but has long since corrected themselves. That's one thing. But to wait this long to make these kinds of points in observations, you risk nothing at this point. Speaking of late to the party, the New York Times also had this report. New intelligence has prompted the energy department to conclude that an accidental laboratory leak in China most likely caused the coronavirus pandemic, though U.S. spy agencies remain divided over the origins of the virus,

American officials said on Sunday. The conclusion was a change from the department's earlier position that it was undecided on how the virus emerged. Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the energy department's conclusions was made with low confidence, suggesting that it's a level of certainty was not high. While the department shared the information with other agencies, none of them changed their conclusions, officials said. Officials would not disclose what the intelligence was. But many of the industry department's insights come from its network of national laboratories, some of which conduct biological research. research rather than more traditional forms of intelligence like spy networks or communications intercepts. Intelligence officials believe the scrutiny of the pandemic's beginnings could be

important to improving global response to future health crises. Though they cautioned that finding an answer about the source of the virus, maybe difficult or even impossible given Chinese opposition to further research. Another one very late to the party. Now, yeah, they have couched this, clarify, they've made very short. All the media reports about this, they've made very short to include that, well, it's a low level of confidence. Yeah, the energy department is saying this, but we still don't know exactly. No, we know. And this is another one that we knew essentially from the beginning. It's very clear from the beginning. There was at least enough evidence at the very beginning, like just starting with the fact that, oh, this virus originated in Wuhan,

and there happens to be this Wuhan lab where they're in the business of making these crazy viruses. And so it's of all the places where a virus could emerge, the fact that it emerges right there is not proof in and of itself. Coincidences do happen, but very strong indication that there is a relationship there. And as more and more information came out, it was, there was enough reason from the very beginning to strongly suspect. that this came from a lab. And then shortly thereafter, there was enough reason to be

quite short of it, as more and more evidence came out. But here we are three years later, and they're saying, well, yeah, it looks like that could be the game. Even if we buy the low level of confidence thing, again, it's not low level of confidence, it's a high level of confidence. But if you buy that,

well, the point is that now you've got the Biden administration saying that this is a very plausible explanation at the very least. When two or three years ago, they were not only saying the explanation was implausible, they were actually saying that it's bigoted to even talk about it, to simply discuss the possibility that it might have come from a lab in China is bigoted and racist, they said. This is yet another example of where we're not going to give any credit to any credit to any one, whether it's the New York Times, certainly not the Biden administration saying three years later,

maybe, maybe you're right about that. Because they won't even, they won't even dignify it by phrasing it that way. They won't even say, well, maybe you were right. It said they're going to pretend that all the people that were making this point for years and that they shouted down. They're going to pretend that we never existed. We never said any of that. Here's how the Hill, by the way, the website, the Hill is translating all this. This is how they're reporting on it. Republicans are seizing on a new energy department conclusion pointing to a lab leak as causing the COVID-19 outbreak to call for swift action against the Chinese government. The Wall Street Journal in New York Times reported Sunday that the energy department had determined with low confidence that the virus was leaked from a lab, though it's unclear what new intelligence that was based on. So, as always, the story for, you know, you start with the story, which is the actual story that the virus came from a lab.

we always knew that. But then very quickly, the story for the media becomes not the story itself, but the way people on the right are reacting to the story. Republicans seize on the information. Well, no, we're not seizing on. We've been seizing on it from the very beginning. If by seizing, you mean, like, pointing to it and saying, hey, look at this fact, everyone.

I wanted to think before we did the comment section, this is a more. big news. New York Times has this. I'm just going to read from it. Warm, moist air and colder, dry air collided on Wednesday to create the conditions necessary for hail, damaging winds and tornadoes across the southern plains and into the southeast, and it was the job of an elite meteorology group called the Storm Prediction Center to give people advanced notice. Elizabeth Lightman, who has worked at the Norman Oklahoma Center since 2010, it would be the day she would issue her first thunderstorm watch. She would also become the first woman ever to do so. in the 70-year history of the center and its previous iterations, according to the center officials.

Ms. Lightman is one of only two women among the 22 full-time forecasters at the Storm Prediction Center. As far as I know, there's been five of us, Ms. Lightman said, referring to female forecasters who've worked there before. None of her predecessors, though, reached the role of lead forecaster. On Wednesday, her first day training to become a lead forecaster, she did all the intricate work while someone supervised her every move. And then she issued the storm watch. So in summary, if you're a little confused, a woman, maybe you're confused because you're wondering where the story actually is, but that's the story. A woman issued a thunderstorm watch for the first time in history. Pretty big stuff. And this is what we're down to now. These are the

glass ceilings that we're left with, right? They're not even glass coffee tables or something. They're not even ceilings. This is how desperate they are to continue pretending that women are overcoming a sexist patriarchal society. This is how specific things have to get. First woman at the center in Oklahoma to issue a thunderstorm watch. Next week they're going to be writing an article about the first woman to like declare that the store is closing over the intercom on a Tuesday night at the Walmart in Fort Lauderdale and first woman to do that.

That's how specific they need to get. How about the first woman to walk down the street in green pants while yodeling in Latin? First woman to do that, another glass ceiling broken. Very inspiring story for all of us. Let's get to the comment section. As the crispy chicken sandwich from 7-Eleven, people always call me loud. And I'm like, yeah, I know. I'm crispy.

Did you expect me to whisper? If you want quiet, go eat some soup and reflect. Like, I know I'm a handful. I'm bold. I'm juicy. Throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me and baby I'm a whole meal. And with seven rewards, I'm just $4. Quiet. No. Krispy, saucy and $4? Very. Only at 711. Valley 36, 2326, participating stores only while supplies last see out for full terms. Ariana Sullivan says, I judge harshly people who defend criminals' actions based on mental illness and or past trauma. For every murderer that has fetal alcohol syndrome, there are at least.

tens of thousands, if not millions of others, who have fetal alcohol syndrome and don't kill. It's not that mentally ill people commit crimes, is that criminals often have mental illness, and there's a huge difference. Mentally ill does not equal morally corrupt. Well, you're right, and this is even more so the case when you consider the fact that according to psychologists and psychiatrists these days, like everybody has a mental illness. There's a mental illness for everybody. You either have been diagnosed with a mental illness, or you haven't been diagnosed yet because you haven't gone to seek a diagnosis. But anyone who wants one can get one.

That's the, you know, it's like the Oprah giving out cars. Like you get a mental illness, you get a mental illness. So everyone gets one. So if we start excusing bad behavior and especially violent crime on the basis of mental illness, then you very rapidly end up in a society where everybody is excused. You know, you can't condemn anything because we all have mental illnesses to fall back on. And that's why I'm always, I'm just, I'm very skeptical of using mental illness as an excuse at all, the insanity defense. Very skeptical. I've always been very skeptical of that because the only thing I need to know, right?

You did something terrible. You hurt somebody and killed someone. The only thing I need to know. I need to know. I need to know two things. Did you know that what you were doing was wrong? And did you do it on purpose? Now, if the answer is no to both of those things, you didn't know it was wrong and or you didn't do it on purpose. If you killed someone, you still have to face consequences for that. They're still going to be a very harsh punishment, even if you didn't do on purpose, even if you didn't know what you were doing. But for the vast majority of murderers, the answer is going to be yes to both of those things. Okay, no matter what they went through as a child, as a child, no matter what their childhood trauma was, they were abused, whatever, fetal alcohol syndrome. been diagnosed with 50 different mental illnesses. All that stuff can be the case, drug addicts,

everything else. But in almost every case, you know, where a crime was committed on purpose, they knew that what they were doing was wrong. And you know that too, because there's almost always an attempt to hide the crime or to, you know, to get away with it and somehow, even if the attempt is clumsy and incompetent, there's still the attempt. Let's see. Addy says, thank you, Matt, for speaking about the real issues. As someone who is lactose intolerant, literally break out in hives and get sick every time I have dairy, I definitely agree that almonds, soy, coconut, et cetera, milk is in fact not milk. Almond juice, as I like to call it, is the biggest liar of them all. It's just nasty, tan-flavored water that separates into half liquid, half solid. If it's not violently shaken every two seconds, speak your truth. It needs to be said, SBG4L. Well, it's good to know that there are some in the lactose intolerant community that understand this lie and this veil that's being pulled over their eyes. I can't imagine actually being lactose intolerant to me that that is a, that would be an unthinkable curse. Because 98% of the stuff that I eat is, you know, is dairy or has dairy in it.

Just starting with the fact that everything should have cheese on it. I don't care what it is. I don't care if it's a bowl of fruit loops. Like everything tastes better at cheese. So maybe not fruit loops, but most things. So that would be an incredible curse. But if you are cursed that way, then I think that's your cross that you're bearing.

Don't lie to yourself by pretending that you can still partake in the miracle of dairy when you can't. So I commend you for your courage in that regard. And finally, Count Snacula says, Despite the fact I'm conservative, I'm not in favor of the death penalty. Our Lord has made his will clear. We are not to kill furthermore vengeance is his. On a secular level, I'm not going to say, I'm not going to ask anyone to carry out an execution that he may one day come to regret.

I'm not going to ask anyone to do that. We'll build more prisons. Sorry. Best wishes for Ron DeSantis and his administrative reign. Well, actually, what you brought up about the death penalty and the, the death penalty and the fact that someone has to actually carry it out and the incredible psychological burden of having to actually carry out the executions. Of all the arguments against the death penalty, I've always found that to be the most compelling.

That's the one that is raised the least often. You rarely hear anyone bring that up as an argument against the death penalty, the fact that, look, an actual human being has to do this. Maybe that's just something that we shouldn't ask anyone to do. I do find that argument compelling, ultimately not persuasive, though, because it is more than balanced out by the interests of justice and all the other reasons to have the death penalty. So, but still, you know, it's an interesting thing to talk about. What you said, though, about the Lord has made his will clear, well, you're right, but it goes the other way.

That we know in the Bible, if you're making the religious argument, well, we know that in Scripture, particularly in the Old Testament, God prescribes the death penalty, you know, which means, now, God prescribes a death penalty, and so that's in scripture. Does that mean that we should have the death penalty, that every single crime should lead to death penalty? No, does that mean that we can't have laws that, you know, determine when the death penalty is used and when it isn't? Obviously not. But what it does mean is that as Christians, we are now precluded from declaring, that the death penalty is some sort of inherent intrinsic evil.

Now, you didn't use that phrase exactly, but that's basically the argument, basically the argument that's made by many death penalty opponents, especially the ones that try to make a religious argument against it. But you can't make that argument, because then you are accusing God of prescribing something that was intrinsically immoral, which is heresy. So, yeah.

If you want to go referring to Scripture as a great idea in general, and on this issue, if you do that and you look at what Scripture actually says about the death penalty, it's very hard. It's very difficult to read the Bible, old and New Testament, and come away with the conclusion that the Bible is a death penalty abolitionist text. Very clearly not. I want to pay attention because this is your last chance to celebrate President's Day this year. You can take advantage before it's too late with the Daily Wires Our Presidents for Sale,

sale with 40% off memberships. The big guy got 10%. We are giving you 40%. You get access to the World of Daily Wire Plus with fearless documentaries, gripping movies. Pregor use Dennis Prager's rather, the Masters program and the entire library of Jordan Peterson's work, including new productions like Exodus, Logos and Literacy, and On Marriage, all available to watch right now. Coming down the pipeline to a TV or laptop near you, there are new episodes of Ben Shapiro's The Search, Exodus Part 2, and then our much anticipated DW kids content, all of that, and so much more is on We're also giving you up to 40% off select items in the Daily Wire Shop. Last chance to take advantage of our presidents for sale, sale today is your last chance.

You've got to do it. You've got to go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today. That's DailyWire.com slash subscribe. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Last week, I posted a very important poll to Twitter. The question, who is the worst wife in America? There were four options, Jill Biden, Megan Markle, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Giselle Federman, the wife of Senator John Fetterman.

Now, it proved to be a close contest, though one clear winner emerged at the end, Jada Pinkett Smith, G.I. Jane, as Chris Rock would call her, who has escorted her husband Will Smith through one public humiliation ritual after another, won the race with 32% of the vote. Close behind her was Megan Markle, assuming her preferred position by riding someone else's coattails with 30%. And then First Lady and notorious elder abuser Jill Biden with 22% followed finally by Giselle Federman with only 14% of the vote. But after the events of this past week, I must now call for Mike Pence to do the right thing and throw out these results. We need a new election, and I think Jazeel Federman deserves to win this time.

Now, Giselle earned the title before this past week. She earned it ever since her husband nearly died from a stroke during a political campaign, and she, rather than insisting that he leave the race and save his health in the process, instead helped to shuffle him along from one campaign stop to the next, where he humiliated himself with increasing regularity, only to eventually win the Senate seat because the Republicans managed to run someone who was less appealing to voters

than an actual vegetable somehow. Federman would end up in the hospital almost immediately after being sworn in, and then again, immediately after that. He was admitted over a week ago for his second stint and is still there, reportedly, to receive treatment for depression. Now, I must say reportedly, because there's no reason to believe

any of the details were given about Federman's health at this point. All we can say for sure is that the man is not well. That didn't stop Giselle, his loving wife, from going on vacation anyway. From the Daily Wire, here's report. Senator John Federman's wife was slammed on social media Friday after she revealed that her first, the first thing she did after her husband was hospitalized with severe depression, was flee the country to go on vacation. Federman checked himself into a hospital last week for a multi-week inpatient treatment regiment

after the attending physician in the United States Congress recommended that he do so. Giselle Federman, who lived illegally in the U.S. for more than a decade, said that she took the family to Canada for a vacation after a leaving. leaving her husband in the hospital. NBC news reporter Dasha Burns said last week that senior aides the Federman have indicated that it's been difficult to distinguish the stroke from the depression, saying it's hard to tell at times if Federman is not hearing you or he is sort of crippled by his depression and social anxiety. Quote, a senior aide tells me both the staff and Federman himself were taken by surprise by the severe onset of depression. The aid also says

that this hasn't compromised his ability to do the job going forward and he'll be back to work once he's taken care of his mental health. So wait, just side note. You can't tell if he hears you when you speak to him, but that hasn't compromised his ability to do the job of a senator? Which actually might be true, but what does that tell you about the job of a senator? As for the details of Giselle's impromptu excursion out of the country while her husband languished in the hospital, she tweeted this,

quote, I'm not really sure how to navigate this journey, but I'm figuring it out slowly. One week ago, today, when the news dropped, the kids were off from school, and the media trucks circled our home. I did the first thing I could think of. Pack them up and in the car and drive. We drove straight into Canada.

We talked lots about hard things and how we all have to face hard things, about the need to be gentle, with ourselves and with all. We did some scary things, but we did them together. We ziplined over Niagara Falls, and August got stuck.

We talked about flexibility and the need to always have an open heart and an open mind. We also talked about how joy and fun can and must still exist, even when someone we love is in pain. And tomorrow, who knows, we'll try to do it all over again. Now, she also provides some pictures and videos from their jaunt to Niagara Falls. It should go without saying that a good and attentive wife does not leave the country on vacation while her husband is experiencing a catastrophic medical emergency. Now, we don't know whether John Fetterman is even fully conscious right now, but if he is, I could only imagine what it must have felt like when he called his wife

from his hospital bed, expecting that she would sound distraught, only to hear laughter and commotion in the background. Like, what's that, honey? Oh, we're going ziplining in Canada. It's so fun. Wish you could be here anyway, got to go. Of course, it's not that a man in the hospital wants his wife to be miserable, but he does want her empathy, he wants her concern, her support, all of which seems to be lacking in Giselle's behavior. Of course, some people have tried to defend Giselle by insisting that while she was only trying to get away from the media spotlight, it was something that she did to protect her kids, they claim. But that doesn't make any sense, given that Giselle has ruthlessly pursued the media spotlight,

and she was willing to sacrifice her husband's health to get it. You can't push your barely cognizant husband over the finish line and into the Senate, and then five seconds later claimed that you wish to shield your family from public scrutiny. That would have been easily achieved if Fetterman dropped out of the race after he had his first stroke during the primaries. Remember, that first stroke was during the primaries. He could have easily just dropped out, and another Democrat would have been the nominee and probably would have won the Senate. But now that he's a senator, you know, now that you've made that decision to push him over the finish line, his health is a matter of national interest and importance.

That's what she wanted. And now she has it. But even if we could justify the Niagara Falls tour on the basis that she was trying to avoid the news cameras, take her kids' minds off of everything the process? That wouldn't explain why she needed to publish a string of tweets about the experience, complete with pictures and video. Giselle seems to have gone to the Megan Markle School of protecting one's privacy. And even more to the point, it would not explain or justify what she says in the tweets and what she doesn't say. You'll notice that her husband's name isn't mentioned. She never expresses any concern about him. Instead she talks about herself, her journey, her need for joy and fun. She has turned her husband's medical crisis into a

a personal journey of self-discovery. And in that way, and in several other ways, she is, you know, the quintessential modern liberal woman, and I don't mean that as a compliment. It's actually appropriate that on the same day that Giselle published her tweet thread about her fun vacation, another tweet written by a different but equally vapid

liberal woman went viral. This time it was Dr. Nicole La Pera, as a psychologist and an expert in quote-unquote self-healing, La Pera has amassed an enormous online following with gems like the one she posted on Friday, which says this. Quote, putting everyone else's needs before your own isn't selfless. It's self-abandonment. Society glorifies this, and it's a massive reason why so many of us are unwell.

Yes, that's the problem with society, that it encourages people to be selfless. The solution to our cultural problem, therefore, says the psychologist, is to put greater emphasis on selfishness. Because that's the ingredient we're missing, obviously. Surely we've all noticed this. I mean, when you look around at society, the first thing you think is, wow, there really isn't enough selfishness out there. Now, this is totally backwards, of course. It may be theoretically possible to go too far in putting other people's needs in front of your own. Theoretically, that's possible, maybe. But that is not the direction that our culture pushes people. And if you're having trouble in your relationships, it is almost certainly not because you are too outwardly focused, too worried about helping other.

too selfless. That may be the story that you tell yourself, but the story is almost always fiction, and it is a fiction grounded in your selfishness. Giselle Fetterman is a prime example of this phenomenon, and a very public example, because that's what she wanted to be. And that is why she is today, finally, canceled.

And that'll do it for this portion of shows. We'll move over to the members block. If you're not a member yet, you can become a member and use code. wall should check out for two months free on all annual plans. Hope to see you over there. If not, talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.