The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1412 - Weird Democrats Think The Nuclear Family Is Weird

Episode Date: July 31, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media wants us to believe that it's "weird" to promote parenthood and family life. Right now, they're focusing most of their attacks on JD Vance. But make no mistake, this is a war on the family itself. Also, one of the drag queens involved in that blasphemous display at the Olympics has come out and doubled down. Kamala Harris puts out a new ad portraying herself as a conservative right winger on border security. And Meghan Thee Stallion twerks for Kamala at a big rally in Atlanta. Have we reached the final stage of Idiocracy?   Ep.1412   - - -   DailyWire+:   Join the fight. Become a member! https://dailywire.com/subscribe   Get tickets to Backstage LIVE at the Ryman, August 14! https://bit.ly/46igytS   SWEET BABY GANG IS BACK. Buy the shirt: https://bit.ly/3zfUbZE   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Birch Gold - Make a qualifying purchase by July 31st and get a GOLDEN Truth Bomb! Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/walsh   Reliefband - Get 25% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/   Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.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

Today in the Matt Wall Show, the media wants us to believe that it's weird to promote parenthood and family life. Right now, they're focusing most of their attacks on J.D. Vance, but make no mistake, this is a war on the family itself. Also, one of the drag queens involved in that blasphemous display of the Olympics has come out and doubled down on it. Kamala Harris puts out a new ad portraying herself as a conservative right winger on border security. And Megan the stallion twerks for Kamala at a big rally in Atlanta. Have we reached the final stage of idiocracy? Talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. As a DailyWire Plus member, you get uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free shows, the latest breaking news, and more.

Join the fight now at DailyWire.com slash subscribe. Saudi Arabia recently ended its 50-year petro dollar deal with the U.S. which has the potential to weaken the U.S. dollar. Since 1974, Saudi Arabia has sold oil solely in U.S. dollars, which was huge for our global economic dominance. Now they want other options. If there's less demand for the U.S. dollar, what happens to its value? Well, for reasons like this that I feel it's important to diversify some of your citizens. savings into gold. And you can do that with the help of Birch Gold. Right now, qualifying purchases are eligible to get a one-of-a-kind, limited-ed edition, Golden Truth Bomb. The only way to claim your

eligibility is by texting Walsh to 9-8-9-8-9-8. Protect your savings by diversifying away from the U.S. dollar with gold. Text Walsh to 9-8-9-8-9-8, and Birch Gold will help you convert an old IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold for no money out-of-pocket. Right now, qualifying purchases will get a limited edition Golden Truth Bomb, text Walsh to 98-98-98-9-8. That's Walsh to 9-8-9-8-8-t Today. The reason political campaigns come up with talking points and pay focus groups a lot of money to test them is that it's effective to repeat things over and over and over again. Even when people know they're being fed a manufactured soundbite, and even if people know it's a lie, you can still work to some extent at a subconscious level. Advertising slogans work on the same principle.

If you constantly bombard people with the same message, the same slogan over and over and over again, eventually they will, against their will, internalize it. But talking points can backfire, especially when politicians go off script. They can get themselves into a lot of trouble very quickly. And we're starting to see that right now with a sound bite you've now heard a million times in which we discussed yesterday, which is the refrain that J.D. Vance and the other Republicans are weird. Every Democrat and media outlet has clearly been instructed to repeat this attack endlessly for the past week. In an interview the other day, it was West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin's turn to repeat this line, but he didn't just repeat it. He also attempted to explain what it means to be weird. And nothing he said made any sense, which suggests that Democrats don't really understand the talking point that they've been handed, yet they're repeating it anyway, of course.

Watch. Well, that was a weird comment. That definitely is weird. And some of the different things in positions they've taken seems fairly weird to me. And weird means basically when you have rational, supposedly very educated rational people, the same things that just are so far out of the mainstream.

I thought I've heard everything as long as I've been around, but there are some things I haven't heard. And I thought that was a very weird way of putting it. Yeah, I mean, this thing here is just, the name calling back and forth that goes on. I mean, you know, really the attacks is coming from, Former President Trump and all damn, but just, you know, Michael, just say what you're for and say what you're against. You say what you're doing, what you don't agree with.

To go from there. Yeah, the name calling. You know that damned weirdo in all his name calling? I wish these weird freaks would stop name calling so much. Now, you kind of have to feel bad for Mansion because everyone knows that a 76-year-old man would never call another man weird. What are they going to do next? Force Mansion to say that J.D. Vance gives him the ick. Maybe he'll come out and tell him.

us that Vance's vibes or cringe? So the whole thing is for Mansion, the grading and totally inauthentic and everyone can see through it. But the interesting part of that clip is that Manchin tries to explain what the talking point means, which you're not supposed to do, by the way. They don't want you to try to explain it because it doesn't mean anything. So they just want you to say weird and leave it at that. But he tries to elaborate. And first, Manchin says that Vance is weird because he's a smart guy who said something out of the mainstream. And, you know, you never want to do that. You don't want to go out. You got to stay in the mainstream. That's all, everything outside of the mainstream is weird because it's not mainstream, so it's automatically

bad. And then he suggests that J.D. Vance is guilty of name calling instead of clearly articulating what kind of policies he wants to pursue. Now, it's a kind of a jaw-dropping claim, because the entire point of Vance's statements, the ones they're claiming are weird, go to maybe the single most important issue facing this country, which is the decline of the family and the rise of childlessness. It's the decline of the family that has led directly to skyrocketing rates of violence in major cities. It's led to plummeting birth rates that are well below replacement level. It's led to a historic number of deaths of despair, including overdoses and suicide.

But Manchin dismisses all of that. He simply claims that Vance is insulting people instead of talking about serious issues, whatever those may be. because apparently the collapse of civilization is not a serious issue that we should be talking about. This is what it looks like when a talking point unravels. None of the Democrats are media outlets want to address the substance of what Vance was talking about, which is the importance of starting families and having children. These are not fringe ideas. They are what allows civilization to exist.

So instead, to justify their soundbite that Vance is weird, Democrats are just making things up and attributing them to Vance. And it's not just Manschin who's doing this. The other day, CNN tried to push the weird talking point. And this time, by claiming that Vance called people sociopaths if they don't have kids. Then they show a video of what Vance actually said. And it, of course, completely contradicts what they claim. Watch.

Not just childless cat ladies. Turns out there are many more ways Trump's running mate has described people without children. The word sociopath used a lot. Brand new this morning, more than childless cat ladies, way more. New reporting from CNN's K-file this morning on Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance. The controversial comments he made questioning the judgment of people without children, they were not a one-off. In May of 2019, he told a crowd, quote,

Babies are good because we're not sociopaths. I've seen people who become more attached to their communities, to their families, to their country because they have children. So I would say that we should care about declining fertility, not just because it's bad for our economy, but because we think babies are good. And we think babies are good because we're not sociopaths. Okay. Now, and first of all, any Republican or conservative letting them get away with this, your

You're just weak and pathetic. Okay, this is not an easy issue. This is not a, rather I should say, this is not a difficult issue for us to address. They're just flat out lying. Any reasonable person watching that clip would agree with every word J.D. Vance said. What did he say there that's so outrageous?

There's not even, there's not a hint of name calling in that segment. He's not saying that childless people are sociopaths. That is not what he said. You and I both heard what he said. What he said is that babies are good. It's good to have babies. They're good for communities. They're good for the country.

They're good for parents. And what he said is that only a sociopath would think otherwise. Only a sociopath would think that babies are bad. He's not saying that only a sociopath wouldn't have a baby. He's saying only a sociopath would be opposed to babies in principle. Now, that is as uncontroversial a point as a person can possibly make. If you have an affirmative dislike for human children, if you think it's a bad thing that people are reproducing, then you have an extraordinarily antisocial and anti-human outlook. You're also probably incapable of understanding the joy that children bring to their mothers and fathers.

You obviously don't understand that. And yeah, you're a sociopath. If you are fundamentally opposed to children, you are a sociopath. I'll go further. You are a bad person. You are a person who all of your opinions, none of your opinions mean anything anymore. We should disregard everything you think about everything if you are affirmatively opposed to reproduction. Now, you might respond, well, yeah, but just because someone doesn't have kids, that doesn't mean they're opposed to the idea of reproduction?

Yes, I agree. J.D. Vance agrees. He never said otherwise. So CNN completely misrepresented what J.D. Vance said. There's no argument that he was describing people without children as sociopaths as they claimed. This is the name calling that Joe Manchin was referring to, and it's a complete fabrication. But CNN was not done lying, so here's the rest of the segment. Then in November of 2020, during a podcast appearance, he said this. There's just these basic cadences of life that I think are really powerful and really really valuable when you have kids in your life.

And the fact that so many people, especially in America's leadership class, just don't have that in their lives, you know, I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less, less mentally stable. And of course, you talk about going on Twitter. Final point I'll make is you go on Twitter and almost always. the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don't have kids in own. In August of 2021, in a fundraising email, CNN found he appealed to donors by mentioning the, quote, radical childless leaders in this country. And then he tweeted in 2021, quote, cat ladies must be stopped. So we're supposed to be outraged by this podcast interview too, even though, again,

there's nothing insulting or confusing about it. He's saying that on balance, societies are best. better off when people have children. For one thing, society can continue to exist, which is a pretty big net positive. In fact, you can't have, that's, if you don't have that going for you, then there's, there really is no second place, right? If this, like, for anything else good to happen in society, society has to at least exist. And the only way society continues to exist is by having kids. That's the first step. And as Vance said, having children generally makes people less narcissistic and less self-centered by necessity. Not always, but it generally has that effect.

Parents are forced to consider the well-being of their child, which is obviously a fundamental and instinctual desire that's encoded in our DNA. Up until about 15 minutes ago, everyone understood this. It was not a controversial point. It was not long ago that Barack Obama was giving speeches in which he described fatherhood as, quote, the greatest gift. That's from a speech in 2008 that delivered at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. And during that speech, Obama said, quote, if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father. And his whole speech was about how fatherhood made him less narcissistic,

which really, well, in his case, it makes you wonder just how narcissistic this guy must have been before he had kids. But he continued, quote, when I was a young man, I thought life was all about me. How do I make my way in the world? How do I become successful? How do I get the things that I want? But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. Now, there was no scandal when Barack Obama delivered that speech. No one thought it was controversial to say that fatherhood means caring more about other people besides yourself.

No one thought it was strange to suggest, as Obama did, that becoming a father is often the most meaningful thing that a man can do. So we have to ask, when and how did this change in American politics? When did it become unacceptable to point out that having a family is good, in part because it involves caring for? others. That's a question we should all be asking. Instead, the media is pretending J.D. Vance is the outlier. Mansion and CNN are accusing him of being out of the mainstream, God forbid. None of it makes any sense, but it appears to be a widespread problem now. A lot of people seem to be thinking along these lines. Yesterday, or rather, yeah, yesterday it was, I talked to a Wall Street Journal reporter who's doing a piece on this controversy. And, you know, the guy was nice enough,

didn't appear to be going for the gotcha moments. We'll see how the article turns out. But the premise behind his line of questioning that we return to again and again, and I was trying to sort of clarify for him, the premise behind the question, the questions he was asking, was totally confused. Because he wanted to know about the rise in pro-family rhetoric, like the kind we hear from Vance and from me. And I tried to explain that our view is not some new political phenomenon. Our view is the one held by every reasonable person who's ever lived up until approximately last Tuesday.

It's the anti-family view, the view that celebrates the child-free lifestyle that has recently arisen. It is the sudden and very modern phenomenon that he should be trying to explain. If you want to write an article about this, that's what you should be exploring. Now, of course, the idea of the idea

attacking the nuclear family isn't all that new. Carl Marx called for the abolition of the family and the Communist Manifesto. Friedrich Engels claimed that the family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife. Soviet schools taught children to report their own parents for wrong think. And in Hungary's Soviet government, which lasted only a few months, schools began indoctrinating children on various explicit sexual topics as a way of driving a wedge between the children and their parents. As the biographer of one Hungarian commissar put it, quote, special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed

to instruct children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urge thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church and to ignore precepts of more.

It might sound a little familiar. We've obviously been seeing this same creeping influence in American politics for some time. Children are now instructing kindergartners about topics like gender identity. Children are receiving hormones that can sterilize them for life. California's hiding students' so-called transitions from their parents. In some cases, children are being removed from homes because their parents will not affirm their, quote, unquote, gender identity. The difference is that unlike the Soviets, today's Democrats generally don't come right out and admit that they want to destroy the nuclear family.

Now, yes, sometimes the mask does slip. At the height of the George Floyd hysteria four years ago, for example, BLM had this passage on their website, quote, we disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and villages that collectively care for one or other, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable. We disrupt the nuclear family.

Now, eventually, BLM had to take that down, not because it was posted in error, but because they said the quiet part out loud and people were sort of cringing at it. Now suddenly it's fine for Democrats to say that part out loud. Advocating for strong families is now prohibited on the left. They're saying that if a critical mass of people decide to stay single and self-serving for their whole lives,

then that can't possibly have any negative ramifications whatsoever on society, even though it will mean the extinction of society. This is the view that Democrats push, and it's very much out of the mainstream of conventional thought in this country and across the entire world since the beginning of human civilization. Democrats are importing Marxist views on the family, and they're calling you weird for noticing what they're doing. And they're doing it relentlessly. The other day, New York Magazine ran a piece that, like CNN, completely misrepresented to what J.D. Vance believes, quote, conservatives have long staked out a claim to be the movement of traditional values of families of normal people all in contrast to liberalism. The weirdness attack works so well because it flips the script and fights on important cultural terrain.

It's weird to care about how many children people have. It's weird to treat women like incubators. It's weird to care about people being drag queens. It's weird to lose your shit because some people are trans. It's weird to obsess over alleged sex differences. Most people aren't like this and don't want to be like this either. The GOP has become the party of internet poisoning, and it's important to say as much. Everyone likes to tell a freak to shut up.

In other words, Democrats can give sterilizing hormones to children. They can make every single day on the calendar some kind of LGBTQ holiday from trans Day of Remembrance to International Pronouns Day to Gay Uncle Day to Pride Month, so on. They can pretend that basic biology is meaningless and basically doesn't exist. They can bring drag queens into the school to read to your kids. And if you complain about any of it, then you're the one who's making an issue out of it. You're the weird one. No, they're not the weird ones for bringing the drag queens to the kids. You're the weird one for saying, hey, wait, why are we doing this?

Can you just get a librarian, a normal librarian to read to the kid? You're weird for saying that. Now, as with everything else that we see from these people, this is projection. And it's all they have. The only way they can accuse J.D. Vance of being strange is to tell you to shut up, which is why New York Magazine explicitly says shut up in the article. For good measure, like CNN, they also invent things that J.D. Vance didn't even say. For example, the article continues, quote,

None of this is normal, and voters know it. Most parents don't have kids simply to own the libs or because they're worried about getting outbred by immigrants. People are childless for many reasons, and none of it is Vance's business. Of course, J.D. Vance didn't say that people should have kids to own the libs, or that people should have to explain why they're childless, or that people should have kids simply because they're worried about being outbred. None of that is tethered in any way to reality. The truth is, they're not attacking us for any of the reasons New York Magazine claimed.

They're attacking us for promoting family life and parenthood as a positive good, which it obviously is. Everyone throughout history has recognized that. What we're seeing now is just part of their years-long campaign to demonize the nuclear family. If they're smart, Republicans will use this issue as an opportunity to remind voters about the Democratic attacks on parents and families, especially in recent years. With J.D. Vance for the first time, a major Republican politician has done exactly what BLM did inadvertently four years ago. He told the truth about Democrats' efforts to destroy the nuclear family, which is the foundation of all civilization. And also the solution to so many problems that Democrat-run cities are suffering from right now.

strong, stable families are the way to fix all of it, which is obvious to almost everyone. But what's become clear over the past week amid the left's obsession with their dumb talking point is that they'd rather watch the population of this country wither and die out than admit what everyone knows, which is that J.D. Vance is right. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, my fishing trips often involve spending extended periods on a boat, which can lead to feelings of queasiness, especially when the waters are choppy. I found that using relief ban significantly enhances my experience on the water.

Relief ban has helped keep the nausea at bay, allowing me to focus entirely on the thrill of fishing. But it's not every day that you're on a boat and get seasick. Relief ban treats more than that, it can help car sick kids in the back seat, parents who are suffering from motion sickness at an amusement park, even chemotherapy patients. It's better to have a relief band and not need it than to need it and not have it. Trust me on that. Join the hundreds of thousands of customers who have experienced life-changing relief with Relief Ban. Right now, I've got an exclusive limited time offer just for my listeners. Visitreliefband.com.

Use promo code Walsh. They'll receive 25% off plus free shipping. Visit R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com. It's promo code Walsh. ReliefBand.com. Promocode Walsh. Okay, CNN reports. Vice President Kamal Harris went on the offensive on immigration at her rally in Atlanta on Tuesday attempting to counter former President Donald Trump's attacks on the issue. She touted her role as a California Attorney General who prosecuted transnational gangs, drug cartels, and human traffickers, then blamed Trump for tanking this year's bipartisan border bill in Capitol Hill because he thought it would help him win an election, quote unquote. In this campaign, I'll probably put my record against his any day, she said during the rally, the Harris campaign earlier Tuesday previewed how it would be responding to Trump's attacks, falsely casting her as the administration's borders are.

That's not false. I mean, that's what she was. with a new 50-second campaign video, it paints Trump as unsurious on border security and cites his decision to scuttle the bipartisan immigration deal that included some of the toughest border security measures in recent memory. Okay, a lot of problems with everything

I just read there from CNN, obviously, but before we talk about that, here's the ad that the Harris campaign just started running on this issue. Watcher. On the border, the choice is simple. Kamala Harris supports increasing the number of border patrol agents.

Donald Trump blocked a bill to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. Kamala Harris supports investing in new technology to block fentanyl from entering the country. Donald Trump blocked funding for technology to block fentanyl from entering the country. Kamala Harris supports spending more money to stop human traffickers. Donald Trump blocked money to stop human traffickers. Kamala Harris prosecuted transnational gang members and got them sentenced to prison. Trump is trying to avoid being sentenced to prison. There's two choices in this election,

the one who will fix our broken immigration system and the one who's trying to stop her. Okay, now, this is pretty amazing. I mean, it's total nonsense. It's completely bogus. It's all a lie. Everything in there's a lie. Starting with the lie that, you know, she, well, it's like,

we were told that she was going to be in charge of, of the border and then everything got worse and now they're saying well she wasn't really in charge but now they're running an ad saying actually she was in charge and she did a great job so which is it you know it's all confused because it's just a bunch of lies

nothing amazing about that per se what's amazing is that Kamala Harris is running fully to the right on immigration she's running now as what some sort of border hawk She's running as a proponent of protecting the border. What does that mean? Well, aside from the fact that, again, it's completely bogus and false, what it means for one thing is that conservatives have totally won on immigration.

This is a complete, this is a total victory. It's a knockout victory on the immigration issue. Now, the immigration problem is not fixed, so there hasn't been a victory in that sense. that still needs to happen. But in terms of in the public eye, in the court of public opinion, let's say, total victory. Because when you have the most left-wing presidential candidate in history running to the right on immigration, that means we won. And they know it. She cannot run as what she really is, which is someone who supports open immigration.

That would be the death of her campaign. and she knows it. That is a politically untenable position. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody wants to hear her stand up there and say, talk about how we need to welcome everybody and we don't have a right to, you know, no human is illegal and we don't have a right to turn anybody away. And, oh, the poor immigrants, nobody wants to hear that. So she's running as suddenly someone, you know, more conservative on immigration than Republicans were prior to Trump. The ad you just saw there is that's a more right-wing immigration ad than what, you know, George Bush would have run in 2004 or something. And this is not the only issue where she's pulling this trick. She's running to the right on crime also. She knows that the defund the police, empty the prisons approach, which is her actual position. She knows that's poison. That's the political equivalent of drinking bleach at this point.

You can't do it. You can't do it. You can't do it. So instead she's running as the tough prosecutor who's cracking down on crime and all that kind of stuff. So there are multiple issues where Kamala Harris, rabidly left wing, full-blown leftist, right, is nonetheless trying to go to the right. On every issue just about, she has switched course to at least some extent. She's abandoned her positions on everything except abortion. It's the only one where she's basically taking the same position she's always taken, which is to be extremist, you know, kill all the babies.

That's her position. But everything else, like in the blink of an eye, she has abandoned and taken a new position and done it with no pushback at all of any kind. Nobody's even asked her about it. You realize that, there hasn't even been a moment yet where anyone's even asked her. Like, well, why are you saying this now? And two weeks ago, you were saying the opposite. What happened?

This woman has sworn off her entire political program up until last Monday. And she hasn't answered a single question about it. Not a single one. But this is overall a very good sign. And it's a fight that, I mean, this is a fight that Trump absolutely should be able to win. But you want to have this fight on immigration? You want to try to get to the right of Trump on immigration? That is something that she should not be able to do.

That is a move that she should not be able to pull off. And it's assigned to any conservative who thinks that the key to winning this cycle is to moderate, to move to the left. No. No. No. Okay. That's never the key to victory. But especially not now. The Democrats are moving to the right. As soon as they're in office, they're going right back to the left. We know that. Democrats are moving to the right. What does that tell you? When people are sprinting away from a certain place, right? You don't want to sprint back in the direction that they're fleeing from. It's like a Godzilla movie. And you hear the stumps and you see the crowd of people running towards you. You don't run past them and go towards the sound of the giant stops unless you want to get squished, right, by the monster. So the Godzilla in this case is the American electorate, which is righteously pissed off and tired of having their country stolen out from under them, tired of living in crime-infested communities, and the Democrats are fleeing as fast as they can to avoid getting stomped. All Republicans need to do is hold their ground. Don't go left,

don't moderate. Now, instead, what you should be doing is pulling up the drawbridge to, you know, mixing metaphors here, but whatever. Pull up the drawbridge. When the Democrats try to run to the right and, you know, pull up to say, hell no, sorry, you're not. Now, the voters are welcome. Don't get me wrong. If the voters want to come and be Republican and be conservative, voters can come in. Yes, you're welcome. The politicians who are trying to avoid getting trounced, politicians like Kamala Harris, we're trying to run in and pretend, yeah, let's protect the border. No, no, no, you're not welcome. No, you're for open borders and defunding the police and emptying the prisons. And that's what you are. And that's your ship and

going to go down with it. To mix another metaphor in. That's all Republicans have to do on this thing. She's the one who has to triangulate and has to try to pull off this crazy sleight of hand trick where she goes in an instant from being full open border radical to being, you know, a proponent of protecting the border and enforcing the law. She's the one who's trying to pull off that trick. All you have to do is, as I said, just say, nope, can't do it. Sorry. That's not real. That's not

actually you. We're not going to let you pretend. All right. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this issue because I'm very late to it. And you've already heard everything there is to hear about it probably. But I do want to just kind of cover the space to make one point because I mean, I was just as repulsed as the rest of you when I saw that blasphemous opening ceremony in Paris last week. Didn't really talk about it because I was off on Monday. and as we know that nothing is relevant for, you know, more than a day, and then we all move on. But here's the latest from Breitbart that I did want to mention. It says, a drag queen who carried the torch of the Olympic flame in Paris's opening ceremony told critics, we ain't going nowhere after the theatrics received backlash for appearing to mock Christianity.

French drag performer Carl Sanchez, known by a stage named Nikki Dahl. has taken a social media to make fun of the ones who had their feathers ruffled, seeing queerness on their screen, after Christians responded poorly to the ceremony's portrayal of the iconic painting The Last Supper. He wrote in a Monday morning Instagram story, quote, The opening ceremony did ruffle some feathers, and I love it. You know why? Because the Olympics are the biggest stage in the world, and us queer people have always been the audience of other people's life and achievement. And it's time that we are welcome in the space. So he's kind of doubling down.

For the people responsible for that grotesque mockery that we saw, there seems to be kind of a split. Some of them are basically apologizing, deleting, you know, pretending it never happened. Some are doubling down. The interesting question to me is whether the people responsible for putting on this display, whether they knew that the display would provoke as much anger as it did. And if you didn't know any better, you would think that they must have known. known that. I mean, you staged a drag queen Last Supper. You used one of the holiest images in Christianity, and by that I mean the Last Supper itself, not just the painting of it, but the biblical image of

the Last Supper. Use that as a forum for mocking and belittling and committing sacrilege against a religion that two and a half billion people in the world follow. Of course, you know, they would know that it would upset people, you would think. But I think they didn't know. I think they actually were surprised. And that's not any kind of defense of them. Don't get me wrong. These people are demonic, just reprehensible scumbags,

deserve all the condemnation that they received and more. But I think they truly didn't know, did not anticipate that this would actually upset people. And that's why there's been all this scrambling after the fact, taken down the videos, apologizing, you know, some are doubling down. So we're not, they're just kind of like they did. It does not appear that they knew that there would be backlash and they were ready for it and they had their responses ready to go. They really didn't know. And what does that tell you? It tells you what kind of bubble they live in.

The leftists in the Olympic organizing committee, just like the leftist elites in Hollywood, academia, government here in the U.S. and across the world, really. All of them live a totally a life that is totally divorced. from the experiences, the existence of normal people. And for these elites, Christianity is just a joke. It's not something they even pretend to take seriously among themselves. In their world, Christianity is a religion, first of all, which automatically makes it dumb and frivolous. And they associate it with white people. Now, even though the majority of Christians are not white, but to them,

they see it as a white person religion. They associate it with Western civilization, and they associate Western civilization with whiteness. And so it's a religion, strike one. It's white to them, strike two. No need for a third strike. Both of those factors make it something less than a joke, something worse than a joke.

It's something deserving only of mockery and derision. So they put together this opening ceremony, this festival of blasphemy, thinking that people, it's assuming that people would see it the same way they did. Because they might as well live in a different universe from you and me.

That's how absolutely divorced these people are from just the average human existence of most people, which is pretty remarkable in a lot of ways. Let me see. Something else I wanted to do.

talk about if I can find it. There's plenty of articles out there about the abortion issue and how it is going to relate to this presidential campaign, especially now with a woman who's presumably going to be on the ballot. And I don't even need to read the articles. I think we all kind of know that. And there's a point I want to make about that. Kamala's campaign isn't really about anything at the moment.

It's not about any issue. But to the extent that it is about something or will be about something, it's this. It's white guilt, we talked about yesterday, and this. So really, it's white guilt and male guilt, and then white male guilt. because for them the abortion issue is all about like sort of it's of of course portraying women as the victims and trying to guilt men into supporting it and all of that so it's going to be abortion and it's going to be a white guilt so conservatives need to have an effective way of dealing with this and running away from it is not going to be the effective way you can't you can't run away

from abortion they're not going to let you you just you can't can't do it. And Trump is, he's going to debate Kamala Harris. He kind of has to. I know he's sort of, right now, he's non-committal about it, whatever, but you do have to debate her. You can't, you can't give off the impression that you're scared of her. There's no reason to be scared of her. You should be able to beat her in a debate pretty easily. So you will, you will have to debate her. And this is going to be a topic. It's going to be a topic that is returned to, I would assume. They're going to dwell on it for quite a bit. So how do you deal with it?

Well, as I've said a million times, for one thing, you refocus the conversation on the radical extreme positions that the Democrats hold on this issue. And Trump is pretty good about doing that. He did a nice job of doing that in the debate against Biden to the extent that we can call it a debate at all. But, you know, this is a pivot that he makes pretty instinctually. He just immediately pivots to the fact that, hey, they want to kill fully developed babies, second before they're born. Let's talk about that. And that's a good move. That's a smart move.

And it's also not just a move. It's like it's true that that is the more relevant thing to talk. Before we talk about the hard cases, the 1% cases, the rape, life of the mother, those kinds. Before we talk about these very, very rare situations, we have the much more common scenarios where you have abortion being used purely as birth control, where you have babies later on, you have. in the development cycle being killed in very brutal and gruesome ways. So we need to talk about that before we talk about anything else. So that's good. But you can also and should also positively defend the pro-life position.

And because pivoting it to the extremism of the Democrats, good move, we should do it. That is a defense, it's a more defensive posture. That's a defensive move. I think it's a smart defensive move, but it is defensive. Going on offense, I think, is more like, okay, this is a, I'm going to positively affirm the pro-life position, and you can do that by talking about the value of human life. And that's a crowd pleaser, if you do it right, because the crowd is made up of humans, right?

And they like to think that their own existence has value. So to talk about the fact that human life has value, that should be something that most people can applaud. But when's the last time you heard a Republican candidate in any race speak passionately and movingly about the value of human life? I mean, on occasion you hear it. It does happen, but it's not very often. And I think that's a mistake because this is a wide open lane. This is easy. Like, it's right there.

when they bring up abortion. You got it, you got to write, you have a, you should have a pre-planned, like, speech that you can give. That is, you're not filibustering. You're not changing the subject. It's very much on the subject. But it's like, okay, I'm glad you brought that up. You know, look, I happen to think that human life has intrinsic value. Human life is a beautiful thing, and we should protect it.

And here's why. The leftist position is that human life has no inherent value. And that what value we do have, which is all sort of contingent and subjective, in their minds, that that value is on a kind of spectrum. And some people have more value than others. It's a horrifying position. We see what happens when societies adopt that position. Atrocity follows.

We see it happening right now in the world. Not just with abortion, but you can look up to our neighbors up north. Euthanasia. Right? Euthanation is becoming like a leading cause of death in many areas in Canada. They're putting down people like dogs, people who aren't even terminally ill. This is what happens. It's a terrible thing when you don't affirm the value of human life. So our position is much more palatable and also true that human life has intrinsic value. I would love to see this. I mean, I would love to see Trump turn to common.

and say, do you think human life has intrinsic value? Do you? Yes or no? They never are forced to answer that question. I mean, do you realize that is the question of this debate? That is the question that the whole thing hinges on. Either human life has intrinsic value. There's intrinsic value means it belongs to something by its very nature. By its very nature, it has this quality to it. that quality by its very nature, and that means that as long as this, whatever it is, exists, then it has that. So if human life has intrinsic value, then it has that value. If it's intrinsic, it means it has that value from the moment of its existence. Not from birth, but from existence. So that's the whole sort of ballgame. Like that's the question that this all hinges on. And so,

But Democrats are never asked it, ever. I mean, I can't, I mean, maybe it's happened. If someone has an example of this being asked by, you know, in a debate or of a Republican politician, you know, pulling this reverse card on a Democrat, putting him on the spot and saying, well, do you think human life is a drink? If anyone has an example of that happening, I'd love to, like, send me the clip, because I've never seen it. Which is crazy. It's crazy that this isn't, this is not, this doesn't come up every single time. the subject comes up. How is she going to answer that?

I mean, if they have time to think about it, maybe they'll come up with some way to obfuscate, but how do you answer that if you're a politician running for office, for national office, and you also want to protect the quote right of abortion through every stage of pregnancy? If somebody says, well, do you think life has intrinsic value, inherent value? How do you do that?

You can't say no. you cannot be on the record saying, no, it does not have that. But you also can't just say yes. Or you can, but then there's a follow-up. Okay, so you're saying that human life in the womb has inherent value. Does it have equal inherent value to other? Are there levels of inherent value? How does that work?

And then all of a sudden, now you're off the rails. Now the Democrat is having a conversation they don't want to have. They want to talk about abortion because they think it's a winner for them. but there are lanes. Once the subject comes up, they want to talk about it, but they only want to stay in a certain lane. This is a misnomer people have. The topic of abortion is not a winner for Democrats politically, unless they stay in one particular lane. It's a narrow lane within that topic that is politically a winner for them as they see it.

There are all kinds of other lanes that are not winners and they don't want to talk about. One of them is late-term abortion. They don't want to talk about that. And the other one is this. Just the basic question of when does life begin and does life have value? That's not a winner. They do not want to talk about that. They can't talk about it.

Make them talk about it. I was thinking about this and I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is an argument for a politician to make. but I'm just sharing this as a thought is all, that it's interesting to realize that so much of the pro-abortion agenda relies really on the very arbitrary prejudice of size. The reason why pro-abortion people see no value in an unborn child, especially at its earliest stages,

one of the big reasons is that it's really small. I mean, that actually is kind of, there's a little bit more to it than that, but that's most, that's most of it. And, uh, and you hear them say this. They'll say, oh, really? You think something the size of a P is a human? Really? You think that that has the same value as you? Yeah, I do.

Why wouldn't it have the same value? It's small? Who cares? It's really small. Who gives it shit if it's small? What does it have to do with anything? I mean, just think about that for two seconds. It doesn't make any sense.

But that would matter. It's small, so what? But this is what we do. You know, this is, it's easy for people to kind of slip into this, even though it's a total, it's an incoherent kind of prejudice, but it doesn't, but people slip into it. Even in the animal kingdom, you know, we kind of do that. The animals that we value the most tend to be larger. So most people value dogs over squirrels.

And you might say that it's because dogs are smarter, but, you know, they're not that much smarter on the grand scheme of things. And if there was a dog as dumb as a squirrel, which there probably are, we would still put it on the totem pole above squirrels. Why? I think a lot of it really comes down to stuff. It's like a larger animal, and we just tend to think of larger things as having more value. In fact, I bet if there was a honey I shrunk the kid's scenario where people were shrunk down, like fully grown people were shrunk down to the size of a pea, it would be hard for a lot of people to see those pea-sized humans. as being fully human, even though in this case they have the same intelligence, same evidence.

But the fact that you can crush them with your shoe without noticing them that you're doing it, it just like seems to mean that they're not quite as important as normal-sized people. So I think that's a lot of it. Anyway, it's sort of neither here nor there. I'm not saying that Trump should necessarily go into this whole spiel during a debate. I wouldn't suggest bringing up, honey, I shrunk the kids. But it does go to show that once you remove the intrinsic value from all human life, you end up in a situation where you're kind of drawing these lines that are incoherent.

And once you start inspecting those lines, okay, you've drawn a line here. You said, well, this thing is really, really small, and so it doesn't, it can't be the same. But once you inspect that line, you say, well, why? Why? Why are you drawing that line there? Who cares? So it's small. Why does that matter? Once you inspect it, you start to see that it's very much a line in the sand, a line that not a firm line, but a line that's just kind of drawn in the sand and has no objective

quality to it. Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns? The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters. Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars. In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA. With over 14 years of experience, the experts' Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes. Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage. Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement. Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order, ensuring the aggressive collection

activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted. If you haven't filed in a while need amended returns or are missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filing to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement. Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun. Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.

For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-9-58,000, or visit their website at TNUSA.com slash Walsh. That's 1,800-958-1,000, or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh today. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. Get the help you need with Tax Network USA. As Connell Harris prepares to select her running mate, the radical left is looking to seize even more power. While new challengers and challenges emerge daily,

one thing remains constant the daily wire. We're on the front lines, cutting through the noise and nonsense to deliver you the facts from our uncensored ad-free daily wire shows to our round-the-clock breaking news coverage and investigative journalism. The most trusted names in media live right here. Join us as we fight the left and build the future. Become a DailyWire Plus member now at DailyWire.com slash subscribe.

Now let's get to our daily cancellation. As I've offered my analysis of the presidential race in recent weeks, I have been denounced by some of the audience of this show, some of my followers on social media, for being skeptical of a number of the strategic choices. Republicans have made. Many conservatives got very, very angry at me three weeks ago when I had a few critical opinions of the Republican National Convention. My criticisms that I made were seen as so blasphemous, so traitorous that I lost something like 30,000 Twitter followers in the span of 24

hours because of that. I mean, the outrage was intense. I was trending for days because of this. This is a couple days after Trump was shot, by the way. And yet on Twitter, one of the top trending topics wasn't that. It was that, oh, Matt said something mean about the Republican National Convention. So it's quite deafening, the outrage was for a few days. And the outrage bandwagon has revved up again, though to a lesser degree, several times since. Anytime my opinions are insufficiently optimistic and not blindly trusting of the Republican political strategy, people are getting very mad at me. Now, so if you're one of the people who thinks that my job is to do nothing but wave the pom-poms around and declare whether I believe it or not, that Republicans are winning, everything they're doing is brilliant.

Kamala doesn't stand a chance. If you're in that camp, then you probably don't want to listen to this segment. In fact, you should probably just stop listening in general because I'm not, and I'm not really sure why you ever started listening. I am not much of a cheerleader and never have been. All I've ever done or will ever do is tell you exactly. what I think. That's it. That's all I do. There's no other real strategy to what I do on the show and what I do in general. I just tell you what I think. Self-delusion and blissful ignorance are not my bag. And I also think they'd make for a rather boring listening experience. But more importantly,

I want to win. You know, I really want to win. And if I perceive that mistakes are being made, which may interfere with our winning, then in the interest of winning, not to mention a basic honesty, I need to point out those mistakes now. There'll be no use in pointing them out after we've already lost. So if I think mistakes are being made

and it's going to hurt our chances of winning, why would I not? Isn't it more important to talk about that than to talk about the things that I think are good? The good things are, let's keep doing them. We don't need to talk about those. The good stuff is good.

Let's keep doing the good stuff. but if there's bad stuff that's hurting us, like that is a more urgent issue. Now, I've been told that I should make my suggestions and offer my criticisms privately through back channels to the powers that be. But as I've recently explained, I think, I don't know any of the powers that be. I have no contacts. I have no friends in high places. I don't know anyone.

I'm not connected. I've been invited to the dinner parties and the lunches and schmoo's sessions with famous conservative media people and politicians and funders and so on. I've gotten those invitations, but I've never gone to any of them. I simply do my show. I make my movies and I go home to my wife and kids. That's all I do. If I have free time on the weekend, I'd rather be out fishing than at some banquet or dinner or whatever trying to make friends with famous people. All that to say, I have no back channels. I don't want any. The channel I have for communicating with the world is the one that you're listening to right now. That's all I need as far as I'm concerned. So

with all that in mind, let's talk about the spectacle at Kamala. rally in Atlanta yesterday. The media was in a tizzy over the huge crowds that came to the rally, and it was a very sizable crowd indeed. Listen. So, yeah, there's a big, big crowd, quite a reception. Why were they there? How did Kamala pull that crowd? She was the most unpopular vice president of all time about 62 seconds ago. Now she's filling arenas? How? Why are there's people there? Maybe they came to hear the vice president debut her new urban accent. We went in 2020 and we're going to do it again in 2024. We're going to do it again in 2024, she says.

Kamala seems to be suffering from the condition known medically as sudden onset urban accent. It's an affliction that the last female presidential candidate famously suffered from. But does that explain the turnout? Probably not. The crowd probably didn't come to hear Kamala talk like. like a black woman who grew up in Atlanta, when really she's an Indian woman who grew up in Canada. They actually didn't come for Kamala at all. Actually, they came instead for the musical act.

The rapper Megan the Stallion was set to perform, and her performance was as intellectually exhilarating as you would expect. So you get the idea. This is a serious political movement, one that marches to the immortal words of Megan the Stallion. And I quote, body, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, adi, body, body, body, body, body, body, body, body. Those at least are the lyrics that I can read out loud. Much of the rest of that song, a song being performed at a campaign rally for a woman who wants to be president, are too graphic and sexual to repeat. But the lyrics I can repeat, which consists mostly of literal gibberish, are indeed a perfect representation of the Harris campaign.

Megan the Stallion, like most rappers and pop stars, makes songs about nothing. Kamala is running a campaign about nothing. So it's all just vibes. That's why people listen to music like this. It's not saying anything. It has no meaning. There's no message. But they like the vibes.

Kamala also is saying nothing, has no message, has no platform, but she's building her campaign on vibes. She has help, of course. The vibes are manufactured. This is the point of attracting large crowds to see a twerking rapsing. and having Kamala come out and speak as an afterthought. It's a, yes, it's a, it's a Megan the Stallion concert featuring Kamala Harris. It's not the other way around. But the goal is to make Kamala into a sensation, into a political star, by convincing

the low-information voter that she already is a sensation and a political star. It's the classic phomo technique. I mean, this is basic marketing. They present images of these massive crowds, ostensive. gathered to hear Kamala, hoping that voters, mostly young voters who are more likely to fall for this trick, will believe that she's a big deal, that they're missing out on a new trend, but they have to jump on the bandwagon unless they be dorks and losers. Worst of all, weird.

Because that's why the your weird thing has become the Harris campaign's sole rebuttal and attack line. Your weird just means that you give off bad vibes. And the Harris campaign has good vibes. What are the vibes about? what's the point of the vibes? Nothing. It doesn't matter. But the Kamala campaign, it's very much like a fashion trend.

And the trend, you know, fashion trends that come along, sometimes it's trendy to wear jeans that are tight, then it's trendy to wear jeans that are bagging, then it goes back and forth, whatever. The trend is trendy, not because it's good or that it's better than the trend that came before, but it's just, it's a trend because it's a trend. It's what people are wearing now. and you should wear this because other people are wearing it. Why are people wearing it?

Well, because that's what people are wearing. The campaign has no more depth than that. Now, is it enough to carry them to the White House? Have we reached a stage in our idiocracy where that is enough? I guess we'll find out. But either way, this is what these celebrity endorsements are doing for Harris. And it's why they're so important to her. Now, so that's the Harris campaign.

Let's get to the part where we have a little real talk for Republicans, the part where people will get mad at me again. How should Republicans counter the trendy celebrity endorsed vibes-based Kamala campaign? What should they do about the fact that Kamala has all of the major entertainers on her side? And she hasn't even pulled out the big guns yet, by the way. Taylor Swift will absolutely appear and perform at a rally soon enough, probably closer to election day. And you can bet on that. So Kamala has her pick of the litter when it comes to the celebrity entertainers. They're all leftists.

None of them want to be perceived as sitting on the sidelines when there's a quote-unquote woman of color running for president. So if you thought that Obama ran a celebrity-fueled campaign in 2008, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. So what can Republicans do about this? Let's talk about what they shouldn't do first. they shouldn't do what to some extent they've already done and are doing right now, which is to counter the Democrat star power by scrounging together a rag-tag group of washed up and obscure entertainers that nobody cares about. That is a bad strategy.

It's a failing strategy. It only makes us look sad and irrelevant by comparison. The wrong approach is to see all of the ones. the extremely famous and popular musicians campaigning for Kamala and say, okay, let's find the most famous musician who's willing to publicly support Trump and just get him up on stage, no matter who he is. Here, this guy hasn't been popular in 25 years, but he's still technically famous. Good enough, let's use him. That is not a winning approach. That does not accomplish anything. Just because someone is famous, that doesn't mean they have

any actual influence. Megan the Stallion, like it or not, and I certainly don't like it, has influence. She is a currently popular performer with legions of young and enthusiastic fans. Taylor Swift has influence.

Beyonce, who has furnished Kamala with her campaign's theme song, has influence. Most of the celebrities that have so far been shrouded out by Republicans have no influence. at all. Whatsoever.

They have no fan base. They are not relevant. Trying to get into a celebrity tit for tat when we have like seven people and none of them have had a hit album or movie this century. And the other side has literally everyone else is not going to accomplish anything except making us look sad. So here's a perfect and very recent example of this dynamic. Yesterday, while Megan the Stallion was performing, some conservatives on social media were frantically

sharing a tweet from a rapper named Sway Lee who came out against Kamala Harris. And I don't even think he endorsed Trump, but he did come out and say, you know, don't vote for Kamala Harris, do your own research. Which is good. I'm glad he said that. But, you know, then you get all these tweets basically saying, see, we have rappers on our side, too. But nobody knows who Sway Lee is. I looked him up on YouTube.

I have more subscribers than he does. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I got nothing against him. I don't know anything about him. I'm glad that he's not voting Kamala. If he votes for Trump, that's great. I'm happy to have his vote. I am not gatekeeping him from the movement.

I'm only saying that we don't achieve anything strategically by waving him around and saying, hey, look at our rapper. We have one too. Look. In fact, we only undermine the one effective counter that we could be using. When Kamala Harris shows off her celebrity endorsements, our response should be only to focus on policy instead. The best thing we can do is bow out of the celebrity competition.

A competition we cannot win. We just can't. And bring the conversation back to policy. That's the only hand we have to play here. And, you know, it can work. It can be a winning hand. But you undermine it if you make fun of Megan the Stallion. And then two days later, you start fan-girling over some third-rate celebrity endorsing Trump.

The messaging has to be consistent on this. And the good news is that there are plenty of voters who are extremely repulsed by twerking rappers at a presidential campaign rally. There are many voters, including the precious independence and moderates, who are not impressed by celebrities and don't like it. when politicians rely on them. You know, there are enough voters in that camp to win. More than enough. But that means we absolutely cannot respond to left-wing celebrities by saying, oh, yeah, well, here's our much less famous entertainer

performing an equally obnoxious but much less popular song. See, we're relevant. Hello, fellow kids. Vote for us. That pathetic and cringy response completely negates the one effective or something. which is instead to say this. Yeah, you know what? We don't have celebrities on our side. We don't.

The rich, famous people, they're on the other side. They got all those. We admit that. And if that's what's most important to you, then go vote for them. If the most important thing to you is to support the people that rich and famous people support, then we don't, then go, then that's over there. We don't have that for you. What we're worried about are actual policies, like the boring stuff that will help average

American families, the kinds of people who don't have private jets and big mansions and millions of fans. Okay, we're not worried about the famous celebrity people like, they're fine, they're doing great. We're not, we're actually not campaigning for them. That's not who the campaign's about. We're not surprised they're not on our side. Now, a rebuttal like that can work. I mean, that's a very powerful rebuttal, I think. And it's good that it can work because it's the only rebuttal available to us. So let's make that our message. And be consistent about it. And if we're consistent about it, and that's our message, and we don't try to get into the celebrity tit for tat, look, here's our celebrities who are much less cool, and we're

consistent, then we can truly say at that point that the vapid elitist celebrity is trying to tell us who to vote for are today and forever canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Lots of places can explain. Lots of places can explain. you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity,

which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply.