The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 820 - A Society Overrun By Cowards And Weaklings

Episode Date: October 18, 2021

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a woman on a train in Philadelphia was sexually assaulted for nearly 10 minutes while bystanders watched and did nothing. Why does this sort of thing happen, and why does it appear to be so common these days? Also, the ACLU files an amicus brief in support of compelled speech. There was a time when the ACLU defended free speech. Times have changed. And Kamala Harris is campaigning in churches. How can she walk in the door without bursting into flames? Also, isn’t it illegal to campaign in churches? And finally, in our Daily Cancellation, the outrage mob is very upset at me because of some things I said about paternity leave. Will I apologize today, or double down? The answer may surprise you. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.  You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3 Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matwals show, a woman on a train in Philadelphia was sexually assaulted for nearly 10 minutes while bystanders watched and did nothing. Why does that sort of thing happen? And why does it appear to be so common these days? We'll talk about that. Also, the ACLU files an amicus brief in support of compelled speech. There was a time when the ACLU defended free speech. Times of change, though. And Kamala Harris is campaigning in churches now. How can she walk in the door without bursting into flames? Also, isn't it illegal to campaign in churches? And finally, in our daily cancellation, the outrage mob is very upset. at me because of some things I said about paternity leave, will I apologize today or double down? The answer may surprise you, but probably not at all. All of that and more today on the Matt Walls show. So let me ask you something. Does it make sense that the same company who controls half of online retail also passively eavesdrop on your private conversations at home? Well, big tech is more powerful than most countries are, and they profit by exploiting your personal data. It's time to put a layer of protection between your online activity and big tech, and that's why I use ExpressVPN.

Think about how much of your life is on the internet. Sadly, every site you visit, every video you watch, message you send. It all gets tracked and data-mined. But when you run ExpressVPN on your device, the software hides your IP address, something Big Tech can use to personally identify you unless you have ExpressVPN. So ExpressVPN makes your activity harder to trace

and sell to advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your internet data to keep you safe from hackers and eavesdroppers on your network and ExpressVPN. does all this without slowing your connection. That's why it's rated the number one VPN service by CNET and Tech Radar. So stop handing over your personal data to the big tech monopoly that minds your activity and sells your information. Protect yourself with the VPN that I trust to keep my internet activity safe online.

Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh. That's EXP-R-E-S-V-P-N.com slash Walsh to get three months free. Go to go to ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh right now to learn more. So we begin with a horrific story out of Philadelphia. A woman sitting on the train at 10 p.m. on Wednesday night was sexually assaulted by a homeless man. The rapist named Fistin Nagoy sat down next to the victim, tried to touch her several times. She tried to stop him. She pushed back, at which point he became more aggressive and started ripping her clothes off.

And this attack went on for eight minutes. The train was not empty aside from those two. There were other people there. There were other riders in the same car. bystanders who watched a rape unfold over the course of nearly 10 minutes. And not one of them stepped in to help the woman. Now, there are some reports that at least a few of the onlookers pulled out their phones and recorded. Police haven't confirmed that detail, but they have confirmed that a rape occurred in full view of a crowd of people, and none of them lifted a finger

to help. And they aren't mincing words about the spectators in this case. From the New York Times, it says, quote, I'm appalled by those who did nothing to help this woman. Timothy Bernhardt, the superintendent of the Upper Darby Township Police Department said on Sunday, anybody that was on that train has to look in the mirror and ask why they didn't intervene or why they didn't do something. Mr. Noghoy, 35, was charged with rape, sexual assault, and aggravated in decent assault without consent, among other crimes, court record show. The authority said that he was homeless and was not armed during the attack.

Several passengers were in the train car, but Mr. Bernhardt declined to say how many. the investigators were still working on to determine the exact number. He said, while there were not dozens of people in the car at the time, there were enough that, quote, collectively they could have gotten together and done something. Bystanders on the train who failed to intervene could be criminally charged if they recorded the attack, Mr. Bernhardt said. Now, a few things should be said at the outset. First, the primary villain in this case is not the group of useless bystanders, but the perpetrator.

That shouldn't need to be said, but I say it anyway because these days the people who commit these evil acts tend to be tacitly let off the hook, lost in a shuffle as we debate the circumstances around the act. And what sorts of things could have been done to stop it? And who should have done whatever those things are? The rapist is the one responsible. And a serious country would ensure that he never sees the outside of a prison cell ever again in his life. But we don't live in that kind of country. And Philadelphia is not that kind of city. Violent crimes are at record levels in Philly right now. As the DAs in Philadelphia and in the surrounding districts, this crime will be prosecuted by Jack Stolzheimer in Delaware County right outside the city.

They're all progressive ideologues who were elected to their positions with the help of George Soros. Now, this is not a conspiracy theory, as the media likes to portray any mention of Soros. The minute you mention him, that, ah, it's a conspiracy theory, as if he's a fictional character. He's not. It is a confirmed fact that the billionaire, the left-wing billionaire, took an interest in Philadelphia District Attorney races a few years ago, and he poured millions of dollars to electing his preferred candidates. Now, the city is a brutal, violent hellscape, even more than it was before. All this to say that the rapist, homeless and a black man, checking several of the victim boxes,

will likely be out on the street again in no time. And we'll return to that point in just a moment. With all that said, of course, the bystanders are still a bunch of weak, gutless cowards. Again, if we lived in a serious country, the rapists would not have walked out of there. instead of this infuriating and sickening story, we should be reading about the inspiring tale of a scumbag who attempted to lay one hand on a woman and was summarily beaten unconscious

by an enraged mob of men. That's the way it should have ended. But again, that's not the kind of country we live in. And so these kinds of stories very rarely end that way. We know that violent crimes are often committed in view of onlookers who could step in and help but choose not to. And we know that because so often, as they allegedly did in this case,

the onlookers elect instead to record the crime on their phones. And that's how we know about it. Yet this problem predates smartphones. We've known about the so-called bystander effect for a long time. And many famous cases have been documented through the years. There's always the potential in these kinds of situations for bystanders to freeze up, fail to act, hoping that somebody else will take care of the problem. The tendency is so much a part of the human condition that it made it into the Gospels 2,000 years ago

with the parable of the Good Samaritan. you know, the sole person who stops to help a man who was beaten by bandits and left for dead on the side of the road, it is unfortunately a tale as old as time, or at least as old as the human race. This is no excuse for the people in the crowd who fail to do the right thing. It's just a matter of understanding how deeply embedded this problem is. Though even so, anecdotal evidence, like all these videos that we see all the time, would seem to suggest that the bystander effect is worse now, more prevalent than ever before. People are less willing to put their necks out, less eager to do the right thing when doing the right thing might put them in jeopardy.

And they have, it would seem, far less shame about their own cowardice. Why is that? I think that's the important question. Well, there are many things, many contributing factors. But let's start with the fact that unlike years past, the system now actively discourages people from intervening. I was somewhat annoyed to read those comments from the local authorities condemning the onlookers, even though I agree with the condemnation, I agree with what they said. But this is partially the fault of those local authorities.

This is partially their fault. With far-left DAs in office all across the country, and especially all over the Philadelphia area, there's no telling what would happen to somebody if they used physical force to neutralize an attacker. And that's the case, even if you're defending just yourself, you're defending someone else getting involved in a situation that you were not immediately involved in. Who knows? I mean, if a good Samaritan had stepped up and given the perpetrator the beatdown that he so desperately deserved, it's not hard to imagine that that same good Samaritan might face assault charges the next day. Might end up being smeared by the media as a racist vigilante. This is the exact dilemma that

police officers all over the nation face every single day. And it's their job and their express legal obligation and authority to intervene. How much worse could the blowback be for somebody who doesn't have that express obligation or authority? Whereas in years past, a good Samaritan had to only weigh the risk to his own physical safety before getting involved, now he knows that even if he survives the encounter, his life may still be over after the fact, depending on how it all plays out, and also depending quite significantly on the racial demographics involved. Now, this, again, is not to provide any excuses for anybody. We're called to take risks, sometimes very significant risks, if we wish to be decent men. I'm only pointing out that the

systems running this country actively discourage and punish decency. And besides, many people don't wish to be decent men in the first place. You know, as children were conditioned from a young age to regard questions of moral decency as superfluous or even oppressive. The message we absorb from our culture is that our own physical and psychological well-being should come before everything and everybody else. So we sneer at moral decency and we actively punish it. And then we stand back in shock and horror to find that people are not decent. I mean, look at the police officer in the Mackayah Bryant shooting. He stepped in to stop a girl from getting stabbed to death.

And next thing you know, people are calling for his head. LeBron James is tweeting out a picture of him, trying to rile up a mob to go and do who knows what to him. That's the way it goes now. And it reminds me of one of the greatest lines from one of C.S. Lewis's greatest books, The Abolition of Man, which if you've never read, you should. Writing 80 years ago, though it might as well have been yesterday,

Lewis says, quote, in a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chess and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. And that's us. Our culture campaigns against virtue and punishes the virtuous. You can't even go to church anymore to hear a defense of virtue. We have purposefully created a society of hollow people, men without chess.

And we're surprised by the results. We shouldn't be. Now let's get to our five headlines. If you still haven't picked up the new book from 40 Days for Life, What to Say When, the Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion, I don't know what you're doing with yourself and your time, especially because I wrote the foreword to that book. And I wrote the foreword because I thought it was a,

a very good idea for a book, a book that's needed, you know, which is something that's very simply, but also in-depth, lays out the arguments against abortion and it kind of lets you know what arguments are going to come right back at you and how to counter them. And so it's a very easy guide to get through. But like I said, it also goes in-depth on all of these arguments. Since its release, it's already been a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller. And it's on its second printing already because, Lots of people see that this book is useful and incredibly easy to use. It tells you what to say, what not to say, and it's proven arguments that have worked with everybody.

People on the fence, abortion supporters, even plant-parented workers, have found these arguments compelling. That's why it's an invaluable and timely tool. So get it right now. What to say when the complete new guide to discussing abortion, go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 Days for Life at 40 Days for Life.com. Okay, so the ACLU used to be an organization that would defend. And, I mean, they have civil liberties right in their name. And they used to defend free speech. That's what they did.

And we talked about this before. I mean, how, there was a time when the ACLU was so militant in their defense of free speech that they would defend KKK members. They would defend actual Nazis, okay? They would defend actual neo-Nazis and defend their free speech. those times are long gone because there's a case in Loudoun County. I mean, Loudoun County has become the kind of epicenter of many of these battles in the school system with critical race theory and with gender theory. So as you've heard from me on this show, part of that policy in Loudoun County where they're opening up the bathrooms to allow boys into girls' bathrooms, even though

a girl was allegedly raped inside of a bathroom by a boy only just last semester in May. But this is a policy that doesn't just affect bathrooms and sports teams. Also, very significantly, it requires teachers to use the preferred pronouns of, to use the preferred pronouns of whatever the students. Whatever they say their pronoun is, the teachers have to use it. So this is compelled speech. And it's not just compelled. Compelled speech is bad in and of itself.

But what are they being, what is the compelled speech? What are they being compelled to affirm? They're being compelled to affirm a falsehood as a condition of further employment. And not further employment in the private sector, but in a school run by the government. So to have a job in this government building, you have a job in this government building, you have a job. to be willing to affirm falsehoods. A boy says, refer to me as a girl. That is a confirmed absolute falsehood. And the policy says, you have to affirm it or you're gone. So this case is making its way through the court system. And now we have this from the ACLU of Virginia.

It says, breaking three teachers in Loudoun County are going to court simply because they don't want to use trans and non-binary students' pronouns. We and partners filed an amicus brief to tell the court, refusing to use a student's pronouns because of who they are is discrimination. And then they have their amicus brief. So they're going out of their way to involve themselves in this case, to be on the side of compelling people to say things. This is, the matter how else you feel about it. This is without a question, an anti-free speech perspective. Even if you think that you should use the preferred pronouns that someone asks you to use or demands that you use normally, even if that's your position, you can't pretend, if you're trying to force people to do that,

you can't pretend that you're on the side of free speech. You're not. This is compelled speech. And by the way, on the preferred pronouns, I just want to read this to you related to preferred pronouns. Here's an article from an entertainment website called Up Rocks that I saw someone shared on on Twitter or something and it jumped out of me just because of the headline. The headline was so confusing. And I stopped for a second and I was trying to make sense of it. So this is a story and I'll read like just a paragraph from this story in this entertainment website about Halsey, who I guess is some kind of pop star. And I also take from context clues that Halsey identifies as non-binary. And her pronouns are she and they. So that's the thing you could do now.

It's not just that you can choose to identify as multiple people by identifying as they, them. You can actually identify as both a single person and multiple people. How do you put all that together in a sentence if you're talking about someone? Well, here's Uprocks. It says, it's been about three months since Halsey gave birth to their first child. And in the day's sense, she has been open about the start of her parenthood journey. In early August, they showed off photos of their postpartum stretch marks. And later that month, she shared her frustrations with how some in the music industry handled her pregnancy.

Now Halsey is once again pulling the curtain back, this time on their Saturday Night Live performance and what their body looks like now. This is a total nonsense. If you had no prior knowledge of any of any of that, this pronoun stuff, and you read that paragraph, you just have simply have no idea what's being said. Halsy, is that, is that a, is that a person? Is that a, some sort of collective? Is that a group? Are we talking about two distinct individuals? We're in the span of one sentence we can change from there to she, but this is, if you are a teacher in Loudoun County, this is the kind of

total nonsense that you must affirm or lose your job. And the ACLU is fully on board with that. This makes it, how do you teach, if you're in Loudoun County and you're a English teacher and you get to the section on grammar, how do you teach grammar anymore? You can't. It's impossible. Because this abides by no coherent. It's not that we've changed the rules of grammar or the rules of grammar have evolved or any they're out the window there aren't any rules at all this doesn't you you couldn't come up with a new set of rules to explain what is happening in that paragraph i just read now grammar and language it it becomes totally shapeless and formless and each person decides for themselves what a word means and what the rules of grammar are and that's a problem you know

because the whole point of language in a human society, the whole point of language is for a means of communication between people. Okay, so this is a way of language is, it's a way of conveying a message to somebody else, conveying meaning. And in order to do that, the reason why we had, in the past anyway, we've had laws, rules of grammar, and the reason why there have been these shared definitions, the words have things, things called definitions that we all understand. The reason for that is that there have to be these shared ground rules in order for me to understand what the hell you're trying to tell me. Now we are making communication virtually impossible.

All right. Next, let's go to Barry Weiss. She was on with Brian Stelter. And I thought that this was an interesting exchange as she's trying her best as Barry Weiss, by the way, is not as far as I know any kind of right-wing conservative. I imagine her politics are probably pretty liberal.

But she's got some basic common sense. And if you have basic common sense, you're going to be exiled from the left wing, no matter what your politics are. That's what's happened with Barry Weiss. And so here she is, as a person with common sense, trying to speak to Brian Stelter, somebody with no common sense whatsoever.

And here's how that exchange went. You write, there are tens of millions of Americans who aren't on the hard left or the hard right who feel the world has gone mad. So in what ways has the world gone mad? Well, you know, when you have the chief reporter on the beat of COVID for the New York Times talking about how questioning or pursuing the question of the lab leak is racist, the world has gone mad. When you're not able to say out loud and in public that there are differences between men and women, the world has gone mad. When we're not allowed to acknowledge that rioting is rioting and it is bad and that silence is not violence, but violence is violence, the world has gone mad. When we're not able to say that Hunter Biden's laptop is a story worth pursuing, the world has

gone mad when in the name of progress, young schoolchildren, as young as kindergarten, are being separated in public schools because of their race. and that is called progress rather than segregation, the world has gone mad. There are dozens of examples that I could share with you and with your viewers. You say, you say, allowed. You say we're not allowed. It's the casin between. Who's the people stopping the conversation?

Who are they? People let work at networks, frankly, like the one I'm speaking on right now, who try and claim that, you know, it was racist to investigate the lab. theory. It was, I mean, let's just take an example. But I'm just saying that when you say allowed, I just think it's a provocative thing you say, you say, you say, we're not allowed to talk about these things, but they're all over the internet. I can Google them, I can find them everywhere. I've heard about every story you mentioned. So I'm just suggesting, of course, people are allowed to cover whatever they want to cover. But you and I both know, and it would be delusional to claim otherwise, that touching your finger to an increasing number of subjects

that have been deemed third rail by the mainstream institutions and increasing, you by some of the tech companies will lead to reputational damage, perhaps you losing your job, your children sometimes being demonized as well. And so what happens is a kind of internal self-censorship. This is something that I saw over and over again when I was at the New York Times. This is this weasily kind of trick that these people pull, people like Brian Stelter. You got Barry Weiss describing the situation in our course. culture. It's undeniable if you're an honest and rational person. All of that is obviously the case. And then he says, what do you mean you're not able? You're not allowed to say these things.

What do you mean? I hear people say these things all the time. I go on internet and find people making these points. What do you mean? Not allowed to. You're perfectly free. You're perfectly free to say any of these things that you want. He says, right, as there's a gun. to your head. Like a man coming in with putting a gun to your head telling you to do something and then saying, well you, I mean, you're perfectly free to do what you want.

If you don't do what I want, then I'm going to shoot you, but you're perfectly free to do it. That's the trick they pull. It's just like when we say that someone's been canceled. Someone like Barry Weiss who has been canceled. And then the response from

the corporate media and their lackeys is always, what a canceled? I can still find them. What do you mean canceled? Oh, they still have a platform. They might not have a platform on any of the big tech, but I could find them somewhere on the internet if I looked for them. And look, they did a Fox News hit. They're not canceled. Yeah, when we say canceled, we don't mean that a person has been physically killed, although eventually perhaps we'll get to that point. But when their job is taken away, their reputation has been left in tatters.

They've been smeared. They've been lied about. That's the point. So that's what Brian Stelter is saying. So I say, yeah, you know, if you don't agree with me and with the system, we're going to ruin your life. We're going to take everything from you. We're going to try to take everything from you if we can. We're going to try to get you kicked off of every single platform that we can, which is

most of them now. But you'll still be alive at the end of it. So we haven't really taken away your free speech or anything. We haven't really taken anything from you. And we certainly haven't taken your power to choose. What a weasel. Speaking of which, from the Daily Wire, it says Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris is set to deliver a video message to congregates

in more than 300 black churches across Virginia, urging them to vote for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McCullough in November's election. CNN first report of the story noting that the video message would go out between Sunday and Election Day. And we have, so this is a video message again that's going to be played in churches, in Black churches, in Virginia. And let's first listen to the message and then we'll talk about it. Terry McCalloff has a long track record of getting things done for the people of Virginia. When he was governor, in the wake of the recession, you'll remember he brought 200,000 jobs to Virginia. incomes went up and unemployment went down in every city and county in the state.

And now Terry McCalloff is stepping up again with a clear vision about how to rebuild Virginia's economy for the future. To raise the minimum wage, to make health care more affordable, to give every child a world-class education. Virginians, you deserve a leader who has to have. as a vision of what is possible and the experience to realize that vision. Huh. Okay. So this was, I wanted to play a part of that. I wanted to play part of that because obviously I hate myself and I want to subject myself

to that punishment and you as well. But also, we wanted to hear, is this really an explicit, are they finding a way to get around the IRS rules here? Or is this an explicit endorsement? explicit campaigning by the vice president in a church for a candidate. And it's the latter. I mean, this is explicit vote for this guy type of stuff. Well, Byron York of the Washington Examiner, he helpfully tweets this out from the IRS.

Here are their rules for this kind of thing. And it says under the IRS code, all IRC Section 501C3 organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax exempt status and the imposition of an exise tax. Pretty clear there.

This is directly intervening for a political candidate. That's what's happening here. Now, say what you want about these IRS rules. Pro or con. That's what the rules are. And we damn sure know that if something like this was happening in the reverse, on behalf of conservatives, or a Republican candidate by a conservative politician, you know, the cries would be deafening from the left to have the IRS go after that church and everybody involved in it.

That's not going to happen in this case, though, because we live, as we have reviewed, we live in a lawless country, and all of these laws, none of them apply to everybody, especially when it comes to the IRS. Maybe the IRS will surprise me, though, with their integrity. I can't even say it without laughing. Maybe they'll surprise me with their integrity and their, in their consistency and actually go after these churches. And Camel Harris. You know, we'll see. I really don't have my hopes up. Here's someone who does have integrity, though.

This is a nice, this is a nice pallet cleanser here. A state trooper in Washington State, even though it's a sad story in many ways, it's also inspiring as this is somebody. who will do the right thing. We've talked about, you know, the cowards who sit back and are afraid to intervene and afraid to do the right thing, afraid to take a risk. Then you have people on the extreme other end of that spectrum who are willing to risk everything, give up everything. That was the case for a state trooper in Washington state who left the job over vaccine mandates.

And we have here his final sign-off and his message, especially, for the governor of the state. Let's listen. This is my final sign-off. After 22 years of serving the citizens of the state of Washington, being asked to leave because I am dirty. Numerous fatalities, injuries, have worked sick. I've played sick.

We've buried lots of friends over these years. I'd like to thank you guys. I'd like to thank the citizens of Yakima County, as well as my fellow officers within the valley, without you guys I would have been very successful and you've kept me safe and got me home to my family every night um thank you for that um wish i could say more but um this is it so state 1034 this is the last time you'll hear me in a state patrol car and jansley can kiss my i very well said uh especially at the end there and it's uh it's a it's a sad story like I said, it's also inspiring that there are people, I mean, this is no, obviously, this is no

small thing to give up your job, your livelihood, something that you've poured 20 years of your life into. That's a real sacrifice. You know, these days we're so used to seeing people celebrated for taking political and ideological stands. And then when you look, you see that they're not risking anything. They're not putting anything on the line. right very different situation here but it really worries me also this is why the vaccine mandates among public officials police officers especially in the military you know the vaccine mandates there worry me more than maybe anywhere else because it's an infringement on liberty obviously but also because this is one more thing

kind of smoking out the good people, the people with integrity. Because no matter where you stand on vaccines, it doesn't matter. You could be fully in favor of the vaccine. You could think the COVID vaccine is the greatest thing ever. And this particular trooper, I don't know where he stands on it.

On the issue of the vaccine itself, that doesn't even make a difference. this is about this is about opposing tyranny so uh with vaccine seen mandates in law enforcement and in the military and you see people who are doing things like this and they're stepping down and they're leaving which is a very courageous thing to do but it's one more thing where we're driving out the people in these positions who most oppose tyranny and who have the most integrity I'm not saying the people that remain in the military or in law enforcement have no integrity. Okay.

And I can't. We have no vaccine mandate here at the Daily Wire, as you've probably heard. If there was one, I can't sit here and say for sure what I give up my job, would I give up my livelihood? I got four kids to feed you. You can't really know what you would do in that situation until you're in it. And people who decide to stay in because they got to take care of their family, I get that. but there are those who are willing to go all the way, who have above average sort of courage and integrity,

and so what we're doing is we're driving all of them out. And given what these positions are, that's pretty troubling. Who's going to be left at the end? Speaking of people that remain in the military, well, let me start with this, a little context. This is from the New York Post. Not about our military, but over in China.

It says China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in August that circled the globe before speeding towards its target. The test shows China has advanced space capability that caught U.S. intelligence by surprise. Citing five people familiar with the test, the report said the Chinese military launched a rocket that carried a hypersonic glide vehicle, which flew through low-orbit space before cruising toward its target. It missed the target by about two dozen miles, but shows China's astounding progress on hypersonic weapons. the U.S., Russia and China have all been working on hypersonic weapons. Russia tested one such missile in July. The U.S. plans to outfit all the Navy's destroyers with these missiles, which can travel five times faster than the speed of sound. So according to the report, China has these hypersonic missiles that are nuclear capable,

and so those can fly in low Earth orbit, you know, around the globe and then land on their target, or at least get, you know, even 24 miles away, if it's a nuclear weapon, that's close enough to inflict massive carnage, obviously. So China's doing that. Supposedly, U.S. officials were stunned and surprised by. They didn't see it coming. I don't know if that's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. And what's our military up to?

At least the people who are leading our military. Well, here's a tweet from, who is this? This is Major General Joe Clybourne. And she tweeted, over the weekend, a picture of herself at her desk, shoes off, feet up on the desk, and she's got the pedicured toenails there that you can see. And she tweets, she says,

why the Army thinks a French manicure is an obnoxious color compared to the civilian world, which views it as an understated yet professional look, is beyond me. But I have to be in uniform tomorrow, so here we are. It looked nice while it lasted. I mean, all you can do is laugh about it. I don't know what the other option is

besides weeping openly on camera, which I can't do. Although maybe if I did, they'd make me a general in the army at this point. While China's testing nuclear hypersonic missiles, got a major general tweeting complaints about the fact that she can't have the nail color that she wants when she's on the job. Not a great argument.

I got to tell you, she's not representing female leadership in the military very well here. So there were people making this point and righteously and rightfully mocking her for this. Major General tweeting complaints because she can't have a French manicure when she's on the job. She was getting mocked for this and she finally responded to all the mockery with a series of tweets. she says, number one, I'm a woman. Actually, she wrote, I'm a women. W-M-E-N. Which maybe she does identify as multiple women. You never know these days. She says, I'm a women in the Army. Get over it. Two, I worry and take daily action on a lot of things, including prioritizing our soldiers and airmen. Three, I have a professional civilian career I balance with military obligations and a lot of God and

country time, like 700,000 other reserve component troops. Four, if you think we'd lose a war because women are in the army or wear nail polish wake up. Rethink what excluding 51% of the population does to our national strategy, especially when only one in 10 are able to serve. Women earn their place rightfully to wear our great nation's uniform. No, Major General, it's not that we're going to lose a war because of nail polish. We're going to lose a war because of you and people like you. Totally incompetent, focused on all the wrong things. While you have China claiming global dominance and securing the ability to annihilate our cities, you're focused on your nail color. That's why we're going to lose a war, not because of the nails, just so you understand.

All right, finally, Daniel Craig was on a serious XM radio show where he explained why apparently he goes to gay, he says he's not gay, but he goes to gay bars. I was just kind of scratching my head over this. Here's the answer. Here's why he says he goes to gay bars instead of you know, straight bars. Let's listen. I've been going to gay bars for as long as I can remember. And one of the reasons, because I don't get into fight in gay arms that often.

No, no, but we didn't get into a fight that night. And because the aggressive swinging in hetero bars, I just got very sick of as a kid because it was like, I don't want to get, I don't want to end up even in a punch up. And I did. That would happen quite a lot. And it would just be a good place to go. Everybody was chilled.

Everybody, you didn't really have to sort of state your sexuality. It was okay. And it was a very safe place to be. And I could meet girls there because there were a lot of girls who were there for exactly the same reason I was there. Right. So it was kind of, you know, it was an ulterior motive. Oh, I bet there was an ulterior motive, Daniel Craig.

This, this to me sounds like desperate rationalization. I mean, I don't know, but that's what it's, that's how I, that's how I read it here. It sounds like, you know, someone saw him in the gay bar and he's saying, oh, no, no, no, I, no, I, I go to the gay bar because if I go to those other bars, I'm going to beating people up. I can't go into a bar without getting into a fight. I got women swarming me. It's a, you know, no, I just go to the gay bar because I don't want to have to get into fights. And also, I get way more chicks at the gay bar, man. Okay, what bars are you going to, Daniel Craig?

You know, you're not actually James Bond. You know that, right? So what bars are you going to? You can't walk into a non-gay bar without getting into a fight? I don't know. Maybe I'm just going to the right bars and maybe the wrong ones. I don't know. I kind of want to go to these.

other bars that Daniel Craig is talking about where you walk in there and as soon as you walk in the door you know you give the you show your ID to the bouncer and then just someone punches you the face right away just the fight starts right away been to many bars in my time I've never been in a single fist fight at a bar I think I've seen like one maybe I don't know I don't know if I buy it Daniel Craig but that's your own concern I suppose let's now read the comments This is from M, she says. Lizzo is the perfect example of the emperor isn't wearing clothes. Yeah, a bunch of people in the comments made that connection about Lizzo wearing a see-through

dress to Cardi B's birthday party completely nude underneath. And, you know, I was talking about how everyone pretends that it's this beautiful sight when nobody really thinks that. And I don't know how I didn't I don't know how I didn't make that connection. That was a failure on my part. This is literally the emperor wears no clothes. That's what this is.

That parable brought to life. Is what Lizzo was doing there. Walking around basically naked. And of course I knew they're going to do this. They put the picture up. You know what? But that's a beautiful sight, I'm told. Put the picture up again.

Put it up again, actually. That's beautiful. If you don't find that beautiful, then you are a bigot and probably a racist. That's what I'm told anyway. Okay, you can take it off. Travis says Lizzo's dress clearly draws inspiration from a whale being caught up in a fishing net. Travis, once again, every once in a while someone leaves a comment that I find personally offensive. We don't make jokes like that on this show.

Certainly no fat shaming. Not going to be allowed. That is not funny, Travis. You're a ban from the show. How dare you, sir? Let's see. Sort of the same says, my husband and I would be divorced today

if he had stayed home for two months or more or more after every one of our four children had been born. He was needed at work, but I had everything under control at home. A week might have been nice, especially since I had four high-risk pregnancies, but more than a week would have driven me crazy. Today, we are in our 60s, and he works from home and things are fine, because I don't have to worry about taking care of a newborn and my husband.

But I don't want to jump ahead because this is what our daily cancellation is going to deal with. But, yeah, as we talked about paternity leave briefly on the show on Friday, I do also have this question. I mean, all these, and I've heard, and we'll get into this in a minute, But I heard from a lot of guys over the weekend and women too talking about the kind of paternity leave that they get or their husbands get. There's one person that told me that there is a woman said that her husband got four months, four months of paternity leave for their first child. So there were no other children. So four months for one baby, what the hell are you doing?

for four months, for two parents to take care of one baby? And if you need that, like, if you need two parents home 24-7 to take care of one immobile baby, how are you going to function once that baby gets older? And if you have a second kid, you're doomed. I'm jumping ahead, like I said. We'll get to that later. Scott says, Matt, you've missed something in the PC box checking for Tolkien's new film. As of last year, those of the boxes must be checked if the film is going to be considered for certain awards. I do agree with whoever in solidarity with you and the SPG I would be boycotting the film. Yeah, I wouldn't even call it a boycott. I'm not even saying I'm going to boycott the Hobbit. It's not a matter

of boycott. It's just simply I have no interest in it. I mean, a boycott is a real boycott and effective boycott is where you're a potential customer and you actually want to use the good or whatever it is, but you're choosing not to because you're trying to send a message or make some sort of point. What I'm saying is I simply have no interest. The minute the PC box checking starts, and you're right, that the academy's made of these rules now where if you want to be eligible for a word, you have to do this. Giving even more incentive. But whatever's behind it, the moment I see that, I have no interest. It takes me out of the story.

and so it's not a hard decision for me to make. Alexander says they have to put music behind the advertisement to make it seem like Matt is sincere and not at all internally making fun of it. Aha. I don't know what you mean. I love and cherish all of our sponsors. Let me tell you something.

Even if they didn't pay me to advertise their products, I still would. That's how deeply I love all of our sponsors. Don't take that. Literally sponsors, you still have to pay me. Dan says, Matt, is atheism dead? It seems like the new atheist movement is dead, at least, wouldn't you say? Yeah, this is kind of a weird thing that I've been hearing a lot recently from some Christians that atheism is dead or the new atheism movement is dead.

Those are two different things, by the way. There's atheism, and then there's the so-called new atheist movement. And that was back, you know, 15 years ago. It started with, you know, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchie. and those guys. And they all put out these anti-God books all in the span of like five years, and they were the, whatever they call the four horsemen of atheism or something. And it became, and it was called the new atheist move. And that's dead. I mean, that's gone. And you don't, you don't see atheist books being released every, every month. We went through a period where it seemed

like 12 times a year, there was another atheist book coming out talking about how God doesn't exist and all this kind of stuff. So you don't see that anymore. Does that mean that atheism is dead? No, not at all. I think that that's a nice fantasy. That's a nice bedtime story that maybe we as Christians like to tell ourselves so we can sleep easy at night, but I don't think it's true at all. In fact, you could look at this from the other direction entirely and say that it's actually in some ways a bad sign that we don't have all these atheists who are out arguing for atheism anymore and they're not releasing books all the time. It's a bad sign, perhaps, because it's not needed. Before they were trying to, you know, undermine, subvert what they considered to be a religious

culture. Although at the time when they were doing this, we were not actually a religious culture even then. But that's how they saw it. Now I think you kind of look around and you say, well, it's already a godless secular culture. What is there to argue for? No reason to put out an atheist book and most of the people already agree. Or maybe even worse, they don't care. I think the vast majority of people in our culture today

probably don't really care that much about the question. Which is an even worse situation to be in. So that's probably how I would take it. Not that they've lost, but perhaps as it stands right now, they've kind of won because we live in a secular culture. If you're looking for the silver lining, you came to the wrong place. You know, when I was a little kid, gift-giving occasions were pretty easy because people would, like my parents would spend a lot of money buying me gifts, and all I had to do was just draw something on a piece of paper and give it

to them, and they would pretend that it was the most amazing and beautiful thing they've ever seen. I can't get away with that anymore. I mean, I couldn't just scribble something on a piece of paper and hand it to my parents for Christmas or something like that. It probably would not get the same reaction, which is why I defer now to the professionals at paintyourlife.com. You can get a professional hand-painted portrait created from any photo at a truly affordable price, or you can combine photos of people or places you love into one painting. This makes a great gift for your loved ones. It also is a great gift for yourself. If you're looking for something to put up in your own home, and it's fast. You can receive your portrait in as little as two weeks. When I've gone through

this, I was the first time I was shocked by how quickly they get the painting done. But the quick does not mean that we're sacrificing quality at all because these are beautiful paintings. And again, you can send any picture of yourself, of your children, family, anything, and they will paint it and they'll make it into a cherished and a very meaningful gift for you. At paintyourlife.com, there's no risk. If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed. And right now, as a limited time offer, get 20% off your painting. That's right, 20% off and free shipping. To get this special offer, text the word Matt to 64,000. That's Matt to 64,000. Text Matt to 64,000. Paint your life.

Celebrate the moments that matter most. Also, if you missed Sunday special this weekend, then I highly recommend you check it out. Ben will be joined by none other than Barry Weiss. We just heard from her during the five headlines. She's a brilliant writer, journalist, and now the voice of her own excellent podcast called Honestly with Barry Weiss. They sit down to make sense of all that's going on in the world today,

and it's truly worth a listen. So go check it out this Sunday at dailywire.com or on Ben's YouTube channel, Ben Shapiro. DailyWire members get access to special bonus content from Sunday's special episodes. So don't miss out, join Daily Wire today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. So it's time for another reverse cancellation. The outrage mob pulled up in their clown car again and spent yet another weekend screaming at me online.

This time, they were upset, very, very upset, I should say, about some comments that I made about paternity leave. Now, of all the times that these, you know, gabbling hyenas have tried to cancel me. I have to say this is maybe one of the weirdest times. So for a little background last week, as we discussed on the show, it was revealed that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has been on paternity leave for two months after adopting twins with his husband.

While he was gone, the nation descended into a supply chain crisis with cargo ships log jammed in U.S. ports and store shelves empty as we head into the holiday season. Buttigieg decided that that would be a good time to take an eight-week paid vacation. Now, let's be very careful here not to suggest that the situation would be better if Buttigieg was around. It wouldn't be. He's incompetent and useless and unqualified for every job he's ever had. Even if he was around, he'd only be staring at the problem impotently or else he'd be dutifully working to make it worse. So nobody is begging Buttigieg to come back to work and save us. We're merely pointing out that in principle, the guy who heads up the Department of Transportation should not disappear for two months while the country faces the worst.

transportation-related crisis in decades. Crisis or no crisis, though? It's absurd for any public employee, paid on tax paradigm, to be given that much time off. Now, you can make an argument for women on maternity leave, but not for men. Paternity leave is a nice luxury for private companies that can afford it. The U.S. government is not a private company. It's a public institution deeply in debt, failing in just about every way and everywhere. so this is not a time and not the place for those kinds of luxuries.

But that's the somewhat safer point to make, right? You are in a much more hazardous place. You are in more hazardous waters when you go away from that and instead you start saying mildly critical things about paternity leave in general as a concept. And that's what I discovered when I tweeted this on Friday. I said, the thing about paternity leave is that there isn't much for dad to do when the baby is a newborn, if mom is breastfeeding. His main role is to take care of mom as she recovers, but of course, that doesn't apply to Buttigieg, so I'm not sure why he needs paternity leave at all.

That's what I said. And that was enough to provoke three days of sustained outrage. Here's yet another thing that you could say to almost any group of people in real life and everybody would just nod their heads. But if you make the same common sense observation in front of the left-wing internet rage mob, they'll be sent into demonic, vomitous spritus. spasms. So over the weekend, thousands and thousands of people, many of them verified accounts, media personalities, and so on, have fluttered around screeching like bats, yelling at me that I'm a deadbeat dad, I'm a terrible husband, I'm a sexist, I'm a monster, I'm a super villain. How dare you? How could you? Wait, what are we mad about again? And yet, amid all of the howling and squawking,

none of these shrieking banshees have bothered to explain how or why I was actually wrong about what I said. notice I did not say that nobody should ever have any kind of paternity leave. If you work for a private company, they can do what they want. I took off three or four days for my kids. If you want to call that paternity leave, that's fine. I also didn't say that there's nothing at all for a man to do for his family after a child is born. I said that as far as caring for the newborn himself, most of that is going to be done by the mother. She, in most cases, will be feeding the child.

The child also needs and wants his mother's presence, his mother's touch, her voice. The father should be interacting with the baby also, obviously, but the infant is far more focused on his mother at that age and needs his mother more. There is no mother in the Buttigieg household, but that doesn't change the point here. Babies need their mothers, which is why two men shouldn't be allowed to adopt babies in the first place. And the outrage mob can now start a secondary campaign over that comment. But I'll say it again. Two men should not be allowed to adopt babies because babies need mothers. They also need fathers, which is why two women shouldn't be allowed either. But in a normal situation, there is a mom and a dad.

And in those early stages, the mom is the star of the show as far as the baby is concerned. The dad plays more of an auxiliary role. Post-birth, as I said, his most important role is to care for his wife, who has just performed the physically taxing act of childbirth. There's nothing controversial about this, or there shouldn't be. It's just how things work, and it's fine. It's funny that so many people have shouted at me tears in their eyes, insisting that, no, you know, there's a lot for the man to do for the baby. And then they list those things, and they say, oh, you could change diapers, He could give bottles. He could rock the baby to sleep.

One guy, Mark Siner, who's a lawyer and an author, he tweeted at me. He's one of the many white knights who wrote in to let all the women know that I'm a bad guy, but they're not bad. And he said that, you know, he, unlike myself, he's a great dad and he's a wonderful husband. And after his child was born, he was very involved. This is what he tweeted. He said, one of the ludicrous, one of the most ludicrous tweets I've read in my life, this takes the cake as the luniest. Not sure what kind of dad Matt Walsh is, but I'll take my version. 24-7 singing, reading, cuddling, bottle-feeding to two newborn twins. And I'm sure glad that

Pete Buttigieg is doing the same. But 24-7 singing and cuddling? Something tells me that was a bit of an exaggeration. I hope for his wife's sake that it was. But you see how he makes my point for me accidentally, singing, reading, cuddling. In other words, not a lot. Okay, these are not time-consuming tasks. These are not tasks that you need to take two months off of work to perform. These are mostly things that dad can do and should do while still working to provide for his family. I read to my kids every night, every single day I read to my kids, and I also work. If I were to list the tasks that I must perform for my kids who are now older between the ages of two and eight, it would be much more extensive. In fact, I could hardly list the tasks at all as the job of parenting

older kids is so all-encompassing. Newborns are immobile. They sleep like 18 hours a day. They have only two basic physical needs, sleep and eat. So if they're crying, it's because they want to do one of those things or because they need to be burped. And this is why newborns are so much easier, especially for dads. and I have never in my life met an actual flesh and blood human being in real life who would disagree with that assessment. I mean, this is something that as parents we talk about all the time with other parents. What's the hardest phase of parenting? What's the most difficult time, you know, to be a parent? Nobody ever says newborn.

No one says that unless all they have is a newborn. Talk to any parent with kids who are, I don't know, two or older. none of them are going to say that the newborn face is the artist. None. And this is why the whole concept of paternity leave makes no sense. If the idea is to give dad's time off so they can care for their kids and bond with them, why would the leave kick in right after birth when most of the dad involved care and bonding will happen later? Infancy is precisely when there is the least for the dad to do and the least opportunity for bonding. I didn't say none and no the least. So why isn't anybody advocating for paternity leave that starts with the child's first birthday,

let's say? The answer to that question is also the answer to why everyone got mad at me in the first place. And also why the left feel so strongly about paternity leave. I mean, keep in mind, the people now claiming that this is absolutely critical for both mom and dad to be home immediately after birth will also insist that both mom and dad can go to work in a few months and have nannies and daycare centers raise their kids and there will be no detrimental effects at all. So like for the first month or two of the baby's birth, you've got all these leftists say, oh, we've got to have both parents. It's so important, so important. And then you ship the kids off to daycare for the rest of their childhoods and we're supposed to believe that that's perfectly fine. I mean, if I were to say

that more women should consider staying home permanently with their kids so that their kids are not raised by strangers, I'd be called a sexist. And yet if I raise a complaint about paternity leave, not even a complaint, but a mild criticism, it's a horrible thing because kids, those babies, they need both parents there. What do you think the needs end at two months, you idiots? What do you think happens at two months that's so magical? We've got to have the, oh, yeah, Buttigieg's kids, they need Buttigieg there for two months. After that, who cares? Throw them out in the woods and let the squirrels raise them.

Since when do these people give a damn about parents being involved with their kids at all? I mean, they think parents are domestic terrorists just for showing up to school board meetings, for God's sake. Since when do they care? Well, the answer is this. The answer is sex differences. Okay? That's what explains this weird reaction. Namely, their denial of sex differences.

Their problem with my position on paternity leave is that I am acknowledging the inherent differences between mother and father. That's it. That's what it comes down to. That I would dare suggest that there is a difference between mom and dad and that kids' interact with mom and dad differently and that they need different things from mom and dad. And that God forbid mom and dad have different roles in the child's life. For me to suggest that is beyond the pale. That is the thing you're not allowed to say.

That is the unmentionable, right? So that's what it all comes down to. that's what they're actually upset about. They don't care about parents taking care of their kids. They think parents are totally expendable. They think the government school system should start raising the kids by the age of three. No. The only thing they care about is denying that there is any difference between the sexes.

But as much as they want to deny it, it is true. The dad plays a different role, just as important, ultimately, but different. And so when I talk about dad's going to work, and what I've heard from the left all weekend is, oh, so you're saying, Dad should be a deadbeat. They shouldn't do anything for their kids. No, you idiots, working for your family and providing for them is not nothing. So I was home for, I don't know, like I said, a few days after my kids were born, then I went to work. And I made money, which I brought home to them to put a room.

roof over their head and to buffoo in their mouths. That's not nothing. That's an important role. It's not exactly the same role that my wife plays. It's different. And that's okay. That's good. Okay. And you're all canceled. So I'm glad we got that out of the way now. We'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed. Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.

We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Knowles Show, the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. Our technical director is Austin Stevens.

Production Manager Pavel Vodoski. The show is edited by Ali Hinkle. our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina, hair makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021. The Transportation Secretary remains missing in action on paternity leave. Inflation hits a 13-year high, and a major airline ditches its vaccine mandate. Check it out on the Michael Null's show.