The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 927 - 'We Aren't Grooming Children,' They Cry As They Groom Children

Episode Date: April 11, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left insists that teachers absolutely aren’t sexually indoctrinating elementary schoolers. Yet there is video footage of teachers doing precisely that. Also, Pete Buttigieg says that children will die if he and his fellow groomers are not allowed to say whatever they want to our kids. The truth is that gender ideology, as professed by Buttigieg and others, is what will kill kids. Also, Donald Trump endorses pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-trans Dr. Oz. And a jury refuses to convict three men entrapped by the FBI in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan. Plus, Sam Elliott issues the inevitable groveling apology for committing the sin of not liking a gay cowboy movie. In our Daily Cancellation, some libertarians on YouTube tried to debunk me. We’ll see how they did.  Join Ben’s Third Thursday Book Club now to get his notes for The Once and Future King by T.H. White and be a part of this month’s Q&A: https://utm.io/uejl1  What is a Woman? Matt Walsh tracks down the answer in his new book. Preorder your copy now at whatisawoman.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left insists that teachers absolutely aren't sexually indoctrinating elementary schoolers, yet there's video footage of teachers doing precisely that. Also, Pete Buttigieg says that children will die if he and his fellow groomers are not allowed to say whatever they want to our kids. The truth is that gender ideology, as professed by Buttigieg and others, is what will kill kids and is killing kids. Also, Donald Trump endorses pro-abortion anti-gun, pro-trans, Dr. Oz, and a jury refuses to convict the men entrapped by the FBI in a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.

plus Sam Elliott issues the inevitable groveling apology for committing the sin of not liking a gay cowboy movie. And our daily cancellation, some libertarians on YouTube try to debunk me. We'll see how they did. All of that. And more today on the Matt Wall's show. Did you know that if you're currently on a phone plan with one of the major carriers, you are helping these left-leaning companies donate to pro-choice causes and candidates? You probably don't like that, but that's the fact of the matter.

A common question I get from my listeners is, what can I do to help turn the tides in the culture? Well, here's a great first step. defund the abortionists. Don't let them take your money and use it to further policies that you don't believe in. Switch to Charity Mobile today and they will send 5% of your monthly plan price to any pro-life charity of your choice. Charity Mobile offers the latest 5G phones with no device or service contracts plus great nationwide coverage. If that sounds like a hassle, I assure you it isn't Charity Mobile makes switching from your current carrier painless. Their live customer service is exceptional and will guide you through the process. You can keep your number and even your phone in most cases.

or if you want, you can take advantage of my special offer and get a free cell phone with free activation. All you have to do is call this number 1877-474-3662 or chat with them online at CharityMobile.com. Mention offer code Walsh to redeem the free cell phone offer. That's CharityMobile.com. Mention offer code Walsh. Join the fight for the lives of children by switching to Charity Mobile today. As we have noted, one of the interesting things about the leftist reaction to the anti-groomer efforts in Florida and elsewhere is that they tell us the laws are totally unnecessary. because nobody is trying to sexually indoctrinate young children anyway.

And they also tell us that the laws are an assault on human rights and will result in millions of gay people dying of unspecified causes. The laws will do nothing, and also they will do very horrible things at the exact same time. These claims obviously can't both be true, but let's look at them individually. If this is a non-issue and there is no sexual indoctrination of children happening anyway, then it's very hard to explain this video, just posted by our nation's leading journalist libs of TikTok, Here we see a first grade teacher at a Boston charter school, Brook Charter School is what it's called, instructing students in grades K through two about transgenderism during what is being called an identity share Zoom call. Listen to this.

All right. So something that's really cool and unique about who I am is that I am transgender. So we touched a little bit about that at the beginning of this week in the book that Ms. Hammond read. But I'm going to give you my explanation about what it means to be transgender as well. So when babies are born, the doctor looks at them and they make a guess about whether the baby is a boy or a girl based on what they look like. And most of the time, that guess is 100% correct. There are no issues whatsoever. But sometimes the doctor is wrong.

The doctor makes an incorrect guess. When the doctor makes a correct guess, that's when a person is called cisgender. When a doctor's guess is wrong, that's when they are transgender. So I'm a man. But when I was a baby, the doctors told my parents I was a girl. And so my parents gave me a name that girls typically have and bought me clothes that girls typically wear. And until I was 18 years old, everyone thought I was a girl. And this was super, super uncomfortable for me because I knew that wasn't right.

The way I like to describe it is like wearing a super itchy sweater. The longer you wear it, the itchier it gets. And the only way to make the itching stuff is to have everyone see it. know the person that you really are. So when I was 18, I told my family and my friends that I'm really a boy, and it was like this huge weight had been lifted off of my shoulders, and I had the freedom to be who I truly am. And even though this experience is super challenging sometimes, it made me the person I am, and I'm super proud to be transgender. This person is a disgrace to plaid, first of all. I'm ashamed to be wearing plaid on a day like today. Remember, nobody is talking to

little kids about transgenderism, even though we have seen video after video after video of exactly that, teachers doing exactly that, and openly admitting that they've done and will continue to do exactly that. The teacher in the video tells the little helpless children that there are two categories of people, transgender and cis genders. Now, it's worth, I think it's worth lingering here for just a moment to consider that claim in a little bit more depth. That is, after all, something that we can do as reasonably intelligent adults. We can analyze claims made by other adults and figure out whether they're credible. Lots of grownups in this country aren't even capable of that much. So then what chance do little kids have in that

case? How are they supposed to sift through the nonsense and decipher truth from propaganda? Again, there are millions of adults in this country who will hear what the person in that video said and think, yep, makes perfect sense. So if you're a lot of people in the video said, so if you're If adults can hear all of that blathering gibberish and be duped by it, what hope is there for like a seven-year-old? Yet those of us who have maintained our capacity for critical thought might notice that the transgender versus cisgender thing is, first of all, simply one binary system being substituted for another. Now, these people insist that the gender binary is artificial and limiting, and then they turn around and introduce a different system that is also. binary. And where did they get the cisgender thing from? It's obvious why they find the term useful. It implies that normal people who identify as the sex they were born are not actually normal,

but are instead just one possible variation. It also helps to reframe all human beings in the terms and language of LGBT ideology. Calling us cisgender is essentially like, it's like the LGBT version of a vicarious baptism. We are all baptized into their worldview, whether we like it or not. But where did this cisgender word come from? As it turns out, the term was first coined in 1991 by a German sexologist named Volkmar Sigush in a paper titled Transsexuals and Our Nosomorphic Nosomorphic view, whatever that means. Now, you'll notice a theme here. Almost every depraved and insane thing in our culture today, at least as it relates to sex, can be traced back to 20th century sexologists, especially German sexologists. And just like almost all the rest of them, Saghush took a rather tolerant view of pedophilia, drawing a distinguishing line between pedophiles and what he called, quote, pedosexuals.

He said in an interview a few years ago that pedosexuals can be, quote, kindhearted, informed, and enlightened, and that we should have. not try to cure them of their, quote, desires, but instead we should just try to, you know, keep them from making physical contact with children. So it's not the desire is not the problem. It's just the act itself. As mentioned, this accepting approach to pedosexuality is, quote-unquote, pedosexuality, as this person calls it, is a through line that connects nearly all of the 20th century sexologists and psychology quacks who invented gender ideology, John Money and Alfred Kinsey principal among them. So keep all this in mind when you hear the claims that critical race theory is just a legal theory and it isn't taught in schools.

Well, cisgender was coined in a German sexology paper 30 years ago. Now it's being taught to kindergartners. So there is a pipeline that takes radical obscure left-wing ideas directly into grade school and out into the wider culture. The pipeline in this case is more of a sewage line, and we're all now living in the filth and muck that dumps out on the other end. There's something else worth noting in the video, though. The groomer teacher says that doctors guess about whether a baby is a boy or a girl. And I've heard this variation more and more frequently, this idea of, well, it's just a guess. And it is kind of a significant departure from the usual sex society.

at birth narrative that we get from these people. Now, that narrative is also completely false, of course, but because doctors no more assign a child's sex than they assign the child's species or DNA structure. But at least the assigned language pays some moderate deference to the concept of biological sex. The sex is assigned, quote unquote, based on the child's reproductive organs. But even that is too much for the trans ideal. By changing the language to guess, the groomers are convincing children that the sex on their birth certificate is a completely random, totally arbitrary, haphazard designation. It's all a roll of the dice. It's not even an estimation or a theory or a prediction or a construct. It's simply a guess.

Like, you know, I might guess about whether you're holding a quarter in your right or left hand, that kind of guess. The effect, quite intended, of course, is to make the child listening to this begin to question whether the doctor guessed correctly in his own case. It is destabilizing to the child. He thought he knew himself, but now he's not so sure. This is where the identity crisis begin. It begins. It is caused. It is imposed. It is started intentionally. And then years later, after a childhood full of unnecessary confusion, self-doubt, self-loathing, if that child then tragically succumbs to despair and hurts or kills himself, the same people who sent him down that path will then turn around and blame those of us who had

absolutely nothing to do with it. This was illustrated late last week with this exchange between Pete Buttigieg and the clucking hens of the view. Listen. My state of Florida, when the, with the so-called don't say gay law now, which he says will kill kids. Do you agree? And, you know, as a politician, because this, this strikes you as, you know, your husband is a teacher. You are, obviously, LGBTQ yourself, and you are now a parent. Yeah. So how do you feel about this? Yeah, he's right. And I think every law to be judged for the effect it's going to have on real people in real life. And I get the political reasons why they're doing this. By the way, some of those political reasons, they don't have a plan on anything else, right? I mean, they don't have a plan on

dealing with inflation or dealing with gas prices or dealing with the issues. Yes, he says the law will kill kids. If he's not allowed to groom children, they will die. Let him and his grooming comrades, all of them, the teachers, like the woman we saw in the first video. Let them have their way. Let them unfettered access to our children, or else our kids will die. It is the most insidious and vile form of emotional blackmail imaginable. And it's made all the more sinister by the fact that Buttigieg is the one who is getting kids killed, him and the other gender ideologues. They're the ones doing it. They are getting kids killed. They are depriving children of identity of truth, of true self-acceptance, and a great many of these kids

will die and are dying because of it. And it's their fault. The groomers, it's their fault. Now let's get to our five headlines. You ever wondered how big tech knows so much about you? Three words. Free email services. When you click accept on those terms and conditions, you're giving that free email provider the go-ahead to scan and analyze your email. Free email services are data hoarders. I switched to StartMail because I was done letting big tech make billions by selling the information in my email. StartMail keeps my email private, period. It's simple as that every email can be encrypted, even if the recipient doesn't use encryption.

When you delete an email and StartMail, it's gone forever, never to be seen again. And StartMail uses their own servers, which means they can't be put out of business. So switching to StartMail is also, it's easy, it's seamless. You can easily transfer all of your current email data. so there's no starting from scratch. You don't have to worry about that. You get unlimited anonymous aliases. This feature protects your main email address

from spam and fishing attacks. So when you're giving your email to a company but you want to protect your identity, StartMail can generate a shareable alias email so people can't sell your information and they can be deleted anytime you want. Your cybersecurity has never been more at risk or more important.

So keep your private information private with StartMail. Sign up today and you'll get 50% off your first year. Go to startmail.com slash Walsh. That's start mail with a T-S-T-A-R-T-A-T-Mail.com slash Walsh for 50% off your first year. Startmail.com slash Walsh. All right. Let's see. First of all, I have to address something.

I think it's the most important thing of the data to mention. A controversy that's been brewing. Yesterday, I went out with my family to a lake nearby. The lake was like 40 degrees, but the kids, they still went swimming because kids are weirdly impervious to pain. Actually, they're kind of both. I was thinking about this yesterday. Kids are weirdly impervious to pain, but also overly sensitive to it at the same time.

So my kids will swim in a freezing lake or they'll like fall 40 feet out of a tree and then pop up like nothing happened. But then five seconds later, you know, they'll get a paper cut and scream like somebody shot an arrow through their hand. Anyway, so we were there and I'm lounging. I'm vibing, as the kids would say. And my wife snapped a photo, as always to shame me. And this photo has elicited mockery on Instagram. But, you know, I have no shame. So here it is. You can see. I have the, yeah, I have the Birkenstock sandals with socks that I'm wearing out in public. The chinos, the ball cap. That you may not like it. This is what I got to tell you. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. But this is peak male fashion right here. You know what this is? It's white dad summer 2.0. It's already begun. And it's going to get wild this year. It's going to get absolutely wild. White dad summer. It means not only are your, are you, are you, you dress to the nines all the time like I am,

but you're partying all night, every night. And by that, I mean, from when the kids go to bed until 9.15, when you fall asleep on the couch. And by partying, I mean nothing that resembles partying at all. That's what White Dad Summer is all about. All right. One other thing I also have to note,

not related, but also important, is if you have not signed up for my newsletter, where you can hear all kinds of interesting insights about my fashion and other important newsrelevant. related items as well. You can go to Matt Walshreport.com, I believe it's the URL, right? Yeah, Matt WalshReport.com and sign up for my newsletter. It comes out once a week, every Friday. And if you're not signed up for it yet, Matt WalshReport.com, get signed up. Okay. Let's start here. This is from Breitbart. It says,

former President Donald Trump endorsed celebrity doctor, Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race on Saturday. After his initial pick, Sean Parnell dropped out amid a mid-a, contentious custody battle with his estranged wife last fall. Trump said his endorsement of Oz is all about winning elections in order to stop the radical left maniacs from destroying our country. Trump said in his statement, the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a tremendous opportunity to save America by electing the brilliant and well-known Dr. Mehmet Oz for the United States Senate. I have known Dr. Oz for many years, as have many others, even if only through his very successful television show. Trump touted the thousands of life-saving heart operations, Oz has performed throughout

his medical career, and the eight New York Times bestsellers he authored. Trump also pointed to Oz's pro-life views, right, and his strength on the border election fraud in the military as reasons for his endorsement. Trump said, Dr. Oz is pro-life, very strong on crime. The border election fraud, our great military and our vets, tax cuts that will always fight for and support our under siege, Second Amendment. He will ensure America will become energy independent again. Dr. Oz also passionately believes in high-quality education and protecting parent involvement throughout the process. Okay, none of that, just so you know, none of that is remotely true at all. Dr. Oz is and has always been pro-abortion, anti-gun. He's spoken about this publicly many

times. Now, maybe when he started running for Senate, he experienced a conversion on all of these issues all at once. But that's going to make you a little bit skeptical. I mean, I don't know how old Dr. Oz is. Let's say he's mid-60s at least. So guy in his mid-60s has a certain point of view for his entire life and then decides to run for office as a Republican and all at once magically, look at that. It's a road to Damascus moment. What a coincidence. No, Dr. Oz is without a doubt, a full-on leftist, not just like Leans liberal establishment and Republican type, he is a leftist. And I'll play a video in a second that proves this. He is a far-left left. He is actually about as far left as you can be. He's on the cutting edge of leftism

right now, or damn near it at least. And I mean, we don't even, there are so many problems with Dr. Oz, we don't even need to mention the fact that he's not at all qualified to be senator. The fact that he was a TV doctor for 20 years, I don't see, I don't really see the correlation between that and being an effective senator. But then again, senators don't really do much anyway, so I guess anyone could be qualified for us. That's not even, that's not my problem with him. My problem is that he is a far left leftist. That's my issue, that Donald Trump decided to endorse. Now, I've heard over the weekend many excuses for Donald Trump because there are people on the right, lots of people on the right, who are always ready and eager to make excuses

for Donald Trump because we've decided, and this has been the case for ever since Trump was on the scene as a political figure, it's been decided, generally speaking, by the right, that Trump is never responsible for anything that he does. It's all, like, any, any mistake is always somebody else's fault. And so the excuse that I'm hearing for Trump is that, oh, it's his advisors. Oh, those damned advisors again. Well, maybe we're going to be. We're going to be a lot of we should start asking, first of all, if it is his advisor's fault, why is he so terrible at hiring advisors? And second of all, is he not capable of analyzing these things for himself and seeing that Dr. Oz? I mean, it took me five minutes to discover that Dr. Oz is a leftist. And I haven't

known him for my entire life, or I haven't known him for years like Trump has. So I don't buy that. I also don't buy the excuse that, well, the other guy, you know, the other people, there are no good candidates in the race right now for Senate on the Republican side in Pennsylvania, and they're all a bunch of establishment milk toast types. And so, you know, there's, there is no good option. That I can believe. I certainly believe that. So, but if that's the case, then either you endorse nobody or if you are going to endorse Dr. Oz for some reason, which I don't know why you would, because there's no way he's the best. I don't care who the other guys are. There's no way that Dr. Oz is better than them because you can't get much worse. But if you are going to do it,

then just say that he's the lesser of two evils, that he, look, he's not great, but then again, you know, he's more likely to win in the general. Whatever your argument is, just be honest about it. Don't try to put him forward as a pro-life champion. So if you want to know what Dr. Oz is all about, let's go back to one of his, and this is the great thing about a guy who's been on TV forever, is that he's, you could just go and watch the tape. He's, he has addressed all of these issues extensively in interviews and on his own show. And he's made his views very clear. So this is from, I believe, several years ago, in fact.

So Dr. Oz, before it was as popular as it is now on the left to promote trans kids, before that, Dr. That's why I said he was, he's on the cutting edge of leftism. here he was a few years ago on a show singing the praises of childhood transgenderism. What if your son told you he was meant to be a she? She always knew that she is a girl.

Would you let your child become the opposite sex? Talk to me about why decide to have a double mastectomy at age 14. Inside the lives of transgender kids. This show is going to be controversial for a lot of people. Challenging your beliefs about what it means to be male, or female. The word you'll hear today is transgender. Transgender. It describes people

who sex on the outside doesn't match who they are on the inside. Now imagine your child is transgender. What would you do? Our lives as parents are first defined by the words, it's a girl or it's a boy. Could you make a decision to let your child live as the other sex even alter their body? It's an area of intense debate. Today you will meet families coping with this astonishing reality. What does it mean to be a boy? What does it mean to be a girl? Those two simple questions are infinitely complex and gut-wrenching for parents of children

who are born transgender. I'm a girl and I have a kid. 8-year-old Josie was born, Joseph. Physically, she's a boy. But from the time she could talk, Josie knew she was a girl. Doesn't get any better, by the way. You can see the entire episode if you can stomach it, which is on YouTube right now. And lest you try to make any excuses for Dr. Oz and say, well, he's just talking about the issue. He's taking an objective view of it.

Well, even that would be terrible because you can't take an objective view of children being sexually abused, which is what this is. There's no, there's no, well, you know, see how these kids are being sexually abused. But let's think of it objectively. That is already terrible. But that's not even what he's doing. I mean, it's very clear in the episode that he is promoting this. He is he is legitimizing it, validating it using his doctor label to validate this stuff. And that's very effective in a lot of people's minds. There are a lot of people who, for years, I've been sitting around watching these, these kinds of people on TV, and they see this stuff promoter. And they think, well, hey, if Dr. Oz says it's fine or that it's valid,

then it must be. He says that, well, what does it mean to be a boy? It's infinitely complex. It's not complex, actually. It's not complex at all. It's very simple. And you must know that as a medical professional. So you watch that and you think, like, this guy is running for Senate as a Republican. And he just got an endorsement from the previous Republican president. The Republican Party is in shambles. In shambles right now. when that, I mean, if that becomes accepted, that becomes fully mainstream accepted on the right or among Republicans, then it is over. And I mean, it's done, it's over. Because that is, that has to be a deal breaker. We could get into his positions on abortion, gun rights. I mean, all of it is bad. But if you're endorsing trans children, the concept of their being such a thing as a trans child, that has to be the where the line is drawn deal breaker, that's it

and if it's not and if we let that become the standard in the Republican Party then it's done, it's over and then you have Democrats and then the other side you have Democrats and that's all that there is and I know you might say that we're already in that position

where you've got the Democrat Party than the Democrat Light Party I would say that we're not there yet there is a battle within the Republican Party right now. It's kind of a civil war. It really depends on who wins that battle. Because Ron DeSantis is also a Republican, and he obviously is not endorsing transgenderism and children.

So you've got the two sides of the Republican Party kind of battling it out right now. And if the side that wants to mainstream this kind of stuff, gender ideology, if they win, then it's done. politically, it's done. All right, let's go to this from the federal. This says a jury refused on Friday to convict any of the four men standing trial for supposedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, after strong evidence that the FBI tricked them into the plan.

After 20 days of trial, jurors determined that Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta were not guilty of felony charges a conspiracy to unlawfully seize, confined, kidnap, abduct, and carry away, and hold for ransom and reward or otherwise the governor of the state of Michigan. Jurors could not agree on the fates of Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., the other two. So those men left the trial with no verdict and with the possibility of being brought to trial again. Prosecutors representing the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the group of men were anti-government extremists who scheme to violently take down Whitmer for her role in promoting COVID-19 tyranny in Michigan.

But right now, because the defense argues, I think correctly, that this was not, their plot, okay? Before men, they didn't come up with this. This wasn't their plot. The FBI came up with it and recruited them into it. The FBI came up with a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan and then went and suggested it to other people and tried to recruit them into it. And so who do you blame for that? You blame the FBI. And that's why this verdict, or, you know, in two cases, kind of a non-verdict, As it stands right now, this is the right decision. We'll see what happens if there's a retrial or something. Hopefully there isn't. But my point is if you're really worried about the police state or, you know, law enforcement abuses or whatever it is, you should be happy with this result tentatively. You should be happy with it. Because this is, without a doubt, law enforcement abuse.

there's a whole lot of it that happens with the FBI. But you don't find that on the left. I mean, the left is very upset that they want all these guys to go to jail forever. And I think this is something that our side gets wrong and that I get wrong. Or at least we talk about this in a way that's imprecise. Because we often say, and I have said, that the left is anti-police. Well, I mean, they aren't, actually. I kind of wish they were. Now, I mean, it's not good to be anti-cop. You shouldn't be. But at least,

that would be better than what they actually are. Because at least if you're just anti-cop in general, you're basically an anarchist, then that's a consistent principle, at least. And it would mean that you would be skeptical. You'd be consistently, constantly skeptical, probably overly skeptical of law enforcement. But it would mean that when there's actual law enforcement abuse happening, on any side to anybody, you would be there and you'd be very critical of it if you're just anti-cop across the board. Again, not the right approach, but it's better than what we actually get from the left, which is that their view of law enforcement and of police, it really depends on who's on the other side. Like, who's the person being arrested? Who's the person

potentially being abused, exploited, whatever. I mean, when you look at the way they react to, you know, George Floyd or Michael Brown or any of these cases, with any of the BLM martyrs, you'd be excused if that's all you saw of the left and of their approach to law enforcement, you'd be excused for thinking that, oh, well, these people just hate the cops because, like, even when the police are trying to arrest a violent criminal. and in the case of Michael Brown, the violent criminals trying to kill them, and even then, you know, leftists are not tolerant of the police using any kind of lethal force in response. It seems like from their perspective, if a violent criminal is trying to kill a police officer, it's the police officer's ethical duty to just stand there and allow themselves to be killed.

So you see that, and it seems like an extreme anti-police bias. But then you go over to the other side and you see a Capitol police officer shooting an unarmed woman in the neck inside the Capitol building and they're celebrating that. You see the FBI blatantly trying to entrap people into criminal conspiracies and they're fine with that. So this is not a consistent principle and that's because on the left there are no consistent principles, period. This is a relativistic view of the world, and so everything is always relative. And that explains, as the Daily Wire reports, leftist MSNBC host Joy Reid tweeted her disgust Friday with the Michigan jury that did not convict four men of conspiring to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. Reed, as she often does, focused on the race and political leanings of the accused men, arguing that they were not convicted because they're white, right-wing extremists. She tweeted, quote, unreal.

in the year of our Lord 2022, you can plot to kidnap a Democratic woman governor to stage a show trial, hurt her or worse, because you don't like COVID restrictions, and then you can walk as long as you're a white, right-wing extremist. Holy jury nullification, Batman.

Yes, because when you look at the response to January 6th from the federal government, obviously the only conclusion you can draw is that if you're on the right, law enforcement will just leave you alone. That's the obvious conclusion. By the way, Reed, since we're on the subject, she found other things to racialize as well. That should actually be

the name of her show. I don't know what the name of her show actually is, but whatever it is, it should be racialized with Joy Reid. I think that's a much better name. And here she is this weekend looking at the racial element of the media's focus on Ukraine. Listen. We haven't witnessed the same type of solidarity for the Yemenis as we do for the Ukrainians. We don't see historic sanctions or global campaigns, corporations like Airbnb and Netflix taking a stand. And this is not to say that we shouldn't care this much for Ukraine, far from it. The point is, we should also care this much for refugees and those facing occupation and war in the Middle East and Asia and Africa, too. The coverage of Ukraine has revealed a pretty

radical disparity in how human Ukrainians look and feel to Western media compared to their browner and blacker counterparts, with some reporters using very telling comparisons in their analyses of the war. It's really emotional for me because I see, European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children being killed every day with Putin's missiles. The unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing third world nation. This is Europe. This isn't a place, with all due respect, you know, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. You know, this is a relatively civilized, relatively European. I have to choose those words carefully too.

city where you wouldn't expect that or hope that it's going to happen. Civilized. Okay, let's face it. The world is paying attention because this is happening in Europe. If this was happening anywhere else, would we see the same outpouring of support and compassion? Well, we don't need to ask ourselves if the international response would be the same if Russia unleashed their horror on a country that wasn't white and largely Christian.

Because Russia has already done it in Syria. This is a teachable moment for us in the media. we aren't afraid to call out our own industry. There is a lot of soul searching that we need to do in Western media about why some wars and lives seem to matter more than others. First of all, not to get into semantics, but actually the media did focus. Syria dominated the headlines for months.

But all of her criticisms about the media, and their focus on Ukraine, You work for MSNBC. You're one of the drivers of this. And I actually agree, as I argued from the beginning, that the focus on Ukraine is out of proportion with the way we look at other parts of the world. It's not for racial reasons, though. And by the way, if you want to make it racial, well, you could easily look at it from the other end. Why is the media focused on Ukraine so much? Well, yeah, you could say that the victims in this

case have, you know, appear to be white, have a lighter skin tone. And so that's why people are focused on. Okay, well, the bad guys, right, people on the other side, Putin, you could just as easily argue from the perspective of left-wing media, you know, they prefer this story because they like him as a bad guy. Whereas if you go into other parts of the world, you're going to find that, yes, the victims are not white, but also the bad guys aren't white. So you'd easily look at it that way if you want to racialize it. It becomes a double-edged sword.

But really the racial narrative, either way, is it doesn't really explain it. And the fact is that Afghanistan did dominate the headlines for a few months. back around the time of the Afghanistan pullout. It really is up to why? Like, why do we focus on this? So that we focused on Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, and then we just drop it like a hot potato, move on to the next thing.

I mean, it's not like everything is fixed in Afghanistan. It's not like it's better. We just moved on and talking about something else. Why is that? Well, we should ask the media. We should ask Joy Reid. go talk to your bosses about that. They're the ones who are determining this.

It's not a right-wing conspiracy. It's a corporate media decision. And the corporate media is not run by white right-wingers. I can tell you that. All right, one other thing I've got to play for you, this is, we could call it disappointing. Also, not really disappointing because it's totally expected. Sam Elliott is, of course, the famous icon.

Hollywood actor. A couple, a few weeks ago, we gave him some credit because he was asked about this power of the dog, which is this artsy western terrible, boring movie, dull, very dull movie. I defy you to watch that movie and make it through 50 minutes without falling asleep. And it was nominated for a bunch of awards and everything. And it's about a gay cowboy and the critics are hailing it because of the gay themes and everything else. Sam Elliott in a podcast was asked about this movie and he gave an honest answer. He doesn't like you. He doesn't, you know, he just doesn't, he doesn't need those kinds of themes in a Western. He likes the more traditional Westerns. That's his, that was his honest opinion about it. And of course,

people were very upset about his honest opinion is because he was asked about his opinion of the movie. But just because, as we've learned, just because you're asked about your opinion of something, that doesn't mean that you're actually entitled to give your opinion. What they want to hear is you repeat the accepted opinion and pretend that. like it's your own, whether it is or not. And so people are very upset about that. And Sam Elliott was on a panel a couple days ago. It was asked again, and he is now singing a little bit of a different tune.

Listen. Yeah, first, don't go do a podcast whose call letters are W-T-F. That movie struck a chord with me. And in trying to tell the guy, the WTF guy, how I felt about the film, I wasn't very articulate about it. I didn't articulate it very well. And I said some things that hurt people. And I feel terrible about that.

The gay community has been incredible to me my entire career. And I mean my entire career from before I got started when I was in this town. Friends on every level, in every job description. Up until today with my agent, my dear friend, my agent of a number of years. And I'm sorry that I hurt any of those friends and someone that I loved. and anyone else by the words that I used. Is he going to cry? It looks like he's about to cry.

I couldn't keep listening to watching the clips. I don't know where it goes. It can't go anywhere good from here. It just goes to show, look, these are actors. The characters they portray on screen are fake, of course, and oftentimes do not reflect who they really are at all. So Sam Elliott has made a career playing these kind of gritty, tough, you know, Western badass type figures.

And here he is on a panel in Hollywood crying because people were, had their feelings hurt by his opinion about a movie. He's, he's apologizing to the people who he hurts. And those are people who were hurt by Sam Elliott's opinion of power of the dog. They were hurt because Sam Elliott had an opinion about a movie. that they disagreed with. Hurt. We never get any specifics on how this, like in what way were they hurt?

How could they have been hurt by that? But they were. So Sam Elliott grovels and apologizes. It's just, it's a damn shame. I mean, he's old. He's in his, you know, he's in his 70s. He's obviously rich. He's got plenty of money.

And he has everything that he needs to just throw up the middle finger to all of the sense Sensitive cry bullies, not even really sensitive, the pretend sensitive cry bullies, and say, you know what, I don't care. But he's not going to do that because he lives in Hollywood and this is how he's been, he himself has been conditioned his whole life. And it won't matter either. He is, it doesn't, you've already, it's too late, Sam, you've revealed your actual opinion about something. Cats out of the bag. And everyone knows the secret now. They know the secret that you actually have. your own opinions about things. And God forbid, you maybe sometimes enjoy watching movies

where there's not LGBT ideology being shoved in your face every second. You'd sometimes prefer to watch movies without that, God forbid. So you've already revealed that. They know it now. And you can cry and apologize all you want. It's not going to change it. Could have kept your dignity. Decided to give it up and you get nothing in return. Same old story. If you haven't heard of Ben's book club, now's your chance to get signed up. Last month, he took members through his analysis of a tale of two cities by Charles Dickens, and you can watch it now at dailywire.com slash watch.

Remember, Third Thursday Book Club is a live experience where you get it to engage with Ben Shapiro in real time, ask questions, and comment on the book. Today, we're premiering a new trailer. Check it out here. I want to tell you about my third Thursday book club. This is not your average book club. These are the greatest books in the history. of Western literature. We're going to dive into the greatest works of all time.

These are the books that helped form the key pillars of Western civilization and help define America. And we're going to do it live with thousands of you, our Daily Wire members. I'm going to be your personal guide. I've read every one of these books. I'm going to draw out the important lessons and themes from every book. Plus, I'm going to be answering your questions along the way. So we actually do read the book together. You join the book club.

You are going to get smarter. You're going to get more knowledgeable. because this is an investment in your most valuable asset. Your mind. The Third Thursday Book Club, it's going to change the way you think. You know, when you sign up, you'll also get his notes, which is a cheat sheet to get the important lessons, themes, and characters. This month's book is The Once and Future King by T.H. White. You can sign up now at third Thursday bookclub.com to get Ben's notes sent straight to your inbox for the once and future king by T.H. White.

Let's get now to the comment section. All right. some comments from Friday show John Williams says, I cannot believe that anyone could listen to what Matt is describing and still be pro-choice. Well, they don't listen, John, that's the trick. They don't, not just to me, they just don't listen. They tune it out as much as they can. And that's how they remain pro-abortion.

It's the only way that you can remain pro-abortion, I think, is to be very careful about what you expose yourself. I think it was C.S. Lewis that said something along the lines of an atheist can never be too careful in his reading because the point C.S. Lewis was making is that atheism is this kind of this fragile thing, and you have to protect it very carefully by making sure you don't expose yourself to anything that could that could shatter that view into a million pieces. And it's the same thing with being pro-abortion. That's why clinics know this. The abortion, the abortion mills, they know this for sure. That's why they've conspired with the government. They've got all these special laws. No other, by the way, no other industries, no other private establishments get this kind of law. But there have laws on the books where you're not allowed to get within X number of yards of an abortion mill. Even if you're not on their property, like public property, they still get this radius.

No one else gets it. They get it because of this relationship between the abortion industry and government, this kind of incestuous relationship. So they have that. They've got clinic escorts who come out. And when the women are coming in to kill their babies, they send the escorts out. And the escort's whole job is just to make sure that the women don't look over at any protesters that might be there. They don't receive any of the literature that someone might try to hand to them. It's all about keeping, you know, this fragile thing intact.

Let's see. Nate says, if you make abortion illegal, there will be an influx of back alley problem. procedures. Well, maybe the mother of the child will reconsider something so dangerous if they themselves could be put in harm's way. Yeah, that's the correct response to this back alley claim and, oh, if we don't have abortions, then you're going to have unsafe and dirty abortions that happen in back alleys. Well, the problem is that every abortion is unsafe. By definition, the objective of the abortion is to destroy life, and so there's no safe way to do it. And also, it is a dirty, evil, terrible thing to do in the first place.

And in a civilized society, you don't provide a nice, clean, welcoming environment for people to do dirty, evil, destructive, horrible things to their kids, most of all. Let's see. Mike Mart says, this bi-romantic asexuality nonsense reminds me of the infinite fracturing of musical styles that the punk rock scene spawned back in the 90s. You could no longer talk about your favorite artist without the initiated lecturing you on whether their style was pre-this, post-that, neo-something or proto-something else. The growing palette of genders and sexualities creates an ever-increasing array of self-branding

opportunities for people desperate to stand out in a rather bland culture. I want to say we are reaching peak narcissism, but we could have a long way to go yet before the worship of the self comes into its full flower. Very well put. I don't think I need to add anything to it. James says, Matt, after your take on chain restaurants, I have to say you're banned from the show. Yes, this is another reason why I've been, I'm being viciously attacked today, aside for my great style and my sandals and socks. All I said, on Twitter yesterday is that actually all sit-down chain restaurants are fine and some are even good. And in the vast majority of cases, the boutique kind of nice, trendy restaurants aren't enough of an improvement over the chains to justify the price.

That's my point. So, for example, I've never been to a nice Italian restaurant that's enough of an upgrade over Olive Garden or Carrabas to make it worth the premium you pay for it. I know this is being treated like heresy, and I've got all the Italians coming after me. How could you say this? Well, it's true. I'm not saying, yeah, you could go to the nice Italian place and the spaghetti is going to be, you know, a little better than olive garlic. It's not better enough to justify how much more you're paying for it. That's my take and I'm sticking to it. And look, I've been to nice restaurants all over the country.

I've been to the kind of places that are renowned. You know, you hear about, oh, this is famous across the world. It's the best place. And you go in and they're always good. But they're almost never good enough for the price. And I usually leave there thinking, man, I could have just gone to Red Robin and paid a tenth of the price. And I'd be just as full right now. And the food experience would have been only slightly worse.

That's my take. So that's a hot take that's actually, it's on the positive end of things. I don't do those very often. Usually my hot takes are, oh, actually, this thing that you think is good is bad. I'm saying this thing that you think is bad is actually good. So everyone should appreciate that for what it is. at least. Let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, we'll be responding to another YouTube video which endeavors to expose, humiliate, and debunk yours truly. This one was

posted by two people named Brad Palumbo and Hannah Cox. They don't have a very large following. You'll see why in a moment. And perhaps by most standards are not worth my time. But they represent something that I find particularly annoying. And so I can't really help myself. They are smug, self-satisfied libertarians. Not that there's any other kind of libertarian, of course, and nothing irritates me more than smug self-satisfied libertarians, which is why I feel compelled to speak out and respond. Brad and Hannah react to three of my quote-unquote controversial opinions. The first is my take on the dating scene. The second is my opinion about alleged mental illnesses like anxiety and depression. And a third is a tweet that I posted like four or five years

ago where I said that yoga is a satanic pagan ritual. I stand by all of those opinions, especially the last one about yoga. Yoga is most certainly a depraved, despicable, and blasphemist, and also sacrilegious act. But as important as that discussion is, due to time constraints, I'm going to focus today on the portion of their video, which covers the first two subjects. There's a little bit more meat on the bones there. So let's get into it. Hey, guys, I'm Brad Palumbo.

This is Hannah Cox. Welcome back to Libertarians React. We're the co-founders of base politics. And today, we're reacting to the one and only Matt Walt. This is going to be really hot takeish. I think we're going to have very strong reaction as much as he has to say. If you don't know Matt Walsh, he's a blogger, Christian conservative, extreme traditionalists, who really likes to push his way of thinking on other people.

That's something we don't really stand for as libertarians. So we're going to work through some of this clips and break them down. Let us know your thought. We sure leave your comments as well. Okay, a couple of problems here. First of all, turn the music in the background down, a few notches. Also, I haven't been a blogger for like five years. I'm a podcaster now. Get it right.

Podcast is blogging in vocal form. But still. Also, these two characters are the co-founders of something called based politics, which is like me being the founder of something called vegan feminist yoga politics. Actually, that would be far less absurd because I am, after all, a best-selling women's studies author. But libertarians, on the other hand, are definitely not based, especially not these libertarians. In fact, it's fair to say that the term based could literally be defined as the opposite of these two. Speaking of not being based, they accuse me of pushing my way of thinking on other people.

What? How? By expressing my opinions? Isn't that exactly what they are doing? If I push my opinions on other people by saying them out loud, then aren't they pushing their opinion of me onto me by making an entire video about me? When exactly does spoken opinion graduate from being just an opinion to being a form of compulsion? I'm assuming that line is crossed the moment you say something that these two don't like. Let's continue.

So in this first clip, he endorses arranged marriages. Let's take a listen. Now, on the complete opposite end of this spectrum are arranged marriages. Instead of a boundless, never-ending buffet of options, a young person in a culture that practices arranged marriages. marriages will be assigned just one, and they don't even make the choice. Their families just pair them up and say, here you go. There's far less freedom and far less autonomy in a system of that sort, but it is without a doubt superior to our system. We would be happier. Every person in the dating scene right now would be happier if they were just matched up with someone against their

will. That's a new dating app, right? Against your will. Against your will. Here you go. You're assigned this person. Go make babies. What the heck is wrong with them? How is it conservatives to be like, yeah, it would have a lot less freedom and individual rights, but it'd be better. That's like, that's not what conservatism in America has ever been about. How bad is your marriage is what I want to know, that you think people should just be like assigned people like a lottery system. Like, here you go. And that would be just as good as whatever you found. It's a little rapy, to be honest. The vibes of like, yeah, women should be assigned. assigned to me as my wife.

No, they should not, sir. They should not. This seems like it comes from a very insol kind of mindset of like, I can't get women on my own. They never pick me. He was married. I know, but he speaks for that product. Yeah, I guess.

Yeah. Just a quick tip for any future Libertarians React videos. I would dial down the music, but also the shrillness and smugness by about eight or nine points. Because right now you're at a full 10 on the Smarmy Dork scale. And it's frankly a bit over. overwhelming. As mentioned, libertarians in general have a serious problem with smugness, but here I think we've met like the libertarian smug super spreaders. These are our patient zeros of libertarian smugness. They also have zero in the way of arguments, rebuttals, or clever comebacks. They are, of course,

being wildly dishonest about my argument. I never said that arranged marriages are ideal. I also never said that women should be assigned to me to be married. I also never mentioned that women should be the only ones subjected to it. I said that arranged marriages are better than our current approach today, and that's simply because our current approach couldn't possibly be any worse. But is there at least some wisdom to the arranged marriage model? Yes, there is. And before you continue scoffing and gasping at the very idea that there could be anything redeeming in it, consider that many cultures around the world, especially non-Western cultures, have had and still have such a system. Are they all just a bunch of idiot troglodytes, Brad and Hannah?

Are you sure you want to make that argument? If that's the broad brush you want to use to paint billions of people and dozens of culture cultures across the world and throughout history, go for it, I guess. Fits with the whole smug theme, I guess. As for me, my preferred system is essentially the one we had in this country before the modern dating scene began to form, and certainly before hookup culture and dating apps took hold. I favor courtship where the dating phase is understood by all parties concerned to be the path to marriage. Typically, in a courtship culture, families may not choose your spouse, but they are heavily involved in selecting potential matches. This is far superior to our current arrangement where a legion of confused,

lethargic, hapless single people scroll endlessly through avatars on their phones, randomly selecting one after another for fleeting temporary flings where emotion infatuation and physical attraction are the only driving forces, the only litmus test. You would in fact be better off just having your family choose your spouse for you than making decisions that way, which is the most superficial, unreliable, and chaotic way possible. And ironically, the girl in the video actually makes this point for me

accidentally. Listen. No. One time my dad tried to set me up with somebody and I was aghast at who he thought, I was like, I was actually insulted. I was like, dad, you know I'm cute, right? Like, you know, like I don't have a problem pulling men, right?

Like, no. But at least that was a suggestion. It wasn't a... It was just what he would like me to be with, which was like this super Christian guy who was in his church and who was slightly balding, but like he thought was a good option for me. He was like a really good guy. And I was like, yeah, I'm going to need a really good guy who's not balding.

And also who doesn't live in Anderson, South Carolina because I'm for sure as hell not. And like, you know, those kinds of things. So all I'm saying is I would never, I love my parents dearly, but I would never want them to pick my mate. They would have no clue how to begin to pick who I would actually want. Yeah. No, it's just creepy. And it's really crazy. And I just can't relate to that one at all.

Can someone make a video attacking me that put some effort into it? I'm looking for a good challenge here. This is just... So your dad set you up with someone who you admit is a really good guy, but he's losing his hair, so you had no interest in him. And you say that you're too attractive to be wasting your time with men who have the audacity to possess physical flaws. Now, look, I wouldn't usually say what I'm about to say. But speaking to the girl now, you earlier felt comfortable commenting on my marriage, inaccurately, of course. So you've opened yourself up to some harsh truths.

And here it is, Cupcake. You may be slightly overestimating yourself. You seem to have erroneously given yourself a couple of extra points on the 1 to 10 physical attractiveness scale. Just a tip. And even if you hadn't, if you're single and making your decisions based on hairlines, you're either going to be lonely and miserable, as you are right now, for the rest of your life, or eventually you're going to be frivolously marrying some scumbag who isn't a good

guy, but at least still has all his hair. and a short time later you're going to file for divorce and try to make yourself into the victim of your failed marriage when it's your own vanity and stupidity that put you in that position. One of those two results are your destiny unless you learn to look a little deeper in your search for a mate. The fact that you can't look deeper right now and that your father seems to have a better view

of who would be a good match for you than you do only proves my point. You yourself specifically would be better off with an arranged marriage. Now, I'm not sure I could say the same for the poor sap who ends up with you on the altar, but you would actually be better off with that. So from here, the dynamic duo moved to my unorthodox opinions on alleged mental illnesses like anxiety and depression.

They didn't offer anything that could reasonably be described as an argument against my take on dating. Let's see if they might get around to attempting an actual refutation on this topic, at least. Let's listen. One of the worst things to happen in modern times is the medicalization of the human condition. Now people who experience anxiety think they're sick. They aren't. Anxiety is a fundamental fact of human existence. It is not a disease.

That's what I wrote. That's what I believe. We have set out to medicalize and diseaseify every aspect of the human condition, every difficult emotion, every unpleasant personality trade. That's why the DSM now has something like 300 mental disorders listed and over 50 million adults in this country have been diagnosed with at least one of them. Which one of those applies to trolls who say outlandish things for attention? I hate this. Yeah.

You hate this too, I'm sure. I do. I'm very bothered by it, but it's also just like very objectively wrong. Literally, depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain that you can observe in someone. You can look at the brain scan of somebody who's clinically depressed for someone else and see the difference. It is not the same as just feeling sad sometimes. And it's so harmful when so many people lose their lives to these conditions and die by suicide. Or drug addiction.

out here on this hill with this completely medically uninformed and unscientific take that's just, I guess, honestly, just for attention. Just for attention. So I just want attention. What is it that you want when you talk about me? The title of this video is, Libertarians react to three wildest Matt Walsh trad contacts, parentheses Matt Walsh show.

They put my name in their title twice, and I'm the one begging for attention. But this is the kind of free thinking we get from libertarians. if you have an opinion that ventures outside of the mainstream, it must be just a ploy for attention. These two literally cannot imagine how or why any human being could or would ever formulate an independent thought otherwise. They're dumbfounded by the very idea of ideas. Their dumbfoundedness is especially embarrassing in this case because anxiety and despair are huge topics, deep and important topics, and topics that people have been discussing and debating for thousands of years.

As far as these two are concerned, though, the debate is over, I guess. The pharmaceutical industry has settled the debate. We are all now ethically bound to agree with big pharma, or else were harmful, malignant trolls, just out for attention. Now, Brad smugly assures us that I'm factually wrong. Depression is a chemical imbalance, embalancement, he says. Well, the chemical imbalancement theory of depression was cutting edge about 75 years ago. In this century, Brad, it's roundly understood by nearly every credible scientist and researcher

to be a misnomer. The drug companies still talk about chemical imbalancements. Dumb libertarians on YouTube still talk about it. But the people who understand the issue and who want others to understand it have long since moved on from it. There is, in fact, no evidence of any simple measurable imbalance that easily explains depression. You cannot diagnose depression with a brain scan. Absolutely, you cannot. And they don't, by the way.

If you could diagnose it that way, that's how they diagnose it. But they don't. You might want to read some literature on the topic that was written sometime after World War II. Right. Just a tip. Okay, one more clip. Let's watch. Anxiety and depression can be normal human experiences if you are experiencing situational anxiety or depression. And that can be a small blip that you have to work through. Say, you know, and that is not a medical condition, right? You're not having an imbalance. You're having a rational reaction to an event. Somebody dies in your life. You're sad. You fall into depression. that is situational depression and while you can still get help for that and should,

especially things like therapy, I would not say that's a medical condition, right? Same thing with anxiety. Like if you're having anxiety because you're really stressed and you have a deadline, you don't agree to make it. Like it's normal to have anxiety there. But then there are actual medical conditions, which are things like generalized anxiety disorders, depressive disorders,

and there's many kind of many orders underneath those that you can look up in the DSI. But basically they are things like you and I have. I have a generalized anxiety disorder. And what that means is that I have. have anxiety responses that are not normal given the situation, the circumstances. You're not just feeling anxious sometimes. I'm not just feeling anxious. I'm not responding to a rational event. I am making things up in my head and overreacting to them and fixating on them oftentimes to a point where if I had not received medical treatment throughout my life, I might fall into things like addiction. I might fall into

other harmful behaviors to escape it. I might overreact to situations in ways that could be harmful and often these things can lead to suicide. And so to say that these are not medical conditions is extremely harmful. It's not based on anything at all. I almost think it's like something that could make you liable. Some of your audience is listening to some of this. Like, good grief. Like I would feel responsibility. So the libertarians have actually just said that I should be legally liable for my unpopular views on mental illness. These are our free speech champions, folks. What's more, I should be legally liable if I convince people not to purchase products from the pharmaceutical industry. I mean, you'd almost be tempted to think that these two are being paid by Pfizer, but then you realize

that Pfizer could afford much more persuasive spokesman. She draws a line between depression or anxiety felt due to a life event like a death in the family and pervasive anxiety felt day to day, and often for seemingly irrational reasons. She says that the latter is in the DSM and the other isn't, but again, she's wrong. In fact, grief disorder, that is grief felt after the death of a loved one, is now officially in the DSM as a mental illness. I guess that means the free-thinking libertarians have to uncritically accept it as a legitimate medical issue.

I, however, retain the right to be skeptical. As for the pervasive and irrational anxiety she describes, that is also very normal. Anxiety is one of the defining elements of the human condition. This is why philosophers have puzzled over it from Lenia. It's rooted deep in all of our psyches. There is not one person alive on earth who is ever totally free of anxiety. Anxiety at its basis level is fear or dread in the face of the unknown. Kierkegaard said that anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.

Now, he saw it, most thinkers in history have seen it, as an elemental fact of human psychology. only in modern times have we compartmentalized and medicalized it. I'm skeptical of that. I'm skeptical of many popular ideas, I confess. This is just one of them. Another one is libertarianism. Though in fairness, I shouldn't blame libertarianism for the fact that these two are such mediocre and unimpressive representatives of it.

And so ultimately, they specifically, if not libertarianism as a whole, are the ones who are canceled. And 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 Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's 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, production manager, Pavel Vodowski.

Our associate producer is McKenna Waters. The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright DailyWire, 2022. John Bickley here, DailyWire, editor-in-chief. Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.

Join me and my co-host, Georgia Howe, for daily coverage of all the biggest stories on Morning Wire.