The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 936 - Here Lies CNN+, May It Rest In Peace

Episode Date: April 22, 2022

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, tragedy strikes as CNN’s new streaming service crashes and burns right after take off. Also, Republicans in Florida officially passed the bill to revoke Disney’s special privileges, but some conservatives are uncomfortable with this kind of aggressiveness from the Right.  And Johnny Depp has audio proving that he is the victim of domestic abuse. AOC warns about another January 6th on the horizon. And Jen Psaki tries to explain why kindergarten teachers might need to talk about gender identity with their students. Her reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.  I am now a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/ud1j6 Use code RIPCNN+ for 20% off your Daily Wire membership: https://utm.io/uevnz.  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, tragedy strikes as CNN's new streaming service crashes and burns right after takeoff. It's a terrible thing. Also, Republicans in Florida officially passed the bill to revoke Disney's special privileges, but some conservatives are uncomfortable with this kind of aggressiveness from the right. And Johnny Depp has audio proving that he is the victim of domestic abuse. AOC warns about another January 6th on the horizon, and Jen Posaki tries to explain why kindergarten teachers might need to talk about gender identity with their students. Her reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. We'll talk about all that more today on the Matt. while show. With Mother's Day coming just around the corner, it's time to start thinking about what you want to do to make your mom feel special. I've been trying to think about what I want to give my mom this Mother's Day season, and all I can think about is the time where I refuse to fix her VHS player over this past holiday season, which I admitted to. Now, I'm not going to

apologize for that because I refuse to apologize for anything, but instead I'm going to give my mom something that she will be thanking me for, so that she should have to apologize to me at the end of I'm going to give her a reason to throw away the VHS player once and for all with Legacy Box. Legacy Box is the best company out there when it comes to digitally preserving all of your sentimental things but also outdated belongings. That's why they've helped millions of people digitize their belongings over the past decade. Just send Legacy Box all your videotape, film reels, photos, and whatever else you have in their team over of over 200 trained technicians will hand digitize everything.

You can track their progress along the way with their online tracking system, and once they're done, they'll send you all your original copies along with digital copies stored on a thumb drive, the cloud or DVD. Now my mom won't have to worry about having a working VHS player anymore, and she can show all my embarrassing videos and photos to my wife easily over the holidays, although she's already shown all of them to my wife, so it's not going to be any news there. You can do the same for your mom this mother's day by visiting legacybox.com slash walsh right now to get 60% off your order. That's legacybox.com slash walsh.

Well, it is the first segment of the show on a beautiful Friday, and I wanted to do something fun and lighthearted, because I am, of course, known for being fun and lighthearted. That's not going to be possible today, as there has been a deeply tragic event, indeed a series of deeply tragic events that I must address. This has been a week of loss, heartbreak, grief, calamity after calamity, tribulation after tribulation. It all began on Monday with the terrible news that John Stewart's news show on Apple is failing. This came as a great shock to the nation, mostly because the nation didn't realize that John Stewart had a new show. But he does for now. And just five weeks into its run, the latest episode was viewed only 40,000 times. Yes, 40,000. Now, to put that in perspective, 40,000 is a fraction of the audience that I have for my podcast, and I used to do this thing in my car.

In fact, yesterday, I did a 10-minute monologue about a woman whose boyfriend is digging a big hole in the ground. and we clip that and posted it separately on YouTube for some reason, and even that has more than 40,000 views. More people are interested in hearing me talk about a hole in the ground than are interested in hearing John Stewart talk about anything. I'd like to think that's a reflection of my brilliant oratory about holes, but I think it's probably more a statement about the near complete lack of interest in John Stewart. No doubt John Stewart himself is flummoxed by all this.

After all, he has used every episode of his new show to worship the god of wokeness. He has made all the sacrificial offerings. He's burned the incense and performed the incantations. He's flagellated himself and repented of his whiteness over and over and over again. He's done everything he could, and yet his ratings continue to plummet. Soon he'll have an audience size comparable to what, say, your uncle might get if he did a Facebook live for his 32 friends on Facebook. The whole situation has led to lots of analysis and speculation, and most tragically of all, think pieces. One think piece published in the Atlantic yesterday spends many thousands of words trying to figure out what happened to John Stewart and why he

isn't as funny and smart as he was back in his daily show days. It's been a lot of theorizing about this point, and amid all the discussion and conjecture, somehow nobody has remembered that Daily Show, the Daily Show John Stewart was reading lines off of a teleprompter that somebody else wrote for him. So maybe he's not as smart and funny anymore because he was never that smart and funny. His writers were smart and funny, and even then, not nearly as smart and funny as everybody pretended. That's one thought. But whatever the cause of this current situation, it is a terrible thing.

And I feel bad. Very bad. Very bad for John Stewart. But the tragedy doesn't end there. The very next day, it was announced. And again, this all happened this week. It was announced that things aren't much better over on Apple TV's main competitor, Netflix. It was revealed that Netflix actually lost subscribers 200,000 total, in the first quarter of

2022. And this news sent Netflix stock tumbling so that now the company has lost $50 billion. Once again, analysts are flabbergasted. How could Netflix be losing so many subscribers? It's unexplainable. Netflix itself blames the war in Ukraine. They say that it's Putin's fault. And that's not a joke, by the way. That's really what they're saying. Yet another outrage committed by Putin. First, his invasion of Ukraine causes a gas price spike that was already happening, before he invaded Ukraine. Then his invasion of Ukraine causes a supply chain crisis that was already happening before he invaded Ukraine. Then his invasion of Ukraine causes inflation that was already happening before he invaded Ukraine. And now he's stealing subscribers from Netflix. I bet he's also

the one stopping people from watching John Stewart, by the way. Now, we know that the subscriber loss can't have anything to do with the product that Netflix is offering because that product is uniformly spectacular. I mean, for example, just this week, Netflix announced a new film called He's Expecting About a Pregnant Man. And the trailer for this film, by the way, stipulates that this is a cisgender, quote unquote, pregnant man. Obviously, the sort of material people want to see and would see, if not for Putin. This brings us finally to the tragic grand finale, the week's last in dignity, the thing that nearly broke me. The announcement was made at the end of this week,

CNN's new streaming service, CNN Plus, which was launched only a month ago, will be shutting down. It lasted for a month, a month. The company invested $300 million into it, and it lasted a month. My God, my God, why have you forsaken CNN Plus? Why did the world forsaken?

Reportedly, the service was attracting only 10,000 viewers a day, only 10,000. They could have literally quadrupled their audience if they hired John Stewart. You know, Tim Poole has a live stream of this chicken coop that easily pulls more than 10,000 viewers in a day, his chicken coop. 300 million for 10,000 viewers means that their cost of acquisition per viewer was like $30,000. So by my math, if they wanted to reach the Daily Wire subscriber numbers at 30,000 a pop, it would only cost them about. $18 billion. So it's a bad situation, in other words. And now CNN Plus is no more.

Once again, though, media analysts are mystified, especially the media analysts at CNN. Why don't people want to watch CNN plus? Sure, nobody wants to watch regular CNN, but let's try to do some more math here. If nobody wants to watch something and then you offer more of the thing that nobody wants to watch, shouldn't that equal like a million viewers or something? What's zero times a million? Isn't it a million? I have to check my calculator. However the numbers shake out, this is simply shocking. I mean, CNN Plus had a show with Chris Wallace. And he's the guy who had a Fox show that nobody cared about. And then he left to a network that nobody cares about on a streaming platform that nobody cares about.

And somehow, yet again, this failed to generate excitement. The real crucial mistake CNN made was not immediately striking a deal to ensure that CNN Plus is streaming in every airport terminal and dentist office waiting room in the entire country because that has long been their target demo. Indeed, their only demo. Now look, we can sit here commiserating about the spectacular failures of John Stewart, Netflix, CNN. We can hold each other and cry. And we should. but the one thing I've learned from the media this week, and this is the most important takeaway, is that none of this is a reflection on their ideology.

None of this means that people are sick of woke leftist sermonizing. You might think that that's the lesson here, but it's not. That is not the takeaway. Literally anything else is the takeaway. Blame anything but that, but especially blame Putin. and frankly blame yourselves for not supporting these wonderful endeavors you are all clearly in league with Putin and your dastardly plot has caused grave injuries to john stewart and netflix and now you have taken the life of cnn plus you have blood on your hands you monsters brian stelter is crying himself to sleep

every night because of you Anderson cooper is traumatized don lemon is humiliated look at what you've done to these great men. Shame on you all. Make God of mercy on your souls. Now let's get to our five headlines. The value of the minivan pickup sedan or whatever you drive probably appreciated significantly last year. Take care of your automotive investment and keep more of your money by buying the auto parts you need to maintain and repair your vehicle at rockado.com. Rockauto.com only sells auto parts and related tools and they've been doing it for over 20 years. Their unique intuitive catalog includes photos, specs, and installation tips that make it easy to choose the correct parts for your specific vehicle. They not only have the auto parts you need, but will give you a selection of

trusted name brands to choose from. You can pick brakes that match how you use your vehicle, whether that's for towing, racing, or just commuting to work. You can get suspension, exhaust, air conditioning, and other kits that provide all the parts you need for successful repair. Rock Auto.com has lots of parts that you might expect would only be available at car dealerships if they're available at all. Parts like the fan inside your seat that cools your tush, which is the word that's being put in this copy for me to read. Rockauto.com prices are always reliably low. That means they do not change prices based on what the market will bear like many airlines and marketplace sites do.

Why would you put Tush? Now that's out there. I actually said that now. Anyway, go to rock auto. com for your auto parts and write Walsh in there. How did you hear about a box so they know that I sent you? Sorry about that. I got a little more emotional than I thought it would.

I just feel so bad for these. I feel so bad for them. And by the way, on a positive note, I got to say happy Earth Day to everyone, it is Earth Day, I believe. This is a great day, great holiday, which was invented by a psycho hippie who murdered his girlfriend and put her in a compost bin. Now, you might say that this is something in Earth Day's favor because it proves how committed the founder was to recycling. But I think it more just kind of goes to show how modern environmentalism loves all of nature except for human beings. So it's quite appropriate, actually, that Earth Day was invented by a murderer. And that's my problem with environmentalists, not that they're all murderers, although I suspect probably most of them are, is that I can't give you credit for loving nature if you exclude humanity from your affections. If your love of nature, you know, if you love nature but hate humanity, then what does your love actually mean? Because first of all, nature exists for us. I mean, trees and rivers and flowers are significant because rational creatures give us. them significance. Like if you found out that a planet in another solar system with no rational life on it, but a bunch of trees and flowers blew up, how would you feel? Would you see it

as some great tragedy? It's not like any suffering happen. Only rational creatures can suffer. You could destroy a billion trees, and it would cause no suffering at all of any kind unless there are rational beings around to be affected by it. I think the other thing is this. and we'll get to the headlines in a second is that loving loving nature is easy you know I mean we should love nature as long as we don't worship it

like the left so often does as long as we don't love it more than humanity but in proportion loving nature is is a good thing but it's easy you know I mean I love nature I actually love it a whole hell of a lot more than the average

urban dwelling environmentalists you know those nature lovers who choose to surround themselves every day with concrete and plastic and glass. I don't do that. I could go out on a lake and be out there all day. I'm also, I'm going to start beekeeping again to go along with my new aquarium that I'm getting, as I told you about yesterday. As a beekeeper, I will be doing and have done more to save the planet than any vegan. That's for sure. But all that said, it's easy to love beautiful lakes and mountains and triggers and stuff like that. It's mostly a self-serving love.

Like, you love those things because of how they make you feel. You know, you find it beautiful and you like being around beautiful things. And so that's why you love it. And that's fine. But loving people is more difficult because people are complicated. People have their own designs, their own minds. There's conflict with people. People can lie.

They can cheat. They can steal. They're also capable of heroism and selflessness. I mean, people make moral choices, often bad, sometimes good, though. And I just, what I've noticed is. is that lots of people in our society have given up on people, on humanity, and they've retreated into this love of nature or loving their pets or whatever at the expense of or instead of people. And that's my problem with it. Anyway, happy Earth Day. Please don't kill

and compost your loved ones today. All right. Yesterday, the Florida House voted finally in favor of revoking Disney's special legal and tax privileges. And that means, and Ron DeSantis has already said that he's going to sign it, so it's going to happen. Let's dip into this and just check out that glorious moment for a moment here. And we will vote on these two bills. It is my hope that we will be able to proceed civilly and with decorum and with respect for one another. Read the next bill. By Senator Bradley, Senate Bill Forsy, a bill to be entitled,

for leading to independent special districts. Representative Fine, you recognize to explain your bill. What they're screaming in the background there. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems as Mickey and then he have joined us. They're big Disney fans, I guess. This is the bill that we discussed yesterday. Whatever they're screaming,

they're fans of grooming children and their big Disney fans. Those two things seem to go hand-in-hand, especially recently. Okay. So they voted for it. Not everyone agrees, as you can tell, to put it mildly. In fact, I got in trouble yesterday

by, with media matters, for something that I said about this on the show yesterday, let's put up the tweet from Jason Campbell, who's the Media Matters Hall Monitor. It says, Daily Wirehost calls for taking Mickey Mouse's head and putting it on a spike. And it's true that I did say that. But I also said I was speaking metaphorically.

You know, I'm talking about decapitating Mickey Mouse in a strictly metaphorical way. What's wrong with metaphorical language? Am I being attacked now for being a poet? Is that what's going on here? But maybe Media Matters is right. I mean, this is violent and dangerous rhetoric about a cartoon character. We should not threaten violence against fictional cartoon characters.

Just wait until they hear what I would do to those bastards at Paul Patrol, the most annoying cartoon characters of all time. I take them to the vet to be euthanized in a second, I'd tell you that. But the left is upset about this, and we know that, of course. The more important discussion is on the right, whereas we talked about yesterday, some conservatives, especially in media are also upset about what DeSantis is doing with the actions that he's taking about Disney. And we reviewed some of those arguments yesterday. Now, David French has weighed in,

and as you might expect, he calls this an about face on free speech. That seems to be the line that some on the right are taking is that by revoking special privileges from Disney, it's an attack on their free speech rights somehow. Jenna Ellis is a conservative who I like and who is often right about things, but she gets this one wrong. Here's her take on this. Let's listen. Disney isn't doing anything illegal or immoral in terms of action by their statement. Now, is the statement advancing an immoral viewpoint? Yes. But in terms of under the law, Disney isn't doing anything other than exercising

constitutionally protected speech. that is the entire point of this conversation. And so people on Twitter have been so outraged saying, no, go salt the earth, go retaliate against Disney, go tear them down. Democrats do this to conservatives all the time. And so Ronda Santas should finally go after Disney. I'm glad to see a Republican finally exercising the same types of fights that Democrats do. Well, let's think about that for a moment.

just because the Democrats wield unconstitutional power and try to get away with it does not in any way justify Republicans doing the same. Okay. So let's just clear this up here. What they're doing in Florida right now, Republicans are doing is they are taking away special privileges that have been granted to Disney and to no other corporations in the state. they were their own literal kingdom, their own fiefdom, and they were able to govern themselves, and they got massive, massive tax breaks out of it that have certainly totaled in the billions of dollars since this policy was put in place back in the 1967, I think. So that's what we're talking about. Special privileges. So how can it be an attack on free speech to revoke special privileges?

Do they have a right to those privileges? Well, they don't because that's why they're privileges. Do they have a right to the tax breaks? Do they have a right to self-govern their 40 square miles of land or whatever they own? Is that a constitution? Where is that in the Constitution exactly? Where is it in the Constitution that says that Disney has a right to tax breaks? No, you're taking those privileges away that they have no right to.

So as far as I'm concerned, there goes the free speech argument. It's got nothing to do with free speech. They're not passing a law saying that Disney as a corporation isn't allowed to express their views in favor of grooming children. That's not what it is. It's just that you're not going to get these privileges anymore. And why aren't you going to get them? Well, I don't see really why there needs to even be a specific reason. You had these privileges.

No one else had them. Now you don't get them anymore. Is it a constitutional obligation to, justify the revocation of privileges, justified in a way that Disney will find sufficient? Is that the constitutional obligation of Ron DeSantis? I don't see how it is. But actually, there is a very good reason in this case.

Aside from exacting revenge on Disney, which is the part about it that I like, but that's probably not the kind of legal argument that Ron DeSantis would make. I think the only argument you need to make is that it doesn't serve the interest, the public interest, anymore to give them these privileges. It does not serve the interests of people in Florida to give these privileges to Disney. And so they're not going to have them anymore. Why doesn't it serve the public interest?

Well, for one thing, because Disney is using its vast resources to promote the sexual indoctrination and abuse of children. And if they're going to do that, we're not going to provide them a tax-sheltered forum and platform to do it. So it does not serve the public interest anymore to give them these privileges. Whether it ever did is a entirely different question. It certainly doesn't now. So it's just, it's hard for me to tolerate this. You know, on the left, they sick the government. on, you know, cake bakers who actually are exercising their First Amendment rights.

They'll go after anybody. And we're not talking mega corporations, which is what Disney is. We're not talking about a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate. They'll go after just some guy baking cakes in Colorado. And relentlessly, they'll never stop. They still haven't stopped. they'll keep going until they destroy you. And that is simply because they don't like your speech and your values.

And they can do that. And then we decide simply to revoke special privileges from a mega corporation because they're advocating for the sexual grooming of children. And we have people on our own side saying, this makes me uncomfortable. I don't know about this. It's just I'm uncomfortable with it. And that's what it is. they're uncomfortable with it and they're,

they don't know exactly why they're uncomfortable with it. And so they're just like looking for a reason to justify their discomfort. And that's how they fall in this free speech thing, which makes no sense at all because you do not have for the 50th time. You don't have a First Amendment right to tax privileges. It is a privilege. So that's what I see is, is you don't really have much of an argument against it, but you're looking for one.

And why are you looking for one? I guess because for some people, on the right, to see others on the right, going on the offense, going on the attack, being proactive instead of constantly playing defense. They're not used to it. And that's what makes them uncomfortable. It's kind of a shock to the system, understandably in some ways, actually, because we're not used to this kind of thing. I mean, what's the last Republican leader, you know, a political leader at any level. Who's the last one to do something similar to what Ronda Santos is doing right now?

I don't think we've ever seen anything like this. Because we're so used to Republicans just being milk toast and as we talked about yesterday, just being kind of speed bumps, lying down on the road and hoping that you can slow the progress of the left slightly as they run right over you. you're used to that it becomes a shock to the system when you don't see it and i also think that there are some on the right who um actually prefer losing they prefer to be in the controlled opposition camp and they kind of just and it's it's easier to do that to to lose there's not as much pressure you don't have to actually lead you don't have to have a vision if all you do is

lose. And you have your role and you play it and it gives you something to complain about, oh, the left, they're such bullies. Well, we're done with that now. Now we're going on the offense. This is great. Okay, let's go here. Johnny Depp is in a defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Hurd. And I haven't followed the case that close because I don't care all that much. But I thought this was interesting yesterday. Here's audio of his wife. And they've both got audio and video. of each other. They've just been filming and documenting each other apparently throughout their marriage. It's really a healthy sign of a healthy marriage is when you're constantly,

you've constantly feel a need to secretly record your spouse. So here's one recording of Johnny Depp's wife, ex-wife now, Amber Heard admitting that she hit him, although she has an interesting distinction that she tries to draw in order to justify the abuse. But listen. I said to you, Hey, tell Travis what just have. Oh, you told me to do it.

You told me to. You said, go do that. I said, no, tell him what you just happened. And I lie. And that you punched me in the fucking thing. You figured it up. And you said, no, I didn't. What the fuck you're talking about?

And I watched you lie. I didn't punch you. I didn't, by the way. I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you. It was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched. Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.

You know, even a lot of fights you've been around. a long time. I know. No, when you have a close-n-n- You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this, but I did not punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I was hitting you.

I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was. But you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you. How are you tough? What am I supposed to do? Do this?

I'm not sitting here fucking about it, am I? You are. That's the difference between me and you. You're a fucking baby. Because you start. You're such a baby. Grow all the fuck up, Johnny. Okay.

I think we heard of that. These are just such broken people in Hollywood. Broken, empty people, which is why their marriages never work out. You know, you take two broken empty people and you put them in a marriage together. It's very rarely is going to work. So her argument is that I didn't punch you, I hit you. So I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction between the two things. And a couple of things here.

First of all, I know part of Amber Hurd's claim is that she was abused and terrorized by and terrified of Johnny Depp. But you listen to audio like that. And I don't exactly hear a woman who's terrified of her husband or who's abused when she's admitting to physically striking him. and is mocking him. Does that seem like a woman who's afraid of her husband? I just hit you. You're being a big baby. Is that what you say when you're afraid of somebody? But then the other thing, of course, is that the massive,

the massive, glaring double standard. And if there's a double standard with anything, it is with this. It is with situations like this, marital disputes, especially domestic abuse issues. you just imagine that audio the other way. Imagine there's audio of Johnny Depp saying to Amber Heard, I didn't punch you, I hit you, you big baby. Can you imagine that if that audio was out there? But we have that of Amber Heard and there are still, there are actually people that still take her side. Because even the people, and indeed, in fact, actually, especially the people who claim that men and women are exactly the same, there's no difference.

The distinction is entirely arbitrary. They say that, and yet they just, they do not put male on female. They don't put female on male domestic abuse nearly on the same plane as male and female. That's the fact. Okay, AOC was at a town hall yesterday, and she had a lot to say, including about January 6. She's still panicking about January 6th, and she says that it's not over. You know, they're out there gathering their forces. And they're going to invade the Capitol again.

Listen to this. If we lose the House, this is no joke. January 6th was a trial run. And a lot of people don't seem to understand that. It was a trial run. And they're going to come back. And they win the House. Here's the thing, the technicality of what happened on January 6th.

The only reason it wasn't worse was because Democrats had the House and they didn't have the votes in the House. If they take the house, then they have the votes to not authorize and legitimize the presidential election, whatever the results are. And so this is very serious. Yeah, she's trying as hard as she can to make this seem like an ongoing threat. Like there's some sort of ongoing threat of, and of course this is what we hear from from these people all the time. There's this ongoing threat of violence on the right and rioting. And they're going to do, January 6th is going to happen all over. over again. Obviously, saying that while entirely ignoring the fact that on the left, they just

kind of riot whenever they feel like it. And it really is, it's really just whenever they feel like it, you know, BLM, whenever they feel like it, they'll riot. They're not rioting right now because they don't, it's just, it wouldn't be to their political advantage right now too. And maybe they're just taking a break. They don't feel like doing it. But whenever they feel like doing it, they just do it. On the right, on the other hand, this is quite literally the one example. of people on the right participating in a riot. So you've got one example that anyone can cite in the last many decades. And we certainly know it's never going to happen again because, for one thing,

there is not this overwhelming proclivity towards that kind of thing on the right, which is why it only happens once in several decades, whereas on the left happens all the time. but also the entire force of the federal government came down on these people and is still reining down on them, throwing the book at them, and then throwing some things at them that aren't even in the book, which we know has not happened for the BLM writers. Another quick piece of audio I want to play for you. Fouchy is still on the scene and desperate for relevance. You know, he's, you got to understand how hard it is for him.

I mean, we talked about the tragedy of CNN Plus and John Stewart and the ratings and how they've collapsed. In a way, Fauci's own ratings, personal ratings, have collapsed. I mean, he was on TV pretty much every day for two years, and he loved it. And now they're not coming to him nearly as often. Which is why now he'll appear on, you'll see him, I don't know who he's still, he's talking to some mainstream reporter here, but he'll appear on just like YouTube channels and podcasts with 50 listeners because he's so desperate for attention.

But finally they've come to him and ask him, his take on the judge striking down the mask mandate on planes, and you'll be shocked by his opinion on the matter. Both surprised and disappointed, because those types of things really are the purview of the CDC. This is a public health issue. And for a court to come in, and if you look at the rationale for that,

it really is not particularly firm. And we are concerned about that, about courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public. health decisions. I mean, this is a CDC issue, which should not have been a court issue. So we're hoping that the inevitable increase in cases which we're seeing are not going to be associated with an increase in hospitalizations. So all of these dynamic things going on at the same time, it was perfectly logical for the CDC to say, wait a minute, we were planning on ending

this mandate on a certain date. Let's wait a period of time until May 3rd, which was a very sound public health decision. So for a court to come in and interfere in that is really unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it's against public health principles, number one. And number two is because that's no place for the courts to do that. This is a CDC decision, and that's very bad precedent when you have courts making a decision and looking at what the basis of the decision was it was not sound. No, it's actually not. It's not a CDC. Why should that be a CDC? decision. We know over the last two years the CDC has declared that it has the power of the legislature, the executive branch, the judiciary branch. We know that it's, it is claimed

these powers for itself, but it's never had to justify that. Why should the CDC get to set policy on airlines? Well, it shouldn't, of course. But I will tell you one thing. As one as wonderful as it is to have this mask mandate gone, especially as someone who flies all the time. And I'll be on the road again next week. And this will be, and I'm looking forward to it as my, my first experience on an airplane in two years where people aren't wearing masks. And that's going to be a wonderful thing. But you know what? There's also a part of me that just, that, that says, for a political standpoint, like, I dare you. I hope that you try to challenge this thing and overturn it and put masks on people again on planes.

on one hand I don't want it and we shouldn't want it but on the other hand I feel like we should be saying yeah go ahead and make our day go ahead and do that heading into the midterms you've already got a lot of nails in the coffin I'm not sure that we can fit one more but maybe we can because that'll be it give people a little taste of that freedom and then put the masks on them again

that's why I still I just can't believe as cynical as I am I cannot believe that the Biden administration would be that politically suicidal to actually launch. Now, they'll make a show of it. I understand that because they have to make a show of it. And they'll at least pretend that they're challenging the ruling and that they're trying to get the mask mandate put in place again.

But it's hard for me to believe that they would be that politically suicidal. But we'll see. Speaking of politically suicidal, self-immolation. So one other thing I want to play for you. Rudy Giuliani appeared on this show, The Masked Singer, and that's a show that every time this show is explained to me, I have to look it up because it always sounds like a joke. I still can't believe this show even exists. But apparently it does, and it's been around for a while now. It's on like it's, I don't know, it's been around for several seasons. And I guess what the whole show is that somebody shows up in a big costume and they sing, and then the judges have to guess who's in the costume. And that's a show. People watch this show. Rudy Giuliani appeared on the show. And then there was the big reveal, and he took his costume off, and he's singing a song. And one of the hosts was so upset to see Rudy Giuliani that he stormed off the set in the middle of the taping. Let's watch this.

Because everybody involved is embarrassing themselves there. There is no dignity anywhere to be found in that room or anywhere near this show at all, including people who would watch it. But the story of Rudy Giuliani, I mean, utterly disgraced himself. What do you? There's no amount of money that they could possibly pay you if you're Rudy Giuliani that would make that worth it. I don't care if they offered you $100 million to put on that costume and sing that song and pop out of a box singing. There is no way that it could possibly be worth it. I mean, 100 million maybe. Actually, I'll take 100 million. But anything less than that, I wouldn't do it. Let's get to the comment section. who's bringing shopping cards back to the... Evan says it's not taking revenge on Disney when you remove a bonus privilege that they've been taking for granted.

I don't think it's a good thing to be vindictive, but this was not being vindictive. This is just treating them the same as every other corporation. Yeah, look, it's all those things that you said. It's true. We're taking away a bonus privilege. And as I said, I don't even think you need

to justify it any more than that. It's a privilege. You don't have any right to it and we could take it away. If it actually is a privilege that was granted to you by the government, not a natural right imbued upon you by God or as part of your natural, you know, as part of your natural rights, if it's a privilege given you by the government, then in fact they can take it away. So all of that is true, but I also think, at least as far as I'm concerned, I'm not saying this is the legal argument that the Sanchez made, but it is, I also like it as an act of revenge as well. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You know, an act of vengeance against a mega corporation that has gone all in on sexually indoctrinating and grooming children.

Vengeance against that? Sure. That's great. Alexandra says, L.O.L. Matt used the daily cancellation to secretly vent that Mrs. Walsh doesn't want him to spend all that money on an aquarium. You know, when I started writing that monologue yesterday, I didn't originally intend for it to be for the aquarium bit to make its way in there, but it is something that's really on my heart right now. It's how badly I want an $18,000 aquarium. So it did get in there, I suppose. Trail says, I didn't even know about tunnel digging,

but now I must have one. It's going to be the most wonderful tunnel, and I can't wait to get started. Robin Yates says, when the digger turns out to be a serial killer, I'm not letting Matt live this down. I have really gone out on a limb for this guy. And that did occur to me, again,

as we were talking about this issue, I did think nothing wrong with digging a tunnel. It's every man's dream. It's great. It's slightly serial killer-ish. Like there's a little bit of that, maybe. Just slightly. Just a whiff.

That's all. And so if it ends up going that way, then, yeah, that's... I have gone out on a limb for him, so let's hope that doesn't happen. Jack says, Matt, you said you would never do a pre-recorded interview, but you went on Dr. Phil. hypocritical. No, see, that's not hypocritical. That's just, that's me being not hypocritical, but stupid, because I somehow completely forgot about Dr. Phil when I said that. And it occurred to me afterwards. But, okay, I did do a pre-recorded interview. I did Dr. Phil. My point still stands, though. Okay? This is where I'm going to give you a yeah, but still thing here, because Trump,

Trump should not be doing pre-recorded interviews with pretty much anyone, especially not Pierce Morgan. He shouldn't be doing interviews with Pierce Morgan at all because Why? Like, anytime you do anything as a politician or a candidate or someone in a political world, and you're doing anything on camera especially, you should always be able to explain what the win is. Like, what's the win? How do you, how is this a win for you? And I don't see it with the Pierce Morgan interview. Now, I could see how it's a win for him because it's ratings. But you don't need Pierce Morgan. You're Donald Trump. And even the Dr. Phil segment's actually a good example. That was a pre-recorded segment.

There was a risk. It was a calculated risk. It wasn't something I went into blind. So doing the Dr. Phil thing, I knew that, yeah, okay, it's pre-recorded. And you are kind of signing your life away with all the waivers and everything so they can do whatever they want with the footage. And that is the risk.

I also was pretty sure that I could trust Dr. Phil, to be fair. And that risk calculation turned out to, you know, worked out. And also, I knew that I stood to gain quite a bit. the message stood to gain. So there's a risk, it's a cost-benefit analysis, risk-reward analysis. The risk is they completely butcher the footage and they try to make me look like a fool. That is a risk. But if that doesn't happen, then the reward is quite substantial, not just for me personally, but for the message. And it ended up working out, thank God. But once again, for Donald Trump, what's the risk-reward? What's the cost-benefit analysis of going and doing

all these different interviews, pre-recorded interviews. You don't need to do that. It's not like you're going to gain publicity from a Pierce-Morgan interview that you didn't already have. It would just be nice if there was somebody in Donald Trump's circle who could talk to him about these things, but apparently that doesn't exist. Well, as the beloved author of the best-selling children's LGBTQ-plus book,

Johnny the Walrus, I am now a very important voice in the transgender conversation. That's why I was invited on Dr. Phil to discuss these most important issues with experts who could, of course, tell me what a woman even was. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you check it out. And even more importantly, if you haven't picked up a copy of my best-selling children's book, you should do so immediately. It's sold out in 48 hours when it was released. But don't worry, more copies are on the way.

So reserve Johnny the Walrus right now on Amazon. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You know, one thing we've learned from the left during the anti-groomer discourse is that we're all a bunch of paranoid lunatics worried about nothing because nobody's talking to little kids about sex. Also, we've learned that we're all a bunch of bigoted prudes because they are talking to little kids about sex, but that's totally fine.

So we've learned both of those things simultaneously. The thing we're complaining about isn't happening, and also it is happening, and it's okay that it's happening. It's probably my own mental failing that I can't figure out a way to reconcile two completely opposite things or conceptualize how a thing could happen and not happen at the same time. So instead it's easier to break this down into pieces. And on the, it is happening, but it's fine end of the spectrum.

couple of clips from this week are illuminating. The left, again, when they aren't denying that any of this is happening at all, claims that they only want to discuss sexual issues and topics with children in a developmentally appropriate way. But what do they think is developmentally appropriate? Well, we know the answer to that question, because we've heard it directly from teachers, and we know that what they find developmentally appropriate is, in fact, horrifying, insane, and perverse. But just to drive that point home, here is Jen Pesaki, appearing on the dearly departed CNN Plus, may it rest in peace and perpetual light shine upon it, to explain why exactly kindergarten teachers may need to talk about this stuff with their students.

Listen. Don't parents have a right to have concern? I mean, we're talking specifically here about teaching about sex in kindergarten through third grade. I have to say as a parent, I would have problems with that. But the law is not about teaching sex education. It's about teaching about gender identity. And so what do you do if a parent or a kid, should I say a kid, in one of these elementary schools says,

what about Sally? Sally has two moms or I'm not sure if I'm a girl or a boy. I mean, these are kids who are experiencing, you know, these moments in their lives. I also think that these are not, there's not a big record of there being either sex education or extensive gender identity education in these schools. And this is creating a problem or a political cudgel

about an issue that I don't think exists. So Pizaki claims that kids in kindergarten might say to their teacher, I'm not sure if I'm a girl or a boy. Now, here's the thing about that. First of all, no child is going to say anything like that unless concerted effort has been made to confuse him. So if a child is going to his kindergarten teacher with such a query, it's not because he's reflecting naturally on his identity, but because he's in an environment which intentionally fosters confusion. And if that's the case, the answer from the teacher should be pretty simple. If the child is a boy, then she need only say, you're a boy. if a girl then you're a girl and that should be the end of the conversation fortunately there's nothing

in the floor of law which would prevent a teacher from telling this fact to a confused child any more than a teacher would be prevented from telling a child how tall he is or how old he is if he was similarly confused about either of those subjects but speaking of fostering confusion the very radical and extreme and dangerous libs of ticot account committed harassment and terrorism once again this time against a woman yesterday by reposting a video that She posted a TikTok. In the video, this woman, a mother apparently and tragically, explains what is in her mind a developmentally appropriate way to talk about sex and gender with a young child? Listen. Here's a developmentally appropriate way to talk to toddlers about bodies and gender.

You know the body parts that your diaper or your panties or your underwear cover? Those are called privates. Everyone has privates. Private means that they belong to you and only you. In the front, everybody has genitals, but there are different kinds of genitals. Some genitals are called a penis. Some are called a vulva. Others look maybe a little bit like each in some ways, or kind of like neither.

or somewhere in between. People with those kind of genitals are called intersex. When babies are born, parents sometimes guess their gender based on their genitals. They tend to guess boy for babies who have a penis and girl for babies who have a vulva. Sometimes parents guess wrong though. And that's okay. Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. People whose parents guess strong about their gender are called transgender.

So she says that here's a developmentally appropriate way to talk to toddlers about gender, but she misspoke. What she meant to say is here's an extremely creepy way to confuse a helpless young child with a bunch of insane bullshit invented by pedophile sexologists in the 1960s. Tomatoes motto, I suppose. That's what she meant to say. Now notice how this pink-haired freakazoid starts off right away by introducing. intersex to the toddler. Rather than giving the basic simplest facts to the child, she spends time talking about genetic anomalies that affect like 0.05% of the population. Now, it's true, of course,

technically, that a very small minority of people are born with physically ambiguous genitalia. This doesn't mean they don't have a biological sex, but just that determining their sex is a little more difficult in these very, very rare cases. Why would you mention this to a toddler, though. It's like if you were on a plane with your three-year-old and you leaned over and said, so Johnny, planes go in the sky. Sometimes they fly all the way through the sky and land safely. Sometimes they crash and everybody dies. Sometimes they blow up in the air. Sometimes they fly into buildings. Now, that would technically be true, but you wouldn't say that to a toddler unless your intention was to traumatize him. Because a child that age doesn't understand statistics or probabilities or

the distinction between things that are common and things that are rare. He especially won't understand the distinction when you phrase it in a way that is designed to make it seem like the rare occurrence is just as common as the common occurrence. So you talk to your child about plane crashes that way if you want him to think that planes crash all the time, and you talk to your child about intersex that way, or at all, if you want him to think that intersects is just as common as normal bodies. From here, the psycho with the crazy eyes goes from misleading her child to straight up lying. She says that parents and doctors guess whether a baby is a boy or a girl based on genitalia. As I told you last week, this guess thing is the new talking point. It's the new euphemism.

It used to be sex assigned at birth, which was already misleading enough. Now it's sex guessed at birth. And they go with guess instead of assigned because guess sounds even more arbitrary and baseless. And yet, and yet they still admit that most of the time the guess is correct. Well, why would that be the case? Why does it just so happen that parents who guess boy based on a penis are almost always right? Of course, they're not almost always right. They're always right.

But, I mean, even based on the demented logic we heard in that clip, according to her, the guess, quote unquote, is almost always right. Why is that? If it's a 50-50 guess and there are billions of guesses being made across the world, then shouldn't the guess be wrong about 50% of the time? Shouldn't 50% of the world be trans? Because trans by this way of thinking is simply the result of a wrong guess. That's all. With so many billions of guesses, how can there be so few wrong guesses? Well, these are the kinds of questions that we.

as critical thinking rational adults can ask. These are the holes that we can punch in the nonsense that people like this woman are spewing. But even the smartest toddler in the world isn't going to notice these problems. He doesn't have enough information about the world to think critically about this. He'll just accept whatever he's told. And he will become deeply, profoundly, despairingly confused and lost, and that is all by design. That's the plan by these grooming predator ghoul. and that's why they are once again canceled. That'll do it for us today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.

Have a great day and a great weekend. Talk to you on Monday. 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 Podcast, 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 show. John Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager, Pavel Vodowski. Our associate producer is McKennaweree Danz. The show is edited by Robbie Dansler. Our audio is mixed by Mike Coramina. And hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Hart. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.

Hey, everybody, this is Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. You know, some people are depressed because the Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turn to blood. But on the Andrew Claven, show, that's where the fun just gets started. So come on over to the Andrew Claven show and laugh your way through the fall of the Republic with me, Andrew Claven.