The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1522 - Biden’s Pro-Life Political Prisoners Are Finally Free
Fri, 24 Jan 2025
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Trump continues his historic first week with another major achievement: pardoning Biden’s pro-life political prisoners. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate unanimously blocked a law that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to newborn infants. The pro-life cause is winning, but we have a long way to go. Also, Trump declassifies all of the files on JFK, MLK, and every other famous assassinated person in the 20th century who used three initials. The rumor mill swirls around Barack and Michelle Obama—are they headed for divorce? And, a musical about a transgender drug kingpin earned 13 Oscar nominations, in spite of the fact that the movie is, without question, one of the worst things ever put to film. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6 Ep.1522 - - - DailyWire+: Join the celebration! Use code 47 at https://dailywire.com/subscribe for 47% off your membership today! "Identity Crisis" tells the stories the mainstream media won’t. Stream the full film now, only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3C61qVU Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj - - - Today's Sponsor: Lumen - Take the next step to improving your health: go to https://lumen.me/WALSH to get 20% off your Lumen. - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Trump continues his historic first week with another major achievement, pardoning Biden's pro-life political prisoners. Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate unanimously blocked a law that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to newborn infants. The pro-life cause is winning, but we have a long way to go.
Also, Trump declassifies all of the files on JFK, MLK, every other famous assassinated person in the 20th century. He used three initials. The rumor mill swirls around Barack and Michelle Obama. Are they headed for divorce? That's the story anyway. And a musical about a transgender drug kingpin earned 13 Oscar nominations.
In spite of the fact that this movie is without question one of the worst things ever put to film. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. This is it, your final weekend to get 47% off new Daily Wire Plus annual memberships. Get unlimited access to uncensored, ad-free daily shows, groundbreaking documentaries, movies and series and more.
Use code 47 at dailywire.com slash subscribe. Did you know that 80% of resolutions fail by February? Well, this year can be different because I've discovered something that's transformed my approach to health. It's called Lumen, the world's first handheld metabolic coach. Here's what makes Lumen special.
It measures your metabolism through your breath, showing you whether you're burning fats or carbs every morning. I take a quick breath into my Lumen and it gives me personalized nutrition recommendations for the day. You can even check before and after workouts to optimize my fitness routine and make sure I'm staying on track for my 2025 goals. You see, your metabolism is like your body's engine.
It's central to everything from energy levels to sleep quality. What I love about Lumen is how it adapts to your body's needs. Because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, etc., Who doesn't want all that?
Well, the best part is that Lumen provides clear insights and guidance to help you make informed decisions about your health. It's not about quick fixes. It's about understanding your body and making sustainable changes. Take the next step to improve your health. Go to Lumen.me slash Walsh to get 20% off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-N.me slash Walsh for 20% off your purchase.
Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode. Today is the annual March for Life rally here in Washington, which I'll be attending today along with pro-life activists from all over the country. And it's easy to forget that our wonderful pro-life Republican presidents prior to Donald Trump wouldn't even show up in person to the March for Life. George Bush
for eight years in a row, hid in the White House and refused to come out and even say hello. Trump was the first president to break that mold when he became the first sitting president of either party to attend the event in person back in 2020. And then just two years later, thanks to judges Donald Trump appointed to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade was overturned.
A generational goal of pro-life activists was finally accomplished, sparing the lives of millions of children. In the wake of this historic victory, of course, Democrats retaliated. The Biden DOJ commenced a wave of illegitimate prosecutions targeted at peaceful pro-life protesters all over the country, from Washington to Tennessee to Michigan. And here's how these prosecutions worked.
First, the DOJ alleged that the protesters were violating the FACE Act, which protects, quote unquote, access to abortion facilities. And then the Biden DOJ invoked the KKK Act, otherwise known as the Conspiracy Against Rights Act, which is a law that has nothing to do with abortion facilities.
It's a reconstruction era law that was intended to prevent the KKK from intimidating black people from voting or serving on juries. And by pairing these two laws together in a very novel way, the DOJ was able to pursue felony charges and extremely lengthy prison sentences for these peaceful pro-life demonstrators.
Every single person attending one of these protests at an abortion facility could be accused of being a conspirator, even if they didn't step foot in the facility itself. This is a legal approach that was never even considered to be possible when the FACE Act was debated in Congress back in the early 1990s.
In fact, Senator Ted Kennedy explicitly stated at the time that, quote, if an individual does violate this law for the first time, it is not a felony. Well, that would be news to 75-year-old Paulette Harlow. She's the mother of six children, including four kids she adopted. Harlow was sentenced last summer to 24 months in federal prison for conspiracy against rights and Face Act violations.
This is an obviously outrageous sentence that was issued by D.C. Judge Colleen Collar Cotterley. In particular, the judge completely ignored the fact that Harlow was in very poor health. As Harlow's husband stated during sentencing, quote, I feel like Paulette is dying. In my heart, I think she's having a hard time staying alive.
Instead of responding to this information in any way, the judge appeared to mock Harlow's faith, saying that she should, quote, make an effort to remain alive because that is a, quote, tenet of Harlow's religion. Paulette Harlow was sentenced to home confinement until federal officials could find a prison that could handle her medical needs.
Outside the courthouse, Harlow emphasized that she wasn't violent in any way. And just looking at her, you could tell she doesn't deserve to spend two years in a federal prison. She's obviously not a threat to anyone. Watch.
Paulette, we've all just come out of your sentencing hearing here in D.C. What would you like to tell our LifeSite News readers about what just happened there?
There was a great injustice with the entire case, and the worst part of it was that they portrayed us as violent, something that people in the pro-life movement would never be. We would never be violent. We absolutely abhor that. We especially abhor the violence that's
put upon the young babies that are being torn limb for limb i mean that is the ultimate violence and we certainly wouldn't we wouldn't partake in any violence they went the prosecutor and the judge went out of their way to keep using that term violent right and you look like a violent person they they really did and it was just it was based on the lies that the staff told
Now, if you can look at this elderly, infirm lady and think that she deserves two years in federal prison for sitting outside of an abortion clinic, then you're simply a bad person, if not a lunatic. As Harlow's lawyers at the Thomas More Society have pointed out, this prosecution gets even more unlawful when you look at the cases the DOJ chose not to prosecute over the last four years.
Specifically, the DOJ failed to prosecute, quote, almost any of the more than 170 incidents of violence against pro-life pregnancy centers and churches nationwide in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision. There were at least 86 Catholic churches and 74 pregnancy resource centers that were targeted after Dobbs.
And one of those resource centers received a threat that said, if abortions aren't safe, neither are you. And yet when the Daily Signal reached out to the DOJ and the FBI to see if any of these cases were being investigated, they didn't get a response. In other words, the DOJ was clearly targeting pro-life protesters specifically because of their religious and political beliefs.
They were applying the law to different groups of people in different ways. And by the way, the FACE Act is also supposed to allegedly protect pro-life pregnancy centers. It's under the same law. So the people that attack those pregnancy centers should get at least the same sentences. And they didn't. In fact, in most cases, they were not charged at all with anything.
So this is unconstitutional, and it is unethical and immoral. And the point of it was to intimidate pro-lifers into silence. That's why they arrested these people like they were terrorists. They hit Paul Vaughn's home like he was bin Laden. Watch.
I'd like to speak to you about the DOJ's Project 2022 that happened October 5th at 7 a.m. in the morning when my house was assaulted, my wife and children were terrorized, and I was kidnapped at gunpoint by four armed men. I had just sent three of my children to the car so I could take them to school when the house began to shake from a loud banging near the front door.
I heard men shouting on my porch, open up, FBI. The banging continued. As I looked out a side window to check the location of my children, I saw two unmarked SUVs with lights flashing. but I did not see my children. The banging continued and I heard more shouting. I opened the curtains on the front door to find three men with guns trained on the door.
I asked who they were looking for and they replied, we're here for you. They did not identify me or provide identification for themselves. As I believe there was an imminent threat to the safety of my wife and seven children who were home that day, I determined to surrender myself to them hoping that they were legitimate law enforcement.
I opened the door and stepped out onto the porch, staring down the barrels of both a pistol and an automatic weapon pointed at my head.
This was an especially incredible prosecution by the DOJ because it was clear to everyone that Paul Vaughn wasn't even blocking access to the abortion facility in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Video evidence proved that. He was not blocking the entrance at all. Instead, they accused Vaughn of stalling the police negotiators outside of the facility.
So again, they're treating anyone remotely associated with these protests as a violent terrorist. But yesterday, Donald Trump put an end to these political prosecutions. He signed pardons for nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life protesters, including Paulette Harlow and Paul Vaughn. Watch.
Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful pro-life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Do you know how many?
I believe it's 23, sir.
23 people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this. They'll be very happy. So they're all in prison now?
Some are. Some are out of custody. Ridiculous.
Now, between these pardons and the repeal of Roe, there is now absolutely no question that Trump has done more for the pro-life cause than any other Republican president in history. It's not even close. During the campaign, there were some conservatives who doubted that. Some of them suggested that pro-lifers shouldn't vote for Donald Trump.
But that was always a very bad idea, as I argued at the time. And now everyone can see it. For the first time in history, pro-lifers have a true advocate in the White House. Donald Trump is that. What the hell did George Bush ever do for the pro-life cause? What did Ronald Reagan do? Well, I'll tell you what they did.
They treated pro-lifers like the redheaded stepchildren of the conservative movement. They did nothing. Now, Trump, even though he is personally more moderate on the abortion issue than I am, he is actually delivering major wins for the cause. He's actually accomplishing things, things that seemed impossible not too long ago. And he's not stopping.
Donald Trump is now single-handedly reversing a wave of lawfare against pro-lifers who are punished in cruel and inhumane and unconstitutional ways because of their religious beliefs and their political beliefs. In fact... We've had so much success on this issue in the last few years that some conservatives would even say, and you hear this said now, that the march for life is pointless.
Why even still have it? Well, if you're wondering about that, events elsewhere in Washington, I think, show why it's necessary. As you might have heard, every Democrat in the Senate just voted against a measure that would have required doctors to provide life-saving medical treatment to infants who are born alive after a botched abortion.
So they've temporarily blocked the bill because in the Senate, as of now, you need 60 votes to clear a filibuster and force a vote. Now, even the reasonable Democrats, like noted slob John Fetterman, voted in favor of infanticide, voted against the bill and in favor of infanticide.
Here's what Fetterman wrote, quote, I've always stood on the side of Roe and a woman's right to make her own health care choices. It's absurd to mandate criminalization because of those choices. Any bill that does so, including the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act, is a no from me. It's absurd. It's absurd, he says, to provide medical treatment to infant children who are already born.
Infant children who are lying on the table and dying. John Fetterman, that disgusting oaf, that slob, John Fetterman, Shrek, says that it's absurd to provide them. He's not even just opposed to it. It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous thing to try to provide medical care to infants. That's what this bridge troll says.
In other words, he's saying that women have the right to murder their children even after they're born. And of course, this is the natural extension of Democrats' pro-abortion logic. And in this case, he's just coming right out and saying it. So no, I really don't want to hear another word about so-called moderate Democrats. A lot of people have been saying that about John Fetterman lately.
In fact, when I was criticizing him for dressing like a gross, disgusting, ridiculous slob at the inauguration wearing gym clothes, there were a lot of conservatives who said, well, he's one of the good ones. Don't criticize him. Oh, yeah, he's a good one who just voted in favor of infanticide. That's the good one? Now, there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat.
I don't know how many times we need to learn this lesson. Even the moderate mainstream Democrats believe that infant children outside the womb have no inherent right to life. Now, if you look at the text of the law, that becomes very clear. Here's what the law requires. Quote, any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall...
A, exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.
And B, following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph A, ensure the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
And then the law states, quote, a health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's office or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph one shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate state or federal law enforcement agency or to both. This is not some hypothetical scenario.
I mean, it happens more often than you might think. In Florida, 14 babies were reported to have survived abortions in 2023, and 16 babies survived abortions in 2022. That's just in one state. In Michigan, 122 babies were involved in so-called failed abortions, and we have no information as to what happened to them afterwards.
In Tim Walz's Minnesota, as we've previously discussed, at least five abortions resulted in a live birth in 2021. And instead of receiving life-saving measures, at least two of those infants received comfort care, which is to say they let them die. And instead of outlawing this, the state of Minnesota decided to simply stop posting records from those failed abortions.
So now they can kill infants and not tell anyone. On the Senate floor, Chuck Schumer made an attempt to defend infanticide. Here's how he framed the argument. Listen.
The bill is a very definition of pernicious. It attacks women's health care using false narratives and outright fear mongering. And it adds more legal risks for doctors on something that's already illegal. So much of the hard rights anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little to no understanding of what women go through when they're pregnant.
The scenario targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter. The agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. And at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment
of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of families and allows the ultra-right ideology to dictate what they do.
First of all, he claims that the bill is redundant. He suggests that it's already illegal to commit infanticide. But, I mean, first of all, since when do the Democrats care about that, even if it was true? They pass redundant bills all the time. Remember, it was the Biden administration.
There was a lot of fanfare around the Biden administration making lynching illegal, signing a bill banning lynching, even though lynching is already illegal in 50 different ways. So since when do they care about a law being redundant? But in this case, it's not redundant.
As we just established, many states are currently allowing doctors to kill infants after they're born by providing them with a lesser standard of care. The doctors are allowed to do this and no one reports them for it. The law against murder is clearly not being enforced in these contexts. That's why we need this legislation, because it actually addresses the problem.
It enhances the reporting requirements surrounding this barbarism so that doctors can't keep hiding it. If you parse what Schumer is saying, he's trying to argue that some women decide to kill their children when it's clear that they're going to have serious life-altering medical problems.
And then when those children manage to survive the abortion, he's saying that we should allow the women to finish the job, so to speak. But again, having a life-altering medical problem doesn't mean you deserve to die. You are entitled to the same degree of care as anyone else with that life-altering medical problem. And that's what the bill requires.
I mean, what if a four-year-old child has an accident on the playground and ends up disabled for life? Would it be okay with Chuck if the child's parents decided to simply suffocate him with a pillow and throw him in a dumpster out back? Apparently so, because that's what his own logic would justify. Democrats' decision to block this bill, I think, proves two things.
First of all, it shows that the Democrat Party is still radically, horrifically, satanically extreme, despite whatever concessions to moderates they claim to be making. And secondly, it demonstrates that despite all of our victories in recent days and years, we still have a lot of work to do. The pro-life movement has never had more power than it has right now. And
At this moment, after the over-embrace of infanticide that we just saw in Congress, it's clear that we need to use it. Now let's get to our five headlines. Okay, quite a lot going on right now. It's hard to keep track of it all. What's that saying? There are... Years when nothing happens and weeks when years happen or something like that. So a lot's going on.
So let's try to get through as much of it as we can. Daily Mail reports, the last secret files about the assassination of John F. Kennedy can now be published after President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the declassification of all remaining documents about the 1963 murder.
And this also, the executive order obtained by the Daily Mail said, more than 50 years after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Roderick F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the federal government has not released to the public all of its records related to those events. Their families and the American people deserve transparency and truth.
It is in the national interest to finally release all records related to these assassinations without delay. And his intelligence chiefs will have 45 days to put together a plan to release the RFK and King archives. And so all this stuff is coming out. I mean, it's just kind of mind-boggling and mind-blowing what's happening right now.
I mean, think of it this way, declassifying all documents related to the most significant and high-profile assassinations of the 20th century is the kind of thing that if it's going to happen at all, you would expect that it would be the capstone of a presidency, right?
It's the kind of thing that if a president's going to do it, which none of them have up until now, you'd think they'd do it on the way out the door. Instead, Trump has jumped right in and done it right away. And he's doing it along with dozens of other extremely significant, far-reaching, truly revolutionary moves. And this is all in the first week. And here's another way of looking at it.
Take everything Trump has done in week one and spread it out over the course of four years. If that's all he did in his presidency, if he only did the stuff he's done this week and you spread it out, we would have to say at the end of his term that it was a highly successful presidency.
If it was just this one week of stuff and it was spread out, you'd look back at it after four years and say, wow, that was a whirlwind presidency. I mean, he achieved quite a lot. And yet this has all been done in one week. I mean, it's extraordinary. What else is there to say? To me,
Trump's second term in office so far, and we're only a week in, but so far his second term is the fulfillment of Trump's promise. And I don't just mean that he's fulfilling actual promises that he made, although he is doing that. I mean that it's the fulfillment of the promise of having a guy like Trump in the White House. People who supported Trump from day one, going all the way back to 2015,
The people who supported him all the way back then, they did precisely because they imagined that he would be the kind of guy who would do exactly what he's been doing this week. And that didn't happen his first term, right? At the end of Trump's first term, you had to look back on it and say, well, it was successful. He was a good president.
But in terms of the actions he took as an executive, it was, for the most part, pretty well in line with what you would expect from a solid Republican president. There really wasn't anything that he did in the first term where you would look at that and say, okay, well, only Trump would do that. But this is different.
Now he's doing things where you look at it and you say, yeah, only Trump would do that. We needed Trump to do that. He's doing things that no Republican president before him did.
did and he's doing things that very very very few republicans today would do um so already in week one we can say okay we needed trump for this we needed trump to do this kind of thing uh so it's been just remarkable truly um
And also, by the way, you can't understate, I mean, Charlie Kirk had a tweet about this yesterday, and I think it's certainly true that people are talking about Trump 2.0 and how Trump 2.0 is so much more focused and determined and just on a mission to get as much done as he possibly can. And that's true. But the other part of that is it's Trump 2.0. It's also Trump's team 2.0.
So we also have to give a lot of credit to the team around him. Just a much better team this time. So much better. And he's got people around him who are just like him, are also on a mission, know exactly what they want to do, are determined to do it. And they don't care what the media says about it, what the left says about it. We're just going to get it done. People like Charlie Kirk.
So, all right, now let's go check out the rumor mill. There's a lot of discussion on social media this week about the rumor that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are headed for a divorce. And so far, American media outlets are staying far, far away from this story, as you would expect. But it's all over social media.
It was trending on Twitter last night, on X. I was looking for an article about it. And as for American outlets, I found nothing except for this in Yahoo. It says, rumors are rife surrounding Barack and Michelle Obama's marriage and there's growing speculation that they're headed for a divorce.
The couple, who have been married for over three decades, have recently garnered significant attention to their personal life. Speculation has intensified after Michelle skipped two high-profile events fueling discussions about the couple's marriage. So she was not at Jimmy Carter's funeral, and she also was not at the inauguration. Now, not being at the inauguration is – it's weird. It's strange.
It looked weird. Especially when you had – if you were watching the inauguration, the ceremony, and there's this long process of all of the – upper-level, mucky-muck people coming out, and they all walk out slowly, and most of them are paired up, you know, married couples, and then you just see Barack Obama walk out by himself without his wife. It looked really strange.
Now, that you could explain maybe just by the fact that Michelle hates Donald Trump with passion, and so she refused to go. Not going to Jimmy Carter's funeral, though, is different. That, to me, is the much stranger absence. So there's that that's fueling the rumors.
And then there's also just rumors of people claiming that they have talked to people that are close to the Obamas or in the inner circle. And, you know, that's where all this stuff is coming from. And the other part of this rumor, which isn't mentioned in the article, is that allegedly Barack and Jennifer Aniston are now an item, allegedly, according to the rumor. That's the rumor.
That he's cheating on Michelle with Jennifer Aniston. That's the gossip. That's the tea, as the kids would say. I don't know if the tea is correct, but that's what it is. I don't know if any of this is true. I will say that it will be pretty damned hilarious if Barack leaves his wife for a white woman. I mean, we don't root for that to happen. I believe in the sanctity of marriage.
I don't want anyone to get divorced, even Michelle and Barack. But there would just be so many levels of irony to that. And for so many people on the left and so many of the race hustlers who idolize and worship Barack, it would cause such turmoil for them that I admit I would enjoy it. But Those are the rumors. I will say personally, and maybe I have no information. I don't know.
I don't know anybody. But I find these rumors implausible for two reasons. And first, it's hard to believe that Barack Obama is shacking up with Jennifer Aniston. Because she doesn't seem like his type. you know, if you catch my drift, you know, I mean, according to other rumors, Jennifer Aniston is not Barack Obama's type. And I don't mean because she's white.
That's not the physical feature that would seem to take her out of the running in the Barack Obama sweepstakes. You know, I don't, I'm trying to be delicate about it. Because he's gay. That's the reason. I mean, that's allegedly. Allegedly. That's the allegation is that he's gay. I don't know.
It's an allegation based at least in part on the fact that he said himself in a letter to his ex-girlfriend back in the 80s that he imagines himself making love to men every day. He did say that. So pretty substantial evidence that he's gay just based on that alone.
But the other problem with this rumor is that successful and ambitious public figures, politicians in particular, just don't get divorced. Divorce is too messy. It's too ugly. And that's why there's a long, long history of political couples who hate each other and stay together for decades anyway, purely for appearances. Bill and Hillary are obviously the poster children. So why even get divorced?
I mean, they can live in separate houses and lead their own lives and just appear in public together a couple times a year. You know, like I said, there's a long tradition of that sort of thing. Why muck things up with a divorce? Image is everything for these people. Image, brand, that's all they care about. And that's enough to keep them together.
So, you know, you've heard stay together for the kids, which, by the way, is a good reason to stay together. But for people like Barack and Michelle, it's stay together for the brand. And so I don't see this happening. But that's also why if they do divorce, if the rumors, which could be totally unsubstantiated, are true...
I tell you right now, it's going to be accompanied by a major marketing push for divorce. Now, obviously, divorce is already hugely popular in America. I realize that. But an Obama divorce means that we're going to see divorce celebrated and promoted in this country like we've never seen before. And we've already seen it happen.
But it'll be at a level we've never seen because the media will tell us, They're not going to be able to say, oh, well, Barack and Michelle failed in their marriage and their failures, and that's why they're divorced. Because that's what it means when you get a divorce. It means you failed. They won't be able to say that.
So instead, they're going to tell us that, no, the Obamas are role models for getting divorced. Getting divorced in your 60s is strong and courageous. Everyone should be doing it. So if you think we're already a divorce-obsessed culture, well... We ain't seen nothing yet, if this turns out to be true. But we will see. Speaking of crumbling marriages, a theme emerges. The Daily Mail has this.
Kamala Harris was all smiles and affection for her beloved second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, in the immediate aftermath of her crushing presidential election defeat. But now that President Donald Trump has been sworn into office, for sore loser Harris, it is now all about the blame game, and her target has flipped to her, quote, deadweight husband.
And as she weighs her political future, maybe a 2026 run for governor of California or another try for the nation's top job two years later, please, please do that. Please do that, Kamala. Nevertheless, she persisted. Remember, don't let these sexist men get you down. Run for president again. Keep running. I mean, you're what, 60?
You got three, four, five presidential term cycles that you can still run for. So I say keep doing it. Keep going for it. Anyway, she... According to Daily Mail, she has to consider whether Emhoff is an asset or a liability. One source exclusively told DailyMail.com there's plenty of blame to go around as far as Kamala is concerned and Doug has his share.
Doug did Kamala no favors during the election. Frankly, he looked like a hypocritical ass after the bombshells that he had got his child's nanny pregnant while married to his first wife and assaulted his ex-girlfriend on the heels of his I Am Woman crusade. So... Another political marriage on the rocks, according to sources. In this case, at least it is being reported by some mainstream outlets.
That's the other thing. I'll tell you this. If Barack and Michelle get divorced, if that does happen, you're going to see a wave of political divorces after that. If they get divorced, then every prominent political couple... in the country is going to be divorced in the next two years.
Because they're going to finally, once they make that okay, then all the rest of them are going to look at each other like, okay, we don't have to fake it anymore. So that's the other thing that's going to happen. But the Doug Emhoff story, I think, is interesting. That there's kind of a lesson here. This is not just delighting in the rumor mill. There's a lesson.
If this is true, there's a lesson here. that this is what happens when you take the backseat to your wife and you let her take the lead. And you kind of play the housewife role, which is what Doug Emhoff was doing. Now, if you do it, as Emhoff did... You'll be celebrated. You'll be praised.
Your wife, if she is a feminist in good standing, will say that she's so appreciative of how supportive you're being. But in truth, she will begin to see you as dead weight. Because If you're Doug Emhoff, and in his case, his wife's running for president, and he doesn't even have a job anymore, and his whole role is just to be her caddy, following her around and holding her purse.
Inevitably, when you do that, and you become that as a man, as a husband, your wife's going to look at you and say, why do I need this guy? What are you doing exactly? What purpose are you serving? And as much as we might try to pretend that gender roles are arbitrary and meaningless, the fact is that you make yourself useless.
You make yourself dead weight if you don't fulfill your quote-unquote gender role. And the same thing happens in the reverse. If a man works for a living and... So he's kind of fulfilling his role as the provider, but he has a wife who doesn't really cook, doesn't really clean, isn't terribly attentive to the kids, isn't a homemaker.
Then he starts to look around and he thinks, well, why do I need this? What is she doing exactly? I wanted a wife and I don't have one. She's not doing any of the wifely things. I'm doing everything. Like, you know, I'm better with the kids than she is. You know, I do all this stuff more than she does. And once that thought occurs to him, well, now the marriage is hurtling towards disaster.
You know, so this really goes both ways. And the common thread is that a spouse isn't living up to the promise, which is implicit, or in fact explicit, in the marriage vows. no matter what modern society says, no matter what we try to tell ourselves, no matter how we lie to ourselves, the fact remains that when a woman marries a man, she wants a husband. And that means something.
Not a business partner, not just a friend or a roommate, not a generic associate who comes along for the ride. She wants a husband. Otherwise, what's the point? And if the husband isn't doing any of the things that husbands were always meant to do, again, what's the point? And so don't be Doug Emhoff.
Despite what you were told by the media as a man to model yourself after Doug Emhoff, well, this is what happens. Failure and disgrace. And then you get discarded. That's what being Doug Emhoff gets you. Let's see. Here's a very important story. So we've done a few things that are kind of important, but I did have to mention this.
Daily Mail again reports on a controversy surrounding a healthcare worker's decision to apparently twerk on her patient's head. Now the question is, why did she do this? Was it part of some kind of some kind of unorthodox medical treatment. Well, the report says, a healthcare worker has prompted outrage after sharing videos of her twerking on top of a disabled patient's head.
Lucretia Coyen from Loganville, Georgia, claims she's the woman seen in the now viral footage. In the clip, 19-year-old Coyen is seen 19. How is she a healthcare worker at 19? So there's your first problem. Seen dancing on the handles of a patient's wheelchair. And this apparently provoked backlash. Oh, you think? So here's Ms. Koyan addressing her revolutionary healthcare techniques. Watch.
Right now it's a video that's gone viral of me, the healthcare worker, that's dancing on top of her patient's head. It's not what it is. Trust and believe. All I got to say for now is angles play a big part, but we're going to get into that another time. Okay? A lot of people in the comments talking about sex. Just all type of dumb. I'm verbal. Trust and believe. He's verbal.
And if he's not verbal to his kins, then I don't know what's going on over there. But around here, he be verbal. And I got proof. What you said? Can I get my hug? You want to get a hug? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. He looks very aware and comfortable to me, so y'all need to stop jumping to conclusions. Even though, yeah, I do see how you look, but trust me, it's not that. Enough is enough. Stay tuned.
Yeah, you know, I mean, she does. She has a point. What like what are we always told? We're always told don't get in the middle of a patient and their health care provider. It's not our business. It's not for us to interfere. Besides, this is America. And if we don't have the right to twerk on the heads of medical patients, then what is this country? What did our forefathers fight and die for?
If we can't even twerk on the head of one disabled person in a wheelchair, what's the point? The Constitution is dead, I tell you. Anyway, this woman's obviously a monster, should be fired clearly, also arrested for assault. And every day with each new viral dancing video, my faith in the healthcare industry dies a little more. At this point, I have no faith at all.
I mean, it died a long time ago, but the stuff keeps piling on. And now I have to worry that if I go in for surgery, that there's going to be a twerking contest happening. while I'm laying there unconscious. I mean, this is yet another thing I have to worry about.
And the thing that concerns me the most, of course, is that the fact that a person like this was able to get a job in health care to begin with. Now, sure, I mean, the medical institution, and I don't know, the report doesn't say what hospital or clinic this happened at, but whatever the medical institution was, they can always say, well, hey,
We didn't know that she was going to start twerking on our patients. And, you know, okay, maybe they didn't. Maybe she didn't list that skill on her resume. I could buy that. But there's just no way that after this video goes viral, there's no way that her immediate managers are going to look at that and go, wow, that's shocking. She didn't seem like the type.
No, they're going to, I mean, they'll be shocked because it's shocking behavior, but it's not going to be, it's like, they're going to think to themselves, well, yeah, if anyone here was going to do that, it would have been her.
So my point is that if you're the sort of person who would do this, then you have various serious mental and moral defects that should be glaringly obvious from the outset. And yet she still managed to get a job at some level in healthcare, which is quite disturbing. Let's get to the comment section.
Not only did that lady cop have two fingers in the trigger guard, but she also had the muzzle pointed at the dude. Rules one and two of firearm safety, and she broke both of them. That's the one good thing to come of the incident, is that the video can now be used in gun safety classes for the rest of time, which I assume it will be.
It's a perfect teaching tool, given that she broke all of the most basic gun safety rules. She did everything precisely wrong, so... It is a tool that can be used to educate people in the future, I suppose. I wonder if Matt was aware of the Masonic symbol in his logo, the one triangle up and one down. All the DW hosts have a Masonic symbol.
Slide the two triangles together toward each other and remove the middle piece and you get the hexagram also, Israel's national symbol to boot. Actually, the symbol is my initials. So that's the deep, dark secret behind the Matt Walsh logo is MW. So what you're saying is that my parents were engaged in some kind of conspiracy when they gave me those initials. But really, it goes back to them.
Although I do have to say that I... I really kind of envy people like you that left this comment. People who see conspiracies and secret symbols everywhere all the time. I mean, I'm not even being facetious. I actually do envy that because it has to be a pretty entertaining life. I mean, you're living every day in basically an Indiana Jones film. And it's got to be really interesting.
I mean, I don't know if it's a recipe for a successful life or being a successful, well-rounded, grounded, intelligent person. But It's got to be entertaining. I mean, you must be having a blast. And so something to be said for that. I'm going to have to put my two cents for why I'm pro women in the police force.
It's true that men are stronger physically than women in most cases, but women are better at talking slash relating slash being empathetic towards people. A woman cop might be better at keeping the altercation from being violent. In my opinion, we should want to avoid violent altercations. Those other people will sue the police department if injured or someone dies.
We should want to reduce liability. Women are better at keeping altercations neutral so it doesn't get to the point of having to take down the other person. Also, I would personally not want to arrest a typically nonviolent person because they have anxiety with police, like for a traffic stop. They'll potentially get caught in the system, plus it hurts their potential future employment.
The goal should be not letting an altercation get to the point where a police officer has to get physical. But I don't think it actually works that way. I mean, we saw in the video yesterday a nonviolent encounter was turned violent because of the female cop's incompetence.
And generally speaking, avoiding violent altercations, which I certainly agree should be the goal, but avoiding them often requires violence. it didn't require it in this case. In this case, you just needed to have to be, you know, even just basically competent.
But often with police work, I think avoiding a violent encounter requires, among other things, a more physically imposing presence because a suspect is less likely to become violent if he knows ahead of time that he won't get away with it. Now, that's not going to stop That's not always going to stop someone from getting violent. I mean, we know that clearly.
But if he is going to be stopped ahead of time, I would think that a larger, stronger male cop is more likely to get that kind of peaceful compliance than a smaller, weaker female cop. Or even if the altercation does become tense or even physical...
A male cop is going to have a better chance of just containing the person and getting them under control without having to resort to tasers and guns and all the rest of it. But a female cop is going to have a harder time doing that. And I think the female cop also presents a kind of temptation to the suspect because he knows that he could overpower her and run away and escape.
and is probably more likely to try it. But also, just on an emotional level, which is what you're talking about, you have a better chance of keeping things peaceful if you can keep yourself together and not lose your cool and not take things personally and not get overly emotional. So, is a female cop less likely to to lose her cool in that situation?
Is a female cop, is a female in general less likely to take things personally, get a bit emotional, you know, get a little bit flustered in these kinds of situations? Like you're saying a woman is less likely to have that happen? I just don't, I don't think that's the case. I don't know what you're basing that on. I think that
Because when we talk about combat roles or police work or being a firefighter, and we say that men are better suited for these jobs, which they are, we often focus on the physical side of it.
which is kind of the easier thing and the less controversial thing, I suppose, to talk about, to just point out that, hey, men are stronger, and it requires physical strength to do these jobs, and so men should do them. I think we talk a little bit less about the emotional and psychological aspects of these jobs and how men on that level are also better suited for them. Women are not inferior.
It's nothing like that. Men and women are just different. Men and women are different. And men have an easier time being sort of emotionally detached, not taking things personally, not kind of bringing emotions into it. I think men just have an easier time with that in general. Women tend to be more emotional. It shouldn't be a controversial thing to say.
And by the way, in most contexts in life, that's a good thing. I wouldn't want women to be emotionally identical to men. I don't want my wife to be emotionally identical to me. I don't want that. Men and women are different. It's a good thing. But...
In some of these jobs, there's a certain kind of emotional and psychological burden that you have to bear that I think often men are simply better suited for. And as I said, that's the less popular thing to talk about when we discuss this issue, but I also think it shouldn't be controversial. I think we all recognize this.
It's the final weekend to get 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus annual membership. 47% off because, of course, we're celebrating Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States. Our celebration will continue, but the deal ends Sunday. All you got to do is head over to dailywire.com subscribe. Use code 47.
You'll lock in 47% off for an entire year of Daily Wire Plus, our original groundbreaking entertainment, including the number one documentary of the decade, Am I Racist? And so much more is all available to you. Every dollar you spend goes directly back into the fight to bring you the facts and reshape culture. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code 47 at checkout and let's build the future together. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. A month ago, we got the tragic news that my film, Am I Racist?, was not going to be an Oscars contender. The Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences decided that the top documentary of the decade did not deserve a nomination of any kind or even a spot on the shortlist for nominees.
And this was a legitimate and, by all rights, objectively speaking, outrageous snub, but it was also about as surprising as the fact that I wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize last year. Or any year before that, believe it or not. It's not hard to understand what's going on here. The Academy has clearly decided to exclude conservatives from having their work recognized.
The left believes that it owns the art of filmmaking. And any outsider, especially an outsider who is successful, is immediately cast out. We are intruders. We are interlopers. You might even say that we are undocumented migrants in the land of filmmaking. Build the wall, Hollywood shouts, in our case.
Still, that left the question of what kind of films the Academy would decide to shower with awards this year. And now, at long last, we have an answer to that question. And specifically, we know that a Netflix musical called Amelia Perez has just received 13 nominations at the Oscars, which is by far the most of any film this year.
Those nominations include Best Picture, Best Director, among a slew of other major categories. And now, before we talk about it, I will admit that I'm biased. I hate musicals in general. And the problem is that my suspension of disbelief totally breaks down the moment the character starts singing. And I start to wonder, you know, well, I just think of it too literally, I guess.
And I start to wonder, how do the characters all know the words to this song? Why are the other characters on screen not reacting with shock or confusion when one of them bursts into song randomly? And even on the rare occasion when the songs in a musical are actually not awful, I still find myself enduring them. I'm just waiting for the characters to stop singing so we can get back to the story.
And, you know, if you think I'm being hard on musicals, just ask yourself one question. When was the last time you watched a non-musical movie and thought to yourself, You know what this movie could use? Random musical numbers. You've never thought that about any movie because singing does not improve a movie. In the case of the musical, you just kind of tolerate it. That's my take on that.
Those are my cards on the table. I'm not a musical guy. But even with that bias, I still think I can say with some credibility that this musical is extra bad. It is, whether you like musicals or not... an extremely terrible film. It has to be said that this film is so atrocious, so obviously bad in every way that it actually manages to do the impossible.
It makes Joker 2 slightly less atrocious to the point that it's no longer the worst musical of the last century. Watching Joker 2, as horrible as that film was, cannot possibly prepare you for the pile of donkey dung that is Amelia Perez.
Now, to give you a sense of the plot, such as it is, the film is about a murderous cartel leader who decides that he wants to live a more authentic life, so he hires a lawyer to help him transition into a woman and then go into hiding. leaving his family behind. And the lawyer ends up checking out a hospital in Bangkok that's apparently willing to perform the surgery.
And that leads us to this scene, which is so much worse than I ever imagined it could possibly be. Even after everything I heard about this film, nothing could have prepared me for this. And I promise you, this is real. This is actually in the movie. You might think that this is AI or something. This is some kind of weird AI parody. No, this is in the movie, okay?
This is one of the major musical numbers in this film, which just received 13 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Here it is.
Hello, very nice to meet you. I'd like to know about sex change operation.
I see, I see, I see. Man to woman or woman to men.
Man to woman.
No.
What would you like to know about it, madam? I want to know it all.
What is the protocol? The techniques and the risks? How many operations? How much time do you need?
Mammoplasty, vaginoplasty, rhinoplasty, laryngoplasty, mammoplasty, vaginoplasty, rhinoplasty, laryngoplasty, control laryngoplasty.
What is that?
Adam's apple reduction. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Yes, From Penis to Vagina. That was a line in the song. It was almost certainly the first song in world history to have that line, for better or worse. In this case, worse. By the way, The Godfather, the greatest cinematic masterpiece of all time, received 11 Oscar nominations. This movie got 13. I say that again, the movie you just saw got 13 Oscar nominations.
In fact, we could go on all day with these kinds of comparisons because very few films in Hollywood history have had as many nominations as this train wreck. The record shared by a few films, I think two or three, is 14. So Amelia Perez missed the record by one, which is no doubt a sign that transphobia is alive and well in Hollywood. Oscars so transphobic.
They only gave the trans musical 13 nominations. Now, in any case, what they're trying to convey in that scene that I just showed you, I think, is that this particular gender clinic is a little indiscreet and business-oriented, so the lawyer needs to find another place to secretly transition the murderous cartel boss. But really, this scene conveys a lot more than that.
First of all, it conveys that this movie has the worst writing that we've ever seen in a professional film. It appears that the writers were all drunk or high or severely brain damaged or some combination of the three. They're also conveying that the actors can't hold a tune, can't carry a tune, which is a rather significant problem for a musical. Badly written songs, badly performed.
And of course, with the whole Night of the Living Dead routine, they're just highlighting how barbaric these procedures really are, which is why a lot of trans activists and trans organizations are already condemning this film. It's too much even for them. Like when you produce a piece of trans propaganda that makes even trans activists stop and go, hey, whoa, take it easy. This is a bit much.
It's a little on the nose, guys. Well, then you have a serious problem in that case. So you can start to see why this film isn't exactly going over well with audiences, particularly audiences in Mexico, by the way, where this film is set. This is a portrayal of Mexico that was filmed in Europe and written by a French filmmaker. And which I mean, that in and of itself, no problem.
But the problem is that it kind of shows they're presenting this as some kind of authentic look into Mexican culture. When it's really an authentic portrayal of what a ham-fisted director can achieve when handed a script that could have been written by a team of semi-literate crackheads. And that's not even the worst scene, arguably.
As the plot continues, the cartel leader eventually reunites with his family in a kind of Mrs. Doubtfire situation where he pretends to be somebody else. It's all very creepy. It doesn't really make a lot of sense. It eventually leads to this scene where an actress just comes out and states the moral of the film, which is that undergoing trans surgery somehow makes you a better person.
That's what the plot is getting at. This horrible cartel boss gets a sex change and undergoes a kind of spiritual rebirth. In this particular scene, the doctor tries to say that trans surgeries are just about cutting up body parts. He said it doesn't actually make you a better person. But that's when we get this musical number about how actually the doctor is wrong. Watch.
Doctor, I know you did a lot of studies.
Doctor, but let me say I disagree.
Please.
Changing the body changes society. Changing society changes the soul. Changing the soul changes society. Changing society changes it all. Doctor, you better trust my Mr. Mystery. If you had seen what he has shown to me, you'd be a better man.
Now you could argue that the guy in that scene just gave the greatest acting performance of all time. You could argue. Because we cannot understate the incredible acting skill it must require to sit there and not break out into hysterical fits of laughter when the other actor in the scene is singing a song like that. In fact, I thought the same thing about Sonic 3.
Not to bring Sonic 3 back into this, but I thought the same thing about Sonic 3. That you could argue that all of the human actors, all the live human actors in Sonic, all deserve Oscar nominations. Only because acting in a film like that and delivering the lines without laughing is Uh, being able to do that alone, I think is a, is a, is a, is a towering, uh, artistic achievement.
So anyway, uh, but back to this one, you know, the whole thing is not exactly subtle propaganda, but it apparently resonated with the Academy. And in particular, the Academy was impressed with the performance of the trans identifying man named Carlos Sophia Gascon, who plays the drug dealer in the film. So this is a trans identified actor playing a trans character. Um,
So the Academy gave Gascon the nomination for Best Actress in a Leading Role. So for the first time in history, a man has been nominated for Best Actress. And he's almost certainly going to win, of course. So the Academy is, you know, they're obviously looking for a way to send a message to Donald Trump in one way or another. Cairns gave him the Best Actress Award already.
Golden Globes did the same thing a few weeks ago when they gave the film the Best Picture for a Musical Comedy Award. And then Gascon went up to the podium and gave an incoherent speech about how trans-identifying people are being thrown in jail and beaten up, allegedly. Watch.
The light always wins over darkness. I have a lot of things to say to you because you can maybe put us in jail, you can beat us up, but you never can take away our soul, our existence, our identity. And I want to say to you, raise your voice, freedom, and say, I want, I am who I am. Know who you want. Thank you so much.
Now, putting aside the whole Saab story, I mean, this is an actor who decided in his late 40s that he's really a woman. It's one of the least convincing imitations of a woman that you'll ever see. Nobody watching this person will conclude, even for a second, that he's a woman. But in this film, we're supposed to believe that this cartel boss has everybody fooled.
No one, not even his own family, can detect the ruse. All he had to do was put a wig on and a dress, and nobody has any idea. It's also ridiculous and grotesque that in a rare case of political unity, the outrage has actually been bipartisan.
A lot of people on the left are especially upset as the LA Times reports, quote, Mexican intellectuals have accused the movie of reducing the country's horrific drug wars, which have killed nearly half a million people with more than 100,000 missing in this century alone, to a song and dance farce. GLAAD described it as a profoundly retrograde portrayal of a trans woman
On a podcast, superstar Mexican comic Eugenia Derbez ridiculed the accent of Mexican-American Selena Gomez, who plays Emilia's wife, as indefensible. Apparently the performance is so bad that it's causing an international incident over Mexico. One person writes, even Terminator's hasta la vista babies sounded more natural.
There are a lot of comparisons to Brendan Fraser and Bedazzled, Robocop, and so on. Taco Bell is apparently more authentically Mexican than this film is. And on top of that, It's not just the left in all of Mexico that's upset by this trash heap of a movie. There's also backlash coming from the right, especially now that a man has been nominated for Best Actress.
But in this case, I think the outrage from the right is misplaced. That's because when this man wins the award for Best Actress, which he most likely will, It'll be the first time in history, the first time in the history of the Academy Awards that women are shut out of both lead acting awards. They will not win. No woman will win a lead acting award in the 2025 Academy Awards, most likely.
And of course, the other nominees will have to pretend to be thrilled about that. You know, Mikey Madison, whoever that is, Demi Moore, Fernanda Torres, I only recognize one of those names. Everybody else will clap and pretend that it's the greatest thing ever. And so will his co-stars, including Selena Gomez. So why not just let them pretend? Let the dude take home the best actress trophy.
The actual female actresses who get robbed by this deserve it. None of them have the courage to speak out about the trans madness. Certainly none of them will have the guts to say anything about this. And so now the monster they helped to create is turning against them. And the timing couldn't be worse for these people. Most Americans have moved on from gender ideology.
We're moving past this farce, as the second Trump administration is demonstrating. But the weakest and most cowardly among us, namely every actress in Hollywood, are still clinging to it. And now it's probably going to cost them in a very tangible way. And there's some real poetic justice there. Amelia Perez isn't actually about the transformative power of gender ideology.
It's about how gender ideology degrades women and insults everyone's intelligence on a grand scale. And that's not the message the filmmakers wanted to send to this film, but it's the message that everybody has received. And that is why the man who's been nominated for Best Actress in the Academy Awards and the actresses who are too cowardly to object to it are today canceled.
I'll do it for the show today and this week. Have a great weekend. Talk to you on Monday.