The Matt Walsh Show
Ep. 1524 - Selena Gomez Should Deport Herself In Solidarity With 'Her People'
Tue, 28 Jan 2025
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Hollywood celebrities are openly weeping over Trump’s immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, Trump is more popular than he’s ever been in his political career. That tells you everything you need to know. Also, Trump again floats the possibility of abolishing the income tax. I’ll explain why that would instantly make him at least the second greatest president in US history. And New York Magazine tries to slander young right-wing Trump supporters, but instead accidentally makes them seem cool as hell. And, in our Daily Cancelation, I’m afraid I must cancel a certain prominent Republican congresswoman. She has left me no choice. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6 Ep.1524 - - - DailyWire+: Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today. "Identity Crisis" tells the stories the mainstream media won’t. Stream the full film now, only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3C61qVU Order your Mayflower Cigars here: https://bit.ly/3Qwwxx2 (Must be 21+ to purchase. Exclusions may apply) - - - Today's Sponsors: Lumen - Take the next step to improving your health: go to https://lumen.me/WALSH to get 20% off your Lumen. PureTalk - Switch to Pure Talk and start saving today! Visit https://PureTalk.com/WALSH - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Hollywood celebrities are openly weeping over Trump's immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, Trump is more popular than he's ever been in his political career. That tells you pretty much everything you need to know. Also, Trump again floats the possibility of abolishing the income tax.
I'll explain why that would instantly make him at least the second greatest president in US history. And New York Magazine tries to slander young right-wing Trump supporters, but instead accidentally makes them seem cool as hell. And in our daily cancellation, I'm afraid I must cancel a certain prominent Republican congresswoman. She's left me no choice.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. Did you know that 80% of resolutions fail by February? Well, this year can be different because I've discovered something that transformed my approach to health. It's called Lumen, the world's first handheld metabolic coach. Now, 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. I can even check before and after workouts to optimize my fitness routine and make sure I'm staying on track for my 2025 goals. Your metabolism, it's 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. And who doesn't want that?
Well, the best part, 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 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. Just over a week into Donald Trump's second term in office, it has to be said that Kamala Harris's talking points from the presidential campaign are not exactly aging well. You might remember that one of Kamala's taglines during the campaign was, Donald Trump has an enemies list, I have a to-do list.
And the line was supposed to conjure up a contrast in voters' minds, a contrast between a president who gets rid of his enemies and a president who actually gets things done. But it turns out that Kamala's campaign misunderstood that those two things are not mutually exclusive. A president can indeed punish the enemies of civilization and also... get a lot of other stuff done at the same time.
And that's exactly what Trump has accomplished so far by all accounts. Now to be clear, I'm not bringing this up to trash Kamala Harris, who isn't worth thinking about anymore, much less talking about. But as dumb as her campaign slogan was, it's clear that many Democrats thought it made sense. And now that Trump is actually in office, they have no idea what to make of it.
They can't comprehend the fact that Trump is destroying America's enemies while advancing American interests, and that voters are responding very favorably to his new administration as a result. So here, for example, was the scene the other day on CNN when the anchor realizes, to her shock and horror, that Trump is now far more popular today than he ever was during his first term. Watch.
Take me back in history.
take you back in history. So it was so interesting to me that Donald Trump's first net approval rating of his second term is higher than his entire first term. And I was interested, has that ever happened? Has the second term net approval rating in the first month, have you ever had a higher rating than any net approval rating during the entire first term?
Donald Trump is the only... I have a really hard time believing this. This is 100% true. I went back. I love spreadsheets. Donald Trump is the first guy ever whose net approval rating in the first month of his second term is higher than any rating that he had as an entire first term, Kate Baldwin. This is true. I don't make stuff up. The numbers are the numbers.
So once again, there's the screen guys circling and underlining things for no reason. You don't need to underline the words on the screen. They're already typed in giant bold letters. We can see them. But anyway, more to the point, the audible gasp from the CNN anchor is a clue that nobody at CNN has any idea how this is happening.
How can Trump possibly have a higher approval rating after all of his felony convictions and all the attacks and the most well-funded and consistently sustained smear campaign against a single individual person in the history of American politics? How is that possible?
Well, it begins to make sense when you realize that the agenda Trump is aggressively pushing through in his first two weeks in office is not or need not be partisan or ideological. His executive orders and other actions aren't necessarily conservative at all, much less right wing. Instead, Trump is advancing something called common sense.
Now, common sense has become right wing by default, but it's still common sense. And it happens to appeal to a lot of Americans, regardless of whether they describe themselves as liberal or conservative. Most Americans agree, for example, that people with serious mental illnesses should not serve in the armed forces. That's an intuitive concept that doesn't need any explanation.
Until around 10 years ago, even Democrats would not object to that. So when Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that trans-identifying individuals would be banned from serving or enlisting in the military, as they did the other day, makes a lot of sense to most people.
As the White House put it, quote, unit cohesion requires high levels of integrity and stability among service members. And because trans-identifying people don't meet those requirements, they can't serve, period. End of discussion. It's pretty simple. In just the past few days, the Trump administration has announced a variety of straightforward executive orders like this.
And every single one of them comes across as a reasonable solution that normal people would support. So Trump is also getting rid of DEI in the military and all across the federal government. But in the military in particular, the theory is that America's military shouldn't be concerned with quotas or diversity hiring.
They should focus instead on one goal, which is fighting America's enemies as effectively as they possibly can. Kill the bad guys. That's your whole job in the military. And again, this is basic stuff. Until 15 seconds ago, it wouldn't even be considered controversial. And also, common sense. One by one. That's what these orders amount to.
There's also Trump's planned order creating an Iron Dome-style missile defense system to protect the United States. We've been funding Israel's Iron Dome for many years now, but we don't have a comparable system here, even though, as recent events make clear, American cities apparently face a variety of imminent short-range threats.
We just had a swarm of mysterious drones appear off the East Coast out of nowhere. Never got any explanation. A member of Congress suggested that Iranian ships might be launching them. Who knows? But either way, why shouldn't America's major cities have some kind of protection against threats like that? Once again, simple question. And now the second Trump administration is answering it.
Along the same lines, Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't want millions of illegal aliens in this country. No matter how much the corporate press pretends that they enrich our communities, No serious person thought that the status quo was acceptable, especially as the bodies of innocent men, women, and children began piling up.
And so now, as a result, the status quo is changing. The other day, Fox reported that the Del Rio sector of the border has gone from 4,000 illegal crossings per day back in 2023 to just 60 illegal crossings yesterday. So these are actual results, and they're taking place very quickly.
Now for self-appointed members of the elites, particularly in Hollywood, this has been a very difficult series of events to grasp and internalize. They can't muster any kind of rational argument against what the Trump administration is doing. They're stunned by how effective he's been. and how popular he is now because of it.
And they know that there's no logic behind DEI or open borders or letting criminals off the hook with no consequences. So instead of presenting any kind of cogent argument, they're just melting down. And there's maybe no greater example of this phenomenon than the performance that actress and singer Selena Gomez just put on.
She uploaded this video to her Instagram with a caption of, I'm sorry, accompanied by a Mexican flag emoji. And here's what the video, if you haven't seen it yet, looked like. Watch.
I just wanted to say that I'm so sorry. All my people are getting attacked. The children. I don't understand. I'm so sorry. I wish I could do something, but I can't. I don't know.
what to do i'll try everything i promise now first of all before we even get into what she's saying this is obviously an absurd example of emotional manipulation anyone who records a video of herself crying and posted to the internet should be disregarded and ignored automatically
I mean, it's one thing to cry in public, which is a crime that is slightly less offensive when committed by women, though still highly annoying. But it's another thing to film the spectacle yourself and then upload it. So that's bad enough. But there's a more revealing moment that's actually worth talking about.
You'll notice that in Selena Gomez's theatrical crying video, she refers to, quote, unquote, my people. And she's complaining about the Trump administration deporting her people. Now, if we take my people in the most literal sense, it would seem to indicate that Selena Gomez is herself a criminal alien, considering that only criminal aliens are being deported.
In that case, obviously, Selena should be immediately placed on one of those C-17 cargo planes and sent back to her homeland. She's confessed to her crimes after all. Trump should deport her based on her word alone. Better safe than sorry. Let her go be with her people.
And then of course we should convert Selena's multi-million dollar mansions into emergency shelters to house all these illegal migrants that she's weeping over. That would be the humane thing to do after all. But if we take the statement as she likely intended it, that her people are Hispanic migrants in general, then it proves something else.
Which is that despite being born in this country, Selena Gomez doesn't see herself as American. her people are people from another country. It's difficult to imagine somebody like Selena ever using the phrase my people to refer to Americans. That would never happen. It would be a nativist and xenophobic. You can't do that. But Americans are never supposed to identify with each other in that way.
So instead, a half Mexican, half Italian billionaire celebrity from Texas identifies with Mexican illegal aliens, many of whom don't even speak our language. And it goes to show how rampant immigration, both illegal and legal, tears at the fabric of our culture and undermines our national identity. That's not the point that Selena Gomez was trying to prove, but it's the point that she did prove.
Now, here's the thing, Selena. If you are American, then your people are Americans. And the fact that you do not see it that way, that you do not identify with or feel any loyalty to the country that gave you everything and made you who you are, just goes to show why Trump's border policies are necessary.
I mean, Selena, you never made a video hysterically crying when, for example, North Carolina was ravaged by a hurricane and its citizens were left to drown. You never wept over the suffering of your people who've been abandoned by Joe Biden's government and left to die. That's because you don't see white people in North Carolina as your people. And that's the problem.
So immigration enforcement is not just about keeping crime and drugs out of our neighborhoods, though that is a big part of it. At a deeper level, it's about reclaiming a sense of identity and fraternity as a nation. It's about becoming a people again, not just people who happen to all live in the same geographic area, but a people, a nation.
And anyone who doesn't want that, anyone who would prefer that we have no identity as a nation, is invited and indeed urged to leave. We don't need you here. And we don't want you. And a lot of people who are supposedly in Gomez's target audience, namely Hispanics, seem to understand this, by the way.
The Venezuelan YouTuber named Dross, for example, responded to Gomez's video by writing, quote, shut up, stupid. So that was pretty, I mean, it's all that really needs to be said. And the backlash was pretty much universal, which is why Selena Gomez quickly deleted the post. Then she wrote a passive aggressive follow-up message that read, quote, apparently it's not okay to show empathy for people.
And then she deleted that message too. So she clearly didn't have a lot of conviction in what she was saying. The moment her fans let her know that they thought she was acting like an imbecile, she just took the post down. It's yet another indication that the whole emotional blackmail routine is not working like it used to.
The fact that Gomez was greeted with near universal mockery is a clear sign that things are changing. A few years ago, a sobbing actress would have probably convinced some people that, say, children were being held in cages at the southern border or whatever, if we remember that. But it doesn't work anymore because we've all been lied to and manipulated far too much.
And as a result, we now have a government that, you know, we have leaders now who are not being cowed by these kinds of tactics. Yesterday, when border czar Tom Homan was asked about Selena Gomez's video, he pretty much said that he doesn't care. Watch.
We got over 2 million known gotaways. We got a 600% increase in sex trafficking. We got a record number of terrorists crossing the border on the terrorist watch list. We have a quarter million Americans diving fentanyl coming across the open border. We're going to do this job, and we're going to enforce the laws of this country. If they don't like it, then go to Congress and change the law.
We're going to do this operational apology. We're going to make our community safer. We're going to save Once we lock that border on continuous operation, you're going to see fentanyl deaths decrease, illegal alien crime decrease, sex trafficking decrease. It's all for the good of this nation, and we're going to keep going. No apologies. We're moving forward.
You know, when entire neighborhoods in North Carolina were destroyed by a hurricane late last year, like we just discussed, the DHS secretary at the time made it very clear that he didn't care about any of the victims. He went shopping for clothes in Georgetown while FEMA, the agency he was supposedly overseeing, denied disaster relief to homes with Trump signs on the lawn.
That's the kind of apathy that we're all familiar with when it comes to the federal government. But what the second Trump administration is bringing to the table is a very different kind of apathy. They are apathetic to the lazy emotional blackmail and propaganda that constantly emanates from our so-called elites, whether they're in Hollywood or the media.
For the first time in modern history, we have an administration that simply does not care how much liberals are willing to fake cry on camera. To borrow from Kamala Harris's campaign slogan, those people are now on the enemy's list in the sense that their opinion doesn't matter. Their crying is irrelevant. What matters now is restoring sanity to this country and to our government.
And the more that billionaire actresses like Selena Gomez lose their minds, the more that the rest of us can be sure that after many very dark years, sanity is indeed making a comeback. Now let's get to our five headlines. This country was founded on freedom, freedom from a country that forced us to buy overpriced tea, then tried blockading us when we dumped their tea into the ocean.
Well, how'd that work out? Well, you know, it's time to throw your overpriced big wireless contract overboard too. You don't need to pay $100 a month just to get a free phone. Pure Talk, my cell phone company, says no to inflated prices. With a qualifying plan of just $45 a month, you could choose an iPhone 14 or a Samsung Galaxy for $0. And yes,
This is for premium service, unlimited talk, text, 25 gigs of data, and mobile hotspot at a fraction of the price of the big guys, all in America's most dependable 5G network. Get your iPhone 14 or Samsung Galaxy for $0 by visiting puretalk.com slash walsh today. Switching is easy.
Again, that's puretalk.com slash walsh to claim your new iPhone or Galaxy with qualifying purchase from Pure Talk, America's wireless company. Donald Trump gave a speech to a conference of congressional Republicans yesterday, and there were two moments in particular from the speech that are worth talking about. Two, I think, quite brilliant suggestions that Trump seemed to make.
And the first one has to do with the problem of crime in our neighborhoods and particularly the fact that this crime is often committed by repeat offenders. So it's the same people committing the crimes over and over again. And Trump had a solution that he proposed for that, which I thought was really interesting. Let's listen to that.
They're very dangerous people. They're violent people. I used to say these are more violent than our criminals. In fact, the best part about them is they make our criminals look quite nice, actually, by comparison. They are very violent people.
We also have many violent criminals in our country, however, that did not necessarily come here illegally, but have been arrested 30 times, 35 times, 41, 42 times in a couple of cases, 25 times, 18 times, many for murder and other heinous charges such as pushing people into subways. As the train's coming along at 45 miles an hour, boom, you get pushed into the subway. They had it last week.
Getting them in the head with baseball bats while they're not looking. Punching old ladies in the face, knocking them unconscious and stealing their purse. They even break into apartments and rape elderly women and beat up elderly men, beat them to hell. And I don't want these violent repeat offenders in our country anymore than I want illegal aliens from other countries who misbehave.
And I say, and this is subject to getting it approved, but if they've been arrested many, many times, they're repeat offenders by many numbers, I want them out of our country. I also will be seeking permission to do so. We're going to get approval, hopefully, to get them the hell out of our country along with others.
Let them be brought to a foreign land and maintained by others for a very small fee as opposed to be maintained in our jails. for massive amounts of money, including the private prison companies that charge us a fortune.
So here Trump is floating the idea of, I guess, bringing back penal colonies. He's talking about shipping repeat offenders off to some foreign country, some foreign land, and paying that country to be their jailers, which means they're going to be housed in foreign jails somewhere by a country that needs the money. So probably not a very pleasant experience I would expect in a jail like that.
And needless to say, I think this is a wonderful idea. I mean, why don't we do that? What's the argument against it? There's a long history of this kind of thing all across the world. It's an effective system. It's effective in many different ways. It's cheaper for one. Also, if there's any concerns about overcrowding in prisons or whatever, then, well, this is one way to solve that.
And it makes prison far less appealing. It increases, which you would think that prison would be unappealing no matter what. But obviously for people that go to jail 15 times, they're not as worried about going to prison as they should be. So we have not made the experience as uncomfortable as it needs to be to get the message across to these people. So it has that.
It increases dramatically the punitive effect of prison, which increases the deterrence effect. And all of these things are good. The only argument against shipping criminals off to be jailed by some foreign country is that the experience will be less pleasant for the criminals themselves.
That's the only argument is about just seeing it from the perspective of the criminals and saying, well, this... This wouldn't be good for them. They're not going to like it. But not only is that not a downside, it is, as I said, an upside. If somebody has been arrested 18 times already, it's very clear that the experience of jail has not been unpleasant enough. So they need to be made to suffer.
Okay, there's obviously been a failure to communicate, in the words of the warden in Cool Hand Luke. who, of course, I recognize was not supposed to be the good guy of that movie. But in this case, I think a little bit of that attitude, a little bit of that approach is warranted. So I think it's a great idea. But in the next clip, Trump floats something that is even better, I think.
And he's brought this up before, but before he was elected. But now he's obviously been elected. He's in office and he's still talking about it, which is a good sign. Let's listen to this.
is going to be very rich again, and it's going to happen very quickly. It's time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before. Do you know, the United States in 1870 to 1913, all tariffs, and that was the richest period in the history of the United States, relatively speaking, in other words, relatively. And they set up the great tariff
Commission of 1887 and This Commission had one function what to do with all the money that we took in it was so enormous that they had no idea it was a blue ribbon committee was set up 1887 and what to do with all of the money that we had and again Teddy Roosevelt was a beneficiary because when McKinley was
killed, he took over this vast sum of money, and he did all of those national parks and all of the other things. And I'm not knocking him, but he was given a vast amount of money, and that was all made through tariffs. We had no income tax. The income tax came in in 1913.
As I said in my speech last week, instead of taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, we should be tariffing and taxing foreign nations to enrich our citizens. Does that make sense?
Okay, so Trump, yet again, talking about abolishing the income tax, replacing it with tariffs. And his way of looking at it is, rather than taxing our citizens to enrich foreign nations, let's tax foreign nations to enrich our citizens. Great idea. I mean, yes, sign me up. And let me tell you something. Now, I still would not put any money on the income tax actually being abolished.
That would be a Herculean accomplishment. More importantly, it's an accomplishment that would require the cooperation of Congress, which is the problem. So the odds are just very much against it happening. But if Trump were able to achieve this, if he were able somehow— to lead the charge to abolishing the income tax, he would automatically become one of the greatest presidents of all time.
I think he would be number two, second only to George Washington. By abolishing the income tax, Trump will have done more to restore freedom in America than any president ever next to George Washington. He would deserve to be added to Mount Rushmore, unironically. And I personally would donate to the cause of carving his face in Mount Rushmore. I'll carve it myself. I'll go up there and carve it.
I'll look at some YouTube tutorials to get the basics of sculpting down, and then I'll go carve his face. And even if he doesn't pull it off, he's already doing something very important by talking about it so openly. So I hope he continues to talk about it.
I mean, arguably, if he can just get the abolition of the income tax to become a mainstream talking point and position, if he can rally conservatives around this idea, even if it doesn't actually happen in the next four years, then that alone would put him in the top two or three of presidents. Because the income tax is... is just flat out oppressive.
We all live under an oppressive system of the income tax. It is oppression. It actually is. And I've said before that the income tax is kind of proof of the quote from Ed Harris's character in The Truman Show when he said that we accept the reality of the world that we're presented.
And he said that to explain why Truman in the movie didn't question all the surreal and kind of bizarre things about his reality. And he didn't question it because it's just the reality he was born into. It's just the way the world is. And most people don't question that. Most people, at least not on their own.
Most people, if the idea is not planted in their head, then they're just going to accept whatever the world is. They'll accept the basics of it, kind of the framework. But it's like that with the income tax. I mean, which is why, somehow... The abolition of the income tax has not even been a live political issue for like a century. I mean, it's not even something that's debated.
The income tax isn't even controversial. People just accept it. Even though, objectively speaking, it is an insane system. It's an insane system. have the government come in and take whatever amount of your paycheck they want, whatever they want, because we actually have no control over it, and then give you whatever's left over.
You get the leftovers of your own paycheck, and the government comes in and takes whatever they want. How can we have any semblance of freedom or independence when that's going on, especially considering that this system has to be run and facilitated by an agency that called the IRS, which has, in essence, total power over your life. Anyone who's had to deal with the IRS knows this.
You like to think you have constitutional rights and that you're a free American citizen and all this kind of stuff. Yeah, well, that's until the IRS gets their sights on you, because when they get their sights on you, you have no rights. I mean, they can do whatever they want.
They can come in, they can take whatever they want from you, they can look in your bank account, they can look in all your records. Everything. They tear your life apart. They can take your car. They can take your house. They can throw you in prison. They can do anything. And these are all unelected bureaucrats. All of them. You have no control over them. No say.
They can do whatever the hell they want. And they can do all of that just to ensure that they get your money. In what sense can we even call this a free country with a system like that in place? We can't. And it becomes all the more grotesque when you consider, we all know that one of the reasons our country exists to begin with was to escape an oppressive tax system.
And yet what we have now is so much worse than what our founders had. sparked them to the point of revolution. What we have now is so much worse. I mean, it's not even close. So the whole thing, it's a mockery. It's just grotesque. And yet it's been a part of our reality since we were born. And for that reason, and for that reason alone, we allow it to continue. It doesn't even come up.
When's the last time it came up in a presidential debate? Which is nuts. I don't know how else to put it. And it's one of the things that could happen. There are a few things you can think of that the government could do that if they did it. would immediately drastically improve the quality of your life instantly.
That's a small list of things that the government could do that would have that kind of immediate impact. And at the top of that list would be getting rid of the income tax. Because if you're a working American, instantly you have significantly more money than you had before And it's not because anyone is giving it to you. It's just your own money you get to keep. And that's not even to mention.
That's not even to get into the freedom and independence over your own life that you now have. That now you're in a spot where, no, there is no government bureaucrat that could just knock on your door and demand to see all of your records, everything, and tear your life apart and take everything from you if they decide you didn't give the government enough money. That would no longer be a thing.
So at the very least, I hope Trump keeps talking about this, and it needs to at the very least become a live political issue, something we actually talk about. If you're running for president, you should have a position on the income tax, yay or nay, and be able to explain it. All right, here's some more encouraging news. The Daily Mail has this.
Teenagers and those in their early 20s are half as likely to identify as atheists than their parents. A new poll has shown those aged 18 to 24 who are all Gen Z are the most spiritual age group in the UK with just 13% identifying as atheists. Another 62% describe themselves as very or fairly spiritual.
And when asked what the biggest factors in declining Christianity rates in the UK, Gen Z cited the inability to grapple with scandals involving abuse as well as generational change. In contrast, middle-aged members of Gen X age 45 to 60 are the most likely to be atheists, with 25% saying they don't believe in a god or spirituality.
So this is just one survey of people in the UK, apparently, but it tracks with trends we've seen in many polls and surveys. We've seen a lot of evidence, including the last election results, that in many cases Gen Z are more conservative, more right-wing, and apparently more religious than their parents. This is especially true of Gen Z males, but you see indications of this trend across the board.
And now you have this poll, which tells us that people in their 20s and late teens are significantly less likely to be atheists than their parents and their grandparents, which is, you know, when you think about it for a moment, pretty stunning.
And it defies conventional wisdom in many ways, at least the conventional wisdom that, again, the world as we've come to know it, it kind of defies that belief. what we would expect based on that. I mean, just the idea that you'd have a generation of young people who on average are more religious than their grandparents is pretty crazy, but it's the fact.
And it's actually not that surprising in the final analysis, because a few things are happening here. The liberal secularism of the boomer generation is fading out. It's dying a death of exhaustion, I think. It's dying of boredom. It's just kind of dissipating like a fart in the wind, right? It has nothing to offer. And this is the thing about liberal churches.
This is a phenomenon that every church-going Christian has observed this, that the most liberal churches are all old. The average age of the congregation is going to be like 67. The pastor is old. The congregation is old. The churches are sparsely attended. There's no life. There's nothing approaching exuberance or awe or reverence. That's because liberal churches have nothing to offer.
And I think that something similar is happening with liberalism and secularism in general in the culture. And also, and this is of course related, it's just a fact of life that younger generations have this natural rebellious instinct. Every revolution in history, for better or worse, has been led by young people.
And now, well, that means rebelling against liberal secularism because liberal secularism is the dominant cultural position. And it's the thing, it's all of our institutions are defined by it. And so you're seeing that as part of what we're saying is this, I think, rebellious instinct being used for good for a change.
And on a related note, there's also this cover story from New York Magazine that's getting some attention. And I think we have the image we can put up on screen. Yeah, there's the image. So there was a New York Magazine reporter went to some of the Trump inauguration parties last weekend and wrote this cover story. And the headline is, The Cruel Kids Table.
And then the caption on the tweet says, For our latest cover story, Brock Collier reported on the young, gleeful, confident, and casually cruel Trumpers who, after conquering Washington, have their sights set on the rest of America.
Now, there's a lot of controversy over this image, the picture you see from this Trump inauguration party, because in the article, the reporter says that the event was almost entirely white. And yet, as people on the Internet have discovered, if you pan out a bit on that very photo, you see that there are at least three black people who were cropped out. You know, they're just out of frame.
And that was done, of course, on purpose because they had this narrative they wanted to say. And also, a black guy, C.J. Pearson, was one of the hosts of this party. So, obviously, no surprise New York Magazine has an agenda here. But I don't even want to focus on that. Okay, that's the easy part. And I don't care about what the article says. Just the image alone. Just the cover image.
is really interesting because New York Magazine presents it to us and wants us to see cruelty somehow. But instead, what any unbiased, normal person sees when they look at that image, what they see are young, vibrant, happy, successful looking people having a good time. You don't see a bunch of fat, ugly people with pink hair and nose rings and all that. There are no cross-dressers in the photo.
Nobody with a severe mental illness that they wear on their sleeve with pride. We don't see that. These look like young, healthy, well-adjusted, successful young people. And this is what the right wing has come to represent. This is the future of the right wing. In a word, the photo is cool. It's a cool picture. And these look like cool people. So being right-wing is officially cool now.
And truly, it is impossible to overstate the significance of that cultural development. I mean, that's what this really all comes down to. It changes everything. They say the cruel kids table, but really it's the cool kids table. If you're one of the cool kids, you're right-wing now. And that's why it's significant that
You know, all the right-wing parties around the inauguration, they weren't held at like a Texas Roadhouse with everybody listening to Christian rock or country music or whatever. And I say that, by the way, as someone who, you know, would have loved to go to an inauguration party at a Texas Roadhouse. Don't get me wrong. But...
You know, when I went to these parties, and I was actually supposed to be at that party that they reported on, it's probably for the best that I didn't show up because I think my dad vibes would have kind of ruined that picture. It wouldn't have worked, so it's probably best that I wasn't there. But, you know, I did make it to plenty of the other parties, and they all had this same kind of vibe.
And even though I love the Texas Roadhouse vibe personally, I also... appreciate that being right wing now also might mean that you're wearing a nice suit and you're drinking a cocktail at a party in DC. I mean, that's a good thing. It's not the vibe that I normally gravitate to personally, but it's good that the right has that vibe also. And this is how we truly become culturally dominant.
Look at it this way. I think this kind of tells you everything you need to know, right? That when you see that image of the party, and it's a bunch of younger people, and it's a black tie affair, and everybody looks cool and hip and young and all that. You see that image, and it reads as right wing now.
If you saw that without any context, and you didn't know it was a Trump inauguration event, and you just looked at that, you would say, yeah, they're probably Republicans. But then also, if you see a dad in flannel drinking a beer at Texas Roadhouse, that also reads as right-wing. So both of those images, if you see them, you immediately think, yeah, it's probably kind of conservative.
And so what that tells you is it runs the gamut. So in other words, basically, I think this is another way of putting it. If somebody appears to be happy, well-adjusted, reasonably successful in their station in life, just like a normal, confident person, healthy. If someone appears to be those things, it reads as right-wing.
Just imagine, what would you, again, without any context, what would you need to see in a picture? in order to think that this, okay, this codes as left-wing. If you're looking at a picture of people who are all in some kind of environment, what are the signifiers that would tell you that, okay, this is probably a left-wing group? Well, what are they?
I mean, if they're overweight, if they've got weird piercings, if they have strangely colored hair, if they are cross-dressing, basically weird, ugly, friendless losers, when you see that, you think, well, they're probably left-wing. Anything else, it now reads as right-wing. And I think that that
This is, look, it does, every time I talk about this now, and I know people in the audience are a little bit bewildered sometimes listening to the show for the last two weeks because I'm strangely positive and optimistic, at least by my standards. By my standards, I understand it's a little bit,
It's all disturbing, even if you've been listening to the show for a long time to hear this much sustained optimism from me is quite it's even upsetting. I get it. It's like you're just not it doesn't make any sense coming from me. And and I don't want it to come across like we're saying or I'm saying that, well, everything's good now. We won. Let's all go home.
We don't need to think about this anymore. That's not the point. But the point is like assessing where we actually are in the culture. And I think it's important to get a good read on that because the fight does continue. In order to be in the fight, you have to kind of know where you are and what your position is. And the fact is that the right wing is culturally ascendant.
And that's a good thing. But those are also, that's a position and those are gains that we have to defend and build on. All right, let's get to the comment section. Columbia doesn't just export coffee and cocaine. It exports petroleum, bananas, flowers, gold, aluminum, among other things. Okay, but we could stop importing from Columbia entirely and it would hardly affect any of our lives.
So that's the point. Let's see. You forgot to mention the biggest outrage from the Academy Awards. Nosferatu didn't get a Best Picture nom. Yeah. I got to say, I hate to tell you, I didn't like that movie. I just didn't like it. I watched it a few days ago. And now I'll say, it's a beautiful film. I mean, the cinematography, the shot selection, the way that it's filmed, it's pretty jaw-dropping.
So from a purely aesthetic perspective, it's maybe the most artistic movie I've ever seen. Every single shot looks like a painting. It's... Pretty incredible on that basis. So I respect the movie for that reason. I respect the director, Robert Eggers, who is a real filmmaker. I mean, the guy's not out there making superhero movies. He's making real movies, real cinema.
He made The Northmen, which I thought was a masterpiece. It's one of my favorite movies of the last five or ten years. So I watched Nosferatu with some anticipation, and I just didn't like it. I wanted to like it, but I didn't. I thought it was too slow. way too slow.
And to me, there was no real suspense because I knew exactly where it was going, which is maybe an inevitable problem when you make a film based on one of the most famous stories of all time, which is basically Dracula. But still, I didn't feel the suspense, which is a problem in this case because so much of the movie relies on building suspense.
And I found the whole thing to be a bit, I don't know, heavy-handed is maybe the word. You know, there's this viral clip going around for some reason from a clip from Family Guy from some episode, I don't know when, where Peter Griffin says that he didn't like The Godfather because the movie insists on itself, which is a criticism that doesn't make any sense for The Godfather.
But, you know, it's fine. It's Family Guy. It's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be funny. But I actually would borrow that phrase for Nosferatu. I actually think that it insists on itself too much. Every single frame of the movie from start to finish is supposed to fill you with dread and horror. Every single frame. There's no other tone. There's no other mood. There's nothing.
It's just supposed to be unrelenting dread and horror from the very first second of the movie until the end. And the movie just relentlessly insists on it, beats you over the head with it in a way that got kind of tedious, if I'm being honest. The lead character, who I forget her name, but... The whole, and it was a good performance.
I mean, from just a pure acting perspective, but every single, like she has this look of horror and kind of confusion in her face for the whole movie. Again, from the very first moment and it never stops. And I don't, it's hard to maintain that. It's just hard to like, I can't watch a movie
And the movie wants me to be horrified and experiencing deep dread the whole time, you know, and I just can't. I can't sustain that level of emotional investment, I guess. And then, spoiler alert, spoiler, spoiler, okay, I'm just going to tell you, I hated the end. I thought the end was bad because in the end, the woman saves the day by selling her soul to the devil, essentially.
She saves the day by submitting in every sense, in every sense, you know, including in a quite grotesquely physical sense, submitting to evil, which I didn't like either. So even if I did like the movie up until that moment, that moment would have ruined the whole movie for me. And so, yeah, I didn't like it. I'll be very interested to see what he does next. I like the film.
I find the filmmaker himself to be interesting, but I thought that that was by far and away the least interesting movie he's ever made. Uh, and one of the least interesting movies I've seen recently, afraid to say, um, Matt, this is one of my faves. The most obvious lesson here is that these countries do not appreciate us.
They should have to publicly apologize to the American people before they get one more centavo. Her, well, we don't know if he was radicalized here, so it's our fault. Ship her to Afghanistan. That's what gets me too.
The total lack of gratitude, total lack of appreciation that you find from other countries for all the help that we've given, all of these hundreds of other countries on the globe that we've given aid to and protection. There's just no gratitude. And then the immigrants when they come here.
Now, there are exceptions to this, but for the most part, you don't get a sense of real appreciation and gratitude when they come here. You just get a sense of entitlement. That show was low-key out of pocket, Matt, no cap. Well, thanks, fam. I mean, you cooked with that one. I stand your comment, bro. Your comment is sending me.
And look, anyone who doesn't like the show needs to take several seats. Low key. Needs to low key take several seats. You're being real extra if you don't like the show. I'm just, look, I'm just connecting with the young people. Like I said, the right wing is cool now. So this is me being cool. Young people, they hear their slang words and they just can't.
My viewership in the last two days adopting some of this slang, my viewership among Gen Z has increased 95%. They were just telling me. They were just telling me, keep doing it because 95% increase. It's a fact. Look, it's no secret, legacy media is collapsing. Why? Well, because Americans are waking up. They're tired of being lied to, tired of the spin, tired of the narratives.
At The Daily Wire, we don't tell stories, we show you the truth. From investigative reporting to fearless commentary, we bring the facts straight to you. And it doesn't stop there. We're making movies, documentaries, and series that challenge the woke Hollywood agenda. They reshape the culture. But here's the deal. We can't do it without you. We need your support to keep growing and keep fighting.
Now's the time to join the fight. Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and become a member today. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today I have to cancel Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. Congresswoman Mace has been on a crusade as of late over the trans issue. For the last few months, Mace has been speaking out in very forceful language against the scourge of gender ideology.
Along with authoring a bill to keep men out of women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill, Mace has also been tweeting things like, quote, your mental illness will not become my new normal. And she stood in front of whatever cameras she can find saying things like this. Watch.
effort in response to Congresswoman McBride's coming to Congress?
Yes, and absolutely, and then some. I'm not going to stand for a man. You know, if someone with a penis is in the women's locker room, that's not OK. And I'm a victim of abuse myself. I'm a rape survivor. I have PTSD from the abuse I've suffered at the hands of a man. And I know how vulnerable women and girls are in private spaces.
So I'm absolutely 100% going to stand in the way of any man who wants to be in a women's restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms.
So very clear and forceful and of course, totally correct language. In fact, Nancy is so heated about this topic that she recently challenged another Congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, to quote, step outside in the middle of a congressional hearing. So this is a woman who will not take any guff from the trans activists and their proponents. And she has in recent months made that her brand.
She has positioned herself as a leader in the fight against gender ideology. She likes to tweet with the hashtag, hold the line, a slogan that she's adopted because she is, we're supposed to believe. holding the line against the trans madness. But you may notice that even as I've talked about this, I've had to qualify all of these statements by saying as of late and in the last few months.
Because oddly enough, less than two years ago, the woman who is now holding the line and leading the charge, she claims, against trans ideology was sitting down for interviews with corporate media outlets and saying stuff like this.
So I touch a lot of sensitive subjects because I want to show that as conservatives, we can be compassionate. We can show love.
How does that inform your position on transgender rights?
Well, I'm pro-transgender rights. I'm pro-LGBTQ. just don't go to the extreme with our kids.
Define extremism there for me.
Sex change surgery, the hormone blockers that sterilize our children, we shouldn't be doing that when a child is prepubescent or going through puberty. Let that child go through the natural process of life and let them make that permanent decision when they're older.
Now, if they want to take on a different pronoun or a different gender identity or grow their hair out or wear a dress or wear pants or do those things as a minor, those are all things that I think most people would support. Be who you want to be, but don't make those permanent changes when it's a child.
Okay, so Nancy was bold enough at least to oppose the medical mutilation of minors in 2023, but she did support trans rights and the social transition of children. In fact, she not only supported the idea that a child might have a different gender identity, quote unquote, she said that most people would support it. To her, it was obvious, a given. Right?
She's supporting dressing a boy up like a girl and saying that he's a girl and giving him girl pronouns. That's what she supported in 2023. I must stress again, this was in 2023. Now, to put that into perspective, that was a full year after What Is A Woman came out. Okay, we were already well into the period when it was pretty safe to fundamentally oppose gender ideology.
And yet, Nancy Mace didn't oppose it. at the time. Does she now? I don't know. In 2023, she supported trans rights in those words. So tell me, Nancy, what do you think trans rights are? What rights specifically fall under that umbrella? Well, I'll tell you. A man using the women's restroom. That is specifically and explicitly what is meant when trans activists talk about trans rights.
That is the trans right they're demanding. the right to be fully recognized as the gender they claim to be. That's what trans rights are. So if you support trans rights, you support that. You support men in the women's room. There's no such thing as I support trans rights, but not men in the women's room. That doesn't make any sense, okay?
This is the same thing, which means as recently as 2023, you supported men in the women's room. Now, this has not stopped Mace from loudly on a daily basis at this point, claiming with a shameless straight face that she has led the charge in the fight against trans ideology. Just yesterday, she posted this claim on X again, and she's saying this. I mean, it's constant, okay?
Constant, she's saying this. And so she's probably about to announce a campaign for South Carolina governor. And this post was meant to favorably compare herself against Alan Wilson, who's the AG of South Carolina, who's also probably going to run apparently. And she posted this. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. We led the fight to protect women.
Alan Wilson holds a press conference on it. We visit the South Carolina National Guard. Alan Wilson visits the South Carolina National Guard. We speak at Greenwood County GOP. Alan Wilson speaks at Greenwood County GOP. Well, thank you, Alan Wilson. We're flattered. So not only is she claiming to be in the lead, but she's actually accusing someone else of copying her.
And then there's a picture of herself with the caption, how it started. Okay, so I must ask, Nancy, how what started? What is it that you think you started? In what way did you lead the fight to protect women? The people who led the fight were in it for years while you were still telling CBS about how deeply you care about trans rights.
Okay, while you were telling CBS that it's okay to dress a little boy like a girl and say that he's a girl and give him girl pronouns. While you were doing that, the people who were actually leading the fight were leading it. You came in after. Okay? But this is the kind of ego that we're dealing with.
This is someone who posted a tribute to the people who started the fight to protect women's sports. And it's literally just three pictures of her. I mean, come on. The woman who only got bold and aggressive on the issue well after the people who had actually led the fight had made it safe for her to do so. But Look, that's not the point today.
The fact that Nancy Mace explicitly supported trans rights recently and is now pretending to be the leader of the very fight she undermined is annoying, but it's also pretty standard political grandstanding. And I also don't like to get into fights about who deserves credit for things I'm used to people taking credit for stuff constantly, especially politicians. They do this all the time.
Politicians are always out, I led the fight. And it's like, yeah, you came into this fight. No, no, you waited until it was super safe and then you rode a wave. You didn't lead a fight. But so but it's if we get into that game, then we'd be here all day.
And it's just there's no point, which is why I've been firmly biting my tongue for weeks now while Nancy Mace plays the role of anti-gender ideology crusader. In fact, I've even given her credit on this show for going to bat on this issue recently. Because even of her incredibly self-congratulatory tone and is grating and thoroughly undeserved, she is still right about the bathroom issue.
She's right about it now anyway. And so I tried to focus on that. But then she posted this. Quote, I didn't fight like hell to become the first woman to graduate from the Citadel just for some man in a miniskirt to take away that achievement. Protecting women's accomplishments isn't a political talking point for me, it's personal. Now, this is also something that she says a lot.
She constantly brags about being the first woman to graduate from the Citadel Military College. In fact, she bragged about it twice yesterday alone. She also tweeted, quote, when I was first elected, I was told if I didn't fall in line, if I didn't play the Washington political insider game, then I wouldn't fit in. Boy, were they right.
When you were the first woman to sit in the Citadel's barber chair to get all your hair chopped off, you don't get your feelings hurt if you don't get invited to fancy cocktail parties in Washington, D.C., I mean, Nancy, you were literally just at the fanciest DC cocktail party of the year last Monday night for the inauguration. I was there too.
I'm not judging you for it, but you were just there and you posted a bunch of pictures with yourself and celebrities. So you do get invited to the cocktail parties. But anyway, that's not the point. The point is Nancy Mace's feminist girl boss routine. And that is what is pushing me over the edge and forcing me to do this segment, which I don't really want to do, but I have to.
If she would just stick to taking credit for things she didn't do, we wouldn't have to talk about it. I can deal with that, but I can't deal with this. And I'll tell you the reason. You know, Nancy, you say that you fought like hell to be the first female graduate of the Citadel. Well, first of all, your dad was the commandant when you were there, so I imagine you had some help in that fight.
But second, you say that you care so much about protecting female-only spaces. Well, great. The Citadel was a male-only space until it was forced by law to admit females, to admit you, in the name of diversity and inclusion. You were quite literally the beneficiary of a DEI program. You were a DEI graduate. That's what DEI is. Now, they didn't call it that back then, but it's the same thing.
Forcing an institution to change their standards in order to admit a more diverse group of people, all in the name of being progressive and inclusive, is DEI. And it's also the exact same argument that trans-identifying males use to invade female spaces.
So we rightly lament the death of female-only spaces, but the truth that you are so helpfully bringing to light is that male-only spaces died a long time ago. Thanks to people like you, every uniquely masculine and exclusively male space, including those spaces that had very good reason to be uniquely masculine and exclusively male, like the military and related institutions, has been feminized.
The feminism that you champion set the stage for trans ideology. It essentially is trans ideology. The feminists were the first ones to deny the fundamental and inherent differences between the sexes and to deny the value of sex segregation in many aspects of society. Who were the first people to come along and say that biological sex is basically irrelevant? It doesn't actually matter.
People are the same. There's no meaningful difference between men and women. Who were the first ones to say that? Okay. Pop quiz. Who was it? It was the feminists. It was the feminists who came along, saw that the military was exclusively male, and said, there's no reason why women shouldn't be included too. But there was a reason, Nancy.
The reason was biology, which is the same reality that trans activists deny, and for the same reason. So that they can feel included, just like you wanted to feel included. Now, it's not exactly the same thing. The trans male claims to be a woman so that he can be included in women's spaces.
The trans male claims that his inclusion actually does not destroy its status as a women's space because he says falsely that he is a woman. The feminist, on the other hand, demands to be included in men's spaces but does not claim to be a man. Instead, she simply says that men's spaces shouldn't exist. So these are different arguments, but they have the same ultimate effect.
They are both very bad. They both are based in the same fundamental lie about the human condition and the human species. And they both derive from the same basic level denial of the inherent and immutable and fundamentally significant differences between the sexes.
And this is why I can't just sit silently and listen to a prominent voice in the Republican Party try to reframe the fight against gender ideology in feminist terms.
I can tolerate the showboating and you taking credit when you should be giving it, but I can't tolerate that because you are hurting the cause that some of us actually have been fighting for and fighting for a long time, a lot longer than you, Nancy. And that is why Nancy Mace is today, I'm afraid to say, canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.
Have a great day. Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, China releases a competitive new AI at a fraction of the cost of the American companies. Democrats launch resistance on Trump's illegal immigration crackdown, and Trump signs an order to ban gender dysphoric people from the U.S. military. That's today on the Ben Shapiro Show. Give it a listen.