JD Vance (3:26)

The threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Now, I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There's no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don't.

Matt Walsh (5:18)

After this speech, which was obviously excellent, it's not an overstatement to say that European elites lost their collective minds. One European official told the Economist that the speech was a direct assault on European democracy. Meanwhile, a senior diplomat stated, it's very clear Now Europe is alone. And he added that Europe now considers the US to be an adversary. But maybe the best reaction came from a guy named Christoph Hausgen who is the chair of the Munich Security Conference. Apparently he's retiring. So he delivered a speech about how America's values don't align with Europe's anymore. And then at the end of the speech, he did something that no grown man should ever do in public. I've been very clear about this. He broke down crying. Watch.

Christoph Hausgen (6:02)

This conference started as a transatlantic conference. After the speech of Vice President Vance on Friday. We have to fear that our common value base is not that common anymore. I'm very grateful to all those European politicians that spoke out and reaffirmed the values and principles that they are defending. No one did this better than President Zelensky, let me conclude. And this becomes difficult.

Matt Walsh (6:55)

So he starts crying and then just walks off the stage and everybody applauds him when they should be booing him. A man starts breaking down in tears in public, he should be booed off the stage. And in response to this footage, the Munich Security Conference put out a statement that for my money, is the single most humiliating statement that a security conference can possibly put out. Keep in mind, this is supposedly a very serious conference about saving the world from Russian military aggression, keeping us out of nuclear war, making sure we're not all speaking Chinese in five years, and so on. So the Munich Security Conference is supposedly the real deal. Like these are serious people dealing with serious stuff. And with that in mind, here's the official statement from the Munich Security Conference after that footage went viral online. Quote, our former chair, Christoph Hausgen did not shed a few tears out of frustration. It was his farewell speech as he was leaving the Munich Security Conference after this year's conference. He was saying goodbye to the team at this very moment. Close quote. In other words, the Munich Security Conference is taking a break from keeping the world secure. Allegedly. In order to clarify that the footage you may have seen online was edited unfairly, they're saying that their fearless leader was not crying in public over anything that J.D. vance said. That would be ridiculous. Instead he was crying in public because he's leaving his job. Now of course, that explanation doesn't change the fact that Christoph Hausgen is not a child under the age of 12. He is in fact a 69 year old man. And by the way, he's held this particular job since 2022. So he's breaking down in public because he's leaving a job after a period of Time that qualifies at best as a short stint. This is what broke him. He had to just walk off the stage, head in his hands, because he's really gonna miss being the chair of the Munich Security Conference after three entire years. Now, at this point, they should probably just admit that J.D. vance is the one who made him cry. You know, obviously that would actually be maybe less embarrassing than whatever they came up with. And not to rub it in, by the way, but this guy, Christoph Halsgen, is the same German diplomat who laughed at Donald Trump back at the United nations in 2018 when he warned that Germany was dangerously dependent on Russian energy. Watch. Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers. It has been the formal policy of our countries since. Well, if you follow world affairs, you know what happened next. When Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off a majority of Germany's energy, the Germans had to reopen a bunch of coal plants and delay the shutdown of their nuclear plants. They also had to find natural gas elsewhere, including from the United States. So it's fitting, I guess, that a few years later, this same guy isn't laughing on camera anymore. Instead, he's crying for one reason or another. It's obviously a flattering comparison for J.D. vance. I mean, it's almost like Europe's leaders wanted to appear as weak as possible in the wake of his speech and right before this weekend's elections in Germany. But Europeans were not the only ones giving JD Vance a big assist this weekend. Over at CBS News, Margaret Brennan suggested that Vance was wrong to extol the virtues of free speech because the Nazis used free speech, and that's how we got the Holocaust. And yes, to be clear, this is a real segment that actually aired on national television. Here it is.

Margaret Brennan (10:35)

Well, he was standing in a country.

Matt Walsh (10:37)

Where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that. That the censorship. I disagree with you specifically about the right. No, I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that. They had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history. Now keep in mind, the woman who asked this question moderated the VP debate in which she cut off JD Vance's microphone because he refuted one of her lies about immigration. And now here she is claiming that the Nazis somehow weaponized speech to, quote, conduct a genocide. She's not even saying that speech was used to promote a genocide, which would also be wrong, but she's saying the speech was used to conduct. They actually committed the genocide with speech somehow. Now, on reflection, it's actually impressive how little her question makes sense. First of all, it doesn't actually mean anything to weaponize free speech to conduct a genocide. The words don't come together in a way that makes any sense at all. It's like saying the Nazis weaponized air to conduct a genocide, so therefore we need to ban air, I guess, since the Nazis used it. But in this case, she's just wrong on the basic facts. Also, before the Nazis rose to power, Weimar Germany had laws against so called hate speech, including laws that prohibited hate speech against Jews. And prior to the rise of the Nazis, they shut down something like 100 newspapers in Prussia alone over a two year period. In 1925, Hitler was banned from speaking in some states because of his rhetoric. And in the end, all of these speech restrictions actually emboldened the Nazis. People assume that because these Nazis were being censored, maybe they were onto something. So censorship had the exact opposite of its intended effect, as it so often does. And then of course, when the Nazis took over, they eliminated free speech. You know, as Rubio said, you couldn't criticize Hitler in any way. So there are about a million reasons why. Margaret Brennan's question is complete nonsense. Now, I could go on and pick apart Brennan's logic some more, but I really don't need to because her own network, cbs, did it. This weekend, CBS just so happened to do a whole segment about how Germany cracks down on free speech. Today they conduct pre dawn raids on people who post offensive content on the Internet. Watch.

Margaret Brennan (13:32)

It's 6:01 on a Tuesday morning and we were with state police as they raided this apartment in northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched a suspect's home, then seized his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime? Posting a racist cartoon online. At the exact same time across Germany, more than 50 similar raids played out part of what prosecutors say is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.

Matt Walsh (14:16)

50 raids at the same time for offensive memes. Now try to imagine how CBS would be covering raids like this if they came at the direction of Donald Trump. Let's say Trump decides that he wants to ban hate speech, so he'll conduct pre dawn raids against anyone who posts hateful content about white people on the Internet. I mean, how do you think 60 Minutes would react to something like that? Imagine Joy Reid or Jameel Hill getting carted away by armed law enforcement in the middle of the night because they made their 1 millionth post about how white people are evil. Like, how do we think CBS might respond to that? Well, I can tell you this. Margaret Brennan wouldn't come out and declare that Trump was doing his part to prevent another holocaust. That's because the corporate press isn't actually concerned about the rise of an authoritarian government. They just want to make sure that they're the ones running it. And if you doubt that, watch how the CBS anchorwoman reacts as German officials explain their draconian laws to her.

Margaret Brennan (15:14)

What's the typical reaction when the police show up at somebody's door and they say, hey, we believe you wrote this on the Internet.

Christoph Hausgen (15:22)

They say, in Germany, we say, das witt moy mohelzdochmer saagen durfen. So we are here with crimes of talking, posting in Internet. And the people are surprised that this is really illegal to post these kind of words.

Margaret Brennan (15:37)

They don't think it was illegal?

Christoph Hausgen (15:38)

No, they don't think it was illegal. And they say, no, that's my free speech. And we say no. Yeah, free speech as well. But it also has its limits.

Matt Walsh (15:49)

Now, in case you missed it, here's a screen grab of the glee on her face. She just, I mean, she loves it. She's being told that people in Germany are shocked to realize that their electronic devices are being seized and that they're being arrested for using, for talking, for using words that the German authorities don't like. And this woman, the CBS anger, I mean, she's smiling through the whole thing. And if you watch this entire segment, you won't find any pushback whatsoever from cbs. They don't bring on a guest to explain how actually this is a horrible idea. Instead, the whole segment comes across like a promotion for state censorship, because that's what it is. And as it continued, it became more and more bizarre. Watch.

Margaret Brennan (16:31)

Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?

Matt Walsh (16:34)

Yes. Yes, it is.

Margaret Brennan (16:36)

And it's a crime to insult them online as well.

Matt Walsh (16:39)

Yes.

Christoph Hausgen (16:39)

The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the Internet.

Margaret Brennan (16:44)

Why?

Christoph Hausgen (16:45)

Because in Internet, it stays there. If we are talking here face to face, you insult me, I insult you. Okay, finish. But in the Internet, if I insult you or a politician, that sticks around forever. Yeah.

Margaret Brennan (16:59)

The prosecutors explain German law also prohibits the spread of malicious gossip, violent threats and fake quotes. If somebody posts something that's not true and then somebody else reposts it or likes it, are they committing a crime?

Matt Walsh (17:15)

In the case of reposting, it is.

Christoph Hausgen (17:17)

A crime as well, because the reader can't distinguish whether you just invented this.

Matt Walsh (17:22)

Or just reposted it. That's the same for us.

Margaret Brennan (17:25)

The punishment for breaking hate speech laws can include jail time for repeat offenders.

Matt Walsh (17:31)

She's just so happy. She loves every minute of this. And notice how he snuck in there. Well, if you insult someone or a politician, so what we're being told is that if you insult or criticize a politician in Germany, they can have you arrested. And CBS News thinks that this is wonderful in Germany at least. But again, if Donald Trump tried to do the same thing, I think they'd feel a little different about it. And, you know, conservatives are reacting with shock and horror to footage like the one we just played, which is understandable. But we can't forget that something very similar has already happened here in this country. And we would have gone full Germany if Trump hadn't won. I mean, that's where this was heading. We were already arresting people for offensive memes. That already happened. And everybody on the left understands this. That's why they're lying to their viewers about what life is like in Germany at the moment. Here, for example, is MSNBC talking head Rick Wilson explaining that Germany, despite the pre dawn raids over memes, has a far better free speech environment than America does. Somehow. I communicated with somebody from the German CSU a little while ago. I asked her what she thought about what had happened with Vance. And the degree to which they were shocked and appalled and offended that Vance came there daring to lecture Germany, one of the most free countries on earth when it comes to expression, where America is now rated 55th in the world on freedom of expression, was appalling. They're shocked and appalled. If they could have had J.D. vance arrested for it, they would have. But you know, unfortunately, it's hard to arrest the American Vice president. He says that America is rated 55th in the world for freedom of expression. And I had no idea where he got that figure. My assumption was that some left wing Group rated us 55th, because some states banned drag queens from performing strip teases in front of children and so on. But after looking into it, he could be referencing something called the World Press Freedom Index, which basically surveys journalists and asks them if they feel threatened. And of course, all the journalists here say that Trump is gonna put them in camps tomorrow. So we rate poorly as a result. And somehow this survey has Canada ranked 40 spots higher than the US which is a pretty good indication that the survey is totally useless, given that Canada was arresting journalists who covered the trucker convoy just a couple of years ago. Now, of course, Rick Wilson is pointing to this useless survey because he knows that by every actual metric, Americans have three far more free speech rights than Europeans do. And people like Rick want to change that. But there's an even deeper issue here which often gets lost as conservatives justifiably resist restriction on speech. And that issue is this. That what makes the left's assault on free speech so insidious, whether in this country or in Germany or anywhere else in the Western world, is not just that they seek to ban open expression, but that they seek to ban specifically the expression of true and morally right ideas. Okay? That's the key element that will always separate left wing assaults on free speech from alleged right wing assaults on free speech. Because whenever somebody claims that the right is waging an assault on free speech, it always means when you look into it, that some conservatives are advocating for restrictions on pornography or trying to get pornographic books out of schools, or trying to ban adults from staging burlesque shows for children. You know, that sort of thing. On the other hand, when the left bans free speech, they're trying to stop us from saying that men can't have babies, or, you know, they're demanding that we show religious reverence to the pride flag. They're arresting people who leave tire marks on rainbow colored crosswalks, just as one example. The alleged right wing restrictions on speech aren't really restrictions on speech at all. But even if they were, it's still a very different kind of speech. Okay, there's no equivalency here. And this is the point that promoters of the Woke right narrative seem to consistently miss. The Atlantic, for example, just ran a big think piece entitled how the Woke Right Replaced the Woke Left. And they equate Republicans dismissal of fake words like Latinx with Democrats. Many, many attempts to dictate what words people can and cannot use. But the reality is that the far left and the far right are not, in fact, two sides of the same coin. They are not equally delusional and dangerous ideologies that are just on opposite extremes. That's not the case because one side, the left, denies and seeks to suppress the most basic and fundamental realities of human existence. There's one side that manipulates language and denies statistical data in order to hide the truth. The other side does not do that. The people demanding that you use the word Latinx because they think Hispanic people can sometimes be, you know, non binary superhumans or whatever are not in fact identical to the people who understand that the entire concept of Latinx is ridiculous and incoherent. But the left has to draw an equivalence because they have no other response. When J.D. vance points out that so called asylum seekers are constantly murdering innocent Americans and Europeans, they know it's true. In fact, just hours before Vance spoke in Munich, a girl and her mother were mowed down by an Islamic terrorist in the city. Dozens were injured. And then after Vance's speech, a Syrian asylum seeker, quote unquote asylum seeker murdered a 14 year old boy in Austria and he was grinning as the police arrived. Again and again reality intrudes on left wing narratives. That is the fundamental problem with their ideology and it's why they're so insistent on censorship. It's why J.D. vance's speech had European elites in tears, whether they'll admit it or not. And it's why in just a few days, Germans will send a message that in Europe, as in this country, tens of millions of regular people have had enough. Now let's get to our five headlines. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career, calling you impact your family, your friends and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian affordable visit gcu. Edu CNN reports a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis crashed, turned upside down and caught fire on the Runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport while attempting to land. On Monday, the latest in a string of passenger plane crashes since December. All 80 people on board the CRJ 900 Twin Jet aircraft survived, but 18 were injured. According to Delta. Video was obtained showing the rear landing gear of the jet buckling and the right wing shearing away in a fireball after the plane landed hard on the Runway. And this morning that video was released of the crash actually happening. Let's take a look at the footage. Oh, oh, oh, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, so I'm definitely not a trained observer, but it looks to me like the plane is coming in way too fast and landing too hard. And maybe that's why the wheels and wings just like were just one of the, the wheels and, and one of the wings seems to buckled immediately on impact. I'd be interested to hear from any pilots in the audience leave a comment with your analysis based on that video because I don't know, but that's what it looks to my untrained eyes. And as of this moment, we haven't been given any additional details. We don't know anything about the pilot or the pilots. There's still a lot we don't know. But what we do know is that this is now at least the third crash in as many weeks. So there's a real trend starting to develop here. And it's just about the worst trend imaginable. Okay. An airplane crash trend is about as bad as it gets. And the important thing to keep in mind is that the trend actually stretches back much further than a month. Like we talked about after the crash in dc, this didn't just happen out of nowhere. Right. This is, I mean, for many months up to this point, there was a string of near misses and near catastrophes. So this is a real deep systemic problem in the airline industry. And that systemic problem does at least involve a systematic industry wide lowering of standards. It just does. Like this is all happening in that environment. So am I saying that this was a DEI pilot who crashed the plane? No, I'm not saying that. It might be at this point we don't know. But maybe it wasn't because we don't know anything about the pilot who landed the plane or failed to land it, as the case may be. But what we do know is that intentionally lowering standards across the industry, prioritizing things other than merit in hiring, has a corrosive effect on the whole industry and touches every part of it. And the effect is deep and pervasive. So none of these things are coincidences. When you've got many people, including pilots, including people who are actual experts. Right. Trust the experts. Quote, unquote. When you've got people warning for years that, hey, we're lowering standards, we're getting very close to a disaster, bad things are gonna happen, and then they start happening, it's hard to argue that it's just a coincidence, because, of course, it's not. All right. More protests against Trump in D.C. over the weekend. I'm afraid to report that the protesters are singing again. And, yes, I'm going to make you listen to it. I have no choice. I'm compelled by forces beyond my comprehension to make you listen to this. I have to do it. I'm sorry. Here it is. Keep on moving forward. Keep on moving forward. Keep on moving forward Never turning back. Never turning back. Trump is not a king. Trump is not a king. Trump is not a king. Never turning back. Never turning back. Stop the fascist now. Stop the fascist now. All right. Stop the fascism. Okay, this is. I don't know. We got. We got about a minute into it, maybe longer. All right, so there's. There's a lot going on here. First you have the guy singing, of course, and how could you miss him? And, you know, he thinks he's good at this. He. Like, that's what gets me. He actually thinks he's good. You can tell he's getting into it. He thinks he's crushing it. He thinks he is. He thinks he's getting a record deal out of this. That's what he believes. Like, this guy, I guarantee you, has auditioned for American Idol, the Voice, America's Got Talent. Never made it on any of them. And so this is his big moment. This is his debut. This is where he becomes a star. He thinks in his own mind. And it's not his fault, really, because people have told him his whole life that he's a good singer. People have lied to him. They lied to him to be polite. They didn't have the heart to tell him that his singing voice sounds like a female goat in labor. They didn't want to tell him that. They didn't want to tell him that his singing voice is so bad that if he went down to perform for the immigrants in Gitmo right now, it would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. Nobody had the heart to say to him, listen, when you sing, it sounds like you're being stabbed. And also, it makes me want to stab you, and it makes me want to be stabbed. So it's just a lot of stabbing. There's a lot of stabbing being evoked by your singing voice. I just want everyone to be stabbed in the whole room when I hear this. No one ever said. I'm not saying. I'm not saying that to him. I'm not advocating violence against anybody, even if they have the worst singing voice known to man. I'm just saying that no one apparently ever said that to him. And this is what happens as a result. And meanwhile, you've got the woman next to him, I guess, trying to clap along to the song. But the only problem is that she has the rhythm of a hearing impaired toddler. I mean, she looks like a baby who's just. You ever see a baby that just learned how to clap and is really proud of himself? He just figured it out and that's what she looks like. And then you have the sign language interpreter, and the guy singing thinks that the sign language interpreter is interpreting his song. But. And maybe she is, I don't know. But it could be a distress signal that she's sending out. Like she's sending a signal out asking someone to come rescue her. That's the message that she's actually communicating with the sign language. So it's just a mess, the whole thing. And to think that the left used to do protest songs really well. That was the one thing they were good at, but they can't do it anymore. And it's kind of amazing because Donald Trump has been in office for 10 years. Not in office, but he's been on the political scene for 10 years now, a decade. And in that entire time, nobody on the left has come up with a good anti Trump song. And if anybody did, you know, I wouldn't agree with it, but if it was a good song, I would at least admit, like, okay, that was a good song. And no one's done it, even though the left has all of the relevant musicians on their side and they haven't been able to do it in 10 years, which is amazing. And it's not just anti Trump. I mean, when's the last time somebody made a good song attacking the system, going after the man, et cetera? It's been at least 20 years. If you go back to the Bush administration, you had some of the rock bands like System of a Down or whatever that would make songs protesting the Iraq war. You go back to the 90s, you had rage against the Machine. Killing in the Name of was about a song about police brutality, I think, or something. And obviously you go all the way back to the 70s and 60s. You get all kinds of music about the Vietnam War and so on, and now there's just nothing. And the reason is obvious, that the left took control of the culture and became the man. So they no longer have any incentive to rage against the system that they control. Now the power dynamics are changing. So maybe we'll see a resurgence of protest music, music attacking the man and all that. But I don't know. I'm not so sure, because the problem is that rock and roll is where a lot of that stuff comes from. But the rock and roll, I mean, rock and roll is dead. You know, it's. It's just gone because the rock bands packed it in or became shells of themselves once the left took over. And now they were shilling for the system that just killed rock and roll. And so now there's nobody around to make a good protest song. And we're left with. With this. It's pretty bad, pretty grim. Okay, so there's been some outrage over an SNL skit. In this case, it has been conservatives on X very ticked off because of a skit featuring Tom Hanks as a Trump supporter. And I've seen this clip circulating all over X, and the claim is that Tom Hanks character in the sketch refuses to shake a black man's hand because he's racist. And so that's the headline, that Tom Hanks is playing a racist Trump supporter who refuses to shake a black man's hand. This is from a black Jeopardy skit, which is a recurring bit on snl. Tom Hanks's character is also recurring. He was. He was. He did a. One of these exact same skits playing the same character at least one other time. I think it was probably seven or eight years ago. But here's the recent clip from the SNL episode this past Saturday that has a lot of people on the right very upset. Let's take a look. Now, speaking of church, can I say something? If more folks went to church, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in now. You know what? I agree with you, Doug. I'd like to shake your hand, sir. Here we go. Oh, no, no, no. It's just. It's just a handshake. Yeah, it's just a handshake. Yeah. All right. You're welcome at Black Jeopardy. Anytime. All right, well, thank you, my brother. You know, maybe I start a show for you to come on, and we'll call it White Jeopardy. We don't need it. We don't need it. I have to say, this is going to be an unpopular opinion, I guess, maybe with some in the audience, but I'm not offended by that joke. I think the reaction from conservatives to this has been a tad bit overblown. It's been a bit much. You know, there's been a lot of tweets and selfie videos that various conservatives are posting. So I got a message for Tom Hanks, you know, that kind of thing. And it's just I recoil automatically because it's too similar to how the left responds to jokes they don't like, like taking it way too seriously and getting up on a soapbox and all that kind of stuff. It's a bit cringe. A bit cringe. And we don't want to be cringe. Let the left be cringe. Let's not be cringe ourselves. And also, I think the joke is not that Tom Hanks is refusing to shake the guy's hand because he's black. The joke is that Tom Hanks thinks that the black guy is going to rob him, and that's why he steps back and then realizes that he's not and then shakes his hand. So that's the joke. It's just. It's some very mild racial humor, and it's not the kind of thing that offends me. Personally, I'm a little offended that the whole skit is so unfunny. Like, I'm not saying it's funny. I didn't laugh at that. It's actually. It's quite lame. It's not offensive. It's just lame. I mean, it didn't even get a laugh in the audience because it's just not very funny. And also, it's a rehash. Like I said, they did this exact same skit, whatever it was, six, seven, eight years ago, with that exact same joke, and they just did it again. But if you go back and watch the original skit, which is a little bit funnier than this one, but not much. It's the whole premise. The joke in the skit is that the white Trump supporter and the black people on stage actually agree that. And so the black Jeopardy. Host is surprised to learn that he actually agrees with the white Trump supporter on everything. And they have a lot more in common than what he assumed. That's the joke of the bit. And so if anything, you would expect that the left would be the ones getting upset about it because it, you know, quote unquote, humanizes normalizes Trump supporters. So if you showed me that skit, especially the original one. And like I said, this one is just a rehash of the original, and I had no context. And you told me that one side of the political aisle was getting really upset about the skit. I would assume it's the left because of the premise of the joke, that actually black people and Trump supporters have a lot in common, but instead, it's conservatives and. And, you know, I don't like snl. I don't like Tom Hanks. I'm just saying that an outrage cycle where we all get offended over a very mild joke is probably not the best use of our time. And it just looks. It's not a good look. It just makes you look kind of lame, which isn't to say you have to laugh at it because it's not funny. Instead, you just say, okay, that's not really that funny, and you move on. All right, finally, time for something of an update or maybe a revision to past statements. You may remember a few months ago when video came out from parliament in New Zealand where a woman started doing the haka, the haka dance, in the middle of Parliament proceedings because she was mad that there was a law being considered that would give equal rights to white people in New Zealand. Whereas right now, you know, indigenous people in New Zealand have special rights. They have more than equal rights. They're on a higher legal plane with their rights than white people are. And so there's been some consideration to, hey, maybe we should actually have equal rights in this country. What do you think? And this woman was upset about that. And so she broke into this haka thing in the middle of Parliament, and it was speaking of cringey. This was cringe overload. And we played the clip of the haka routine, and I mocked it pretty ruthlessly. It deserved to be mocked in that context. The woman was making a total ass of herself. There's no doubt about it. But I also made fun of the haka in general, and that's the part that I need to clarify a bit, because it turns out that there are occasions where the haka is not only appropriate, but pretty great, I have to say. And one such occasion occurred in New Zealand a few days ago. This video is also going viral where a group of young men interrupted a gay pride parade by doing the haka. Let's check that out. All right, so there's a hawk I like. I would have done it with him if I was there. Okay? I would have joined in. That's. I don't know if that's culturally appropriating. But that's great stuff. Cause one thing that makes this not cringe while the one in Parliament was cringe is that, for one thing, these are young men doing it. And it looks kind of ridiculous when some small, petite woman is flailing around and trying to be intimidating. It's just, you know, it doesn't work. I mean, the men in this video are the ones who, in a different age, would have been the warriors, you know, of the Maori tribe. So for them, it fits. It just fits a lot better. But, of course, the most important difference is the context. And a haka in the middle of Parliament just makes you look either insane or like a really embarrassing theater kid. And I think it's probably more the latter, which is far worse than the former. But disrupting a Pride parade with the haka is that I'm a fan of that. That's a good idea, especially because of the awkward position that it puts the left in. Because they claim that LGBT people are a persecuted minority. But then indigenous people, they would also say are a persecuted minority. And they believe that pride parades are sacrosanct, but they also would say that the haka is sacrosanct. So how do they sort this out? You know, you've got a clash of two persecuted minorities in their minds anyway, both with their own, you know, sacred cultural celebration. And these two things are literally clashing in the street. So if you're on the left, what do you do about this? It's very awkward. Well, the organizers of Rainbow Pride Auckland put out a statement that tried to navigate this minefield, and here's what they said. While today has been a painful reminder of imported ideologies and the violence they bring, we remain confident in our community's resilience. So that's the tack they're trying to take here. They're saying that these young men represent an imported ideology. Now, of course, that couldn't be further from the truth. You know, the situation is exactly the opposite. Nobody imported opposition to the LGBT agenda. They didn't need to import that. It's the LGBT agenda that was imported. Okay? The Maori were not flying Pride flags 300 years ago. Pride flags were imported. Everything the pride flag represents was imported. The Maori would have lived lives and had a culture that modern leftists would consider sexist, racist, homophobic, patriarchal, oppressive. Every indigenous culture would fit those labels by modern leftist standards. In fact, every culture, every society on Earth 300 years ago or 200 years ago or 100 years ago, or even probably 50 years ago, every society would be considered sexist, racist, homophobic, patriarchal, oppressive by modern leftist standards. So it's leftism that was imported leftism. Ideologically colonized countries like New Zealand. That's the truth. And this haka performance of the Pride Parade makes that pretty clear. So I think it's great. Well done. Well done. Let me know next time there's a haka to Pride Parade. I'll be there. Well, not really, but I'll cheer on from afar. Tax season is here again, and the IRS isn't messing around. 2025. Look, I get it. Tax problems are about as fun as a root canal. Maybe you've got some unfiled returns collecting dust, or you're sitting on a pile of back taxes that are giving you night sweats. And with April 15th breathing down your neck, it's tempting to just walk into the woods alone, never look back and hope it all goes away. But here's the thing. Trying to ghost the irs, well, that's like trying to outrun a bear. Spoiler alert. It just doesn't end well. And that's why you should let Tax Network USA deal with this headache for you. These folks aren't your average tax people. They've got a direct line to the irs. Yeah, apparently that's a thing. And they know exactly which agents to talk to. Whether you're in the hole for 10k or 10mil, they've got tricks up their sleeves that actually work. They've already sorted out over a billion dollars in tax debt, so they must be doing something right. Talk with one of their strategists today. It's free. Stop the threatening letters. Stop looking over your shoulder and protect yourself from property seizures and bank levies. Don't let the IRS control your future. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com walsh April 15 is just around the corner, so act now before the IRS acts first. If you were with us for election night or the inauguration, you already know the Daily Wire doesn't just show up, we take over. And now we're headed back to D.C. to do just that at CPAC. Join me along with Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin and Jeremy Boreing, all on stage live Thursday night, February 20th. No scripted talking points, no corporate approved narratives. Just real conversations that actually matter. Streaming live on Daily Wire Plus. And we're taking your questions. Don't just watch CPAC be part of it. Live Thursday night, February 20th on Daily Wire Plus. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. So Today we will deal with one of those situations where everybody involved is wrong. It's also a situation that isn't remotely newsworthy or important. The daily cancellation was made for moments such as this. The pettier the better. The more wrong everybody is also the better. That brings us to this breaking news first reported by the New York Post. A bride in Texas was very angry recently when a baby started crying during her wedding ceremony. This was apparently supposed to be an adults only wedding, but this person brought their baby anyway. And the bride posted the footage to social media where it racked up millions of views and sparked a heated debate about the ethics of child free weddings, which we'll discuss in a moment. But first, here's the video times over the last few weeks. But I'm the only one that knows them.

Christoph Hausgen (48:16)

And one of the questions I asked.

Matt Walsh (48:18)

Was, when did you know you were in love and wanted to spend the.

Christoph Hausgen (48:23)

Rest of your life together as husband and wife?

Matt Walsh (48:26)

Claire, you look beautiful today. And Josh, you don't look too shabby yourself. First and foremost, I'm incredibly honored to be up here with you both today. Okay, so the baby's crying. I think we get the idea, you know what a baby crying sounds like. And sure enough, the baby was crying. And as I said, this has started a debate about the concept of child free weddings. Most of the comments on social media from what I've seen seem to be largely on the bride's side. They say that it's perfectly reasonable for the couple to exclude children from their festivities. In fact, I've been told as I've waded into this dispute that weddings aren't for children. Children are disruptive, they're bored at weddings. They'll ruin the special day for the bride and groom. And literally the only thing that matters is that the bride and groom have a good time. All of the guests are there simply to serve them and worship them and adore them and obey their every whim. That seems to be the argument. And it is, of course totally wrong. Now, I'm not going to stick up for the parents of that crying baby. They are also wrong. If your baby is crying during a wedding ceremony or any other kind of ceremony or any church service or anything similar to that, you need to take him back to the lobby or outside or wherever you need to go to ensure that he is not a disruption to everybody else. I have had to stand in the lobby for many a church service in my time because of crying babies. I don't particularly enjoy it, but that's just how it is when you're the parent of a young children. It comes with the territory. That's the gig. You just have to deal with it. This past Christmas, I spent half of Christmas mass standing outside with our two babies. Not even in the lobby because the lobby was also full of people. And also there were balloons in the lobby. And the they're toddlers, almost 2 years old, but they kept pointing to the balloons and shouting balloon, balloon. Like really loudly and so on top of crying. So we had to just take them out of the church entirely. The other option was to keep them inside and allow them to disrupt the mass for the hundreds of other people in attendance. That was not an option for me and my wife. So we took turns with the babies outside. Either we could have our time disrupted or hundreds of people could have their time disrupted. And obviously they're our children. So we're the ones who have to take the hit. We're the people who should have to deal with our own crying babies. We fully understand that and have lived by that principle for 11 years now. So I get that. But don't take any of this as an endorsement of kid free weddings. It is in fact completely ridiculous and gross to exclude children from your wedding. It is extremely tacky, and that's the most generous way to describe it, to invite someone to a big celebration like a wedding and then tell them that their children are not invited. Okay? Just like it would be tacky to do that with any other member of the family when you're inviting the family over to your wedding to say, oh yeah, but not that guy in the family, not him, you can't invite him. That at a minimum is very tacky. So this idea of an adults only wedding is, you know, it's a uniquely modern invention. It's a symptom of a society with a birth rate below replacement level and an increasing number of adults who have given up on having children entirely. Only in such a decrepit, dying, self centered culture could it be considered normal to exclude children from a wedding. Of all things. Like not only should children be at your wedding, but indeed children should especially be at your wedding. Children are the reason marriage exists. They are one of the most fundamental functions and purposes of the marital union, which is what your family and friends have gathered to celebrate. You know, I keep hearing that kids are disruptive at weddings and will just be bored the whole time anyway. First of all, if a child is disruptive, it's very easy to remove them from the situation. Okay, Removing a disruptive adult from a wedding and there have been many of those at many a wedding is much more difficult. In fact, I have never been to a wedding or even heard of one where a child ruined the event. Like, the baby crying during the ceremony was the closest thing I've ever seen to that happening. And even that was not that big of a deal and an easy problem to solve without banning kids completely. But I have seen and certainly heard about many, many stories where adults ruined weddings. So I'd say the ratio of adults to children ruining weddings is like 1,000 to 1. And that's probably a conservative estimate. As for kids being bored, again, this is completely backwards, okay? Adults are bored at weddings. I got news for you. If you're having a wedding, most of the adults there are bored to tears. I'm bored at weddings. Most adults spend the whole time calculating when they can leave without seeming rude. Like, there are two types of adult wedding guests. Okay? There are the ones who are bored and the ones who are drunk. And then there's the especially miserable third category of both bored and drunk. And you don't want that, but you're going to get some of that, too. Children, on the other hand, love weddings. They love them without any alcohol enhancement. Hopefully that's why the dance floor at any reception that allows children will be mostly occupied by children. And that's not because they're crowding the adults out. It's because kids are. They're just full of joy and excitement. Why wouldn't you want them at your wedding? A wedding without kids is lifeless and sterile. It's no different than having a Thanksgiving dinner and telling your guests they can't bring their kids. I mean, you're missing the whole point of the thing and you're making the event much more boring in the process. You know, I'm told that the wedding is really all about the bride and groom. Really just the bride, though. And if they or she doesn't want kids at the wedding, then, well, the kids just shouldn't be there. And I acknowledge that the bride has every legal right to decide who gets to come to her wedding. Of course, but. And I know this is heresy to say these days, but. But it is true that the event is not really just about her. Okay, this idea that the whole wedding, it's really just. It's just her day to celebrate her. It's all about her, actually. No, this is another invention of modern society. We treat weddings like events designed to worship and cater exclusively to the bride so that no demand that she makes can be considered too cumbersome and no barrier she puts in place of entry should be too difficult. But that's not what a wedding is, okay? A wedding is not an excuse to be a self centered diva. And if a woman sees it that way, she is from the outset setting a very terrible precedent for her marriage and getting off on exactly the wrong foot. A wedding is not just about the bride and not just about the couple. And we're actually not there celebrating the bride. We're celebrating the marriage itself. The sacrament of marriage is what is being celebrated and it's about the whole family. That's why you invite them. If you're throwing any kind of party, even a wedding reception, then especially a wedding reception. Your focus and priority should be to make sure that your guests have a good time. Did you know that your wedding reception is actually mostly about your guests having a good time? That's just being a good host. Now if you want it to be about just you don't invite anyone and don't have a reception. Just get married in front of the legally required number of witnesses and then go home and start your married life together. If you're inviting family and friends, then the event is also about your family and friends. Who says? Well, you did, you invited them, you decided to include them, which is good. But if you're going to include your friends and family, it is not fair and is in fact pretty deranged to set an age limit. Children deserve to be a part of the celebration and you know, at least they won't get drunk and vomit on the floor. So that's another mark in their favor, I would say. And that is why child free weddings are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching, thanks for listening, talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.