0:00

BetOnline has the largest offering of betting odds

0:02

in the world. You can bet virtually on anything

0:04

from who will be named NBA All-Star to who

0:06

will win Best Picture at the Oscars. BetOnline is

0:08

the best online sports betting platform. They pride themselves

0:10

on their higher than average betting limits of up

0:12

to $25,000 and you

0:15

can increase your wagering amounts by contacting their

0:17

player service desk by phone or email. So

0:20

don't be the odd man out when everyone around you

0:22

is talking about their betting predictions on the biggest sporting

0:24

events of the year. Go to betonline.ag

0:26

to place your bets. Use Promo Code Daily Wire

0:28

with your deposit of $55 or more and get

0:30

a 50% instant deposit bonus

0:33

of up to $1,000. That's

0:35

betonline.ag, Promo Code Daily

0:37

Wire. BetOnline. The options

0:39

are endless. Today on The Matt Wall

0:41

Show, the media launches an all-out assault on the

0:43

true enemies of democracy, they say. Poor

0:46

white Americans. Also, the Biden administration struggles

0:48

to evade questions and accountability as yet

0:50

another American citizen is murdered by an

0:52

illegal alien. A school in Oklahoma holds

0:54

a fundraising event featuring a display so

0:56

revolting and grotesque that I don't

0:58

even want to describe it, but we'll play the video for

1:00

you. And a large group of scientists are asked whether

1:02

sex is binary. The answer should have been yes

1:05

from 100% of respondents, but

1:07

that's not what happened. We'll talk about all of that and more

1:09

today on The Matt Wall Show. This

1:37

episode is brought to you by Preborn to

1:39

donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the

1:42

keyword baby or go

1:44

to preborn.com/Matt. A

1:46

lot of the discussion you'll hear about

1:48

identity politics focuses on how immoral and

1:50

destructive it is and for good reason.

1:52

Judging people on the basis of characteristics

1:54

they can't control is wrong. Decent people

1:56

understand that, but a lesser

1:58

known side effect of identity politics. is that it leaves

2:00

the people who believe in it, the

2:03

daytime makers of MSNBC, for

2:05

example, completely bewildered by major

2:07

political events. Identity politics makes

2:10

its adherence significantly dumber, basically. There's no

2:12

other way to put it, that's what it

2:14

does. So take the election of

2:16

Donald Trump in 2016, for example. This was eight

2:18

years ago, and by now, most of us have

2:20

a pretty good idea why it happened. Trump, unlike

2:22

Hillary Clinton, did not tell coal miners that he

2:24

was gonna put them out of business. He

2:27

didn't describe half the country as deplorable or

2:29

extol the virtues of free trade in towns

2:31

where all the good jobs have moved overseas.

2:33

Instead, Trump's message, not his skin colors, gender,

2:35

any other aspect of his identity, resonated

2:38

with tens of millions of Americans. Whether

2:40

you disagree with his message

2:42

or you agree with it, that's just

2:45

it, it should be obvious. But

2:47

somehow it's not obvious to MSNBC.

2:50

As of this week in the year 2024, they're

2:53

still very much unsure why

2:55

Donald Trump won in 2016 and why

2:57

he's leading in every major presidential poll

2:59

today. Watch. And

3:02

as we barrel toward a likely

3:04

rematch of the 2020 election, one

3:06

candidate continues to have a hold

3:09

over white rural voters. But

3:11

it's not Joe Biden. Seen here

3:13

as a boy on the right side of your

3:15

screen who went to public school is

3:18

the son of a used car

3:20

salesman and was born to a

3:22

middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Instead,

3:24

it is Trump here on the

3:27

left side, a private school-educated

3:29

son of a New York City real

3:32

estate tycoon who became a millionaire

3:34

at eight years old and didn't

3:36

have to serve because he claimed

3:38

he had concerns

3:40

in his little feet. So why

3:42

isn't that Trump appeals so much

3:44

to a group he couldn't be

3:46

more different from? I

3:49

do like when they show the childhood photos because it

3:52

looks like they were both taken in the Civil War

3:54

era, which I don't think is

3:56

what they meant to highlight, but they did. Anyway, the

3:58

premise of this intro is that... By default, you'd

4:00

expect Joe Biden to be

4:03

dominating the vote among white,

4:05

rural voters, because unlike Donald Trump, Joe

4:07

Biden's dad was a used car salesman,

4:09

and his family was middle class growing up. This

4:12

is how MSNBC anchors and their viewers see

4:14

the world. They vote on the basis of

4:16

identity, that is, characteristics the candidates can't control.

4:19

And because the essence of modern liberalism is

4:21

projection, they think that everyone else must vote

4:23

the same way too, or

4:25

that they should anyway. It doesn't matter

4:27

to them that Biden devoted his entire

4:29

professional life to representing the interests of banks

4:32

and credit card issuers in the Senate, to

4:34

the point that a bank hired Biden's son,

4:37

just as Biden was pushing major legislation that

4:39

would benefit that same bank. They

4:41

don't care that Biden somehow owns multiple mansions, despite

4:43

the fact that he's supposedly been earning a politician's

4:45

salary his whole life. They

4:47

don't even care about anything that Trump campaigned on

4:49

or delivered in office. All

4:51

they can process is the respective identities

4:54

of the two candidates, which were

4:56

determined at birth. Now, the problem

4:58

with this level of ignorance is that a critical mass

5:00

of Americans now subscribe to it. So

5:02

at this point, one of two options is

5:04

possible. Either the left can renounce identity politics,

5:07

and they can start debating ideas, or

5:10

they can double down on identity politics,

5:12

which inevitably means declaring war against the

5:14

identities that they see as the enemy.

5:17

Now, as this MSNBC segment went on, it

5:19

became very clear which

5:21

option they're obviously going to choose. Mika

5:24

Przyński introduces two authors who just wrote

5:26

a book entitled White Rural Rage, The

5:28

Threat to American Democracy. I

5:30

want you to watch as the

5:33

authors describe the supposed threats that

5:35

these dastardly voters pose to America.

5:38

Watch. Joining

5:40

us now, professor of political

5:42

science at the University of

5:44

Maryland, Baltimore County, Tom Schaller,

5:46

and journalist and opinion writer

5:48

Paul Waldman. Our new book,

5:51

Out Tomorrow, is entitled White

5:53

Rural Rage, The Threat to

5:55

American Democracy. And Tom, we'll start with

5:57

you. Why are white rural voters...

6:00

The threat to democracy at this point.

6:02

You would think as we pointed out

6:04

looking at Joe Biden background and Donald

6:06

Trump fit that the opposite would be

6:08

tropes. And we we play out

6:10

the fearful interconnected. read that white rural

6:12

voters post country first of all and

6:15

we show thirty polls and national studies

6:17

to demonstrate as we provide the receipts

6:19

and chapter six. They're the most racist,

6:21

xenophobic, anti immigrant, anti gay to you

6:24

demographic group in the country. Second do

6:26

the most conspiracies group to and on

6:28

support and subscribers. Election denialism Coby denialism

6:30

the such scientific skepticism Obama birthers of

6:33

the i want i'm in you know

6:35

you are demonized entire group of people.

6:37

So why. Is that the two guys you

6:39

should bring in? Or two guys who have never

6:41

like even driven through the country? You guys have

6:43

never even seen a cow in our lives. And

6:46

and they're the ones are gonna bring in the

6:48

arena. Bring in the be the experts on white

6:50

rural. Voters. And

6:52

knew him and will even leave aside.the whole

6:54

idea that vote in it and then a

6:56

group of voters could be a threat to

6:58

democracy. Simply. By participating in

7:01

upon. Our. Be that as it

7:03

may and and will play the rest of the answer

7:05

the second one is winning. This doesn't make a few

7:07

points in his his and first is this. That

7:10

in his resented when they use the

7:12

term white rural voter. They.

7:14

Really, just mean of course white poor

7:16

voter. The. Throughout the book, these white

7:18

moral voters are described as being beleaguered.

7:21

Having stagnant incomes, having high

7:23

rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness,

7:26

The. Just as the just as easily could have title their

7:28

bought. White poor rage

7:30

if they want. That's

7:32

pretty obvious. Of course, when it's notable that they

7:34

still feel the needs a cloak. Their.

7:36

Elitism in this little bit of

7:38

euphemism. presumably. They realize that

7:41

if they start complaining about the behavior of

7:43

poor white people, Than. To be pretty

7:45

easy to point to the behavior of poor

7:47

black people in this country, which doesn't compare

7:49

particularly well by any objective metric, including most

7:51

notably, rates of violent crime. In fact, Both.

7:54

Poor black males and wealthy black males have

7:56

a greater chance of committing a felony in

7:58

their lifetimes. than white males of any

8:01

income level, which is a

8:03

very interesting statistic. But these are the kinds of

8:05

comparisons you can avoid when you use

8:07

euphemisms like poor, or

8:09

rather white, rural Americans, instead of poor

8:11

white Americans. You also

8:13

have some plausible deniability when people accuse you of

8:16

just being, you know,

8:18

an elitist snob who finds a lower income

8:20

people repugment, which is obviously the case

8:22

here. But they can

8:24

deny it because it's not lower income people they're

8:27

mad at after all, it's just those

8:29

pesky rural whites that they don't like.

8:31

Let's put the euphemism aside for a second and get

8:33

into the substance of what you just heard. According

8:36

to the author of this book, which is really

8:38

more like an anti-white screed, quote, we

8:40

show 30 polls in national studies and we provide

8:42

the receipts in chapter six. Now

8:45

supposedly these receipts, call

8:47

them receipts because everybody talks like they're posting on

8:49

Twitter now, clearly demonstrate that white

8:51

rural voters are a threat to the country, he

8:53

says. And for example, according to the writers, quote,

8:56

they're the most conspiracist group, QAnon

8:58

supporters and subscribers and

9:00

COVID denialism. Well,

9:02

that sounds pretty bad, COVID denialism. But

9:05

what exactly is QAnon support and COVID

9:08

denialism? Those terms are never defined in

9:10

that interview. So I got a copy

9:12

of the book and I looked through it as

9:14

painful as that was. And somewhere in

9:16

chapter six, I found this, I found

9:19

this, quote, 85% of QAnon believers say

9:21

the COVID-19 virus was human made in a

9:23

foreign lab and QAnon believers are

9:25

one and a half times more likely to live

9:27

in rural than in urban areas. So

9:30

as you catch that, in other words, these white

9:32

poor voters are supposedly nuts because

9:34

they believe in the crazy QAnon

9:36

theory that COVID was made in

9:38

a foreign lab. In the case of

9:40

keeping track at home, this happens to

9:42

be the same unhinged QAnon conspiracy theory

9:44

that the FBI director has publicly stated

9:46

is likely to be true. More

9:49

importantly, it's the same theory that any reasonable person

9:52

would concede and has conceded all along

9:54

is very plausible at a minimum. We've

9:57

all listened to the, as the virologists on Tony

9:59

Fauci's book, watch his payroll change their stories about

10:01

the origins of COVID. We've seen the warnings before

10:04

the pandemic about the lack security of the Wuhan

10:06

lab. We followed the funding

10:08

going from the NIH to Wuhan for

10:10

gain of function experiments. We've all noticed

10:12

that the outbreak began practically down the street

10:15

from the Wuhan lab. In fact, these

10:18

white rural Americans apparently

10:20

noticed that very early on. They noticed it

10:22

before people like this noticed it. But

10:25

noticing these facts does not make you a threat

10:27

to democracy, despite what

10:29

they may say, even if you happen

10:31

to be white or poor, you live out in the country. And

10:35

you get a sense that the authors of this book know that

10:37

because in this interview, they're very careful

10:39

to avoid specifying the details of the

10:41

conspiracy theories that they're complaining about. Instead,

10:43

they just call it COVID denialism, and then

10:45

they just hope you won't check. Along

10:48

the same lines, the authors claim that it's

10:51

a lunatic conspiracy theory to suggest

10:53

that global elites are pedophiles who

10:55

participate in a sex trafficking operation,

10:57

which I guess would seem crazy

11:00

if you haven't heard the name Jeffrey Epstein

11:02

at any point in the past decade. Of

11:05

course, as you've probably guessed, there's also the implication in this

11:07

book that anyone who believes that the 2020 election wasn't

11:10

completely on the up and up, anybody who

11:12

has any issue with mail-in ballots or ballot

11:14

harvesting or Biden getting 10 million

11:16

more votes than Barack Obama by campaigning from

11:19

his basement must be lunatics. These

11:21

are the conspiracy theories and the threats

11:24

to democracy that these authors are referencing

11:26

in this segment. And as

11:28

unbelievable as all this is, it gets worse

11:30

somehow. I interrupted rudely

11:32

this guy's answer in the MSNBC interview, so

11:34

let's hear the rest of it. Third,

11:37

anti-democratic sentiments. They don't believe in an

11:39

independent press, free speech. They're most likely

11:41

to say the president should be able

11:44

to act unilaterally without any checks from

11:46

Congress or the courts or their bureaucracy.

11:48

They're also the most strongly white nationalist

11:50

and white Christian nationalist, and fourth, they

11:52

are most likely to just excuse or

11:54

justify violence as an acceptable alternative to

11:57

peaceful public distancing. You mentioned a lot

11:59

of. negative factors about this

12:02

demographic. Yeah.

12:05

You know, he can barely contain himself. He's

12:07

practically frothing at the mouth to accuse poor

12:09

white people of doing exactly what the Democratic

12:11

Party has been doing for the last several

12:13

years. It's kind of astonishing to

12:16

watch. He claims that it's

12:18

poor white voters who are the enemies

12:20

of the freedom of speech as if

12:22

every power center in the Biden administration

12:24

hasn't united to destroy Elon Musk for

12:26

committing the crime of allowing people to talk on the

12:28

internet as if every major

12:30

university in this country won't punish students

12:32

for stating out loud that they believe

12:35

in, you know, things like biological reality

12:38

as if affirming the basic truth that all lives

12:40

matter won't get you fired from every major corporation

12:42

on the planet right now. No, it's

12:45

the poor white voters who are at war with

12:47

the independent press and the freedom of speech. We're

12:49

told that's what MSNBC would

12:52

have you believe. Anyway, the

12:54

fact they can say with a straight face is

12:56

the most revealing part. That's how committed they are

12:58

to this fantasy. The

13:01

whole answer you just saw was one

13:03

absurdity after another. It's poor white voters

13:05

were told who supposedly want the president

13:07

to act unilaterally without any checks from

13:10

Congress or, you know, from the all

13:12

important unelected bureaucracy in Washington, according to

13:14

these authors. And again,

13:17

that might be a compelling argument if

13:19

you were not alive to see Barack

13:21

Obama in the Rose Garden announcing a

13:23

unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens

13:25

in an election year. It

13:28

might be a compelling argument if you were literally

13:30

born yesterday and therefore didn't notice when Biden decided

13:32

to ignore the Supreme Court and

13:34

nationalize this country's rental properties and

13:37

forgive quote unquote billions of dollars in student

13:39

loan debt, which is

13:41

to offload it to taxpayers. And

13:44

in fact, to brag about the fact that he's

13:46

doing it on his own without any permission for

13:48

anyone to brag about it frequently, including as recently

13:50

as a week ago, it might

13:54

be compelling argument if you somehow missed the

13:56

bombs that every administration in modern history has

13:58

dropped without bothering to console. with Congress,

14:01

much less seek their approval. So

14:04

they're lying to your face again and again, and

14:07

they're doing it for a reason. It's

14:09

the same reason that the authors claim

14:11

it's poor white people who excuse or

14:13

justify violence as alternatives to peaceful public

14:15

discourse. And to believe this,

14:17

you would have had to miss the torching of

14:19

churches and police stations and small

14:21

businesses during the George Floyd riots. You'd

14:24

have to ignore the fact that as people

14:26

were being murdered in the name of civil

14:28

rights, Kamala Harris was raising bail money for

14:30

violent thugs. You have

14:32

to focus entirely on January 6th as

14:34

the singular act of so-called political violence,

14:37

quote unquote, in the past decade, even

14:39

though it's the one act of political

14:41

violence in which only one person

14:43

was killed and it was a protester. You

14:46

would have to subscribe without reservation to

14:48

an alternate reality, all

14:51

in the name of demonizing white, poor, predominantly

14:53

Christian voters who don't want to support Joe

14:55

Biden. Joe Biden,

14:57

that humble child born into a middle-class family

15:00

who turned out to be as corrupt a

15:02

politician as the state of Delaware has ever

15:04

seen, which if you know Delaware is really

15:06

saying something. Now there's

15:09

one more clip from this interview that I want

15:11

to show you because it underscores how little these

15:13

people care about poor white people, even though they're,

15:15

you know, even when they're, they're dying by the

15:17

tens of thousands. So watch

15:19

this here it is. Reverend

15:22

Al Gies has a question for you.

15:24

Rev. Tom, wouldn't you also say

15:26

that it is in

15:29

the interest of those like Donald

15:31

Trump to put the blame on

15:33

people who are likely to

15:35

be going through the same kinds

15:37

of challenges in maybe a different

15:39

part of the country, like blacks,

15:42

like browns, like migrants, and

15:44

he channels this rage that they

15:46

rightfully have in rural areas toward

15:49

the wrong people. And those that

15:51

can do something about it escape

15:54

without having to make change because if

15:56

those rural whites and blacks

15:59

and migrants and browns

16:01

came together, they could really

16:03

force real change. Isn't it

16:05

a diversion to the wrong

16:07

people based on their inherent

16:09

racism and xenophobia? Absolutely,

16:12

Reverend Allen. As you probably know, 24% of

16:14

rural America is non-white now. And we have

16:16

had eight years since Trump came down the

16:18

escalator in June 2015 of focusing on

16:21

rural whites, the heartland flyover people, and what

16:23

their economic anxieties are. But from the exception

16:25

of two things that we can find, opioid

16:28

deaths and gun deaths, on

16:30

every other measure in rural America, rural

16:32

Latinos, rural African Americans, and rural Native

16:34

Americans, the most rural population in America

16:36

are doing worse. And nobody cares about

16:38

their economic anxieties. I

16:40

know it's not really the point, but I did enjoy Al Sharpton

16:43

referring to blacks and browns. You

16:46

don't hear that very often. Yeah, you got the blacks, the

16:48

browns. Apparently,

16:50

you can say that now. You can, which, okay, fine.

16:53

But it's really an incredible statement there.

16:55

It basically amounts to this. If you discount the

16:57

fact that poor white people are killing themselves far

16:59

more often than any other demographic group, and if

17:01

you ignore the fact that they're overdosing on fentanyl

17:03

far more than any other demographic group, basically,

17:06

if you ignore the two leading causes of death

17:08

among young people, then

17:10

poor white people have it pretty good. That's

17:13

basically what he just said. This is

17:15

the level of visceral disdain that the corporate

17:17

press and the mainstream left has for white

17:19

Americans. The point of

17:21

going through all this is not to just rip

17:23

apart the dumb arguments in some stupid book. The

17:25

point is to ask, why

17:28

exactly do the authors go to these

17:30

lengths to lie about a very specific

17:32

racial demographic? And

17:34

why did one of the biggest media conglomerates

17:36

on the planet decide to promote their lies

17:39

and their overt racial disdain? And the

17:41

truth is that, in spite of

17:43

the euphemisms about rural whites that these authors use,

17:46

they're actually being very direct in

17:50

their dehumanization and villainization of a class

17:52

that they see as undesirable. The

17:55

corporate media has always hated poor whites,

17:57

of course, but now they're almost coming

18:00

out and saying it. This

18:02

is as close to just coming out and saying it as

18:04

we've seen. This

18:06

MSNBC segment is as queer declaration

18:08

as we've ever seen. Queer even

18:11

than Barack Obama's demonization of Pennsylvania

18:13

voters clinging to guns and religion.

18:15

Queer than Hillary Clinton's complaints about

18:17

deplorables. That the left now

18:19

stands for the unabashed hatred of poor

18:21

white Americans. Who already

18:23

have been stripped of status, who have been

18:25

discriminated against at every turn. Who've

18:27

lost their economic security at the

18:29

altar of globalization. But

18:33

it's still not enough. Still not

18:35

enough demoralization, I guess. And

18:38

you know that's why they see it because no publisher

18:40

would ever sell a book titled Black

18:42

Ghetto Rage or something similar. Like

18:45

that book could not exist. There

18:47

would be no shelf that it could sit on. Instead

18:51

of addressing that topic, they're more likely to

18:53

excuse black crime and violence as a symptom

18:55

of late stage capitalism. In fact, that's precisely

18:57

what The Washington Post just did. Around the

18:59

same time this segment is airing, they

19:02

published this image of the CVS in

19:04

Columbia Heights of Washington, D.C. And

19:06

here's how the story begins in Washington

19:09

Post. It says, quote, there's almost nothing

19:11

left to steal at the CVS in Columbia Heights.

19:13

And that gives you an idea of which items

19:15

have actual value. Blank CDs, for

19:17

example, the thieves don't even bother with them. The

19:20

greeting card section has been left alone. Everything

19:22

else that remains in the store in Northwest D.C.,

19:24

which is not much, is under plexiglass. It's

19:27

been like this since at least October when

19:29

the legend of the empty CVS of Washington

19:31

began to spread beyond the district's borders. It

19:34

became a horror story of

19:36

late capitalism. OK,

19:39

so when poor white people point out

19:41

that COVID came from a lab, they're

19:44

the enemies of democracy. When

19:46

poor black people steal so much from a

19:48

local CVS that toothpaste has to go behind

19:50

plexiglass, then the issue

19:53

is late capitalism. Now,

19:56

obviously, where this all leads is racial resentment

19:58

and ultimately racial violence. And

20:01

for all their projection, that's what they want. They're

20:04

not really afraid of poor white voters. That's

20:07

not what they're afraid of. They're afraid

20:10

that in less than a year, for the

20:12

first time in several years, somebody

20:14

in power might actually care what

20:16

all these poor white people have

20:19

to say. Now

20:21

let's get to our five headlines. When

20:25

the

20:28

angel experts thought we were in the queer,

20:30

while experts anticipated rate cuts, inflation in the United

20:32

States is still a significant economic concern. Think about

20:34

it. The U.S. is in the hole by $34

20:36

trillion. And yet

20:39

we keep printing money, which pushes the prices

20:41

you pay every day even higher. So

20:43

you could bury your head in sand or you

20:45

can do something about it. Diversify a portion of

20:48

your savings into gold with Birch Gold Group. Gold

20:50

is your hedge against inflation. And Birch Gold makes

20:52

it easy to own. They'll help you convert your

20:54

existing IRA or 401K into a tax-sheltered IRA in

20:56

gold. And you won't pay a penny out of

20:58

pocket. Make gold part of your savings strategy

21:01

and buy it from Birch Gold. They've been

21:03

the exclusive gold partner of the Daily Wire

21:05

for over seven years now, literally helping thousands

21:07

of listeners and they can help you to.

21:09

Text WOLSH to 989898 and get

21:11

your free info kit on gold and

21:13

talk to a precious metal specialist about

21:15

protecting your savings from persistent inflation with

21:17

gold. Text WOLSH to 989898 now. Are

21:23

you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns this

21:25

year? The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000

21:27

new agents. And

21:29

these challenging times, your best defense is to

21:31

use Tax Network USA. Along with hiring thousands

21:33

of new agents and field officers, the IRS

21:36

has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5

21:38

million pay up letters to those who have

21:40

unfiled tax returns or balances owed. These guys

21:42

are not your friends. Do not waive your

21:45

rights and speak with these agents on your

21:47

own without backup. Tax Network USA, a trusted

21:49

tax relief firm, has saved over a billion

21:51

dollars in back taxes for their clients. They

21:53

can help you secure the best deal possible. Whether you

21:55

owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help. or

22:00

personal taxes, whether you have the means to pay

22:02

or you're on a fixed income, Tax

22:05

Network USA can help finally resolve your

22:07

tax burdens once and for all. Seize

22:09

control of your financial future now and

22:11

don't let tax issues overpower you. Contact

22:13

Tax Network USA for immediate relief and

22:15

expert guidance call 1-800-245-6000 or

22:18

visit tnusa.com/Walsh. Turn to Tax

22:21

Network USA and find your

22:23

path to financial peace of

22:26

mind. That's tnusa.com/Walsh. Daily

22:28

Wire has a report. Department of Homeland

22:31

Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called out over

22:33

the weekend after he

22:35

rejected the notion that the federal government

22:37

bore responsibility for the murder of a

22:39

student in Georgia last month

22:41

who was allegedly killed by an illegal alien. Police

22:44

arrested 26 year old Jose Antonio Ibarra,

22:46

a Venezuelan national late last month for

22:48

allegedly murdering 22 year old Augusta

22:51

University nursing student, Laken Riley. He

22:54

was on Face the Nation on CBS, was

22:56

Mayorkas, and he was asked about this. And

22:59

we'll just go right to the clip here. Well,

23:03

we can't really call this an answer, but here's how

23:06

it went down. Let's watch. But

23:09

I wanna ask you about a criminal case

23:11

that has become a political rallying point. You

23:13

heard Donald Trump use this phrase

23:15

migrant crime. A 22 year

23:17

old nursing student, I know you've been following

23:19

this, Laken Riley in the state

23:22

of Georgia was murdered allegedly by

23:24

an undocumented Venezuelan migrant. The suspect

23:27

had been detained by Border

23:29

Patrol upon crossing, released with

23:31

temporary permission to stay in the country.

23:33

He then went on allegedly to commit

23:36

crimes twice. Once in

23:38

New York for driving the scooter without

23:40

a license, and once in connection with

23:42

a shoplifting case in Georgia. Did

23:45

those states and their law

23:47

enforcement communicate to the federal

23:49

government that this had happened? Should

23:51

this man have been deported?

23:55

A few thoughts. First Margaret,

23:57

first and foremost, an

23:59

absolute tragedy. And our

24:01

hearts break for and our prayers are

24:03

with the family. Number one. Number

24:05

two, and importantly, as a prosecutor,

24:08

having prosecuted violent crime and other

24:10

crimes for 12 years, one

24:13

individual is responsible for the murder and

24:15

that is the murderer. And

24:17

we work very closely with state

24:20

and local law enforcement to ensure

24:22

that individuals oppose a threat to

24:24

public safety are indeed

24:26

our highest priority for detention and

24:29

removal. So let's just pause it

24:31

there for a second. We're going to keep playing it

24:33

because there's more to see. But

24:36

taking note of a few things, first

24:39

of all, and this is perhaps neither here

24:42

nor there, but my orcas

24:44

is the perfect bureaucrat. He really is. He's

24:47

like, and by that, I mean the

24:49

very manifestation of the federal bureaucracy. If

24:51

you want to know what a federal

24:54

bureaucrat is, then just watch this

24:56

guy and listen to him speak

24:58

for 10 seconds. And that's

25:01

what it is. This

25:03

smarmy, shriveled little worm

25:05

of a man. I mean, he looks a little, you know,

25:07

he looks a little bit like, what

25:09

is it from the Little Mermaid when Ursula

25:12

puts a curse on people

25:14

and turns them into like those sea

25:16

worm things? I think I have

25:18

this right. He looks like a little, like one

25:21

of those. Like the little, little shriveled worm. And

25:25

so when I say he's the perfect bureaucrat, I mean it that

25:27

way, not as a compliment, not as a compliment. And

25:30

the point is that he's a, he's

25:32

this sniveling snide, pretentious,

25:35

spineless little, nothing

25:37

of a person. If you were to

25:40

look up the word impressive in the dictionary,

25:42

there'd be a picture of him and

25:44

the caption would say the opposite of this guy. And

25:47

yet these are the kinds

25:50

of people, that's why I say he's the

25:52

perfect representation. It's not just him, it's just our

25:54

entire government is run by these kinds

25:56

of people. So

26:00

it's not, it's no surprise that

26:02

this is how he's answering the question.

26:05

And he's answering the question by not answering it, because

26:08

the question he was asked was

26:10

very simple. This

26:13

illegal alien killer had already been arrested

26:15

for committing multiple crimes in this country

26:17

in multiple jurisdictions. And

26:20

the question was, before he murdered

26:22

Lake and Riley. And the question

26:24

was whether the federal government had

26:27

been notified about this. It's

26:29

actually very, it's like a yes or no question. Either

26:32

they were or they weren't. Did

26:34

they know that he was in the country? Did

26:37

they know he was committing multiple crimes? Did

26:39

they, were they aware of him and decided not to

26:41

deport him for some reason? That was the question. A

26:43

simple question. Good question. But he doesn't

26:45

answer it. And

26:48

even you notice how he talks about

26:51

the murder. He says that it's a tragedy. But

26:56

he can't even bring himself to say Lake

26:58

and Riley's name. He

27:00

says his heart goes out to the family. He doesn't

27:03

say Lake and Riley's family. He doesn't say the

27:05

Riley family. He just says, my

27:07

heart goes out to the family. And

27:11

I think some people have speculated it's because he doesn't

27:13

want to say her name. He doesn't want to acknowledge

27:15

her existence to that extent. And

27:17

that could easily be the case. I also think it might be true

27:19

that he doesn't even remember. Like he

27:21

doesn't care. Like in that moment, he didn't

27:24

even remember the person's name because

27:26

it doesn't matter to him. He

27:29

doesn't care. And

27:31

then he says that the murderer is only

27:33

the fault of the murderer. And

27:36

that's not true. Now

27:39

the murderer is 100% to blame for what they've done. So

27:43

they get 100%. They

27:46

get all of the blame that they could possibly hold,

27:48

which is 100% of it. But

27:52

the great thing about blame is that you don't

27:54

have to stop at 100% actually. You

27:57

can keep going because the murderer can

27:59

be 100%. responsible for his

28:01

own actions while at

28:03

the same time we can

28:05

acknowledge that other entities, other

28:07

individuals were also to blame

28:10

because there were other individuals that if they

28:12

had done their job this never would have

28:14

happened. So they are also 100% to

28:17

blame. Alejandro

28:19

Mayorkas himself

28:21

is to blame. He's

28:24

up 100% to blame. 100%. He

28:27

may as well have murdered her himself. That's

28:30

how much of the blame he has. Because

28:32

if you do your job this doesn't happen. You decide

28:35

not to do your job knowing this sort of thing

28:37

will happen and it happens. So you're to blame. You

28:41

know in a different country, in a different universe,

28:44

he'd be on trial right now. We would start trying

28:46

these people for murder, for

28:49

mass murder. When

28:51

you've got government officials who

28:53

obviously are aware that there are

28:56

violent illegal criminals that are coming into the

28:58

country and they choose not

29:00

to deport these people then really

29:02

they should be held legally responsible for everything

29:04

that happens after. So

29:07

they should be charged with whatever

29:09

it is. A thousand counts

29:11

of murder. Whatever you know just add it up

29:13

and that's what they

29:16

should be charged with. But

29:19

again he still hasn't answered the question. So will

29:22

he answer it? Let's keep listening and find out.

29:25

Are you saying there that the federal

29:27

government had been informed about

29:29

this individual and the alleged crimes he had

29:31

committed in those states because he could have

29:34

been deported if that was the case? Was

29:36

there a breakdown in the system? So

29:39

Margaret there are a

29:41

number of cities around the

29:43

country that have

29:46

varying degrees of cooperation with

29:48

the immigration authorities. We firmly

29:50

believe that if a city

29:56

Is aware of an individual who poses a

29:59

threat to public. That think they can.

30:01

We would request that they provide us

30:03

with that information so that we can

30:05

ensure that that individual is detained. A

30:08

sack so warrant and it sounds like

30:10

they were not. Coordinating.

30:13

Well armed and cities have different

30:15

levels of cooperation from we were

30:18

not notified in this instance. Where

30:21

Allah Margaret's A So are you

30:24

see Margaret Third or different situations

30:26

and occurrences and and of different

30:28

things will happen or different happenstance

30:31

is that that that that the

30:33

with happen and well I'm Margaret

30:35

to. Ah, he

30:37

finally gets around to. Saying.

30:40

At the end of the after two minutes abducting

30:42

and dodging, he finally gets around the claiming. That.

30:44

The Federal government was not notified.

30:47

About. This guy. But we know that's not

30:49

true because. Or is it was true? You

30:51

would say that from the beginning Mike is the Federal government.

30:53

Was never told. That. The Thousand: the country.

30:56

If is committing multiple crimes and was never reported

30:58

that never one of the chain. And.

31:00

Then the very first thing you know it's and say

31:02

no we were we were not all. And.

31:04

If we were told he would have an idea

31:07

that would be true but the least there's no

31:09

way of is proving it like and since know

31:11

you talk about hypothetical. So.

31:13

That's what you would say. Ah, But

31:15

it takes in two minutes because it's not

31:17

the case because where we'd we'd him we

31:20

didn't know for a fact based on his

31:22

responds. With. Our government was aware.

31:24

And the and they decided not to do anything.

31:28

And that's how incompetent again. This

31:31

deuce bag is that he tries

31:33

to evade the question. Instead.

31:36

Of just outright lying because it goes on at it. We

31:38

going to just said now of in from the very beginning

31:40

cause he got lite. Ah but he

31:42

tries to have a the question. Because

31:44

he doesn't want outright lie. Back.

31:46

As he isn't the ethical Guam, but it's because it's

31:48

safer to not outright like. Ah, any

31:51

of it but then he has it's just tell

31:53

the lie anyway after two minutes after doing so

31:56

much equivocating it's obvious that a lot And

32:02

we ultimately end up with the truth, which is

32:04

that again, of course they

32:06

knew and of course they don't care. And

32:12

when we talk about the great replacement, I

32:16

think it must be said that this

32:18

is part of the replacement. Now,

32:22

often we talk about that in terms of voters, where

32:26

they're, as we know, they're importing

32:28

all of these third world voters

32:32

and then giving them, putting them on

32:34

the taxpayer dole and using

32:37

that to essentially buying

32:39

their votes. And

32:41

that's, and they're trying to drown out

32:43

the votes of actual

32:46

American citizens of those poor

32:48

whites or those rural whites that they're so afraid

32:50

of the threat to democracy. But what do you

32:52

do about that? And you've

32:54

got millions of Americans who

32:57

are just living their lives and have committed the crime

32:59

of living out in the country. Like they've committed the

33:01

crime of not living in a city and being white,

33:04

which automatically makes them an enemy. And

33:07

now the elites are coming out and

33:09

just saying that directly, but what do you do about them?

33:12

How do you stop them? Can

33:14

you just round them up and send them to a camp somewhere?

33:16

I'm sure they'd like to, these people would like to do that,

33:18

but they're not at a point yet where they can quite do

33:20

that. So what do

33:22

you do? You drown out their votes with

33:25

all of these third world immigrants that

33:28

when we talk about the replacement, that

33:31

is often what

33:34

we mean, replacing the votes. But

33:37

there's also this very,

33:39

there's a much more violence and

33:41

sort of physical replacement that's happening. And

33:45

this is obviously far from the first case of it.

33:49

And you have the dregs of humanity who

33:52

are allowed into this country

33:54

and Then prove themselves to be the dregs of humanity

33:56

by how they conduct themselves. And They're allowed to stay here. And.

34:00

Eventually they victimize on American

34:02

citizen. Someone. Is like. Just.

34:05

A normal, you know, a productive member of

34:07

society. Law. Abiding. And

34:10

I kill themselves. while we got his, we've swapped.

34:13

And. When I say we, I mean we, I mean

34:15

they. People. Like my work,

34:17

there's been a swamp that lately like okay

34:19

rather than like and Riley we're going to

34:21

have this guy was his name again. Ah,

34:25

Jose Antonio Ybarra. there's a lot.

34:27

We swapped. Later riley

34:29

for Jose Antonio of the bar. Because.

34:33

She's dead now and now we have him. On.

34:38

That. That is very much part of the.

34:41

Replacement. That's happening. Or

34:44

else move it as if you thought the I'm

34:46

My Artists story was the most disgusting. a disturbing

34:48

site you would. Have to see on

34:50

the show that bad news for you because I'm. Here's.

34:53

A report from. Fox.

34:56

Twenty Five In Oklahoma. That. I

34:58

hope you're not eating right now. But

35:01

if you are fair warning. They.

35:04

Are does. He

35:06

have been a Deer Creek High school fact. Forty

35:08

Fives David's as an Art has reaction from

35:10

the District and his parents to night David:

35:13

What are you hear? A. Audible

35:16

when the a parent whose child attended the

35:19

event cause it deeply disturbing and we do

35:21

want to warn you the video you're about

35:23

to see maybe graphic to some viewers. This

35:31

video shows Deer Creek High School students

35:33

leaking so was at a fundraising event

35:35

Thursday we have blurred their faces to

35:38

hide their identity. And.

35:48

Discuss. Lightweight.

36:03

What? The Deer Creek School District

36:05

confirmed the video with Fox Twenty

36:07

Five saying the students volunteered and

36:09

challenges to help raise money during

36:11

their philanthropy Wage Are you from

36:13

raising good or for. Worse.

36:16

For them. So he fails. To

36:19

see. A widow

36:21

excesses. The

36:24

A Creek School says every student who

36:26

participated signed up for the games they

36:29

played ahead of time and that know

36:31

faculty, your staff were involved during the

36:33

assembly. They note that the fundraising week

36:35

helped raise more than one hundred fifty

36:38

two thousand dollars is really good luck

36:40

or like maybe they could have a

36:42

good. For.

36:47

You know, maybe we did so because. Such.

36:50

A serve you hear? Miss. School different

36:52

High School decided to have

36:55

a fundraising events. And

36:57

so far. So

37:00

far so good fundraising event. Nothing.

37:03

Wrong with that. Are. When I

37:05

was a kid we had we did fund raisers all

37:07

the time in school. you know who? We sold candy

37:09

bars. We. Did walk fonz we're

37:11

We had bake sales, we did car washes

37:13

and sort of thing. Ah

37:16

were all goes off the rails is that they

37:18

decided for their fund raising activity that they were

37:20

going to have students a. Apparently

37:24

like peanut butter off of each

37:26

other's feet. In

37:28

front of an entire gymnasium. And.

37:35

It. Is one us into heart. It's really

37:37

if your normal person you can't wrap your

37:39

mind around at exactly because this was an

37:42

idea. That. Someone at the

37:44

school had. An and

37:46

proposed. right? And

37:49

then it was organized. and

37:52

once with multiple people are involved here is

37:54

diurnal how many but the multiple the involvement

37:56

is it goes beyond just one person And

38:00

they're organizing this and at no point before

38:03

or during did anybody stop

38:05

and say You

38:08

know, I don't know if we should

38:10

do the toe licking thing I don't know if that

38:12

maybe we shouldn't that might that might be a heart

38:15

might actually That might make us look

38:17

like sicko pedophiles with foot fetishes if we do

38:19

that. Uh, so maybe we shouldn't Nobody

38:22

said that apparently and they just charge right

38:24

ahead and then um When

38:27

the video of this event goes viral as it was destined

38:29

to The school district

38:32

doesn't apologize. They don't accept any responsibility

38:34

at all Don't hold themselves

38:36

accountable They

38:38

don't even admit that it was probably a bad idea So

38:41

that's what you have to understand the school district is

38:43

standing behind this They're

38:45

standing behind the toe sucking, uh video

38:49

They they will not acknowledge even

38:51

in hindsight. They won't acknowledge that there was anything wrong with

38:53

it Uh, this is from so they

38:55

read a little bit of the statement, but it's just it's

38:58

so incredible that Let

39:01

me read this statement to you This

39:03

afternoon deer creek high school announced a grand total of 152

39:07

830 raised for not your average joe

39:09

coffee an organization created to inspire our

39:11

community by including students and adults with

39:13

intellectual developmental and physical disabilities according

39:16

to their website This total was raised

39:18

through a week of events and activities at

39:20

both deer creek high school and deer creek

39:22

middle school All designed to bring our community

39:24

together for an extremely impactful organization on thursday.

39:26

January or february 29th Deer

39:28

creek high school hosted an assembly called the clash

39:30

of classes for students who paid to attend during

39:33

this assembly 9th through 12th

39:35

grade students volunteered to participate in various

39:37

student organized class competitions in

39:40

the spirit of raising money for

39:42

nyaj All participants

39:44

in the assembly were students who signed up for the

39:46

game that they played ahead of time No,

39:49

deer creek faculty or staff participate in any of

39:51

the games during this clash of classes assembly Many

39:54

dedicated students gave generously of their personal

39:56

time To achieve this

39:58

momentous accomplishment which will

40:00

serve communities beyond the boundaries of Deer Creek. That's

40:05

it. There's no apology there. Nothing.

40:09

They are not convinced yet that

40:12

the Foot Finish Festival was

40:14

a miscalculation. In

40:16

fact, they defended on the basis that it raised a

40:18

lot of money. This momentous

40:21

accomplishment of

40:23

licking peanut butter off of toes was a great achievement. And

40:28

they also say, they also defended by saying that the

40:30

students weren't, were not, they volunteered for it,

40:32

so they were not held at gunpoint. Okay,

40:35

well, that's good news, I guess. And they

40:37

have to stimulate that there were no teachers

40:39

involved. So it was not teachers having their

40:42

toes sucked by students. This was a student.

40:44

These were all students. And

40:47

if that makes this any better, it makes it

40:49

better by about an inch. However,

40:52

we're still approximately 95 billion miles away

40:56

from anything that could be considered

40:58

appropriate or worthwhile

41:01

for a school activity. And,

41:04

you know, most people will hear about this

41:06

story and they'll immediately start projectile vomiting, which

41:09

is the right reaction. Fortunately, I got this

41:11

out of my system. I saw this story earlier in the morning, so

41:13

I got it out of the system already. And

41:16

the next thing most normal people will do

41:18

is focus on the sort of degenerate, perverse

41:20

nature of this, of this

41:24

activity. And again, that's the

41:26

right thing to focus on. Our schools are infested

41:28

with perverts. We have to face that. I've

41:31

been warning you about that for many years.

41:33

Schools have become hotbeds for sexual deviance. That

41:36

was the case all the way back in 2004, when

41:38

the Department of Education released their report, commissioned

41:41

their own report. And in their

41:43

own report, they found that at that time in 2004,

41:45

20 years ago, five

41:49

million students in

41:52

the school system at that time had been the victims

41:55

of sexual abuse or sexual harassment by

41:57

an educator. Five million.

42:01

According to the Department of Education, 20 years

42:05

ago. Now,

42:07

do we think it's gotten any better since then?

42:10

No, we know that it hasn't. If anything,

42:12

of course it's gotten worse. But

42:15

even still, we don't talk about that. Nobody—we

42:17

just—we don't talk about it. It's not an

42:19

issue that anyone seems to care that

42:21

much about. But

42:24

that is the case. So all that's a major problem.

42:26

When you see stuff like this and you think like

42:28

this is—what kind of perverts were behind this? And

42:32

you assume that there's some sort of perversion— Well,

42:34

of course you would. That's a very safe assumption. Given

42:37

the nature of the event, but also

42:41

the fact that we know there are perverts all over the school system.

42:45

But it's also worth thinking about just the

42:47

total lack of judgment on display here. Even

42:50

if we can somehow move past, again,

42:52

the perversion and degeneracy on display, which

42:54

we can't— But if we do

42:56

just for a moment, we can

42:58

marvel at how none of the adults in charge at

43:00

the school have any common

43:02

sense or any ability

43:04

to exercise basic judgment. Because

43:08

look, do I think that the entire staff

43:10

of this school are a bunch of pervert

43:12

foot fetishes? Probably not.

43:14

I mean, it's just like statistically that seems

43:17

unlikely. It

43:20

seems like some of them are. But probably

43:22

not all. So that means that most

43:24

likely there were staff members who

43:27

don't get any sick thrill out of this and

43:29

yet knew about it and

43:33

said nothing. And

43:37

even the parents—you know, I'm watching that video and I'm thinking, you

43:41

got these interviews, the parents— And

43:45

the parents are speaking anonymously and

43:47

we're changing their voices like

43:50

their informants on the mob, like they're

43:52

coming out and giving us secrets about

43:54

how the mob works. Because

43:58

you're a parent. Why are you afraid? You're

44:01

afraid to put your name behind it? As

44:04

a parent, you're afraid to stand up and say, yeah, I'm a

44:06

parent of the school. I think that's the most disgusting thing I've

44:08

ever seen. Every adult involved

44:10

should be fired. Yes,

44:12

here's my face and my name. I'm not

44:14

embarrassed to say that. So

44:17

even the parents who are speaking out are afraid to

44:19

do it publicly. You're afraid

44:21

to publicly say that you're opposed to

44:23

events where the students lick each other's

44:25

feet. You

44:28

won't even say that publicly. That's

44:30

how afraid you are? Well,

44:35

that's one of the ways that these schools, that

44:37

the school system has become just a disaster is

44:39

that this is

44:41

symptomatic of the general problem,

44:44

which is that not only do you

44:46

have a total lack of judgment among the adults running these

44:49

schools, not only do you have a lot of sexual

44:51

perverts in the schools, but then

44:53

also, and again, this is not the case

44:55

with all. This is not a universal

44:57

statement, but it is a general statement that generally,

45:01

parents are not nearly as involved

45:04

as they should be, and they don't care

45:07

nearly as much as they should when

45:10

things like this happen. And

45:14

so often, they're afraid, like

45:16

at every school, when at any time you have something like this

45:18

that happens, you

45:20

have some parents who will speak out

45:22

forcefully, vocally, they're

45:25

not afraid, and they're gonna speak up. It's

45:28

just like, anytime there's a boy

45:32

racing against the girls or whatever, volleyball,

45:34

whatever the event is, swimming, you

45:36

have some, a few parents who will speak up and

45:39

they're gonna, but then, as

45:42

always, it's like the majority of parents either

45:44

say nothing or if they

45:46

say anything, it's like anonymously, they're whispering, they

45:48

don't wanna come out and say it publicly.

45:53

And to have that kind of cowardice on this is

45:55

like mind boggling. How

45:59

is it that they could do that? report and they couldn't

46:01

find a single parent who was willing to

46:03

say publicly

46:05

that they oppose it. It's

46:10

again, mind boggling is only where it comes to

46:12

mind. All

46:15

right. Well I've mentioned this quickly from

46:17

the Daily Mail taxpayer funded guaranteed income programs

46:19

that hand struggling families up to $36,000 with

46:21

no strings attached are being rolled

46:24

out across the country. According to the

46:26

Daily Mail, the schemes whose total value exceeds $125 million

46:28

have emerged

46:31

in popularity since the, have surged in popularity

46:33

rather since the pandemic as progressive leaders embraced

46:35

cash handouts to support Americans below the poverty

46:38

line. But the radical

46:40

projects have been criticized after it emerged that one

46:42

mother of three in Washington DC spent

46:44

more than half of a $10,800 lump sum payment on a

46:46

luxury holiday to

46:50

Miami along with a new wardrobe for her

46:52

children and a glow up for herself. Canethia

46:56

Miller, 27, spent $6,000

46:59

on the vacation for herself, her partner and their

47:01

three children, purchased 15 new outfits for

47:03

the children and spent $180 on a haircut. She

47:07

was given the money through the first project in the country to

47:09

offer money as a lump sum rather

47:11

than monthly payments. Similar

47:13

programs in cities from Los Angeles to New York offer payments of

47:16

up to $1,000 per month for three

47:18

years with no conditions on how

47:20

the cash is spent. Ongoing

47:24

projects will deliver more than $125 million to nearly 10,000 Americans nationwide across

47:28

more than 30 programs. And

47:31

again, these are all, so we

47:33

know that there are plenty of welfare programs out there,

47:36

but these are no strings

47:38

attached cash payments

47:41

where we're just given the cash and saying, do whatever

47:43

you want with it.

47:45

And obviously it's a terrible idea. Well,

47:49

it's terrible if your goal is to actually lift people

47:51

out of poverty and to make the country a better

47:53

and more prosperous place and so on.

47:55

If that's your goal, then this is the worst possible thing

47:58

you could do in pursuit of that goal. If

48:00

your goal is to demoralize the population

48:02

and make people even more helpless and dependent

48:04

and vulnerable and utterly incapable of caring

48:06

for themselves than they already are, then

48:10

this is a fantastic way of achieving that

48:12

objective. And as we know, for the

48:14

politicians who come up with these schemes, their

48:17

goal is very much the latter. And

48:20

there are two basic reasons why this sort

48:23

of idea is terrible. Terrible, again,

48:25

if you care about the future of the country and you

48:28

want to make people's lives better, the

48:30

first is that obviously giving someone a

48:32

$10,000 check with no strings

48:34

attached is

48:36

only going to help them in the long term

48:39

if they have a lot of discipline and

48:41

if they budget smartly and

48:43

if they save or invest a large portion

48:46

of the check while using the rest on

48:48

essential items that they need for themselves or

48:50

their children. So something

48:53

like this could be a big help to somebody if

48:56

they take it and they go,

48:58

okay, well, so

49:00

I got $10,000 lump

49:03

sum from the taxpayers. Thank

49:05

you very much. I'm going to take $8,000

49:08

and I'm going to save it right away. I'm going to

49:11

put that away. I'm going to save it. And

49:15

then I'm going to use $1,000 and I'm going

49:17

to buy a whole bunch of nonperishable food

49:19

items. Okay, so I'll build

49:22

like a stockpile of food. So we

49:24

have extra food. And then

49:26

I'm going to take the rest and I'm

49:28

going to pay off some overdue bills, maybe

49:31

credit card debt, whatever. I'm going to try to get

49:33

myself out of whatever hole I'm in right now. So

49:38

let's say people do something like that. Well, if

49:41

that's how it's spent, then in that individual

49:43

case, we could say that the money has

49:45

really helped that person. And

49:47

they're now in a better long term spot today than they

49:49

were before the money was given to them. The problem is

49:51

that not everyone is going to use

49:53

the money that way. In fact, it's

49:56

highly unlikely that even a majority will

49:58

use it that way. And

50:01

I find it hard to believe that that a

50:03

significant minority will use it that way like

50:06

if you give to

50:10

10,000 of the lowest earning

50:12

people in any given area I Would

50:15

be shocked if even a thousand of

50:17

them Were

50:19

to use the money that way in

50:21

a way that's like Planning

50:23

for the future in a way where we're not

50:25

just blowing it all right off this right off

50:27

the bat You know I'd be shocked

50:29

if a thousand did and by the way This

50:33

has nothing to do with the fact that they're poor If

50:35

you get ten thousand dollars in quote free

50:37

money to ten thousand people regardless of their

50:39

income level If you just choose totally a

50:41

random and so you've got four people a rich people

50:43

people in between and you Can you just give them

50:46

all ten thousand dollars say here you go? You

50:49

still are going to get only a very

50:51

small minority who use the money in a

50:53

smart way According to a wise long-term plan

50:55

and why is that well because human nature

50:57

is what it is And

51:00

we also happen to live in a consumerist culture where

51:02

people are wired to spend money in this

51:04

economy We're also required to spend money more than we

51:06

want to but regardless of state of

51:08

the economy We're always looking for ways to spend

51:10

what we have And

51:12

we're surrounded all the time by messaging. You

51:14

know it's like everywhere you go every everything

51:16

you look at It's always by this by

51:18

that by this but so it's constant So

51:21

it takes an extraordinary amount of self-discipline to

51:26

not Basically spend all you everything

51:28

you have the moment you get it and

51:31

most people don't have that kind of self-discipline because

51:33

that's just if self-discipline was

51:35

like If

51:38

self-discipline was was in if we

51:40

have a surplus of self-discipline in

51:42

this culture We would we live in a

51:45

utopia, but we don't So

51:49

the point is we act like you know the woman

51:51

who blows it on a vacation is an outlier or

51:53

she's abusing the system Whatever, but she's actually not that's

51:56

what the system wants her to do Take

51:58

it spend it keep nothing save

52:01

nothing and have

52:03

a nice couple of weeks and

52:06

then revert right back to the state of dependency that

52:08

you were in before the money was given to you.

52:10

That's exactly what they want. That's how it is designed.

52:13

Which is also by the way why they offer a lump

52:15

sum payment in the first place. I mean the whole

52:18

idea is terrible but if you're gonna do

52:20

it why would you even have

52:22

a lump sum option? If

52:26

somebody wants a lump sum payment it's clear right away that

52:28

they just want to have all the money they want to

52:30

spend. And second, aside

52:32

from how the money is spent, aside from the

52:34

fact that almost everyone just blows through

52:37

free money when you give it to them, the

52:39

greater point is that of

52:41

course the free money is not free money. It

52:43

didn't fall out of the sky. It did not appear

52:46

out of thin air. It

52:48

was taken. It was taken from American families and it

52:50

was given to other people and that

52:52

is theft. And I don't care

52:54

who does it. I don't care what the

52:56

supposed reason is for it. I

53:01

wouldn't even care if the politicians who came up

53:03

with these schemes were really driven by their deep

53:05

desire to help the less fortunate. They're not. But

53:08

I wouldn't care if they were because you have no

53:10

right to take this money. You have no

53:12

right to take it and give it away like it's Wheel of

53:14

Fortune. Okay

53:17

there's just a difference between the

53:19

you know taking

53:22

tax money and in theory

53:24

using it to build roads and that sort of thing and

53:27

using it for things that

53:29

everybody in theory could benefit from.

53:32

Like that's that's a that's a legitimate form

53:35

of taxation. But

53:38

taking money from an

53:41

individual and just giving

53:43

it to another individual

53:45

that will that so you did to

53:48

the detriment of the one individual and

53:51

the benefit of the other individual doing that

53:53

is theft. And

53:56

I would say every form of that is

53:58

theft. I don't know how else

54:00

to look at it. And

54:04

it's an indirect form of theft, at

54:07

least for the person who's benefiting from it. It's

54:10

indirect, like they're not just reaching into your

54:12

pocket, they're going through

54:14

politicians to do it, but it is theft and

54:16

it's wrong every single time.

54:19

I'm here today because my mother chose life

54:21

and you're here today because your mother chose

54:23

life too. The miracle of life is a

54:25

gift everyone deserves because every life is precious.

54:28

That's why we've partnered with Pre-Borns and Network

54:30

of Clinics. Pre-Born introduces unborn babies to their

54:32

mothers through ultrasound. After hearing her baby's heartbeat

54:34

and seeing her precious baby, she could be

54:37

twice as likely to choose life through love,

54:39

compassion, and free ultrasounds. Pre-Born has rescued over

54:41

280,000 unborn babies and

54:44

every day their clinics rescue 200 unborn babies. Now

54:47

that is a miracle. One ultrasound is just

54:50

28 bucks, the cost of a dinner, or you can

54:52

sponsor five ultrasounds for $140, helping

54:54

to rescue five unborn babies' lives. Any

54:57

amount will help. All gifts are tax deductible and 100% of

54:59

your donation will save

55:01

babies to donate securely. Foul pound

55:04

250 and say the keyword baby.

55:06

That's pound 250 and say the

55:08

keyword baby, or go

55:11

to preborn.com/Matt. That's

55:13

preborn.com/Matt. One

55:16

year ago, Hershey's announced that a man would be

55:18

leading their Women's Day campaign as everybody rolled their

55:21

eyes, thinking they would have to buy from yet

55:23

another company that believes men can be women. We

55:25

had a different idea. In 24 hours we launched

55:27

Jeremy's Chocolate because you should be able to buy

55:30

delicious chocolate from a company that shares your values.

55:32

And now Jeremy's Chocolate is turning

55:34

one year old today. To celebrate,

55:36

make sure to get yourself some

55:38

Jeremy's Chocolate. We have he, him

55:40

with nuts and she, her nutless

55:42

chocolate bars also in microaggression size.

55:44

Get yours at jeremyschocolate.com today. Now

55:47

let's get to our daily cancellation. What

55:55

we've known for quite some time but trust

55:57

the science is at a minimum very bad

55:59

advice. Now to be clear, it would

56:01

be bad advice at any time and any era.

56:03

In fact, any time your trust is demanded, you

56:06

should be all the more skeptical of the thing

56:08

you're supposed to be trusting. Trustworthy

56:10

things never have to tell

56:12

you to trust them, right? And

56:14

that's goes for people too. If your girlfriend

56:17

won't look won't let you look at her phone because according

56:19

to her, you should trust her. That's

56:21

all the confirmation you need that you should not

56:24

be trusting her, which means you shouldn't be dating

56:26

her. But this logic applies to

56:28

institutions as much as it applies to individuals

56:30

and relationships. The most trustworthy

56:32

people in institutions are those that

56:34

are the least defensive in

56:37

the face of skepticism. Now, granted,

56:39

science is not a person, nor is

56:42

it an institution. Science is a

56:44

process, it's a method used to better understand the

56:46

physical world. That's exactly the problem.

56:48

When someone talks about the science, they aren't referring

56:50

to a method or a process, they're referring to

56:52

an institution. They're treating science like

56:54

it's some sort of organization. Like

56:57

it's a thing, like it's an entity. And

57:00

they're saying that we should trust this

57:02

entity rather than question. But

57:05

science is all about questions. And

57:07

real scientists, the ones who you can actually

57:09

trust, though they would never tell you that

57:11

they never demand you trust them, real

57:14

scientists, they invite and

57:16

welcome questions. The problem

57:19

is that there's a shortage of real scientists,

57:21

though no shortage of people calling themselves scientists.

57:23

And that brings us to one of the

57:25

most depressing, though revealing and emblematic headlines you'll

57:29

probably read in your lifetime. The

57:31

Telegraph reports this, quote, sex

57:34

is binary, say majority

57:36

of scientists polled. Now,

57:39

the problem with this headline may not

57:41

be immediately apparent. And indeed,

57:44

many conservatives have shared the news,

57:46

this headline on social media, and they've celebrated

57:49

it as a win for the cause of

57:51

sanity and common sense. They say,

57:53

you know, a majority of scientists have affirmed a

57:55

basic biological reality. A majority. Hooray,

57:58

the truth prevails. crushing

58:00

blow for the gender ideologues supposedly.

58:03

And maybe it could be, except that the word

58:05

majority is rather broad. Anything that falls between 51%

58:07

and 100% is a majority. That's a

58:10

window of 49 percentage points. So

58:12

it's a good start. The majority of scientists

58:15

agreeing with a basic indisputable scientific fact is

58:17

certainly better than a majority disagreeing with that

58:19

fact. But now we have to ask, how

58:22

large is this majority? It should be 100%.

58:25

Something less than 100% is troubling. Although

58:28

sure, maybe we could accept 99%, even 98%. We

58:32

could maybe accept 97% would

58:34

be the absolute lowest that we could go

58:37

before we have to start asking serious questions

58:39

about the scientific field as a whole. And

58:41

if we're landing under 90%,

58:44

then we have a problem on our hands. Under 80% is a crisis. Under

58:46

70% is unthinkable. Or

58:49

should. So how do these numbers

58:52

actually break down? Well, let's go to the article and find out.

58:55

Quote, sex is binary according to the majority

58:57

of British scientists in a poll. The difference

58:59

between sex and gender has become an increasingly

59:01

incendiary topic as activists, scientists and politicians all

59:03

debate the terms and implications they have for

59:05

policy. But a survey of almost 200

59:08

scientists at British universities conducted by the Telegraph

59:10

and census wide found 58% of

59:14

respondents think sex is binary except in

59:16

rare cases such as intersex individuals. Oh,

59:20

dear God, 58%. That

59:23

is barely a majority.

59:26

Only 58% of scientists employed in

59:28

the British university system could bring

59:30

themselves to acknowledge one of the

59:32

most rudimentary of all biological facts.

59:36

I mean, this is really no different. It's no different than 58%

59:39

of mathematicians agreeing

59:41

that two plus two equals four. Okay,

59:45

you wouldn't celebrate it. Say, well, the majority,

59:47

a majority got it right. Yes,

59:50

it's a majority, but we should be

59:52

looking at something far greater than the mere majority. This

59:54

should be this should be universal

59:56

agreement. And

59:58

even a portion of the 50% of the population 58% in this

1:00:01

case are wrong. Some of them

1:00:03

seem to think that intersex people are an exception to

1:00:05

the idea that sex is binary. They aren't. Intersex

1:00:07

people still exist within the sex binary. It's

1:00:10

just that their place in the binary can

1:00:12

be in some very rare circumstances more difficult

1:00:14

to determine because of their physical deformities. But

1:00:17

they're still in the binary. So

1:00:21

only 58% got the answer right, but it turns out

1:00:23

that even some of the 58% who got the answer right didn't

1:00:26

get the answer right. Let's

1:00:29

keep reading. Less

1:00:31

than a third, 29% agreed with the

1:00:33

statement sex is not binary. Well, one

1:00:35

in eight people, 13% had

1:00:38

no views or preferred not to answer. Now,

1:00:41

the only difficulty here is deciding which

1:00:44

of these two groups is more depressing and

1:00:47

pathetic. On the one hand, we have 29% of

1:00:50

alleged scientists who definitively state that sex is

1:00:52

not binary. That is,

1:00:54

they actively affirm an outlandish

1:00:56

scientific falsehood. This

1:00:58

is like if 29% of scientists said that

1:01:01

when caterpillars go into their cocoons, they

1:01:03

turn into hot dogs. Although

1:01:06

that example is, of course, far less crazy

1:01:09

because there is a greater chance of hot

1:01:12

dogs emerging from cocoons than

1:01:14

there is that a third human sex will be discovered.

1:01:17

But I still somehow find this 29% contingent less

1:01:22

pitiful than the 13% who

1:01:25

profess to have no view on the subject or at least no

1:01:27

view they're willing to say out loud. Even

1:01:30

in spite of the fact that this was, it would appear, an anonymous

1:01:33

survey. So it's

1:01:35

one thing for a scientist to be a

1:01:37

brain-dead zombie whose mind has been eaten alive

1:01:39

by leftism. That's obviously bad enough. It's

1:01:42

another thing for a scientist to still have a

1:01:44

functioning brain and yet be too afraid to use

1:01:46

it. It's

1:01:48

terrible to be insane, especially when you're supposed

1:01:50

to be a scientist. It's

1:01:53

even worse to be so cowardly that

1:01:55

you present yourself as insane when

1:01:57

you actually aren't. Unsurprisingly,

1:02:00

the waters get even more muddied

1:02:02

and confused when these alleged

1:02:04

scientists are asked about gender as opposed to

1:02:06

sex. The Telegraph says, quote, however,

1:02:08

almost two thirds of scientists, 64% said

1:02:11

gender was fluid, while 22% said gender

1:02:13

is binary and 14% gave no answer. Now,

1:02:18

as we know, gender is an

1:02:20

amorphous, intentionally ambiguous, fundamentally useless concept.

1:02:22

It's fluid only in the sense

1:02:24

that all nonsense is

1:02:26

fluid. Gibberish can mean pretty

1:02:29

much anything because it doesn't mean anything. Human

1:02:32

beings have a sex, we don't have a gender.

1:02:34

Your sex is male or female and that's it.

1:02:36

Your perception of yourself, your personal sense of style,

1:02:38

your way of expressing yourself, your whatever, none

1:02:41

of that is relevant. We don't

1:02:43

need a separate category of gender to account for any

1:02:45

of that. We already have the concept of personality, which

1:02:47

covers all of that anyway. And

1:02:49

besides, even if we agreed that

1:02:52

gender is a meaningful concept and

1:02:55

that it's somehow distinct from sex, still

1:02:58

actually, it would only be a binary.

1:03:01

A person can say that they feel like a man or they feel

1:03:03

like a woman, which is what gender is supposed to be, or

1:03:06

they can say that they feel like neither or

1:03:08

they feel like both. Now, as we know, this

1:03:10

feels like concept is nonsensical. You can't feel like

1:03:12

something that you aren't because if

1:03:14

you aren't that thing, then you have no idea what

1:03:16

it feels like to be that thing. Then

1:03:19

you have no frame of reference. But even

1:03:21

if we ignore this glaring logical problem still,

1:03:23

you notice that even in this ambiguous

1:03:25

arbitrary world of gender, you're still stuck

1:03:28

with the two basic categories of man

1:03:30

and woman. The gender

1:03:32

ideologues may have come up with

1:03:34

a bunch of other names and labels in order to

1:03:36

build out this artifice of 98 genders or whatever we're

1:03:38

up to now, but they still haven't

1:03:41

come up with even conceptually a

1:03:43

distinct and coherent third gender.

1:03:47

So as a matter of pure fantasy, as

1:03:50

fiction, they can't create a

1:03:52

third gender. All

1:03:54

they can do is mix and match from the only two that

1:03:56

exist and have ever existed or

1:03:59

will ever exist. Now, do

1:04:02

these scientists not understand the points I'm

1:04:04

making right now? Are they actually confused?

1:04:07

Do they need me to educate them? Or

1:04:11

again, are they such pathetic, spineless,

1:04:13

weak little cowards that

1:04:15

they're pretending to be ignorant of these

1:04:17

basic scientific and logical concepts? I

1:04:21

suppose there's no way to know for sure. All

1:04:25

we can say and can know is that

1:04:27

the scientific community has totally

1:04:29

discredited itself. The

1:04:31

entire field has become a sham.

1:04:35

So trust the science? How

1:04:38

can we? These people are lunatics.

1:04:41

Or at least they're acting that way. Which

1:04:44

is just as bad, if not worse. And

1:04:47

in either case, the scientific community is

1:04:50

today. Cancelled. I'll

1:04:52

do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Talk to

1:04:54

you tomorrow. Have a great day.