All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
42:36
Ep. 224 - Democrats In Mourning

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left is in mourning as Mueller finds no evidence for collusion. But what does It say about the Left that they’re upset the President DIDN'T collude? And what does it say about our media that they pushed this conspiracy theory for two years? Nothing good, that’s for sure. Also, Kamala Harris says all teachers need a raise. Is she right? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left is in mourning as the Mueller report finds no evidence of collusion.
But what does it say about the left that they're upset that the president didn't collude with Russia?
Shouldn't they be happy about that?
Also, what does it say about the media that they spent two years pushing this hoax?
Well, nothing good on both counts.
We'll talk more about that today.
Also, Kamala Harris says that all teachers need a raise.
We need to have a raise for all teachers.
But is that true?
We'll talk about that issue today as well on the Matt Wall Show.
So I happened to stumble across this obscure little news report about something called
the Mueller investigation.
Probably haven't heard of it, but it is wild stuff.
And we'll talk about that.
But first, I want to mention stamps.com.
Listen, no one really has the time to be going to the post office.
You only get 75 to 80 years of life at most for most of us.
Some of us, not even that much.
You don't want to spend your precious allotment of days sitting in traffic, dealing with parking, lugging all your mail and packages around.
It's a huge hassle.
So that's why you need Stamps.com.
It's one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.
Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office and it saves you money with discounts that you can't even get at the post office.
So Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
Postal Service.
right to your computer. So whether you're a small office sending invoices, you're an online seller
shipping products and different items out, or if you're a warehouse sending thousands of packages
a day, stamps.com handles it all with ease. Simply use your computer to print official USP.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere that you want to send your stuff to.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier, you drop it in a mailbox, whatever you want to do.
It's that simple.
With stamps.com, you get five cents off every first class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
Not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive, uh, you know, postage meters that you can get.
So stamps.com.
is a no brainer, saving you time, it saves you money.
And that's why you've got over 700,000 businesses that use stamps.com.
So right now my listeners get a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long term commitment.
You really can't lose there.
Go to stamps.com click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Walsh that stamps.com enter Walsh and you get all those great deals.
Go do that right now.
All right.
Mueller.
As you no doubt heard, the Mueller report has come back negative.
Trump did not test positive for collusion.
He is not a secret Russian agent, it turns out.
He didn't obstruct justice.
There's no evidence of that.
There are going to be no indictments.
That means that it's over.
The whole thing is over.
Of course, this news is not really news to any rational person.
The idea that Trump was some sort of Putin henchman was always ridiculous.
But this is the angle that the Democrats decided to pursue for the past two years.
And by the way, The idea that Trump is working for Putin, it's ridiculous for many reasons.
Not the least of which being, you know, the fact that Trump was out there on the campaign trail saying nice things about Putin.
That's one of the reasons why Democrats got it into their head, the left got it into their head, that, oh, he must be working with Putin.
Well, if he was, then he wouldn't be out saying those things in the first place.
So that's your first hint, right?
But I think we should really stop here and meditate on the profound stupidity of these people, I'm talking about the left, the Democrats,
the media, they're all one and the same, right? Of all the things that they could focus on, of all
the things that they could criticize Trump for, of all the points that they could criticize
about Trump and his administration, everything, they decide to spend two years on this
conspiracy theory.
And it's a conspiracy theory that now must officially be consigned to a category that's occupied by the moon landing hoax and 9-11 trutherism and Sandy Hook.
Trutherism and the Flat Earth Theory and so on.
Utterly stupid, incredible, irrational conspiracy theories.
That's what this is now.
That's what this always was.
And birtherism too.
You remember the idea that Obama couldn't be president because he wasn't born here.
This is in that same category.
And in fact, I think you would say in many ways that Russian collusion is basically the left's birtherism.
Although, as someone pointed out to me on Twitter, actually, the birtherism was already the left's birtherism, because that was a line of attack that originated with the Clinton campaign.
But, in any case, this is what the Democrats chose to go with, with regards to Trump.
There are other things they could have focused on.
President Trump, we must admit, does in fact provide his enemies with plenty of opportunities to criticize.
Many fruitful points of criticism that they could explore.
But they said, no thanks.
We're not interested in that.
We're going to go with Trump as a secret Russian agent instead.
That's going to be our strategy.
Just astonishingly, astonishingly stupid.
And this seems to be Trump's greatest Skill or I don't even know if you could call it a skill because I'm not sure that he does it on purpose But it's certainly his best defense mechanism whether intentional or not that somehow for some reason He provokes his opponents into criticizing him for the dumbest and most irrelevant things leaving potentially legitimate avenues of criticism unexplored and They always go for for this thing over here the the fantastic
The incredible, the irrational, that's what they go for.
And it's quite a spectacle to behold.
But I want you to think about something else.
The left has been very upset this weekend, as you can imagine, as I'm sure you've noticed, about the news that there was no collusion, right?
Rachel Maddow, I'm not gonna bother playing the clip, but this has been going around online.
Maddow on her show was basically on the verge of tears over it.
They're all, they're distraught, very upset, depressed, angry.
But think about what it is exactly that's upsetting them.
They're upset that the president didn't collude with Russia.
That's what they're upset about.
Think about that.
Mueller came back and said, yeah, there's no evidence.
President didn't do it, right?
Well, we should all be happy about that.
I don't think I should even have to clarify this, but when you find out if there was ever any doubt in your head in the first place, when you find out that the president did not collude with a foreign government to undermine our election process, when you find that out, if you are a You know, if you are a person who loves America, if you're a reasonable person, a reasonable patriotic person, when you find that out, your reaction is going to be, oh, well, that's good.
Great news.
Everybody should be happy about that.
That is good.
That is objectively good news for everyone.
But the Democrats aren't happy.
And so if you're if there was if you're wondering, Whether these people really care about the integrity of our democratic process, whether they care about, you know, truth.
If you were ever wondering about that, well, this should clarify it for you.
That no, they don't care about that stuff because they wanted, they wanted the president to have been guilty of this.
They were hoping that it did happen.
You may remember, uh, back when Obama was elected and there was a huge outcry on the left because Rush Limbaugh said that, uh, I forget what his exact words were, but he said something like, I hope the president fails.
That was the, those were, That was the phrase that he used, taken out of context.
And so Democrats latched onto that and they said, oh, how terrible.
How could you be rooting against the president?
Well, in the context, it was clear that Limbaugh was saying, I hope he fails in his agenda because I oppose his agenda.
I think it's a bad agenda for America.
I hope that he fails in carrying it out, which is a perfectly fine thing to say.
And that's what you would expect the opponents of a president's agenda to say.
But here now we have, but the way that they, that they misconstrued it is they said, Oh no, you're, well, you're just rooting against, you're rooting against America.
I mean, you want bad things to happen to America.
You want his whole presidency to be a disaster.
That's what you want.
And that's not what he said, but that really is what the left apparently wants.
They are again, which I'll emphasize for the fifth time.
They are upset that the president of the United States did not All right, here's a clip that I do want to play for you.
Glenn Greenwald shared this on Twitter.
I'm not sure if he's the one who compiled the clips or not, but this kind of condenses two years of media hysteria into two minutes, so I want you to watch this.
It is a turning point.
Today was historically bad for President Trump.
Today was a turning point.
A turning point.
We're at a turning point here.
The beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
We have another bombshell.
Mike Pence might have to assume the office of the presidency.
Rumblings of the word impeachment.
Breaking news.
Another bombshell out of the White House.
I believe this is the beginning of the end.
I do too.
It's really the beginning of the end.
He may be feeling the walls closing in on him.
All the walls closing in on him.
The walls closing in on him.
Breaking news, a new bombshell.
One astrologer says this means the beginning of the end for President Donald Trump.
Trump will resign.
Trump is going to resign.
Is this the tipping point?
I know we've said it over and over.
You think this is a tipping point?
And over and over.
This is a tipping point.
And over and over.
Breaking news, President Trump off the rails.
It was the beginning of the end today.
The beginning of the end.
Breaking news tonight, new bombshell.
This is the beginning, not the end.
The beginning of the end.
The walls are closing in.
The walls closing in.
The walls closing in.
Breaking overnight bombshell.
This is a very dramatic day and I think it might be near a tipping point.
Do you think this is a tipping point?
December 1st, 2017, you can mark it down.
This is the day that everything changed.
The beginning of the end.
Beginning of the end.
The beginning of the end.
We begin tonight with a bombshell.
Donald Trump is in a lot of trouble.
Trump is in trouble.
The president will resign.
Another hour, another bombshell.
This is a tipping point.
Trump's going down.
This president...
Could be impeached.
Resignation.
Resignation.
I don't think this president is going to serve out his term.
Mr. Trump will not serve out his term.
He will not serve out his term.
No way.
No how.
Breaking news.
Absolute bombs.
Donald Trump is not.
He's done.
And it's over.
It's over.
The wall's closing in.
The wall's closing in.
This is going to be the Achilles' Hill.
Breaking news tonight.
I expect Trump to depart.
This week will be the watershed week.
Trump is in big trouble.
Trump's in a lot of trouble.
It's a sign of a terrified old man who feels the wall's closing in.
The wall's are increasingly closing in on him. Tonight the walls are
closing in. Today changed everything. This is the beginning of the end. Today the biggest tipping point for the Trump
administration. What a historic day. The bombshells. He's underwater. He feels the walls closing in. Turning point.
We may be at a tipping point. It's the beginning of the end.
The beginning of the end. Another bombshell. Bombshell. Bombshell.
Bombshell. Bombshell. Bombshell. Bombshell. This is a bombshell.
It is. How completely embarrassing is that for the news media?
If they're capable of being embarrassed, which I don't think they are.
We have to understand if we don't already that there what you just saw there, okay?
That's not news.
And that's not a news media.
There is no news media.
We don't have a news media.
That is a category that doesn't exist in America.
It simply doesn't exist anymore.
If it ever did.
What you saw there is not news.
Those are not journalists.
That is propaganda.
This is the same media that, while it was pushing the Russian collusion conspiracy theory for two years, while it was doing that, at the same time it gave us the Covington Catholic thing, it gave us the Smollett hoax, it gave us Kavanaugh, and so on and so on.
These are ideological agents.
These are propaganda merchants.
They are narrative crafters.
That's what they're in the business of doing.
They're not in the business of telling the truth.
And I know that everyone says this, right?
We all we're always pointing this out fake news and everything.
Well, we all say it but I don't know if we really let it sink in.
That we do not have a news media.
That you simply cannot trust what you hear from them because they're not interested in In getting to the truth.
We should ask ourselves, why is it that the media fell for this Russian collusion hoax for two years?
I don't think it's, it's not the case that in many cases, I don't think it's the case that they were, you know, inventing this out of whole cloth and all of the anonymous sources that they were hearing and everything.
I don't think they invented that.
They didn't make that up.
But the point is, they so badly wanted it to be true.
They were so propelled by their biases, they so badly wanted it to be true, that they didn't apply their brains to this.
And they didn't vet any of it.
And so any anonymous source that they heard that said, oh, Mueller's about to come out with indictments and Trump's gonna be in a jail cell tomorrow, Well, there was no skepticism.
There was nothing like that.
There was no vetting because they wanted it to be true.
And that's what motivates these people.
And that's why we simply cannot trust them.
It was the same thing with Kavanaugh, as I said, Smollett, Covington Catholic, all of those.
You know, we call those media hoaxes.
And in a sense, they are media hoaxes, but we have to understand how the media hoax works.
Okay, the media didn't invent those things.
The media didn't make up the incident with Covington Catholic.
CNN didn't invent the idea that Kavanaugh was the leader of some gang-rape crew in high school, and they were going around to parties and raping women and everything.
CNN didn't invent that.
Swetnick, Julia Swetnick, made that up.
So, the way the media hoax works is, They decide, based on what they want to be true, which is based on their ideology, they decide which rumors they're going to believe without any discernment, as I said, without any vetting, without any attempt to actually get to the bottom of it.
They'll take the rumors and then they amplify them.
So that's how the fake news works.
It's not so much most of the time that they're sitting around, all the different, you know, supposed journalists and anchors are sitting around in smoke-filled, darkened rooms, hatching what fake stories they're going to tell next.
That's not the way it works.
It's just that they're so driven by ideology.
And when it comes to Trump, they're so driven by their, their hatred for him that they will, that they will accept whatever rumor that they hear.
And they'll put it on, you know, they'll put it in front of the cameras and they'll disseminate it.
With Kavanaugh, because of the threat that they believe Kavanaugh poses to so-called abortion rights.
Again, it was another thing where they hate him so much.
And they are so blinded by ideology that even a story about gang rape, Cruz, they will take that and they'll run with it.
So no credibility and no reason to listen to these people.
And it's been that way for a long time.
But hopefully now we've all finally caught on.
Okay.
What else?
Barbara Streisand said, I'm not going to spend much time on this, but Barbara Streisand said in an interview that she believes, she believes the Michael Jackson accusers.
She believes the story that they're telling.
But she also said that Jackson was just fulfilling his quote sexual needs and the kids he molested were thrilled to be there.
Those are her quotes.
And she said that being molested didn't kill them because they ended up getting married and they're fine now.
She actually said all those things as verbatim quotes, okay?
There's not much analysis to offer here.
It's obviously a horrifically disgusting thing to say.
So I think we all hopefully understand that.
But the only reason I bring it up is because I suspect that she is not the only Hollywood celebrity Who feels this way?
Why do you think there are so many open secrets in Hollywood?
Why do you think it is that a guy like Michael Jackson could get away with doing this for decades?
It's because, I think, quite a few of the people in Hollywood feel exactly like Barbra Streisand did.
And so the only difference, though, is most of them know that when they're in front of cameras, they're supposed to pretend otherwise.
They're supposed to fake outrage and all of that stuff.
But Barbra Streisand forgot to do that this time, and she just let her true colors show, and her attitude is, you know, not a big deal.
So let's not—let us be appropriately horrified by what Barbra Streisand said, but let us not think that she's the only one in that camp who feels that way.
All right, Kamala Harris has come out and said that she wants a federal program.
She wants all kinds of federal programs because there aren't enough of those already.
But this time she wants a federal program to boost the salaries of teachers.
This is what she says.
She says, in America, public school teachers are paid about $13,000 a year less than other college graduates.
That could be mortgage payments or the cost of groceries for a family for a year.
It's a national failure.
It's time we give America's teachers a raise.
The LA Times offers a little bit more.
It says, a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, found that public school teachers in 2017 made 11% less Okay.
than similar professionals with college degrees, even after taking into account benefits,
which are often higher for teachers than many private sector workers.
Harris will commit to quote, "'closing the teacher pay gap'
within her first term as president.
Details of the initiative, including the price tag and how the program will be structured
will be released in the coming week."
Okay.
Now I mentioned this on social media and I got into trouble
because I pointed out the obvious here.
Thank you.
And the obvious point is that yes, teachers make apparently 11% less than other professionals with college degrees, if we're going to take this liberal think tank at its word, which I don't anyway, but fine, for the sake of argument.
Okay, well, teachers also get an enormous amount of vacation time, don't they?
They don't work the whole summer.
They get breaks in the winter.
They get breaks in the spring.
They get every federal holiday off.
They get a whole lot of three-day weekends and that sort of thing.
If it snows, they don't have to go to work.
All that stuff.
So, think about that.
Imagine whatever you do for a living if you're not a teacher.
Because if you're not a teacher, you can't even, it's hard to even conceive of this.
Imagine getting a vacation every winter Every spring, and then you get two months off in the summer also.
So yeah, they get paid 11% less.
They also work 11% less.
They probably work a much, much more than 11% less.
People don't like it when you when you point this out.
I had a whole bunch of teachers attacking me when I pointed this out, saying,
I don't understand, being a teacher is really hard.
They work 50 to 60 hours a week during the school year.
It's very difficult.
They got to bring their work home with them, so on and so forth.
They have to do the professional development stuff during the summer.
They have to go to, you know, they have things that they're supposed to be doing
during the summer.
So it's not all just lounging in the shade.
Okay, that's fine.
I understand that.
And I understand that many teachers do work hard.
So yeah, they have to take their work home with them.
That's the grade papers and stuff.
Yeah, there are a lot of people who take their work home with them.
So teachers are not alone in that.
There are many people who work 50 to 60 hours a week.
during the school year, and then they continue working 50 to 60 hours a week
during the summer, and they only get two weeks of vacation, three weeks of
vacation for the entire year.
There are a lot of people in that category.
So the question is, if you've got people who work those kinds of hours all year
long, would it make sense for teachers who work those kinds of hours only for
nine months of the year to make as much as the ones who are working like that
12 months a year.
I don't think so.
The fact remains, after taking into account whatever you have to do in the summer, professional development, whatever, taking classes, whatever else, teachers still get close to two months off in the summer, plus their winter and spring breaks, federal holidays, like I said, all of that.
Now, you can't deny that.
That's a simple fact.
And obviously, it seems to me your pay is going to reflect that.
If I went to my employer, The Daily Wire, and I said, listen, I'm not going to give you any content in June or July.
So I need those two months off.
Plus, count me out for two weeks around Christmas and a week around around Easter.
And I went every I want every federal holiday off.
And if it snows, I'm not I'm not gonna you're not getting anything.
If I went to my job and said that, do you think they're going to keep paying me the same amount?
No, of course not.
Because you get paid to work.
That's that's the whole point.
That's the whole idea behind having having a job is that you're paid to work.
And so if you're only working a total of nine months a year, then yeah, your your pay is going to Be indicative of that.
I'm not saying teachers don't work hard.
I'm not attacking teachers.
I'm simply pointing out something that I think is is relevant.
And the fact that teachers get so defensive when you bring this up, it's it is a, you know, you protesting too much kind of situation where they get so defensive.
Another point about this, and this is why I get uncomfortable any time we Um, look at a, uh, an entire category or a whole profession, um, or a gender, like when people say women are underpaid and all this stuff, or when it comes to the minimum wage, we say, well, we need to make sure that people who are working at fast food restaurants get paid more.
Anytime we do that with these broad sweeping kinds of statements about this whole group of people, they're all underpaid.
I'm always uncomfortable with that.
Because within that group, there are going to be some people who are very hardworking, very good at what they do, and do deserve to get paid more.
But there are also going to be some people who are terrible at what they do, and are basically worthless on the job, and whatever they're getting paid right now is too much.
So that's the case for people making minimum wage at Burger King, and it's the case for teachers.
So if you're sitting there saying, teachers need to get paid more, what do you mean teachers need to get paid more?
Every teacher needs to get paid.
Are you telling me that I couldn't, you don't think I could find some teachers who definitely don't deserve to get paid more because I'm telling you I can.
I had some teachers like that.
I went to public school for 13 years.
Um, I had, Some great teachers.
I also had some teachers who their method of teaching was to hand out a worksheet and to just sit at their desk doing whatever they're doing.
In other words, they didn't teach at all.
We all had teachers like this.
I had teachers who never taught.
They never did any teaching.
They just, they said, read this part of the book.
Here's your textbook.
Here's a worksheet.
And that's it.
Not going to be any lectures.
I'm not going to explain anything.
If you ask a question, I'm going to get angry that you asked the question and I won't be able to answer it because I don't know the subject.
I mean, these kinds of teachers exist, right?
We all know that.
So do those teachers deserve to get a raise too?
No, the problem is precisely because of the teachers union.
The problem is that, is that we can't get rid of them.
So, anytime we get into this discussion, we seem to be ignoring the fact that there are some really bad teachers out there.
And that's another point that you're not allowed to make because teachers are...
Teachers are a group of people that we have canonized before death.
They have gotten a pre-death canonization, where they're all saints and they're all martyrs and everything.
And some of them are pretty close to saints, it seems like, given what they deal with and what a heroically good job they do in the circumstances.
But not all.
I don't know how the percentages break down, you know, good, good teachers to bad teachers.
What's the percentage?
There's a lot of in between in the middle as well, you know, so it's not all black and white in that sense.
But we can't deny that those bad teachers do exist and certainly do not deserve a raise, which is what they would get if you have some kind of federal program giving them all a raise.
Well, then you're giving it to the bad ones as well.
How about we do this on a case by case basis?
See, if we were to get rid of the teachers' union and tenure and all of that, then maybe what the school systems could do is when you have these worthless, lump-on-the-log type teachers who don't do anything and are terrible at their job, terrible at their job because they don't even attempt to do their job, well, if you could get rid of them and free up that income, then maybe you could start giving raises to the good ones.
To me, that seems like a very Reasonable way of going about things.
It's one of the reasons I don't like the minimum wage.
I don't think there should be any minimum wage.
When I go to a fast food restaurant, we've all had this experience.
Sometimes you go to a fast food restaurant.
It seems rather often you go to a fast food restaurant and the person behind the counter is Awful.
I mean, all they're doing anyway is just pushing buttons on a cash register and they can't even do that well.
They screw that up and they're very solemn and they're gloomy and they're basically scowling at you.
They're mad that you even came in and are daring to place a food order at all.
Those kinds of people should be getting paid nothing.
I mean, they should be getting paid five cents.
They're so bad at their job.
But then sometimes you go to a fast food restaurant and you There's someone behind the counter who's just on the ball, and they're energetic, and they're happy, and they put a smile on your face.
It's difficult to put a smile on my face, so if you can do that, that's impressive.
And there are those types, and you think, well, this person should be getting paid $30 an hour.
They're so good at what they're doing.
I went to a fast food restaurant a few days ago, and the person behind the counter, they were so good and friendly that they actually succeeded in getting me to To order more food than I originally planned to do.
They were suggesting other items on the menu and usually when they do that, I say, no, I don't want that.
But this person was so friendly about it, I said, oh, you know what?
Yeah, I'll take that too.
So that's someone who's worth a lot to the company and they should be getting paid.
But the problem is you can't give them the raise because you have to, you know, there's this minimum amount that you have to pay to these people over here who are worthless.
So that's the problem with that, I think.
All right, let's skip over to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
Actually, this first email is not an email at all.
It was a message sent to me on Twitter.
And this is from Nikola Tesla, which I presume is a pseudonym, but who knows.
It says, I'm taking a very unpopular and seemingly callous position.
Mark Gomez was arrested for an alleged unprovoked attack on an elderly woman on the New York subway.
Yet, according to witnesses, she was brandishing a knife and threatening to kill his daughter, who you can see follows him off of the subway after he kicks the woman multiple times.
Allegedly, she is mentally ill and this is not the first time she has threatened people with a knife.
If we as conservatives have learned anything from the Covington Catholic video and the Smollett case, it's to reserve judgment until the facts are revealed.
So many people are jumping to conclusions and making the assumption that he should have walked away or called the police.
Consider the context.
You're stuck on a subway car in Brooklyn at 3 a.m.
with a crazy woman threatening to murder your daughter.
Just before the doors open, you have a choice.
Walk away and hope she doesn't follow or take action to incapacitate the threat.
It's not popular, but in that situation, the man had every right to make sure his daughter was not murdered.
Okay.
This is actually not the only message I got like this, because I wrote about this case on Friday.
And let's give this a little bit of context in case you didn't see this video.
As I said, I wrote about it on Friday.
It is an attack against an elderly woman on a train in New York.
The attack was caught on video, and I'll show you the video now.
Fair warning, this is quite disturbing, but here it is.
Okay, so that scumbag was caught.
Oh, nah.
Oh, you so.
Oh, where's all that, my.
Oh.
Jesus.
Damn clear.
Okay, so that scumbag was caught, thank God.
But he now claims, as the person who sent the message alludes to, or his lawyer claims,
that the attack was in self-defense.
The woman, an elderly, a 78-year-old, homeless, mentally ill woman, was talking about stabbing people or something.
Okay.
Even if that's true, and when I wrote about this case, and I had some very harsh words for this guy, There were a few people who said to me, well, we don't know the context.
Don't jump to conclusions.
It's not fair for you to jump to conclusions.
And I said at the time, I don't care what the context is.
There is no context, none, that could possibly make it okay to kick an old woman in the head while she's sitting on a bench on a subway train.
There is no context that could ever make that acceptable.
And I shouldn't have to explain this.
In fact, if you're kicking someone in the head, That's a pretty good indication that what you're doing is not self-defense, unless you're Bruce Lee.
Because if you're kicking someone in the head, for most of us, that means that the person is in a position where they're probably not a threat to you.
It means that they're sitting down or they're lying on the ground.
For most of us, that's the only way we could manage to kick someone in the head.
And in that case, that's not self-defense.
Kicking someone in the head is pretty much a universal case of that is assault.
Um, and that's what happened there.
So I don't, I don't buy it.
Even if this woman, uh, the idea that she was brandishing a knife, come on, she was, you could see the video.
She just sitting on the, on a, on a, on a bench.
Um, listen, we've all been on, you know, been in the city.
We've seen, you know, unfortunately mentally ill homeless people and, you know, and, um, So it would be pretty easy, even if this woman was sitting there and she was saying something about stabbing people, she's mentally ill.
It would be pretty easy to just back away from her.
And you can see that the train is coming to a halt and it's stopping right as this assault is unfolding.
So you just back away from her and you just and you leave and you go tell the police.
There is no reason at all why you need to kick her in the head and then and then repeatedly keep kicking her.
Now, you saw that video.
Does it appear that that guy was worried that this was a struggle, a life and death struggle?
Did it seem like he was worried for his safety or his daughter's safety, who I didn't see in the video?
He kicks her in the head and then he just strolls off and taunts the camera.
That does not appear to be someone who's worried that he's about to be stabbed.
That's just someone who's whatever she said to him, made him angry.
And then he responded by brutally assaulting her.
And that is obviously not okay.
This guy's a total scumbag and should go to prison forever.
As far as I'm concerned, they should never let him out.
Uh, I'm all about, I'm, I'm the one usually preaching context.
You need context.
But as I said, there are certain situations where no context is needed.
There is no conceivable context where that could have been okay to do.
It is, uh, if even if she had a, even if she actually was holding a knife, which I didn't see that in the video, there is no, it's very easy to get yourself out of that situation without anyone getting hurt.
She's a 78 year old homeless woman.
Uh, and it's just incredible to me that anyone would defend that.
I can't even, I can't wrap my head around it.
Um, from Lisa says, hi, Matt.
And, and, and, and also by the way, uh, This is to say nothing of the people who are standing around filming this, who I think should be arrested as well.
They should be arrested as accomplices.
That this is happening and your reaction is to film it and basically cheer it on like you're watching a professional wrestling match or something?
That guy should not have been able to walk out of that train with his teeth still in his head and his nose still on his face, you know, in a straightforward fashion.
I mean, he should have suffered dearly for that.
And then the police are called.
It shows you something.
It's not necessarily a statement about society that one scumbag guy assaults an old lady because there have always been scumbags in the world and there always will be.
But it is a statement about society that these kinds of things seem to happen.
And the reaction of the crowd now is just to get it all on video.
And they weren't getting it on video because they wanted to get evidence to show the police.
No, this assault happened weeks ago.
Those people got it on video because they wanted to put it online and they thought they'd get a lot of Facebook shares or whatever.
The police just happened to stumble across the video online after a few weeks.
So it does not seem like that video was taken and then provided to police as evidence.
No, people were saying to themselves, oh, this will make some great content for the internet.
And that is a statement about society, when that is the first reaction that a lot of people have, rather than to intervene and beat this guy senseless for assaulting a mentally ill 78-year-old homeless woman.
All right, from Lisa says, hi Matt, I saw you talking about teacher salaries on Twitter and saying it was absurd how many teachers feel underpaid given how much vacation time they get.
As a former teacher myself who tends to agree with you on almost everything, my one point I'd like to make on this particular issue is this.
The public education system, as you know, is horrifically broken.
An outstanding amount of first-year teachers, around 40%, leave the profession after the first year, like I did.
This is because the system just sets teachers up for failure and blame from all sides of the equation.
Students, parents, and administration are all quick to blame teachers for students' grades instead of students themselves, not putting in any effort.
Even thinking about it now makes me want to pull my hair out.
I remember thinking while I was teaching that I wouldn't do another year of this for less than $100,000, as in, I was out of there.
Raising teacher salaries obviously won't fix the broken public education system and its many problems, but it might encourage teachers to hold out longer before quitting and feel like they're being adequately compensated for what they're unfairly put through.
Lots of school districts are desperate for teachers because they keep leaving in droves for the same reason I outlined above.
I tend to agree with the position that raising the salaries doesn't fix the real problem and therefore shouldn't really be a serious conversation.
But at the same time, it would encourage a lot of good teachers to stay and put up with the abuse.
For the kid's sake, I'm wondering if that's worth it.
I'm curious about your take on this.
Uh, yeah, well, this is a problem.
As I said, there are some really good teachers out there and it's harder to hold on to them.
Um, especially because if someone's a good teacher, That means that they have skills.
It means that they have marketable skills, that they might say to themselves, well, I could take this somewhere else and make a little bit more money for my family, which is understandable.
So I get that argument.
But to me, that's just an argument for, as I said, a case-by-case basis to empower the school districts and the state to identify the really good teachers and pay them more.
Look, I am on board with paying some teachers $100,000 or more.
I mean, there are teachers that are worth that, and we should pay.
If you've got a really great teacher who's just on the ball and makes kids excited about learning, that is a difficult thing to do.
But if there are teachers out there who can do that, then yeah, pay them six-figure salaries.
Absolutely.
If we could make them rich, I would say let's do that.
But that's not possible if the idea is that we have to raise all of their salaries, and if we have to keep all the dead weight on board.
And as you know, Lisa, if you were in the school system, there is also a lot of dead weight.
So I think the answer is, and how this works logistically, I don't know.
But the answer is we need to be able to get rid of the dead weight, evaluate on a case by case basis, and pay teachers who are worth more, more.
Um, there should be, in my mind, there should be a wide disparity in any given school.
There should be a wide disparity between the lowest paid teacher and the highest paid.
Because in every school, there's a wide disparity between the worst teacher and the best.
And I think the pay should reflect that.
So, no, I don't think an across-the-board raise for all of them is the way to go.
And it's also just the money for that has to come somewhere, has to come from somewhere.
And that's another problem.
But if you're doing case by case raises, then I think you have more resources to work with.
All right.
I got some more emails here, but I think we'll leave it there for now.
Revisit these tomorrow.
So thanks for watching everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Attorney General William Barr releases the top line findings of the Mueller report, and it ain't good for the Democrats or the media.
▲
Export Selection