Today we'll continue to talk about the two big stories the media is ignoring. First, the 7-year-old boy whose mother was just granted full custody and the ability to "transition" him into a girl against his father's wishes. Second, the sex scandal involving a prominent Democratic female congresswoman. The media might not be interested in these stories, but that doesn't mean they aren't important. Date: 10-23-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
You know, on the plus side, we are giving historians and anthropologists of the future a lot to do.
They're going to have a very interesting time of it as they discuss and debate the question of when exactly did the once great American civilization of those ancient times go insane?
And why did it happen?
And how?
And I can only imagine, 1,000 years from now, 500 years from now, what conclusions they'll draw about that.
As an American citizen myself, in the present day, actually bearing witness to the collapse of sanity and reason in real time, just as we all are, I'm not sure that I can answer those questions.
And I'm watching it happen.
But perhaps hindsight will lend a little bit of clarity for them.
What I do know is that this case we've been talking about this week, the case of James Younger, I think will be viewed as a, in the future, as a seminal moment in our collective plunge into madness.
It may be seen as, at least from a legal standpoint, the point of no return.
The crossing of some sort of Rubicon.
Now, I want to talk a little more about this case today, because if the mass media isn't going to cover it, which they aren't, then that's all the more reason for me to continue to talk about it.
In fact, today I want to talk about both of the stories that the mass media has been ignoring this week, and I've covered both of them already, but I want to continue those conversations.
Um, but first, just to review, as we talk about this James Younger case, if you didn't catch the show yesterday, just quick, quick review of what's going on.
A man named Jeff Younger has been locked in this bitter court battle with his ex-wife, Ann Georgulas.
Despite being a medical professional herself, a pediatrician of all things, God help us, she, and presumably therefore someone who understands basic facts about human biology and child psychology, Georgilis got it into her apparently deranged head that her son James is really a girl named Luna.
And there's an interesting fact about that name, I'll get to it in a little bit.
The factors that convince Georgilis that her son is really her daughter include, but are not limited to, his affinity for the movie Frozen.
And his request to get a girl toy from McDonald's.
She also says that he started expressing an interest in wearing girls' clothing.
But Jeff Younger has explained in multiple interviews that if James, the son, ever had any desire or does have any desire to wear a girl clothing sometimes, it's only because his mother started putting him in dresses and painting his nails and dressing him up essentially like a drag queen when he was three years old.
Now, Jeff also claims that other methods of manipulation were used, some pretty insidious methods according to him, including he says, for example, when the child was three years old, he would be locked in his room by his mother in timeout and told that the monsters only eat little boys.
Jeff also speculates that Georgilas would withhold affection from the child unless he was wearing girl clothes.
Which is another way of manipulating and getting James to, quote, want to dress in girl clothes.
So the court case revolved around Jeff's efforts to rescue his sons, James and his twin brother, there's another boy involved in this, from the abuse of this sick and twisted woman.
However, the decision was passed down yesterday, as we talked about, the court ruled against the father, virtually all control of the child and all decisions were handed over to the mother.
Jeff brought this case trying to get sole custody of the kids so that he could prevent this transitioning into a girl that is in the process of happening right now.
So the jury looked at it and they said, yeah, you know what?
We are going to give sole custody to somebody, but not you.
We're going to give it to the mom.
So that the kid can become a girl.
And now she is free to continue the, quote, social transition of James into a girl, a process that is well underway already, as he goes by Luna and wears girl clothing and poses as a girl at school and so on.
And eventually she can, and presumably will, start James on drugs to chemically castrate him.
In fact, she did say in court that, now, she was very careful, Not to say that, yeah, we're definitely going to do this right away, because she knows how that sounds.
It sounds grotesque and barbaric, which it is.
But she did indicate that, sure, in the future that is something that we will explore, that could happen in the future.
And I would say it seems pretty clear to me that if she has sole custody of the kid, it's going to happen.
That's the direction that this is headed.
The social transition means you're dressing them as a girl, you're pretending as a girl, you're calling them a girl.
In other words, this is another word for brainwashing, conditioning.
You might better call it social conditioning rather than social transitioning.
And then once you've done that, the next step in the process is you start doing the drugs, puberty blockers, and then you give them the hormone drugs, the estrogen, and so on.
All right.
Now, it should be noted that, and this has been a point of contention in the case, that Jeff, the father, says that when he is with the boy, the boy expresses no interest in being a girl, doesn't want to wear girl clothing or anything.
He refuses to wear girl clothes.
That's what he says.
The mother claims the opposite and says that, no, no, no, no.
When Luna comes back to me, she, quote-unquote, is relieved to return to her, quote-unquote, identity as a girl.
Now, I think both claims are probably true in a sense.
The poor boy realizes that it pleases his mother for him to be Luna, and so he wants to play that role for her.
In any case, the question of how he really identifies is irrelevant.
The point is that James is a boy, plain and simple.
Whatever confusion he is suffering from, confusion that has been painstakingly planted in his head by his mother, his mother who, in my opinion, should go to prison, just as every adult that is involved in this kind of thing, including the doctors and everybody else, who is involved in this sort of abuse of children should all go to prison, and they would in a sane world, but we don't live in a sane world.
But that confusion could be easily alleviated.
At most, through counseling and therapy, you probably wouldn't even need that.
When this child allegedly first started claiming he was a girl at three years old, which is when all this started, all you would have had to do is say, oh no, no, you're not a girl, you're a boy.
And you know something?
In a week, he'd be over it.
In a week, he'd be past that phase.
If you responded that way.
But if you are a maniac, and a three-year-old comes to you and says, I'm a girl, and you go, well, well, oh my goodness, he must be, she must be a girl then!
Says he's a girl, must be a girl!
If you respond that way, what a coincidence, the child is going to persist in that delusion.
And they're going to become more and more confused as time goes on.
Now, the jury has decided, as I said, to give Georgilis full custody.
We still don't have a full verdict from the judge, though.
There are many related issues to be ruled on, and I believe that verdict is going to—she's going to—that decision will be made, will be announced tomorrow.
There's still—I think there's still maybe some hope.
Hopefully the outcry from the sane and rational and decent people of America, an outcry that has really been ramped up this week, Thankfully, maybe that will have some effect.
Maybe it will have some influence and it might help the judge to see the light on this issue.
Honestly, I'm not very hopeful about that.
I doubt that that will be the result, but we can always pray and hope and continue to raise awareness about this issue for the next day before the final decision is made.
What I did want to do, I wanted to answer a few objections I've heard from people about how people like myself are talking about this case.
There are three main objections from what I can tell.
The first is easy to deal with.
I've got several emails saying that I'm giving a one-sided version of the case when actually the father is far from perfect himself.
And what is then brought up are court documents showing that one, the father was accused of lying about his income and his work history to his wife before they got married.
And two, that the father was accused of assault.
Now, as for the first, the father, Jeff, has an explanation for what the wife, Anne, says are lies he told before they got married.
I don't know who's right and who's wrong, or if it's something in the middle.
Usually with these things, it is.
Regardless, though, who gives a damn?
None of this has any bearing on the case whatsoever, and none of it makes him an unfit father or justifies him losing custody.
And certainly, none of it means that his son is really a girl.
And that's the main point here.
Now, you might say, well, it makes him unreliable.
So you can't take his version of events at face value.
My answer to that is, we don't need to.
You don't need to take anyone's version of events at face value.
The basic facts are not in dispute.
James is a biological boy.
He is seven.
And for the last several years, at least, his mother has been claiming that he's a girl.
And his mother now wants to transition him into a girl.
That's not being disputed by anybody.
Everyone agrees on that.
And that's all we need to know.
We don't need to know anything else.
We do know a lot more.
Which only vindicates the father, in my opinion.
But we don't really even need to know any of that.
These basic facts tell you basically everything you know.
And then, as for the alleged assault, Jeff apparently was accused of assaulting his wife in late 2017.
This is well after the marriage ended, and this is in the midst of all this stuff with his wife trying to Turned the kid into a girl.
He was acquitted of the assault, so there's no reason to say anything else about that.
But again, that accusation, he was acquitted of it, that has no bearing on this whatsoever.
Now, then there's the third point.
Defenders of the mom in this case will insist, once they get past trying to discredit the father, With accusations that are certainly far from confirmed, and I think have largely been debunked, but are also completely irrelevant to this case.
Defenders of the mom will next go to saying, well, no, the mom is right.
She's not forcing James to be a girl because he really is a girl.
And we know that he's really a girl because he really does want to wear girl clothes, and he really does want to identify as a girl and so on.
Now let me read a thread, just to give you an example of this line of argumentation.
I want to read a thread to you from a guy named Barry Deutsch on Twitter as he makes this case and provides whatever evidence he can to show that no, the mother is actually right.
And there is, as he puts it, there's a panic on the right about this and the panic is completely off base.
So let me give you, this is, this is, this is the attempt to vindicate the mother.
Okay.
It says a thread on the Save James Younger panic on the right.
They're claiming that James Younger, as they insist on calling Luna, wants to be a boy, and her evil mother is forcing her to identify as a girl and wear girl clothing.
That's not what a CPS investigation found.
What I'm posting here are screenshots of the CPS investigator's testimony at trial.
With no parent present, Luna says she's a girl and denies that anyone's making her be a girl.
She also says she's afraid of her dad because he won't let her wear girl clothes.
That's why, quote-unquote, she is afraid.
Not because there's any abuse or anything going on.
But according to this claim, it's because the boy wants to wear girl clothes and the dad won't let him.
Continues, the CPS investigator also interviewed Luna's teacher.
Luna's teacher confirmed what Luna says.
Luna identifies as a girl and the teacher doesn't believe anyone's pressuring Luna to do that.
The CBS investigator also interviewed Luna's twin brother, Luke.
Actually, the twin's brother's name is Jude, not Luke.
Jude confirms Luna's story.
Luna has always identified as a girl.
Their dad forces Luna to dress as a boy, which makes Luna sad.
In short, the CPS investigator found absolutely no evidence that Luna's mom is forcing Luna to wear girl clothes or to use the name Luna.
But the CPS inve- Now we'll get to that name thing in a second.
As I said.
Because it's very- It's actually- There's something very- There's a very important detail about this name that I'm gonna get to.
The CPS investigator found evidence Luna's dad is forcing her to wear boy clothes.
You can read the transcript.
Okay.
That's- That's basically it.
So there's- There are all the facts laid out that are supposed to vindicate the mother.
This is the best anyone can do.
Essentially, the argument is that what the mother is doing is not abuse, and the jury's decision is not wrong, and all of this is perfectly fine, because the boy actually is a girl.
Do you see how insane this is?
I hope you do.
He's not a girl.
He's just simply not.
Factually, objectively, scientifically, he is not a girl.
So to dress him like one, to claim he is one, to have him live as one, to facilitate his transition into one, is crazy, is abusive, is deranged, is evil.
I don't give a damn whether the seven-year-old boy really says he wants to wear dresses or not.
It's clear from court documents and from all reports that he sometimes says he wants to and sometimes says he doesn't.
He's confused.
Why is he confused?
Because he's a child.
And because his mother has been claiming he's a girl since he was three.
Of course he's confused.
Of course he's going to say he wants to wear dresses and so on.
All of that is irrelevant.
He's a child who doesn't know what's going on.
And as I will point out, for the 40 millionth time, he doesn't know what a girl is.
He literally doesn't know what he's saying.
He can't possibly identify as a girl because he doesn't know what that is.
You can't identify as something when you don't know what it is.
This all started when he was three years old.
Again, that's not under dispute.
You heard from the brother, saying, oh, he's always identified as a girl.
Well, what the brother means is, for as long as I can remember, this has been going on.
Which makes sense, because generally you start forming memories when you're three years old.
This goes back to when he was three.
And the mother says, oh, he first started saying he was a girl when he was three.
Three!
Three years old, you lunatic!
Three years old!
Do you know what a three-year-old knows about being a girl?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Not a single thing.
Nothing.
Now, even if a three-year-old did know something about being a girl, the biological reality would still remain.
So that even if a child that young did actually have a substantive understanding of biological sex so as to make this choice, it still wouldn't matter because you can't choose your sex.
It's impossible, but this is doubly insane because a child at three years old has no clue what that means.
I have a three-year-old, okay?
And I've had two other three-year-olds who are now six.
It's just, if you've ever spent any time around a three-year-old, particularly if you've ever been a parent of a three-year-old, you know this.
These kids don't know anything.
So a three-year-old says, I'm a girl.
All you have to follow up with is, what's that?
What do you mean?
They don't mean anything.
At most, what they mean is, I like pretty pink things.
Great.
No problem.
Three-year-olds can like pretty pink things.
Nothing wrong with that.
The suggestion That that actually means that this boy at three years old is a girl and has somehow mystically recognized this inner truth of this girl that is magically trapped inside the shell of their boy body.
You have educated people who think this way.
Now, I mentioned the thing about the name.
Here's an interesting tidbit from the Texan.
Um, and they, this is a publication down in Texas where this is happening.
They've been on top of this case.
A lot of great information.
When James first started identifying as a girl, do you know what name he wanted for himself?
He goes by Luna now, according to the mom, but it wasn't, it wasn't Luna originally.
You know what it was?
The name was Starfire.
That's the name he wanted.
I actually think this is maybe one of the most important facts that came out in this case.
He wanted to be called Starfire.
And any parents of children might know that Starfire is a cartoon character from the show Teen Titans Go.
My kids don't watch that show, so I don't know.
Okay.
He wanted his name to be Starfire, cartoon character from a cartoon show.
What does that tell you?
It tells you that James was literally identifying as a cartoon character.
Because he's a child.
My sons have identified as many fictional characters.
Where they really, in some sense, in some way, believe that they are that character.
You hear this as a classic response to all this madness, when someone says, oh, my son identifies as a dinosaur.
I guess I should send him to Jurassic Park.
And that might be a cliched response at this point, but it's a cliche for a reason.
It's true.
My son, my three-year-old son, also thinks that he's a T-Rex.
Now, what does that mean?
Well, let's really think about this for a second.
When my three-year-old son goes around saying he's a T-Rex, is he joking?
No, he's not joking.
Three-year-olds don't know how to joke.
Three-year-olds have no concept of humor.
They don't tell jokes.
To have a concept of humor, you need a concept of irony in these things, and three-year-olds are not sophisticated enough for that.
So he's not joking.
Is he lying?
No, he's not lying.
Three-year-olds can't lie either.
Three-year-olds are incapable of telling a real lie.
Now, they might say things that aren't true, but they're not capable of lying because they don't understand the difference between truth and falsehood, between reality and fantasy.
So, when my three-year-old says that he's a T-Rex, he really does think, at some level, he really believes that he's a T-Rex.
Now, if my three-year-old were 30 years old and saying that and believing it, then it'd be a sign that he's mentally ill.
No matter what age he is, it could never be a sign that he is really a T-Rex trapped inside a human body.
We can be pretty confident of that.
If he was older, then we would say, now we've got a mental disorder on our hands of some kind, let's get him some counseling.
But at three years old, it's just cute, it's funny, you play along with it a little bit, you have fun, you play dinosaurs, I'll chase my son around the house, he plays the dinosaur, he's chasing me, I'm chasing him, because he's three.
So, when you've got a human being, With the kind of psychology where they can really be convinced at some level that they are a dinosaur or a superhero or a dog or a lion or a dragon or anything, and my kids have been all of those things, sometimes in the same day.
When you've got a person with that kind of psychology as a child, How could you possibly take them seriously when they say that they're the opposite gender?
It's the exact same kind of thing.
They're not identifying some internal truth.
It's just a fantasy.
It's just a kid being a kid and not understanding what is real and what isn't.
Again, literally do not know the difference between reality and fiction.
There are a lot of adults these days who don't know it either, but they don't have an excuse.
A kid at three years old doesn't know.
So when a three-year-old thinks that Spider-Man is really out there, not just out there, but when a three-year-old watches TV and sees a cartoon, they really think that that cartoon is real.
How could they possibly think that?
It's a cartoon in a little box.
What do they think?
Well, I'm not even sure because I can't remember being three years old enough to understand what they're really thinking in their head, but they do think.
You know, if you ask a three-year-old, does Bugs Bunny exist?
Is Bugs Bunny real?
They're gonna say yes.
And if you then, if you really wanted to be a jerk and spoil their fantasy, and you said, no, Bugs Bunny isn't real, he's fake.
Well, you couldn't spoil the fantasy because that wouldn't mean anything to them.
They would say, what is, what?
What does that mean?
The concept of something not being real means nothing.
To a child at that age.
Which is why they are not empowered to make important decisions for themselves.
It's why, in fact, they're not really empowered to make any decisions for themselves.
And it's why their declarations about their own self-identity are meaningless.
Completely meaningless.
Except as a fun little game.
that maybe you play along with and if it gets too out of hand and they start taking it too
seriously then maybe you stop playing along with it.
One last point, I actually, one last point about this quickly that
But on.
On this name thing.
So the kid wanted to be Starfire.
The mom said, no, let's pick something else, and they settled on Luna.
It's interesting that all of these painfully progressive parents who let their kids choose their own gender, none of them let the kid choose their own name.
And I know that's the case because they always settle on some trendy, gender-neutral name.
You think the kid came up with that?
You think the kid came up with Luna, or Jazz, or Sky?
You think the kid went on Google to look up?
No.
If you say to a three-year-old, pick any name you want, they're going to end up with Starfire, or T-Rex, or Spider-Man, or Wonder Woman, or something like that.
So that's how you know.
You know, you got these transgender kids running around.
None of them are named Wonder Woman.
None of them are legally named Wonder Woman.
Why is that?
Because the parents choose the name.
Why do the parents choose the name?
Because the parents know, even though a name really is a social construct, really is a cultural thing, really is arbitrary, really can be anything you want it to be, they choose the name because the parents realize that a name is an important decision that a kid is not mature enough to make, and that a kid will think that a certain name is cool when he's three, but won't think it's cool anymore when he's 30, so they don't want to curse the kid with a name when he's 30 that he chose when he was three.
Hmm.
Yes.
Now take that logic and apply it to gender, and maybe now you start to understand.
All right.
So on Monday, I told you about the case of Democratic Congresswoman Katie Hill.
A report in Red State said that Hill allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old female staffer, and also an affair with another member of her staff, though this one was a man.
The media has shown no interest in this case whatsoever because she's a woman mainly.
And as I have pointed out, the fact that she's a Democrat obviously helps her.
And if she was a Republican, probably they'd be more likely to report on it.
They'd certainly be more likely to report on it, of course.
But the main thing that gets her off the hook for this is that she's a woman.
And women, when it comes to sexual indiscretions, are just not held to the same standard.
And accusations against women of sexually inappropriate behavior just are not taken seriously by almost anybody.
Because there seems to be this general attitude of, well, if a woman does it, it's not as bad.
Nobody will come out and say that.
But I gave the example when you have, for example, all these teachers, female teachers who are having sex with 13 year old boys in their class, the attitude of almost everybody seems to be, that's not quite as bad because it's a woman.
Again, nobody will say it.
No one will say that, but that's apparently how almost everyone feels about it because that's why there's very little outrage about these cases.
And usually what anyone does is just, they just, they just crack jokes about it.
In fact, the, um, Oftentimes, the media, if the media does report, and the media will report on the cases of teachers and students because that's salacious and it gets clicks, so they can't help but report on it.
But when they do, very often, what they'll call it in the headline, they'll say something like, with this exact phrase, it'll be, teacher caught in sex romp.
With 13-year-old student.
That phrase, sex romp, that exact phrase has often been used in headlines by the media to describe the sexual abuse of adult females or by adult females of male children.
You're never going to see the phrase sex romp used to describe abuse when the genders are flipped.
Anyway, in this case, there are all kinds of, now there's no minors involved, okay, there are all kinds of ethical and potentially legal issues here related to her having sex with people who are on her payroll, paying her sex partners with campaign funds, and all of the ethical issues wrapped up in a person in a position of power, a person in Congress getting sexually involved with a young staffer just out of college.
There are also pictures that are floating around out there.
One picture is Katie Hill Um, appears to be Katie Hill nude and brushing the hair of what appears to be her young staffer, although the face is blurred out of the staffer.
Now, we all know if that was a picture of a male congressman naked and brushing the hair of some 22 year old staffer, That would be headline news everywhere.
Huge controversy.
They would be holding a press conference.
They would have already resigned by now in disgrace.
Katie Hill does it and nobody cares.
Media doesn't talk about it.
There's more information though now.
The Daily Wire has a report now.
You go to dailywire.com and see this.
More information.
And this is coming again from Red State.
And Red State has been on top of this.
And one thing about that also.
So, the site RedState, a conservative website, they've been on top of this story.
And that fact has been used to discredit the story.
People saying, well, it's a conservative, but just a conservative rag, propaganda reporting on this, no one else is talking about it.
I've also heard a similar thing with the James Young story, where some liberals say, oh, it's only been conservative sites talking about it.
That's because the liberal sites refuse to talk about it.
And with something like this Katie Hill case, she's a congresswoman in California.
There are pictures and text messages that somebody had and was releasing to the media.
Do you really think that Red State, the person who had this information about Katie Hill, you think Red State is the first place that person went?
There is no way.
The first people in media to hear about this would have been the local media in California.
They would have been the first people to catch wind of it.
And so the fact that Red State is publishing it means that they passed on it.
And it means, it must mean, that all of the major mass media left-wing outlets passed on it.
Because it's just impossible to believe that Red State would be the first ones to get this information.
To get this bombshell about Katie Hill.
Anyway, but Red State, they've been doing a good job reporting on it.
And the Daily Wire, well let me quote the Daily Wire now as they are talking about the Red State report.
It says, the young female campaign staffer who described the relationship as being toxic Reportedly wrote Hill a message in 2019, June 2019, saying in part, I am terrified of pushing back against you or upsetting you.
I have seen how you treat Kenny and I think that if I cause any issues, even if I am worried about how you are acting, that very quickly you will decide you don't want me in your life.
In a message to Hezlep, the staff reportedly said, I don't know, I was getting ready and I was thinking about how much Katie liked to watch me.
Then reference to a hobby.
Watch me do some kind of hobby?
I don't know.
It's okay, she can't take this from me.
She can ruin politics, take all my friends, and isolate me, but she can't have this.
Then Red State added, the staffer continued her work on the campaign despite the awkwardness and emotional distress it caused.
Hill, however, seemed tone deaf, asking her former lover to apply sunscreen on her prior to an event in front of the rest of the staff.
The young woman later texted Hill to express her displeasure.
What's the point here?
The point here is that what we have been told by the left, what we've been told by the Me Too movement for years now, Is that sexual relationships, even if they are quote-unquote consensual, even if they're ostensibly, supposedly on the surface anyway, consensual, relationships between a person in a position of power to a person who is a subordinate, and in this case a very junior subordinate.
You've got a congresswoman to a staffer just out of college.
That those relationships, according to the Mean Two movement, and according to what the left has been saying up until this moment with Katie Hill, those relationships cannot really be consensual because of the power dynamic, because of the disparity, because the other person in the relationship is going to feel potentially threatened, they're going to feel like they can't get out of it if they want to, they're going to feel like they can't be themselves, they can't express themselves, that they have to just go along with whatever this other person wants because of the power they have over them.
They're going to feel threatened, they're going to feel intimidated, And what do you know, you see these text messages allegedly from this person expressing just that feeling.
That, yes, I'm intimidated, I can't... And what do you know, you have Katie Hill, it would seem, potentially taking advantage of that discomfort.
Or at least, now as the red state says, she was tone deaf.
I think that's a generous interpretation.
Where you've got the staffer expressing discomfort and everything, intimidation, and then Katie Hill, after they'd already broken up, goes to the staffer and says, put some sunscreen on me in front of everybody.
Now, you can interpret that as her being tone deaf.
I, personally, my perspective, I interpret that as malicious and a power move.
Because there's just no way.
You've got this history with this person.
You're looking for someone to apply sunscreen to you and you choose her of all people?
No, that's not... In my opinion, that's not tone-deaf.
That's not a coincidence.
You're doing that on purpose.
That's manipulation.
And that is certainly how it would be interpreted if this was a man we're talking about.
So even if the media wants to ignore this, this is still a huge story.
It is still a scandal.
It does matter.
Katie Hill finally, after days, came out with a statement addressing some of this.
Now the fact that she was able to get away with saying nothing about it for several days just shows you again how she's not being held accountable.
How the media is running cover for her, but she came out and predictably there was no apology, nothing.
She made herself the victim.
She said she was the victim because all this information was coming out about her.
And so it's really all about her.
She's the victim.
And she'll get away with that.
That's it.
She could come out.
She's the victim and move on.
That is what we call female privilege.
Okay.
Let's go to emails.
Matt Walsh show.
Oh, actually before emails.
This doesn't require really any commentary.
I just wanted to play this.
If you haven't seen this clip...
We gotta play it because, as you know, the NBA players, many of them, LeBron James among them, but not the only one, have been embarrassing themselves by falling to their knees and licking the boots of the Chinese government, as we have seen over the last few weeks.
Finally, we've got someone, not a current NBA player, but someone associated with the NBA, someone who works in professional basketball as a commentator now, Shaquille O'Neal, I knew we could count on him to have the right take on this, and he shared his take on the China thing, and he, for one at least, was not doing any bootlicking.
Listen to this.
We as American people, we do a lot of business in China, and they know and understand our values, and we understand their values.
And one of our best values here in America is free speech.
We're allowed to say what we want to say, and we're allowed to speak up about injustices.
And that's just how it goes.
And if people don't understand that, that's something that they have to deal with.
But, you know, I just think Stuller was unfortunate for, you know, both parties.
And then you got people speaking when they don't know what they're talking about.
But Darryl Murray was right.
Whenever you see something wrong going on anywhere in the world, you should have the right to say, that's not right.
And that's what he did.
There you go, Shaq.
See, Shaq is a legend for a reason.
Sometimes you have to tiptoe around things, but again, they understand our values.
We understand our values in here.
We have the right to speak, especially with the social media.
We're going to say whatever we want to say when we want to say it.
There you go, Shaq.
See Shaq is a legend for a reason.
That was a great.
The fact that he's the first one associated with the NBA to say that, and the fact that
it actually required courage on his part to say it, all he did was come out in favor of
free speech and stipulate that we are not a communist regime and we have free speech
and we can say what we want.
The fact that it took courage and it did take courage for him to say that is just, just tells you how sad it's gotten in the NBA, but good for him.
Okay.
Do we have time for emails?
I guess we'll do maybe one MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
Talked about pitbulls in the email portion yesterday.
I got a lot of pitbull related email.
I haven't got a chance to go through a lot of it.
Uh, This isn't Pitbull related, but from Rich says, Dear Matt, I agree with your take on airplane slash bus seating arrangements.
If you're sitting next to someone, but the opportunity to move and give both of you more space arises, you should take it.
Here's an interesting wrinkle though.
What about at a bar?
What if you're sitting at a crowded bar by yourself and all the other seats are taken, but people start leaving, except the guy next to you doesn't leave.
So now you two are sitting next to each other at a mostly empty bar.
Do you move in that situation or would it be insulting?
Now, I like this, first of all, of all the emails dealing with serious issues, making interesting points, this is the one I decide to answer.
Because, actually, I was in this exact situation recently.
And, you know, when you're an antisocial person like I am, there's a lot of calculus that goes into things.
You're constantly working out equations and figuring out, and mostly you're figuring out, how can I just avoid being around people in any given situation?
So this presented, now this is, as we have talked about, you're sitting next to someone on a plane.
The airplane ends up being half full, the doors shut, you know no one else is coming, and you have a chance to move and give them more space.
Move all the way to another aisle if you can, to another row if you can, to get a whole row to yourself, then you should do that.
Rich brings up an interesting wrinkle of that.
So I was in a similar situation.
I was at the bar recently watching Raven's game.
Bar was full.
So we're all packed in like sardines.
Around halftime though, there was a mass exodus for some reason.
People started leaving.
Even though it was a good game.
About 10 of the people that were at the bar left.
So now it's mostly empty.
Just like you said, Rich.
Except the guy next to me did not leave.
He's still there.
So now we're in that exact spot where we're sitting at a mostly empty bar, but the two of us are sitting right next to each other.
And I'm thinking this, I'm thinking, okay, do I move?
And this is a little bit more difficult because yes, we should give ourselves more space, but then in that situation at the bar, if I move, does it make it, does it look, is it too conspicuous?
Does it look like I'm making some sort of statement against him?
Like I don't want to be around him?
And I didn't want to come off that way because he was a nice guy.
It's just I enjoy my personal space.
And so I was turning this over in my head.
I was deliberating about it.
And as I was thinking about it, the guy got up and just moved across the bar.
And the funny thing is that even though I was probably just about to do the same thing, I was slightly offended.
I slightly, in my head, I thought, well, what's that guy's problem?
What?
You got a problem with me?
So to answer your question, I guess, yes, it is slightly offensive to move in that case, but you should do it anyway.
The guiding principle is this.
Anytime you have an opportunity to be antisocial, You should take it.
At least that's how I operate.
I can't promise it's a key to success and happiness in life, but anyway, that's one way to live at least.
And we will leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other DeliWire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
