Ep. 1022 - The Most Insane (And Hilarious) Backlash I've Ever Received
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Left and the media are enraged today because of my allegedly racist mermaid opinions. This is a very very important issue to them. Will I fall to my knees and apologize? Stay tuned to find out. Also, two videos went viral this week of brutal assaults in public schools. Why does this seem to be an increasing trend? And Chris Rufo has more information about that alleged bomb threat at Boston Children’s Hospital. Something isn’t quite adding up there. And Jill Biden says that children should have access to all books in their school libraries. In our Daily Cancellation, we must finally cancel Starbucks baristas. It’s been a long time coming.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 40% OFF Daily Wire merch during our Inflation Reduction Event, while supplies last: https://bit.ly/3Dm11N5
Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. “What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion” Available on Amazon OR at 40DaysforLife.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left and the media are enraged today because of my allegedly racist mermaid opinions.
Now, this is a very, very important issue to them.
Will I finally fall to my knees and apologize?
You'll have to stay tuned to find out.
Also, two videos went viral this week of brutal assaults in public schools.
Why does this seem to be an increasing trend?
And Chris Ruffo has more information about that alleged bomb threat at Boston Children's Hospital.
Something isn't quite adding up there.
And Jill Biden says that children should have access to all books, all books, in their school libraries.
In our daily cancellation, we must finally cancel Starbucks baristas.
It's been a long time coming.
It's now time.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
Roe versus Wade has been overturned and this battle is now finally leaving DC.
and going to the grassroots.
No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life.
With about a million volunteers in a thousand cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
They have a larger presence exactly where they're needed, in blue states, with California being their largest state.
Some former abortion facility directors say that these vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go As high as 75% which is very damaging to their abortion business, which is very good for the children who are being saved by that.
These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America and nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities where abortion will remain legal including closures in San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle.
So they're exactly where they need to be fighting this out.
40 Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion.
You can learn more about them by checking out their locations, podcasts, and free magazine at 40daysforlife.com.
Remember, this is the time to be fighting, to be in the fight.
The fight is not over.
So if you want more information, go to 40daysforlife.com.
You know, there are times when I provoke the ire of the left and wind up trending on social media and generating negative headlines because I've said something that they find offensive about an important cultural topic.
And then there are times when I provoke the ire of the left and wind up trending on social media and generating negative headlines because I advocated for a scientifically accurate mermaid with translucent skin.
Now, this latest outrage falls into that second and admittedly very specific category.
So, those who listened to the show yesterday may recall the very brief moment during the comment section segment of the show when I responded to someone who was giving their opinion on the black little mermaid issue.
In my response, I asserted that scientifically It makes no sense for Arielle to have dark skin.
In fact, I suggested that she ought to be translucent and skeletal and horrifying like a real deep-sea fish.
Our loyal fans over at Media Matters heard those remarks as they hear literally everything else I say because they're obsessed with me and want to date me.
And they immediately posted it to Twitter and published an article on their site with the headline, Daily Wire host says it is unscientific to cast a black person as a mermaid.
Other left-wing blogs picked it up, like the site Alternet, which reports, and I'll read a little bit of their report because I think it fairly captures what actually happened.
Quote, right-wing Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh threw a fit on Wednesday over the new live-action remake of the classic Disney film, The Little Mermaid, because the main character, Ariel, is portrayed by actress Halle Bailey, who is black.
Matt said that while he is sympathetic to more racial inclusion in fictional works, He opposes Bailey's casting because of marine biology.
Quoting me now, quote, Also, by the way, with the Little Mermaid, can we also just mention that from a scientific perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone with darker skin who lives deep in the ocean, Walsh complained.
I mean, if anything, not only should Little Mermaid be pale, she should actually be translucent, he continued.
If you look at deep sea creatures, they're like translucent.
They have no pigmentation whatsoever, and they're just these horrifying, they look like skeletons floating around in the ocean.
That's what the Little Mermaid should look like.
She should be totally pale and skeletal, where you can see her skull through her face.
Walsh noted, adding that, this would be a version of the Little Mermaid that I would watch.
Now that is indeed an accurate and full quote, which I do appreciate.
Media Matters on Twitter provided the full video, but they were more selective in their captions.
So Jason Campbell tweeted the video, but the caption was just, Daily Wire host says it's unscientific to cast a black person as a mermaid.
Which, again, is what I said, but then didn't go further with the rest of it.
From there, it was sort of off to the races.
My statements, calling for a translucent mermaid, were picked up by other media outlets, like Newsweek.
They had a headline about it.
It even went all the way across the world.
The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia was reporting on it.
Reporters started emailing me asking for comment on the issue, which I was more than happy to provide, by the way.
Leftist across the nation expressed their outrage.
I was one of the top trending topics on Twitter all night and still today because of this.
My allegedly racist, translucent, supremacist views ignited a national firestorm.
Now just reading through a few of these angry tweets just for fun.
One says, wait, wait, wait.
First, these fools want to say that science doesn't matter when it comes to vaccines and the like, but then want to be science guardians about fictional creatures?
Josh Marshall at The Talking Points Memo tweeted, I shouldn't laugh because the racism isn't funny, but they struggle to present their racism as scientific.
Have you ever even met a fish?
He actually wrote that.
Have you met any fish?
They don't look like people.
With a few exceptions, they're not white.
What an effing clown.
Another tweet says, quite possibly the strangest thing about self-described theocratic fascist Matt Walsh's argument for why scientifically a mermaid couldn't be black is the fact that it's just wrong.
He's confusing tanning changing someone's skin tone to the amount of melanin in someone's skin.
Another one says, attention Matt Walsh, F your scientific perspective.
Mermaids aren't real.
Just say you're a racist and take up significantly less air time.
Bye.
And then there's this.
There are a lot of extraordinarily dumb and pathetic racists in the world, but Matt Walsh puts them all to shame with pearl clutching cakes like this.
Another from a woman named Victoria Brownworth who bills herself As an award-winning journalist says, quote, wait, Matt Walsh says there's science behind his racist take on the Little Mermaid casting?
Is someone gonna break it to him that mermaids are mythical creatures and Disney makes animated features for kids?
Now there are many thousands more where those came from.
Ted Lieu got in on the dog pile.
So did CNN correspondent John Harwood.
Many others.
Conservative masochist and gimp David French joined in.
The outrage reached into unexpected corners.
The media liaison for the Portland Police Department For some reason.
Sent me hate mail about this, calling me garbage for my comments about a translucent mermaid.
This guy's name, by the way, is David Singer, and we'll put his message up on the screen.
Incidentally, in the message that I'm putting up on the screen, you can see his email address there, which is a shame.
I wish we could...
Block that out or something, but I forgot to and now it's out there and you can all see it.
Please don't email him though.
I'm not asking you to do that.
Anyway, he was hired by the Portland, Maine Police Department during the defund the police hysteria as one of the three civilian liaisons.
And his job, which he has paid a salary by the taxpayers for, is to facilitate community and media relations.
And this is his media outreach strategy, evidently.
A very interesting approach, to say the least.
He actually sent me that bit of hate mail, called me garbage, and then blocked me so that I couldn't respond.
This is media outreach, okay?
This is what the Portland Police Department in Maine needs.
All told, the left was very upset about my push for greater translucent representation in Mermaid Casting.
And let me just say, to begin with, that I am glad the left has chosen to take my comments seriously.
I was, of course, being totally serious when I made them.
I am not one to joke.
I would never engage in something as juvenile as sarcasm.
When I say something, as my audience knows, it means that I am 100% sincere all the time.
And I especially would never joke about an issue as serious as translucent representation in Hollywood.
So the three points I want to make here.
First of all, I have long been an advocate for the translucent population, a fighter for trans rights, you might say.
Translucent individuals have been marginalized for far too long, and now even film roles that rightfully belong to them have been appropriated.
I ask you, when was the last time you saw a skeletal, translucent, goblin-like monstrosity cast in any movie?
Now granted, we have one as the Speaker of the House right now, but that is hardly enough.
If they will not earn roles in films about deep sea creatures who sing, then what hope do they have?
Translucent people exist and they deserve to be affirmed.
Translucent rights are human rights.
Translucent lives matter.
Many on the left have sent me messages or left comments insisting that my mermaid racial theories are factually incorrect.
They have presented many arguments seeking to debunk my thesis.
A journalist named... There are a lot of journalists, by the way, who are chiming in on this.
And there's a journalist named Catherine Marshall.
She sent a whole string of tweets fact-checking my alleged misinformation and insisting that mermaids are more like seals who breathe air at the surface.
That's what she said.
And as she reminded me indignantly, seals are black.
But this argument fails because mermaids live on the ocean floor.
And as you may recall in the original film, Ariel's trips to the surface are a source of great controversy in the mermaid community.
They don't want her to go there at all.
This means that mermaids do not need to surface in order to breathe air, as seals do.
No, living on the ocean floor with flounders and evil octopuses clearly qualifies her as a deep-sea creature.
She certainly lives deep enough where there wouldn't be nearly enough light penetration to necessitate high concentrations of melanin in the skin.
Indeed, the lack of light penetration would create, as I argued, a translucent appearance.
This would be both evolutionary, an evolutionary adaptation allowing for greater camouflage from predators, and a logical result of the lack of sunlight.
So, do your mermaid research before you try to engage with me on this subject.
You need to bring mermaid facts and mermaid logic to this conversation.
By the way, I demand this level of accuracy out of every Disney film.
It's one of the reasons I've always objected to Beauty and the Beast.
For one thing, the story promotes bestiality, as Beauty begins to fall in love with what is essentially a large talking buffalo.
For another, the servants, who turned into household objects and pieces of furniture, would in reality be so psychologically devastated by this transformation, they'd be in no mood to perform song and dance numbers for the Beast's female prisoners.
Not to mention they wouldn't have vocal cords or a musculoskeletal system that could facilitate that sort of physical movement.
Third and final point.
I am the beloved and revered LGBT author of Johnny the Walrus.
I literally wrote a book about marine animals.
Johnny the Walrus is not just a masterpiece of children's literature, but also the seminal scientific treatise on the subject of aquatic mammals.
So those who are questioning my statements are therefore not only engaging in homophobia and gay erasure, but also are refusing to listen to and trust the experts.
This is dangerous and toxic behavior, not to mention an example of stochastic terrorism.
As an expert in the field, and as an advocate for the translucent community, I will not allow myself to be silenced or marginalized.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Okay, by the way, I should also mention that the outlet HITC News,
H-I-T-C News, which seems to be a British entertainment news site.
They have a report on the mermaid issue, and they do include the whole
statement I provided to them when they reached out for a statement.
So what they report is Matt Walsh told HitSeaNews, I have long been an advocate for the rights of translucent people.
I believe it's time we start giving these casting opportunities to this marginalized community.
Translucent rights are human rights.
So they did include my whole statement in their report, which I really appreciate.
I don't know if the other media outlets will do that.
Newsweek reported on it, didn't even ask for a statement from me to begin with.
Although even in their case, I'm glad that they are focusing on this extremely important issue.
We move on.
A couple of videos have gone viral this week, both showing brutal beatings that happened in public schools.
And, in both cases, the assailants were black, the victims were white.
Now, I'm not even sure how much of these videos we can actually show, but we'll show one and then the other, and I don't know if YouTube takes this down because it's so violent, but you have to actually see.
You hear about a beating in a public school, something like that, and you think, like, Maybe the kind of fistfights that you witnessed or maybe were a part of when you were in school.
But this goes beyond that.
So first we'll watch this one.
And you can see it's a group of kids and then the victim gets slammed against the wall.
His head is against the wall.
Now, and I've looked for an update on the story and I haven't seen it.
Because you can see he's grabbing his throat, which is a very concerning thing.
And then while he's on the ground, he gets kicked in the face.
Which, by the way, could kill somebody.
Then we have the other incident, also in a bathroom.
And in this case, it's the same deal.
There are people standing around, watching and filming.
And it's the same situation where the victim is on the ground and still getting pummeled, kicked, and all the rest of it.
That's brutal.
Not quite as brutal as the first video, but still really bad.
Now, One thing you always see in these kinds of videos, you always see that, right?
The kick in the head when the victim is down.
Every time.
It's just guaranteed.
Victim is on the ground, defenseless, has given up the fight, and in many cases was never fighting in the first place, didn't want to be a part of any fight, and they're on the ground and they just get kicked in the head every single time.
It's barbaric, animalistic, savage behavior.
No honor, it's just no honor at all, right?
No recognition of the other person's humanity.
Which, again, separates it from maybe some of the fights that you saw when you were in school or took part in, where you get into a fight with someone and you're trying to win.
You're not actually trying to kill them, though.
It's like you're not trying to paralyze them or put them in a hospital for a month.
Most of the time, the kind of fights that you think about, it's just sort of, it's a lot of bravado and that sort of thing, this kind of masculine energy that boys have.
And a lot of times they, you know, you get two kids that start getting in each other's face, and they don't even want to fight.
That's why they get into each other's face in school, because they know it's going to get broken up.
And so there's that, there's kind of that category of fight, which is one thing.
And it's bad, you shouldn't do it in school, and kids who do it should be punished.
But again, that's not this.
This is someone who's outnumbered and just being totally brutalized, often for no real reason.
Now, 12 News in Beaumont, Texas has more on one of these incidents.
I think it's the second video we saw.
A Beaumont City Councilman is calling for state and national level change after what he describes as a horrific incident at Westbrook High School.
Beaumont City Councilman Mike Goetz said in a Facebook post, a student was brutally beaten in one of the boys' restrooms while other students watched.
Councilman Mike Goetz said he was asked to be a Beaumont ISD ambassador the morning after the first night of the ambassador training.
Goetz saw a video that has since surfaced on social media.
He said, my cell phone was blowing up with people sending me links to a horrific incident at Westbrook.
The video, which 12 News has seen, appears to have been taken in the boy's bathroom.
A teenage boy can be seen punching another boy who's on the floor in the face and head at least 14 times before kicking him in the face.
The boy on the floor tries to cover his face as he's hit multiple times.
Other teens can be seen in the bathroom when the incident is taking place.
Now here's some important details about this.
The boy who was seen punching and kicking the other boy was arrested and could possibly face robbery and assault charges.
The councilman hopes he'll be prosecuted as an adult.
But Getz said, quote, this is not his first rodeo.
He has been arrested before, but current state and federal law allow these offenders back on campus after a relatively short stay at a juvenile detention facility.
So that's what's happening in the school system right now.
If you're wondering why you see these kinds of videos with increasing regularity, it's because the kids who do this end up back in the school system.
A lot of times they're not charged at all.
I mean, the fact that we're even talking about this hypothetically, oh, he could be charged with assault.
Could be?
What do you mean, could be?
If that's not criminal felony assault, I don't know what is.
If that doesn't qualify, then what do you have to do?
If punching and wailing on someone and kicking them in the head when they're on the ground doesn't count as felony assault, criminal assault that sends you to jail, then what does?
And yet this kid has done this before and ends up back in school doing it again.
Now, a few things here.
First of all, we all know, obviously, that if you flip things around and it's a group of white kids beating a black kid, it makes national news.
We know that.
It's not just national news, it's a national crisis.
It's a national crisis.
There's press conferences at the White House about it.
There's marches, there's rallies, there's riots.
It's the only thing you hear about, for a month at least, if you flip it around.
But the problem with focusing on the hypocrisy... Now, I think that the hypocrisy should be mentioned, the double standard should be mentioned.
We talked about it a few days ago on the show.
There's an attitude among some conservatives that I don't even want to talk about the racial double standard.
Let's not even talk about that.
It's lame to talk about it.
Well, so we're just gonna accept it?
I'm not saying that talking about it will solve the problem in and of itself, but I don't accept it.
So I'm going to point it out every single time.
The problem though with focusing just on the hypocrisy is that it lets us off the hook from actually dealing with the reality, with the uncomfortable reality, which is that in these videos, You know, we say that, well, if the races were reversed, it'd be national news.
Okay, what's the unspoken part of that?
Because most of the time you stop there, you don't keep talking.
But the next sentence is, um, we never see videos in the reverse.
They almost don't exist.
Maybe there are a few examples, but we can assume that there probably aren't, at least not recently, because we wouldn't know about them.
So, that is the uncomfortable, kind of unspoken reality, is that in these kinds of videos, it's almost always a group of black kids mercilessly brutalizing a white kid.
That's just a fact.
Almost never the reverse.
Almost never.
It almost always goes this way, the way you see in the video.
Again, it's a fact.
Might be uncomfortable, but it's true.
So, what do we do with that?
How do we make sense of it?
We can make sense of it in a few different ways.
I mean, one thing we could point to is the breakdown of the family unit, which has something to do with it.
And the breakdown of the family unit is happening across the country in every community and in every racial demographic.
But it is, as I think everyone knows, worse in the black community than it is anywhere else.
There you're dealing with 70%, sometimes 80%, depending on the community, sometimes even more than 80% fatherless home rate.
And yeah, when you see this kind of behavior from a kid, again, not just fighting, but like this kind of brutal, savage behavior.
And in one case, you're going after someone smaller than you, who has no interest in a fight, trying to kill them.
This is not just assault, this is attempted murder.
You kick someone in the head when they're on the ground, you are trying to kill them.
That's attempted murder.
You see someone behaving that way, you can guarantee, and you're gonna be right 99.9% of the time, that there's no father in the home.
This is someone who does not have a strong masculine role model in the home.
And we know that because they've never had masculinity demonstrated to them.
So they're acting out in this way because no one has ever shown them how a man is supposed to act and how a man is supposed to harness his kind of masculine energy and aggression, which is one of the crucial services that a father provides to his family, is to show the boys in that family what they're supposed to do with all of this energy that they have as a male.
So we know that, and there's also just been no firm hand in the home.
Someone who can draw a line and say to the kid, you're not going to behave this way.
It's a stereotype, but it's not a stereotype.
It's also true that in most families where there is a mother and a father present, the kids tend to be better behaved around their dad.
And, you know, if dad's at work and they're not behaving well, mom can use as a threat, we're going to tell your father about this when he gets home.
And that's a threat that resonates with kids.
In the reverse, you rarely hear about the reverse.
Okay, like my wife will use that threat with my kids.
We're going to tell daddy about this when he gets home.
That resonates with them.
They don't want that.
But when I'm watching the kids by myself, I'm not going to do that.
I'm not going to say, we're going to tell mom about this when she gets home.
And it's not because they don't respect their mother or anything like that.
It's just because their mother is their mother.
It's different for the father.
So you can tell that these are kids who don't have that influence in the home.
That's part of it.
Part of what explains the racial dynamics here.
Here's the other part.
Perhaps, when you demonize a group of people, As our society has done with white people, and especially with white men, white boys, white males, you know, when you demonize them, when you paint them as the villains, and you drill this into people's head, you're giving license to others to treat them this way.
So, I don't know, maybe there's a correlation here.
Maybe there's correlation that also indicates causation in this case.
Maybe when you take a group of people and you demonize them, you demonize them, you demonize them, and then you see this uptick in that very same group of people being treated in horrible and brutal and horrific ways.
Yeah, you know, maybe we can start drawing some lines here, connecting these dots.
Just a thought.
By the way, talking about this on Twitter a couple days ago, and I got a few messages from teachers talking about, you know, exactly this problem, the violence in schools.
So this is a message from a teacher, says, Mr. Walsh, I quit teaching high school because a small section of the student population was terrorizing the whole campus.
That video of the smaller kid getting beaten down in the bathroom is a common occurrence.
As a black man, I pleaded with my principal to kick those delinquents out of school.
Instead, people who complain get harassed.
I'm from a different state than where this occurred.
This is a national problem.
Often, the media teachers get the focus, but no one is asking this.
Did the principal, who knew they had violent students on their campus, get fired?
Most of those administrators know about the violent students.
So this is, um... We're driving the good teachers out of the business entirely.
Driving them out, because what are they supposed to do about this?
When you have kids on the campus who are empowered to just do whatever they want, have no respect for authority whatsoever, what are you supposed to do with that?
All right, this is from the New York Times.
It says, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it would let stand for now a ruling that Yeshiva University must recognize an LGBT student group.
The vote was five to four, with the majority saying that the university, a modern Orthodox Jewish institution in Manhattan, must first pursue challenges to the ruling in state court.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the four dissenters, said that further challenges were pointless and that the majority had inflicted grave harm on the university's right to religious freedom.
He wrote, quote, a state's imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review.
The majority's order was brief, unsigned, and provisional, which is typical when the justices rule on applications seeking emergency relief.
It criticized the university's litigation strategy, saying its lawyers had not asked a state appeals court to speed its appeal and had not properly sought to block the trial judge's ruling in the meantime.
The order said, quote, if applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this court.
And so they are basically kind of punting it down the line a bit.
But this is really an easy case.
This is an easy case to adjudicate.
It's an easy case to analyze from a constitutional perspective and a religious freedom perspective.
This is a private institution.
This is a private religious institution.
You know, Yeshiva University.
Just by its very name, you can't make any mistakes about what it's about.
And I'm sure that if you go to enroll in a school like this, all of these things are made very clear.
This is an Orthodox Jewish institution.
It's not like it's the only educational institution in America, or even in New York.
There are many other options, but if you come here, we are a religious Jewish institution, we abide by the Jewish religion, and that's it.
So if we're being told by the left, and provisionally anyway, by the Supreme Court, That private Jewish institutions don't have the right to abide by their religious faith in their own institutions, then in what sense do we even have religious rights anymore?
I always talk about the leftist sleight of hand trick.
Here was another one, and it's always the same thing.
Because for so many years, they said, as they were driving religious people out of the public square completely, and driving them out and saying, you know, your religion is not welcome here, it's not allowed here, get it away, get it out of sight.
But then what did they always say?
They said, well, you know, do that in your own churches and your own schools, okay?
If you want to be in your home, in your own private religious schools, your own churches, or synagogues, as the case may be, you know, you can have your religious freedom there.
Just don't make us look at it.
Gross.
We don't want to see it.
And many on the right, as always, went along with that.
I guess found that convincing.
But it was always a lie.
It always was.
Because you let them drive you out of the public square, relegate you to these, you know, to their own little, they draw a circle.
You know, on the sidewalk, and say, like they literally do on some college campuses, they say, here's your free speech zone.
Here's your religious freedom zone.
It's right here.
You can have religious freedom in there.
And then people go, and they go stand in a little circle, and they say, okay, fine, I'll stand here.
And then what do they find?
That circle gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it disappears.
It's a straightforward case.
You know, if you don't agree, With orthodox Jewish people on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage and gay rights and all the rest of it.
If you don't agree, then don't go to an orthodox Jewish school.
Go anywhere else.
This is why I also told you, this is what's going to happen with the federalization,
the codification of gay rights on the federal level, which many Republicans are now supporting.
.
That they're going to use that to go after the churches too, just like we talked about yesterday.
Because once they establish, once they have codified into law this notion that gay marriage or, quote, gay rights are, you know, it's a human right issue.
And they've also defined gay rights as just, like, if you're a gay person, you have the right to organize and you have the right to, you know, behave in any way you want, anywhere, in any context.
Because that's what they mean when they talk about gay rights.
So once they've codified that, then it's a pretty simple maneuver for them to go to the churches and say, well, no, you can't do this.
You can still have your religious freedom, but you can't infringe on human rights, for goodness sake.
All right, next, Jill Biden has some thoughts on what books should be allowed or what books should be available in libraries.
Let's listen to that.
Meanwhile, there are schools all across the country facing these shortages.
It's such a challenge.
What concerns you the most when we talk about staffing for schools?
This has been happening for a couple years now.
We've seen it coming.
The teacher workforce was skewed a little bit older, you know, for several years now.
But what we need to do is encourage younger people to come into the profession and also teachers of color.
Parents and politicians are now weighing in on what books should be in our school libraries and what their kids are being taught.
Where's the line, in your opinion, with how much of a say parents should have when it comes to what their kids are learning in school?
With the pandemic, parents saw how hard teachers work and how difficult this job really is.
And I think if they work together in their school districts and decide what they want with their curriculum.
Is there a balance between, you know, this book should be in the library, this book is under review?
All books should be in the library.
All books.
This is America.
We don't ban books.
Okay, so at the very end there, we get to the part that I wanted.
The rest of it, who cares about?
Because it shows the absurdity of the leftist claim that, you know, books are being banned by conservatives.
There's some sort of crisis, this book-burning that goes on.
And of course, as we know, the actual book-burning and, you know, the banning of books and the banning of ideas, deplatforming, almost all of that is a leftist thing.
And they also are the only ones with the power to do it because they control the institutions which can then pass these rules down.
But you see the absurdity of it.
She says that all books should be available in libraries.
And here we are specifically talking, we're not talking about the public library down the street.
We are specifically talking about libraries at schools.
And so she is saying all books should be available to kids in a school library?
They're sitting in a school library there.
It looks like an elementary school library they're sitting in.
Every single book should be available to kids in an elementary school library.
I mean, forgetting about the logistic challenge of putting every single book in existence in a school library.
Also, you're suggesting that there are no books that are inappropriate for kids?
They're not even debating whether this or that particular book is inappropriate.
They're saying, well, every book is appropriate, of course.
There's no such thing as inappropriate material for a child.
But don't call them groomers, of course.
Never do that.
All right, Nancy Pelosi has some rather glib thoughts on the issue of when life begins.
Let's listen.
There is a conflict within the Republican Party.
There are those in the party that think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
And these people are in defiance of that, right?
They're in defiance of that, because they're saying whatever they're saying about it.
So that's what you're seeing there.
But we are united in our support for women's right to choose.
Okay, so Nancy Pelosi, again, like every other Democrat, we went through a bunch of clips yesterday, she is taking the gift that was given to her by Lindsey Graham, who I am convinced is intentionally trying to sabotage Republican chances in the midterms, you know, who put forward this This federal abortion ban right before the midterms.
We already went over why that is only a political move.
It's not anything else because the bill obviously has no chance of being signed into law or passing or even getting a vote.
So it's a political play, and we talked about why that's a disastrously stupid political play.
Although, we should also note that the bill itself, even though politically it makes no sense right now, the bill itself is quite moderate.
It's not extreme at all.
I mean, they're going around acting like their hair's on fire, screaming, it's extreme, it's extreme!
What Lindsey Graham's bill does is it bans abortion after 15 weeks.
Which, as many on the right have pointed out, as Lindsey Graham pointed out, accurately so.
This just puts the United States right in line with most European countries, most civilized countries across the world.
15 weeks.
You know, my wife is a little bit more than 15 weeks, but she's right around there.
I mean, 15 weeks is late.
It is late into a pregnancy.
And at 15 weeks, now, you don't have unborn babies who are viable, in the sense of, we say viable, meaning you can take them out of the womb and they can survive completely on their own.
But they are developed, like, recognizable human beings.
You look at the ultrasound at 15 weeks and you will see little babies there.
So it's a moderate bill.
But Democrats are taking the gift that they've been given and painting it like this extreme attack on quote-unquote women's rights.
But you notice her little quip there.
Republicans, they think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
Now obviously that's not even close to true.
She's trying to make it sound like conservatives are confused, like she's trying to confuse the issue about when conservatives say, when pro-lifers say life begins.
We're very clear about it.
Life begins at the moment that this living being comes into existence.
That's it.
Life begins... So, another way we could put it... We always say life begins at conception.
Maybe a simpler, more direct, clarifying way of putting it is that life begins at existence.
That's what we should be saying from now on.
Not life begins at conception, even though that is accurate.
Better way of putting it is, life begins at existence.
And when you put it that way, you are now putting the pro-abortion people in the position of trying to argue that life begins sometime after existence.
That somehow, you know, human life and human existence are these two separable things.
And first, a human being comes into existence, and then, at some other point in the future, they have life, and then those two things come together.
That makes no sense.
But because they're confused and are constantly obfuscating on this issue and trying to make it obscure and impossible to understand, their strategy is to make it seem like we're in the same boat.
Like we're all just confused, fumbling around in the dark.
Who knows?
No, we have a firm, solid, understandable answer to this.
You do not.
Which means, by the way, Like, if you don't know when life begins, you can't tell us that we're wrong.
Because by your own admission, you don't really know.
So, as far as you're concerned, we could be right.
We can say that you're wrong because we have a firm position.
We're saying life begins here.
And so that puts us in a position where we can say, no, according to our view, you're wrong.
But if you don't know, you can't say that anyone else is wrong because you don't know.
Alright, Chris Ruffo has An update that I wanted to read to you.
He posted this on Twitter.
He says, update.
I spoke with Boston Police Department about the bomb threat at Boston Children's Hospital.
A spokesman told me, quote, the threat itself did not get reported to police.
It came second hand.
But he refused to say who alerted Boston Police Department telling me it was part of the investigation file.
Ben Ruffo continues, I've submitted a public records request asking for a transcript of the communication alerting Boston Police Department about the bomb threat.
The Washington Post jumped to conclusions without substantiating the facts.
The public has a right to know what happened.
It's entirely possible the official narrative is correct, but we need answers to a few questions.
Who alerted BPD about the bomb threat?
How did they communicate this info?
And where is the evidence to substantiate claims of threats and harassment against Boston Children's?
The burden of proof is on the media.
We know that other outlets, such as Axios, have made claims of harassment against a children's hospital without reviewing or providing any evidence.
Journalists need to have a higher standard than this.
And then he wraps it up and says, again, it's entirely possible that the Washington Post narrative is true, but there are claims that need to be substantiated and questions that need to be answered.
Boston Children's Hospital and Boston Police Department should provide the evidence to the public.
So, just the way that they are, and it hasn't just been Chris Ruffo.
I've been in communication with other People on the right in media that have been doing this, too, have been trying to track down answers about this bomb threat.
It was the biggest story everyone was talking about for about five minutes a couple weeks ago, and people like myself and Chris Ruffo himself and Libsit TikTok and others had been, you know, accused of maybe calling in the bomb threat ourselves, or at least of encouraging others to do it, even though none of us ever encouraged anything like that.
And then the story goes away.
And we, the ones who are being accused here, are the only ones still interested in talking about it.
I mean, I'm the one saying to the left-wing media, why'd you stop talking?
Let's still talk about the bomb threat at the Boston Children's Hospital.
I actually want to know what happened.
Who did it?
I want to know that.
Apparently you don't want to know.
Which really tells us something.
But this is what we've seen, I've seen this from multiple sources, that any attempt to reach out to Boston Police Department and just find out what happened is, they are very strangely vague about it.
Even the wording here, so he's giving, this is what the spokesman told him verbatim, the threat itself did not get reported to police, it came second hand.
What does that mean?
The threat didn't get reported?
I mean, are they saying that the threat was not, it's like whoever made the threat didn't call 911 but made the threat to Boston Children's and then they heard about it through that?
Is that what they're saying?
Because that's one thing.
But what they're saying is that the threat itself did not get reported to police.
So they just heard about it secondhand.
How do you make sense of that?
I don't even, I don't know what that means.
And again, Ruffo and others have tried to clarify, what does this mean exactly?
What are you saying?
Like, where did this threat come from?
Are you still investigating it?
How did this come in?
How was the threat made?
What was the threat exactly?
What was said on this call or whatever?
However the threat came in, what was contained in the threat exactly?
They won't answer any of those questions.
And we can't know exactly why, we can only speculate.
But here's the thing, when information is being kept from us, and we're being given intentionally vague answers, then it's not our fault that we have to speculate.
That's not on us.
So I feel perfectly free offering speculations.
I'd like to have something better than speculation, but they won't tell us.
And so my speculation, my theory of the case, is that This was not a conservative or a critic of gender ideology who called it a threat to Boston Children's.
That wouldn't even make any sense.
I mean, someone who is actually a critic of what Boston Children's is doing, a critic of gender ideology, you gain nothing.
There is no motivation, there is no incentive to call it a bomb threat.
No incentive.
Even aside from the fact that it's obviously a morally wrong, atrocious thing to do, But if you're the kind of person that you don't care about that, so the morality of it doesn't mean anything to you, or from a basic strategic perspective also, it makes no sense.
Who does it benefit?
You know, anytime you hear about something happening, and it's very vague and speculative, we don't know exactly what happened, the first question you should ask yourself is, who benefits from this?
Does the right benefit from a bomb threat to Boston children?
Do I benefit?
Does LibsitikTok benefit?
Obviously not.
The left reaps all the benefits here.
Because they can use this to de-platform or try to de-platform people like myself, which is exactly what they did and have been doing.
So, hmm, I don't know.
I mean, that's... We have some dots there.
Can we connect them?
Doesn't benefit anybody on the right.
Benefits on the left.
We know that on the left, they have a habit of using hoaxes to get what they want.
This is a well-established thing.
They do it all the time.
It just happened down at BYU.
It's very, very frequent.
So we have people with a habit of using hoaxes for ideological and political reasons.
Self-serving reasons.
And it also just happens that these are the only people who benefit from this thing.
And we're not being given any information about it.
I don't know.
Seems like...
Although they're trying to make the picture very unclear.
It seems to be getting clearer and clearer by the day.
Let's get to the comment section.
Anyway, I remember being in public school in the early-mid 2000s and sex ed was taught by our P.E.
coaches.
We had one teacher who tried to actually teach abstinence during the course and I distinctly remember the vast majority of my classmates thinking he was weird and creepy because it was so different than literally everything else taught by all the other teachers.
I can recall this too.
I don't know if this is still the case, but they have the gym teachers teaching sex ed, which is already strange, but it's strange for anyone to do it.
But here's the thing, Jack, I agree with the classmates who think that it's weird and creepy to have some teacher up there, whether it's the gym teacher or the health teacher or anybody else, teaching them about abstinence.
I think that's weird and creepy too.
Now, it's a lot weirder and creepier to be teaching the kind of sex ed that we talked about yesterday on the show.
To be teaching the kind of sex ed that the left wants, that's a hell of a lot creepier and weirder.
But it is also weird and creepy to be talking about absence of public school because this is just a subject that should not be discussed at all.
Now I don't want public school teachers teaching kids about how to use pornography, teaching them about masturbation and all these things that you hear about in these sex ed classes.
I don't want that.
That's disgusting and horrible and it should be criminal.
And people that do that should go to prison.
But I also don't want them to be tasked with teaching kids how to refrain from sex.
That is also not a conversation that I want to enlist the government education system in.
It should not be talked about.
How to have sex, how to not have sex, shouldn't be talked about.
Strange adults should not be talking to kids about that.
Period.
Stick with, you know, the ABCs and 1-2-3s.
Phillip says, I asked my five-year-old daughter, what is a woman, immediately and without hesitation she responded, a grown-up girl like mommy.
Looked at me confused and walked away.
She gets it.
Well, that's good.
She obviously understands reality better than most adult people on the left, and now your job is just to make sure that she, you know, retains that recognition of reality as she grows older.
Delta says, porn is a natural human experience.
No, it may be a common or nearly universal contemporary experience, but that doesn't mean it's natural or good.
Yeah, we heard that from the advocates of porn literacy yesterday, people that are promoting the porn literacy classes in Idaho public schools.
And one of the reasons that they think they need to teach porn literacy is that porn is natural.
And I noted that also.
I didn't focus on that.
I mean, there are so many things to tear apart when you hear this.
So I didn't focus in on that part of it, but you're absolutely right that that statement makes no sense.
Porn is natural?
What does that even mean, natural?
What do you mean in this context?
It's natural in the sense that natural beings, like physical beings, are doing it, so if that's what you mean.
But beyond that, no, I'm not sure how we could call Pornhub a natural phenomenon.
It didn't, like, arise.
It didn't grow out of the ground like a tree.
It is, in many ways, one of the least natural things you can possibly imagine.
Ken says, I'm totally on board with the bicycling thing.
I have to drive on a road exactly like you described on my way home from work, and there's always tons of people biking on these extremely dangerous roads right at the time that people are trying to get home from work.
It's inconsiderate and rude, not to mention dangerous.
There are plenty of bike paths and other designated biking areas that they could be using.
Yeah, they do seem to especially choose The worst roads to bike on and the worst times.
So if you're in the cyclist community, you could at least make it a little bit easier on everybody by choosing times like middle of the day when it's not during a commute and at least choose roads that people can pass you without having to drive in oncoming traffic and get into a head-on collision.
Can you at least do that?
But no, that's too much to ask, because these people are selfish sociopaths and should also be in prison.
That's my solution to everything.
Just put everyone in prison.
You know, this week, Obama economist Lawrence Summers said that we have a serious problem with inflation, which is a direct quote.
But Joe Biden has refused to see it that way, calling the economy fast and strong.
If only we had his eyes and his brain.
Well, I don't want his brain, but his eyes anyway.
Well, we thought we'd give the old man the benefit of the doubt and applied his fiscal policies to our Daily Wire merch sale to see if it gave you a better deal.
After crunching the numbers, we quickly realized no one wants to pay 8.3% more for anything.
So instead, we're going with our gut and we're going to do what makes sense to us.
We're cutting prices by 40%.
That's right.
You can now get a copy of my best-selling children's book, Johnny the Walrus, for only $12.
You can get a Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt for $21.
You can get an Old Glory baseball bat signed by Ben Shapiro for just $150.
This is the time.
You know, if you haven't gotten your Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt because you're being cheap and say, I don't want to spend all that, well, we are inviting you into the fold now.
Even the cheap people can be in the Sweet Baby Gang.
Get your t-shirt now.
You get 40% off Daily Wire merchandise during our inflation reduction event.
While supplies last, just go to dailywire.com slash shop.
Sale ends on Sunday.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
By the way, I am looking forward to the Media Matters headline, Daily Wire host calls for imprisoning all cyclists, which yet again, I mean, go ahead and make a headline out of that because I'm 100% serious.
I really want to do that, and I would if I was in charge.
Now, for our daily cancellation, I cannot say that it's a major shock by any means, but in recent weeks, I have learned that the Starbucks baristas community includes some of the whiniest, most self-pitying humans who have ever existed on the face of the planet.
And this doesn't apply to all of them.
There are exceptions, of course, but the whiners are a large enough contingent so that every week, it would seem, there's another viral post on Twitter from a barista complaining about customers, about working conditions, about the lack of pay, the lack of tips, etc.
But the one thing that this group hates the most, it seems, is when they're asked to do the job they signed up for.
So earlier this week on Twitter, it was posted a thread with instructions.
Someone posted a thread with instructions.
On how to order various fancy Frappuccino drinks and lattes.
These are not on the drive-thru menu, but they're drinks that Starbucks can make if you ask, and they're kind of complicated.
Now, I'm personally not one to order fancy drinks, and I can't say that I particularly enjoy being stuck in line behind a fancy drink enthusiast.
But this is why the baristas are there.
It's why they have jobs.
If everybody was like me and simply wanted a humble medium roast coffee, about 80% of Starbucks staff would just become immediately useless.
We wouldn't need them.
And yet many members of the Starbucks team responded to the tweet complaining bitterly about the very customers who save them from redundancy.
So I'll read a few of these responses, which are representative of many others.
Quote, hey, just so you know, baristas despise these hyper-customized drinks.
It throws us off our rhythm.
Starbucks understaffs us and expects us to make a drink every 48 seconds.
Drinks that aren't routine take longer and put us behind in a stressful environment.
Try ordering a latte.
Another one says, imagine pumping out 120 plus drinks an hour and having to clear the drive-thru in less than 46 seconds.
This isn't cute.
It's labor abuse.
Yes, that's right.
It is abusive for a customer to ask a customer service worker to provide them with service.
Another comment says, each of these drinks is going to cost at least $9 because of all the additions.
Also, your baristas will hate you.
And indeed, many other baristas confirm this, some threatening physical violence against any customer who dares to make them get off their asses and do the job they're paid to do.
But Twitter's not the only forum for these bitching baristas.
TikTok has become, so far as I can tell, also a forum, really a forum primarily for dancing and also for barista complaints.
And sometimes for barista complaints in the form of dancing.
The Daily Dot reports on one recent example, quote, A barista is going viral on TikTok after uploading a routine customer experience he has while making drinks that have cold foam in them.
Marquise Maynell said in a caption from the popular clip, which garnered 100,000 likes on the social media platform,
that it happens daily.
Several other baristas in the comment section said that they've experienced the same type
of anxious requests from patrons that they've served as well.
The video begins with Marquise setting down a cup of cold brew.
It's an iced coffee with a text overlay that reads, "Okay, and here's the cold brew.
Let me add your cold foam."
The barista then starts adding the foam to the cup before another text overlay
meant to represent an interjecting customer comes up on the screen.
Don't forget my cold phone.
It reads, Marquis adds the foam to the drink, which he was in the middle of doing in the video before the customer reminded him not to pour it in their cup.
He then gives the customer a glare before walking off camera.
Now, by the way, he was actually at Starbucks, apparently, on the clock when he made this video complaining about the customers at Starbucks.
So this is another very common thing.
Like these Starbucks employees are making videos complaining about their job while on the job.
So the next time you're sitting in line at Starbucks wondering what's taking so long, keep in mind that you might be getting held up because the employees haven't finished uploading their TikToks yet.
Another TikTok video has this caption on the screen.
"Just reminding everyone that Starbucks baristas can see you in the drive-thru when you're at the box.
So I saw you make faces and throw your hands up and say stuff under your breath to your friend
because I asked you what size pink drink you wanted.
I'm sorry I didn't hear you the first time. I didn't mean to offend you."
Another barista agreed with this, warning customers that if she doesn't like your attitude at the drive-thru line,
she will intentionally make your order wrong.
Still, there's another recent TikTok video featuring a barista complaining
about people who order frappuccinos too early in the morning.
I've also heard complaints about people who order complicated drinks too close to closing time.
So, don't order them in the morning.
Don't order them at night.
Don't order them in the afternoon because that's when all the workers are making TikTok videos.
Just don't order the drinks at all.
Don't go to Starbucks because your presence is an imposition on the employees.
But also, the employees all need higher wages.
So this is what they demand.
Less business, less work, higher wages.
Economics 101, folks.
Now here's the point that needs to be made.
And it's not just baristas who need to hear this.
Yes, they seem to be an especially aggrieved bunch, constantly persecuted by customers who, you know, order things.
But this is a symptom of a widespread cultural epidemic.
We hear constant complaints from all sectors of the working world among high- and low-paid workers.
Even Hollywood actresses worth millions, like Jennifer Lawrence, will still relentlessly complain about their jobs.
Now, if there's legitimate abuse going on, actual injustice, Then those should be exposed and addressed.
But someone making a complicated order or getting a little annoyed with you is not abuse, and it's not an injustice.
It's just the job.
It's the job you signed up for.
It's the reason your position exists.
So here are some things that anyone should think about before they start whining and moaning about their job.
And this doesn't matter what your job is.
This goes for Starbucks baristas, people in my line of work, whatever it is.
Number one.
Your job is not as difficult or taxing as you think it is.
It has its challenges, but there are many jobs more difficult than yours.
Every job has its own sources of frustration.
This is the other thing you hear from baristas anytime you talk about this and they're complaining and you say, oh, you shouldn't complain.
They say, oh, you tried doing this sometime.
You can't imagine how hard this is.
You could never do this.
But try working a customer service job?
I mean, I've done that.
Lots of us have.
I'm not saying—it has its difficulties.
It is kind of stressful, but it's not—it's something that a lot of us have done and can do.
Your job is not as difficult as you think.
Two, also remember that you pursued this job.
You asked for it.
You went to the employer and said, can I have this job, please?
I want to do this.
And then they said, yes, you can do it.
Here are your job responsibilities.
And you said, yes, I'll do those responsibilities.
Look, there are people who don't have a job and would love to take yours if it's such a burden.
Also keep that in mind.
Three, you don't deserve any special commendations simply for showing up.
You have to work.
And even when you work, You still don't deserve special commendation just for that.
It's what's expected.
It's your responsibility.
It's your duty.
You aren't a martyr simply fulfilling your basic responsibilities.
Four.
Successful people are always the ones who go to their jobs looking to add extra challenges to their day.
That might sound like it might throw you for a loop.
It might sound crazy, but people who are really successful, that's what they do.
No matter what their line of work is, they go into their job and they're looking Actually, to make the job harder.
They're looking for more challenges, more things to do.
They want to challenge themselves at the job.
And if that sounds mind-boggling to you, you can't even imagine someone doing that, well, it's why you are not as successful as you could be.
If you sit around all day, you know, dwelling on the difficulties of your work and trying to avoid them, you will languish in mediocrity forever.
You will never be successful.
You will never amount to anything worthwhile.
And five, most importantly, and here I climb atop a familiar soapbox once again.
But I have to just say it.
My classic dad speech.
Life is work.
There is no such thing as a work-free life.
Every life requires work to sustain it.
Either you will do that work for yourself, or someone else will be made to do it for you.
Now, the latter option may seem attractive, but there's no honor in it, and there's no success in it.
There's no happiness.
And it's certainly not the ethical approach.
It's also not an option for most people.
No.
In your case, most likely, just like in my case, we have to work.
We have no choice.
That's it.
That's life.
It just is.
It's the nature of human existence.
So you might as well put some effort in and have a good attitude about it and strive for success.
You have to do this.
So you can sit around complaining all day, it's too hard, I want to do it, it's so difficult.
But it doesn't matter.
You're alive.
You're a human.
This is just what life is.
So you might as well accept it.
And try to make the most of it.
And one more guideline.
If you're going to complain about your job, if you are going to complain about it, and we all complain about our jobs sometimes, but if you are going to do it, do it in the break room, in whispers, like a normal person.
Don't do it on the internet.
These Starbucks baristas have violated all of these rules.
In particular, though, they violate that last one.
And so that is why, finally, they are the ones who are, today, cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
Hope to see you there.
Sign up for a Daily Wire membership if you haven't yet so you can join us for the final portion of the show.
