Ep. 1060 - Why The Democrats Want You To Stay Unmarried Forever
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats dominated the unmarried woman vote on Tuesday. You can see why the Left is so determined to destroy marriage and the family. Also, were the results actually as bad for Republicans as everyone seems to assume? We’ll discuss. And Joe Biden considers investigating Elon Musk. For what? Well, he hasn’t figured that out yet. AOC issues a public apology for failing to have pronouns in her bio. Plus, cops arrest a blind man for having a walking cane. It may sound like there’s more to this story, but there really isn’t.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog including “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson On Marriage”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout and get two Black Angus New York Strip Steaks FREE: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh
Hallow - Try Hallow for 3 months FREE: https://hallow.com/mattwalsh
- - -
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, Democrats dominated the unmarried woman vote on Tuesday.
You can see why the left is so determined to destroy marriage and the family.
Also, were the results actually as bad for Republicans as everyone seems to assume?
We'll discuss.
And Joe Biden considers investigating Elon Musk.
For what, exactly?
Well, he hasn't figured that out yet.
AOC issues a public apology for failing to have pronouns in her bio.
Plus, cops arrest a blind man for having a walking cane.
It may sound like there's more to this story, but there really isn't.
We'll talk about all of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
I love spending the holidays with my family.
And one of the ways that I like to do that is with delicious meat from Good Ranchers.
As a special gift to my listeners this holiday season, Good Ranchers is giving away two Black Angus New York Strip steaks free with your order.
These are two 12-ounce steakhouse quality cuts, a $70 value free.
You don't want to miss this offer.
Black Angus tastes better and is more tender than any other beef.
Black Angus meat is marbled in such a way that the fat is distributed thinly and evenly.
This marbling gives it a consistent flavor that you don't get with other meats.
Plus, the black Angus from Good Ranchers is hand-cut and trimmed by expert butchers, so you know every piece is going to be exquisite.
While grocery store meat prices are on the rise, Good Ranchers is dedicated to helping you save as much as possible.
If you subscribe to Good Ranchers today, you can lock in your price and avoid those insanely high prices at the grocery store, and you get some free meat while you're at it.
So go to GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout for this special offer.
That's GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh.
for two Black Angus New York strip steaks free with your order.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
Well, as it stands right now, the election results, as we are told, are still trickling in, quote-unquote.
Republicans are inching closer towards a slim majority in the House, while the Senate still hangs in the balance.
The Senate races in a few key states have yet to be called now, two days later.
Why is it taking this long?
I mean, how is it that a state in a modern and allegedly advanced country could take two days to count its ballots and still not be finished?
How do we explain a state that has, you know, 60% counted of its votes, and then you check back 18 hours later, and they've counted 75% of their votes?
How could this slow pace possibly be justified, especially when states like Florida, with far more ballots to count, managed to get them all tallied in like five hours?
Well, it makes sense once you understand the process.
And I think a lot of people don't understand the process.
There's a lot of misinformation.
So, in Arizona, for example, Takes a long time in Arizona.
Well, what happens is each individual ballot has to be ferried up a mountainside on the back of a goat and delivered to a magical oracle who's sitting in a cave, who then communicates the results via a chain of smoke signals, which eventually get back to the election office, which then, after any necessary corrections are made, of course, sends the tally to CNN by carrier pigeon.
So that's the system, and it's quite standard.
I mean, how else are they supposed to do it?
Can you think of a better one?
At least that's the most encouraging theory that I can come up with, because the more likely explanation is that they take so long because they want to take so long, and there is no good reason why they could want that.
I mean, there are reasons why they could want it, but no good ones.
They don't fix the system because, for their purpose, the system isn't broken.
It's working exactly as they prefer, according to their purposes.
Yet, even as we wait for the mountaintop oracle to give us the final results, we can still arrive at certain conclusions about the state of our country and our culture, and none of them are all that encouraging, I'm afraid.
So, take Montana referendum number 131.
The results here, too, are still being tabulated somehow, but with 90% reporting or so, it looks certain that the referendum is going to fail in Montana.
Nearly a quarter of a million residents voted against the referendum, with about 200,000 voting for it.
What does the referendum seek to accomplish?
Well, it is supposed to guarantee medical treatment for infants born alive after a botched abortion.
So to be clear, a majority of voters in Montana do not want to give life-saving medical treatment to a born infant outside of the mother's womb.
They voted in favor of leaving the child to die horrifically and painfully.
Now, there are some generous souls out there who want to make excuses for these voters, claiming the referendum was worded in a confusing way.
And that can be a problem, certainly, and has been in the past, with, you know, there's a referendum, and then you look at the way it's worded, and it's hard.
In fact, we had one of those a couple months ago.
We were looking at it, and it's just, it's hard to tell what they're asking you.
But you tell me if you're confused by this.
Here's the actual language.
Here's the question that appeared on the ballot in Montana.
This is what it said.
An act adopting the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, providing that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons, requiring healthcare providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born alive infant, providing a penalty, providing that the proposed act be submitted to qualified electors of Montana, and providing an effective date.
And then the voters were invited to vote either yes, approving the referendum, or no, to rejecting it.
These are the statements.
It's an act providing legal protection to infants born alive.
Yes or no?
I can't see how anyone could possibly be confused by that.
Again, an act to provide legal status to infants born alive after abortion.
Yes, you want to give them that status and thus save their lives, or no, you don't.
And if you say no, as it clearly indicates in the wording, you are voting to deny legal protections to born infant children.
A majority of voters in Montana—Montana, not typically considered a bastion of far-left activism—voted to deny those protections to children.
We can comfort ourselves with the desperate hope that these Montana voters are just incredibly stupid rather than incredibly evil, but I think that would be a false hope.
In fact, abortion and infanticide won on the ballot all across the country in red states and blue states.
Voters from Montana to Kentucky to more expected places like Michigan and California voted, often by considerable margins, to deny any legal protections to children born and unborn.
That's the fact of the matter.
It's not fun to consider, but it is a fact all the same.
There is definitely, we cannot deny, a candidate quality problem in the Republican Party, but there is also, I'm afraid to say, a voter quality problem.
The results of these referendums, and of the races themselves, can largely be explained by, and blamed on, I suppose, two often overlapping groups, and that would be Gen Z and unmarried women.
Now, it's been widely discussed, and it comes as no surprise to no one, I assume, that Democrats won the Gen Z vote by about 2 to 1.
But the unmarried woman factor is, I think, most notable.
As the Daily Wire reports, quote, unmarried women voted Democrat in the 2022 midterm elections by a significant margin, according to exit poll data.
Compared to married individuals favoring GOP candidates this year, a CNN exit poll of 18,571 total respondents found 68% of single women mark their ballots for Democratic politicians, a 37-point margin over the Republican Party.
Republicans gained 20% more votes from married men than Democrats, while single men voted 7% more for GOP figures.
We should also note, importantly, that Republicans won the married woman vote by 14 points.
So, Republicans win clear majorities of the married vote, and still a slim majority of the rather unmarried man vote.
But unmarried women swing heavily to Democrats.
Based on this, we can also assume that they are largely responsible for these ballot measures enshrining abortion and infanticide across the country.
I mean, that's why these measures passed, or didn't pass, as the case may be.
The good news for Democrats is that the number of unmarried women in the country continues to increase year over year.
In the middle of the previous century, so around 1940, 1950, a vast majority of the households in the country, 80% or so, were comprised of married couples and families.
They were led by married couples or families.
You know, 80%.
That number fell to around half by the end of the century.
So around 2000, we were about 50% of households were led by married couples.
And within a decade after that, around 2010, it fell to less than half.
So now a majority of households are not led by married couples.
And this is a first in recorded history.
And the trend continues rapidly in that direction every year.
This is very bad news for children, and not just because unmarried people are more likely to vote to strip children of basic legal protections, but also because the children born to these unmarried people—remember, we're talking about unmarried people, not necessarily childless people.
I'm not exclusively childless.
So, any children born to these unmarried people, by every conceivable measure, face greater obstacles.
They'll have a worse time of it.
They will fare worse.
Children born to single parents are far more likely to have behavior problems, far more likely to have academic problems, far more likely to drop out of school, far more likely to get expelled, far more likely to end up in prison, far more likely to end up on drugs, far more likely to end up homeless, far more likely to fall victim to violent crime, on and on and on.
It is extremely bad for children and for society to abandon marriage.
That's just the fact.
But as is so often the case, what is bad for kids and bad for the culture is really good for the Democrats.
The Democrat Party is a vulture.
It feasts on the carcass of decaying civilizations.
Now it's easy to see why the Democrat Party is determined then to undermine marriage and destroy the nuclear family.
You can see why the left is openly hostile to the nuclear family, why they have declared war against it.
The nuclear family, led by a man and woman bonded in marriage, serves as a blockade, a fortress, standing against the left's political and cultural aspirations.
They know they can't achieve their ultimate ends without blowing up the fortress, and that's what they've set out to do, and they're already having enormous success, and they're reaping enormous political rewards in the process.
Now, why do unmarried people, especially women, tend to favor Democrats?
That's obvious enough.
Marriage and family life will tend to make you less selfish, tend to make you less obsessively focused on your own desires, tend to make you more invested in the future, more grounded, right?
In a word, more conservative.
Selfish, shallow people will naturally find leftism more appealing, and they're also more susceptible to manipulation.
What's more, when you're single, you're more vulnerable, and thus more likely to be dependent on the government.
Democrats know this, which is one of the primary reasons they oppose a nuclear family.
Nuclear families need less from the government, typically, and therefore are harder to control.
The more reliant you are on the government, the more you can be controlled.
The easier it is for the Democrats to extract your vote.
Unmarried women in particular, if they're sexually active, are going to be more likely.
Democrats can get their vote, manipulate them, use emotional blackmail to get their vote with the abortion issue.
Because they're more vulnerable, and because they're not married, if they have a kid, they're more likely to see it as a crisis, you know, because they're not married.
Now, when you're married, and there are still married couples that get abortions, which is hideously evil, of course, but if you're married and you have a kid, you're less likely to see it as a crisis, because you're married and you have a family, and that's what the marriage, this is what that's all about.
So what does this mean?
It means, of course, that our political problem is first a cultural problem.
And there is no solving the former without addressing the latter.
And there is no addressing the latter if we're going to neglect marriage and the family.
You know, for decades, conservatives have looked for ways to win the political game without winning the cultural game.
And they're looking for ways to win the culture, then, without defending and encouraging marriage and the family.
And it just doesn't work.
It can't.
It never will.
If we want the cultural victory, And thus, the political victory, our message should be, get married, have kids, stay married.
Get married, have kids, stay married.
In that order.
That's the three-step process.
Get married, have kids, stay married.
If more people follow that, yes, Republicans will win many more elections.
You know, if we were still at 80% married households, then Republicans would never lose a national election again.
But more importantly, we will have saved our culture from annihilation.
And more important still, people will be living purposeful, joyful lives.
Which ultimately is the end result that Democrats are most desperate to avoid.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
And a core part of that faith is prayer.
You know, I talk a lot about stressful things all day, and you might feel a little bit overwhelmed with where the country is going, but I've got good news for you.
HALO can help you find some peace and hope rooted not in the government or the institutions, but in God.
Hallow has over 5,000 audio-guided prayers, meditations, and peaceful Christian music, including the Rosary with Bishop Barron and Mark Wahlberg, the Bible in a Year with Father Mike Schmitz, prayers for kids so we aren't raising another generation of crazies, and more.
Hallow helps you build a daily routine and a habit of prayer.
It helps me to pray, meditate, and sleep better.
It's a huge part of my daily routine.
So, get an exclusive three-month free trial at Hallow.
That's hallow.com/mattwalsh.
Hallow.com/mattwalsh.
Reclaim your peace in this crazy world.
Download Hallow today.
There's a couple other points I wanted to make, just about the general, about the election
results.
And the first is, just to reiterate something that I think I said yesterday, and that I
say all the time, when I get this question about, you know, what are we going to do?
How do we save the country?
How do we save our culture?
And a question that's asked a lot now after the election results, but, you know, in general, it's a question conservatives always have.
And what I'm always saying, and it might not be the answer people want to hear, but it's just the truth, that you have to look at this As a long game, you have to play the long game.
This is a generational struggle.
It is not something that's going to be won overnight.
Okay?
If the red wave had materialized exactly as a lot of people expected, and we had the big red wave, would that mean that the culture is saved?
Hooray!
We control maybe both houses of Congress for two years with a Democrat president.
Does that save the culture?
No.
It would have done a lot that should have been done, and the primary thing is it would have delivered the rebuke to the Democrats that they desperately need.
But that wouldn't have saved the culture.
Saving the culture and our civilization, again, that's a generational fight.
How do I know it's a generational fight?
Because it took generations for us to get here.
Okay, we did lose the culture.
We are right now in hostile, occupied territory, culturally speaking.
We're the guerrilla fighters, the guerrilla warriors.
In the culture war.
So it is lost.
We did lose it.
We're trying to regain it, recapture what was lost.
But it took generations to lose it.
It'll take generations to win it back.
And not just one generation.
I mean, look at Gen Z, dominated by a reliably voting Democrat.
What does that mean?
It means that the ultimate victory, if it comes, If we save Western civilization and it becomes a thriving, shining city on the hill again, I'm not going to live to see that.
And you're not going to live to see it either.
Maybe our children will, or maybe our children's children.
So that's what we're working towards.
We're going to be in the trenches, right, for our whole lives.
You could be depressed by that if you want to.
I don't find it depressing.
I find it somewhat invigorating because I know what my job is.
It's very simple for me.
This is my lot, is to fight down in the trenches, to do the dirty work for the sake of future generations.
People used to do that.
We used to be a society where people fought for the sake of the future.
They fought for things, for results that they would not live to see, and they were fine with that.
These days we want the immediate satisfaction.
We don't care about any victory that we don't get to see tomorrow.
That's just not the way this is going to be.
We've got to get used to it.
It makes it very simple.
Your lot, your vocation is to fight.
That's what you're here for.
That's what you're going to do.
Embrace it.
Learn to enjoy it.
That's what it really takes.
That's the attitude and the personality that we're going to need to adopt, if you don't already.
Embrace the fight and also learn to enjoy it.
But at the same time, I also wanted to note, and these two things may seem contradictory, they're really not, but I think it's also worth noting that this perhaps is not as big of a disaster for Republicans as it's being made out to be.
It's not good, we didn't get the red wave that was expected and all of that.
But the way that we're talking about this, the way the media is talking about it, the way that many conservatives are talking about it in their kind of depressive state, it's as if it was this crushing, resounding victory for the Democrats, and it really wasn't.
The Democrats are going to lose the House, okay, which means that Biden's agenda is dead in the water.
I mean, it's just dead to the extent that it was living in the first place, to the extent that he's even living in the first place.
So they're going to lose the House.
So they're going to lose that.
And what we also know is that, we know about what happened in Florida, and there are other bright spots as well.
In fact, the New Yorker put out this tweet today, this article, it says, candidates who railed against teachers unions and critical race theory fared depressingly well in the yesterday's superintendent and school board races, according to their writer, Jessica Winter.
So Jessica Winter of the New Yorker is depressed.
Today, because, yes, although Democrats did better on a national level and in the national offices than people expected, they didn't do very well in school board races.
They didn't do very well in superintendent races.
And New Yorkers lamenting that the, quote, culture war tactics in those races paid dividends.
And they did.
And so that's why, as I was emphasizing yesterday, I know the Republican establishment in particular, the lesson they take from every election, whether it's a win or a loss or somewhere in between, they always take the lesson that, well, you see, this proves that all we should be talking about is tax cuts.
That's all anyone cares about.
And we've got to leave all this culture war stuff to the side.
But yesterday's results prove exactly the opposite.
In areas where conservatives leaned into the culture war and fought it openly, And effectively, and had a compelling cultural message, they won.
Okay?
Florida, again, big example.
Not just there.
You could also look to Texas.
I mean, look to the states where they openly opposed gender ideology.
Passed laws or policies to at least try to curb, you know, the abuse of children that is inflicted by gender ideology.
In Florida.
In Texas.
Here in Tennessee.
Probably because they're very well.
And then the school board races.
Most tellingly of all.
Where the school board races, it's all culture.
You know, it's opposing the left's cultural agenda and indoctrination of children.
Whether it's critical race theory or radical gender theory or whatever else.
You know, the assault on parental rights.
So the message is compelling.
It can win.
Even being handicapped by the fact that Democrats have a massive advantage with unmarried women, they have a massive advantage politically with young people.
Even so, the cultural message wins.
But you have to convey it.
You have to fight for it.
You have to communicate it.
Most Republicans don't.
They shy away from it, and then they lose.
Because the other thing is that many voters They're not clued into these things, and so you can't just expect them to already agree with your cultural message.
If you want them to agree with the cultural message, you have to make the case.
You have to make the argument.
Explain why they should.
And what we find is that when conservatives do that, they win.
When they don't, they lose.
Pretty simple.
You know, Biden certainly is taking this as a crushing victory.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says on Wednesday after most of the results have been tabulated from Election Day
President Biden declared that he would do nothing differently despite voters being disenchanted with the
direction of the country Earlier in his press conference Biden had stated that the
voters were also clear that they're still frustrated. I get it
I understand it's been a really tough few years in this country for so many people
But then a reporter noting Biden's comments that voters were frustrated and polls showing 75% of voters believe in
the country's heading in the wrong direction asked Biden
What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to change people's opinion of the direction of the country
particularly as you?
contemplate a run for president 2024 Biden said, nothing, because they're just finding out what we're doing.
The more they know about what we're doing, the more support there is.
I'm not going to change.
As a matter of fact, you know, there's some things I want to change and add to.
For example, we had passed the most bipartisan, we passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti- I don't know why I'm reading, I'm attempting to read Biden quotes rather than just playing them for you.
We passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti, you know, rational gun policy in 30 years.
Wait, anti-rational gun policy?
And, but we didn't ban assault weapons.
I'm going to ban assault weapons, so I'm not going to change the direction.
Well, anyway, we're going to restore the soul of the country, begin to treat each other with decency, honor, and integrity.
Oh, there's that again.
Restore the soul.
Joe Biden is restoring our souls.
Because we are soulless, and they need to be restored.
Now, it is true that, in fact, there are some voters who are basically soulless.
Like, for example, the ones who voted in favor of denying legal protections to infants born alive after an abortion.
I mean, they are soulless.
But that's a problem that goes beyond the ability of the President of the United States to solve.
And anyway, this President certainly is not trying to solve that particular problem.
So, what this tells us...
Is that Biden has learned exactly the lesson he's taking, even though 75% of voters are saying that we're going the wrong direction.
Biden and the Democrats have bought into this idea that because there was not a massive red wave, because Republicans didn't win by as much as expected in these national races.
That means that the Democrat Party had a crushing, cruising victory, and now they have a mandate to continue doing exactly what they were already doing.
That's the lesson they're going to take.
Which gives another advantage to the Republicans, because the Democrats are going to double down on the wrong, they're going to double down on the crazy, while being more hampered in their ability to actually enact it, because they're not going to have the House of Representatives anymore.
They're going to double down on that, and that gives us an advantage heading into 2024.
So that's another silver lining we could look at.
He also, Biden, during the press conference was asked about the possibility of investigating Elon Musk.
For what?
Well, maybe he'll explain.
And we'll see his answer.
Here it is.
Do you think Elon Musk is a threat to U.S.
national security?
and should the U.S. and with the tools you have investigate his joint acquisition of
Twitter with foreign governments, which include the Saudis?
I think that Elon Musk's cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries
is worthy of being looked at.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate I'm not suggesting that.
I'm suggesting that it's worth being looked at.
But that's all I'll say.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Yeah, we don't want to have inappropriate relationships with other countries, he says, as he ships another $15 billion, $50 billion to Ukraine.
So he's looking at the possibility of investigating Elon Musk for taking over Twitter.
But again, what would even be the pretense for that?
He doesn't have one.
The pretense is just that Elon Musk is doing something they don't like and so they're going to investigate him.
They're going to send the FBI after him.
The word fascism is vastly overused.
This is fascism.
That's what this is.
I don't know what it looks like.
It looks like the government going after someone, investigating them, send the federal government after them, because they just did something that the government doesn't like.
It's not illegal.
And at the same time, I will say that, you know, look, we know the left, through the government, advertisers and all of that, they're putting a lot of pressure on Elon Musk.
And the thing that they're most concerned about, I mean, they don't really care who is in charge of Twitter.
It doesn't make a difference to them who's in charge of Twitter.
They don't care about any of the technical stuff, okay?
They don't care about his relationships with the Saudis.
Like anyone in our government has any room to complain about problematic relationships with the Saudis.
But that's not what they care about.
What they care about is the possibility that Elon Musk will actually turn Twitter into a free speech haven and allow people to just express their ideas and speak to each other.
That's what they don't want.
That's obviously what they're worried about.
As long as Elon doesn't do that, then they will hold off.
So these are all just threats.
What they're really saying to Elon is, you better keep the content moderation policies in place.
I don't care how you enforce, but they better stay in place, or this is what we're going to do to you.
And that makes me a little bit nervous, because then it becomes a question of whether or not Elon will succumb to that pressure or not.
I hope he doesn't.
But I will say that, and it's still early on, but You know, he's been in charge of Twitter for a couple weeks now.
Content moderation policies have stayed in place as they were before.
You still get suspended on Twitter for all the same things you did before.
If you, quote, misgender someone, if you call the left groomers, you get suspended for that.
All the accounts that were unfairly banned, still banned, none of them have been invited back yet.
And it's not like Elon isn't making massive sweeping changes.
I mean, just yesterday he instituted this policy of, you know, giving the blue check verification to anybody who wants it if they pay $8.
And I know that I was on this show saying that I think it's a good idea, but, you know, my thought was that, okay, you're giving the blue check verification to people who verify their identities, and so that we know that these are real, legitimate accounts, and these are not bots or trolls or whatever.
And I assume that's what verification would be, like you have to provide an ID and do
all this.
And I don't think that you should have to provide an ID to use a social media platform.
But if you want the verification, if you want to be considered a verified account, then
you have to go through a process of verifying your identity.
That's not what Musk did.
He's just he's just as long as you pay him eight bucks, he'll give the blue check to
anyone.
And so now this supposedly was supposed to be a process put in place to tamp down on
He's only made it worse because he gave them all blue checks.
And so now there are parody accounts, people imitating public figures and they have the blue check next to it.
It's just like total chaos on Twitter now.
And it makes the whole experience even more chaotic and it makes Twitter more unusable than it was before.
And I know on this show, I said that I kind of like the idea of opening up the verification process.
But again, I said that on the thought, the assumption that the verification process would involve some kind of actual verification, and it doesn't.
So the point is, you know, that not any kind of urgent national issue, I understand.
The fact that Twitter is more confusing and they're giving blue checks to everybody, you know, I think the average American probably isn't all that concerned about that.
That's a major change that Elon has made right away, but that's not the kind of major change that we were hoping for.
The major changes that we're looking for are the changes to content moderation and censorship, and he hasn't touched that yet.
We'll see if he does, but as I said, I'm a little bit nervous about that.
All right, we have some AOC clips to play for you.
These are always fun.
So first of all, she issued an apology on Instagram a couple of days ago, and I just thought that I should play this for you.
Here's what she's apologizing for.
Oh, I'm sorry about that.
They used to be on there.
Let me go in and check and see if I can add them.
Sorry about that.
They used to be there.
I guess they fell off, but I'll put them on right now.
So she's apologizing that she didn't have pronouns in her bio.
Somebody, one of her followers were upset at her for not having pronouns.
Even though, presumably, all the followers know that she's a woman, so they know that, but they need her to say it.
They need to have the pronouns.
They know what the pronouns are, they just need them listed.
They need her to pay the tithe, basically, and that's what they need.
They need the virtue signal, and so she apologizes and says that she'll put it back up.
Perhaps more relevant, she was on the, I think this is, what is this, the Breakfast Club, talking about the issue of crime.
She's getting chicken and egg confused a little bit here, I think.
Let's listen to this.
A lot of people think that crime is up when we actually see that shootings are down, when we see that huge indicators on the most violent crime in New York City is down.
Subway crime is up.
But let's also note that subway crime is up after they committed so many more officers to the subway system.
So that also tells us from a policy perspective, adding more cops to the subway isn't solving this problem.
So there are other things that can solve this problem.
Right, so add more cops to the subway, and then I guess she's claiming that because of that you end up with more crime.
As if, what, the criminals are looking for places where the cops are just to give them a challenge?
No, most criminals are... Here's the thing about being a criminal, okay?
Not that I have a ton of experience in this area, but most criminals are...
Are cowards, first of all, okay?
Because they're victimizing innocent people.
That's what a crime is.
And also, they're lazy.
You know, they're looking for opportunities.
They're lazy and they're cowards.
Either that or they're insane and hopped up on drugs.
I mean, they could be all of those things.
So, if they're insane and hopped up on drugs, then, you know, they're not going to be immediately dissuaded.
Just by cops being there, but at least if the cops are there, then they can put a stop to it, you would hope, in theory, and arrest the people.
But the rest... Yeah, if the cops are there, then they're gonna go and they're gonna look for somewhere else.
They're looking for an opportunity.
Now, on the subway, and also, you put more cops there.
If that's not bringing the crime rate down in that environment, that might mean that you need more law enforcement, or we might have to look at, are the law enforcement officers actually doing it?
Are they enabled to do their job?
Yeah, you have them there.
There were cops all over the place during the BLM riots.
The cops were everywhere.
You could throw a rock and hit a cop, and that's what the BLM rioters were actually doing.
They're there, but they weren't allowed to do anything.
They were just sitting on their hands.
So, you have to have them there and have them empowered to do their jobs.
But also, on the subway in particular, a lot of that crime, this is being driven by the homeless, drug-addicted, crazy people.
And yeah, they're not going to be immediately dissuaded by the fact that there are cops around because they're on drugs and they're crazy.
Still good to have the cops there, though, if they're unable to do their jobs.
Alright.
I was going to play another AOC clip, but I think we've probably seen enough.
I don't think you need to see more.
CNBC gives us an update on Biden's student loan forgiveness.
So we know that these, the loan forgiveness was passed and well, sorry, it was not passed makes it sound like it was legislation.
It wasn't, it was decreed and illegally unconstitutionally.
And whatever happened with that?
Are there a lot of people, college graduates, that had student loans and they've been able to pay them off, or they've been able to pay into that principal and have some financial stability?
Well, let's find out.
Recipients of President Biden's student debt forgiveness plan could see their monthly payments drop up to $300 a month in the coming weeks.
But get this, 73% say they actually plan to spend that extra cash on travel and dining out.
And joining us now is CNBC tech check co-anchor Deirdre Bosa.
So Deirdre, why are people more inclined to spend the money they're saving on non-essentials instead of paying off their bills?
I think we may know the answer.
Well, that could be, according to one survey.
But, you know, it could be easy as well for some people to enjoy traveling and eating out rather than worrying about the future.
One financial coach tells CNBC.com that you should not use the loan forgiveness only for long-term goals.
Your short-term self may get frustrated and give up on planning ahead altogether.
So instead, they say, make sure your regular bills are paid, check in on your goals, and try to achieve a balance that also lets you invest in your future self.
Oh, okay, good.
Yeah, well, because you don't want to plan for the future too much and that might make you frustrated.
And so you really just want to make sure that you can enjoy the moment and have good mental health and have a nice night out on the town.
That's good financial advice.
Never mind the fact that you're stealing that money from American taxpayers so that you can just go and have a nice dinner or go on a vacation.
Like, CNBC is reporting it like, oh, that's an interesting, fun little tidbit.
So we are taking money from hard-working blue-collar Americans who didn't go to college, made different choices, made better choices, actually.
Many of them said, I can't afford college, so I'm not going to take out a loan I can't afford, as opposed to the college graduates who went ahead and did that.
And now we're taking money from them.
It was bad enough and we're taking money from them to pay off the financial obligations.
You're paying off someone else's financial obligation.
You're paying for, you know, a commitment that someone else made.
But then we find out, not surprisingly, that you're not even paying off that commitment or that obligation because they're just going off and wasting the money elsewhere.
It's, I mean, it is actually an absolute moral outrage.
Taking money from You know, working class people so that upper class college grads can go on vacation.
I cannot think of, it's hard to think of something more outrageous than that.
And, you know, again, not, not a, this is a feature, not a bug.
Of course, the Biden administration knew this was going to happen.
They're fine with it.
And it's totally predictable too, because this is all, this all feeds into this entitlement mentality.
The people that were calling for student loan forgiveness in the first place, all of them entitled brats.
Every single person calling for loan forgiveness, saying that the loan that I took out, the obligation that I have, the commitment that I made, should be paid for by someone else, because I don't give a damn about those other people.
I'll take food out of their mouths, I'll take food out of their children, I'll take food off of their children's plate, for me, because of the commitment that I made, that I don't feel like living up to.
So every single person calling for that, all of them, every single one, entitled spoiled brats.
Is it a big surprise then that you give them the money and they just go waste it?
That's what entitled spoiled brats do.
And you know something?
They're going to go waste the money, and they're still going to have the student loan, which they have not paid down at all, and now they're going to go back to Biden and say, well, we need more loan forgiveness.
This isn't fair.
I took the money, I went to Cancun, but I still have the student loan forgiveness.
I still have the student loan.
I'm crushed by the burden of this debt.
Feel sorry for me.
And then Biden will just give them more money.
That's the way this works.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, former President Donald Trump tried to downplay Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' dominant election victory on Tuesday night, claiming that his victory in 2020 in Florida Was more impressive than DeSantis' victory last night, even though facts do not support that notion.
Trump said on social media, quote, now that the election in Florida is over and everything
went quite well, shouldn't it be said that in 2020, I got 1.1 million more votes in Florida
than Ron D got this year, 5.7 million to 4.6 million.
Just asking.
And this is in line with what Trump has been doing before the election, Ron DeSantamonious,
and then he was out threatening to dig up dirt on Ron DeSantis.
That's what he was doing.
The election was going on, he was making that threat, and now he's saying, I got more votes
than Ron DeSantis.
And of course.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
That's a meaningless statistic.
More people vote in presidential elections than vote in midterm elections.
Actually, the turnout for Ron DeSantis, when you compare it, when you say that it was only a million less than would show up during a presidential election, that's really impressive.
But beyond that, I know that there are people in the audience that you don't want to hear the criticism of Donald Trump.
It makes you very upset.
Well, you gotta get used to it, because if he's gonna run for president, he's gonna get criticized.
Politicians get criticized.
This is not 2016 anymore.
We're not doing the whole thing where you're not allowed to criticize the guy.
We never should have done that to begin with.
I never played that game, but no one ever should have played that game.
No one is above criticism, and if you're a politician, if you're a candidate, if you're president of the United States, you deserve scrutiny.
You need to be scrutinized.
And if you want Trump to be president, that's all the more reason why you should encourage the scrutiny.
And when he screws up, you should criticize him on the hope that he'll change and stop screwing up and be a better candidate.
And so the fact of the matter is here.
I mean, leaving aside everything about how he's just going after the most popular and effective Republicans in the country because he's jealous, but just from a political standpoint, from a branding, marketing, that kind of thing, campaigning standpoint, it just looks weak.
He looks weak and pitiful right now because he's throwing all these pot shots at a winning Republican while that guy ignores him.
Now it's one thing, eventually if they both are running and they both run the primary, they are going to go after each other.
It's going to happen.
And so Ron DeSantis, if they're running in the primary, he can't go the entire time without ever responding to Donald Trump.
But right now, this is the smartest thing, because he's busy governing and winning, and so he's just ignoring Trump.
And Trump continues to snipe at him, and it just looks weak.
And Trump cannot afford to look weak.
That's not his brand.
His brand is not to be desperate and weak.
His brand also is usually not to hit first.
That's not what he does.
He usually takes the alpha dog position of, I'm not going to go after you.
You're too small to bother going after you.
If you go after me, I'll come after you.
I'll hit back twice as hard.
But I'm not going to just walk out there flailing around, flailing my arms and hitting everything in sight.
That was Trump's brand before.
And it was extremely effective and compelling, obviously.
It's one of the things that made him president in 2016.
But now he's He is doing what people do to him.
Like, there's Trump derangement syndrome.
Well, he is now exhibiting DeSantis derangement syndrome.
He's constantly attacking this guy while he is ignored.
And it does not look good.
It looks weak.
Okay, so the criticism here is, this is not about Trump being an a-hole.
Like, I don't care about that.
That is his brand.
And how could I complain?
That's partly my brand too.
So who am I to criticize a fellow a-hole?
But that's not the issue.
The issue is looking weak and pathetic.
Which is what it looks like right now.
And if you do want Trump to be the guy in 2024, and you don't want DeSantis to be the guy, then you should especially be crying out right now to Trump.
Stop looking weak.
Settle down.
Stop this.
Just my advice.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
We have way too many people voting who should not be allowed to.
We have so many voters who are brain damaged.
Yeah, and that explains how they vote for brain-damaged people, if they're brain-damaged themselves.
Well, you know, David, I've never been hesitant about criticizing the voters.
I mean, I'm open about the fact that, as I'm always advocating, you know, there should be fewer people voting.
It should be harder to vote.
There should be parameters put in place to weed out people who are effectively brain-damaged.
If you cared about your republic, if you cared about the precious democracy that is supposedly under attack, then that's what you would want.
That's how you preserve it, and that's how you protect it.
You protect it from the masses of morons stumbling into the polls, having no idea, you know, rubbing their eyes at the sunlight, first time they've left their homes, they've been in a cave, you know, effectively.
I have no idea what's going on in the world or who they're voting for or why, stumbling in there drunkenly, stupidly, randomly casting ballots.
Like, if you want to protect your republic and your democratic system, then you got to protect it from that.
But that's not a conversation very many people want to have.
Two Sides One Stone says, so will suing the parents prevent kids from being shipped to California for procedures?
You can't sue those doctors, but if you can still sue legal residents of Tennessee, then the parents won't ship their children out of the state, so it's extra protection.
Yeah, I imagine with the law that's getting passed here in Tennessee protecting children from gender mutilation and from, you know, from being drugged and mutilated, As we discussed yesterday, that Bill 1 of the session was officially filed yesterday in Tennessee.
And not only does it ban the medical practice, not only does it allow victims to sue so-called healthcare providers who inflict this on them, but it also allows for kids to sue their parents, too, if their parents send them in to be butchered.
And yeah, I would imagine if you're a parent shipping your kid anywhere and you live in Tennessee, shipping them anywhere to get butchered, then yeah, you're liable to get sued.
Ariana says, wow, love the look today, Matt.
Clothes and hair looking dang good.
Well, I really wish you hadn't said that because that was the tan jacket I was wearing yesterday.
And right after the show, I did march into our wardrobe department and tell them, never give me this tan jacket.
Burn this tan jacket.
I never want to see it again.
Actually, those were my words exactly.
Because I just don't.
The tan jacket doesn't look good at all.
I'm not a tan jacket guy.
And you know what?
I said that.
I don't like the tan jacket.
And then the immediate question back to me was, oh, was the audience making fun of your outfit again?
And I said, it's like I'm a child coming home from the bus stop in tears.
Your mom's like, were they making fun of you again?
No, they weren't making fun of me.
This is my own decision.
I don't like the jacket.
I don't make every decision about what I wear based on what the audience says.
And then the next question was, oh, so your wife didn't like it.
Your wife told you it's bad.
No, I'm saying it.
This is about my body, my choice.
This is about my choice about what I wear.
I can actually make those kinds of decisions sometimes.
Now, I mean, it's true.
Usually, if I'm expressing an opinion about what I'm wearing, usually it's because my wife said, this looks better on you.
So that is like 99% of the time.
But every once in a while, I actually develop my own perspective about style and the things that I wear.
And this is in that.
This is the 1% of times that that's the case.
All right.
Fletcher says, Bro, if Florida wasn't such a bug-infested hellhole with air so humid you could swim through it, I'd totally move.
Yeah, I kind of feel the same way.
Well, I love living in Tennessee.
Tennessee is great, too.
But I certainly could never move to Florida, even if I wanted to, because of the weather.
It just doesn't.
I need the seasons.
Can't deal with the humidity.
Jennifer says, kind of related, Matt, what is your take on move to a red state?
I'm in Minnesota and it seems to be turning into a deep blue state while previously purple.
Everything my husband, kids, and I have is here.
Family, jobs, homes, the great outdoors like no other.
I love Minnesota but get nervous about where the state is headed.
But honestly, we won't ever leave our lives here.
Do we deserve what is coming by not leaving?
Is there anything noble in staying?
Putting aside everything I just said about I wouldn't move to Florida because it's too hot.
But I already live in a red state, so I don't need to.
I am a big advocate of, yes, move to a red state.
Leave where you are, move somewhere else.
Balkanization, it's inevitable, and we might as well embrace it.
Talk about embracing things, you might as well embrace that.
If you live in a deep blue state, the trends are against you, the demographics are against you, And yeah, you can stay there and go down with a ship.
You can stay there and say, well, I'm going to fight for the state.
And there might be some states, it depends on where you live.
You know, Minnesota, probably a lost cause.
If you live in California, definitely a lost cause.
Because the majority of voters, it's not just the voters too, but also the institutions, they're all against you.
They have declared what they want.
You know, they want this decaying husk of a state.
Crime ridden.
They want this crime-ridden dirty hellhole.
That's what they want.
And so you're around a bunch of people that this is what they want.
You're living in their utopia, which is a dystopia.
I think the only way around it is to move.
But obviously you gotta make a decision you think is right for your own family.
And I'm also not one of these people that's easy.
I moved to Tennessee two years ago.
But what happens a lot of times is people, they move to a state, whether it's, you know, Tennessee or Florida or Texas, and they get there and then they immediately complain about all the other conservatives that are moving there.
Which, I don't do that, because first of all, who am I to complain when someone else moves here, when I just did?
But also, I think it's good.
Bring in the reinforcements.
Bring in the cultural reinforcements.
I'm all for it.
I recently watched Jordan Peterson's exclusive Daily Wire Plus three-part series on marriage.
It is the definitive statement Jordan has made on marriage, and I have to say it is vital viewing now more than ever.
Like we talked about at the beginning, marriage rates are at an all-time low.
U.S.
birth rates are falling.
Young people are getting married much later in life and less frequently, too.
The left has corrupted or destroyed every traditional institution, including, of course, the nuclear family.
For those of you man-children out there who are still living like frat boys, Jordan's got a wake-up call for you and he says it with a lot more tact than I ever would.
And if you're married and you feel like you're in a rut, Jordan will show you how to rekindle that honeymoon spark as well.
If you think I'm joking, at one point Jordan even tells you how to be the, and I'm quoting here, lust-ridden god-awful monster that your partner would actually like to make love with.
That's one way of putting it.
Daily Wire Plus members can watch all three episodes of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's On Marriage today.
And if you're not a member, go to dailywire.com slash Walsh and join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we head down to Columbia County in Florida, speaking of Florida, where the sheriff has issued a public apology after body camera footage of a recent arrest made by two of his deputies went viral.
James Hodges, a 61-year-old man from Lake City, was arrested at the end of last month, charged with resisting arrest.
Of course, you know, anytime somebody is arrested for resisting arrest, Your first question is, why were they being arrested in the first place?
Because in order to resist arrest, the arrest must first be initiated for some reason other than resisting it, since there is no arrest to resist until the arrest is already being made.
Or at least you might think.
Though, as we know, very often in cases where there is viral outrage over police body cam footage, the clip that has gone viral, it's very often taken out of context, it's clipped, sometimes edited to make the police officers look as bad as possible.
Very often, there is more to the story.
Very often, the police get a bad rap based on their response to a highly tense and volatile situation that they did not create.
Very often.
As you can see from the footage in this case, this is not one of those times.
Watch.
What is your suspicion?
It looks like you're carrying a gun in your back pocket.
I'm stopping to make sure you're carrying it properly.
Navigational aids, what's the problem, you a tyrant?
Yeah, I am actually, what's your name and date of birth?
I don't have to give that unless- Yes, sir, I was investigating-
Do you have reasonable- Do you want me to put you in handcuffs
right now?
Yes, sir, I do.
What is your suspicion?
It looks like you're carrying a gun in your back pocket.
I'm stopping to make sure you're carrying it properly.
You don't have to- Have you ensured that it's not a firearm?
No, you keep turning so I can't see it.
You don't have to be a d*** to me.
Well, you're being one to me.
No, sir, I'm doing my job.
Have a good day.
Am I detained?
Yeah, you are.
What's your name and date of birth?
It does not matter.
Yes, sir, it does.
Do you have a crime?
Would you like me to put you in?
Call your supervisor, please.
He's right here.
All right.
Don't, you know... Sir, what's this talking for?
What a walking stick.
And it could look like a weapon.
She asked you to present it, okay?
Now she's asking me for her ID.
I don't need the ID unless there's a reasonable, articulated suspicion that I have committed a crime and committing a crime or about to do a crime.
Sir, and her suspicion was that you were armed, okay, and she's asking for your ID.
Well, now she has verified that I am not armed, so there is no problem.
Do you have your ID or not?
I do have my ID, but you don't need it.
Okay.
So from there he's arrested, taken to jail.
Hodges, the suspect, quote-unquote, in the video, is legally blind.
You know, it turns out that, as he explained, he left early that morning to walk to jury duty, but then found out that it was canceled, and so he proceeded to turn around and walk home.
At which point he was stopped by the female deputy who thought that his walking stick was a gun.
Now, yes, the stick was folded up in his back pocket, which is not a crime, last I checked.
But also, even folded that way, I'm not sure how it could be mistaken for a firearm.
Has the female officer ever seen a firearm before?
Doesn't she wear one every day?
What sort of gun did she think he had?
But that's all irrelevant anyway.
Whatever led her to suspect that a walking stick was a firearm, the point is that, and by the way, carrying a firearm in Florida is, provides you have all the licenses and everything that you need, that's not a crime either, but the point is that the man, 30 seconds into the interaction, produced the walking stick, showed it to be a walking stick, thereby confirming that no crime had been committed.
Everything was fine.
He was just a guy walking.
The officer could have ended the conversation at that point, wished the man a pleasant morning, and then went about her day.
That's it.
That's it.
There's no reason to continue this.
But her pride was wounded by his lack of respect and deference, and so she cuffed him and sent him to jail.
It may not appear on the police report, but that is the crime that Hodge has committed.
He wounded a police officer's pride.
He also embarrassed her by failing to have a firearm.
He is guilty of inflicting embarrassment and humiliation in the first degree, and that earned him a trip to the county lockup.
Now, of course, some people have attempted to put the blame on Hodges here, insisting that he ought to have just complied and done as he was told.
But he did comply as much as necessary to prove that he hadn't committed any sort of crime.
He had no responsibility beyond that.
The relationship between police officer and citizen is not supposed to be like the relationship between parent and child or king and subject.
This is America.
We don't have a duty to do exactly as we're told no matter what, regardless of the situation.
Because I said so is not valid reasoning coming from a police officer when you're not a suspect in a crime.
And police officers are not empowered to punish us simply because we're being disrespectful.
Which, I don't think he was.
I mean, she was the one who called him a dick to begin with.
She was disrespectful to him.
So what, he has to just endure that and take that and if he responds in kind, even though he's not a suspect in any crime, they can put him in jail?
You know, in an allegedly free country where officials carry the title of public servant, it is at least, at least just as much their responsibility to show respect to us as it is ours to show respect to them.
That's the way this is supposed to work, anyway.
So, will there be consequences for the officers in this case?
NBC News has the report quote two deputies will be suspended and a Florida sheriff has
Apologized after a visually impaired man was arrested last month when his walking cane was mistaken for a gun the deputies
faced suspension without Pay and Harrison was demoted after an investigation was
launched when Hodges requested body cam footage of the arrest
Hunter said quote as sheriff I take full responsibility for this event
I want to extend my sincere apologies to Mr. Hodges for the actions of my deputies.
I do not feel these deputies' actions were guided by ill intent, but rather by frustration and failure to rely on their training.
Nevertheless, this conduct is unacceptable.
Hunter said the investigation showed the deputies violated policies.
Harrison faced a suspension of seven days without pay.
He will not be eligible for any favorable action for two years, Hunter said.
Goad, who's the female officer, faces suspension without pay for two days.
They'll be required to take remedial training about civil rights, Hunter said.
Remedial civil rights training?
These officers need remedial civil rights training and yet they still have a job?
Isn't that like taking an airline pilot out of the cockpit for two weeks in order to give him remedial training on how to land a plane?
Isn't the fact that such a training is necessary proof in itself that they shouldn't be on the job in the first place?
Yes, police officers are often unfairly blamed and scapegoated.
I'll be the first to come to their defense when that happens, you know that.
But that problem is only exacerbated by the fact that, first of all, the hiring and retention standards in most police departments are far too low.
Cops who don't possess even the basic skills necessary to do the job are on the job anyway and kept there.
That female deputy is bumbling, nervous, on edge, undisciplined.
Now again, in many of these videos, When you're looking at a really volatile situation, you've got someone who's violently resisting, you know, a violent criminal, and then you watch it, and you watch a 30-second or even two-minute clip or whatever, and you come to all these conclusions about the police officers, a lot of times it's unfair.
Because they're in that position, you know, and it's like, so it's really easy to money morning quarterback.
But in this case, this is a low-stakes situation.
There's nothing going on here.
Everything's fine.
And yet, that's still how she comes across?
She has no business wearing a badge, and yet she wears one.
This is partly due to diversity quotas, and those are, of course, the bane of nearly every institution in American life, and it's partly due to recruitment problems and staffing shortages.
Police departments are desperate for warm bodies to fill those roles, and that desperation is becoming increasingly evident.
But second, there is simply not enough accountability.
For the sake of restoring public trust in our most important institutions, like law enforcement, You have to make an example out of those who abuse their power or fail to fulfill their most basic obligations.
Both cops involved here, rather than being temporarily suspended, should be at a minimum fired.
You can make an argument for arresting them and charging them with false imprisonment, abuse of power, among other crimes.
When you have a clear-cut case of tyrannical and abusive behavior by a police officer, I mean, she literally says, yes, I'm a tyrant.
He says, are you a tyrant?
She says, yeah.
Okay, well, and then she acts tyrannically.
Clear-cut.
I mean, there's nothing to talk about here.
So for the sake of justice, for the sake of clinging on to whatever faith the public might still have in the institution, you gotta come down hard.
Make an example.
Okay, this is not one of those things where, again, a police officer is being unfairly targeted based on out-of-context footage and then the public demands that we make that they be offered up as a sacrificial goat.
That's not this.
In this case, when she actually has done something horribly wrong, yeah, make an example of her.
Offer her up, for sure.
But too often the wagons are circled and the offenders get off with a slap on the wrist, if that.
I mean, were any of those police officers who stood outside the room for an hour while children were being executed in Uvalde, were any of them ever fired?
Let alone arrested?
No, I don't think so.
And the answer is far too often, no.
Accountability is not just a buzzword.
It's the only way forward.
It's the only way to avoid a complete collapse in the public's trust and faith in our essential institutions.
And the only way to avoid the chaos that follows from that.
And so, that is why We must say that not only are these officers, but the sheriff as well, for failing to do what's necessary.
All of them today are cancelled.
And that'll do it for us for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block.
