Ep. 1064 - Woman Blasts 'Racist Trump-Loving' Father... At His Funeral
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a young woman attacks her "racist Trump supporting dad" during the eulogy at his funeral. Also, speaking of Trump, he officially announced his presidential campaign yesterday. Meanwhile, DeSantis finally responded to Trump's criticisms. We'll review all of that. Plus, a teacher is fired for confessing his racism to his class. But isn't that what the woke crowd wants white people to do? And Ukrainian President Zelensky tries to hoax the United States into a world war. Are we done worshiping this guy yet?
- - -
DailyWire+:
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Switch to Jeremy’s Razors at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch my documentary “What Is A Woman?”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Use code "WALSH" at checkout and get two Black Angus New York Strip Steaks + two chicken breasts FREE: https://www.goodranchers.com/walsh
LifeLock - Save up to 25% OFF your first year with LifeLock: https://lifelock.com/walsh
- - -
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 Walsh Show, a young woman attacks her racist Trump-supporting dad during the eulogy at his funeral.
Also, speaking of Trump, he officially announced his presidential campaign yesterday.
Meanwhile, DeSantis finally responded to Trump's criticisms of him.
We'll review all of that.
Plus, a teacher is fired for confessing his racism to his class.
But isn't that what the woke crowd wants white people to do?
And Ukrainian President Zelensky tries to hoax the United States into a world war.
Are we done worshipping this guy yet?
at all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Well, due to a shrinking herd, beef prices are expected to rise another 15% in 2023.
Today's prices will seem cheap in just a few months.
Supply will continue to become more and more scarce.
That's why I subscribe to Good Ranchers.
As grocery store meat prices rise, Good Ranchers inflation-proofs your grocery bill by locking in your price for the life of your subscription.
If that's not enough to convince you, take advantage of their Black Friday offer going on right now.
Get two 12-ounce Black Angus New York Strip steaks and two pasture-raised chicken breasts free with any order when you use my code WOLSH.
While you can't control gas prices or mortgage rates, You can avoid meat inflation with a subscription to Good Ranchers, so take the savings wherever you can get them.
And in order to do that, you've got to go to GoodRanchers.com.
Use code WALSH at checkout for this special offer.
That's GoodRanchers.com, code WALSH, for two black Angus New York strip steaks and two pasture-raised chicken breasts, free with your order.
Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
Well, Donald Trump announced his presidency last night, as you've probably heard, and I thought I'd begin the show with his address, and we will still talk about it, of course, but there was another speech yesterday, one with far less significant political implications, but which reflects the state of our society in a way that So, an as-yet unnamed woman and a self-professed black supremacist recently posted a video to TikTok of, as she says, the eulogy that she gave her father at his funeral.
The eulogy went viral on TikTok before making its way over to Twitter on Tuesday and then out into the mainstream media outlets who are reporting on it now, which is how the pipeline usually works.
Now, her father apparently died of liver cancer, which is something that I only know because she also posted TikToks joking about her father's cancer.
How and why would you make jokes about your own father's terminal cancer?
What sort of person would do such a thing?
Well, this sort of person, actually.
But Dad, please know that while I am grateful and highly aware of all that you give in this family, I still don't miss you.
When you died, I felt like there was a hole.
I missed something, but it wasn't you.
It was the idea of what you could become.
I missed being able to hope and wish that one day you'd turn a corner and see the world from my perspective.
I missed the idea that one day you might help me fight for the things that matter.
I missed my fantasy of you.
Because when you died, it solidified the fact that you'll never be what you could've been, but only what you are.
And what you are is a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, Trump-loving, cis-straight, white man.
That is all you will ever be to me.
And Dad, before you tell me to respect the dead, please remember that you disrespected and disregarded the lives and deaths of entire communities and people with your ideology.
You told me to never back down, so I won't.
You know for a fact that even against you, I'm not afraid to share my peace.
You are everything I aspire not to be, and I refuse to stand up here and sing the praises of a man who is the paradigm of white supremacy.
So I'll take your racist mindset, I'll take your money, and I'll take your advice.
And I swear to God I will make this world a better place.
Not at all because of you, but in exact opposition to you.
Thank you.
[applause]
I'll take your money, she says.
And I bet she will.
Now, it's hard to know who to despise more, the woman spitting on her own father's grave or the people in the audience applauding it.
I suppose we need not choose one or the other.
Now, we should acknowledge from the outset that not every person who dies necessarily deserves to be mourned.
You don't become a good person just because you happen to die.
Some of us have been to funerals where the eulogies are conspicuously brief because there isn't much good to say about the deceased.
That's just the reality.
I mean, if you don't live as a good person, then people are not required to pretend otherwise after you die.
And if you, let's say, abused or neglected your children, then they are under no obligation to sing your praises upon your death.
Yet we can reasonably assume that such was not the case in this particular instance.
She doesn't indict him for being abusive or neglectful.
Quite the opposite, she actually acknowledges that he loved and served his family.
Rather, her charge against her father is that he was a white, straight, cisgender Trump supporter.
She is half his race, but it's the half she hates, and most of all, as she makes clear, she hates him for not agreeing with her.
In fact, her love for him was predicated on her hope and her assumption that eventually he would think exactly as she thinks.
Her love was conditional, which is to say that the love never existed at all, and the condition is that those she loves must be perfect mirror reflections of her own viewpoints.
But death tragically interceded before her father could realize that she was right about everything, and for that she hates him and can never forgive him.
Now, if this incident had occurred in a vacuum, you know, if it was entirely anomalous, Then there might not be much worth saying about it.
This woman would simply be an ungrateful brat with a wicked, evil heart who will not even have the honor of being insulted at her funeral because she'll die alone and forgotten and there'll be no one there to insult her in the first place.
That is what we might say, and leave it at that, if this was a freak occurrence, a total departure from the norm.
But it's not.
I mean, sure, yeah, it's not every day that we see someone recite demeaning slam poetry about their own father at his funeral, but this is still fully in line with the spirit of the age.
In fact, there's perhaps no better manifestation of the spirit of the age than a biracial woman lecturing her white dad at his funeral.
This is literally what the left wants.
It's not an accident.
It is rather the direct result of the cultural revolution that has long since been completed and which we are now on the other side of.
Let us count the ways.
So there are three ideas, or attitudes, that our culture seeks to instill in everyone, but especially in the young.
And all three are manifested in that video.
First, of course, there's narcissism.
Right?
Everything's about you.
And whatever's not about you should be made to be about you.
The first thing you should think when you encounter any situation is, how can I put myself at the center of it?
And if you encounter any resistance in this effort to put yourself at the center, then you're being oppressed.
Indeed, anyone who lives a life or who does anything or says anything or thinks anything that departs from your preferences has persecuted you.
For this woman, her father's funeral is about her because his death is about her because his life was about her.
It was his job to think and behave as she demanded.
By failing to do so, by failing to succumb to the force of her gravity and revolve around her as she insists, he was guilty of an unthinkable crime.
Right?
If she is not the center, then she is being erased.
Either she is the star of every film or else she doesn't exist.
There is no middle ground.
This is the lesson she learned from the culture, from the school system, the media, from every institution.
Loud and clear.
Second, there is dehumanization.
Those who disagree with you, who have opinions that are not your own, and values you object to, are not simply wrong.
They are subhuman.
You shouldn't merely disagree with them.
You should despise them.
They're not worthy of respect, or even life itself.
This is a message that I hear every time I visit my inbox.
I'm informed that I'm a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc., and therefore I should die, and my family should die, and whenever I do die, I am told there will be celebration in the streets.
I don't doubt it either.
See, we make a mistake when we assume that all of this kind of talk is just sort of meaningless internet trolling.
And it might be trolling, but it also reflects what is actually in the hearts of millions of people.
Like, when you're online and you say your opinion, and you've got three dozen people telling you to kill yourself for your opinion, it's not, well, it's not real.
That's not the real world.
No, it's real.
I mean, you're in the world, and these are actual people saying that to you.
Because that is indeed how they feel about you and your opinion.
They have been conditioned to think this way.
Again, we kid ourselves if we tell ourselves anything but that.
If you have views that oppose their views, then you are automatically a bigot.
And if you are a bigot, then you are an inferior life form.
You're a cockroach, a parasite.
She applies this logic even to her own father, which is no surprise, given the third point.
The third, Is that the family is an oppressive, patriarchal conspiracy.
And your parents and all of your ancestors going back through the generations are ignorant, backwards, Cro-Magnon cave dwellers.
The Left's goal, as always, is to break apart not just the nuclear family in the abstract as a sort of concept, but to dismantle your actual family.
It's not the family that is being threatened.
I mean, it is the family on a broad societal level, but what you have to understand, it's also your family.
Your actual family.
They want to pull your children away from you.
Sever the ties that bind you together.
They would like for us all to be eulogized by our children in this way.
That's what the constant campaign of brainwashing is working towards.
And where it leads, ultimately, is to misery, of course, for everybody involved.
Because whatever else you might say about this young woman, and you could say quite a lot about her, much of it not fit to air, but one thing you cannot say is that she's happy.
This is a wretched, miserable person, trained to reject everything that might threaten to imbue her life with meaning and joy.
Because that's the thing.
When you want to be the center of the universe, and when you hate everyone who disagrees with you, And when you hate your own family, and you hate your own bloodline, that's just another way of saying that you hate yourself.
You hate your own existence.
You hate existence itself.
Because you wouldn't exist without any of that.
This is the nature of the world.
There is, in fact, only one universe, and you're not at the center of it.
This is the only universe we have.
And so if you can't accept that, then you hate existence for what it is.
And that's why we must protect our children from this madness.
So that we don't have them dancing on our graves once we have passed on, and so that they can live a better life than the one that our culture wants to give them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
With the rollout of the student loan forgiveness plan, scammers are seizing the opportunity.
They're using phishing scams in the form of email, text, and phone calls, asking you to provide personal information, then using that information to steal your money and your identity.
That's why it's so important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Your personal information gets exposed so often that it's dangerously easy for cybercriminals to steal your identity.
You can protect, though, your identity by using LifeLock by Norton.
LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats you may not spot on your own, like loans taken out in your name or crimes committed by thieves pretending to be you.
If you do become a victim of identity theft, well, then the good news is there's a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist who will work with you to fix it.
Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock.
You can join now and save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
Here's one headline I just want to read to you right from the top.
This is from Media Matters.
It says, Daily Wire host calls the U.S.
soccer team treasonous for using rainbow colors in one of their crests at the World Cup.
Yes, I did.
Guilty as charged.
This is not one of those times when they're taking me out of context.
I did say that.
And I said also they should be barred from reentry into the country.
Because they replaced their crest with a rainbow flag.
And I'm not joking at all.
If you replace the American flag with a pride flag, and then you seek to represent the United States that way abroad, then you should have your citizenship revoked.
How about this?
Because I'm a merciful person, so I'm not saying that they have a citizenship revoked and then they're going to be like nomadic wanderers with no country to call home.
I mean, I'd be fine with that, but how about this?
You automatically become a Canadian.
If you go overseas as an American and you're flying the pride flag rather than the American flag, you lose your American citizenship, but automatically you're Canadian.
That's just, it's a legal thing and now you become Canadian.
They'll take you, but we don't want you.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
Okay, so Trump announced his presidential run yesterday, as was widely expected.
It's an interesting strategy.
I'm not aware of, and I'm not saying this has never happened before in history, but certainly in recent history, I'm not aware of anyone who's announced the presidential campaign this early.
I mean, we're two years out from the general election.
We're still like a year out from when the primaries would even start.
And it's an interesting strategy.
Now, you could see why he did it.
There's a few strategies, a few reasons to do this.
One is to change the subject.
From the midterms and, you know, the media talking about what a failure it was for Republicans and everything else.
So you're changing the subject.
You're also, you're putting yourself, Trump putting himself at the center of the conversation, maybe sucking up some of the oxygen to dissuade other Republicans from jumping into the race.
Because, you know, by the time somebody like DeSantis, for example, would even think about jumping in, that's going to be months from now.
And Trump's campaign will be in full swing and will have been in full swing for months at that point.
Would that dissuade DeSantis or somebody else from jumping in?
I don't know.
The disadvantage, what you're going to run up against, is that now you have to maintain the momentum.
You know, politics is all about timing.
It's all about momentum.
Elections are all about momentum.
It doesn't, you know, once you get to the election, it doesn't even matter, it doesn't matter where you were in the polls even a month ago.
What matters is, and what people were saying about you a month ago, how they felt about, it's what, all that matters is right now.
That's all that matters.
Now you want to have built up a ground game and everything before that point.
But what matters, especially these days, When everyone has the memory of a fruit fly, what matters is the moment.
And so by the time we get to even the primaries next year, this is all going to be a distant past.
No one will even remember it.
So every political campaign is running up against that.
It's a challenge that anyone running for office deals with.
The fact that no one can pay attention to anything for more than five seconds.
That can work to your advantage sometimes if you're going through a scandal or something like that, but generally I think it's a disadvantage.
Especially if you want to build a coherent campaign with a long-term strategy.
How will that work on balance for Trump?
You've got, can you maintain the momentum?
Can you succeed in stopping other people from jumping in when they do jump in?
Does it help them or hurt them that you've already been campaigning for months before that?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
We'll go through a couple of clips here from Trump's speech.
And it was a good speech, I thought.
You know, I've always said that there's like speech Trump and then there's rally Trump.
And this was speech Trump because rally it's kind of off the cuff.
It's off the top of the head.
And he's just kind of rolling with it.
And then there's the speech where he delivers.
It's mostly written down and he's delivering a speech that that has been written.
I think the more that he that he does, the more that he sticks with the speech Trump version, the better it is for him, I think, because it stays on message.
And usually his message is really good, which is why I like for him to stay on message.
So we'll go through a couple points that he raised.
We'll start with this.
He talks a little bit about the issue of women's sports and parental rights.
This is not an issue that was a major part of his 2016 campaign.
Then again, it was not something Republicans were talking about in general in 2016.
Will it become a bigger part of his campaign for 2024?
We'll see, but here's what he says.
We will not let men, as an example, participate in women's sports.
Is that okay?
No men.
No men.
My people tell me, "Sir, that's politically incorrect to say."
I said, that's okay, I'll say it anyway, if you don't mind.
We've had tremendous...
Tremendous problems.
And you know, it's very unfair to women.
Just very, very unfair.
We will defend the rights of parents and we will defend the family as the center of American life.
But who would think, standing up here, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, that a politician, and I don't like to think of myself as a politician, but I guess that's what I am.
I hate that thought.
But that a politician would be up saying, we will defend parental rights.
Of course you're going to defend it.
Who would think that we even have to mention this?
Who would think it even should be a subject to be talked about?
We have to defend parental rights.
Can you believe this?
So I guess I should amend.
I said this is speech Trump, not rally Trump.
It's actually kind of both, because it seems like he's going off of a speech, but he's also riffing based on what the speech says.
I think that's a good combo for him, personally.
He also gets into, I thought this was interesting, and this is one of the things that's in the headlines after the speech, where he talks about drugs, the problem, the epidemic of drug overdoses.
And his solution that he's mentioned before is we should execute drug dealers.
Now this is something, I don't think there's any other Republican on the national stage that is saying this or would say this, to Trump's credit.
Let's listen to that.
We're going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts.
Because it's the only way.
We don't need any more blue-ribbon committees.
We don't need — I don't like to say this, and I don't even know if the American public is ready for it.
And a lot of my people say, please don't say that, sir.
That's not nice.
They kill 500 people each on average.
And if you don't do this, in China, when I was with President Xi, I said, President, do you have a drug problem?
No, no, no, no, we don't.
He looked at me like I didn't know what I was doing.
Now, one of the problems that Trump's going to run into is that you've got the death penalty for drug dealers, which is one idea, which, by the way, I support.
Now, I think, obviously, we could all agree that if somebody has, like, got a high school kid who's selling weed or something like that, no one's suggesting that we'd have the death penalty for that.
I assume what he's talking about are people who are bringing mass amounts of things like fentanyl into the country.
It is not at all unreasonable to discuss the death penalty for people like that.
Absolutely.
I mean, you think about how many people they are killing.
This is pure poison that they are bringing into the country, that they're, you know, selling on the streets, and killing tens of thousands of people every year.
They're poisoning tens of thousands of people every year.
The death toll is Catastrophic.
It's astronomical.
So if we have this idea that, well, you can only give the death penalty for crimes where someone is killed, which even that I don't actually agree with, because I think a death penalty for things like rape and child molestation, even if nobody's killed in the process, would also be more than reasonable.
It's what justice calls for.
But when it comes to the fentanyl epidemic, they are killing people.
They're killing tens of thousands of people.
And if you want to have any hope of putting a stop to this, then these kinds of penalties have to be part of that strategy.
They're not gonna accomplish it on their own, but it has to be part of the strategy.
The issue for Trump, though, is that he's got, you know, death penalty for drug dealers, which, in my opinion, great.
But then he also had the First Step Act when he was in the White House, which released a bunch of drug dealers out into the public.
You know, he's working with Kim Kardashian to release prisoners from prison and out onto the streets.
You can't really do both.
So you gotta decide, which is it gonna be?
Like, are you gonna be the president who is calling for the execution of people who are selling poison on the streets, or are we gonna be the president who releases them from prison?
Seems to me it's gotta be one or the other.
Before his speech, before Trump gave a speech earlier in the day, Ron DeSantis, who had not responded publicly to Trump's criticisms of him, was asked about it during a press conference.
And here's what he says.
One of the things I've learned in this job is when you're leading, when you're getting things done, you take incoming fire.
That's just the nature of it.
I roll out of bed in the morning.
I've got corporate media outlets that have a spasm just the fact that I'm getting up in the morning.
And it's constantly attacking.
And this is just what's happened.
I don't think any governor got attacked more, particularly by corporate media, than me over my four-year term.
And yet, I think what you learn is, all that's just noise.
And really what matters is, are you leading?
Are you getting in front of issues?
Are you delivering results for people?
And are you standing up for folks?
And if you do that, then none of that stuff matters.
And that's what we've done.
We focused on results and leadership.
And at the end of the day, I would just tell people to go check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night.
I think it's a good response.
It's the only response he can really give because you can't get down into the mud with Donald Trump.
You'll lose.
I mean, he'll beat you there.
So, and this is the mistake.
You go back to the, and we live in a different world than we did back in the primaries in 2015.
So, making these kinds of analogies, it only takes you so far.
But still, if you go back there and you see what happened with most Republicans is that at first they tried to ignore Trump.
And then eventually Trump just didn't give him an option anymore.
And so then they switched courses dramatically.
I mean, Marco Rubio's classic example is go from ignoring to switching dramatically and like diving down into the mud with him and trying to out Trump Trump.
And it just it doesn't work.
You look ridiculous.
You look inauthentic.
And you're not going to win in that fight.
So I think the only option for DeSantis at this point is what he just did there.
I think it was the right choice.
It's just to try to kind of stay above the fray.
And he was asked specifically about Trump.
But if you listen to that clip, it was another smart move.
If you listen to the clip, you wouldn't even know that that's what he was responding to.
Because he doesn't even say Trump in the answer.
He gives a broad, general answer and then says, I'm focused on governing in Florida.
That's all I care about.
I think that's what he has to do.
Especially now when he's not When he hasn't even come close to announcing his candidacy for the president, if he ever does announce that.
Now, can he maintain that?
If he does jump into the primaries and there's an actual primary battle between these two, when they both have declared officially, can he maintain that kind of answer the entire way through?
I'm not sure.
But for right now, it's definitely the best way.
A little bit more politics.
Mitch McConnell was asked to give his own autopsy of the Republican Party post-midterms, and here's what he said.
One of the criticisms from Senator Scott and others who agree with him is that your decision not to have an agenda to run on opened up Republican candidates to attacks that they didn't really stand for anything.
What is your response to the criticism that you are partially responsible for?
Every one of our candidates knew what they were for, expressed it quite clearly.
It's pretty obvious, and all of you have been writing about it, what happened.
We underperformed among independents and moderates because their impression of many of the people in our party and leadership roles is that they're engulfed in chaos, negativity, excessive attacks.
And it frightened independent and moderate Republican voters.
And we saw that, which is why you all recall I never predicted a red wave.
We never saw that in any of our polling in the states that we were counting on to win.
There wasn't a wave.
We had a national issue set that was favorable.
But as a result of our own, the perception many of them had that we were Not dealing with issues in a responsible way and we were spending too much time on negativity and attacks and chaos.
They were frightened and so they pulled back.
They were frightened.
Well, this is the great thing about the Republican establishment, that there are no surprises with them.
You know exactly what they're going to say.
That's either the great thing or the terrible thing.
You decide.
But this was no surprise.
We lost because too negative, too extreme, too chaotic, he says.
We frightened the poor, helpless, hapless, moderate voters.
Now it is true that, and I've been saying this for the last week, if your message is only negative, if your only message is Joe Biden is bad, that's the negative message, then it's not going to resonate, you're going to lose.
And that was a problem for Republicans in this election, is that, as we've been discussing over the last week.
What on the national level, what was the Republican Party's message to the voters?
And the only one that springs to mind, the only consistent message was Joe Biden is bad, which he is.
And that is a case you have to make.
But then you also have to make a case for why you are.
He's bad.
Here's why I'm good.
But I don't think that's Mitch McConnell's only point, because the message from the establishment has been clear, as always, that we need to get away from the culture war issues, you know, stop scaring the independents, stop being divisive.
McConnell doesn't say that explicitly here, because I think he knows better than that, but he also doesn't have to.
That's what he's actually trying to convey.
So when he says it was chaotic and negative, that's another way of saying focused on the culture war, focused on issues that are controversial.
Let's not talk about that.
Let's get back to whatever, tax cuts, etc.
And we've heard this a lot.
I mean, and it's not just from Mitch McConnell.
I've also heard this from conservatives who are not members of the GOP establishment.
Especially when it comes to abortion.
You know, there's this Consensus that seems to be forming among a lot of people on the right, including people who I usually agree with, that there was too much focus on the pro-life message in the midterms.
And that's part of the reason we lost.
Which I think is just absolutely absurd.
Now, yes, it's true, Democrats dominate with single liberal women, and it stands to reason that a good portion of them were motivated in part by their desire to be able to continue killing babies.
Fine.
But here's the point.
The problem is not when Republicans are out there making the pro-life argument.
I mean, the idea that Republicans are too pro-life or are too open about it and talk about it too much is, to someone like myself who's been in the pro-life movement for years, it's absurd.
If it wasn't so frustrating, you'd have to laugh at it.
Really, the Republican Party, that's their issue?
Is that they lean into abortion too much?
It's been quite the opposite for decades now.
No, the problem is not That you're talking about abortion or you're making the pro-life argument.
If there is an issue, it's that you're not making the argument successfully or competently.
Okay, so right, it's not enough to just bring it up.
That's not going to motivate voters.
You can't get up there and simply declare, I'm pro-life, abortion is bad, and leave it at that.
If that's all you're doing, then yeah, that's not going to be successful.
And all you're doing is lobbing up softballs for the other team to bat over the fence.
If that's all you're doing.
But you have to make the argument successfully.
You have to explain why you're pro-life, why it matters.
Which is really not a difficult thing to do, but you have to make the argument.
Which many Republicans don't.
Now, the left can say all they want, Democrats can say, oh, they're right, Republicans are out of step with the American public when it comes to abortion.
Well, I think most of the American public, they don't know exactly how they feel about it.
So if you have any kind of fully formed view on abortion, then you're already, quote-unquote, out of step with the public.
But one thing I do know, and every poll shows this, is that most Americans, even if they're a little bit confused about the issue, and they don't think about it that much, and they don't think very clearly about it, most Americans certainly are not on board with murdering fully developed infants in the womb, like, a second before they're born.
Most Americans are absolutely not on board with that.
Because you don't have to think about abortion very much to recognize that as a base evil.
Fully developed infants?
And you're murdering them?
Of course, that's disgusting, and most people see it that way.
But that's what the Democrat Party supports.
Every mainstream Democrat on the national stage, every single one of them, With maybe the most rarest of exceptions.
Every single one of them supports abortion up to the moment of birth, and many of them will even tell you that they support it after birth, too.
You should be able to communicate that.
And if you can't communicate that and back your opponent into a corner over his support for infanticide, then you shouldn't be running for office in the first place.
You know, if a Republican candidate is in a debate with a Democrat...
And the Republican allows the whole conversation to revolve around the hard cases, the exceptions to the rule, the 1% of cases.
All you ever want to do is talk about rape, incest, life of the mother cases.
We're talking about less than 1% of all cases.
And if you as a Republican allow the Democrat to make that the whole conversation, then that's your fault.
You're incompetent.
The issue is not with the pro-life cause or with our argument on abortion.
It's that you are incompetent.
Because what you should be doing is flipping it around on them and saying, okay, we talked about the 1% of cases.
Let's talk about the 99% where abortion is used as a form of birth control.
How do you feel about that?
How do you feel about a fully developed infant one second before emerging from the birth canal?
Does that infant have the right to life or not?
Yes or no?
If you can't figure out how to flip the script like that on your opponent, then again, just don't run for office.
Alright, I was thinking about doing this for the Daily Cancellation today, but it would be a bit redundant as our potential cancellee has already cancelled himself, and yet there is something to be learned from his self-immolation, I think.
He fed himself into the woodchipper, and he has provided us with an important cautionary tale in the process.
And the moral of the story is don't jump into a wood chipper, really.
If you needed that lesson, here it is.
Literally or figuratively, don't jump into one.
So, CNN reports, a middle school teacher in Pflugerville, Texas has been fired, district officials said on Monday, after a video was posted to social media showing the white teacher tell his students that his race is the superior one.
Quote, last Friday, November 11, the Pflugerville ISD officials were made aware of an inappropriate conversation a teacher at Bowles Middle School had with students during an advisory class.
Pflugerville Independent School District Superintendent Dr. Douglas Killian wrote in a statement, As of Monday morning, November 14, the teacher in question is no longer employed by Pflugerville ISD and we are actively looking for a replacement.
Videos of the conversation in question were posted to social media last week.
From the way that the media is reporting on this incident, you might imagine that the teacher went on a wild, unhinged, white supremacist rant.
Which, in some ways, it was wild and unhinged.
But I want you to listen to the tone.
Anyway, let's listen to that, and then we'll talk about it.
I'm ethnocentric, which means I think my race is the superior one.
So, white is better than all?
No, let me finish.
I think everybody thinks that, they're just not honest about it.
I'm not racist though, I like all types of comments.
Did I say I don't like people?
People only think that.
Wait, so you said you are what?
You are racist?
You're saying you're like, you're racist?
I think everybody's a racist at that level.
No, you said you are racist.
I did.
Yeah, I'm trying to be honest.
No, I'm not saying it again.
I've said it enough.
So you're racist.
Put your phone up.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I don't think I got respect for him no more, man.
No, you should have more respect.
Now, by the way, the district has made counselors available to students who were traumatized by this event.
Somehow, I don't think the counselors will be necessary because the students seem to be more amused by it than traumatized.
I mean, they're laughing about it.
And you can tell the teacher, as he's talking, like, you can see him realizing, as he's talking, that he shouldn't be saying this.
And you can see the regret set in.
And then he tells one of the students to put their phone away, but it's too late because he's already on camera.
He forgot the student that was sitting right next to him.
Here's the point here, though.
That this teacher is actually doing exactly what the woke crowd tells him to do.
Right?
This is CRT in action.
This is what it is.
White people are inherently racist.
This is what we're told.
This is what all the race hustlers will tell us.
Robin DeAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi and all the rest of them.
In fact, if you as a white person tell them that you are not racist, they will tell you it's racist to say you're not racist because you are racist.
And so what you need to do is confront your racism and admit to it.
You have to confront your racism, admit that you're racist.
If you deny that you're racist, that's only further confirmation that you are racist.
And that's racist in itself.
White people are inherently racist.
Black people cannot be racist because of structural, you know, racism is prejudice plus power and blah blah blah.
And what they also say is that we need to start having conversations.
Right?
Have conversations about race.
And so this teacher Attempted to apply all of that, is that we're going to have a conversation about race, and I'm going to admit that I'm racist, because this is what we're supposed to do.
That's the woke thing.
We're all inherently racist.
He got one detail wrong, though.
And maybe if he'd gotten this detail right, he wouldn't have been fired.
But he says, well, everyone is racist.
That's not what CRT teaches.
CRT teaches that only white people are racist, which is an important distinction for them.
Not everyone, only white people.
Now, if you were to play this video back, rewind it, and if he was able to do that again, he probably would just keep his mouth shut.
But if he could phrase it differently, imagine if he had said everything the same.
He said, I'm ethnocentric, I'm racist, but all white people are.
All white people are inherently racist.
Then I think this becomes a totally different thing.
I don't think he gets fired for that.
So he was attempting to do what the woke crowd wants him to do.
Got the details a little bit wrong.
Now he's fired.
But of course, even if you've gotten them right, I mean, this is the thing, you're a racist either way.
It's sort of like, go back to the witch hunt days, and if you deny that you're a witch, then, well, that's what a witch would do, you're lying, so you'd be executed.
But if you admit that you're a witch, well, then you're a witch, so we're gonna execute you for that.
This is the, it's the quintessential, you know, Get woke, go broke situation, what you just saw there.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
I can't wait for our discussion afterwards.
I work at a Christian school, so I have the ability to show this video to students.
They'll learn to debate and how to discuss these topics with those who have differing views.
Thank you for making this possible.
Well, I love to hear that, and I think sophomore, people ask me a lot, should Parents ask me, should I let my kids watch this?
Is it appropriate for kids?
And you've got to make a determination for yourself based on what you know about your kid.
But, you know, my kids are... Well, those kids are nine years old.
They're way too young.
They haven't seen the film.
I'm not going to show it to them.
But once you get to be a sophomore in high school, it's certainly well within the age range where I think it's necessary and appropriate to show them the film.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be.
Because in a perfect world, even as sophomores, they would not have encountered any of this stuff.
But being sophomores, they certainly have by then.
So, that's where the film comes in.
Okay.
Michael says, Matt, I saw your tweets about Ukraine.
It seems hypocritical that you complain about Ukraine funding while supporting foreign aid to other countries.
Once again, you're being inconsistent.
Who told you I support foreign aid to other countries?
I am against all foreign aid to all countries.
I've always said that I don't like the idea of American tax dollars being sent to any foreign governments, period.
If a country can't survive without a constant influx of American tax dollars, then it doesn't deserve to exist.
I mean, it's as simple as that for me.
You have to be able to stand on your own two feet as a country at a certain point.
And the idea that we've got, you know, dozens of countries or more across the globe that are on the dole, and you're taking money away from American families and giving it to foreign governments.
I mean, what happened to taxation?
No taxation without representation.
We're not represented by that.
We have no control how the money is spent.
And however it's spent, it's not benefiting us directly.
I'm against all of it.
JRCratch says, Matt, just tell your wife that you think of the stuffed walrus as a type of pillow, then she'll be forced to concede that there's room for it in your house.
You think I haven't thought of that already?
That's been my argument this whole time.
It's basically a big glorified pillow that the whole family can share.
You know, we can watch a movie together and we can all be leaning against the big giant stuffed walrus.
That's my vision.
It's a family bonding.
But she's not going for it.
Let's see.
Jordan says, anyone with a junior high understanding of biology knows there are far more than two sexes in nature, that many animals change sex regularly.
Matt, are you ignorant or do you just get off on hurting others different than you?
When did other animals come into play here?
What are you talking about?
Okay, you say there are other sexes in nature?
That may be true for some.
I mean, I think I read an article recently actually about a certain species of microscopic worm that scientists say has three potential sexes.
There's male, female, and then hermaphrodite.
And the hermaphrodites, as far as I know, actually have the functional reproductive capacity of both sexes for this microscopic worm.
There are also asexual organisms out there.
There are organisms out there that can reproduce on their own.
All of that is really interesting, Jordan, but they're not human beings.
We are not microscopic worms, okay?
We're not single-celled organisms.
We're not amoebas.
We are human beings.
So, how does the self-identification of a human being, how is that validated or legitimized by a microscopic worm or an amoeba?
When you are not that, though, okay?
We're humans.
You know what?
There are also animals in the animal kingdom that have gills and can breathe underwater.
I still wouldn't recommend, if you're a person, I wouldn't recommend trying to swim to the bottom of the ocean without any scuba gear.
There are animals in the animal kingdom with wings.
Doesn't mean you should jump out of the, you know, window 50 stories up.
Is that, if you saw someone about to jump out of the window 50 stories up, and then you saw me trying to stop them, and I said, you don't have wings, don't do that.
Would you say, little, yeah, you're a smart one, Matt.
Don't you realize that there are a lot of animals with wings in the animal kingdom?
Yeah, I'm aware of that.
But this is not one of those animals.
Okay?
Candace says, Matt, you always talk about... A different Candace, I assume.
Matt, you always talk about how shopping cart ditchers are psychopathic monsters, but what other small infractions indicate that someone is literally a Nazi?
I have one.
Bumper riders.
People who ride your bumper in traffic should be excommunicated from Earth.
I could not disagree more with you, Candace, I'm afraid.
In fact, you are the one who should be excommunicated and banned from the show, obviously.
Because if you're... I don't have this problem with people riding my bumper.
Do you know why?
Because I keep up with the speed of traffic.
And I'm not going to be in the fast lane going, you know, 60 miles an hour.
I realize that if you're in the fast lane on the highway, you need to be going at least 25 miles over the limit.
At least, to justify being in the fast lane.
So I don't have this issue.
If you have this issue, it means that you are driving too slow.
I'm an unapologetic bumper rider because it's just my way of communicating to you that you need to speed up or move over.
How else am I going to communicate it?
So yes, there are other seemingly small infractions that indicate that someone is literally a Nazi, and driving too slow is one of those things.
Unfortunately, Candace, you are a Nazi and banned from the show.
You know, something smells over at my swag shack.
Something like Sweet Baby Spirit.
That's right.
Field tea to the SPG is in bloom this holiday season, so come as you are and get yourself the Sweet Baby album tea.
We actually have that.
Hang on.
I don't know what that was.
So here is the t-shirt.
And this is for, we are, you know, if you don't understand what that's a reference to, then you're not a member of the Sweet Baby gang.
Millennia nostalgia is a big thing, and lots of companies are cynically exploiting it, and so we're going to do the same.
Why does everyone else get to profit off of the nostalgia and we don't?
We're going to also do that.
There are only about 500 of these in existence, and we're trying to sell out, so don't wait.
It's the perfect gift for yourself and everyone you know, because there's just something in the way they put my bearded infant self on a t-shirt that no one can withstand having.
I don't think that makes sense.
No one can withstand having?
Nobody can stand not having?
If they can't withstand having it, that means that they don't want it.
Anyway, you should want this and you should buy it.
Head over to my collection over at dailywire.com slash shop and get the Sweet Baby album, t-shirt, or any of the other amazing holiday offerings at the new and improved Daily Wire Plus shop and get free shipping for orders over $75 and a free leftist ears tumbler with all orders over $100.
You know, here at The Daily Wire, we're doing everything we can to loosen the left's grip on culture.
We're making movies that challenge woke Hollywood narratives, documentaries like What Is A Woman that expose radical gender ideology.
We're creating kids content parents can trust.
We even sued the government over unconstitutional mandates.
It's a lot of work and there's still a long way to go, but you can help in just two simple steps.
Stop shaving with your Woke Razor 2.
Start shaving with Jeremy's.
We're building alternatives.
And the left is betting their bottom billion dollars that you won't use those alternatives.
Prove them wrong.
Go to Jeremy'sRazors.com.
Get your Founders Series Shave Kit today.
Jeremy's Razors.
Shut up and shave.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, if you pay attention to the news cycle, which is not a hobby that I really recommend, you may have noticed yesterday that we were on the brink of a nuclear world war.
Again.
A missile hit Poland, killing two people, and the immediate assumption by the media and the social media peanut gallery was that Russia had launched the attack.
Now, why would Russia attack Poland?
I mean, why should we even think that Russia attacked Poland?
Well, it doesn't matter.
All that we needed to know is that a bad thing happened overseas, which means that Russia is responsible.
And that was certainly Ukrainian President Zelensky's message, who put out a frantic statement calling for an immediate global response to Russian aggression against Poland.
This is what he said yesterday, quote, terror is not limited to our national borders.
Russian missiles hit Poland to fire missiles at NATO territory.
This is a Russian missile attack on collective security.
This is a very significant escalation.
We must act.
I want to say now to all of our Polish brothers and sisters, Ukraine will always support you.
Terror will not break free people.
Victory is not possible when there is no fear.
Russia is terrorizing us and everyone it can reach.
Well, that was yesterday.
Here is today from Reuters.
Quote, a missile that hit Poland was probably a stray fired by Ukraine's air defenses and not a Russian strike, Poland and NATO said on Wednesday, easing global concern that the war in Ukraine could spill across the border.
Nevertheless, NATO's chief said that Moscow, not Kiev, was ultimately to blame for starting the war in the first place and launching the attack that triggered Ukraine's defenses.
This is not Ukraine's fault.
Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.
This is according to NATO Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg, who told this to reporters in Brussels.
So, it was Ukraine's fault.
It was not Ukraine's fault.
It was Russia's fault.
Got it.
Now, a question.
Did Zelensky know that it was a Ukrainian missile, but then pretended otherwise in order to draw Western governments into a direct conflict with Russia?
Or did he not know, which means that he was repeating bad intel without taking even a moment to verify it ahead of time?
I suspect the former is probably the case.
He knew better.
But the latter isn't much better, because either way, it should be enough to give us pause, to give our government pause.
It's reason for careful consideration before continuing to hail Zelensky as a messianic figure while also keeping him on the taxpayer dole like an international welfare queen.
But this regime isn't one for careful consideration, which is why we will respond not by blaming Zelensky, not by being skeptical of him, but rather by giving him another $40 billion.
The White House on Tuesday asked Congress to approve $37.7 billion in additional aid for Ukraine amid Russia's invasion, a request that comes ahead of both a government funding deadline and the expected flipping of the House to Republican control.
The Biden administration is requesting that Congress authorize $21.7 billion in defense aid to continue providing equipment to Ukraine and to replenish the Department of Defense stocks.
It also is asking for $14.5 billion for direct budget support to Ukraine, critical wartime investments and security assistance, as well as to strengthen global food security and provide humanitarian assistance.
Additionally, $626 million would go to providing nuclear security support for Ukraine and to modernizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce domestic energy costs and to ensure sustainable access to energy resources.
And $900 million would go to help with health care and support services to Ukrainians.
Right.
Our own cities look like third-world refugee camps, but we are somehow in a position to shovel untold billions of dollars into the pockets of foreign governments.
You can barely afford to put food on your table or shoes on your children's feet, yet here we are throwing another $40 billion into the collection basket for Ukraine.
But why?
I mean, that's the question that's rarely asked and never answered.
Why exactly are we tying ourselves to Ukraine?
Why have we been doing this for months?
Why is it our responsibility to fund and defend them?
How does this serve the interests of average Americans?
Well, one of the top Ukraine boosters in Congress, Representative Elissa Slotkin, appeared on CNN over the weekend and attempted to answer that very question.
Here's what she said.
When you look at how far Ukraine has come thanks to the help of the United States and allies, and I was told by President Zelensky that he really thanks the American people because he knows it's taxpayers' money and support from people around the world.
He's not silly about this.
He absolutely knows.
What more do you think the United States and NATO needs to do to make them win and Russia lose, which is the stated goal of the US?
Yeah.
I mean, look, I understand.
I mean, even in my own district, there were people we'd knock on doors and they'd said, look, I support Ukraine, but you know, how many billions are we going to give and how long is that going to be?
So that pressure is a real pressure.
And the American people have been generous.
I think it's important to recognize that.
But I think we also need to recognize that what's going on in Ukraine and Russia is not just like some faraway issue that doesn't affect everyone in Europe, everyone in the United States, and everyone who supports democracy.
Do we want a world where a neighboring country can just invade a democracy and claim it as their own territory?
Should there be a punishment for that?
Should there be a price to pay?
And I think we need to remain resolved on that.
And supporting the Ukrainians in what has been a really incredible run to take back that territory, I think, has been important.
But we can't get weak in the knees as they're having these successes as the winter sets in.
So a lot of us are really talking about this in Congress, about what more we can do with anti-aircraft, a bunch of weapons to help protect them from the missile strikes that we saw today.
Just anything we can.
And I really reject this idea that somehow we should just give up on Ukraine, call it a day, and get to negotiating with Russia.
That's not real international affairs.
Russia, they need to pay a price for this.
It's hard for me to explain just how repulsed I am by every part of that conversation and by both of the women involved in it.
Each sentence uttered is more infuriating than the last.
So let's go through it piece by piece.
First, we're told that Zelensky is grateful for the American people and our generosity in sending so much money directly to him.
Zelensky is, in fact, so grateful to us that he tried to, you know, hoax us into a world war again.
That's his way of showing gratitude, is to hoax the United States into a world war that gets millions of people killed.
But all this talk of generosity is disingenuous at best.
American taxpayers have not been generous to Ukraine.
We had no choice.
The money was taken from us against our will.
Thanking us for our generosity only adds insult to injury.
It's like getting a thank you note in the mail from the guy who stole your car the week before.
Would that make you feel better or worse?
Generosity is an act of will.
It's a choice.
And this is exactly the point.
We didn't have a choice.
If the average American taxpayer was given a choice, if this was put up for a vote, if we were asked how much money we want to send to the Ukrainian government, I'm guessing that almost all of us would say zero dollars and zero cents.
I know I would.
I'm all for helping the needy, but foreign governments are not charity cases.
They should be expected to care for themselves.
Slotkin also insists that we must not give up on Ukraine.
On that, I agree.
You know, I can never give up on Ukraine.
I can't give up on Ukraine because Ukraine was never my concern to begin with.
There's nothing to give up on.
It's not for me to give up on or not give up on them.
Ukraine is not my country.
It's not my job to fund it, defend it, preserve it, or care about it.
I have as much concern for Ukraine as Ukraine has for me, which is none.
Does Ukraine have any concern for the United States of America?
Does Zelensky give the slightest damn about the United States?
He's been trying for months to pull us into a world war that would get millions of our kids killed.
He doesn't care about us, and yet I'm supposed to care deeply for him?
Now, it's not to say that I don't care about the Ukrainian people as human beings.
I care about all humans.
I wish them all well.
But the fate of Ukraine as a political entity, as a nation, as a government, is not my burden to carry, and it's not yours either.
You know, there are 195 countries on this planet.
All of them must struggle in their own way to survive.
Nobody imagines that we're responsible for the fate of most of the 195.
Most of the people in America couldn't even name the majority of the other countries on this earth.
Few of us could name all of them.
Yet, for some reason, out of these 195, it was decided suddenly, several months ago, that Ukraine, a country that most of us had spent not a single moment even thinking about prior to this year, is extremely important to us.
And we must be willing to give it as much money as it says it needs, even plunge ourselves into a cataclysmic global war for its sake.
We must be willing to send our children off to die for it, if that's what it comes to, we're told.
Not for any of those other countries, but for Ukraine.
Why?
Well, people are suffering in Ukraine.
They're suffering all over the globe.
They're suffering in every country.
Well, Slotkin gives an answer as to why Ukraine specifically is our problem.
Her answer, such as it is, is that, well, we have to keep Ukraine on the dole and even discourage peace agreements.
Discourage them?
She doesn't want a peace agreement.
She does not want, these psychopaths, they do not want peace.
They want the war to continue and they want us to get involved in it.
That's what they want.
She just said it explicitly.
We have people representing our country and supposedly our interests.
And they are willing to say on the record, on camera, that they do not want peace.
And why is that?
Well, because she says that we need to make Russia pay a price.
We have to punish them.
Russia must be taught a lesson.
These are the same people who release violent criminals back into our communities and call it forgiveness, while innocent Americans pay the price for it.
Yet in Russia's case, suddenly they've become advocates for severe and violent justice?
Since when do they give a shit about justice, any of these people?
Since when do they care about that?
This is justice, it's the right thing.
They don't care about that in any other context.
To be clear, they want justice.
They want to punish the evildoers in precisely the situations where it doesn't benefit anyone in this country to do so.
And why must Russia specifically be punished?
I mean, there are many countries run by corrupt regimes who've committed atrocities.
Another one is called Ukraine, by the way.
Should we punish all of them?
Is it America's job to be a sort of international Batman rushing to the scene to punish the bad guys no matter if the situation concerns us or not?
How does the average American family benefit from punishing Russia?
From making sure that Russia pays a price?
How is the average American hurt if Russia is not punished?
How are they helped if they are?
I mean, if you could explain that to me.
If you could explain how the average American sitting around their dinner table is somehow helped in their own lives How their own well-being, the well-being of their children is helped somehow in a direct way by making Russia pay a price rather than having peace.
If you explain that, I'm all ears.
But you can't.
Nobody can.
These are not questions that the Ukraine boosters in our government can answer or care to answer because they are not concerned with the interests of the average American.
They do not care.
They don't care if you can't afford to feed your family, if your children die in an unnecessary global nuclear war.
They don't care about that either.
And they also don't care about Ukraine, by the way.
Just to be clear.
And that is why they 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.
