Ep. 1143 - Trump Is Officially Arrested For Crimes That Don't Exist
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Donald Trump was officially arrested and arraigned on 34 criminal charges in New York yesterday. Yet even after arresting Trump, the Manhattan DA still has not explained what crime he committed. That's because there is no crime at all. This is not about prosecuting a crime, it's about punishing a political dissident. We'll talk about that today. Also, the people of Chicago threw Lori Lightfoot out and have no2 chosen to replace her with someone who is even worse. Plus, I had an interesting exchange with a trans EMT during the Q&A portion of my speech in New Mexico last night. We'll play the clip. And new polling shows that 60 percent of Americans agree that Trump should have been indicted, even though none of them knew what he was being indicted for. In our Daily Cancellation, a new law in Canada would make it a crime to protest drag queen events involving children.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month with promo code WALSH: https://www.puretalk.com/landing/WALSH
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://getrefunds.com/.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Donald Trump was officially arrested and arraigned on 34 criminal charges in New York yesterday.
Yet, even after arresting Trump, the Manhattan DA still has not explained what crime he committed.
That's because there is no crime at all.
This is not about prosecuting a crime, it's about punishing a political dissident.
We'll talk about that today.
The people of Chicago threw Lori Lightfoot out and have now chosen to replace her with someone who is even worse in every way.
Plus, I had an interesting exchange with a trans EMT during the Q&A portion of my speech in New Mexico last night.
We'll play the clip for you, you don't want to miss that.
And new polling shows that 60% of Americans agree that Trump should have been indicted Even though none of them knew what he was being indicted for.
In our daily cancellation, a new law in Canada would make it a crime to protest drag queen events involving children.
I have a lot to say about that as you can imagine and much more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Biden's plans to help struggling business owners in the wake of COVID lockdowns were
to prioritize black, Latino, Native American and women owned businesses.
It goes without saying that if Biden had said his plans were to prioritize white, male-owned businesses, well, there would have been outrage.
So, if you own a business, you can't rely on the government to bail you out, no matter what demographic group you belong to.
You need to take matters into your own hands, and innovation refunds can help you do just that.
If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee through the Employee Retention Credit.
All you got to do is go to GetRefunds.com.
Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC, and they may be able to help your business too.
This is not a loan.
There's no payback.
It's a refund on your taxes.
There's no upfront charge either.
So don't let this opportunity pass you by.
See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance in just eight minutes.
Go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, and answer a few questions.
The payroll tax refund is only available for a limited time, so don't miss out.
Go to GetRefunds.com.
That's GetRefunds.com.
It's finally official.
Yesterday, in one of the most disgraceful and alarming scenes in the history of American politics, former president and current GOP primary frontrunner Donald Trump was arrested and arraigned on 34 felony counts in New York.
No president has ever been charged with a crime, and that's certainly not because No president has ever committed a crime in the past.
Indeed, crime and corruption have been the norm in D.C.
and among our political elites, and yet very few of them, and nobody at Trump's level, at the presidential level, have ever been made to answer for it.
Except Donald Trump.
Now, as I've said before, you know, the treatment of Donald Trump wouldn't be nearly so disturbing to me personally if we lived in an alternate universe where politicians are so despised and so scrutinized that we always look for any excuse to charge them with crimes.
I mean, imagine a bizarro world version of the United States where former presidents are Constantly getting handcuffed and tossed behind bars.
That's like the going-away present for a president, is that we end up arresting you for something.
And high-ranking politicians are made to live in constant fear that maybe they cross the line somewhere and they're going to be prosecuted.
That sort of world, that sort of country, I think would be very good and I would enjoy it.
But that's not the country we live in.
In our reality, the political elites are effectively above the law.
They're so above the law, in fact, that Just as one example, a global sex trafficking pedophile can be arrested and then can quote unquote commit suicide, big air quotes around that, in prison leaving behind a detailed ledger of every
Prominent figure and politician he ever sold an underage prostitute to, and none of them are ever charged with a single crime.
In fact, the names of the people in the ledger are never released to the public.
There is no accountability at all.
That is how firmly above the law these people are.
Except Donald Trump.
In his case, they've spent years and years poring through his personal life, rifling through every document they can find, checking his financial records, scrutinizing every jot and tittle, until they found something to charge him with.
But the only problem is that they actually didn't find anything to charge him with.
There's actually nothing there.
It turns out that Donald Trump is perhaps the least corrupt politician in American history.
And we know that because he's one of the only ones that the system has tried to find something on, has tried to destroy, and they haven't been able to do it.
It was clear from the time that the indictment was announced that the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg had nothing on Donald Trump.
He was firing blanks the whole time.
Yet the indictment itself remained sealed.
And up until yesterday, which left open the theoretical possibility, a possibility that the media clung on to with desperate hope.
That maybe there would be some major bombshell, some big surprise that Bragg hadn't yet revealed publicly.
Maybe he was only pretending that this was a criminal case centering around Trump paying off some porn star so that she wouldn't go blabbing publicly about an affair during a presidential election, which definitely is not a crime.
And maybe in reality buried in the indictment would be the revelation that Trump also Killed someone.
Maybe he really did shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue.
Maybe that was a confession.
Maybe he organized a bank heist or something.
Who knows?
That was the hope that the left tried to cling to.
But all hopes were dashed yesterday as Trump was arraigned and the indictment was finally unsealed and the truth was revealed.
This case really is as frivolous and insane as we all suspected and as we all knew.
They have nothing on Trump.
They have no crime.
I'm not a lawyer, I admit.
I'm not a legal expert.
But based on my limited legal understanding, I'm pretty sure that the whole point of an indictment is to lay out a formal accusation of a crime.
That's what an indictment is.
It's to outline and describe the crimes that were allegedly committed.
But this indictment, this historic indictment of a former president, leaves out that part.
It is an indictment that forgets to actually indict.
The document does not explain what the underlying crime actually is.
And to top it off, the statute of limitations has already passed.
And to top that off, Bragg is apparently trying to prosecute a violation of federal law.
Though again, we don't really know which law.
But even if a federal law was violated, Bragg, as the DA of Manhattan, likely has no jurisdiction to enforce it in the first place.
So, there is no crime.
But if there was a crime, he can't even prosecute it.
That would fall to federal prosecutors, but they already passed on this case because they couldn't find a crime to prosecute either.
Now you may ask, if there's no underlying crime, how does this indictment have 34 counts?
How can Trump be indicted on 34 counts of nothing?
Andrew McCarthy, the National Review, explains in a piece that was just published.
I'll read a little bit of it.
It says Bragg's indictment fails to state a crime, not once, but 34 times.
On that ground alone, the case should be dismissed before one ever gets to the fact that the statute of limitations has elapsed and Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law, if that's what he's trying to do, which remains murky.
Bragg's indictment charges 34 counts, just as we said it would, based on media reporting that clearly came from illegal leaks of grand jury information, a crime, you can be sure, that goes in the overflowing bucket of serious offenses that Bragg refuses to prosecute.
The 34 counts are arrived at by taking what is a single course of conduct and absurdly slicing it into parts, each one of which is charged as a separate felony, carrying its own potential four-year prison term.
Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen in monthly installments during 2017 for the $130,000 paid to porn star Stormy Daniels right before the 2016 election for her silence about an alleged affair.
That, in reality, is a single transaction.
Trump paying back a debt to Cohen.
Yet, because Trump paid in installments, and each installment includes an invoice from Cohen, a bookkeeping entry by the Trump Organization, and a payment to Cohen by check, Bragg not only charges each monthly installment separately, he subdivides the installments into installments, as if the invoice, book entry, and check were independent criminal events.
Voila!
One transaction becomes 34 felonies.
Okay, this is not even weak sauce.
There's no sauce here.
This is also, you know, if a prosecutor is confident that there's a crime here and he's got a slam-dunk case, he's not going to feel that he needs to, you know, take one crime and separate it into 34 chunks.
That's the kind of thing you do when you know you don't have anything.
And so you're throwing everything at the wall that you possibly can.
There's not anything here but a dumb, pudgy, self-promoting district attorney who will tear the country apart just to make a name for himself.
And on that score, he's already succeeded.
He is certainly nationally recognized now, except that he's recognized as a national disgrace.
I mean, this case is such a joke that you can even turn on CNN to hear detailed criticisms of it.
So just as one example, here's John Bolton, not a Trump fan to put it mildly, on a CNN panel explaining why the indictment distresses him.
Listen.
Big picture, what do you think of the indictment?
Well, speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I'm extraordinarily distressed by this document.
I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be, and I think it's easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump.
Just speaking, going back to the days when I represented Jim Buckley and Gene McCarthy and the constitutional challenge to the underlying federal statute here passed in 1974, I can say there is no basis in the statutory language to say that Trump's behavior forms either a contribution or an expenditure under federal law, the two key definitions at issue here.
If it did, it would mean that every single expenditure a candidate made could be taken to have something to do with this campaign.
Do I buy a $1 comb to comb my hair, or a $10 comb to comb my hair?
If you can construe the statute to cover this behavior, then I think it violates the First Amendment, because you're deeply in the territory that makes this statute absolutely, the federal statute, too vague for enforcement.
And as what I understood the district attorney to say that he thinks there's a New York election law involved here.
All I can say is the Federal Election Campaign Act absolutely preempts any state or local law to the contrary.
How could it be otherwise?
You've got one law governing corporate finance in a presidential election at the federal level.
You're going to have 50 state laws interfering with it.
So he's just wrong on the applicability of the New York statute.
He thinks, he thinks there's a New York election law that he can use to prosecute Trump.
Even by the most generous possible reading here, Bragg is searching for a law that Trump might have broken.
He thinks there might be one.
He's still not sure, but he arrested the former president anyway.
That's the best possible interpretation, and it's far too generous.
Because in truth, Bragg knows that there's nothing here, which is why he couldn't explain the crime in the press conference that he held after the arraignment.
Listen to this.
Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements?
The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election.
Donald Trump, executives at the publishing company American Media Incorporated, Mr. Cohen and others agreed in 2015 to a catch and kill scheme.
That is, a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help Mr. Trump's chance of winning the election.
As part of this scheme, Donald Trump and others made three payments to people who claimed to have negative information about Mr. Trump.
To make these payments, they set up shell companies and they made yet more false statements.
Oh, dear God.
I mean, never mind.
I take it all back.
Forget everything I said before.
You mean to tell me that Trump tried to suppress negative information about himself during a political campaign?
You mean that as part of his efforts to get elected to public office, he tried to prevent embarrassing things from being publicized about him?
I mean, well surely he's the first political candidate in the history of the country to ever do something like that.
I mean, it's not like literally every political campaign in the entire history of politics has also made efforts to suppress negative information.
It's not like that's like an essential part of campaigning.
That's part of what campaigning is.
No, certainly not.
Trump is the first to ever do it.
That much we can agree on.
But still, what is the crime?
Okay, is that a catch and kill scheme to buy negative stories, purchase the rights to negative stories, negative information, and then kill it?
Is that, is there a crime?
What's the crime there?
Is there a legal statute somewhere that says you can't do that?
Is it a crime to try and win an election?
What's the actual crime?
Well, Bragg never explained, but he did say this, listen.
34 false statements made to cover up other crimes.
These are felony crimes in New York State.
No matter who you are, we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct.
The defendant repeatedly made false statements on New York business records.
He also caused others to make false statements.
Well, that's exactly the crux of it, because it says, well, he's covering up an underlying crime.
But what is the underlying crime?
What is he covering up?
And somehow that has still not been explained.
Okay, so Trump has been arrested and charged with doing something to cover up some underlying crime, and no one has explained what that crime is.
But, Bragg says, we're not going to normalize criminal conduct.
Well, except that's exactly what Alvin Bragg wants to do.
That is his entire mission.
And it's the mission of every Soros goblin DA.
There is no better way to summarize their strategy than that.
They want to normalize crime, and they've succeeded.
Crime has risen sharply since Bragg took office, and was already on the rise before he took office, so it's even worse.
It was bad before, now it's worse than that.
Bragg is doing everything in his power to make sure that violent predators are released back out into the community as quickly as possible, and with as light punishment as possible.
So that he can spend all his energy trying to punish an innocent man.
He is very much making crime normal.
That's exactly what these people want to do.
In fact, as we've talked about recently, they will tell you directly that this is a normal part of living in the city.
What was it that Seth Rogen said?
Getting carjacked.
It's just big city life.
It's normal.
This is the way the system works now.
We live under a regime that will punish the innocent harsher than the guilty because the guilty, the actual criminals, are not a threat to the system.
Far from it.
Violent criminals are useful to the system because they terrorize and demoralize the citizenry and they break their spirits and render them bewildered and vulnerable, just as the elites want and need them to be.
Besides, violent criminals mostly kill and rob middle and lower class people whose lives have no value to the elites.
Okay, criminals are going after random commuters on the subway.
They're going after people that work in gas stations and convenience stores.
Well, Albenbrad doesn't care about them.
The political elites don't care about them.
But Trump committed the real crime by offending and defying the elites themselves, and that's why they want to take him down.
I said earlier that trying to win an election isn't a crime, but actually it is, as far as they're concerned.
That, in fact, is the crime he's being indicted for.
That he tried to win an election and he won it.
If you're not on their team and you try to gain political power, you have committed the ultimate crime of defying them.
And that is actually what they want to make Trump pay for.
for. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Pure Talk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
It's proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team, and absolutely refuses to spend money on fake news networks.
Here's a look at what a future without Pure Talk would look like for you.
For those of you who can't see what's playing out on the screen right now, I am currently texting with my producer, Sean, on a phone that's serviced by one of the big three wireless networks.
Sean says, have you seen the post about the left trying to cancel you again?
To which I reply in this very real conversation, they're always trying to silence me and it's never going to work.
Because that's the kind of thing that I would say in a text message, you know, in real life.
I would text that to someone.
When are people going to accept that men are men and women are women?
Only Autocorrect changes men to MXN and women to WOMXN, if you can believe it.
This is what you get with woke wireless.
Uninvited lessons in political correctness.
If there's anyone I trust to not only give me the best service for my money, but also not try to force their politics on me, it's Pure Talk.
No contracts, no hassle, and they respect their politics.
Right now, you can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $30 a month.
Keep your phone, keep your number, or choose from the latest iPhones and Androids.
Go to puretalk.com and enter promo code WALSH to save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com.
Promo code WALSH.
Pure Talk.
It's simply smarter wireless.
We begin with the Chicago mayoral race where Brandon Johnson defeated Paul Vallis and became the next mayor of Chicago after Lori Lightfoot got the boot.
Now, there were no conservative Republicans who had any chance of becoming the mayor of Chicago, obviously.
That wasn't in the cards.
But Paul Vallis was a relatively moderate Democrat, but by current day standards, a moderate Democrat, which to be a moderate Democrat still means that you're far left.
You know, he's still, he's the guy that the residents of Chicago would have chosen if they had learned any lessons at all from Lori Lightfoot's disastrous tenure.
So he would have been an improvement over her anyway, and that would show that the people in Chicago, a little bit slow on the uptake, but they're finally starting to learn a few things.
Turns out though, they learned no lessons at all, or they learned all the wrong ones.
Because instead, they went with a far-left radical lunatic.
Somebody to the left of Lori Lightfoot.
Take all the bad things about Lori Lightfoot, who they kicked out.
They don't want her.
All the bad things about her.
This guy is worse than that.
So he takes all those bad things and makes them worse.
This is someone, Brandon Johnson, who's called for defunding the police, someone who defended the BLM looters, someone who ran an explicitly racialized anti-white campaign.
So to show you what I mean, here's an article in The Guardian from just a few days ago before the election.
This is what it says.
Brandon Johnson, who now serves as a Cook County Commissioner, has joked in the past that he didn't become a pastor like his father or sister because they weren't unionized.
But it's clear that his family's work in the church has shaped his commanding presence in secular spaces, as it did on the day that they were profiling Johnson.
Quoting Johnson now, This is about black labor versus white wealth.
That's what this battle is about, Johnson said.
This is about providing communities access to the very public accommodations which black people fought for, especially after emancipation.
It's what the descendants of slaves in this room are fighting for.
Public education, public transportation, affordable housing, health care, and access to jobs.
So he framed his campaign as a battle, a battle between black and white.
And he won.
OK, so if you're a white person in Chicago and you choose to still live there, well, that's on you.
The guy elected said, this is a battle of black versus white.
And the voters lined up to vote for him.
In fact, it's on everyone in Chicago.
If you choose to still live there.
Because here's the thing, the people of this city, the absolute self-destructive morons who live in Chicago, they chose to elect someone who is worse than the mayor that they threw out.
They are choosing to live then amid crime and violence and chaos and tyranny.
This is what they want.
They want racial division, violence, crime, and filth.
That's what they want to live in.
They want it.
So what else can we do except just let them have it and feel no sympathy for them?
This is what you want.
You can have it.
You know, all the hand-wringing that a lot of us do about the violence in Chicago, we should, you know, and oftentimes we accuse the media of ignoring the violence in Chicago, and they do.
But, you know, we should just ignore it too now.
Because that's your problem.
You want this.
You are literally asking for it.
I mean, the very people who are, many of them, victimized by the violence in Chicago, they're lining up to vote for people who promise more of it.
Who want less law enforcement.
Who want less law and order.
And they are saying it.
And then these idiots are lining up and voting for that.
This is what you want.
I mean, at a certain point, we can't save people.
We literally can't save them from themselves.
And this is one of the hardest realities to accept, really, in modern political life.
It's that the problems start with the voters.
Okay, so we can talk about the corrupt elites and the Soros DAs and all that stuff, as I just did.
We do all the time on this show.
But it's also true that we still do live under a democratic system, which means that, you know, this guy is the mayor of Chicago because people voted for him.
If they had really overwhelmingly rejected everything this guy stands for, he wouldn't be the mayor of Chicago right now.
People are getting what they asked for.
There's something deeply wrong with many of the voters, many of the people who are voting for this stuff.
It's been at a point for a long time where there's nothing for us to do except say, you can have it.
And so, yeah, if you're a sane person, if you're a person in Chicago and you value your own life and you care about your children and all of that, then you just got to get out.
Give up on it.
Let it fall apart.
I think that's our only path now.
All right.
I spoke at New Mexico State University yesterday.
It was actually a great event.
A lot of fun, I thought.
And for the first time in a long time, I was directly challenged in the Q&A by several people, including several trans people.
So this happens every once in a while.
Somebody will get up during the Q&A, and they'll try to challenge me on this issue.
But this is the first time in a while where most of the Q&A consisted of people on the other side stepping up one after another to try to debunk my points or challenge me, which I think is great.
It makes it a lot more fun.
And this is mainly what the Q&A is supposed to be for.
That's why we have the policy in the Q&As at these college events, where if you disagree, you get to go to the front of the line.
Because that's, I mean, it's great to hear from people who are supporters and they agree and they can ask really interesting questions.
But very often then I'm just in a spot of restating a lot of things I already said in the talk.
It's more interesting to hear from people on the other side.
So that happened here.
And I appreciated that.
It's worth going to Yaf's YouTube page to watch the whole event, I think.
But I want to play one clip.
It's kind of long, it's about five minutes.
But it's interesting because this is a trans person.
One of a few that got it during the Q&A, who begins by presenting his credentials as an EMT.
So he says he's a medical professional.
He's trans.
So he's in authority on this, whereas I am not, he says.
And the back and forth went on for long enough.
I probably went on for about 10 minutes.
But we'll pick this up about halfway through.
Listen.
How would you define a woman?
Because you've asked other people up here to define how we would define a woman.
How would you define a woman, Mr. Walsh?
An adult human female.
(audience cheers and applauds)
And how don't trans people, how doesn't a transgender woman fit that definition?
Female.
Because they're not female.
They have... You said that you are a biological male, correct?
I said I'm transgender.
I might be intersex for all we know.
About almost as many people in the world are transgender as intersex.
And a lot of people don't know.
But that's a different conversation.
Intersex, that's a genetic anomaly, that's a medical condition.
So that's a completely different conversation.
That's also not a third gender.
That's just a genetic anomaly that occurs within the sex binary of male and female.
So what you're saying is that a "trans woman" is a female.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
By the definitions I'm familiar with, yes.
So how would you define female?
Through my training in healthcare, there are several different categories for how we define sex.
People bring up chromosomes.
People also bring up hormone levels.
People bring up all sorts of other categories.
Lots of people don't fit neatly into a gender binary.
Even people we don't consider to be intersex.
It's a complicated spectrum.
It's not complicated, but you also didn't define.
So what is a woman, what is a female?
What do these words mean?
It's complicated, and I know you're not going to like that answer, but that's because there are no simple answers in human biology.
Let me ask you a question.
Hang on, just let me finish.
You guys like to bring up high school level biology classes a lot.
I get that a lot.
But people who go on to more complicated biology classes will talk about sex as a spectrum.
It's not.
It's not.
Well, biological researchers would disagree with you.
Well, then they're full of s**t, the ones that would say that.
There's... Look.
There are... Alright.
There are male gametes and female gametes.
Oh, I had one last question.
Can you come back for one second?
Because this is an important question.
You said you're an EMT.
Okay, if you're responding to a health emergency, biological male, somebody with a penis, is having a medical emergency.
And they say to you, I think I'm having a miscarriage.
Would you check them to see if they're having a miscarriage?
would you consider that a possibility for them?
[laughter]
No, but that's because some people don't have body parts.
Doesn't mean they're not a woman.
Okay.
Sounds like we've established there are some people who, in principle, can get pregnant And there are some people who can't.
So there's two categories, otherwise known as binary.
Lots of women can't get pregnant either.
Yeah, but they're still of the nature to get pregnant.
But they can't get pregnant.
Truth matters, right?
It does.
That's what I'm trying to explain to you.
Truth matters and they can't get pregnant.
That's the truth.
So how are they still women?
Because they are...
For the same reason that I can rightly say that human beings have two legs.
And if a person is born with only one leg, that doesn't call into question the statement that human beings have two legs.
A person being born with one leg doesn't mean that now legs are on a spectrum and we can't say We can't say anything at all about how many legs a person has.
Who knows?
They could be a centipede.
They could have a hundred legs.
No, we know human beings have two legs.
If a human is born without two legs, something went wrong.
They were supposed to have that second leg.
Something went wrong.
If you meet a person on the street who only has one leg, maybe they had an accident.
Maybe they were in war.
Maybe they were in a car accident.
Maybe they had cancer.
A leg was cut off.
But you know that something went wrong because, by their nature, they're supposed to have two legs.
Same thing for a woman.
A woman, by her nature, can get pregnant.
A man, by his nature, never can.
So if you meet a woman of childbearing age, say she's 28 years old, and she can't get pregnant, you know automatically that something has gone wrong.
And she can go to the doctor and find out what that thing is, even if they can't fix it.
So, that proves that women by their nature can get pregnant, because the simple fact that she can't shows you that there is something wrong.
This is what is known as the exception that proves the rule.
Whereas if a male with a penis can't get pregnant, no doctor on earth is going to run tests to see what's wrong with him.
Because they already know, it's that he's a male, and there's only male and female, those who can get pregnant and those who can't.
So, that's it.
There it is.
It turns out now, when you can be stumped on a rebuttal like this or a question like this, you know, a man, a man, somebody with a penis says, I'm having a miscarriage.
Would, would you take that claim seriously?
Would you actually run tests to see if that was really happening?
And, uh, and you, you could tell that this was somehow for this person, this is something that they never, he never really thought about.
But he realized he had to admit, well, of course I would.
Because there are two categories of people.
There are people who can get pregnant and there are people who can't.
There are people who, as I've tried to explain, there are people who by their nature can get pregnant, people who by their nature cannot.
Those are the two categories.
And you can call those categories whatever you want.
You know, we say man and woman in the English language.
In other languages, they use other words.
So, the actual words themselves are... Words are simply symbols that stand for something.
They're verbal symbols.
And so, it's true that the verbal symbols can change.
They change over time.
They change depending on your language.
But the reality that they are symbolizing, the reality they represent, that doesn't change.
There are people who get pregnant, people who can't.
You know, as I was trying to explain there, the way I phrase it is, you know, women by their nature can get pregnant.
And I think that that's a technically, scientifically, you know, precise way of putting it.
Maybe another way to put it, and we say by their nature, maybe for some people it goes a little bit over their head.
It seemed to a bit with the person I was talking to there.
So another way of putting it is a woman is someone who is supposed to be able to get pregnant.
A woman is someone who's supposed to be able to get pregnant.
A man is someone who is not supposed to be able to get pregnant and can't.
A woman is supposed to be able to get pregnant.
A man never can.
So those are the two things.
And then that means that the comeback of, well, what about women who can't get pregnant?
Yeah, but they're supposed to be able to.
Even if they can't, they're supposed to be able to.
Which is why, as I explained there, a woman in childbearing age, say a 28-year-old woman, can't get pregnant, goes to the doctor, says, I'm not able to get pregnant.
The doctor is never going to say, well, you're not supposed to be able to get pregnant.
You just belong to a different category, a person who doesn't get pregnant.
So we're not going to run any tests at all.
No, the doctor's going to know, okay, well, that's not how that's supposed to work.
You're a woman, so you should be able to get pregnant.
Let's figure out what's going on.
And they will always find it, you know?
That's the incredible thing.
The doctor will know, just based on the fact that this is a woman, childbearing age, can't get pregnant, he will automatically know there's some kind of medical problem happening here.
And they will be able to find it.
Whether they can correct it or not, they can find it there.
Two categories.
That's what we call a binary.
Alright.
The Daily Wire has this report.
A new CNN poll found that more than half of all Americans approve of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's decision to indict former President Donald Trump.
Despite the fact that no one surveyed knew the contents of the still-sealed indictment when they answered questions about it.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper broke down some of the results of the poll, which was taken between March 31st and April 1st.
It showed that an overwhelming majority of Democrats, 94%, were in favor of the indictment.
A majority of Independents also supported it, 62%, followed by just 21% of Republicans.
Overall, nearly two-thirds, 60% of those surveyed, said that they supported the decision to indict Trump.
But as critics quickly pointed out, neither those asking the questions nor those answering it had any idea what specific crimes the former president was actually being charged with.
And yet they answered it anyway.
So 60% overall said they support the indictment.
62% of independents.
You know, I think that 21% of Republicans is the biggest concern for Donald Trump anyway.
Maybe not in the primaries, but in the general election.
And we know that they said they support the indictment without knowing what the indictment is.
And now the indictment's been unsealed.
We still don't know what the indictment is.
We still don't know what the underlying crime is.
Except that it doesn't exist.
We know that.
All that means, obviously, is that 60% who were polled don't like Trump.
That's all.
Like, every poll having to do with Donald Trump Oh, do you support this thing that's happening to Trump?
Or do you support this thing that Trump said or did?
The details don't matter.
Every poll is really just, do you like Trump or not?
Because that's how people are going to interpret it.
And they're going to answer it along those lines.
That's all.
And so it shows the problem that Trump will face in the general election.
I'm struggling to see how it's not an insurmountable problem for him.
That everything is baked in.
Who can be persuaded at this point?
Is there anyone left, of all the potential voters in America, in a general election, is there anyone left who's actually on the fence about Donald Trump?
Now, I totally believe that there are people who could be swayed either way in the primary.
There are tons of people.
I talk to people all the time who are kind of like, I like DeSantis.
I also like some of what Trump did.
I think he should get a second shot.
I don't know.
You know, so they're on the fence about it.
There's also been, because of what's happening to Trump now, there's been this rallying around him.
His numbers are going up, which is very predictable.
That makes a lot of sense in the Republican primary.
But these are all people who, they're going to vote for the Republican anyway, in the general.
In the general election, In that context, who could be persuaded?
In a theoretical general election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, is there anyone right now who's on the fence?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.
I still gotta hear these guys out.
I gotta hear Trump out some more.
I might vote for him, I don't know, but I might vote for Biden.
It doesn't exist.
That's a category that doesn't exist.
It's all baked in.
There's no one left to persuade.
And I don't know how you get over that.
No one has shown me how the math works.
How does Trump, in a general election, how does he win?
What's the path to victory?
I'd be very interested to hear someone explain that, and I haven't seen anyone explain it.
And for me, you know, in the primaries, Ron DeSantis hasn't even jumped in yet, so maybe, I think 90% chance he will, but maybe, you know, maybe he won't.
Assuming he does, and I could talk about the reason I like DeSantis, it's his policies, things that he's done as governor, that for me is why I like him, but really you could put all that to the side, because in the primary, I am a single-issue voter, and I think that we all should be, in the primary, a single-issue voter.
And the single issue that matters in the primary is who can win in the general.
That's it.
That's the only thing that matters.
Because all the rest of it is irrelevant if the person can't actually win the presidency.
Only thing that matters is who can win.
Now, I don't have a crystal ball.
I can't see into the future.
But what I'm saying is that's how we need to think about this.
So when you're weighing the candidates, you're looking at policies, you're looking at personality, you're looking at all those things.
But really, you put that to the side.
Now you're running the math in your head.
You're thinking, most plausible scenario, who's more likely to win in the general?
And that's how we have to make our decisions.
Again from the Daily Y, representatives for the Bud Light brand, owned by Anheuser-Busch, confirmed a brand partnership with trans-identifying activist Dylan Mulvaney after followers speculated the whole thing could be an April Fool's Day prank.
Now if you, by the way, if you were one of those people, we talked a couple days ago about Bud Light sponsoring Dylan Mulvaney, congratulating him on his day 365 of womanhood, no, sorry, girlhood.
Because again, this is a grown adult man who is very specifically pretending to be an underage adolescent girl.
So, congratulating him on day 365 of quote-unquote girlhood.
We talked about that and I saw even in the comments there were people speculating that, well, no, this can't be real.
This is an April Fool's prank.
This came out around April Fool's.
It must be a big prank from Dylan Mulvaney.
I don't... Okay, this is still the kind of coping that we have to put to the side now.
We have to get past this.
Like, if you're still in a position... If you still are... Like, it's hard for you to believe That Bud Light would sponsor Dylan Mulvaney?
That just shows me that you really haven't been paying attention and you need to clue into reality.
There's nothing unbelievable about it at all.
And there's a lot of the same people who still insist that maybe this whole Dylan Mulvaney thing is all one big prank by him.
He's Andy Kaufman, it's a performance artist, it's all one big troll.
I mean, this can't actually be serious.
No, it is serious.
Now, he's not actually a woman, obviously, but he is seriously trying to identify as one.
He wants to be taken seriously as a woman.
It's not a prank.
It's not anything like that.
And yes, we live in a culture where the major brands are going to line up and they're going to fall prostrate to the ground and worship at the feet of somebody like Dylan Mulvaney.
That's where we live.
A spokesperson for the company told Fox News, Anheuser-Busch works with hundreds of influencers across our brands as one of the many ways to authentically connect with audiences across various demographics and passion points.
From time to time, we produce unique commemorative cans for fans and for brand influencers like Dylan Mulvaney.
This commemorative can was a gift to celebrate a personal milestone and it's not for sale to the general public.
So yes, this was a real sponsorship, as we should have always assumed.
Bolvanius partnered with multiple national brands for advertising campaigns on social media, including KitchenAid, KindSnacks, wedding dress brand ASOS, MAC Cosmetics, and others.
This guy has, he really has dozens of corporate sponsorships.
Because again, that's the kind of culture we live in.
We should probably clue into it by now.
And we need to decide, like, when are we as conservatives actually going to make a concerted and real effort to do something about this?
That we complain about it.
We complain about the fact that all these corporate brands are spitting in our face all the time.
And they're, like, going out of their way to alienate their own customer base.
And then some more cope, we say, oh, go woke, go broke.
No.
I wish it was that way, okay?
I wish it was that way.
Where a company goes woke and then they go broke.
That's not how it works, actually.
In fact, they go woke and they continue making billions of dollars.
That's how it works.
Go woke, make billions of dollars.
We have the power, we have the ability to make some of these companies go broke.
We could do that, but we don't.
That's what makes it frustrating.
There is strength in numbers, especially in a marketplace.
It's true that every major corporation is woke.
They all are, right?
And so we can't realistically boycott all of them.
And if we did that, then you wouldn't even be able to watch this show right now because the phone you're using or the laptop you're using to buy it on is made by a woke company.
You bought it from a woke company.
You're using a woke company's, uh, you know, internet service provider.
Um, you know, so, We boycott all of them and we basically can't live in the modern world.
And we also have no way to even organize any kind of boycott like that because all of the mechanisms that we use to organize them are also owned by the woke.
So yeah, we can't boycott all of them.
That's true.
But we can pick some of them.
This is something that we talked about this in the backstage episode on Monday.
The left, they're very good at doing this, where they pick someone, they pick a victim, and they make an example of them.
They pick somebody out, whether it's an individual or a company, that has offended them, has crossed them, and they say, we're going to take you down.
We're going to destroy you.
You have become our personal project.
Not because you're the worst, as far as we're concerned, but just because you're the one we've chosen.
And the left will do that, and they'll stay on it until they tear this victim down.
Now, on the right, we could do the same kind of thing.
The only difference is that we're choosing people and companies that actually deserve it.
And we'd be wielding this power for good.
So yeah, we can't make all the woke companies go broke, not even close to it.
But we could choose one company that does something outrageous to alienate and spit in the faces of their own customer base.
And we could say, okay, we've chosen you, and we're going to bankrupt you.
Because in reality, there are millions and millions of us, and you do need us to buy your product.
And if we don't, you're going to suffer.
Okay, and you've got mass layoffs in your future and all the rest of it.
We could do that, but it takes organization, it takes follow-through, it takes a certain sense of kind of ruthlessness.
Because yeah, if you do that, you take a company down, you affect their bottom line to that extent.
There'll be people that work for the company that aren't evil people, they just have jobs and they're probably going to lose their jobs.
You don't want to see that, it's unfortunate.
But these are necessary casualties.
So we have to have the willingness, we have to have the ruthlessness, we have to have the organization, the attention span, and the follow-through.
And on the right, we have none of that.
Easily distracted, we move from one thing to the next.
And anytime any one of us tries to say, let's focus on this issue, let's focus on this institution, let's focus on this thing right here, and try to make something happen, you're then going to have, you know, 50,000 people who are also on the right come along and say, well, why them?
Yeah, sure, you'll do that, but then these people over here are just as bad, so what's the point of even trying?
We allow ourselves to get distracted by these losers who have no interest in winning, don't know how to win, and we've got to stop doing that.
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
Who makes a Twitter mob fly off the handle with rage?
Who's to blame?
It's the Sweet Baby Gang.
Kanjerisu says, "You missed the part where after the man was accosted, some woman screamed, 'Get him! Kill him!'"
We're at war whether you admit it or not.
Yeah, I actually did miss that.
We played the video on the show on Monday of Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, on Twitter and his activism.
He was at one of these trans rallies wearing a sign, wearing a billboard that said, children can't consent to puberty blockers because they can't.
And he was physically assaulted by a man identifying as a woman.
And yeah, there were people.
It wasn't just the one trans guy.
It was there's people in the crowd.
Of course, we're cheering it on.
Get him!
Kill him!
And they really mean it.
They do.
They actually do want us dead.
Another tough reality that has to sink in at a certain point.
But as far as they're concerned, as you point out, as far as they're concerned, they're at war with us.
Have been for a long time.
Question is, is it going to be one-sided?
Guthrie says, this is actually a great point.
You want reparations for slavery, but if it wasn't for slavery, you wouldn't be here in the first place and you're absolutely better off being here than anywhere remotely near the African continent.
You can guarantee that colonialism or not, Africa would still not be a nice and prosperous place to be.
In fact, just like India, Africa is probably better off for having been touched by Europe in some way.
Yeah, that's, I think it's actually worth, I played, I think it's about two minutes of the clip from Dinesh D'Souza back in, what was it, 2002?
On NPR, I still can't quite get over that fact.
On NPR, 22 years ago, 21 years ago, you could make this kind of point.
Defending, well, no, talking about the benefits of colonialism.
Making arguments against reparations, saying things like, the descendants of slaves are better off being here.
You know, that was Dinesh D'Souza laying that out on NPR only a couple of decades ago.
That was the kind of thing that you could say on NPR.
But it's worth going if you can Google that, you can listen to his entire, you know, his whole statement on this, because it is very interesting.
He makes a really good point.
Michael Brown says, way to bring it on home, Matt, with a fabulous cancellation.
I think social media has played a large role in this phenomenon of good or bad think.
It's like people have become a bunch of zombies who only know how to hit thumbs up or thumbs down.
People seem to have fallen under the spell of false dichotomy that will now not allow their brain to have a thought that is original or nuanced.
The perpetual insistence of scrolling through bumper sticker slogans and the erosion of the English language are all contributing factors in this way of thinking.
I love listening.
Keep up the great work that you do.
This episode is definitely going on my greatest hits list.
Yeah, it's the inability.
It's not so much because it is interesting that, you know, it's partly it seems like there's this black and white thinking that people do.
But it's not it's not so much that.
Because a lot of these same people, they won't recognize good and evil in the world.
In any other context, they're going to be talking about, they want to make everything a gray area.
Well, it's impossible to say what's good and what's bad.
So it's really, it's, the problem, as I said on Monday, is that there's one thought, there's one assigned, it's not even a position, it's just one thought, one statement, That's supposed to apply to every issue.
And sometimes the one assigned thought or statement is correct.
So when it comes to slavery, the one assigned thought that we've all been given that we're all supposed to think and say is slavery is bad.
And that's correct.
It is bad.
But the problem is that you're not allowed to go beyond that.
That's the only thing you're allowed to say about it.
And if you say anything else about it, then you have begun excusing it.
Which, on top of leading to ridiculous policies like reparations, it also just contributes to making us dumber.
So this situation comes about Because we have become dumber as a culture, and then it also feeds that.
It makes us all the more dumb.
Because we're not allowed to have interesting conversations.
You know, given the fact that slavery was a universal institution across the entire world for thousands of years, there's like a lot that should be said about it.
It's one of the critical facts of human history.
And so there's interesting conversations we could have about, I mean, why was that?
How is it that for thousands of years, almost everyone in the world was basically okay with slavery?
Now, they might not have all owned slaves, but that would have been determined by socioeconomic status.
For thousands of years, there really wasn't anything like an abolition movement anywhere.
It was an accepted institution.
And now, today, we look at slavery and we automatically recognize, well, of course that's wrong.
We recognize it as one of them.
It's self-evidently wrong to us.
And yet, for thousands of years, that was not evident to almost anyone on the planet.
And that included some of the most brilliant minds in human history.
So it's not nearly as simple.
I think for a lot of people on the left, they would want to say, well, it's because everyone who lived prior to, everyone who was born before the 60s, the 1960s basically, was a backwards, drooling, primitive bigot.
And they were all a bunch of morons.
That's not the case at all.
I mean, some of the most brilliant, these people were in many cases, again, our IQ scores are declining right now.
So if anything, evidence suggests that they're a lot smarter than us.
And yet they couldn't see what to us is self-evident.
It's a very interesting fact.
And I don't have the exact answer for it, but it's something we should probably talk about.
But we can't, because the only thing we're allowed to say is, it's bad.
It could be argued with no great effort that the main reason we are where we are as a society is because we are spiritually bankrupt.
When you have no relationship with God, you live a life in chaos.
But as Ben Shapiro points out in episode 13 of Exodus with Jordan Peterson, it's not just a one-way street.
God wants to have a relationship with us as well.
Check out the trailer.
The romantic and tremendous yearning that God has to be among his people is so clear from this language, right?
He specifically says, it's not just, I brought you out into the wilderness to serve me, which is the language of a king to his subject.
It's, I brought you out here to live with you, to dwell among you.
And it's repeated twice in this section, right?
I brought you out specifically so that I can dwell among you.
He wants the closeness with us.
He wants the romance with us.
And that's why it's such a tremendous sin against him when the people end up essentially In this episode of Exodus, Ben sits with Jordan and a roundtable group of esteemed scholars, theologians, and artists to discuss one of those most seminal books in the Bible.
New episodes are coming online every week, and they're all great exclusively for Daily Wire Plus members, but you have to join now at dailywire.com, so subscribe to watch Exodus.
Do it now.
Let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation, we must once again cancel the country of Canada.
Now, it may seem a bit excessive.
I acknowledge that every time someone in Canada does something that annoys me, I respond by just cancelling the whole nation.
In most other cases, I will simply cancel the individual offender, but Canada gets treated differently.
They're on a very short leash with me.
Ever since they re-elected Justin Trudeau again, I realized that I have to adopt a zero-tolerance policy with the entire country.
Now, if one Canadian does something cancellable, they all get cancelled.
But this is only fair, considering that Canadians in general have allowed their country to slide irrevocably into full-on left-wing Brave New World tyranny, and they've especially surrendered themselves to the LGBT alphabet mafia.
A similar process is underway in the United States, of course, but in Canada the process is complete.
Appeasement and worship of the LGBT cult is the country's number one national priority.
Which brings us to this story from Global News.
Quote, "Ontario's NDP urged the government Tuesday to create community safety zones that
would protect drag artists and LGBTQ communities from harassment and intimidation at their
performances. Drag performances have been targeted by organized protests across the United States,
but also here at home," said Kristen Wong-Tam, who is putting forward a private member bill
to designate 100-meter zones around show venues.
Wong-Tam, the NDP's critic on two SLGPTQ issues and who uses they-them pronouns, said their bill is designed to keep the community safe.
The bill would also allow the Attorney General to temporarily designate Addresses such as where a show is taking place, as community safety zones, and anti-LGBTQ harassment, intimidation, and hate speech within 100 meters will be subject to a $25,000 fine.
Yes, of course, Kristen Wong Tam is non-binary, identifies as they them.
You know, eventually every politician in both Canada and the United States will be non-binary because it's the easiest identity to tack on to your resume and give you, you know, political clout.
without having to make any changes or do anything in particular to play the part.
Non-binary is such an utterly meaningless label that the people who claim it can't tell you what they mean by it, can't explain how or why they decided that they have this identity, and cannot speak about it coherently for even five seconds at a time.
Kristen Wong Tam is, I looked it up, 52 years old.
Now, I don't know when exactly she discovered her inner non-binary identity, but I can already assume with absolute confidence that it was very recently.
She lived her entire adult life in the binary until one day, as a middle-aged woman, she decided that she's actually some sort of mysterious human entity who, in ways she cannot possibly explain, actually exists outside of the male-female binary that has defined all people who've ever lived since the dawn of humanity.
But she, just like every other non-binary quote-unquote person, made this startling discovery about herself like 10 seconds ago.
A whole bunch of leftists, all at once, just recently, at the same time, found out that they were non-binary.
None of them were saying this about themselves 10 years ago.
For most of them, not even 5 years ago.
Just now, right now, they've made this determination.
So it's almost like this is a fad, you know, a social contagion and not an actual legitimate category of being.
Almost.
Anyway, here's Kristen Thethem announcing her plan.
Listen.
This new legislation on Ontario is designed to keep the 2SLGBT community safe.
Drag artists, their audiences, the business and the facilities that host those drag performances have been put at risk.
And unless we put forward a strategy to protect them, Ontario's social, economic and cultural richness is under attack.
We have to protect that.
The proposed legislation does two things and I will go through them.
Firstly, it enables the Attorney General to create a 2SLGBTQI plus community safety zone to prohibit, within 100 metres of the property, any homophobic, transphobic act of intimidation, threat, offensive threats, offensive remarks, protest, disturbance and distribution of hate propaganda within the meaning of the criminal code.
It also comes with a penalty of $25,000 if prosecuted successfully.
Secondly, the Act creates an Ontario 2SLGBTQI plus Safety Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to the provincial government on how to improve safety for our community and to prevent further hate.
Just a quick note here.
None of that is true.
None of that is close to true.
There isn't any rising tide of hate crimes against LGBT people, especially not in Canada of all places.
That's like saying there's a rising tide of fat phobia at Cracker Barrel.
It doesn't make any sense.
But I do believe that there has certainly been dramatic increases in LGBT people reporting that they are victims of hate crimes.
But the increase in reporting is due almost entirely to two things.
Number one, a lot of them just fabricate hate crimes out of thin air, lie about it, as we've seen time and time again.
Number two, the category of hate crime is increasingly being expanded so that an LGBT person can claim to be a hate crime victim the moment they encounter any statement or opinion they don't like.
And this point is proven in that very same clip when Kristen TheyThem tries to prove that hate crimes are a major problem by launching into a list of cities where protests against drag queen groomer events have taken place.
So this is what she means by hate crime.
Any action or statement taken by, you know, by anyone to oppose or protest anything that any LGBT person is doing is a hate crime.
And this includes, I mean especially includes, anyone who protests the sexualization of children by gay men in dresses.
Let's continue.
Firstly, it enables the Attorney General to create a 2SLGBTQI plus community safety zone to prohibit, within 100 meters of the property, any homophobic, transphobic act of intimidation, threat, offensive threats, offensive remarks, protest, disturbance, and distribution of hate propaganda within the meaning of the criminal code.
It also comes with a penalty of $25,000 if prosecuted successfully.
Now, I can help you with that.
If you want to prevent further hate, what you could do is leave the kids alone.
Just leave them alone.
That's all you have to do.
But you refuse to do it.
You refuse to stop.
You are addicted to sexualizing children, and you can't stop.
Because almost all of the, quote, hate that you're experiencing, the hate that you're not just making up anyway, is hatred directed at your actions, your behavior, okay?
That's what we hate.
Yes, we are, if you are a leftist LGBT activist, or you are someone like Kristen Day then, and you have picked up that there is hatred being directed at you, you're right, there is.
But the hatred is directed at what you are doing.
People hate what you are doing.
Specifically, in this case, they hate that you are bringing kids into gay clubs so that grown adult men can perform burlesque routines for them.
We hate that.
Absolutely.
This is the kind of hatred that Kristen DeThem is trying to protect her, quote, community from.
Later, speaking of that community, later in the press conference, she brought one of these poor oppressed groomers on stage to tell his story.
These threats and intimidation tactics are very real and happening all around us to people we love and care about.
Even in recent weeks, I myself have been victim to hate crimes and hate speech.
I'm a professional drag queen who loves what I do more than anything in the entire world.
Drag is all about spreading love and acceptance and allows people to feel empowered and special.
First of all, why are they always dressed like the evil stepmother from a Disney film, if the film was directed by Tim Burton?
This is their idea of womanhood, obviously.
And you also, we can't skip over the fact that they have made drag queen into a protected category.
So drag queens can be victims of hate crimes now.
Um, which, which includes like saying something that I like.
So if you say something to a drag queen, you are, you are, uh, you know, committing a hate crime against a protected group, which is, I mean, it's literally the same thing as making actors into protected groups.
Where if you, if you do something an actor doesn't like, or even if you beat up an actor, well now you're not only charged with assault, but you're charged with a hate crime because, because they are an actor.
That's what the drag queen is.
And they don't deny that.
They are acting.
They're playing the part of a woman.
Which, in and of itself, becomes a protected group.
He did say something important there.
He said that drag is all about making the drag artist feel special.
And I don't doubt that for a moment.
Of course, it's primarily about giving gay crossdressers an opportunity to act out their sexual fetishes.
And some of them, as we've seen, are particularly excited about acting out those fetishes in front of children.
But it's also about feeling special.
That's the centerpiece of the LGBT agenda.
It is to protect their right to feel special.
I mean, as I explained during my talk last night, we live in the age of the psychological man, which means that people define themselves entirely by their desires and their feelings and their self-perceptions.
The self is an amalgamation of an individual's desires, feelings, urges, perceptions, and so on.
All that matters is how the individual feels.
And the most important human right is the right to feel good, to feel special.
Drag queens feel special when they parade around looking like cross-dressing Edward Scissorhands, and so they have the right to do that.
It is their most important right.
And they say they have the right to do it in front of children, because it makes them feel special.
By this way of thinking, nobody else has the right to do or say anything that would make the drag queen feel bad about this behavior.
Which is why they intend to throw free speech entirely out the window and criminalize protests against these drag queen groomer events.
That, of course, is the point of making a safety zone.
The zone doesn't protect them physically because they were never in any physical danger.
Instead, it protects their feelings.
And their feelings are all that matter to them.
And, they think, all that should matter to us.
This is what the LGBT cult believes.
And increasingly, countries are writing laws on the basis of this belief.
Canada is not the only offender, but it is one of the worst.
And that is why it is today, once again, canceled.
