Ep. 1213 - Trump's Mugshot Backfires Massively On The Left
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it's a picture that will live in infamy. Donald Trump's mugshot was released as he was officially arrested on bogus charges after another bogus indictment. An indictment filed by a DA who has her own history of questioning the legitimacy of elections. I'll explain. Also, the media and trans activists yet again baselessly blame me for violence. This is perhaps their most outrageous smear yet. And in our Daily Cancellation, we were told we had to use paper straws to save the environment. Now it turns out that the paper straws have toxic chemicals that are a whole lot worse for the environment, and for us. The experts were wrong again.
Ep.1213
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get Your Jeremy’s Hand Soap here: https://bit.ly/3q2CCIg
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www/.ZipRecruiter.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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, it's a picture that will live in infamy.
Donald Trump's mugshot was released as he was officially arrested on bogus charges after another bogus indictment, an indictment filed by a DA who has her own history of questioning the legitimacy of elections.
I'll explain.
Also, the media and trans activists yet again baselessly blame me for violence.
This is perhaps their most outrageous smear yet.
We'll talk about that.
And in our daily cancellation, we were told we had to use paper straws to save the environment.
Now it turns out that the paper straws have toxic chemicals that are a whole lot worse for the environment and for us.
The experts were wrong again.
Again, we'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Before giving our dog rough greens, he was so sad and lazy.
And now he actually enjoys his squeaky toys and playing fetch with his Frisbee.
Our pup's days are filled with laughter, exercise, and endless fun.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Little did I know before I got Rough Greens, dog food is dead food.
Everybody knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens Boost your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
A free Jumpstart Trial Bag can be at your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens dot com slash matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Last night, for the first time in American history, we all collectively laid our eyes on a mugshot of a former president.
Donald Trump was officially arrested at Fulton County Jail in Georgia.
Unlike with the other 900 indictments, this time they decided to take and publish his mugshot.
Now, there was, of course, no legitimate reason to take a mugshot of a former president.
The whole purpose of a mugshot is to provide law enforcement with photographic documentation of the suspect.
So that they know what he looks like.
And it makes sense that police, you know, the jail needs to know that.
But Donald Trump happens to be the most recognizable and famous person in the world, possibly in the history of the world, arguably.
When he shows up for trial, they aren't going to have to refer back to his mugshot to make sure it's really him.
There isn't going to be anyone saying, wait, is that Donald Trump?
It's hard to tell.
Pull up his mugshot.
So why did they take this step?
What was the point?
The point, of course, was pure humiliation and vengeance.
It was also to give the DA, Fannie Willis, a political trophy to put on her wall.
It's something that she wants to use when she inevitably runs for Senate or Governor in a few years, which of course we all know she's going to do, and that's a big part of the reason why all this is happening right now.
Of course, it all backfired, as it was always destined to.
The mugshot instantly became an iconic image, and in all the ways that the left doesn't want it to be an iconic image, and it had exactly the effect that any half-conscious political observer knew it would have, which is rallying the base around Trump.
Trump is now fundraising off of the image, and smartly so, and will likely raise many millions of dollars just from the mugshot alone.
He already has raised millions.
In fact, we can say that if Donald Trump does manage to get elected to the presidency again, Fannie Willis will be largely responsible for it.
She is the most effective campaign manager Trump has ever had, even if unintentionally.
But even if this all obviously works to Trump's advantage, that doesn't make it any less outrageous or infuriating.
Nor should we be distracted from the lessons that this moment is trying to teach us.
The most obvious one is that the left is, they are beyond caring about even the pretense of legitimacy, something they used to pretend to care deeply about.
In fact, through this whole ordeal, they're not even acting like they've stopped some grave threat to democracy because they know they've done the exact opposite of that.
They are just wielding raw political power for the sole lawless purpose of incarcerating someone who stands a very real chance of winning the presidential election in a little over a year.
And that's all this is.
And they're not even pretending otherwise now.
In fact, many on the left don't want Trump incarcerated.
They want him killed.
They want him dead.
This happened last night.
Watch.
Just a few minutes ago, Donald Trump, the disgraced ex-president, the frontrunner for the Republican nominee for president, four times indicted, departed his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
He's on route to Fulton County, Georgia via Newark Airport, we believe.
He will surrender himself for processing at an overcrowded jail with a reputation for violence and neglect, a jail that is accustomed to holding defendants facing charges up to and including violent crimes where stabbings are frequent.
Actually, three people have lost their lives over the last month.
That jail is where the disgraced ex-president of these United States is heading right now.
She can't contain her glee.
She really can't.
She's so excited.
She's openly laughing about people getting shanked in jail as she fantasizes about maybe that will happen to the former president.
We've played a lot of demented clips on this show over the years.
That one is way up there.
Not long ago, Nicole Wallace was running comms for the White House during the Iraq War, and back then she had to pretend to care about the deaths of innocent people at the hands of establishment Washington.
Until that happens, these people will do everything they can to silence Donald Trump.
MSNBC and CNN, after obsessively covering Trump's trip to Georgia all day, made a point of cutting away from his remarks when he was leaving yesterday.
Watch.
Regular people's lives are destroyed just by the charge.
Just by the charge.
It's just a mere fact—oh, here we go.
[indistinct radio chatter]
So we're just going to be monitoring his remarks.
I'm just saying, you can begin to understand how some people, they don't have a lot of exposure to the system.
Other people, because of the code they live in and the circumstances of life, they're exposed to it a lot.
Those lights that are there, which is not the sort of thing that you usually see on an airport tarmac.
We did think that this is a possibility tonight.
We didn't know for sure that it was going to happen, but it looks like Trump may decide to make public remarks before he gets back on his big private plane and flies back to New Jersey.
If he does that, we're not going to take those remarks live, but we will cover them for their newsworthiness.
As we've said in the past, there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting Untrue things and given his previous remarks on the subject that we are almost sure he will speak on We will not carry those remarks live and you can be mad at us about it.
We can take it for big But we'll cover it for newsworthiness.
We'll turn it around and let you know what he says after he has made those remarks You know, later on they say in that clip that they'll get sued if they air the remarks of the former president after his indictment.
And if that was, in fact, remotely accurate, then any self-respecting journalist would air the remarks anyway.
They'd fight any consequence for it in court.
If the First Amendment protects anything, it's airing the words of a former president at a time like this.
But MSNBC's statement isn't true, of course.
It's a dumb jab at Fox News over the Dominion lawsuit.
And it protects their viewers from hearing about the substance in these indictments, or lack thereof.
And that's why they do it.
Here's what they're not telling viewers at MSNBC.
Speaking of newsworthy things.
The Fulton County DA, Fannie Willis, has indicted Donald Trump, along with 18 co-defendants, for the following crimes.
Offering legal advice to the President.
Tweeting things that Fannie Willis doesn't like.
And in one particularly egregious case, getting someone's phone number.
Quoting from the indictment, quote, On or about the 21st day of November 2020, Mark Randall Meadows sent a text message to United States Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania and stated, Can you send me the number for the Speaker and Leader of PA Legislature?
POTUS wants to chat with them.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Now think about what a remarkable paragraph that is.
Mark Meadows, in his capacity as Chief of Staff to Donald Trump, was seeking to obtain the phone number of some politicians in Pennsylvania.
He asked for a phone number.
And because the reason for that request was investigating potential voter fraud, Fannie Willis says Mark Meadows needs to go to prison.
They're going to send him to prison for asking for a phone number.
Along with more than a dozen other Trump advisors.
One of those advisors is John Eastman.
What's his offense?
Well, he advanced the legal theory that alternative slates of electors could be seated if election fraud was found.
And that's apparently criminal now.
Which is interesting because it wasn't illegal in 1960 when JFK's electors from Hawaii met secretly and submitted their own certificates to Washington saying that he had won the state.
As Politico reported, quote, the Hawaii Democrats use virtually the same language that Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race, quote unquote.
Ultimately, Kennedy's electors turned out to be the legitimate ones after a recall determined Kennedy had won the state.
Now, anyone looking at that episode of 1960 would say it's a good thing that alternative electors can be sent to Washington in the case of a recount that actually changes the result of the election.
But now, that's criminal, apparently.
It's a RICO violation, supposedly.
John Eastman and several other lawyers are now facing several years in prison because they did exactly what JFK's electors did and were vindicated for doing in 1960.
David Schaffer, who is one of Trump's alternate electors from Georgia, has also been indicted.
Ray Smith is facing jail time, too.
And what was his offense?
Well, per Axios, quote, he, quote, gathered witnesses to testify in hearings before Georgia lawmakers in December 2020 about alleged problems with the state's election.
That's not allowed anymore.
I mean, they're just, like, looking into it to see if something happened.
They're trying to investigate.
And that's a crime somehow.
Also a crime is apparently tweeting about hearings while they're happening.
Quoting from the indictment, quote, on or about the third day of December 2020, Donald John Trump caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account, at real Donald Trump, quote, Georgia hearings now on OANN.
Amazing.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
So for the crime of tweeting about a hearing about election fraud and related offenses, Fannie Willis wants to send Trump and 18 of his associates to prison.
For tweeting and just saying that, hey, this hearing's on right now.
It's amazing.
That's a crime.
That's a felony.
And not only does she want to send him to prison, she wants to do it very quickly.
Willis just filed a request with the court for this trial to take place in just two months, beginning on October 23rd.
So for this unprecedented criminal trial of 19 defendants, including a former president, based on a completely novel and insane legal theory, she wants the defense to have a total of two months to prepare.
Is that constitutional?
Well, no one in the DA's office seems to care.
And it's at this point that it's fair to look into the Fulton County DA, Fannie Willis, and see what she's all about.
Because it's long been known that she's a Democrat and she's an opponent of Donald Trump.
And in itself, that's not necessarily disqualifying.
Everyone, even DAs, have a right to their own political opinions.
But Fannie Willis has gone far beyond that.
Just a year ago, she hosted a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate running against one of the targets of her election investigation was a state senator named Bert Jones.
Jones was one of Trump's alternate electors.
And here's how the judge responded when he found out about this fundraiser.
Watch.
Using the title of your office, I don't know that it's an actual conflict, but I use that phrase, what were you thinking, where the prosecutor thought I could prosecute the co-defendant of someone I defended.
It's a what are you thinking moment.
The optics are horrific.
If you are trying to have the public believe that this is a non-partisan, driven by the facts, and I'm not here to critique decisions, the decision was made, but if we are trying to maintain confidence that this investigation is pursuing facts in a non-partisan sense, no matter who the district attorney is, we follow the evidence where it goes, and ignore the fact that I hosted a fundraiser for the political opponent of someone I've just named a target.
So this is a judge that's not exactly using an iron fist here.
Well, you know, it's probably not appropriate.
I don't know, you're investigating someone and you go to a fundraiser, you host a fundraiser for the political opponent of a person that you're actively investigating.
I'm not saying it's a conflict, but geez, you know, maybe you don't want to do that next time.
So the judge is a coward, but the point is that this is a DA who has to be told by a judge not to host fundraisers for the political opponents of politicians she plans to prosecute.
She's that dumb and corrupt.
By the way, Jones ultimately was not indicted along with the other 19 defendants, probably because Fannie Willis knew the judge would throw it out.
She blew that prosecution.
But if you look at Fannie Willis' social media feeds, as Benny Johnson, conservative commentator, did the other day, then you'll come to the conclusion that actually she's blown all 19 of these prosecutions.
Willis's feed is littered with posts casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election before the vote total suddenly shifted against Trump.
Quote, Georgia could determine who is our next president, she wrote on November 4th, 2020.
A team of lawyers needs to watch them count every single vote.
They can start in Fulton where we are having water leaks.
What ballots are they throwing out?
Georgia, let's give an honest accounting, no stunts.
Again, this is the DA now prosecuting Trump for questioning the legitimacy of the election in Georgia.
And she was questioning its legitimacy.
In 2018, Willis said that it was suspicious that local election commissioners hadn't approved a recount of some votes in Fulton County, quote, you all better start paying attention to what's really going on.
She also argued that the Secretary of State, quote, controls elections, adding, quote, I wonder if we yet realize that is an important role.
She also posted a lot of BLM propaganda.
Of course, she worships Kamala Harris.
She owns a mug saying she's a proud Democrat.
So, we can conclude that Fannie Willis is something of a politically motivated election denier.
As always, the left is guilty of doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing.
The obvious point is that Donald Trump's social media posts, if they're criminal, then so are Fannie Willis' social media posts.
If he can go to jail for tweeting stuff, questioning elections, then she should be in jail right beside him.
Her prosecution of Donald Trump based on her posts is an overt act in furtherance of her conspiracy to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.
Now, will Republicans indict Fannie Willis?
If Republicans retake the federal government, will they jail her for election interference?
Well, you ask any conservative right now and they'll tell you that that'll never happen.
And they're probably right.
We're seeing a vast difference in tactics right now, let's say, between the two major political parties.
Conservatives would never dream of doing any of this.
They would never dream of dragging, say, George Soros into court on some pretext, you know, for the sole purpose of harassing him.
Liberals, on the other hand, have no problem suing Elon Musk for not hiring enough refugees.
They relish every opportunity to use state power to punish their opponents.
Republicans, on the other hand, don't have the backbone for it.
They don't have the backbone to play this kind of game, to fight fire with fire.
They never have.
They're not doing it now.
And that just means that with each passing month, the left is getting more comfortable.
They're getting more comfortable being the only ones who are fighting this way.
First, they target grandmothers walking around the Capitol, then they jail Douglas Mackey for some memes.
Then they go after Donald Trump for his tweets and his quote-unquote classified documents.
And now in Georgia, they're targeting not only Donald Trump, but more than a dozen of his advisors and associates.
This will continue until Trump and all of his associates are in jail or all their opponents are.
After this latest indictment, it's time to stop pretending otherwise.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
They've made abortion their official sacrament.
The pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
You heard that right.
Despite the narrative, pro-lifers didn't go away.
They have increased in number.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one is in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion in each state in a post-Roe America.
40 Days for Life is changing hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
They've had a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they grew in both volunteers and locations.
With about a million volunteers in 1,500 cities, they hold peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
You can help them fight the ongoing legal battles by protecting free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
I'm going to start with this.
A few days ago, a California shop owner named Laura Ann Carlton was shot and killed, allegedly by a man named Travis Ikugichi, who was allegedly upset about a pride flag that she had hanging outside of her business.
We're told that they got into an altercation over the pride flag, at which point the assailant shot and killed the woman.
That's the official story.
There's a lot we still don't know about this case.
Oddly, it took police a long time to release the assailant's name and information.
And he's dead.
He was killed by police when they tracked him down after the shooting.
They say that he shot at them first.
This is the story.
Much of the story still, you know, much of what happened still isn't known or confirmed.
And frankly, when it comes to a situation like this, you can't immediately believe Really anything you're told.
That's just the situation that we're in now with the relentless avalanche of propaganda and fake news.
But we do know at least that a woman was killed, which of course is a very sad thing.
And It's sad at least to those of us with souls, which unfortunately does not include the media and many leftist activists who could hardly contain their excitement over this tragedy.
I mean, they are happy about it.
They couldn't be more thrilled.
Which is why they immediately turned around and used it as a political cudgel, used the dead body of this woman as a sledgehammer to beat their ideological opponents, as they always do.
And they did this shamelessly, without even the pretense of actually caring about the woman or her family.
Trans activists, of course, blamed me, they blamed libs of TikTok, and a few others, but mostly us.
I started appearing in headlines alongside the shooter, even though I never knew the guy existed or had anything to do with him, obviously.
Supposedly, this guy had retweeted me once a while ago, or something like that, and this was worthy of headlines.
Now, I've been retweeted millions of times.
Apparently, if any of those many millions of people then proceed to commit a crime, it's my fault.
There were many posts and articles smearing me along these lines, linking me to the shooting in truly insane and completely defamatory ways, but I want to give just one example, okay?
It's one example.
This is from NBC News, and the headline is, Killing Over Pride Flag Follows Far-Right's Years of Criticism of the LGBT Symbol.
That's the headline.
And it's written by a guy named Matt Levitz.
And we'll have more on him in a second, some more details about him.
But here's the article.
I want to read from the article.
Rainbow pride flags have become as common on storefronts in some metropolitan areas as help-wanted signs as LGBTQ people increasingly gain visibility and acceptance in American society.
The prevalence of the decades-old symbol of unity and equality is arguably part of the reasons Friday's fatal shooting of a California business owner, allegedly for displaying a pride flag at her shop, was met with overwhelming shock, as well as an outpouring of grief from LGBTQ advocates, politicians, and celebrities from across the country.
So you notice quite a bit of equivocation, by the way.
Arguably, part of the reason, allegedly.
So the whole premise here, he admits, is arguable, alleged, only part.
That doesn't stop him with going on for the rest, of course.
And he says, but in parallel to the pride flags having become commonplace, the symbol which was introduced at the 1978 Gay Freedom Day march in San Francisco has increasingly been smeared by conservative media and right-wing online personalities.
The far right has repeatedly linked the flag to the decades-old trope that links gay and transgender people to child abusers who want to groom or sexualize children, a trope that has recently had a resurgence.
Quote, the pride flag does not deserve our respect or deference, right-wing provocateur Matt Walsh declared in March to his 2.4 million followers on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Nearly all the most depraved attacks on children, tradition, and common sense in modern society happens under the hideous banner of the pride flag.
A day later, Walsh dedicated an over-hour-long episode of his podcast, The Matt Walsh Show, which is produced by the media company The Daily Wire, to the Pride Flag.
The episode was titled, The Pride Flag Deserves Our Disrespect.
Chaya Rajchik, who runs the far-right ex-account Libs of TikTok, has repeatedly prompted conversations among her nearly 2.5 million followers that appear to take aim at the Pride Flag.
She wrote on X in June, quote, Imagine walking into your kid's elementary school and this is what greets you.
And wrote that along with an image of what appears to be teachers wearing rainbow pride clothing and a person dressed in drag.
What do you do?
Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender advocate and clinical instructor at Harvard Law School's Cyber Law Clinic, who has researched hate speech against the LGBTQ community, said Friday's killing of Laura Ann Carlton in Cedar Glen, California, didn't surprise her in light of the online rhetoric from far-right figures.
Put air quotes around her.
I'm just reading from the article.
This is what it says.
Quote, they have blood on their hands for inciting violence against the community.
She said, specifically referring to Walsh and Reichick, there's always a place for reasonable disagreement and criticism of any community, but this goes far beyond that and has long exceeded any kind of reasonable criticism into explicit hate speech.
Yes, I'd like for Caraballo to explain.
What do you think are the reasonable criticisms?
Have you ever heard a criticism of trans ideology that you find reasonable?
Of course you haven't.
What's the reasonable?
If we wanted to follow your rules, which of course I couldn't care less about your rules at all, but let's say that someone did want to, for the sake of argument, want to follow your rules of what would be considered a reasonable criticism Of the trans ideology, trans activists, the trans movement.
What would that reasonable criticism be?
Well, what do you consider to be the re- well, you just acknowledged, of course, there are some reasonable criticisms you can make.
What would those be?
Tell me.
Well, of course, you can't explain that because literally any criticism of you is genocidal hatred.
That's what you actually believe or pretend to believe.
Continuing, it says, Walsh and Fox News didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Travis Ikuguchi, the 27, the man who police say shot and killed Carlton, appears to have a years-long history of posting disturbing and often violent anti-LGBTQ messages on social media.
Accounts on X and Gab that appear to have belonged to Ikuguchi, who was killed in a shootout with law enforcement, shared dozens of posts criticizing the LGBTQ community.
And then we hear more from Caraballo, and so that's the article.
Okay.
So, there are a few points to make here.
First, you'll notice the line saying that I didn't respond to a request for comment, and that's true.
And it's because the author, Matt Levitz, L-A-V-I-E-T-E-S, however you pronounce that, DMed me, asking for comment on the hit piece he was writing.
He asked for comment at 4.45pm on August 23rd.
The article was published at 6.50pm on August 23rd.
So he was planning and writing this article for at least a day, probably longer, and yet he waited until two hours before it went live to ask for comment, under the assumption that I wouldn't see it in time because I get a lot of DMs and I don't check them every two hours.
This is the kind of game that gutless smear merchants play.
And the funny thing is that this is actually the second time that this particular guy has done exactly this to me.
Last year he wrote a hit piece about me, kind of along the same lines.
And he messaged me asking for comment in that case after it had been published.
So he published it and then said, would you like to comment on the thing I already published?
And I called him out for it publicly at the time, so this time he at least pretended to give me a chance to respond, but he did it again in a way where he knew that probably I wouldn't respond because I wouldn't have time, I wouldn't see it in time.
Second, I'm talking about this story because I want you to see the tactics that these soulless ghouls use.
But of course, I'm not going to dignify this garbage by actually giving some kind of lengthy explanation about why I have nothing to do with a local crime story in California involving two people that I've never met.
Everyone knows that I've never encouraged violence.
I've obviously never told anyone to go kill people over pride flags, if that is actually what happened in this case.
It also goes without saying that NBC News and corporate media and trans activists like Alejandra Carballo, who is, by the way, one of the most vile, loathsome, deceitful trans activists in the country, and that is really, really saying something.
It goes without saying that they absolutely do not hold themselves to this same standard.
Where is the article from Matt Levaites talking about the heated rhetoric that led to the execution of Christian children by a trans person in Nashville?
Did we ever pore through her social media to see who she liked and retweeted?
Of course not.
Her social media was all deleted immediately.
And nobody in corporate media questioned it because they didn't want to know.
This guy's Twitter account, I mean, last I checked, it was a couple of days later, it was still up and active.
Funny thing is that someone on the left does something like this, the social media is gone.
It is gone immediately before anyone even hears the name.
You know, in fact, there is violence carried out by left-wing activists, Antifa, BLM, trans people all the time, and there was never any attempt to link any of this violence to the insane, deranged rhetoric of LGBT activists.
And again, this kind of violence happens all the time.
It happens in cases that you never hear about.
Like, it's just pulling one at random.
Did you happen to hear about the trans-identified male a few years ago who walked into a 7-Eleven and randomly brutalized two innocent people with an axe because he was angry that a Tinder date rejected him when they found out he was really a man?
You hear about that one?
It's on video.
There's video of it.
Walks into a drugstore with an axe, into a 7-Eleven with an axe, and starts brutalizing two people.
Did you hear about it?
Probably not.
Now, my question is, what trans activist did that guy follow on Twitter?
Who did he retweet?
Was he encouraged to lash out violently because he believed what he was told by trans activists like Alejandro Caraballo, which is that he has the right to be seen as a woman by everyone and anyone who doesn't affirm him has violently attacked him?
Did that thought process contribute to this attack or any of the others that we could name?
See, the difference here is that Trans activists really do say things that directly encourage violence.
They say things that they know will encourage violence.
They say that they're the victims of a completely fictional genocide that they have made up in their heads.
They say that anyone who doesn't affirm them is directly killing them.
If you do not affirm them immediately, you are killing them.
They say this all the time.
So they say things that would, if they were true, actually justify violence.
Because if it was true that by me saying, men aren't women, I am, with that very phrase, somehow magically enacting a genocide against trans people, then I guess the victims of that genocide have a right to self-defense.
If the words themselves can kill them, then I guess they should kill me to stop me from talking.
Like, that's the logical conclusion.
If you buy the premise, Now, trans activists say this garbage knowing that there are people out there crazy enough to take it to heart.
They really are trying to provoke violence, and they do provoke it successfully.
As you know, this is the reason I have 24-hour security at my house.
They very openly want me to die.
And if it were to ever happen, Alejandro Carballo and all the rest of them, they will be dancing in the street.
And by the way, that's not something I lament.
I take great pride in that.
I take great pride in the fact that whenever I leave this mortal coil, that people like that disgusting person will celebrate.
The fact that they will celebrate my death, I consider that's a good indication that it's a life well led.
Now, I, on the other hand, have never said that people who fly pride flags are carrying out a genocide, or that by flying a pride flag that you are directly killing people simply by flying it.
So, what have I said?
Well, what I've said is that the LGBT movement, which that flag represents, is a far-left ideological movement which stands for many horrid, terrible, evil things.
It stands for the sexual grooming of children at drag shows and at school.
It stands for the mutilation and castration of children and adults.
It stands for the rejection of basic reality and a war on the family and common sense and sanity.
I have said all of that.
And I still say it.
Because it's true.
If you have a problem with this fact being pointed out, don't blame the people pointing it out.
Blame the people who have made it a fact.
Okay, blame the people who bring kids to drag shows.
Blame the people who castrate and mutilate children.
Blame the people running around claiming that biology isn't real.
Blame the ones that say that the nuclear family is a patriarchal construct that should be destroyed.
Okay, the people going around doing and saying those things under the banner of the pride flag, if you're worried about the pride flag having a bad reputation, talk to those people.
They're the ones who have created this association between the rainbow flag and this extremism.
I didn't create the association.
I don't want the association to be there.
I wish none of this stuff was happening.
I very much wish it wasn't happening.
I mean, jeez, I wish we could still associate the rainbow with God's promise in the Old Testament.
That's the association I wish there was still.
I wish when we saw the rainbow flag flying, that's what it meant.
If it were up to me, that'd be the case, but that's not the case.
I don't make these decisions.
I don't create the association.
I just notice it.
And I don't apologize for noticing.
And what I want is for LGBT activists to know that your smear campaigns have never stopped me from saying what we all know is true.
From noticing what is true and saying it.
It has never stopped me.
It's not going to stop me now.
It just won't.
I don't back down one bit.
I don't apologize for any of it.
I don't apologize for saying what is true.
And I never will.
All right.
So that's the first headline.
Let's go to the second one.
Very much related, in fact.
A federal court in Maryland ruled on Thursday that parents don't have the right to Reading out from Daily Wire, by the way.
A federal court in Maryland ruled Thursday that parents don't have the right to opt their children out of a curriculum that includes books about radical gender theory.
Biden-appointed judge Deborah L. Boardman said that parents, quote, "...asserted due process right to direct their children's upbringing by opting out of a public school curriculum that conflicts with their religious views is not a fundamental right."
So just to say that again, The due process right to direct their children's upbringing by opting out of a public school curriculum that conflicts with their religious views is not a fundamental right.
So in other words, according to this judge, you, despite what you may think, do not have a fundamental right to decide on your children's upbringing and to take them out of programs that conflict with your own personal values, religious views, and how you want to bring your kids up.
You don't have that right.
You do not have that right.
You don't have that right over your child.
You don't have that right over your family.
According to this judge.
Last year, Montgomery County Public Schools introduced 22 new books into elementary age classrooms that featured LGBTQ characters and radical gender theory topics and stopped parents from opting their children out of gender and sexuality instruction in March.
The move sparked outrage from many religious parents who, along with Beckett Law, filed a lawsuit challenging the district's decision in May.
Concerned parents requested a preliminary injunction that would allow them to opt their children out of the LGBTQ curriculum when school begins next week.
The district's LGBTQ curriculum is intended to be taught to pre-K through 8th grade students and includes references to sex change procedures, drag queens, intersex identity, gay pride parades, and preferred pronouns, according to National Review.
One of the books also says that doctors simply guess a baby's sex when it's born.
Beckett Senior Counsel Eric Baxter posted on Thursday, quote, today the district court decided parents have no right to notice when extreme ideology is pushed on their elementary age children during story hour.
With the new school year beginning, the case is on the fast track to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parents' planned appeal decision.
So, you notice as always the trajectory of these things that I'm always pointing out, but it's very important that we do notice this.
But how does it always begin, right?
The left does something horrific, and then we point out that they're doing this horrific thing, and then initially they deny it, and they say, well we're not doing that, that's crazy.
And then eventually, very quickly, and sometimes again, I mean this is a process that can play out over, these days this process, it used to take decades for this process to play out, now it can play out in like 10 minutes.
So, initially, we say, you're doing something horrible, don't do that.
And they say, we're not doing that, that's a conspiracy theory.
And then, quickly after that, they'll say, okay, yeah, we're doing it, but it's good.
And then, immediately they follow that with, okay, yes, we're doing it, it's good, and it's mandatory.
You have to participate.
So, rapidly, it goes from, we're not doing that, it's a conspiracy theory, to, yeah, we're doing it, and it is mandatory.
Sit your kids down, they have to be here for it.
That's exactly what's happening here.
It wasn't all that long ago that the left would say, I mean, think back to the fight in Florida over the parental rights bill that was named by a propagandist that don't say gay bill.
Even though it had nothing to do with that at all.
But, you know, initially their response to that is because that was a bill, is a bill, legislation, that forbids, you know, sexual instruction, instruction on sexuality, gender identity, for kids in pre-K through third grade.
As I said all along with this bill, the only problem with this bill is that it stops in third grade.
And initially they said, well, this is bad.
No one is doing that.
No one's trying to talk to pre-K kids about sex.
You're crazy.
And now in Maryland, they're saying, yeah, we're going to talk to your pre-K student about, you're going to talk to your pre-K child, your four-year-old about these topics, and you don't have the right to stop us.
That's what they're saying.
And when they say, what's the other side of that coin?
When they say, you don't have the right as a parent to opt out of sexual instruction for a four-year-old, the other side of that coin is, you don't have the right to opt out because we have the right to talk to your kids about whatever we want to talk to them about.
And these parents in Maryland, all they're saying All they're saying is, look, you want to talk about this stuff in school, go ahead and do it, just let us pull our kids out.
They're being much more moderate than I am, than I would be.
My view is they don't talk to us about any kids, you freaks.
Don't have this conversation with any kids.
You should be banned from talking about it at school.
The parents are just saying, okay, we're not even challenging you talking about it.
We just want to pull our own kids out.
That's it.
And that's not good enough.
Remember the trans activists in the last story said, well, they're a reasonable criticism.
Well, we would certainly be okay with reasonable criticisms.
But you think if there was any kind of position or criticism on the other side that they would be willing to admit is at least reasonable, it would be something like this.
You know, it's this kind of, like, compromised position.
Yeah, you could talk about all this disgusting stuff with kids, just, you know, but if I have a parent and I don't want my kid to be a part of it, just let me pull him out.
If they were willing to agree that anything is reasonable, then you would think that they would say, okay, fine, that's reasonable.
I don't agree, you know, but I think that the public school should groom all the kids, but yeah, okay, it's reasonable if you want to pull your kids out.
But they're not willing to accept that even that is reasonable.
Because like I just said, you go along with everything they do and say, all the time, in every case, and you are 100% obedient, or you are a genocidal, transphobic, bigoted, maniac killer.
Like, those are the two options.
You bow before them, you offer your children up to them as sacrifices on their altar, or You're a transphobe bigot, and you should be dead.
Two options.
Those are two options that they leave.
Which is why all the alleged radicalization that they pretend to care about on the right, if it is happening, guess whose fault it is?
It's your fault.
Because you've left, for people, for conservatives, you've only left two options.
You've said, we gotta go along with your entire agenda, or we're transphobic bigot extremists.
And so a lot of us are saying, okay, well, I guess I'm a transphobic bigot extremist then.
And then there are people who say, well, if I'm already that, no matter what, then, well, okay.
Here's the crazy thing.
When you label everything extremism, Then you end up getting a lot more actual extremism.
How many of these parents are now going to be radicalized by this?
It's going to be a radicalizing moment for a lot of these parents.
Who didn't start with any kind of radical position.
All they wanted to do was opt their kids out.
Now they're being told they don't have the right to.
It's going to radicalize a lot of them.
And it should, frankly.
Radicalize them in favor of the truth, being radically in favor of the truth.
All right.
One other quick thing here, if I can find it.
This is from the Daily Wire.
Emergency room doctors and pediatricians are pleading for help with a flood of children and teenagers showing up in emergency rooms due to mental health issues.
A surge of mental health emergencies among children has overwhelmed emergency rooms, according to a joint paper released Wednesday by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Emergency Nurses Association.
The children showing up in crisis are often suffering from emergencies related to anxiety, depression, suicidal
thoughts or attempts, the group said.
Lead author, Dr. Mohsen Saidinajad, I think I got that right, says,
"The ER has become a de facto referral center for all of these problems and there's too many of them for the
emergency department to manage."
the next video.
This is not who we are as ER physicians.
We're not mental health professionals.
We cannot provide definitive care.
About a half a million children with mental or behavioral health problems show up in emergency rooms each year, according to the joint paper.
That number was already rising for the pandemic, but the pandemic exacerbated the crisis, according to the physician's group.
This is in keeping with The kind of stories we've been talking about a lot on the show recently and in general on the show.
And now we're being told that, you know, that you've got half a million kids going to emergency rooms with issues like anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and all the rest of it.
And this is, we have to always emphasize, this is not normal.
Or at least, it shouldn't be.
It's becoming normal, it's been normalized, but it shouldn't be.
To have kids, having children who are feeling crippled by anxiety and depression, that shouldn't be a part of childhood.
And for thousands of years of human history, it wasn't.
That's not to say that no kid was ever depressed, But things like childhood suicide, kids feeling just like utterly crippled by it, there's no point in living and these sorts of things, this was never part of childhood.
This is all a very new phenomenon.
All the statistics bear that out.
Which is why at some point we have to have a, we have to make a serious attempt to figure out what's going on here.
And what lies at the root of it.
And all the answers that we get from the media and all the kind of common mainstream answers make no sense.
Because they always tie it back to things that they say, well, OK, well, the cause of it is this.
But the cause is always something that's like always existed.
And yet we didn't have so many kids who are crippled by depression, anxiety and considering suicide or, God forbid, committing it.
You know, they tie it to things like bullying, for example.
I mean, there's always been bullying.
There's always been kids that get rejected, kids that get made fun of.
Like, that's always existed, ever since the dawn of human civilization.
It's just existed.
And yet we didn't have this crisis.
So, what is it about modern society in particular that brings this out?
That's what we need to think about.
If you're hiring, you know it's incredibly hard to attract top talent.
And with the current labor market conditions, it's even harder than ever.
That's why you want a partner like ZipRecruiter who gets it.
ZipRecruiter knows how tough it is right now, but they've figured out solutions for the problems you're facing.
Try them for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
To reach more of the right people, ZipRecruiter posts your job to 100 plus job sites.
ZipRecruiter's smart technology finds great matches for your job and then lets you invite the most qualified people to apply for your job.
Their pricing is really straightforward.
You can stick to your budget with no surprises.
Team up with a hiring partner like ZipRecruiter who understands what you need.
Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Are you sick of woke corporations dragging your values through the mud?
Well, you can wash your hands of all of it with Jeremy's brand new hand soap.
Jeremy's hand soap is the perfect solution for everyday grit and grime, not to mention it smells amazing as it's scented with green tea and citrus.
Jeremy actually cares about you, so he didn't put any of that paraben crap in his hand soap.
Not only is it paraben-free, but it's also free of sulfates, DEI, and ESG for that matter.
Plus, it's not tested on animals and it's made right here in the USA.
What more could you want from your hand soap than to get clean hands while keeping a clean conscience?
So do yourself a favor and wash your hands of hypocritical leftists once and for all.
Jeremy's Hand Soap is the ideal addition to your bathroom or kitchen sink as you liberate your home from the influence of woke companies.
Go to jeremysrazors.com and order your green tea and citrus hand soap today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A few years ago, as you may recall, the world faced an apocalyptic threat.
It was a moment of existential crisis for all of civilization.
We found ourselves on the verge of planetary destruction, and it was all because of plastic straws.
To this day, the images of Strawmageddon are still stamped indelibly on our minds.
We saw pictures of sea turtles with plastic straws shoved up their noses.
You know, a situation that we decided to blame on the straw and not on the sea turtle for being clumsy, frankly.
There were beluga whales with straws jammed into their eyes, great whites with straws coming out of their gills, an entire family of bottlenose dolphins were killed by one single straw.
It was a catastrophe.
The media insisted, all of a sudden, that we had to ban plastic straws.
We had to get rid of them.
They told us about the giant garbage patch in the Pacific, which was evidently comprised almost entirely of plastic straws from Starbucks and McDonald's.
They gave us a lot of other shocking information, but none so shocking as this.
Apparently, countless media reports insisted, Americans use and discard 500 million plastic straws a day.
That's about 182 billion straws in a year, which means that every single American goes through well over 500 straws annually.
Every American uses and throws away at least one straw every single day without fail, we were told.
And that means that if we were to take all the straws we use in a day, By the way, I haven't done these calculations myself.
I found them on a random WordPress blog, and I'm just assuming that they're correct.
in a year and stack them end to end. We would reach the moon 90 times. By the way,
I haven't done these calculations myself. I found them on a random WordPress blog
and I'm just assuming that they're correct. Which, as it happens, is exactly
what the media did with all of this anti-straw information.
Specifically, the media was repeating data first gathered and reported by
a nine-year-old boy. The child had come up with the 500 million straws a
day figure by randomly calling a few straw manufacturers on the phone and taking
randomly calling a few straw manufacturers on the phone and taking whatever information
whatever information they gave him and running some mathematical calculations
they gave him and running some mathematical calculations that nobody ever checked and
that nobody ever checked and extrapolating that Americans somehow use
Extrapolating that Americans somehow use half a billion plastic straws in a single 24-hour period
half a billion had come up with the 500 million straws a day figure by
this kid was an authority figure on the subject of plastic straws for
whatever reason and we were supposed to listen to him and Make adjustments according to what he said CNN even brought
him on for an interview Several years ago, and here's what that looked like
My next guest thinks America has a bit of an addiction to straws
That's right, these little plastic pieces of plastic that we use every day here.
Yep, we were unable to confirm the exact number of straws used annually, but it's easily in the billions.
And he says, get this, 500 million straws are used in the U.S.
every day, an average of 1.6 straws per person.
And most straws are not biodegradable.
When they go to the dump, they stay there.
These facts encourage 10-year-old Milo Kress To go on a one-man crusade to press restaurants to do one simple thing to help the environment, only give customers a straw if they ask for one.
His idea has changed businesses from his home state of Vermont to Tennessee and California.
He's even met the governor and testified before the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
The amazing founder of Be Straw Free joins me now from Newton, Massachusetts for today's Big Eye.
Milo, thank you so much for joining us.
Well, let's talk about this.
What inspired you to get folks to be straw free?
Well, sometimes I think we forget that every straw we use, every piece of plastic, will be here on Earth, somewhere on Earth, even when my grandchildren are born, long after that.
Okay, now, needless to say, I have nothing against this kid.
As a parent, in fact, I can appreciate that he's focusing his energies on this.
There are certainly less productive ways that a child that age could spend his time.
But the question is whether any adult, any major corporation, any government should actually take marching orders from a third grader.
And it wasn't just this one third grader, there was another nine-year-old child standing at the forefront of the anti-plastic straw struggle.
Here's nine-year-old Molly Steer in 2017, founder of the Straw No More campaign, giving a TED Talk to a group of adults.
Hi, my name's Molly Steer and I'm nine years old and I've just found out that straws really do suck.
Earlier this year, my mum and I went to see a movie called A Plastic Ocean.
It was the first time that I had been told that plastic never, ever breaks down.
Like, actually, never goes away.
The movie said that all over the world, oceans are filling up with our plastic rubbish.
This plastic gets into our oceans and it hurts the marine animals.
But not only that, when humans eat fish and seafood, we're eating the plastic that they have eaten.
Birds are eating broken up bits of plastic and then starving because there is no room left in their stomachs for real food.
Turtles think that plastic bags are jellyfish, which is their favourite food.
And we've all seen that plastic straw stuck up a poor turtle's nose.
It's not fair.
On my way home from watching the movie that night, I started thinking about what I could do to help.
I started thinking about plastic straws.
Now, look on the bright side here.
Even if you feel that you've hit rock bottom in your life, even if it seems like things couldn't possibly get worse, at least you've never attended a nine-year-old's TED Talk.
Now, I don't blame Molly for not understanding this point.
She's a child, after all.
But the plastic in the ocean is not really our rubbish, quote-unquote.
Actually, 95% of the plastic in the ocean comes from third-world countries in Africa and Asia.
Outside those countries, Brazil accounts for the most.
So, Western countries account for a comparatively minuscule amount of the plastic pollution.
In fact, there are many countries with a fraction of the U.S.
population that nevertheless produce exponentially more pollution in the ocean.
And of the 5% of the problem that all of Europe, North America and South America and Australia contribute to, an even tinier fraction is from plastic straws.
So, so tiny that you could ban all plastic straws in all Western countries and it would have basically no effect on the pollution problem at all.
Not while places like Sri Lanka are still dumping all of their garbage directly into their rivers, which then go out into the ocean.
Now, children don't understand these sorts of things or have this kind of perspective, which is understandable.
And it's why when a child says, we should get rid of all the plastic straws and save the earth, the appropriate response is to pat them on the head and say, sure, little guy, that sounds great, and then proceed to ignore whatever they said.
That's not how our leaders responded.
Instead, over the course of a few months, at the behest of a group of confused elementary school children, states and cities around the nation banned plastic straws.
Many restaurant chains joined the party and pledged to get rid of all their plastic straws and move instead to paper straws.
This switch was made all over the country, and now today, paper straws have mostly supplanted the plastic variety.
Makes for a terrible straw on the merits.
They dissolve in liquid, which is the opposite of what you want your straw to do, but at least we were told it's healthier and more eco-friendly.
Even if plastic straws aren't really a huge problem, what's the harm in making the switch if it'll make, you know, the planet a better, you know, cleaner place?
Even if in a very minuscule way.
Well, as it turns out, the harm that it does Might be considerable.
The Daily Mail reports today, quote, "We may all think we're doing our bit for the planet by sipping our drinks of a
paper straw, but the eco-friendly alternatives contain long-lasting and
potentially toxic chemicals," a new study has concluded.
In the first analysis of its kind in Europe, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws for the group of
synthetic chemicals known as poly and
perfloral alcohol
Whatever.
PFAS is what it is.
PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo.
The synthetic chemicals are used to make everyday products from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans resistant to water, heat, and stains.
They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife, and the environment.
The substances break down very slowly over time and can persist over thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as forever chemicals.
They've been linked to a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer.
Well, there you go.
You might die of kidney cancer, but at least no sea turtles will have straws jammed up their noses.
Instead, they'll just get cancer too.
It gets even better reading, quote, analysis revealed the majority of the brand, 69%, contained PFAS with different PFAS detected in total.
Paper straws were most likely to contain the synthetic chemicals.
The most commonly found PFAS has been banned globally since 2020.
Also detected were another thing I can't pronounce, TFA we'll call it, and TFMS.
Ultra short chain PFAS, which are highly water soluble and so might leach out of straws into drinks.
The PFAS concentrations were low and since most people tend to only use straws occasionally, pose a limited risk to human health.
However, PFAS can remain in the body for many years and concentrations can build up over time.
So, That's the good news.
Sure, the paper straws have lethal chemicals in them that are actually dissolving into your iced coffee as you drink it.
But as long as you only use the straws occasionally, then the risk will be limited until it builds up in your body over time and kills you.
Of course, if we really go through 180 billion straws a year, then we're in trouble.
You know, because what we were told to begin with is that we don't use straws occasionally, we use them every day.
So that's what we're left with.
The only way that the paper straws won't do severe damage to our health is if the logic for using paper straws in the first place turns out to be false.
But then, if that's the case, there's no reason to use them at all.
Now, look at the silver lining, though.
As Molly said in her TED Talk, the plastic straws that you use, they can harm you.
If marine animals eat those straws, and then you eat the marine animals, then, you know, indirectly, you're ingesting the plastic.
Well now we've cut out the middleman so that we can just be harmed directly by the straw instead.
So you can ingest the straw by throwing it in the ocean, waiting for a fish to eat it, then eating the fish.
That's one way.
Or you can just ingest the straw by having it dissolve into your beverage and drink it.
Which is what we're doing now.
A brilliant strategy.
What this means is that the people who banned plastic straws never checked the data to confirm that plastic straws were actually a problem and never did any studies to make sure that the alternative straws would be better for people and the environment.
That's because the plastic straw panic Never had anything to do with data or facts, nor was it driven by any sincere desire to protect our oceans.
It was all just another giant virtue-signaling exercise, another petty power grab by the collection of meddling little tyrants who look for every conceivable way, no matter how small, to control our behavior.
And when I say meddling little tyrants, to be clear, I'm not talking about the nine-year-old kids.
I'm talking about the people who use those nine-year-old kids as a pretense to control yet another seemingly small aspect of your life.
And that's really why you're using paper straws.
Something to remember when you're diagnosed with thyroid disease because of it.
