Ep. 1216 - Guy Who Wasn’t Even At The Capitol On January 6th Gets 22 Years In Prison Anyway
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a federal judge just sentenced someone to 22 years in prison for his involvement on January 6 -- even though he wasn't even there that day. It's obvious that the government is on a political crusade to punish dissidents. But when you compare these sentences to the punishments handed down to actual murderers, rapists, and terrorists, the injustice becomes even clearer. Also, Joe Biden starts masking again. Gen Z abandons the university system. And a group of New Mexico elected officials have written a letter condemning me for my dangerous and harmful rhetoric.
Ep.1216
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Claim your FREE 5G Samsung Galaxy! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Genucel - Exclusive discount for my listeners! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
- - -
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, a federal judge just sentenced someone to 22 years in prison for his involvement on January 6th, even though he wasn't even there that day.
It's obvious that the government is on a political crusade to punish dissidents, but when you compare these sentences to the punishments handed down to actual murderers, rapists, and terrorists, the injustice becomes even clearer.
We'll talk about that.
Also, Joe Biden starts masking again, Gen Z abandons the university system, and a group of New Mexico elected officials have written a letter condemning me for my dangerous and harmful rhetoric We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wells
Show.
Is your cell phone in desperate need of replacement?
You know the sign.
Short battery life, so you have to have a charger on hand, cracked screen that gives you glass splinters.
It's time to put that old phone to rest and upgrade to a new 5G Samsung Galaxy from PureTalk for free.
Get a free 5G Samsung Galaxy with two-day battery life, edge-to-edge display, and ultra-strong Gorilla Glass when you sign up for PureTalk's unlimited talk, text, and 15-gig data plan for just $35 a month.
Plus, it comes with a mobile hotspot on top of all that.
Get all the data, You could ever need for half the price of the big carriers on America's most dependable 5G network.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh for your free, super durable 5G Samsung Galaxy when you switch to Pure Talk.
Again, visit puretalk.com slash Walsh and make the switch to my cell phone company, Pure Talk, the official wireless partner of The Daily Wire.
By now, everybody acknowledges that the federal government lies to Americans as a matter of course.
It's no longer just the so-called conspiracy theorists who think that.
Anyone who's been paying attention over the last couple of decades has come to that conclusion.
After COVID, after the recession that wasn't really a recession because they changed the definition of a recession, after the wars in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan and Ukraine and so on, there's no reasonable person left in this country who trusts the federal government on faith, and rightfully so.
What this means is that if you're a Washington bureaucrat tolling away in, say, Joe Biden's Justice Department, you have to adapt.
You can't just feed people bald-faced propaganda because no one will buy it.
You have to work to sell the deception.
So, naturally, that's exactly what the DOJ has been doing.
They're coming up with inventive new ways to lie that are difficult to detect, at least on the surface.
So here's one example that went totally unreported by the mainstream press.
Kevin Benjamin Ware is a California man in his mid-30s.
Now, during the canonization of St.
George Floyd three years ago, Ware took it upon himself to light a federal courthouse in Portland on fire.
And there's no dispute about that.
Ware pleaded guilty to, quote, repositioning a piece of lit wood against the walls of the courthouse.
In other words, trying to set it on fire.
And Ware wasn't the only one who tried that tactic.
In case you've forgotten, there were mobs of people sieging this courthouse and trying to burn it down.
Here's some footage from that occasion, just to refresh your memory.
already watch.
[MUSIC]
[NOISE]
[MUSIC]
Now Kevin Benjamin Ware was one of a handful of militants who was involved in
all of that chaos and was arrested after this attack on the federal courthouse.
After Ware pleaded guilty, Joe Biden's DOJ made a point to issue a press release about the many years in jail this domestic terrorist was facing.
Specifically, the DOJ's press release stated that Ware's intentional destruction of the federal courthouse was, quote, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Admittedly, 10 years in prison is a little light for trying to torch a federal courthouse with people inside of it, but at least it's something.
You know, it's a long sentence.
Long enough, you might think, to deter other Californians from trekking to Portland for the purpose of burning down courthouses.
What's interesting is that Joe Biden's DOJ never released a follow-up press release after Ware was actually sentenced.
They sent the message that this arsonist would serve some hard time, that there would be a stiff punishment, but they failed to inform the public about what Ware's actual sentence was.
Why is that?
Well, it's not hard to answer that question.
As it happens, Ware ultimately received a sentence that was nowhere near the 10-year term that Biden's DOJ suggested he might serve.
Instead, on the recommendation of federal prosecutors, Ware received a sentence of two years probation for trying to set a federal courthouse on fire.
He got two years probation.
And indeed, Kevin Ware never served a day in prison.
He did have to pay a $200 fine, though.
So there's that.
200 bucks.
You know, like a like a speeding ticket.
If you're a former GOP congressional candidate by the name of Enrique Tarrio, this is all very confusing because Enrique Tarrio was just sentenced to 22 years in prison.
This happened yesterday for his, quote, involvement on January 6th.
Prosecutors had sought a 33-year sentence for Tarrio, but the judge brought them down a little bit, and now it's only, only 22 years.
What was Enrique Tarrio's crime?
Well, he didn't try to set fire to the Capitol building on January 6th.
He didn't try to burn down any federal courthouses.
Unlike Kevin Ware, he didn't place a flaming piece of wood up against a federal building.
We know that because on January 6th, Enrique Tarrio was nowhere near any federal building.
He had been arrested for vandalizing a holy BLM banner a few days earlier and was ordered by a judge to stay far away from Washington, D.C., so he was not there.
Nonetheless, yesterday, Tarrio received the single longest sentence of any January 6th defendant.
Watch this.
Denise and Christy, a federal judge handing down the sentence to Enrique Tarrio, 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy in connection to the January 6th Capitol attack.
As you mentioned, he's the former Proud Boys leader from right here in South Florida.
He was found guilty of orchestrating the riot for members of the far-right extremist group.
He was not actually in Washington the day of the attack, but prosecutors say he was the ringleader.
Prosecutors were initially seeking 33 years, which is the longest sentence, instead giving him 22 years related to the Capitol attack.
He's the last of five Proud Boys defendants to be sentenced.
He and three other members were also found guilty of seditious conspiracy, and before the sentencing, he spoke.
He apologized for the, quote, pain and suffering that law enforcement, legislators, and others suffered on January 6th, and vowed to have nothing to do with politics, groups, activism, or rallies.
So again, a federal judge sentencing Enrique Tarrio from right here in South Florida to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
It's a surreal news report in a lot of ways.
For one thing, neither the reporter nor the two anchors who were on the report as well seem remotely concerned by the fact that Enrique Tarrio was just sentenced to 22 years in prison for orchestrating, quote-unquote, a riot that he didn't even attend.
There's no discussion whatsoever about what Tarrio might have done or how exactly he facilitated what happened on January 6th when he wasn't even there.
Nobody cares.
So, let's talk about it.
According to the government, Tarrio told his followers on January 6th to, quote, do what must be done.
He also told members of the Proud Boys to organize a big crowd in Washington to storm government buildings.
The scheme was known as 1776 Returns.
Now, sounds pretty ominous, right?
Storming government buildings.
Where have we seen something like that before?
Well, if you're not a goldfish or a fruit fly and your memory extends longer than a few seconds, you know the answer to that question.
Here's what the Supreme Court and the Capitol Complex looked like during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Watch.
They are demanding that their voices be heard as they anticipate The person who will be a new Supreme Court Justice, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, will be sworn in here any moment.
In a bigger picture, you can see approximately how many people who have gathered there.
It looks like there are dozens, and they are chanting.
People were arrested in Washington over the last few hours for illegally protesting inside the Senate office building over Kavanaugh's nomination.
Comedian and actor Amy Schumer, as well as model Emily Ratajkowski, were among them.
The protesters originally planned to protest on the Capitol steps, but headed inside the Senate for a sit-in.
U.S.
Capitol Police say everyone arrested were processed and then released.
So these people bang on the doors of the Supreme Court, they storm a Senate office building, and their punishment is absolutely nothing.
They got zip-tied at most and then let go immediately.
Their explicit purpose was to derail a government proceeding.
It was to interfere with a government proceeding.
In fact, some of these activists, you know, charged into the Senate chambers themselves.
None of them suffered any real consequences.
In fact, left-wing activists who have committed acts of violence, even homicides, have received far more lenient sentences than Enrique Otario just did.
Consider the case of the BLM arsonists back in 2020 who lit a pawn shop on fire in the name of civil rights.
Three days after St.
George Floyd overdosed, Montez T. Lee decided to commit an act of arson that killed someone by the name of Oscar Lee Stewart.
Stewart's body wasn't found in the rubble for nearly two months.
What was Montez Lee's sentence?
He got less than 10 years in prison for an arson that, again, killed someone.
That's less than half the sentence that Enrique Tarrio will face for sending some, you know, naughty text messages.
Now I'm focusing on Enrique Atario here because his sentence is the most egregious, but there's many more examples of this obviously unequal justice we're seeing.
Consider the case of Joseph Biggs.
He's a man with no criminal record whatsoever.
Biggs is an army veteran who didn't hurt anybody on January 6th, but he did walk around the Capitol building on January 6th, and he did also help to pull down a fence on the periphery of the building.
And for that, Judge Tim Kelly, the same judge who sentenced Tarrio, decided that Joseph Biggs needs to spend 17 years in prison for walking around the Capitol building and pulling down a fence.
17 years.
Now, again, you may ask yourself, where have we seen political demonstrators ripping apart fences in front of government buildings before?
Oh, well, that's right.
We saw it during the BLM riots that torched St.
John's Church across the street from the White House.
Sent Donald Trump into a bunker.
They were tearing down fencing.
They were setting a church on fire.
And yet nobody involved in any of that was ever frog-marched in front of the cameras or sentenced to 22 years in prison.
In fact, it doesn't appear that anyone involved in that incident or the burning of St.
John's Church spent a day in federal prison.
We see relatively light or non-existent sentences like this all the time.
A serial child rapist in Ohio just got 10 years in prison.
Only 10 years for serial child rape.
A drunk driver in Phoenix at four times the legal blood alcohol limit just got 12 years in prison for driving 135 miles per hour and killing someone.
A terrorist train engineer in Los Angeles who tried to run his locomotive into a U.S.
Navy hospital ship during COVID received just three years in prison.
A man who burned down a Minneapolis police station live on national television during the George Floyd riots received four years in prison.
Four years for burning down a police station.
There are police still inside, by the way.
They went running for their lives.
Four years for that, 22 years for Enrique Tarrio.
Another man who lit a Molotov cocktail and threw it at the police station got just three years in prison.
So, you get the idea.
On the other hand, anyone remotely involved in January 6th, including non-violent offenders, is being hunted down right now.
We're talking about American citizens well over two years after January 6th who are being ambushed out of nowhere by heavily armed FBI agents playing hero.
This is how the FBI just approached one small business owner in Arkansas named Nathan Hughes, who they hunted down, tracked down outside of his business, and here's what that looked like.
Hey, watch out, watch out, watch out.
Why'd he do that to him like that?
I have no idea.
No.
No, Nate.
Who is it?
He's one of the owners.
So you've got heavily armed agents surrounding Nathan Hughes and dragging him away in handcuffs in the broad daylight in front of his business.
What was Nathan Hughes' crime?
Well, according to the DOJ, he wore an Infowars shirt while pushing against the police line at the Capitol.
And to be clear, if Nathan Hughes actually did push against the police line on January 6th, that's a crime.
It'd be comparable to the crime that BLM rioters committed in the footage that we've seen of them pushing against police lines.
Although, in many cases, they did quite a bit more than that.
For them, pushing involved like throwing bricks and that sort of thing at officers' heads.
But Nathan Hughes' case is not being handled remotely the same way as those BLM rioters.
Nathan Hughes didn't get off without any consequence whatsoever.
Instead, he's now facing more than five years in prison on felony civil disorder charges.
The Fed showed up to arrest him with body armor and rifles and full view of customers, as if he was some kind of terrorist.
In fact, the Feds also raided Hughes' home and opened his safe.
And the company, Liberty Safe, for some incomprehensible reason, complied with the Fed's demands and used a backdoor mechanism to open the safe for them.
Now, there's no conceivable argument that can possibly justify all of this for the simple reason that nothing remotely like this has ever happened to left-wing terrorists like Antifa or BLM.
None of those thugs have ever received anything like this treatment, even when they murder people.
Now, if we lived in a country in which every lawbreaker, however that's defined, faced extremely harsh punishment, if that's the kind of country we lived in, or if you break any law at all, you can be guaranteed they're going to throw the book at you.
If that's the country we lived in, then maybe the treatment of the January Sixers would be tolerable because it would be consistent.
That's how the rule of law is supposed to work.
It's supposed to guarantee equal punishment for equal crimes.
So if we lived in a country where if you participated in any riot whatsoever, you can guarantee that the cops are going to hunt you down and they're going to throw you in prison for as long as they possibly can.
If we live in that kind of country.
But we don't live in that kind of country.
Most criminals are treated with kid gloves, even the most violent and dangerous kinds.
It's only with Trump supporters and Trump himself and other political dissidents that suddenly, suddenly we become a land of strict enforcement and merciless punishment.
Now, this is a point that's been made again and again over the past couple of years as Trump supporters are sent to prison for memes, as U.S.
service members are dismissed for refusing to take the COVID shot and so on.
But the prosecution of people like Enrique Atario and Nathan Hughes marks an escalation in the Biden administration's tactics.
Same goes for the Biden-DOJ's handling of the raid on Craig Robertson a few months ago, or rather a month ago.
Robertson was the elderly, invalid Trump supporter in Utah who shared threatening memes about Joe Biden on social media for months.
Weeks later, instead of picking up Robertson while he was on his motorized scooter at Walgreens or something, which would have been very easy to do, the FBI decided to surprise Robertson with a 6 a.m.
raid at his home for the memes that he posted on Facebook.
And they shot him in the process and killed him, they say, after he had raised a pistol and that's why they shot him.
Now, did he actually raise a pistol?
Maybe he did, we don't really know.
We reached out to the FBI to obtain the body cam footage from the raid.
Yesterday the FBI refused to provide it, citing ongoing enforcement proceedings.
That justification, of course, makes no sense, because they've already killed the 70-something-year-old man who was posting the memes that they were so concerned about.
But the FBI said it anyway, because they're confident that nobody in mainstream media will look into it any further, and none of them are.
And on that point, if we're being honest, the FBI is probably right.
We may have actually reached the point where the federal government can imprison and even kill its political enemies without any oversight.
Even as it gives a pass to terrorists on their side of the political spectrum, which is what they're doing.
If that's the case, then we don't have a society that's governed by the rule of law anymore.
We have a society that, like every dictatorship, enforces the will of the ruling class with raw power.
You'd hate to think that's what we're dealing with right now, but unless a real opposition forms, unless conservatives start electing leaders who are ready and equipped to deal with this problem, for starters, then it will be our future.
There's no question about that.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Before getting our dog, Rough Greens, he was so sad and lazy.
Well, 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 Everybody knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Well, 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.
It's as simple as that.
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 our dogs too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, He's 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.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
You know, I have to admit that I was skeptical that they would actually try to bring the COVID panic back, not because I have any faith in the powers that be or anything like that, or not because I put it past them or anything, but simply because it's an old tactic.
It's past its expiration date, I figured, and I thought that they would try something new instead.
You know, you can't go back to the COVID well that's kind of played out.
You can't get people to fear COVID the way that they feared it in the spring of 2020, because it's easy to get people to fear the unknown.
You know, that's what people fear is the unknown.
But once it's known, once you've lived with it for a while, it's not nearly as scary anymore.
Which is why people for a while were far more terrified of COVID than they were of other threats that are far more lethal to them and far more of a danger.
It's all about the unknown.
But that's gone now.
So I thought that the powers that be would have to pull a different trick out of the bag.
That's what I figured.
Perhaps I was wrong though.
Here was a Karen Jean pair at the White House yesterday.
Listen.
President Biden tested negative last night for COVID-19 and tested negative again today.
He's not experiencing any symptoms.
As far as the steps he is taking, since the President was with the First Lady yesterday, he will be masking while indoors and around people in alignment with CDC guidance.
And as has been the practice in the past, the President will remove his mask when sufficiently distanced from others indoors and while outside as well.
So I guess on second thought, my skepticism that they would go back to the COVID well was based on the extremely naive assumption that they have even the slightest respect for our intelligence, which obviously they don't.
So they really are going to try to run this back and do it all over again.
In fact, Dr. Jill Biden was not the only esteemed scholar to come down with COVID yesterday.
There was an announcement of them having COVID.
It was also announced on The View that Whoopi Goldberg had contracted the virus.
But I want you to watch this clip, listen to the crowd reaction and Joy Behar's reaction to the news that Whoopi Goldberg has COVID.
Listen.
Um, as you can see, Whoopi is not here.
She has COVID.
Yes!
It's back!
It's back!
It's back.
But she's on the mend.
She's on the tail end and she'll probably be back this week.
But I'm sorry she's not here for those of you who are looking forward to seeing her.
The reaction from the audience and from Joy Behar, I guess it's supposed to sound like disappointment.
Oh no!
But they can hardly contain their excitement.
It's back!
It's back!
It's finally back!
Which, by the way, it's not back.
COVID is not back.
It never went anywhere.
It's a virus.
It's a respiratory virus.
It's the flu, basically.
It's endemic.
It'll always be out there circulating like any other of the hundreds of other diseases that are out there, all with varying degrees of severity and posing varying degrees of danger.
But that's what it is.
COVID will have waves.
It will have spikes, just like the flu.
You know, you get a wave in the winter, you get a wave in the fall around back to school.
And you keep living your life, because what else are you supposed to do?
Well, not much, unless you have political motivations.
Unless you have reasons to exploit the virus, as the left does.
And so slowly but surely we're starting to see this and we're starting to see even the masking agenda make its return.
Here's a report from Fox News.
We've already seen there was a college in Atlanta that decided to put COVID, the mask mandates back in place.
There have been some Hollywood studios that have put them back in place.
And now we have what I think is the first example of a school and a public school doing the same.
This is the Fox News report.
An elementary school in Washington, D.C.
suburb in Maryland is reinstating school masks for third graders after a handful of kids recently tested positive for COVID-19.
In a now viral Twitter post, this is an ex-post but I refuse to call it that, Outkick founder Clay Travis posted a letter that was allegedly sent to all parents at Rosemary Hills Elementary School in Montgomery County, updating them on the updated mask requirements for all students.
The letter addressed to parents of students in one specific classroom informs parents that, quote, three or more individuals have tested positive for COVID-19 in the class in the past 10 days.
We're taking the following steps to keep our school environment as safe as possible for in-person teaching and learning.
School Principal Rebecca Irwin-Kennedy continues to say that the N95 mask requirement comes to prevent further transmission in the classroom for the next 10 days.
Quote, additional N95 masks have been distributed, and students and staff in identified classes or activities will be required to mask while in school for the next 10 days, except while eating or drinking.
Masks will become optional again following the 10-day period.
So, it's only for 10 days.
They really are just doing this all over again.
It's only for 10 days.
Just for 10 days.
That's it.
They switched it up a little bit.
Originally, it's 15 days is the arbitrary thing.
Now, it's going to be 10 days.
So it's only for 10 days until someone else gets COVID in the school, then we gotta extend another 10 days.
Now, there's no point in pointing out all the many reasons why this is absurd, starting with the fact that, as many of us have argued from the very beginning, all of the data has always shown that just the common flu virus is more dangerous to kids than COVID.
We've always known that, it's always been the case.
So to still treat COVID as a special risk To kids especially, as a particularly dangerous sickness that needs special interventions is insane.
You know, they're gonna make, they're gonna mask for 10 days because COVID is detected, but they're not gonna do it if a more dangerous virus is detected?
Like, what about the flu?
What if a kid comes down with the flu?
You're not gonna mask for that?
Not that I want them to mask for that, mind you, but it doesn't make any sense.
Of course, I don't think the kids should be masking at all, and this is where it falls on the parents.
It falls on individual citizens, and it falls, in this case, when it comes to kids, on the parents.
You just cannot comply with this.
You have to refuse.
You have to stand up against it.
We have to be firm and united on this point.
Because we're talking about the powers that be trying to bring the COVID panic back.
One of the reasons why they're gonna try to bring it back is because they figure, well, hey, it worked last time.
It's like the sheep in the public have not shown that they have any willingness to reject this, so let's just do it again.
The only way it stops is if people say, no, we're just not gonna do it.
When the school tells you to mask your kid, just say no, absolutely no.
No way in hell.
And tell your kid not to put on a mask if they give him one in school.
So you're gonna say to your kid, I'm not giving you a mask to wear.
They try to give you a mask in school, refuse to wear it.
They send you to the principal's office, you're not gonna be in trouble with us.
If they try to physically put it on your child against his will, call the police, file assault charges.
That's the level of pushback that's going to be necessary.
Also, by the way, don't test your kid for COVID in the first place.
Why are people doing that?
Like, why would anyone even know that a kid has COVID in school?
It requires you to go test.
Who's still testing for COVID?
And why?
I mean, our kids have had cold symptoms plenty of times over the past many months, and we never tested them to see if it was COVID.
Because who cares?
They're mild cold symptoms.
The exact origin or source of the mild cold is not exactly relevant.
So don't mask, don't test, absolute refusal to go along.
That's the only way out of this.
And that has always been the case, it's especially the case now.
Here's some good news.
Business Insider with an encouraging report says, it took just one semester for Rashil Srivastava to realize that college was not what he had hoped.
Quote, as a kid, you always imagined college would be a life-changing experience and that your freshman year is where you'll get a chance to discover yourself.
Instead, he was forced to take classes online in the wake of COVID and faced a campus social scene that remained
fractured.
The computer science major wound up dropping out of UC Berkeley in fall 2021, only a few months after he had
enrolled.
Soon after, he decided to launch a startup designed to help job seekers find work.
Today, as most of his peers are starting their senior year of college, he's got more than a million dollars in venture
capital funding.
Most of my friends are just now finally getting adjusted some better than others this year.
The world is rapidly evolving, and so is the college experience, he said.
Sir Vastava is one of a soaring number of Gen Zers who has decided to skip college altogether.
Four million fewer teenagers enrolled at a college in 2022 than in 2012.
For many, the price tag has simply grown too exorbitant to justify the cost.
From 2010 to 2022, college tuition rose an average of 12% a year.
college tuition rose an average of 12% a year, a year, while overall inflation only increased
an average of 2.6% each year.
College tuition rose an average of 12% a year.
I actually find that shocking.
I mean, of course, we know that college tuition is ridiculously expensive and only getting more expensive as time goes on, but 12% a year is like astronomical.
I mean, that's mind-boggling.
Today, it costs at least $104,000 on average to attend four years of public university and more than $223,000 for a private university.
At the same time, the salary students can expect to earn after graduation haven't kept up with the cost of college.
A 2019 report from the Pew Research Center found that earnings for young college-educated workers had remained mostly flat over the past 50 years.
Four years after graduating, according to recent data from the Higher Education Authority, a third of students earn less than $40,000 a year, lower than the average salary of $44,000 that workers with only a high school diploma earn.
So you're spending more and more and more.
Every single year on a college education and getting less and less for it is basically the way that the trends are working.
The widening gap between the value and the cost of college has started to shift Gen Z's attitudes towards higher education.
A 2022 survey by Morning Consult found that 41% of Gen Zers said that they tend to trust U.S.
colleges and universities, the lowest percentage of any generation.
It's a significant shift from when millennials were in their shoes a decade ago, A 2014 Pew Research survey found that 63% of millennials valued a college education or planned to get one.
And of those who graduated, 41% of that cohort considered their schooling very useful.
And that's compared to 45% of Gen Xers and 47% of boomers who felt the same.
So we're finally starting to see this shift.
It took long enough, but it was inevitable.
You know, the university system, as I've been saying, Since as long as I've had a platform is a giant scam and has been for a long time.
It's arguably the greatest.
I mean, you could make an argument that the modern university system is the greatest scam in the history of the world.
I mean, it's certainly certainly among the most expensive of cons, of scams, of, you know, schemes in the history of the world.
We're talking billions and billions and billions of dollars.
And finally, we're starting to see that reality reflected in the attitude that people have towards the university system, and it's an attitude of skepticism.
You know, the thing about this, especially when we talk about it, and so often when we talk about the university system and somebody makes the kind of arguments that I always make about, you know, criticizing the system, It almost always goes immediately to this question of, well, is the education useful?
Can you use the education to go out and get a job that's gonna be a high-paying job and that pays more than the kind of job you could get without a college education?
And what we find is that, as the statistics clearly show, the answer to that is no.
I mean, in that sense, the education is not useful.
And in so many cases, you're gonna have kids that spend $100,000 of money they don't have And really, it's a lot more than $100,000 when you factor in interest and all the rest of it.
So hundreds of thousands of dollars of money they don't have to get on the promises that there's going to be a return on investment.
And then, yeah, they end up getting a job.
Either they get no job at the end of it or they end up getting a job that pays worse than if they just didn't go to college at all.
So it's not useful in that sense, which is an important sense.
But it's also true that, ideally, we wouldn't really be talking about education in this way.
Ideally, we would say that education is worthwhile for its own sake.
It's not so that you can use it, necessarily.
Or at least, that shouldn't be the only standard.
That determines whether the education is worthwhile, is whether it can be used.
And by used, we mean, can you learn something and then take it out into the world and monetize what you've learned?
Ideally, it wouldn't be like that.
We would say that, well, look, even if you can't monetize the education directly, Still, it's worthwhile.
Education is supposed to make you a more knowledgeable person.
It's supposed to make you a better person, a more interesting person, a more well-rounded person.
Education should be the kind of thing that you pursue for its own sake, simply so that you can be an educated person, because it's good to be educated.
It's better to be an educated person than an uneducated person.
Ideally, that's how we would treat education, but we can't treat the modern college system that way.
It's not something you can do just for its own sake.
Partly, that's because of the money.
When it's $100,000, you can't afford to do something that costs $100,000 for its own sake.
When it's that amount of money, when that's the kind of money we're dealing with, there has to be a return on investment.
There just has to be.
Or normal people can't afford it, and that's what we're seeing.
But then also, too, the education on its own terms is worthless.
Even aside from the fact that you're not going to be able to cash in and get a high-paying job.
The education itself is worthless, because the university systems are ideologically captured completely.
They have been for decades, obviously.
That's not breaking news.
And so the education you're getting, it's not even an education at all.
I mean, you're learning things that aren't even true.
So many kids, they go to college and they come out more confused about the world than they were when they went in.
So when I say it's one of the greatest scams in the history of the world, this is what I'm talking about.
These are the levels that this scam exists on.
You're spending all this money with the promise that you'll be educated and you'll be able to get a good job on the other end of it, and neither of those promises are fulfilled.
Not only do you come out bankrupt, broke, poor, Not able to get any job at all, but you're dumber.
You're more confused about the world.
You're in a worse intellectual shape than you were when you went.
So if people are waking up to this fact and finally realizing that we need to extricate ourselves from the system entirely, then that's a very, very good sign.
And this is once again, where parents come in because, you know, my, my fear is that we're seeing this shift, uh, away from colleges, but then you're going to have the parents who say, well, no, this is, this is a very bad thing.
I mean, I need my kid to go to college.
My kid needs to go to college.
You start, you start trying to push your kid into college.
Don't do that.
You know, it's a very stupid thing to do.
Most people don't need college.
Especially this, I mean, this kind of college system, the university system as it currently exists, nobody needs that.
But really in any form, most people don't need that.
Most people don't need it in order to get a job.
You know, they don't need it to, you know, whatever they're going to end up doing with their lives.
These are skills that you have to just go out and learn by doing.
That's the majority of jobs.
In order to perform them well, they require that you have a skill set, and in order to develop that skill set, you just have to go and do it.
That's the only way to develop the skill set.
We talked about this yesterday.
So most people don't need college in that sense, and also most people don't need college in order to learn.
Because it's not like I'm... Even though I think that most kids, when they graduate high school, should not go to college, that doesn't mean that most kids, when they graduate high school, should stop learning.
No, you should continue.
You should be learning your entire life.
You should be excited about learning your entire life.
You should always be learning and absorbing new information.
But for most people, there's no reason why you have to learn after high school in a formal, sit-down classroom environment.
Especially these days.
You can go on the internet and the entire culmination of mankind's knowledge is available at your fingertips.
A lot of other things are available too at your fingertips.
A lot of things that you don't necessarily want to access, but if you can sift through all of that, you can learn anything that you want just by looking at that.
All right.
Let's see, I got one more.
Story, this is from the Daily Wire.
Airport workers, backed by one of the biggest labor unions in the nation, protested at LAX airport this week for stricter airline emission regulations to combat environmental racism.
The protesters are members of the Service Employees International Union, United Service Workers West organization, and the airport's Workers United.
The protest occurred in front of a departure terminal at the airport.
Protesters used the phrase, no justice, no peace, and no clean air, no peace.
I think we have footage of this.
inspiring protest. Let's watch it.
[Protestors chanting]
Hercules is a seductive tradition.
OK, so that was the protest outside the airport.
And by the way, I was just looking.
So they're protesting environmental racism.
And the article says What is that?
Environmental racism is a disproportionate impact of environmental hazards of people of color.
Communities of color are more likely to live in polluted neighborhoods, and as a result, we suffer the highest rates of asthma, cancer, and heart disease.
So that's what environmental racism is.
So first of all, just to say that there is no sure way to persuade people to hate you and your cause than to stage a protest at an airport.
LAX, of all airports.
I mean, LAX is already the worst airport in the history of aviation.
I mean, honestly, the only good thing about LAX, and I think about this every time I'm on my way to LAX, only good thing, there's one bright side, which is that if your plane crashes on the way to that airport, then it does give you like a silver lining to think about as you plunge to your death.
You could just think to yourself, well, at least I don't have to deal with LAX now.
That's the only good thing about it.
LAX is so bad that the last time I was there, our plane had landed and pulled up to the gate and it still took us an hour, okay, an hour to get off the plane.
Even from the time we pulled into the gate, it took us an hour to get off the plane because they couldn't find any gate agents to come and operate the jet bridge thing and open the door.
They couldn't find anyone to open the door, so we waited an hour for someone to open the door.
And, you know, the flight attendants are, like, calling in and saying, can someone come and open the door?
Workers are on their lunch break.
You guys can wait.
LAX is an airport.
It's run and staffed by people who've never been inside an airport before.
That's what it feels like.
All their employees at LAX airport emerge from some sort of time portal from the year 1760.
They just walk around looking baffled, utterly perplexed.
If you need them for anything, if you have to ask them to do anything, they're just completely confused.
I mean, it's really every airport in the country, but especially LAX.
So, now imagine that things are even more congested and even slower than usual because there are environmentalist hippies staging a protest out front.
My god.
And now imagine that you're sitting in traffic on your way to the airport, and traffic is heavy because there are environmentalists blocking the road for a protest, and then once you get there, there are even more environmentalists at the airport clogging things up.
These people are I mean, I've never seen a political movement quite like this, where the people involved in the movement are utterly determined to make us hate them.
And mission accomplished, by the way.
But at least we now know what environmental racism is.
Environmental racism apparently is not, as I had assumed, you know, maybe as you assumed from that term, you think environmental racism, that must be when the environment itself is racist, like the climate has been radicalized by Fox News or something.
That's not what it is.
Environmental racism is the claim that racial minorities are somehow more impacted by the environment than the rest of us.
I mean the environment is the thing that we all live in so you know you think if there was anything like the left they always like to take their special victim groups and say this really impacts these people the most.
You think if there was one thing they couldn't do that with it's the climate and the environment because we all live on earth and we are all subject to it really to the same degree.
But even this, they do that with, because they say that minorities are more likely to live in urban areas, and it's polluted, and all the rest of it.
Which, you know, that part is true.
But you know, here's the great thing.
If you live in an urban area, and there's a lot of pollution, and it's gross, and there's litter, and it's just disgusting, and you're surrounded by, I mean, Ironically, you're not really surrounded by the natural environment at all.
You're surrounded by concrete and glass and plastic and everything and you're getting asthma and all the rest of it.
If you find yourself in that situation and you don't want to be in that situation, which I understand, I wouldn't want to live that way either, then here's what you can do.
You can move.
Just move to a different place.
Don't live there anymore.
Just a radical idea.
Just a suggestion I wanted to throw out there.
All right, now let's get to our new segment on the show, Was Walsh Wrong?
As you might know, we're all fans of our friends at GenuCell here.
Don't just take my word for it, though.
Ella from Rockford says, quote, I have both age and acne spots, and this stuff is actually fading both of them.
This serum is worth every penny.
Ella's raving about the famous Dark Spot Corrector from GenuCell, which they must have after months of record heat and humidity.
Sun spots, brown spots, discoloration, even red inflamed patches all disappear in front of your very eyes.
And here's the Genucell Amazing Guarantee.
You'll see results on day one or your money back.
You know who has a lot of dark spots?
My producer, Sean.
He also has an upsetting amount of acne.
Just like he doesn't know how to cook a marshmallow, he doesn't know how to take care of his skin as well.
He is a disgusting monster, and I would tell him.
In fact, he's sitting right over there right now.
He's listening to this and he needs to hear it.
Someone needed to talk about it.
Anyway, now he's using GenuCell.
Thank God.
And he's no longer completely hideous.
He's only partially hideous.
So take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package, which now includes the Dark Spot Corrector plus the classic GenuCell Bags and Puffiness Treatment and Immediate Effects.
You get all of that at about 70% off.
So you can try the best skincare in the world yourself for completely risk-free.
It's simple.
Go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh and start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.
Say goodbye to dark and liver spots, bags and puffiness under the eyes and crow's feet at GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
That's GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
Silicon Rebel says, the problem with Texas's age verification on porn is the requirement to give the government a valid government ID to continue.
It makes a de facto data mining operation resulting in a blackmail file for the government to use against individuals in the future.
Buying alcohol or tobacco doesn't result in my ID being stored in the government database saying that I bought it.
Age verification could be done in numerous other ways.
I share Matt Walsh's distaste for the pornography industry, but we can't throw out the Constitution or expand the security state.
To battle the porn industry.
To be honest, I don't think the takedown of the porn industry can or will ever come for legislation.
It can only come from spreading the gospel message of Jesus and changing the hearts and minds of sinful individuals.
As to your last point, yes, I agree that ultimately our goal is to change.
Ultimately, we are battling sin.
You're right about that.
And so we are calling on a higher power, and that higher power is not the government.
So you're also correct on that point.
However, it's also unfortunately true that the churches in this country that are ostensibly supposed to be the ones who are, you know, in charge of spreading the gospel message and certainly rallying people together to spread that message, they have totally failed on this point.
I mean, completely.
Just like the churches in America failed on everything.
They've just completely failed when it comes to pretty much every cultural battle, including this one.
But that's sort of a separate but important issue that we can talk about.
When it comes to the idea of the government requiring an ID to access pornography, and you say that it's unconstitutional, The only way that could be unconstitutional is if you have some kind of basic human right to access internet porn to begin with.
And even if you did, I'm still not convinced that that would automatically mean that you shouldn't be required to show an ID.
I mean, there are other things you have the right to do, but I still think you should show an ID.
Voting, for example, is a big one.
You have the right to vote.
I think, and this is not the case everywhere, but I think you should have to show an ID to vote, even though it's a right that you have.
So there are plenty of examples like that.
So even if I agreed with your premise, what appears to be your premise, that accessing pornography is a constitutional right, it still doesn't follow from that That it's an infringement on that right to require identification.
Especially when there's a real serious reason.
The government actually has an interest in requiring an ID.
What's the interest in requiring an ID for voting?
It's to make sure there's not voter fraud going on.
And that is an interest that I think overrides someone's concern about privacy if they have to show their ID to vote.
And the interest when it comes to pornography is to stop children from accessing this extremely harmful content.
And that interest, in my mind, overrides your concern about your privacy because you want to access your masturbation material, right?
Um, so I don't think that that follows even from your premise, but your premise is also just completely wrong.
There is no constitutional right to access pornography that doesn't exist at all.
Um, and so, uh, that's, that's the first problem, I think, with your argument.
Um, de Katchen says everyone on the right who actually supports free speech also supports the legality of pornography because that's the whole point of free speech.
You have to defend the speech you don't agree with or else you don't actually agree with free speech as a principle at all.
So I'm gonna ask you, so you say that pornography is free speech.
So let me ask you this.
What is pornography saying?
When someone has sex on camera, or you have someone on OnlyFans or whatever, what are they saying?
What's the message that they're communicating?
Okay, if you sit down and watch pornography, are you sitting there and saying, wow, this is a great, this is an incredible message.
What an insight.
Like, what insights are they offering about the world through pornography?
The answer is none.
There's no message.
There's no insight.
There's nothing being communicated.
It's just someone having sex on camera.
It's prostitution.
Is prostitution free speech?
It's not speech, it's an activity that you're engaging in.
And not all activities are legal.
There are some activities that you shouldn't be allowed to do.
And we can argue about whether prostitution or pornography are one of those things, but it's an activity you should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
But the point is that that's what it is.
It's not speech.
You're not conveying a message.
Okay, so to my mind, speech, I know this is a long-running debate about what exactly, what is free speech?
What is speech to begin with?
How do we define that?
What qualifies as speech?
And you're always gonna find these gray areas, sorts of situations.
I don't think that porn exists anywhere close to that gray area.
To me, the question of what is speech is very, very simple.
It is the conveying of a message.
That's speech.
There's different ways to convey a message.
You can write it.
You can speak it.
You can chant it.
You can write it on a sign.
You know, you can sing it.
Like, there are a lot of ways to convey a message.
But porn is not conveying a message.
It's just an activity that people engage in for profit.
And so we can take a look at that activity and say, well, is this the kind of activity that we should allow or not?
Although, once again, so I don't agree with the premise of your argument, but also your premise is irrelevant.
Because even if I did agree that porn is speech and that it should be free speech, that still doesn't follow from that, that we shouldn't have some kind of age identification requirement to make sure that nine-year-olds aren't being exposed to it.
So for the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you and I say, yeah, porn is speech.
You know, they're really, you know, pornographers are, they have a message that they're trying to convey.
That's what it's really all about.
Well, okay.
So that means that we shouldn't require an ID to make sure that, that, that 10 year olds aren't accessing it.
Why?
Because if it's speech, I think, I hope we would both agree that it's, if it is speech, it's speech for adults, not for kids.
And so let's make sure the kids aren't accessing it.
Finally, Foxy Nerd says, not a fan of the new segment, we all know Walsh will never admit he's wrong.
Well, that's completely absurd.
You cannot say that.
Once again, this is a false premise.
How can you say that I'll never admit that I'm wrong?
Because I've never been wrong.
So how do you know that I wouldn't admit it?
Think about it.
I've never had the opportunity to admit that I'm wrong about something because I've never been wrong.
I would love to admit it.
I would be the first one to admit that I was wrong about something.
So I can put my humility on display for all to see.
But I've just, unfortunately, I've been deprived of the opportunity to admit I was wrong because I've just literally never been wrong about a single thing ever.
That's the problem.
Innovation Refunds has been helping small businesses that qualify to get a business payroll tax refund through the Employee Retention Credit, also known as the ERC.
The ERC is a tax refund for businesses that kept employees on payroll for parts of 2020 and 2021.
If you own a business with more than five employees, you could have money waiting to be claimed.
Innovation Refunds independent tax attorneys can help your business's claims stay compliant with IRS regulations and guidelines.
Innovation Refunds has hundreds of five-star trust pilot and Google reviews.
They're also accredited with the Better Business Bureau.
Innovation Refunds does not provide tax or legal advice.
They work with an independent network of tax professionals and will share information with them to evaluate and process your claims.
Go to innovationrefunds.com to determine eligibility.
If you qualify, you could be on your way to receiving money for your business.
There's no upfront charge since they don't get paid unless you get paid.
Go to innovationrefunds.com or dial 1-843-REFUNDS.
That's innovationrefunds.com or 1-843-REFUNDS.
Terms and conditions apply.
Also, we have a very exciting offer coming up for all Daily Wire members.
Early access to a first look at the highly anticipated 10-part original series with Candace Owens convicting a murderer.
Early access to view the series is September 7th, only on Daily Wire.
Plus, get ready, Candace is about to expose Hollywood's representation of the highly controversial Stephen Avery case that was made famous by the popular series Making a Murderer.
Hollywood portrayed Stephen Avery as an innocent victim of corrupt law enforcement, Which was very convenient in a time when the anti-police movement was raging.
Candace exposes Hollywood and the media for carefully crafting stories to elicit an emotional reaction and manipulate the public.
In Convicting a Murderer, Candace uncovers a shocking amount of details in the Steven Avery case that paint quite a different picture than the one you were shown in Making a Murderer.
Take a look at the season teaser to get a glimpse into what the series has in store.
Here it is, check it out.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
Part of me don't want to believe that he did this.
The blood that was on that back area was indicative of a head wound.
My brother likes to push a lot of people around.
I don't give a f*** about anything.
I ain't gotta listen to nobody.
How were these filmmakers able to convince so many people that a man like Stephen Avery is innocent?
How many times did he stab her?
Once.
Then show me where.
Right here.
They gave him power.
They're trying to get everything It's not good for an Avery to have power.
I told you all along, keep your f***ing mouth shut.
That can hurt, Steven.
I'm not gonna lie for him no more.
I can't do it.
Watch Convicting a Murderer, a new 10-part series on Daily Wire+.
Again, early access to watch Convicting a Murder will be available to DailyWirePlus members on September 7th.
The official premiere for Convicting a Murder will take place on X on September 8th at 9 p.m.
Eastern.
Candice will be live chatting with special guests at the X event at 5 p.m.
So make sure you head over to the X space to join the conversation.
The full series will be available only on DailyWirePlus.
So head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join us and use code truth for 25% off your DailyWirePlus subscription.
Everyone is going to be talking about Candice's take on the series.
Don't miss out and subscribe today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
You know, I try to have fun in this segment wherever I can.
I try to keep it lighthearted.
Well, maybe not lighthearted, but at least not as heavy as the rest of the show.
I mean, that's not true either, I guess.
Yesterday we talked about porn addiction here, so maybe... Well, anyway, the point is that sometimes I like to use this segment as an opportunity to discuss topics that are slightly less serious, but today will not be one of those days, unfortunately.
Today we have to talk about pain, about suffering, about emotional trauma, about horror and tragedy, about death.
Maybe not physical death, but the death of hope, of joy, of peace.
We have to talk about a terribly evil person who has done an unspeakably terrible thing.
As you've probably already guessed, we have to talk about me.
This past spring, you may recall, I toured college campuses across the country and I shared my ideas about human biology.
And namely, my one radical idea about human biology is that it exists.
It is a thing.
Which is a point of view that stands in direct opposition to the left, which claims that human biology is most decidedly not a thing at all.
My college tour turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.
Not for me.
I mean, from my vantage point, it was great.
The talks were very well attended.
I had a lot of fun.
But for the leftists on these campuses, my mere presence was a source of great personal suffering.
They ran through the streets, weeping and wailing.
They screamed and screeched.
Dumped marbles in the hallways.
They pulled fire alarms.
They ripped out pages of the Bible and ate them.
These are all very real things that they actually did, but you can't blame them for it.
I mean, who among us has not become so upset by someone else's opinion that we dumped marbles and consumed ancient scriptures in a fit of rage?
It's a classic coping mechanism, so let's not judge them for it.
So I knew that my presence was traumatic for the left-wing students on campus.
I still continued my tour, though, even in spite of their pleas and their cries.
And I continued because I had an obligation to the student groups that had invited me.
And also I continued because I found the whole spectacle, well, hilarious.
But little did I know that the carnage I was causing extended far beyond the campuses themselves.
Here's the Daily Wire with the report, quote, "A recent Matt Walsh appearance
at New Mexico State University upset two New Mexico State senators so much
that they're now asking the university to address the policies
that allowed Walsh to speak on campus.
Democrat State Senators, Carrie Hamblin and William Soles, along with seven other state, county,
and municipal government officials, signed the letter late last month
addressed to the NMSU Board of Regents interim president.
In the letter, the officials expressed their extreme disappointment
that the university allowed Walsh to speak on campus at a Young Americas for Freedom event in April.
The letter, first reported by YAF, accused Walsh of encouraging violence
and spouting racist and pro-slavery rhetoric.
The officials also accused Walsh of minimizing accusations against known pedophiles and child abusers
without providing any basis to level that accusation."
So yes, apparently my physical presence in the state of New Mexico for less than 24 hours
was a source of extreme anguish, not just for the students at the school,
but also for a collection of state and county political leaders
who have now come together to demand that I never be allowed to speak on campus ever again.
Now, this may seem like a slight overreaction, but in fairness, we haven't read the letter yet.
Maybe they make a good case.
Maybe I did something to deserve this level of condemnation from elected officials in the state.
Maybe I physically assaulted a student.
Maybe I physically assaulted somebody when I was there.
Maybe I stopped in the middle of my talk and pulled out a sword and single-handedly decapitated 200 members of the audience like a scene from Kill Bill.
Maybe.
I mean, this would certainly warrant a ban from campus, I think, though it would also mean that I put on an easily the most entertaining college talk of all time.
So let's find out if I did anything like that.
Here's the letter signed by, along with the two already mentioned, State Representative Angelica Rubio.
Council Mayor Pro Tem Cassandra Gandara, City Councilors Becky Corrin, Johanna Bencomo, and Becky Graham, and Donna Anne County Commissioners Shannon Reynolds and Christopher Hernandez.
So these are all the people that signed the letter.
It says this, quote, During the month of June, in towns and cities all across the country, the LGBTQI community celebrates pride, recognizing the contributions that queer individuals have had on our history and emphasizing the need for more protection, safety, and fairness in all aspects of life.
And yet, since January, over 560 anti-trans laws have been introduced in state legislatures.
These laws attack the safety and mere existence of trans individuals.
According to the Trevor Project, a queer person will consider suicide every 45 seconds.
I'd like that to sink in.
Every 45 seconds.
Yes, let's pause and allow that utterly fabricated statistic from a left-wing activist group to sink in.
Just pause and really consider that thing that they totally just made up.
And I know they made it up because there's no possible way to tabulate down to the very second how often an entire group of people considers something.
Now, of course, even if you could come up with this kind of calculation, even if it was accurate, it wouldn't be relevant to me or my talk at New Mexico State University or anything else that I've said and done.
There is evidence that suicidality is higher among LGBT identified people, and especially those in the T category.
But the claim that this is because of a lack of affirmation from people like myself is pure baseless speculation.
It is a politically convenient assumption, not remotely borne out by the facts.
After all, as I've often pointed out, if a lack of affirmation causes trans suicide, then we should see the suicide rate plummeting as society becomes more and more affirming.
50 years ago, society did not affirm transness at all, anywhere, at any level.
Today, it's affirmed by everyone from the federal government to the Fortune 500.
Is the suicide rate significantly lower for trans-identified people as a result of that increase in affirmation?
Well, there's simply no evidence of that.
Anyway, let's get back to the letter.
Maybe we'll get to the point where I start chopping off heads.
I don't know.
We'll keep reading.
Quote, "Which is why I, along with the public leaders and legislators below, are writing to express
our extreme disappointment in New Mexico State University with the speaking event that involved Matt Walsh in April.
As a self-proclaimed transphobe of the year and for repeatedly encouraging violence,
minimizing accusations against known pedophiles and child abusers, and for spouting racist
and pro-slavery rhetoric, it is shocking that NMSU would allow him to have a public event
on the Las Cruces campus."
Okay, well, that is just beyond the pale.
I mean, completely false and out of line.
I am not a self-proclaimed transphobe of the year.
I was awarded that title fair and square.
I did not make it up for myself.
This has not stolen valor, okay?
I was given that.
Also, of course, everything else in that paragraph is made-up nonsense.
I have never done any of the things they accused me of or said any of the things they just accused me of saying, so no big deal there.
Just brazen defamation from a group of elected officials.
Another day at the office, I suppose.
Continuing, it says, and to add to the already horrific list of qualities Walsh possesses, he was quoted on March 31st, 2023 as saying, quote, all of us today would be in a worse spot if slavery never existed at all across the entire globe, because a change that significant would likely shift the course of events in a way that would mean none of us would even exist.
It would mean a world full of other people who are not us.
Yes, I did say that.
I did in fact say that objectively and obviously true thing.
So they caught me on that one.
The letter goes on for a while longer and it ends this way.
Listen to this.
There is no disagreement to the right to free speech and the need to hear diverse points of view.
However, studies show that trans people are more likely to experience mental health struggles, including anxiety, depression, PTSD, and thoughts of suicide.
Welcoming a speaker who spouts harm and violence to a portion of the student population is contradictory to NMSU values.
In the 2023 New Mexico legislative session, the modification to the Human Rights Act were adopted providing a pathway for disabled and queer individuals to seek justice for discrimination.
These modifications included holding public institutions, including state agencies, universities, and churches that receive taxpayer monies from discriminating against them because of who they are.
NMSU had a responsibility to shield trans and queer students, many of whom were disregarded when expressing their concerns and fears because of the Walsh event.
The letter then concludes by urging the university to explain its rationale for allowing me to speak there in spite of the fact that I, quote, frighten and harm trans people.
It is demanded that they take steps to prevent, quote, future emotional and psychological damage.
As for me going berserk and decapitating audience members, the letter never mentions it.
Maybe that's because I never did physically assault, kill, or maim anyone, or maybe it's because they didn't think it was worth mentioning because they were too busy talking about the trans people whose feelings I hurt.
We'll never know for sure.
As for what they did say, it's once again a whole load of nonsense.
They claim that there's no disagreement with the right to free speech.
Actually, they say there's no disagreement to the right to free speech because the authors of this letter have the writing skills of third graders.
But even after affirming free speech in their semi-literate way, they then proceed in the very next sentence to insist that free speech rights are null and void if a trans person feels bad.
They affirm free speech, so long as the speech doesn't give anyone in the LGBT club a case of the sads.
In which case, there is no free speech.
Perhaps most shockingly, they then claim that allowing me to speak amounts to discrimination against trans students.
In other words, not discriminating against me is discrimination against trans people.
This is how human rights work on the left, because they have no coherent view of human rights.
They cannot even explain what a human right is or define the term, which is a common problem on that side of the aisle.
So for them, according to their half-baked conceptions, human rights are a zero-sum game.
To give one group rights is to take rights away from another.
Which means that they simply have to decide which group should win in that contest.
And that contest is really no contest at all, as far as they're concerned.
Indeed, this is what protected classes are all about.
This is why they make those designations to begin with.
It's to decide who gets all the rights and who gets none.
Except that the rights that they grant to their favorite groups are not real human rights at all.
You know, they're not rights bestowed on us by God as a fundamental aspect of our human nature and our dignity as human beings.
No, what they're talking about are invented rights.
The right to never be challenged.
The right to never feel sad.
The right to be affirmed.
The right to be insulated from opposing viewpoints.
The right to be the only person in the room allowed to speak.
These are the rights they give to their magical protected groups.
The rest of us are supposed to simply shut up and go along, which is something that I've never been very good at doing and I don't plan on doing now.
In fact, I am so inspired by this letter that now I really want to go back to New Mexico State University and give another speech.
It is a public university.
No elected official has any legal right to stop me.
Now, of course, the problem is that the student group would need to get funding, which may be very difficult to obtain now, which is why I'll fly down there and give the speech for free, simply despite these pathetic, spineless, cry-bully tyrants.
That's my offer to the AFT chapter on campus.
Let's do another event.
Let's make it even bigger.
And let's make these people cry even harder this time.
There is virtue in making bullies cry.
Plus, it's a lot of fun.
And that is why the New Mexico officials who wrote this letter are today canceled.
