Ep. 1217 - Here's How I Became The Media's Villain This Week
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media and the Left have spent all week in a fit of rage because of one thing that I tweeted over the weekend. We'll talk about why I'm the villain of the week, and what's really behind all of the over the top outrage. Also, the CEO of leftist extremist group the ADL responds to the viral "ban the ADL" movement. The mayor of New York warns that illegal immigration is going to destroy the city, or whatever is left of it. And another town tries to solve the homeless problem by simply giving the homeless a place to stay. We'll see how well that worked out. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1217
- - -
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:
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Cynch - Download the Cynch app and get your first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code WALSH. Visit http://cynch.com/offer for details.
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 Walsh Show, the media and the left have spent all week in a fit of rage because of one thing that I tweeted over the weekend.
We'll talk about why I'm the villain of the week and what's really behind all the over-the-top outrage.
Also, the CEO of leftist extremist group the ADL responds to the viral ban the ADL movement.
The mayor of New York warns that illegal immigration is going to destroy the city or whatever is left of it.
And another town tries to solve the homeless problem by simply giving the homeless a place to stay.
We'll see how well that worked out.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Innovation Refunds has been helping small businesses that qualify to get a business payroll tax refund through the
employee retention credit or 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 5 employees, you could have money waiting to be claimed Qualifying for the ERC goes beyond sales decline.
If your business faced challenges to the growth that it would have had without pandemic government orders, it may be eligible for a substantial refund also.
Innovation refunds, independent tax attorneys can help your business stay compliant with IRS regulations and guidelines.
They have hundreds of five-star trust pilot and Google reviews.
They're also accredited with the Better Business Bureau, and they won't charge you any upfront
fees or any money until you get paid.
Innovation Refunds does not provide tax or legal advice.
They work with an independent network of tax professionals, and they 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 receive 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.
Well, it is now Thursday by my calendar.
I did not plan to lead the show on Thursday talking about something that I tweeted on Sunday.
In fact, I didn't plan to talk about it at all.
But it turns out that what I tweeted on Sunday is very big news.
One of the biggest news items of the week, in fact.
Now, this is not according to me.
I don't find it especially newsworthy, to be honest.
But rather, it's according to the social media mob and the news media and daytime talk shows.
The Post had me trending for several days with thousands of outraged people screaming various unintelligible insults and telling me to kill myself in various gruesome ways and so on.
It was the subject of a lengthy and angry think piece by NBC News, another one by Rolling Stone, various other articles by other outlets, including the National Review, which called me out for, quote, shaming.
It was also discussed during a segment on The View.
And what makes all this quite funny and ironic is that everyone from The Mob to NBC to Rolling Stone to the ladies on The View all agree that what I posted was stupid because I shouldn't care so much about the thing I posted about.
In fact, the subject of my post was so irrelevant that they all decided to spend days telling me how irrelevant it is.
It's a rather common phenomenon, in fact.
So, let's back up and tell the whole story.
How did I become this week's supervillain?
What was the content of this post, the dumb post about a subject that doesn't matter, which is why it inspired multiple news articles informing us of how little it matters?
Well, it began with a TikTok video published by a woman named Julia Mazur.
Julia has a TikTok account where she frequently posts videos about her life as a single and childless 29-year-old woman.
She also has a podcast about the same subject where NBC tells us, She talks about being pretty much done with the societal expectation that she'll be married and have kids by the age of 30.
The podcast is called Pretty Much Done.
So, this is a woman who talks about this subject quite a lot and talks about it publicly, which would lead you to the conclusion that she wants people to notice and hear what she's saying.
Typically, if you have a social media account and a podcast dedicated to talking about your lifestyle choices, That's a good indication that you consider your lifestyle choices to be open for public discussion.
If you don't want public discussion about the choices you make in your life, then the smartest strategy would be to refrain from speaking publicly and frequently about the choices you make in your life, and even hosting a whole podcast on the subject.
Now, granted, this woman had a relatively small following up until now, but I've never heard of a burgeoning TikTok influencer and podcaster who only wants a few thousand people to interact with their content.
The point is that When I saw one of her videos floating around on Twitter, I figured it's fair game to respond to.
If this was a secretly recorded video of Julia venting to her friends in the privacy of her own home, taken and posted without her knowledge, then I certainly would not respond or repost it.
I would never want to participate in the invasion of another person's privacy like that.
But I don't consider a public response to public comments to be an invasion of privacy.
Call me crazy.
As for those public comments, here is the video that started all of this ruckus.
Let's watch.
It's 10 45 a.m.
on a Saturday.
I'm 29 and single and I don't have kids yet.
Here's what your Saturday morning looks like when you're single at 29 and you don't have a kid running around the house.
I didn't rise from my bed until 10 15.
Every time I thought, I should probably get up and do something.
I thought, why?
Nobody's making me and I'm not missing out on anything.
I went to Beyonce last night and I didn't get home until 1 a.m.
and I danced and drank my little heart out and I didn't pay a babysitter to watch my kids as I did that.
And I woke up a tad hungover this morning, which is probably why I was in bed for so long.
And I was just scrolling on my phone and I saw a picture of shakshuka and I thought, you know what sounds really good?
Maybe I'm gonna learn how to make shakshuka today.
Because I have no plans and I don't have kids and I don't have a husband and I don't have errands to run.
I can go to the grocery store and learn how to make shakshuka.
So that's on my agenda today.
Also on my agenda, probably a rewatch of some Real Housewives of New York.
I'm also doing a rewatch of Normal People on Hulu, which is really spicy and I highly recommend.
Weirdly, I'm into this documentary on Netflix about Blue Zone countries, so I've got a pretty stacked day.
Anyway, I say all this to say, whenever I'm hard on myself about why I'm not married and I don't have kids and I should be further along at 29, almost 30, I wouldn't want to do anything else this Saturday.
I know that you can do all these things when you have kids and you're married and I understand, but the effortlessness and ease of my life just kind of focusing on myself and the shakshuka I want to make or the Beyonce concert I want to go to really pays off when I'm hard on myself for not being where society tells me I should be in life.
Okay, alright, so there's the video.
I responded to that video when I saw it flooding around by tweeting this.
Her life doesn't revolve around her family and kids, so instead it revolves around TV shows and pop stars.
Worst of all, she's too stupid to realize how depressing this is.
Now, I'll admit the word "stupid" a little harsh.
I don't think it was a crime against humanity.
I don't think it was worthy of four days of intense national outrage.
I don't think it was newsworthy.
And I think by Internet standards, it's like practically a high five.
I mean, it really doesn't get quite to the level of a lot of other stuff you find on the Internet, but it was a bit harsh.
Perhaps oblivious would have been a more accurate, certainly more charitable choice of words.
Too oblivious.
Now, I have been known, I admit, to use harsh language at times.
I know it's a little shocking if you listen to this podcast and you say, you use harsh language?
I never heard it.
But I do sometimes.
And I will tend to do that when I feel especially passionate about an issue.
And I do quite passionately oppose the promotion of childlessness and the idea that we should spend our young adulthood focused on self-centered pursuits and mindless amusements.
I very much oppose that idea.
I think it leads to despair and societal decay.
I think that If a critical mass of people adopt this approach, it would eventually bring about the collapse of human civilization.
It's not to say that Julia on TikTok will cause the collapse of civilization, but rather that the idea, the life philosophy, that she, among many other people, promote, if accepted by enough people, will have that effect.
Which is why I tend to attack this idea quite vigorously.
Now, that could have been the end of the conversation.
It was one tweet about one TikTok video, not a big deal.
But then the outrage mob got to work and they swarmed and they screamed and they called me a bully and a Nazi and many other things.
They spent days, I mean days, I was trending again for days because of this.
Many other influencers, including some conservatives, condemned me in no uncertain terms.
Random famous people like Mark Cuban jumped onto the dog pile.
They said that she's just a young woman having fun and I should butt out.
They said that her choices are none of my business.
They blamed me for bringing attention to Julia that they assumed she didn't want, which again, Is ironic, because the whole reason I was trending, and thus why Julia was trending by extension, was because of all the people outraged at me.
If they had all shut up and gone about their day, there wouldn't have been any of this attention.
But then again, shutting up and going about their day is not exactly the MO of the outrage mob.
Next came the media.
Yesterday, NBC News published their article about this.
Now this makes, I believe, My third NBC hit piece since July, which is a respectable pace of one per month.
Frankly, I think we could pump those numbers up, and I'll try to do that.
But the article has this headline, quote, "She was a child-free woman enjoying her Saturday.
Then came the culture warriors."
Reading now, it says, "Julia Mazur was having a relaxing Saturday when she decided
to chronicle her day on TikTok."
By Sunday, she had become the most recent fodder for the Internet's ongoing culture war about societal expectations for women.
Mazur, 29, had posted a 92-second video to her 7,000 TikTok followers laying out a day in her life as a single, childless woman planning to take a crack at making the egg dish shakshuka and watch some TV.
The next day, the hate started to pour in.
All of a sudden, on Sunday, I started receiving hateful comments.
And then I caught wind that he had posted my TikTok, Mazur said.
He, in this case, is Matt Walsh, a conservative media provocateur who posted Mazur's video on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, to his more than 2.4 million followers, stating that she is too stupid to realize how depressing this is.
Other conservative pundits piled on.
Some on the left came to her defense.
I think some, the word some is perhaps a bit of an understatement.
And actually, I didn't post the video on the platform, someone else did.
But we can't expect accuracy from NBC after all.
I'm not going to hold them to that impossible standard for them.
We're then told this, quote, Mazur had inadvertently found herself in an ongoing and fervent corner of the culture war that is increasingly playing out online.
One where content that directs hate towards women, even against women with relatively small social media presences, has become profitable and popular inside and outside of conservative circles.
Walsh and many other right-leaning voices are part of a larger conservative movement that promotes what they consider to be traditional family values.
That has included targeting medical gender transition procedures and openly criticizing women who have not married and had children.
One version of this ideology has become known as trad wife content, where women envision 50-style housewife ideals, including subservience to their husbands, which has made the practice controversial.
Now, I'll say, just another sidebar, I think the word inadvertent is doing a lot of work there.
She quite advertently has created a lot of content talking about being, quote, child-free.
This is not a conversation she finds herself in by accident, but the article continues.
NBC News reviewed hateful comments made on X about Mazur's appearance and her ability to have children in the future, while Mazur said she also received direct hate and threats.
Quote, I understand that with social media you're putting yourself out there to be judged or criticized, but I don't believe anyone has the right to spread hate.
And the way his followers spoke about me and Toomey was deplorable, Mazur said in a phone interview.
It definitely gave me empathy for celebrities and influencers who put themselves out there and painted a new light for how the internet works.
Now a couple quick things here.
I don't believe that I was spreading hate, but whatever you want to call it, I do have the right to say what I said for the record.
Second, obviously if anyone is making threats against this woman that is insane and wrong and grotesque.
I will say that I did not see a single person making anything even resembling a threat.
And it's interesting that NBC News reviewed the quote hateful comments, but they didn't review the alleged threats.
Make of that what you will.
From there, the article tells us how Mazur wants people to ignore, quote, societal pressure and, quote, live the lives they want to live for themselves.
It says that she rejected the, quote, rhetoric from her first generation Russian Jewish family, the rhetoric that said that she should get married and have kids.
And it ends with this quote.
I found myself in those safe, good-on-paper relationships, but I also found myself feeling deeply unhappy and unfulfilled because I felt like I was checking off a box to appease other people.
Throughout that process, I realized that's not the only thing that can make you fulfilled.
I'm 29 and single, and I feel fulfilled by my life and my career, by my friends and my family.
So, she was in, according to her, good relationships with good men, which, by the way, according to the information about herself that she is volunteering to the public, She was in good relationships with good men.
She was these were good.
She says they were safe But she says she left them anyway because she was unfulfilled for unspecified reasons And now she's 29 and childless and focusing on spending her time watching TV shows and so on What's more she wants to encourage other people to adopt this same strategy to as she says live for themselves Now I must say again that I absolutely reject That.
I think it's terrible advice.
I think it's a terrible way to live, and I will never tire of fighting back against this despair-inducing philosophy, no matter who is promoting it.
Because the philosophy really is the point here.
It's the whole point.
It's not about some woman on TikTok.
And that's not what the left and the media are concerned about.
They're not angry at me for being mean to Julia.
They're angry at me for attacking a philosophy, a philosophy of self-centeredness and materialism that they all personally live by.
This was made clear in the Rolling Stone article about this, titled, The right would like all women to be 1950s housewives, please.
Apparently, we've moved on from transphobia for clicks to shrieking at women for not giving birth.
What follows from there is all the tripe you would expect.
We probably don't need to read through any of it.
We also don't need to listen to Joy Behar's take on all this, but as for that, we actually will listen to it anyway.
Here it is.
Now he came to the defense of a 29-year-old woman who's on TikTok extolling the joys of being single and childless and it went viral after conservative commentator Matt Walsh, whoever he is, took issue with her stance.
Watch the TikTok.
Here's what your Saturday morning looks like when you're single at 29 and you don't have a kid running around the house.
I didn't rise from my bed until 10.15.
Every time I thought, I should probably get up and do something, I thought, why?
Nobody's making me.
I can go to the grocery store and learn how to make shakshuka.
So that's on my agenda today.
Also on my agenda probably a rewatch of some Real Housewives of New York.
the effortlessness and ease of my life just kind of focusing on myself and the
shakshuka I want to make or the Beyonce concert I want to go to really pays off
when I'm hard on myself for not being where society tells me I should be in
life.
In the get a life category this Matt Walsh did a whole thing but my favorite
is that Stephen Miller the architect of a family separation weighed in on this
about how children are the most important thing unless they're migrants I
guess or unless they're not his favorite type of children.
Stephen Miller, remember him?
Yes, I do, unfortunately.
And you know what?
Unfortunately, he has two children himself, and I am just saying that.
Well, Joy, you don't have to act like you've never heard of me.
We all know you secretly listen to my podcast every day, just like I secretly watch The View every day as penance for my sins.
In any case, it's obvious what's really going on here.
The media and the mob are pretending to white knight for a small-time TikTok influencer and podcaster who suffered the horrific fate of going viral, which is the one thing that every influencer and podcaster dreads most of all.
But they don't actually care about her.
As I said, they're angry not that I criticized what Julia said, but that I criticized them.
She was expressing a point of view that they all agree with and live by.
And it's that point of view that they are passionately defending.
It's the point of view that says we should live for ourselves, focus on ourselves, and find happiness in our own pleasure and amusement, and that's it.
It's a point of view that says the highest joy is that which can be found by consuming pop culture content unencumbered by the demands of family life and parenthood.
The point of view, the one that places living for yourself over living for something greater and more enduring than yourself, is the dominant view in our culture.
And that is the point that Julie on TikTok gets wrong most of all.
Because she says that society tells her she should be married and have kids by 30.
But that is not at all what society says.
In fact, the mainstream of society, the most powerful voices of institutions, including corporate media, fully agree with her that young people should focus on themselves and have fun and put off marriage and family life.
We know they agree with her, which is why she said what she said, I disagreed, and everyone is defending her and attacking me over that.
Which is fine, but it shows that where does society land on this?
Pretty clearly on her end of the spectrum.
Now, they agree that You know, even if we find ourselves in a good relationship with a good person, we should leave it anyway in order to give ourselves more time to scroll social media and make shakshuka and whatever else.
So, between the two of us, if anyone is living in a way that is not approved by society, that is certainly not recommended by society, and is in fact, in many cases, scorned by many in society, it would be me.
I'm 37 with six kids, she's 29 with none.
The powers that be approve of her choices, Much, much more than they approve of mine.
She is already living as society wants her to live.
Or at least as the forces driving society want her to live.
Because those forces don't actually want her or anyone else to be happy and fulfilled.
I do want that for her and for everyone.
Which is why I say, yes, you should get married and have kids.
I don't say that for my own sake.
I already am.
Okay?
So this is not advice I need to give myself.
It's not something that I benefit from.
But it's something that everyone, almost everyone, would benefit from.
That is what most human beings on this planet are meant to do.
To start families.
It's what we are called to do.
It's what we are designed for.
To form families, to build homes, to fill those homes with love, and live in service to something greater, deeper, and more beautiful than our TVs and our phones and our careers.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things in proper proportion.
But there's more to life than that.
Or at least there should be.
And that's what I want the Julias of the world to understand.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
Grand Canyon University is an affordable, private Christian university that is located
in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, and is a vibrant and expansive campus,
ranked top 20 in the country according to niche.com.
Praised for its culture of community giving and impact, GCU integrates the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview perspective into over 320 academic programs with more than 260 programs online as of March 2023.
Earn your bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree where you can engage with faculty and connect with your own university counselor who takes a personalized approach for your success.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
So late last week was an interesting hashtag campaign that started on social media.
It was hashtag ban the ADL, which is the, of course, the Anti-Defamation League.
And this all began after Jonathan Greenblatt, who's the CEO of the ADL, tweeted that he had met with Twitter, and it was a productive meeting, and they talked about how to keep hate speech off the platform.
This is what he posted.
I had a very frank and productive conversation with the CEO of Twitter yesterday about X, what works and what doesn't, and where it needs to go to address hate effectively on the platform.
I appreciated her reaching out and I'm hopeful the service will improve.
ADL will be vigilant and give her and Elon Musk credit if the service gets better and reserve the right to call them out until it does.
So a lot of people responded to that by saying, hey, if you want to be vigilant about keeping hate off the platform, then I guess we should ban the ADL.
And that's where the Ban the ADL campaign was born.
You know, let's let's ban them and their, quote, hate speech from the platform if that's what they want.
Which is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.
I'm fully on board with it.
Well, the ADL is not going to take this lying down.
They will lie.
They will take it lying, but they're not going to lie down.
So, they fought back the only way they know how, by calling all of their critics white supremacists.
Of course, here is Greenblatt on CNBC yesterday about all the terrible white supremacists that are attacking him.
Let's watch.
Well, so let's step back, right?
So I had a meeting last week with Linda Iaccarino, the new CEO of Twitter, at her request.
And we had a very frank and productive conversation.
I tweeted afterwards about that fact, that we had a frank and productive conversation, as I've had with Elon Musk in the past.
And then that triggered a number of white supremacists to organize this hashtag campaign, ban the ADL.
And you've got to understand, and we're used to this at the ADL, we regularly get attacked by the right and the left, but this campaign went viral very quickly with white supremacists, you know, hardened anti-semites and other people spreading it across the service, and it literally was a trending topic.
The truth is, is that our community is vulnerable, people are on edge, and when Elon Musk is amplifying these people, like, it's very problematic.
Very problematic.
Very problematic.
Well, but that is the only explanation, right?
If someone doesn't like the ADL, it must be because they're white supremacists.
Yeah, so perhaps someone doesn't like the ADL because the ADL is a left-wing extremist group, an enemy of free speech, and thus an enemy of the United States and what it's supposed to stand for.
And it contributes absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation or society.
The only thing it contributes to the conversation is by trying to shut any conversation down.
Any conversation that makes them uncomfortable, anyway.
So that might be another reason why people were criticizing the ADL.
And that's the thing.
The ADL is the Anti-Defamation League.
And if you didn't know anything about it, you hear the name and you think, well, that's good.
They must be a good organization.
Defamation is bad.
Everyone dislikes defamation.
They're anti-defamation.
That's good.
Just like a similarly oblivious person might hear the Human Rights Campaign and think, oh, well, human rights are good, that must be a great organization.
Or they might hear the American Civil Liberties Union and think, well, civil liberties are great, I support those, so I support the ACLU.
But these are just names, and the names are smoke screens for radical, anti-American, anti-freedom organizations.
The ADL, just like the Southern Poverty Law Center, it exists To label its political enemies as terrorists, and as radical extremists, and as dangerous, and to shut down their speech.
I've been singled out by the ADL.
Myself.
I think the phrase they used was, um, an online amplifier of hate, they said.
Which in leftist language just means I'm a conservative.
So I made one of their watch lists.
They've got a bunch of watch lists.
At this point, if you're a conservative and you haven't made it on an ADL watch list, then you're real.
I mean, you got to do a self-inventory because you're really slacking.
The problem is that these organizations, ADL, HRC, all the rest, they are allegedly non-governmental organizations.
You know, these are not government agencies.
They have no legal power, in theory.
But they have been granted de facto legal powers, basically.
They've become de facto government agencies, kind of quasi-government agencies.
We live under the rule in this country of the ADL and similar organizations.
These pseudo-governmental bureaucracies, they run the country.
They determine what speech is allowed to be heard and what speech isn't allowed.
And that's the power and authority they've been granted quite illegitimately.
And that's why you have this absurd situation where Twitter is having a meeting with the ADL to determine what their hate speech policy should be.
But why would you meet with the ADL in the first place?
So when Greenblatt says, well, we had a productive meeting and we'll have more meetings, like, why?
Who cares about your opinion?
Twitter might as well meet with me.
They might as well call me into Twitter headquarters.
We have to have a conversation about what our policies should be.
In fact, I think I would have better advice on that end than certainly the ADL would have.
I know that I would.
But they're not.
They're not calling me in to talk about what their policy should be because I don't work at Twitter and I'm not any kind of authority figure.
So why talk to me about it?
True.
Why talk to the ADL about it?
What difference does their opinion make?
So why would you have a frank and productive meeting with them?
The only frank and productive meeting that I would have with the ADL if they wanted to have a meeting with me is the meeting where I tell them to kiss my ass.
That would be the end of the meeting.
And that could be pretty productive.
But this is what happens in the corporate world.
Even Twitter plays this game under Elon Musk, apparently.
And that's where these organizations get their power from, power that they should not have.
Like when the ADL or the SPLC, the HRC, you know, when any of these groups put you on a watch list, right, or label you dangerous, That should have no effect at all.
It should have zero effect.
It should be like Michael Scott in the office declaring bankruptcy by just walking outside and declaring the word bankruptcy.
It should just be like, that doesn't, who cares?
So you can declare, this person's on a watch list, alright?
What am I, an ADL watch list?
Are you sending spies around?
What do you mean watch a watch list?
Who's watching?
It should mean absolutely nothing and have no teeth, but it does have some teeth because, you know, the corporate world and the government has granted authority and power to these far-left organizations.
As for banning the ADL, you know, anytime you have something like this going on, there's always gonna be people on the right who say, no, we believe in free speech for all, we can't defy our own principles.
We're hypocrites, you know, if we start calling for the ADL to be banned, just because they want us all to be banned.
But no, it's not hypocrisy, okay?
Hypocrisy, first of all, hypocrisy is pretending to believe something that you don't really believe.
That's what being a hypocrite means.
That's what hypocrisy is.
And so if we say, yeah, ban the ADL from Twitter for hate speech, that's not any hypocrisy on our end.
Because it's not about our values, it's about the ADL's alleged values.
So all we're saying is, hold them to their own standards.
Hold them to their own professed value system.
And that's it.
Yeah, it's, again, not my value system, but that's not the point.
They should be forced to live by their own value system that they profess.
This is about holding them accountable for being the hypocrites.
And so that's why I'm always, I am always, always firmly in support of any attempt In any form, to hold the left to its own standards.
And they're going to be standards that I don't agree with.
Okay?
So it's going to be like, I think you should hold them to that standard, but I don't want to be held to that standard.
But that's not hypocritical for me to say, because they're not my standards.
I never said that I believe that.
I don't.
But this is what you believe, you claim, and so you should have to live with that.
This is your medicine, not mine.
You should take it.
All right.
So what else we got here?
Daily Wire has this report.
Mayor Eric Adams warned during a town hall meeting on Wednesday evening that New York City is on the verge of being destroyed because of the large number of illegal aliens that are being sent to the Democrat-controlled city.
Adams said that never in his life has he encountered a problem he was not able to fix and bring to an end, but that this illegal alien problem is one of those problems.
He can't fix it.
He doesn't know what to do.
He's helpless.
Let's watch a little bit of that meeting.
And let me tell you something, New Yorkers.
Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an end to.
I don't see an end to this.
I don't see an end to this.
This issue will destroy New York City.
Destroy New York City.
We're getting 10,000 migrants a month.
One time we were just getting Venezuela.
Now we're getting Ecuador.
Now we're getting Russian-speaking coming through Mexico.
Now we're getting Western Africa.
Now we're getting people from all over the globe have made their minds up that they're going to come through the southern part of the border and come into New York City.
And everyone is saying it's New York City's problem.
Every community in this city is going to be impacted.
We have a $12 billion deficit that we're going to have to cut.
Every service in this city is going to be impacted.
All of us.
And so I say to you, as I turn it over to you, this is some of the most educated, Some of the most knowledgeable, probably more of my commissioners and deputy commissioners and chiefs live in this community.
So as you asked me a question about migrants, tell me what role you played.
How many of you organized to stop what they're doing to us?
How many of you were part of the movement to say, we're seeing what this mayor is trying to do and they're destroying New York City?
It's going to come to your neighborhoods.
Yeah, so this is a good transition right from the last topic to this one because there's not much we even need to say about this.
This is a perfect example of what we just talked about that's playing out right now in New York City, of holding the left to their own standards.
You know, Mayor Adams And, you know, other Democrats and leftist leaders in New York are speaking out about illegal immigration.
And by the way, in pretty strident terms, he's talking about how it's going to be the destruction of the city.
He's actually listing the places.
Nicaragua, you know, he's listing the places where the people are coming from saying, we don't want these people.
It's the kind of thing that you hear that rhetoric from Donald Trump.
And it's racist, it's xenophobic, it's extremist, oh my god, how could he say that?
And now we're hearing it from Eric Adams.
And he's not the only one.
My question is, where were you when you had many other towns for decades in this country?
Especially towns down south, towns around the border, border towns.
They have been crying out about this problem for decades.
And where were you on that?
Did you have anything to say about that at all?
Did you care at all?
Or, in fact, did you go the other way?
And when it was happening to other people, you said that you called it xenophobia and said, well, we have to be welcoming.
This is always how it goes on the left.
They have these ideas, these alleged principles, that are totally destructive and insane, but as long as they are insulated from the consequences of these ideas, as long as they don't have to, as long as they can just propose them and then let other people deal with the consequences, it's fine.
Same thing goes with defund the police and have a relaxed attitude towards crime.
You know, take violent criminals and keep releasing them back out of this.
Be generous and kind to violent criminals by refusing to punish them for their evil deeds.
Well, as long as that's happening to other people and not to the leftist elites, it's all good.
But then the moment they start to experience the consequences of that, their own neighborhoods start to become unsafe.
Now they begin using the same language and saying the same things.
that those dastardly racist conservatives had been saying for years before.
And so that's exactly what's happening now. And he's not wrong.
This is the destruction of the city. There's no way you can't, you know, there's just,
we live on earth and we are physical beings living in a physical space with finite resources and a
a finite amount of space.
It just doesn't work.
You can't have an unending sort of conveyor belt system of dumping people into these places.
And it's not like populations are growing the old-fashioned way by actual citizens having babies.
No, not that.
You're bringing in people who don't speak the language, who aren't part of the culture.
You're bringing in all these people, you're just dumping them there and saying, here you go, you deal with it.
So, is it going to be the destruction of New York City?
Well, absolutely.
I'm not sure how much is left to be destroyed in that city, but yes.
Maybe we should say the continued destruction of it.
Do I have any sympathy for these people?
No.
I have as much sympathy for them as they had for all of the border towns that have been, again, crying out about this for decades.
I've had this for a few days and I wanted to mention it.
A story in the sports world that's gotten some attention, a lot of attention, from this past weekend.
Delaware has a report Colorado head football coach Deion Sanders, commonly referred to as Coach Prime, stunned the college football world on Saturday as his team upset number 17 ranked TCU last year's national runner-up in a 45-42 shootout in Fort Worth.
And Deion Sanders just came to this school and got a lot of attention when he came.
This was a school that was, I think they were 1-11 last year, so they won one game last year.
And he comes in, and already they've won a game.
It's only one game, but they won a game.
And it's a story that, you know, it captures people because it reminds you of the sort of classic Hollywood sports movie.
You know, the charismatic coach comes into a struggling program, gives a bunch of inspirational speeches, team starts winning.
It's a great story.
I love stories like this, personally.
Again, it's only one game.
I guess you don't want to spike football too much.
But it is a good story.
And Deion Sanders, he likes to give motivational speeches, which is big.
That's part of the Hollywood kind of theme and plotline.
So here's a speech he gave before the game that they ended up winning.
And this went viral on social media.
Let's watch this.
Usually God give me a word long before this.
But he's been holding it.
Because it's not about them.
This is about us.
This has nothing to do with the team that's opposing us.
This is about us.
This ain't got nothing to do with the naysayers, the unbelievers, the haters, the doubters.
This is about us.
When we started this journey, we told you it was going to be trying, it was going to be tough, but you endured.
Because it's about us.
That man next to you is a miracle.
That man next to you is a believer.
That man next to you is a go-getter.
That man next to you is a dog.
That man next to you is somebody who wants to stay.
That man next to you is somebody who believes.
That man next to you is somebody that gots to have it today!
We ain't got tomorrow.
We got now.
We ain't got next.
We got now.
We ain't coming no more.
We're here!
Can y'all know we're here?
Give me my theme music!
I mean, if the coaching team doesn't work out, I think he really has a future as a producer of t-shirts.
There's about 15 different t-shirt slogans in there.
So it's a good speech.
It's not saying much, but a bunch of YOLO-type cliches.
That's all right.
And it's not what you say, but how you say it, at least when it comes to locker room speeches.
But the problem is that because it's the year of our Lord 2023 in the United States of America, everything has to have a racial element.
So Deion Sanders himself, after the game, after the victory, randomly decided to bring race into it.
Let's listen to that.
Things that have never been done, and that makes people uncomfortable.
When you see a confident black man sitting up here talking his talk, walking his walk, coaching 75% of African Americans in a locker room, that's kind of threatening.
Oh, they don't like that.
But guess what?
We gonna consistently do what we do.
Because I'm here and ain't going nowhere.
And I'm about to get comfortable in a minute.
I'm about to get comfortable in a minute.
So that's completely silly, obviously.
I'm coaching a locker room of 75% black players.
Every coach is coaching a 75% black team.
Or more like 90% in most cases.
Nobody is threatened by that or surprised.
The fact that you're a black head coach is irrelevant.
That's not the point.
It's certainly not something that people find shocking or upsetting.
Anyone who is shocked or upset or feels threatened by the existence of black people probably isn't watching college football.
So it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I don't think anyone is watching football and going, too many black people are playing this.
I don't want to see all these black people.
That's probably not happening.
That's also a clip that now Media Matters can take and isolate and have fun with.
In fact, the irony is that Deion Sanders just left the HBCU.
He coached at a historically black college, so 75% black people in the locker room is a reduction, in fact, from what it was at his previous school.
So that's my issue with Deion Sanders.
He can't help but make things racial.
He also talks almost exclusively about himself.
He's always been this way.
He's always been a look-at-me, showboating type.
And when I was talking about this a few days ago, that's what people were saying to me, that, well, this is what he's always been like.
Yeah, it's one thing when you're in your early 20s and you're playing in the NFL and you call yourself primetime and it's all about look at me.
When you're a football coach pushing 60, you hope you would have matured a little bit.
And this kind of leadership style of sort of like everyone look at me, I'm so special, it can work very briefly, but people get sick of it pretty quickly.
But even that stuff, the showboating and all that, like, that's fine.
But you have to bring the racial angle into it, and then it just ruins everything.
As always, story as old as time.
All right, one other quick thing before we get to the next segment.
I have to mention this.
There's a Newsweek report.
It says, a California-based startup hoping to bring the first commercial flying car to market has said that it will show the first glimpse of its prototype vehicle in action at the first of two trade shows this week, Aleph Automotive.
Is already seeing pre-orders for its $300,000 Model A, which is going to be a flying car.
And they haven't actually, so they haven't actually demonstrated what it looks like flying yet, but they say that they're going to be doing that.
And they're already getting a whole bunch of pre-orders.
And they hope that by 2025, they're going to have these flying cars on the market.
And I know that I've warned against flying cars before, but it bears repeating that this is a terrible idea.
Like, when I was a kid, like anybody else, I used to dream of the day when we had flying cars.
But now, but then you become a driver on the road and you realize that this country is plagued by terrible drivers.
As I've told you many times, I am the only good driver in America.
Everybody else is bad.
I'm literally the only one on the road who knows how to drive.
That is my firm conviction after, you know, spending 20 years on the road as a driver.
So, I can have a flying car if I want it, but none of the rest of you can.
Like, putting the rest of you in a flying car is just asking for pure carnage.
Americans have not figured out how to drive on the ground, and now you're going to put them in the sky.
Just to illustrate how bad the drivers are, here's something I witnessed over the weekend.
This is really the only reason I'm talking about this, just as an excuse to complain about what I witnessed, because I've got to tell someone.
This is real, this really happened, okay?
I'm sitting at a stoplight to turn left.
I'm sitting at a stoplight and we're in the lane to turn left and waiting for the green arrow.
Well, a car behind us gets impatient and wants to turn left right away.
He doesn't want to have to wait.
So here's what he did.
He crosses the double yellow line.
And drives on the wrong side of the road for probably like 30 yards, a good 30-40 yards.
Driving on the wrong side of the road, bypassing all the cars that are waiting to turn at the red light, makes an illegal left-hand turn on red from the wrong side of the road.
But that's not the bad part.
Three other cars followed him and did the same thing, and that's what gets me the most, because the first guy is just suicidal.
You're driving, you're having a head-on collision, you're driving, you're just a suicidal maniac doing that.
So, and those kinds of people exist, I get it.
But the other three?
Like, what are the other three thinking?
The other three were just sitting there waiting for the light to turn.
They saw the other guy driving on the wrong side of the road and they said, oh, I guess I'll do that too.
I mean, if he's doing it, I'll do it.
I guess because this one guy is breaking every traffic law in existence, that means that we're all allowed to.
This must be a special holiday of some kind where I didn't hear about where we don't have to obey any of the traffic laws.
This must be like the purge, but for traffic laws.
And so I guess I'll do what he's doing.
And here's my favorite part.
The cars that are on the right side of the road start honking at the ones that are driving on the wrong side, and the ones on the wrong side honk back angrily.
It's like defensive, angry honks.
As if they had some sort of argument.
As if there was some sort of justification for what they were doing.
And so when I think about flying cars, I think, like, those people are going to be in the flying cars.
Makes me very terrified for the future of America.
All right, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong?
You ever craved a nice barbecue meal with your family?
Say you go to the store, get all the groceries, invite family over, and then you go to turn on the grill, but your propane tank is empty.
It's a tragedy.
That's where Cinch comes in to save the day.
Cinch is a propane grill tank home delivery service.
They deliver propane tanks right to your door and on your schedule.
Plus, they don't require any long-term commitment or subscription.
Delivery is completely contactless.
You don't have to wait around at home.
Track the order on the Cinch app from anywhere.
Whether you're grilling, camping with your family, lighting up your fire pit on a cold summer night, Cinch's propane delivery service ensures you have the fuel you need to make the most of every moment.
Go online to cinch.com or download their app to order.
New customers can get their first tank exchange for just $10 with promo code Walsh.
That's C-Y-N-C-H dot com, promo code Walsh.
This is a limited time offer and you must live within a Cinch service area to redeem it.
Visit cinch.com slash offer for details.
So here's some comments.
Defending Enrique Otario's 22-year sentence for January 6th, even though he wasn't even in D.C.
on that day.
We talked about this at the start of the show yesterday.
He was given the harshest sentence yet for someone for January 6th, even though, again, he wasn't there.
Patricia says, well he organized it, that's even worse.
Robert says, interesting point, so you wouldn't arrest the mafia boss and the only dealer in the street, and only the dealer in the street because the mafia boss didn't sell the drugs in the street himself.
Another comment says he organized it.
A lot of comments like that.
Here's the, but you're missing the point here with these January 6th prosecutions.
I already said yesterday, and I made this point before, I made it when it comes to Trump.
That some of what we're seeing, what is now political persecution, would seem much less to be political persecution.
You could make the argument that it's not political persecution if we lived in a country that consistently throws the book at people who break the law.
If we lived in a country with real law and order.
And there are countries like this out there.
There are countries out there that if you break the law, even a law that seems relatively minor, there's going to be a harsh penalty because there's just zero tolerance for law breaking.
There are countries like that.
If we lived in a country like that, And then you told me that someone who went into the Capitol building uninvited during a riot got 15 years in prison, and we lived in a country like that, right?
Then I would say, well, that makes sense.
Like, that's, that's, yep, that's how it goes here.
You break the law, and they're just gonna, they are gonna find, they're gonna throw everything they can at you, and this is what they do with anyone who breaks any law.
But that's not the country we live in.
Okay, that's not what's happening.
And that is the primary problem with how the January Sixers are being treated.
And I don't know how else to explain that.
I think I've made the point very clear.
And in this case, now we can look at, as I mentioned, you know, just one example, one example of many, but there was recently a serial child rapist.
I think this was in Ohio.
Who got, like, half the sentence that Enrique Tarrio got for serial child rape.
Many cases like that, where actual rapists, child abusers, child molesters, pedophiles, murderers, commit crimes, are convicted and are back on the street in, you know, a handful of years.
But in this case, we actually have more of a one-to-one comparison, because it was only a few months before January 6th that there were violent riots all over the country, where government buildings were attacked, and federal government buildings were attacked.
And in some cases, set on fire, which never happened at the Capitol building.
Well, what did the government do in that case?
What did the federal government do in that case?
Almost nothing.
And I don't even know this off the top of my head, but I'd be very interested to find out all the BLM riots that happened in 2020.
What is the harshest penalty?
Who got the longest prison sentence out of all the riots, all the things that happened?
And again, people were killed, police stations were invaded while the police officers inside it ran for their lives and burned to the ground.
What was the stiffest penalty?
Did anyone get 22 years in prison for any of that?
I don't think so.
And Cheesecake Flash says, I'm a 40-year-old electrician.
I'm attending an online university in pursuit of a journalism degree.
Or, if college is so unnecessary, the DW could save me a lot of trouble.
But the reality is that a degree is necessary unless you wish to be overlooked.
Well, it's interesting that you give your own— I mean, first of all, your last sentence, that a degree is necessary, There are cases where that's correct, but usually with a caveat.
Now, there are some.
If you want to be a doctor, if you want to be a lawyer, everyone agrees that you need formal education beyond K-12.
You need formal education beyond grade school.
Everyone agrees with that.
So, there are some professions where obviously you really do need college education.
There are a lot of other Uh, careers that are not in that category, where you quote, where you quote, unquote, need a college degree.
It's an artificial need.
The need for, um, continued formal schooling, if you want to be a surgeon, is not artificial.
You definitely need to go and learn more in a formal environment in order to be a surgeon.
A lot of these other places, though, like anywhere in the corporate world, where you end up sitting in a cubicle somewhere, entering, like, data into a computer.
In many of those jobs, you do need a college degree, but it's artificial.
It's only because the corporate world has just decided that that's going to be a litmus test.
That's how they're going to filter.
That's the filtration system.
And they want to make it easier, and these HR departments want to make it easier on themselves, and it's just like a shorthand.
It gives them an excuse to toss out half of the resumes in the stack, right out of the gate.
But it's an artificial need.
But what are we going to do about that artificial need?
The only way to stop this inflated artificial need for a college degree is if more and more people just refuse to go along with it and say, I'm not going to go.
But then there are professions where you just don't need a college degree at all, even artificially.
And so it's interesting that you use yourself as a personal example, because you're an example of an electrician.
You don't need a college degree for that, as I'm sure you know.
You can be a very successful electrician without having a college degree.
You want to get into journalism out of the electrician trade, I would, you know, I mean, you'll make your own choices, you know what's best for you.
I would very much advise against that.
I think you're, right now, in a much better and more respectable profession than journalism.
I cannot imagine why somebody with real skills in a profession, being an electrician, would want to become a journalist.
But you do, okay, you don't need a degree for that either.
You don't need it artificially, and you don't need it actually.
So, just a little bit of advice for you.
Whether we love it or hate it, AI is here to stay.
AI is expected to create over 100 million new jobs globally.
Some jobs include data scientists, product designers, robotics engineers, and surprisingly, tax managers with AI skills.
ZipRecruiter is the best way to use AI to help you find people with these skills.
ZipRecruiter's AI identifies candidates who are best suited for all kinds of roles.
Right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com.
If you want the most qualified candidates, well, ZipRecruiter uses its powerful AI to
find and send you people whose skills and experience match your job.
Then ZipRecruiter lets you easily invite them to apply to encourage them to apply sooner.
In fact, over 3.8 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
Get the leading edge on hiring with ZipRecruiter.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a qualified candidate within the first
day.
See for yourself how easy this is.
Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com/walsh.
Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Also, you know, I'd hate to say I told you so, but I don't actually hate to say I told
I love saying it.
So, from the very beginning of when the Stephen Avery case became sensationalized by the series Making a Murderer, I've been very outspoken on my belief and my opinion that Stephen Avery is completely guilty.
I posted it all over my socials.
The man is a convicted murderer.
Not afraid to say it.
It's so blatantly obvious that he committed this crime.
But Hollywood, for some very strange reason, wanted to paint this man as an innocent victim of corrupt law enforcement.
He wasn't.
The filmmakers left out huge parts of the story to support an anti-police narrative and make him seem more innocent than he was.
That's just good television, I suppose, but it's also dishonest and wrong.
We at The Daily Wire happen to think that good television can also be aligned with the truth.
Candace Owens has dedicated her entire career to exposing how the media cherry-picks information to fit whatever narrative they want to peddle at the moment, and now she has come out with a new 10-part series called Convicting a Murderer.
This series is going to give you the full story of the case of Stephen Avery and his involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach.
Details about his criminal history, his character, and violent tendencies towards women.
Evidence that was all left out, rearranged, or misrepresented.
It's all going to come to the surface.
Most importantly, you're going to see how Hollywood and the media craft narratives to influence the public in a way that's favorable to them.
It's one of the biggest things we've done in Daily Wire history.
Here's the teaser.
Take a look.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
Part of me don't want to believe that he did this.
The blood that was under that back area was indicative of a head wound.
My brother likes to push a lot of people around.
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.
and show me where they're here.
They gave him power.
They're trying to get everything out of me that they can.
It's not good for an Avery to have power.
I told you all along, keep your 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 Plus.
(dramatic music)
to do but you should just watch the series and decide for yourself.
Episodes 1 through 3 of Convicting Murder are now available to stream exclusively on DailyWirePlus.
Go to dailywireplus.com slash watch to see the first two episodes for free.
They're available to everyone.
If you're not a member, you're going to want to be one so you can see the whole series.
It's eye-opening, especially if you were convinced that Stephen Avery was innocent.
So head over to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe to join today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
A couple of weeks ago I got into some trouble with some online leftists who for some reason
watch my show obsessively like Joy Behar.
They were furious that I said something everyone knows is true, which is that the primary problem facing homeless people isn't the fact that they don't have homes.
Homelessness is instead a symptom of many other problems that homeless people have, almost invariably including drug addiction, a general disinterest in being productive members of society, and usually that disinterest is fueled by Drug addiction, or alcoholism, or mental illness.
Like all harsh truths that happen to be undeniable, you're not supposed to say that out loud.
So in response, a swarm of leftists attacked, and we're very upset about it.
That's the theme here today on the show, and in every show really.
I'm going to play one example of these attacks, because it's important to understand the reasoning from the left on the topic of homelessness, such as it is.
And as just one example, I'll show you a clip from a YouTube channel called Secular Talk.
There are two things you should know about this clip before we play it.
First of all, he spends the first minute or two of the video, before the clip we're going to play, explaining why my position on homelessness does not comport with the teachings of the Bible.
Now, he's totally wrong about that, of course.
After all, the Bible is the book that says, if a man will not work, he shall not eat.
It does not recommend or condone a sedentary, self-destructive lifestyle.
But, putting that aside, this guy's channel, again, is literally called Secular Talk.
He's an atheist.
That's his whole shtick.
And yet, while totally rejecting the Bible in every way, he will still, like any other secular leftist, try to use it on occasion to win an argument.
Which is always funny to watch in a pathetic kind of way.
The second thing you should know is that the title of this video of his says, Homeless People Don't Need Homes.
Matt Walsh.
The statement is put in quotes, quoting me as saying, Homeless People Don't Need Homes.
Problem is, I never said that.
He's making up a quote and putting it in the title of the video.
So we're off to a bad start, but anyway, here's the clip that helps set up our discussion today.
Let's watch.
So his point is, hey man, it's not that they don't have, the problem isn't that the homeless people don't have homes.
Yes it is.
They're drug addicts.
They're drug addicts and they have mental health problems.
That's his point.
Okay, well, let's look at the numbers on this.
So this is from Addiction Center.
The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that 38% of homeless people are alcohol dependent.
Okay, 38%.
Now, keep these numbers in mind, and I'm gonna give you the context for it in a second.
But let's just point out, 38% is actually not a majority.
That's not a majority.
Okay, more.
26% are dependent on other harmful chemicals.
Okay, so 26% are drug addicts, 38% are alcoholics.
Okay, got it.
Then they go on to say, oftentimes, addiction is a result of homelessness.
In other words, he flipped the causation.
What he's saying is, you're an alcoholic, or you're a drug addict, and that's why you became homeless.
What they're saying is, no, oftentimes, the homelessness comes first, and then because you're homeless, you kind of want to take the edge off of your harsh reality, and so you turn to substances.
Whether it be alcohol, or other kinds of drugs.
So he flipped the causation.
Now, I'm sure there are some instances where the causation does work in the way that he laid out there.
Some people are alcoholics, or they are drug addicts, and then that helps as one of the factors to lead them to become homeless.
But in many instances, maybe even more instances, maybe the majority of instances, it's first comes the homelessness, and then, in order to take the edge off of your harsh reality, you turn to substances so that you can survive.
Well, that was great.
In order to debunk my point, he proves it.
Now, first, he's throwing out random statistics that we're supposed to believe on face value because they come from a group with homeless in the title.
He tells us nothing about where these stats come from, how they were compiled, what the methodology was.
He just tells us, well, some group says this.
Like, OK, so?
Automatically, I'm supposed to believe that?
I mean, if you actually believe that only 26% of homeless people are using drugs, if you really believe that, then you are simply too dumb to bother having a conversation with.
That I just don't, I don't believe that anyone believes it.
Really, only 26% of homeless people are on drugs.
I mean, it just happens like if you live anywhere where you see homeless people, if you drive around, see them in Nashville.
I can't remember the last time I saw homeless people, a homeless person that wasn't obviously on drugs.
But the funny thing is that even if we buy these clearly absurdly undercounted statistics, my point still stands.
We saw there in the screenshot that 38% of the homeless are alcoholics.
26% are addicted to other drugs.
That's already 64%, which is a large majority.
Which is exactly what I said.
But then we also see in the screenshot that he didn't highlight, That's a 33%, again, according to these stats that are obviously being very, very conservative in their estimates.
But still, 33% are mentally ill.
So, 38 plus 26 plus 33.
And then you've got, according to these stats, the sum total of homeless people who are addicts or mentally ill.
Well, that's pretty much all of them, isn't it?
I'm no math whiz, but that's, like, all of them?
Even if we allow for some overlap in these categories, which obviously there's going to be, still it's clear that almost all homeless people are either mentally ill, or on drugs, or both.
Which, again, was exactly my point.
But then we're told that, actually, I have the causation flipped.
He insists that homeless people first become homeless, presumably due to systemic racism or the economy or whatever, and then to cope with their terrible situation, they turn to drug abuse.
He has no evidence for this.
There's no proof of it.
It's just nothing but his own assumption.
An assumption that does not comport with basic common sense at all.
Like, what is more likely?
That a totally functioning and contributing member of society somehow ends up homeless and then says, well, I might as well smoke crack.
Or, that a person starts smoking crack, it takes over their life, and soon they're on the street.
Now, there may be cases of the former, but the latter is obviously the way this usually works.
There's no denying it, and also no reason to deny it.
Well, maybe there is a reason.
For the left, the appeal of this causation argument is obvious.
It absolves not just homeless people for their conduct, but also the politicians who spend ever-growing amounts of taxpayer money on so-called homelessness initiatives.
After all, if homeless people are living good and virtuous lives and only turn to drugs because they don't have a roof over their heads, then you might think it's reasonable for large states like California to spend $42,000 per homeless person every year.
You might not mind the fact that, by contrast, California spends less than $14,000 per year per student in grades K through 12.
That disparity should bother you because all of that spending on homelessness reduction is simply encouraging dysfunctional people to make the same decisions that made them homeless in the first place.
And we have a lot of real, observable case studies to prove this, not random statistics by some group that you found on Google.
Like actual, real-world events we can look at and see, well, how did that work out?
Okay, here's how it worked out.
It turns out that when you give a homeless person a roof over his head, when you make them housed people instead of unhoused people, as the left likes to say, they still resort to using drugs and behaving dysfunctionally.
Take a look at this news report this week out of Rutland County, Vermont.
This is one of the many places that's decided to house homeless people in hotels free of charge on the theory that that'll, you know, make everything better.
Because the only problem, according to the left, according to the guy we just saw on YouTube, only problem for homeless people is just that they don't have a home and you give them a home and all everything is better.
Well, let's see how that's going.
Issues at hotels that are under the state's homeless voucher program are causing concern in some communities.
According to DCF, there are 927 households still taking part in that program.
Rutland County has the biggest slice of that number with 236 households.
Our Eichmann David joined the tour of a hotel in Rutland County which officials say has been causing problems.
Brett Dezanne lives in the Cortina Inn on a state-funded voucher.
It's been a concern for the local community.
Not good.
Hectic.
Just crazy.
Crazy.
The drugs is out of control.
Tuesday afternoon, local and state officials from Rutland County toured the Cortina to see the issues up close.
The hotel is just off of Route 7, which currently has 130 rooms that use the vouchers on the state's hotel voucher program.
Depressing.
You can smell the feces smell.
That's the way the whole place smelled it.
Doors all around the property were unlocked and opened.
So, there's feces all over the place, according to the police chief.
Everyone's on drugs.
The homeless are leaving the hotel to rob nearby businesses.
Hearing all that, you might come to the conclusion that the problem facing all these homeless people was not, in fact, their lack of a home.
After all, the enlightened residents of Rutland, Vermont have removed the variable of homelessness here, and yet these people are behaving in exactly the same way they did without a home.
We gave them a home, and the problem didn't go away.
It's almost like the homeless person's problem isn't that he doesn't have a home.
Now, is this an outlier?
Is this an aberration that only occurs in Rutland County, Vermont?
Let's see.
The mayor of Casper, Wyoming is currently in full-on panic mode because roughly 200 people who have been living in a vacant motel in his city have managed to trash the motel, in addition to leaving 500 pounds of feces on the streets and the sidewalks.
Quote, it's like nothing I've ever seen before.
It's third-world country stuff happening in Casper, Wyoming.
That's according to the mayor.
Now, I don't know how the mayor came up with an exact estimate of the cumulative weight of human fecal matter, and frankly, I don't want to know.
But the point is that the homeless moved into town and completely destroyed it.
They had access to a vacant motel, to housing, and they proceeded to demolish it and make it unlivable.
Again, this is a repeatable scenario.
I'm not cherry-picking.
It's happening everywhere that homeless people find a place to stay.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported that a hotel called the Mayfair sustained $11.5 million in damages while it was being used by the city to house homeless people as part of something called Project Roomkey.
Quote, "Windows of the 294-room boutique hotel in LA's West Lake neighborhood had been shattered.
Bathrooms had been vandalized. In some locations, carpet had been torn off the floor."
I mean, why would you go in a hotel and tear the carpet off the floor?
Well, I'll tell you why you do that if you're psychotic or on drugs.
That's why you do it.
Emails obtained by the Los Angeles Times show that social workers assigned to the hotel reported that homeless people were threatening the staff, they were assaulting people, and so on.
Instead of recognizing what a disaster this whole idea was, Los Angeles politicians, including the mayor, want to double down on it.
They want to buy the Mayfair outright and do it all over again.
The LA Times spoke to one resident who lives across from the hotel for his thoughts on the idea,
and here's what he said, "The neighborhood is still recovering from Project Roomkey.
The purchase of the Mayfair would just completely destroy the community once again."
That's a reasonable concern because it happens everywhere that homeless people are put in hotels.
During COVID, the Lucerne Hotel in New York City became a shelter for the homeless.
And what happened next?
Well, according to NBC News, quote, many on the Upper West Side said that their quality of life had been suffering as a result, complaining about having to walk by people passed out on sidewalks and performing lewd acts along the street.
Now, I could go on because there are many, many places where they have tried this.
But you get the idea.
It always works this way.
Now, to be clear, I'm not looking to just dump on the homeless or mock them.
These people are clearly suffering.
They are in an unenviable situation, no matter how you slice it.
But we have to be honest about what they're suffering from, exactly.
And we have to be honest that one way or another, whether it's because of addiction or psychosis or character flaws or anything else, they're almost always homeless due to their own behavior, their own choices.
These choices of behavior need to change.
And if there's a burgeoning epidemic of homelessness, and there is, then the real crisis is that so many Americans have fallen into these self-destructive patterns of behavior.
We can't solve the homeless problem without acknowledging that.
Politically correct terms like unhoused are meant to downplay a homeless person's own role in their own homelessness.
But that is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Ultimately, this becomes a conversation about the crisis of despair in our culture that has led to so many people simply giving up on leading whole and productive lives.
Unless we have that conversation, as we've seen in Vermont and Los Angeles and New York and Wyoming and all over the country, the problem will only get much more expensive.
And much worse.
This is societal decay.
And it is a choice.
And ultimately productive members of society, people who would never dream of doing hard drugs or of relieving themselves in public or committing lewd acts in public, they are the ones who will bear the cost of that choice.
Which is why the people who insist on being politically correct about the homeless problem, rather than just being correct about it, are today cancelled.
