Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is an epidemic of false accusations in this country. The lives of innocent people are destroyed based on fabricated stories of racism, sexual harassment, or other sins. Recently we've seen two of the most egregious cases. We'll talk about them. Also, Kevin McCarthy is kicked out of his job as a Speaker of the House. LA county officially abolishes cash bail in most cases. And yet another far left activist falls victim to violent crime. We'll talk about the very important, potentially life-saving lesson we can learn from these incidents. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1236
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
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, there is an epidemic of false accusations in this country.
The lives of innocent people are destroyed based on fabricated stories of racism, sexual harassment, or other sins.
Recently, we've seen two of the most egregious cases.
We'll talk about them.
Also, Kevin McCarthy is kicked out of his job as Speaker of the House.
L.A.
County officially abolishes cash bail in most cases.
And yet another far-left activist falls victim to violent crime.
We'll talk about the very important, potentially life-saving lesson we can learn from these incidents.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wohl Show.
(upbeat music)
Have you ever heard of data brokers?
They're the middlemen collecting and selling all those digital footprints that you leave online.
They can stitch together detailed profiles which include your browsing history, online searches, and location data.
They then sell your profile to a company that delivers you a targeted ad.
No biggie, right?
Well, you might be surprised to learn that these same data brokers are also selling your information to the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS to mask my digital footprint I protect myself with ExpressVPN.
One of the easiest ways for brokers to aggregate data and tie it back to you is through your device's unique IP address, which also reveals information about your location.
When you're connected to ExpressVPN, your IP address is hidden.
That makes it much more difficult for data brokers to identify who you are.
ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network traffic to keep your data safe from hackers on public Wi-Fi.
That's why I have the ExpressVPN app downloaded on all my devices, phone, computer, even my home Wi-Fi router.
All I do is tap one button to turn it on, And I'm protected.
It's that easy. Make sure your online activity and data is protected with the best VPN money can buy.
Visit ExpressVPN.com/Walsh. Use my link to get three extra months for free.
That's ExpressVPN.com/Walsh.
Imagine that you're an executive at the North Face, which is ostensibly an outdoor recreation company.
It's June of 2023, several years after the moral panic over BLM and George Floyd has started to subside.
You've run a few gender-bending advertisements for Pride Month to keep your overlords at BlackRock happy.
Everything is normal.
Everything is fine, you think.
But then, one weekday at 3am, one of your brand ambassadors, someone you're paying to represent your company to millions of people all over the world, suddenly freaks out on social media.
He says that he's just been subjected to a flagrant act of white supremacy at a bar in Bozeman, Montana.
He claims the culprit is a guy named John Talbot, who works at an apparel company called Outdoor Research.
And then, to explain exactly what he's talking about, your brand ambassador, whose name is Manoa Ainu, uploads this footage to Instagram.
Watch.
Hey, yo, Outdoor Research.
I'm not even playing, man.
This guy John, he came up to me, introduced himself, said, you look like someone I should know.
It was at a bar at the Crystal, which I often frequent.
A lot of my friends Are there or work there and this guy came up to me and then started talking all this stuff started asking questions very directed at diversity and I answered honestly and He kept cutting me off didn't want to hear what he was wanting to hear but what he was asking for which is very very obvious, so
When I started to check him on it, and correct him, and direct him, and educate his ass, for free.
For free, for free, for free, for free.
He got very defensive.
So I said, yo, we're done talking.
Conversation is over, bro.
I told you the truth.
Don't cut me off while I'm talking, if you're asking.
You're not listening, and you're asking?
Very big red flag.
Back up.
I went inside, he came inside, tried to shake my hand, and I was like, yo, you're apologizing.
He just started apologizing over and over again.
And I'm like, if you're apologetic, buy me a beer!
At least, that's the minimum you could do.
And right after that, he squared up to me, got right in my face like this, and he's like, I didn't do anything wrong.
How do you apologize and say you don't do anything wrong within like five seconds?
Oh, because you're not truly apologetic.
So, this guy John, who designs product, there's something for you guys OR.
Please check him.
This guy's tripping.
He's racist.
So let's recap the story you just heard.
White guy John, with Outdoor Research, approached black guy Ainu, who works for the North Face, and tried to introduce himself.
And then white guy John proceeded to ask too many questions.
And then to add insult to injury, he tried to shake Ainu's hand.
He was too polite, which, as we all know, is a telltale sign of white supremacy.
Then, if you can imagine it, John refused to buy Ainu a beer, saying that he did nothing wrong.
So, he denied that he was a racist, which is, of course, the purest possible evidence that he is a racist.
So, he put it all together, and this was a modern-day lynching in Bozeman.
But North Face's Brain Ambassador wasn't done there.
For good measure, Ainu also uploaded some more thoughts about this highly upsetting, clearly racist incident.
In one of these posts, Ainu wrote, quote, I hope there are repercussions, ideally an extermination.
That's what he called for, an extermination.
I knew added that John had displayed gaslighting, toxic masculinity, and white guilt.
He accused John of wanting to fight him.
He also told his 15,000 followers on Instagram, quote, reshare and tag outdoor research so this boy has consequences for his actions.
Our outdoor microcosm can't have people like this.
Now again, pretend you work at the North Face, or Outdoor Research for that matter.
You're sitting in their corporate offices, and you see all this.
What do you do when you're confronted with a rambling video like this, which doesn't even come close to making any kind of substantive accusation at all?
It's just an incitement to harass some random guy.
Do you fire this brand ambassador immediately?
Tell all your other brand ambassadors to stop uploading unhinged videos at 3 in the morning?
Do you feel shame that you've invested $7 million in hiring brand ambassadors who are apparently delusional and unstable?
Or, for some reason, do you do as you're told and try to exterminate, quote-unquote, this white dude who made the mistake of not buying some other dude a beer?
Well, as you might have guessed already, the North Face went for that last option.
They apparently decided that the 3 a.m.
rants on Instagram about awkward encounters at a bar really scream outdoor recreation, so they went to bat for their brand ambassador.
Dave Burleson, who was the North Face's senior athlete coordinator at the time, publicly called on John's employer to punish him.
Quote, "Outdoor research, please hold your employee John that is in Bozeman right now
accountable to the racists in the outdoor industry.
We will find you and we will remove you."
You know, it's like George Bush standing on top of the rubble after 9/11 with the megaphone
promising to hunt down Al-Qaeda.
Except in this case, they're hunting down random white people who have socially awkward encounters with black men at bars.
You know, basically the same thing.
It's basically Al Qaeda.
And it gets worse.
When Dave Burleson at North Face posted that bizarre response on social media, he was apparently already aware that Aynu was a deranged and unreliable activist.
Just a couple of years earlier, a movie producer and ice climber named Ari Novak says that he alerted Burleson and North Face to Aynu's tendency to lie about racism.
This is a repeat thing with this Aynu guy.
So in one instance, At the 2020 Michigan Ice Festival, Novak says that he had told Ainu that it was dangerous to climb in an area that was closed at night.
And in response, predictably enough, Ainu accused Novak of racism, because Novak said, was trying to help him and make sure he wasn't killed, and said, don't climb in this area at night, it's dangerous.
That made him a racist.
Novak says that he told the North Face about this episode, but they seemingly didn't take any action whatsoever.
Here's how Novak described I Knew, quote, He's always trying to create a situation where he can have a fight over race.
Now, there are many other troubling examples along these lines, but the basic idea is that North Face had reason to know all of this ahead of time, and still, despite everything they knew, or should have known, they called on outdoor research to fire John Talbot.
And a predictable result followed within hours, according to exclusive reporting from the Daily Wire's Spencer Lindquist.
Outdoor Research responded, and they ordered John to leave Bozeman immediately, like he was a diplomat being recalled after an international incident.
And for good measure, Outdoor Research strongly implied that John was guilty of some unspoken act of white supremacy.
They said that their company, quote, does not support or tolerate discriminatory conduct based on race or any other reason, and we take these matters very seriously.
Ultimately, even though I knew and admitted that Talbot hadn't said anything racist to him, outdoor research did terminate John Talbot, so he lost his career.
They caved to the mob and his reputation and livelihood was destroyed.
That's all according to Talbot's new lawsuit against the North Face and their brand ambassador.
Talbot is fighting very hard in court to get compensation for what was done to him.
And if he fails, however, and this all depends on activist courts anyway, if he fails, he'll never work in the industry again.
He'll have a very hard time providing for his family.
And this is what a single, incoherent, unintelligible accusation of racism can do to someone in 2023.
All it takes is an unhinged black guy saying that a white guy didn't buy him a beer, and his career is destroyed.
If that surprises you, if that seems like something that should never happen in a country with due process and the rule of law, then you should know that it's actually just the beginning.
As bad as unfounded accusations of racism may be, the impact of accusations like that Pale in comparison to what malicious accusations of rape can do to someone.
Rape accusations, they don't just end your career.
They can put you in prison, whether they're true or not.
Now yesterday I went into some detail about the case of former Major League Baseball pitcher Trevor Bauer.
He was a Cy Young award winner, one of the best pitchers in the league.
This was not just some random baseball player, he was a star in the league.
He was also a Trump supporter who said some things that trans activists didn't approve of.
And now, just a couple of years later, he's been exiled to Japan because no team in the United States will hire him.
Well, how did that happen?
In the summer of 2021, Trevor Bauer was publicly accused of brutally beating a woman they had slept with.
Here's how the Washington Post reported on the accusations at the time.
Quote, a temporary domestic violence restraining order filed against Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer and granted by a court Monday details graphic allegations about two separate encounters and includes photos of bruises and a bloodied lip suffered by the woman who obtained the order.
Now, this initial article from the Washington Post was, for the most part, fair by their standards, which are pretty low.
It went on to explain that the restraining order was issued ex parte, meaning the judge never heard Bauer's side of the story.
The article included the fact that Bauer denied the allegations.
The Post also reported that there were, quote, records of text messages between Bauer and his accuser, in which his accuser discussed wanting to be choked and slapped during sex.
Some of those messages were sent after Bauer supposedly abused this woman.
After she was abused, she was apparently sending text messages talking about how she likes being slapped and choked during sex.
So right away, those are massive red flags, which tell you that there are, like, at a minimum, two sides to this story.
But very quickly, the news media and Major League Baseball dispensed with any pretense that Bauer was entitled to the presumption of innocence.
And within days, the MLB put Bauer on administrative leave, quote-unquote, which would turn out to be a permanent leave.
And then a few weeks later, the Post ran a follow-up article which claimed that Bauer had beaten up another woman several years earlier in Ohio.
This article did not name the woman.
It also didn't include a series of text messages from this accuser, which Bauer had provided to The Post weeks before their article was published.
And in these messages, which were sent after Bauer allegedly assaulted this woman, we can see that the woman desperately wants to see him and to be with him.
She sent him hundreds of messages while he was in the dugout at a game.
And he keeps telling her that he wants to end their relationship, but she keeps bombarding him with frantic messages that are completely unhinged.
None of that mattered.
The Washington Post didn't bother to print those messages because they knew the damage was already done.
Bauer would never play baseball professionally in the United States ever again.
And a few months later, indeed, the MLB formally suspended Bauer for two full seasons.
The league said that it had conducted an extensive investigation and concluded that Bauer had violated their domestic violence and sexual assault policy.
But somehow the MLB's investigation apparently didn't uncover the text from Bauer's primary accuser, which I briefly touched on yesterday.
And in case you missed it, here's Bauer describing some of those messages that you would think are very, very relevant.
And if you're conducting any kind of investigation into this case, like one of the first things you would do is look at these text messages.
They didn't look at them at all.
But here's that video again.
Next, Victim, star pitcher for the Dodgers.
a text Lindsay Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me.
"What should I steal?" she asked another, in reference to visiting my house for the first time.
The answer? Take his money. So how might that work?
I'm going to his house Wednesday, she said.
I already have my hooks in.
You know how I roll.
Then, after the first time we met, net worth is 51 mil, she said.
She better secure the bag, was the response.
But how is she going to do that?
Need daddy to choke me out, she said.
Being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million, read another text.
Then, after the second time we met, former Padres pitcher Jacob Nix told her, you gotta get this bag.
I'll give you $50,000, Lindsay replied.
Her AA sponsor asked her at one point, do you feel a tiny bit guilty?
Not really, she replied.
Since then, her legal team has approached me multiple times about coming to a financial settlement.
But, as I have done since day one, I refuse to pay her even a single cent.
In August of 2021, Lindsay Hill's claims were heard in court, and during those legal proceedings, critical information was deliberately and unlawfully concealed from me and my legal team.
Information like this video, which was taken by Lindsay Hill herself the morning after she claimed she was brutally attacked, emotionally traumatized, and desperate to get away from me.
And now we have the metadata, so there can be no dispute.
It was taken mere minutes before she left my house on the morning of May 16th, 2021.
Without my knowledge or consent, of course.
In it, you can see her lying in bed next to me while I'm sleeping, smirking at the camera without a care in the world.
Or any marks on her face.
Now last night in response to a post from Elon Musk, Trevor Bauer said that it appeared that his accuser's lawyers had access to all this evidence the entire time.
Bauer wrote that quote, speaking specifically about the video of her laying in bed next to me with no marks on her face the morning after she claims I brutally attacked her.
An email containing that video was sent to her attorney Brian Friedman before the hearing in 2021, and it was never turned over to us.
Perhaps that's why he insisted on adding his name to the release party section in the settlement agreement.
So this appears to be a setup from a sociopathic gold digger, and potentially her attorney as well.
This woman admitted that she was going to rip off Trevor Bauer, repeatedly admitted this, in writing.
And you know, in the interest of fairness, we should tell you that as of this week, this woman, the woman in question here, is still coming up with what she says are innocent explanations for these text messages.
She's appearing on podcasts saying that all those text messages were sarcastic.
She was just being sarcastic.
And that Trevor Bauer did abuse her, as she said he did.
She says these texts are being taken out of context.
It's really hard to imagine a context that would vindicate her in this case, but that's what she's claiming.
At the same time, this woman agreed to drop her claims against Bauer without receiving a single cent from him, which is a pretty strong indicator that she doesn't have a case.
But either way, Trevor Bauer will be able to continue his career, such as it is in Japan, and probably only in Japan.
But this could have ended very differently.
Trevor Bauer was also investigated by the local district attorney, and that's something that doesn't happen when you're accused of, like, you know, offending a random black guy at a bar, at least not yet.
Prosecutors in California were thinking of throwing Trevor Bauer in prison, and maybe for the rest of his life, as they've done in many similar cases.
Fortunately for Trevor Bauer, the evidence was completely non-existent, so the DA's office ultimately concluded there was no case there, they couldn't try it even if they wanted to, and they probably wanted to, but the potential was there.
And this is why false rape accusations are, as I said yesterday, just as evil and just as dangerous to society as rape itself, and should be treated as such.
Fabricated rape accusations have the potential to ruin lives and families and put people in prison.
And if you knowingly subject someone to that kind of hell, then you should face a lifelong punishment yourself.
But of course, that's not what's going to happen here.
The woman who apparently lied about Trevor Bauer will likely face no consequence at all.
The only consequence is that she doesn't get any money from her lawsuit.
Now at the same time, as Trevor Bauer himself admits, this doesn't mean that men are completely powerless to avoid being in these kinds of situations.
Here's Bauer's reflection on what he thinks he did wrong in all of this.
This is from early last year, before he could go into details about the specifics of the charges against him.
But watch what he said.
In evaluating my life over the recent months, it's clear that I've made some poor choices, particularly in regards to the people that I've chosen to associate with.
But I am not the person that this woman, her lawyers, and certain members of the media have painted me to be.
Now that's some honest self-reflection, which is something that you very rarely see these days.
And what Trevor Bauer is saying is absolutely right.
You know, men can choose not to hook up with random floozies.
They can choose not to engage in this kind of sexual behavior with women they barely know.
Which is, for one thing, the moral path.
It also happens to be the smart path from a purely self-interested perspective.
If you want to protect yourself, that's what you would do.
Now, this isn't to blame Trevor Bauer for what happened to him.
He's not responsible for this woman's pathology.
At the same time, we should acknowledge that these kinds of psychopathic women are out there.
And they will lie and smear innocent men in order to make some money, in order to exercise their control, to get whatever sick thrill they get out of it.
Just like there are sociopathic race hustlers out there who have no compunction about ruining the lives of innocent people like John Talbott.
And no matter how well-meaning you are, or what your politics are, keep in mind, John Talbott had literally worked on DEI committees in the past.
But even then, you are vulnerable.
The identity of your accusers will matter far more than the facts of whatever situation you're involved in.
So, all that means is that we should keep all that in mind and act accordingly.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Grand Canyon University is an affordable private Christian university that is located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona,
and has 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.
Daily Wire has the report House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was forced to vacate the Speakership on Tuesday after Democrats voted in support of Representative Matt Gaetz's motion to vacate the Speakership.
The 216 to 210 vote marked the first time in U.S.
history that the House has ever removed a Speaker.
The last time the Speakership was even challenged was more than 110 years ago.
The other seven Republicans who sided with House Democrats included Representative Annie Biggs, Ken Buck, Eli Crane, Bob Good, Matt Rosendale, Tim Burchett, and Nancy Mace.
Representative Patrick McHenry has been named Speaker Pro Tempore to preside over the House until a new speaker is named.
And McCarthy has said that he is not going to run to be elected again, so he's done.
Here's the moment when this historic announcement was made on the House floor.
Let's watch.
The yeas are 216.
The nays are 210.
The resolution is adopted.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
the office of Speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives
is hereby declared vacant.
All right, that is a stunner.
You have never seen what you see unfolding now in the well of the House in American history.
Okay, now to be perfectly honest with you, I don't really care about this at all.
I don't care who the Speaker of the House is.
I'm a terrible conservative pundit because I should be totally fascinated by this story.
It's historic.
It's historic.
It is historic.
It's the first time in American history.
But I really don't care.
All the other nerds in conservative media are treating this like Christmas.
Whether they're for it or against it.
Whether they like it or don't like it.
It's the content.
The content we can get from this moment.
It's incredible.
But I just don't see it that way.
I don't care that much.
I don't know if other people care.
I suspect that this is the kind of thing that the news media and political pundits and podcast hosts find utterly absorbing, but most normal people don't care all that much.
Like, if I went up to some random person at the grocery store and said, can you believe it?
Kevin McCarthy was vacated!
They would probably say, who?
What happened to him?
Why are you talking to me?
Go away.
My problem is, look, my problem is just...
I admit full-on cynicism, which I think is fully justified.
I have no faith in these people whatsoever.
They aren't doing anything.
It doesn't seem to matter.
I guess that's the point for me, is that I would care a lot more if I felt like it mattered who the Speaker of the House is, but I don't think it matters.
Like, I don't think ultimately it ends up having any effect whatsoever on anything.
You know, we could go back through the last 25 years of American history, and we could replay it all again with different speakers of the House along the way, and I think everything would look the same.
Okay, it's supposed to be the butterfly effect, where if you change one thing, like if you go back 20 years, one day, and you wear khakis instead of blue jeans one day, it's gonna, there's the butterfly effect.
And, you know, things, you come back to the present day and everything's different somehow.
That may be true in many cases, but I think with the Speaker of the House it really would make no difference at all.
Like, everything would be the same.
So, that's part of the issue.
I don't like Kevin McCarthy at all.
He was just another standard Republican, wasn't moving the ball forward on anything that mattered.
Rubber stamping welfare payments to Ukraine, etc.
and so forth, the whole thing.
And he shouldn't have been speaker in the first place.
He deserved to lose the job.
So in terms of experiencing this historic humiliation, I think he deserves it.
At the same time, I agree with those who've pointed out that we may very well end up with someone who's worse.
Like, we may end up with someone worse in the end anyway, or at least someone who's basically the same.
And that's obviously what the Democrats are wagering, which is why they joined in this effort, because they think it benefits them.
And it might.
You know, I've always said in politics that this shouldn't be your only strategy, this shouldn't be your only kind of guiding principle, but you should figure out what your enemies want you to do, and then do the opposite.
If you're ever doing something and then you look over and you see your enemies watching you doing it and applauding, kind of silently applauding to themselves because they're so happy that you're doing this thing, then you probably shouldn't be doing it.
Because your enemies, they don't want anything good for you.
It's not because they're interested in your best interests.
It's because they have determined that whatever you're doing is helping them.
And in this case, the Republicans have done what we know the Democrats wanted to do because they're the ones who voted for it.
So was this an exception to that rule?
I guess we'll find out.
Where does that leave us?
You know, I don't know.
I don't think it leaves us anywhere particularly.
I guess it does depend on who the new Speaker of the House is going to be, how long it's going to take to get someone else into that position.
I just have, I'm sorry, I have no, I have zero faith that they're going to put anybody better in there.
No faith in that whatsoever.
And that's why you can't really, you know, the people that want to call this whole thing a disaster or say that it's a major victory or whatever, I don't think you can say that one way or another right now.
Because if you kick Kevin McCarthy out and then ultimately you end up with an even worse, sort of an even swampier swamp creature, then obviously it's not a win.
If you kick him out, you somehow put someone in there who's actually effective and is a real conservative, then it's a major win.
So I don't think we can say right now.
We gotta see how this thing plays out.
I have already, for what it's worth, I announced on Twitter, speaking of historic announcements, I announced last night on Twitter that I'm throwing my own hat into the ring for the job of Speaker of the House.
You don't need to be in Congress to have that job.
So technically, a podcast host is qualified.
Maybe not qualified, but I can have it.
So if they want me to do it, I'll do it.
I think that's, even if it's not me, that's probably, one way or another, and this is always the paradox, this is always the catch-22, but in any of these allegedly important political roles, the best people for them are going to be people who aren't really interested in them, who don't desperately want to do them.
That's true for president, true for any of these positions.
The people who desperately want it are going to be the worst.
Because they desperately want it for their own sake.
It's not that they desperately want it because they feel so strongly about helping the American people.
It's not really what it is.
It's their ego that makes them so desperate.
So you've got to find someone.
The first thing is you've got to find someone who's not really running for it and doesn't really want the job and is going to be sort of a reluctant person, but will take it if you convince him.
Nancy Mace was one of the Republicans who voted to kick McCarthy out, and she explained her reasoning.
Let's listen to her.
As a woman, I have been fighting for women's rights since before I ever came to Congress.
I continue that fight and I've made deals with Kevin McCarthy with the speaker that he has not kept to help women in this country and we have done nothing for them and I come from South Carolina when you shake my hand and you make a promise and you don't keep it there are consequences to those actions and as a woman Who has been fighting my party on this issue to be made promises that we're going to work to get women greater access to birth control and we don't do it.
And now we're 10 months in and we don't have time to do it or as a survivor of rape.
And I worked all year on a rape kid bill that hasn't seen the time of day.
I cannot tell you how frustrating that is as a woman in this conference, in this Capitol to have that happen.
Like I, if you make a promise, you should keep it.
As a woman, as a woman, as a woman, did I mention I'm a woman?
them, then you damn well better do it.
As a woman, as a woman, as a woman, did I mention I'm a woman?
As a woman, I feel that as a woman, the best thing I can do as a woman is to be a woman
as a woman.
And to say as a woman, that my view as a woman is that as a woman, here's what I think as
a woman.
Nancy, why don't you try, rather than speaking as a woman, just speak as someone who, communicate
your point of view without feeling the need to list your victim credentials every three
and a half seconds.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
But it is also interesting, if you can decipher all of that, it's interesting because Nancy Mace's complaint Is that Kevin McCarthy was too right-wing.
He was not supporting the pro-abortion agenda.
That's what she's really upset about.
And that's also the complaint of every Democrat who voted for this motion.
What's their problem with Kevin McCarthy?
It's not that he's an establishment Republican, milquetoast.
That's not their problem with him.
As far as they're concerned, he's a radical right-winger.
And what that means is that almost everyone who actually voted him out, almost all of them, almost everyone who's responsible for getting rid of him actually did it because he's too conservative.
Now, you and I know that that's not true.
He's not too conservative or really conservative at all, so that's ridiculous.
But that was the motivation behind almost every vote to vacate.
Which is also an interesting thing to keep in mind here.
All right, moving from that to this report from CBS News.
It says Los Angeles County will officially move to a zero bail system on Sunday, ending the years-long standard of setting cash bail amounts for defendants commensurate with the severity of the crime that they're accused of committing, a process critics say favors the rich while doing little to protect public safety.
But the zero bail system has come under fire from hardline law and order backers who contend it removes accountability from the justice system by allowing the vast majority of arrestees to be quickly released from custody rather than kept in jail as they await charges and trial unless they're accused of the most serious of crimes.
County Sheriff Robert Luna told the Board of Supervisors last week,
"Our communities have not been shy about telling us how nervous they are about this change."
He said he understands the need to respect constitutional rights of arrestees, but said
zero bail can demoralize deputies and police officers to work hard to make arrests, only
to watch the offender walk away with a citation as the victim looks on in disbelief.
Yeah, that's one of the consequences of a zero bail system.
Before we talk about this, the L.A.
County D.A., George Gascon, who is a Soros goblin, one of the worst D.A.' 's in the country, one of the worst human beings in the country, period.
He was interviewed this week by the Fox affiliate, the local Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, and asked about the zero bail system.
And here's what he said.
Do you think that cash bail is unconstitutional?
You know, I believe that how much money you have in your bank account should not determine whether you're going to get out or not.
L.A.
County District Attorney George Gascon sits down with us on the week L.A.
County enacts a judge's order to switch to a so-called zero cash bail system, meaning most suspects will now be quickly released from custody, except for those accused of the most serious crimes.
I strongly believe that if you have an open case, You should not be released.
If we determine that you're a danger to our community, you should not be released.
It doesn't matter how much money you have.
12 LA County cities are suing to try and stop this policy out of public safety concerns.
Do you agree with them?
I don't.
I think that fighting this and saying we want to get rid of it all together and go back to the way the system was before, it flies in the face of reality that the old system wasn't working.
Big picture, for people that are concerned that this is going to make L.A.
County less safe, people are going to be held less accountable.
What say you?
What I say is that there are things that need to be improved.
We're going to work on them.
I don't believe that long term this is going to make the county less safe.
I think it's going to make us safer because it's going to create more room in our county jail to hold the people that are dangerous.
He says that includes suspects accused.
So you know what?
I could tell this guy is a pathetic guy without knowing anything about him.
If I didn't know anything about him, I could already tell that he's a pathetic weakling and an awful DA.
Without knowing anything about him, without even paying attention to the content of what he's saying, it's just his whole vibe, the way he speaks.
Oh, you know, crime's a problem and we'll work hard on it.
It's a problem, we're working on the problem.
This is not someone who hungers for justice.
You can tell that much right off the bat.
And he says that this will make the city safer because it creates more room for violent criminals in the jail.
So, but the question then is that are you actually going to put the violent criminals in jail?
Are you going to do that?
And is there actually a problem right now where you have violent criminals who you want to put in jail, and you would put in jail, but you can't because there's no room?
Is that a real thing that's actually happening?
Is there someone walking around the streets right now in Los Angeles who's a violent criminal who's been arrested, and you tried to put him in jail, and they said, sorry, you know, no vacancy, no room at the inn?
Is that actually happening?
I don't buy that for one second.
I don't buy it for one second.
It's total nonsense.
This is always the excuse made by the anti-law and order folks on the left.
We need more room in the jails for the really violent and dangerous people.
Yeah, and then when the violent and dangerous people get arrested, what do those same people say?
They say, well, you know, he's reformed.
He's not a danger.
This is someone who's been persecuted by systemic racism.
We need to worry about reforming and not punishment.
That's what they say.
And besides, if you do have a problem with capacity limits, it's an easy problem to solve.
Number one, build more jails.
Okay, that's one thing you could do.
And in the meantime, if you have too many violent criminals to fit in a jail, then I guess the violent criminals are going to be more uncomfortable.
Just jam them in there.
Okay?
What do you mean there's no space?
Put them in there.
Find a spot for them.
I don't care if they're not going to be comfortable.
There's too many people.
Who cares?
Who gives a damn if they're comfortable or not?
They're in jail.
That's their problem.
El Salvador You know, they take a jail with a capacity of 5,000 and they put like 50,000 people in there.
They find a way to do it.
So it can be done.
But I don't think that's the issue at all.
I think that's an absolute lie on his part.
His objective is not to get more dangerous people in jail, it is to get people out of jail.
Because that's what he's doing.
And it's the opposite, obviously, of what you should be doing.
If your city is plagued with crime, what you should be doing is finding ways to put more people in jail for longer, not finding ways to let more people out or make sure they spend less time in jail.
It's a pretty simple equation.
If you have a problem with crime, then you need more people in jail, and you need them there longer.
Now, is cash bail a plot to criminalize or penalize poverty?
No.
It is a way of keeping dangerous people in jail.
And it's a way, also, of incentivizing them to come to court.
That's the whole point of bail.
Or one of the central points.
This is the collateral.
This is the incentive.
If you don't come to court, then you lose the money.
If there's no bail, then what's the incentive?
He doesn't even address that point.
Now, it's not a perfect system by any means.
There are plenty of people who, you know, the bail is put up by someone, it's not even their money, and they still won't show up to court.
But if there's no money, if there's no bail, then there's no incentive for these people to show up to court.
And that's what you're gonna end up with, which of course is all by design.
All right, there's one other story I wanna mention here, which is an interesting story.
This is from the Detroit Free Press. It says, "The Michigan Supreme Court made history on Friday in
letting the unprecedented charges stick against James and Jennifer Crumbly, who are the parents
of the Oxford school shooter who must now stand trial for their alleged roles in the deaths of
of four students murdered by their son in 2021.
The Crumblies are the first parents in America charged in a mass school shooting as prosecutors seek to hold them criminally liable for buying their son the gun that he used in the massacre, and for never telling the school about the weapon when they were summoned over his troubling behavior.
The parents, who are facing involuntary manslaughter charges, have been fighting for two years to get the charges dismissed.
Their final appeal was before the Michigan Supreme Court, which seven months after receiving the request opted not to hear their case.
In a one-paragraph order released on early Friday morning, the state's highest court wrote, it is denied because we are not persuaded that the question should be reviewed by this court.
To avoid a trial, the Crumblies, who have been in jail for almost two years, could still cut a deal on the case and plead guilty in exchange for potential leniency.
However, the prosecution would have to agree to any such agreement.
And the judge would have the final say.
If convicted, each parent faces up to 15 years in prison.
Yeah, this is a fascinating case.
And I have to say, and I've heard people on both sides of this.
And one of the things that makes it interesting is that I don't, I'm not sure there's a clear left-right divide.
You know, whether you're conservative or liberal, you could kind of come down on either side of this thing.
But to me, I find it Very troubling.
I think it's a very troubling precedent.
Now, that's not to defend the parents, obviously.
I think in most, before you even look at the specifics, and there are specifics in this case that are quite damning for the parents, but even without knowing the specifics, when you've got a school shooter situation and you've got a child who is And I don't know how old Ethan Crumbly even was a child.
But you have someone who is capable of committing a crime like this.
It's always really hard for me to believe that the parents didn't know something was wrong.
And then it becomes a question of, you had to know that your child was deeply disturbed.
Maybe you didn't imagine anything quite like this, but you had to know that there were some serious problems here. And what did
you do about it?
And in this case, so far, the courts have determined that the Crumblies didn't do anything
about it. Not only that, but they bought the kid a gun. So they're being charged with manslaughter,
which I can understand the argument, but there is the matter of precedent here.
And it becomes like, I don't necessarily see any self-limiting principle.
This is not a self-limiting thing.
So if we're setting the precedent that now you can charge parents for the heinous actions of their kids, I guess my question is just how far does that go?
Because although in many cases, in some cases, a kid does something horrible, you know, it is true that the parents should have known that something was wrong.
But there are two things.
Number one, the parent could know that something's wrong with their kid.
It doesn't mean that they're... there's only so much you can do.
So maybe they're trying to.
So they're getting counseling.
They're doing everything they can.
But it's not something you can't just, if God forbid you end up with a kid this troubled, you can't just flip a switch and fix them.
And then it's also true, too, that it's possible that you could have a kid that seems perfectly normal and well-adjusted and then goes way off the rails quite suddenly.
Maybe not to the extent of becoming a mass shooter, hopefully, but in other ways, at least.
And kids are, as they grow older, you know, they are human beings, they're human beings the entire time, they are increasingly sort of their own people, and they have their own minds, and they can do things that you've, they can, you try to raise them a certain way, and they can consciously choose at a certain point, especially as they get older, to reject how they've been raised and act a different way.
All of that is true.
And so when you start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their kids, it really becomes, it does become a slippery slope.
So that's what I'm, I think maybe you could look at this case and say there are some aspects of this case that are especially egregious, given that the school told them about Ethan Crumbly and all of his very disturbing behavior.
They bought him a gun, you know, especially that part of it.
So you can look at aspects of this case that are especially egregious, and maybe we agree on that, but then the question is what, you know, what principle are you establishing?
And how does that become, how is that applied in other cases?
And I do have to also ask, if we're holding the Crumblies accountable, like, What about when we go into the inner city and we see nothing but violent behavior, and you see teenagers running around committing heinously violent acts against each other, against random pedestrians walking around, you know, all of that violence.
Are we holding any of those parents accountable?
What about the father who abandons the kid in the first place?
What about the mom who's, you know, what if she's too busy off doing drugs or whatever, partying, not paying attention to her kid?
Kid turns into a gangbanger, you know, is committing heinous violent acts at the age of 13.
Are we gonna throw her in jail too?
Look, if you can make an argument for the Crumblies, you can certainly make an argument over here.
I think it's basically the same kind of argument.
What, what?
Is the argument of, like, egregious kind of neglect?
A failure to engage in any kind of moral formation with your child?
If that's what we're saying, I guess, I guess my point is, I don't know why we're just applying that to these particular parents, when there are a lot of kids out there, and older, and people who are not kids anymore, committing all kinds of violent crimes.
And you can quite easily trace their behavior back, at least in part, to gratuitous failures of parenting.
And so if we're starting to prosecute people, then are we prosecuting all of them?
Are we prosecuting everybody?
In the next few years, are there going to be like thousands of parents who are in court, sitting in jail for years, waiting for the trial to even start?
Because they're being blamed for the behavior of their kids.
Is that where this goes?
And it's a tough one because that becomes total chaos if it goes that direction.
I don't think it should go there.
But then if it doesn't, then this does seem unjust that we're singling out these parents in particular and not these others.
All right, let's get to Was Walsh Wrong?
A few days ago, we talked about the college student loan debt crisis, and which we're hearing a lot more about now because the pause in student debt was expired.
A pause that was put in place and then extended, extended, extended, extended over and over again by Biden finally expired on October 1st on Sunday.
And so a lot of complaints again about all these college grads who actually have to pay their bills, God forbid.
So, but anytime we talk about student debt, it is always going to go back.
It's going to go back to me on my, once again, up on my soapbox, one of my many different soapboxes I like to jump on.
And this one is, you know, one way that we, really the only way we solve ultimately the student debt crisis is by fewer and fewer Kids leaving high school and then going right into college.
We need people to skip college.
We need lots of people to skip the whole thing, the whole scam.
Skip it.
Go do something else with your life.
That's the only way that we get this under control.
So a few comments responding to that.
Charizard Norris says, disagree in some aspects to become an accountant and gain your CPA.
You need five years of college if you don't know what you want.
Don't go.
Also go in knowing your morals will be questioned, especially if they're against liberal ideology.
Well, then you don't disagree with me at all.
I never said that everyone should skip college.
I never said that there's no role for college at all or that you don't need college for
Obviously, there are careers that you might want to get into where you do need, and it's not even an artificial need, like you actually need continued formal schooling in order to do those jobs effectively.
And in those cases, yeah, go to college, but you hit on the important point.
Which is that if you know that's what you want to do, if you happen to be what is increasingly becoming a rare breed of 18-year-old who actually knows what you want to do with the rest of your life, or you think you know, and you know that you do need more formal schooling for that, then go and pursue that formal schooling.
Absolutely.
But if you don't know, exactly what you said, if you don't know what you want to do with your life, don't go to college.
Okay, which is most.
Most kids out of high school have no clue what they want to do with their lives.
None at all.
And none of them.
Zero percent of 18-year-olds who don't know what they want to do with their life should go to college.
It's crazy.
It's not just like a bad strategy.
It is crazy.
Now, it's not crazy on their part.
They don't really know any better.
It's crazy for us as a society to be pushing kids into this.
It's crazy that high schools aren't communicating this message to the kids and saying, listen, saying to the seniors, saying to the juniors, listen, if you don't know what you want to do with your life, don't apply for college.
You only need college for certain careers, and if you don't know what career you want, then it's insane to go and take out those loans.
Don't do it.
And there's no reason to, because guess what?
If you graduate high school, and then you go out into the working world for a few years, and you decide and you figure out what you want to do with your life, and you figure out that you want to be an engineer, an accountant, you want to be, you want to get into, you want to be a doctor, you want to be an architect.
If you figure that out, then you can go to school.
Okay, there's no rule saying that you have to go to college by the time you're 19, you have to enroll, you know, by the time you're 19, or you can't go.
That's not the case.
And then the concern is, well, you'll be behind.
You'll be behind.
Be behind who?
Behind what?
Who are you racing, exactly?
That's the beauty of graduating.
Once you get out of the formal education system, you're not racing anybody anymore.
You're not falling behind anybody.
This is your own life now.
So there's zero.
There is zero downside.
Zero.
To a kid graduating high school and not going to college if they don't know what they want to do with their life.
Zero downside to that.
There is massive downside to going to college when you don't know what you want to do.
So this is the message that everybody, every parent, every teacher, everyone should be saying this.
It is so obvious.
But I'll tell you why they don't.
Because it's all part of the scam.
The university system, the education system, they're not going to say this, because they know that if fewer kids go to college right out of high school, that a lot of those kids who don't go, they're going to find out, they are going to eventually find out what they want to do with their lives, and they're going to realize it's something that they don't need college for, and they're never going to go to college, and the university system isn't going to make that money anymore.
So that's what this is all about.
It's a total scam.
And at least parents, like, if you're a parent and you're not communicating this to your kids, then it is negligent on your part.
Like, get it together.
Okay.
And if you're paying, if you're helping to pay for loans for your kid to go to college who doesn't know what they want to do with their life, if you're paying for that, what is the matter with you?
What are you thinking?
It's insane.
I'll tell you one thing, if my kids graduate high school and they're 18, 19 years old, and they don't know what they want to do with their life, and they want to go to college, I'm not going to stop them.
But if you're going to pay for it yourself, I'm not putting a dime to it if you don't know what you want to do with your life.
Adolfo says, what are all those young people supposed to do in the meantime if we're supposed to boycott the system?
Changes like this could take years to take place.
I'm not saying boycott the education system.
That's not what I'm saying.
I wouldn't phrase it as boycott.
You know why?
For the same reason that, look, I think it's a very bad idea for 18-year-olds to go out and buy luxury cars.
Okay?
You shouldn't go out at the age of 18 and buy a $75,000 luxury sedan.
You shouldn't do that.
So, am I saying that 18-year-olds should boycott the luxury sedan market?
No!
Boycott is not the way that I would phrase that.
What I'm saying is that's not something that you need, and that's going to be, in most cases, a very reckless purchase, and so you shouldn't make reckless purchases.
It's not boycott.
This isn't like a temporary suggestion of some sort of temporary measure to put in place to bring the cost of luxury vehicles down.
I'm saying, in general, just don't do that.
And for not all, but most 18-year-olds out of high school, taking out the loans for a college education, it's like buying a luxury car.
It's like this big expensive thing that you don't need, you may never need, and you're buying it for the wrong reasons.
Because the reason why most kids want to go right into college when they don't know what they want to do with their lives, it's not because they're excited about education.
It's not that.
It's because all their friends are doing it, and they want to go party, and it's fun.
It's a fun thing.
It's like vacation.
That's why most of the kids want to do it.
I don't think I'm revealing anything that's going to be breaking news to anybody.
Finally, Dark Cylinder says, saying you don't need to go to college for success doesn't really mean a whole lot when the person saying it is famous with a career that only a handful of people pull off.
I always love these responses.
Like, the position that I'm in right now, do you think I was in this position when I made the decision to not go to college?
When I was 18 years old?
No.
At the time, as I've said many times, a broke and unknown person, as most 18 and 19 year olds are, I certainly qualified for that.
And I didn't go to college.
And it took me a little bit, it took me a while, took, you know, a while, it took me years, took me years to really figure out what exactly I wanted to do and what I'm called to do, what my vocation is in life.
Because, and that's just, it's a, it is a rare, as I said, it's a rare type of teenager, even at 18 or 19 years old, who really has that figured out.
Some of them do.
You really got your head on your shoulders and you know what, you know, 18 or 19, you know what you want to do.
That certainly was not me.
And I took some time and I figured it out.
And this, for me, it's this.
It's a somewhat unique line of work.
But there are many different careers you can choose where a college education will be, at a minimum, pointless.
And you know what?
All of those are careers where it's just all about the product, right?
So for me, if I can create content that people enjoy and want to listen to, like, no one cares.
No one's checking the wall to see if there are degrees in the world.
No one cares about that.
Either you enjoy the content or you don't.
It's as simple as that.
And there are many careers that are like that, that are outside of media.
It's like, either you can do it or you can't.
And if you can do it, nobody cares what school you went to or if you went to school at all.
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who champion free speech and intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has a vast array of exclusive Jordan Peterson content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content you're not going to find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, which includes Vision and Destiny, Marriage, and Dragons, Monsters, and Men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, like Logos and Literacy and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
And that's only the beginning.
I haven't even mentioned his Beyond Order lecture series or his extensive archive of lectures and podcasts.
This is the absolute compendium of all things Jordan.
Plus, there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
This is only the beginning.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you'll embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we are canceling the daily cancellation just for
the day so that I can talk about something a bit more serious.
Yesterday, we discussed the story of the leftist activist in Philadelphia who was murdered in his home after spending the previous several years aggressively downplaying the violent crime problem in his city.
And he mocked those who pointed out that Philadelphia had become a crime-ridden wasteland, and then he himself ultimately fell victim to the problem that he denied.
So it turns out that reality still exists and will assert itself even if you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
And that was in Philadelphia.
Now we have a story out of New York with some very similar themes.
The Postmillennial reports, a stabbing took place early Monday morning in Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant neighborhood, claiming the life of poet and far-left activist Ryan Carson.
The 32-year-old was walking down the sidewalk with his girlfriend when he was attacked by a stranger.
A video emerged of the incident.
It shows the couple sitting on a bench on the sidewalk when a man walks past them in a black hoodie.
The man crosses the street, walks half a block down.
Then begins kicking over scooters in the street.
The couple rise and walk in the same direction when the man turns around and approaches the couple.
The couple continue walking toward him.
The confrontation ensues wherein Carson puts up his hands and seems to attempt to dispel the tension.
The man gets close to him and Carson pushes him off.
Surveillance footage cuts to after the stabbing with Carson on the ground and his girlfriend standing by him.
The attacker makes a motion toward her as well before moving off.
According to the New York Post, the incident took place shortly before 4 a.m.
on Monday.
Um, just near a bus stop.
Okay, so there is a video, as it says, of the incident.
I'm not going to play the part where Carson is actually stabbed to death.
No reason for anyone to watch that, but I want you to see everything that led up to this murder.
Watch.
[SWISH]
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
[CRASHING]
[GUNSHOTS]
[INAUDIBLE]
Killed by them!
I'll kill you!
*incoherent yelling* *coughing*
I'm so sorry.
Are you okay?
Are you okay?
Go watch him.
him go watch him.
Now this is obviously very sad to see.
It's tragic anytime a deranged, violent, useless social parasite who's been left to roam the streets by our even more useless justice system randomly murders someone.
It's obviously always a terrible thing.
And also we should acknowledge that Carson appears in that video to place himself between the crazy guy and his girlfriend, potentially saving her life in the process, and that takes real courage.
So it's not for the sake of gloating, obviously, that we point out that Carson was not only a far-left activist, but according to reporting from Andy Ngo, was a self-described Antifa member.
And his girlfriend, Ngo reports, had previously posted anti-cop sentiments, writing that the police do not protect you, along with ACAB and BLM.
Now, these details are relevant not because we want to dunk over a dead body, but because there are very important lessons that must be learned in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.
So, let's review this.
First of all, Ryan and his girlfriend are out walking the streets of Brooklyn at 4 a.m.
Now, I don't know what they were doing out there or why they were out there.
The Daily Mail claims that they were waiting for a bus, but in the video you can see them getting up from the bench and walking away from it towards someplace else.
But even if they were taking the bus, either way, you don't walk in the city at 4 a.m.
and you don't take public transportation in the city at 4 a.m.
Everything is more dangerous after dark in the city and every person you encounter has a greater likelihood of doing you harm.
That's not paranoia.
It's just the reality.
So mistake number one was being there in the first place.
Second, he sees the lone black male in a hoodie walk by at 4 a.m.
and he and his girlfriend immediately get up and walk the same direction.
They don't even wait for a few minutes to let him pass and put some distance in between them.
They decide to head his direction when they're 20 feet away from him.
They don't cross the street, as they should have done.
They don't turn and walk the other way, which also would have been a better choice.
They walk right towards him, which was mistake number two.
And third, when the guy goes crazy and starts knocking over scooters or whatever he was doing, Carson continues to walk towards the commotion.
And when the crazy guy notices them and starts screaming at them, Carson tries to engage, telling him to chill, as if he had any chance of calming a knife-wielding psycho who's going berserk on a street corner in the middle of the night.
And as soon as the crazy guy started yelling at Carson saying, what are you looking at?
And you know, et cetera.
Carson still could have probably escaped with his life if he had simply turned and crossed the street and don't stop making eye contact, just go the other way and gotten himself and his girlfriend out of the situation.
But he didn't do that.
Now there's a whole list of common sense judgment calls that Carson could have made, but he didn't.
And now tragically he's dead because of it.
This is where his status as a far-left activist comes into play.
Not for making fun of him, but for potentially understanding why he made this series of glaring, easily-avoidable errors.
Now, we cannot know for sure what was in his head at the time.
But we do know that leftist ideology will not allow its adherents to make common-sense judgment calls because those judgment calls are based on stereotypes.
According to Carson's ideology, it would make him racist to cross the street and avoid that interaction.
It would be judgmental.
It would be marginalizing.
It would be otherizing.
Leftist ideology would rather that you be killed than you make those kinds of assumptions.
Even if your assumptions are statistically justified.
Especially if they're statistically justified.
Leftist ideology says it's better to die than that.
And Ryan Carson did.
Now, this has become a major problem.
As human beings, we should have an innate ability to calculate risk, recognize patterns, and assess potential hazards, and most of this should be automatic, almost unconscious.
This basic level of situational awareness, it's what keeps you alive.
But leftism has been working for years to interfere with that process, to kind of short-circuit that hard-wired programming that we all have, and to negate our ability to run these kinds of assessments.
In fact, the whole mental process I just described in their religion, the religion of leftism, leftism is called unconscious bias and implicit bias.
And it's something that they say we should actively reject.
You know, according to leftism, when our gut says, that guy looks dangerous, or don't walk that way, or this seems kind of sketchy, we're being driven by the racism embedded deeply in our subconscious, and we should ignore it.
You know, the proper response, they say, is to ignore what our gut is telling us and charge ahead.
And this is not, this is not a straw man.
Like, go up to any DEI professional and ask them.
Show them the first part of that video, before we get to the stabbing and the guy going crazy.
You got the two white guys on, the white people on the bench, lone black male in a hoodie walks by 4 a.m.
in the city, you know, and ask any one who works in DEI, would it be okay for those two white people on the bench to look at that guy and say, you know, I think I'm gonna go the other, I'm gonna cross the street.
They will all tell you no.
No, if you do that, you're racist.
No, you have to de-center your whiteness and dismantle white supremacy.
Even if it means ending up bleeding to death on the sidewalk.
Now, those of us whose minds have not been overtaken by the virus of leftism, we make these gut-level risk calculations all the time.
And we should admit it.
Because there's nothing wrong with it.
In fact, not only is there nothing wrong with it, but it's the right thing to do.
So, just as one of hundreds of potential examples from my own life, and any reasonable person, we all have hundreds of examples.
So, here's just a recent one from me.
Recently I was out driving with my son at night coming from somewhere to my house and it wasn't very late but it was dark and we needed gas so I pulled into a gas station and before I stopped at a pump I noticed a couple of guys hanging around off to the side.
These were young black males both in hoodies not pumping gas apparently not engaging in any kind of legitimate gas station related business.
Did I know for sure that they were dangerous?
Of course not.
They weren't visibly committing any crimes.
They weren't doing anything that justified calling the police.
They were just there.
Now, maybe if I had pulled up to a pump and gotten out of my vehicle, they would have come over to me and talked to me about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Maybe they were out there fundraising for the Knights of Columbus.
It's possible.
Anything is possible.
But the situation didn't feel right to me.
I got a bad vibe.
I didn't like the way it all looked.
I had my son in the car with me.
I'm not taking any chances.
So I left.
And the whole process of risk calculation took about 10 seconds.
You pull in.
Didn't even stop the car.
Pulled in and say, I don't like the look of this.
I'll go somewhere else.
Did I make stereotypical assumptions?
Hell yes I did.
What else was I going to do?
You can only work with the information you have immediately available.
Was the assumption based entirely on race?
No, obviously not.
If I'd pulled in and seen a middle-aged black woman at a pump putting gas in her Camry or whatever, I wouldn't have been concerned.
So my calculation was taking everything into account.
Everything about the situation, the people, everything.
Many different factors, including how they were dressed, what they're doing, the context, or in this case, not doing, as they were not pumping gas.
But if I was a leftist, The point is, then the fact that they were black males would have prevented me from running that risk calculation at all.
I would have felt guilty for making assumptions based on stereotypes, however grounded in reality those stereotypes might be.
I would have stopped the car, I would have gotten out, and maybe everything would have been fine.
Or maybe I would have gotten carjacked with my child in the backseat.
These are the risks that leftism would have you make.
Now, late last month, a white female tech CEO in Baltimore named Pava LePere was brutally beaten and murdered inside her apartment complex, allegedly by someone named Jason Dean Billingsley.
And Jason Dean Billingsley is a black man with an extensive rap sheet that includes assault and rape.
And yet he was still out on the streets, of course.
But how did Billingsley get into the apartment complex?
Well, the doors are secure, and only residents can get inside.
Well, according to investigators, LaPierre opened the door for Billingsley and let him into the building.
He said that he forgot his key, and she believed him, or pretended to.
And then, after letting him in, she got into an elevator with this ominous-looking guy with neck tattoos.
There's a guy with neck tattoos trying to get into what we assume is a higher-income apartment complex, because you've got a CEO living there.
And she sees this guy and says, oh yeah, he looks like he lives here.
Even though clearly he doesn't.
A short time later, she was dead on the roof.
Her body wasn't discovered for several days.
Now, we don't know LePere's politics, but as a white female tech CEO in Baltimore, we can probably assume that she wasn't exactly the sort of person who would walk around in a MAGA hat.
And so, we can also safely assume that a certain amount of white guilt led her to open the door For this guy with neck tattoos who didn't have a key for the building.
And then getting an elevator with him.
She didn't want a stereotype.
So instead, she died.
Another tragedy.
And what makes it all the more tragic is that it is all so easily avoidable.
All of it can be avoided.
But first you have to free your mind from leftism.
