Ep. 1248 - New Revelations Prove Yet Again That Derek Chauvin Was An Innocent Man Railroaded In The Name Of 'Racial Justice'
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, new revelations prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what any honest person already knew: that Derek Chauvin is an innocent man who was falsely blamed for the death of George Floyd and railroaded in the name of racial justice. Also, a victim of gender mutilation files a major lawsuit against the doctors who harmed her. Plus, John Oliver launched a lengthy attack on home schoolers, claiming that all home schooling parents need to be monitored by the government. As a home school parent myself, I have some thoughts about that.
Ep.1248
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Watch Episodes 1-9 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - Get $30 off your order! Promo code Walsh at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
Miracle in East Texas - Get your tickets to see Miracle in East Texas!
http://www.SorboStudios.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Wall Show, new revelations prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what any honest person already knew, which is that Derek Chauvin is an innocent man who was falsely blamed for the death of George Floyd and railroaded in the name of racial justice.
Also, a victim of gender mutilation files a major lawsuit against the doctors who harmed her.
Plus, John Oliver launched a lengthy attack on homeschoolers, claiming that all homeschooling parents need to be monitored by the government.
As a homeschool parent myself, I have some thoughts about that.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Every Halloween you hear about the dangers in the candy your kids will get, but this
year the real tricks are in the meat aisle.
Good Ranchers wants you to take the trick out of your meat, and they're throwing in a treat for my listeners for $30 off your order with promo code WALSH at GoodRanchers.com.
Lab-grown meat is becoming more and more popular.
foreign meat can be labeled as a product of the United States and the mRNA vaccine development
is on the rise for agriculture. What's in your meat is even more in question than ever
before. Amidst these haunting truths, the real hero arises, Good Ranchers. The number
one place to get America's best pork, beef, chicken, and seafood delivered is with Good
Ranchers. Their products are transparently sourced, all American, and delicious. When
you shop at goodranchers.com, you don't have to question what's in your meat or where your
They even have a 100% American guarantee and a transparent vaccination policy.
Take the mystery out of the meat aisle.
Visit GoodRanchers.com.
Use my code WALSH to get $30 off with free express shipping on your box of America's best meat and seafood today.
That's code WALSH for $30 off your box today at GoodRanchers.com.
American meat delivered.
There was a moment early on in the George Floyd trial where the entire thing should have been over.
The judge should have dismissed the case with prejudice, admonished the prosecutors, and apologized profusely to Derek Chauvin on behalf of the state of Minnesota for this coordinated effort to destroy his life.
I'm talking about testimony from the chief medical examiner in Minneapolis, a man named Andrew Baker.
Little over a week into the trial, he was called by the state to make the claim that Derek Chauvin had committed a homicide by placing his knee on Floyd's neck for several minutes.
And that's exactly what Andrew Baker did on direct examination.
Then, when Derek Chauvin's defense lawyer cross-examined Andrew Baker, it all fell apart.
Over the course of more than an hour, Chauvin's lawyer got Baker to admit a series of facts that, taken together, undermine the prosecution's entire theory of the case.
For one thing, Baker admitted that just days after Floyd's death, he told prosecutors that Floyd had a lethal level of fentanyl in his system under normal circumstances.
Baker also acknowledged that Floyd had a severely enlarged heart, that the autopsy showed no physical signs of neck injury or strangulation.
The medical examiner went on to admit that if Floyd had been found alone in an apartment building, his death would be certified as an overdose without a second thought.
Then Chauvin's lawyer delivered what should have been the kill shot.
He asked Andrew Baker whether Derek Chauvin's knee had ever obstructed Floyd's airway.
And here was the medical examiner's response to that question.
Watch.
In terms of the placement of Mr. Chauvin's knee, would that explain anatomically why Mr. Floyd, would that anatomically cut off Mr. Floyd's airway?
In my opinion, it would not.
Well, that seems relevant.
I mean, in fact, it seems like the whole thing.
It's the whole case.
The entire narrative surrounding the death of George Floyd up to this point was that Chauvin's knee blocked Floyd's airway.
That was supposedly why he ran out of oxygen and stopped breathing.
Now, an expert witness, a prosecution witness for that matter, was admitting under oath that Chauvin's knee was not affecting Floyd's airway at all.
This cross-examination received basically zero media attention at the time.
No one seemed to notice it.
But more than two years later, Andrew Baker is finally getting some scrutiny now because of a lawsuit filed by a former Minneapolis prosecutor named Amy Sweezy.
As reported by Alpha News late last week and discussed on Friday by Tucker Carlson, Sweezy just claimed in a deposition that Baker privately acknowledged that there were no, quote, medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation in Floyd's death.
Quoting from her deposition, she says, quote, he called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd's neck.
There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.
According to Sweezy, quote, Dr. Baker said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home or anywhere else and there were no other contributing factors, he would conclude that it was an overdose death.
For that reason, Sweezy said in her new deposition that Baker seemingly suggested to his colleagues that they needed to lie about Floyd's death due to public pressure.
Quoting again from the deposition quote he said to me Amy What happens when the actual evidence doesn't match up with
the public narrative that everyone's already decided on and then he said?
This is the kind of case that ends careers Now at the time of Derek Chauvin's trial we didn't know all
of these Details all these conversations that were happening behind
the scene But honestly, we didn't need them.
We didn't need to know that.
Because they're just confirmation of what any reasonable person should have figured out, which is that all of these experts were lying about George Floyd.
There was the body camera footage of George Floyd saying, I can't breathe, several times before he was ever put on the ground.
You know, he's fighting with the officers in the back of the squad car.
Then he begs them to put him on the ground.
He asks them to put him on the ground because he doesn't want to be in the car.
The jury saw all of this.
There was also the testimony from the doctor who treated Floyd in the emergency room, who admitted under cross-examination that Floyd's symptoms, specifically the lack of oxygen to his brain, were consistent with a fentanyl overdose.
By the end of the proceedings, even the jury that convicted Chauvin was obviously aware of what a farce this whole trial was.
Shortly after they voted to convict, several of the jurors gave an interview with CNN.
And let's go back and listen again to their reasoning.
Listen.
We got to the point, actually, that we realized for charge two, at some point, I think it was Jody, I'm pretty sure it was Jody, said, wait a minute, does the Can an intended act of harm have to be the death of George Floyd or can it be him not providing the life support?
And it was like all of a sudden light bulbs just went on for those people I think that were undecided or on the not guilty side.
Go ahead, I want to hear from you Jodi.
You brought that up?
I brought that up.
Tell me what you brought up and why.
Kai brought up to the fact that this is not what he did, but more or less what he didn't do.
He did not provide life-saving measures for George Floyd when he knew that the guy was in pain or needed medical attention.
Even the firefighter that was off said, checked his pulse, checked his pulse.
Well, then they checked his pulse and they said, well, do you want to do anything?
No, we're leaving him here.
He had ample to roll him over and start CPR and he didn't.
He didn't move one bit.
And even when the EMS came up and checked him, he never even got up.
Okay, so keep in mind that even now, even today, after the trial's over, we've heard from the jury why they convicted him.
We're still told that Derek Chauvin kneeled on George Floyd's neck and killed him, murdered him, and that's why he's in jail.
When the jury themselves, they say that no, in fact, it's just he was having an overdose and Derek Chauvin didn't assist him, didn't give him medical assistance while he was having an overdose.
Which is, that's what the jury says.
That's what happened in the trial.
That's not what the media says.
The public.
That's not what anyone out there says.
The jury says it's not what he did, it's what he didn't do.
He didn't live up to the police department's motto of caring.
He didn't, I don't know, start mouth-to-mouth CPR on George Floyd.
Therefore, he's a killer.
He's guilty of second-degree murder, is what they're saying.
Now a couple things about that.
First of all, you can tell from how they're talking about this and they go on to talk about their lightbulb moment, that's the phrase they use, that they were trying to find an excuse to convict Derek Chauvin from the beginning.
They knew that Chauvin didn't actually kill George Floyd and that caused maybe some cognitive dissonance.
But they also knew that they had to convict him or the city would burn down and they'd be racist.
That's why they were so relieved when this woman says, well actually, it doesn't matter that Chauvin didn't kill Floyd.
It's not about what he did, it's what he didn't do.
Which is totally wrong and nonsensical, but it gave them an out.
The jury went into the trial determined to find Chauvin guilty.
The only thing they needed to figure out was why.
They needed to figure out why they would convict him.
They knew they would, it's just a matter of finding the why.
Now this is exactly the opposite of how jury deliberations are supposed to work.
What a jury is supposed to do is look at the evidence and then see if under the law a crime has occurred.
And in this case, the law required that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Derek Chauvin's actions caused George Floyd's death.
That should have been the entire focus of the jury, but the jury didn't bother with that because the state never proved that anything like that had occurred.
There was nothing that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Derek Chauvin killed Floyd, or that he could have saved Floyd for that matter.
Now to give you an idea of how corrupted the judicial system is, Chauvin didn't have any obvious alternative to this outcome.
If he had chosen a bench trial, he still would have been convicted.
And that's because the judge was Peter Cahill.
He's handled the cases of every officer who was involved in detaining George Floyd, and recently he sentenced one of those officers, Tu Tao, to five years in prison.
We talked about that case several weeks ago.
Well, what was Tu Tao's crime?
He held back the crowd that was badgering and threatening officers as Derek Chauvin restrained George Floyd.
Tu Tao didn't lay a finger on George Floyd.
He wasn't even looking at the arrest because he was focused on the crowd.
That's why he was there.
His only crime was being in the general vicinity while a black man overdosed on poison that he willfully consumed.
That's why he's in jail.
Mainly because Tao never bent the knee to the mob.
He quoted scripture during his sentencing hearing.
And that infuriated Judge Peter Cahill.
So he threw Tao behind bars for five years.
Simply for being there.
While a black man overdosed.
Now, what could explain this judge's conduct?
As you might have guessed, he's a lot like the jurors.
He believes that equity is more important than the law.
After the Chauvin case, Peter Cahill gave a lecture to a bunch of other judges, and during his remarks, he told his colleagues to, quote, work for equity.
He also told them that every case, every case, is about racial justice.
Watch.
And finally, I want to talk a little bit about racial justice.
Well, first of all, how many of you work in a courthouse that has equal justice under law somewhere emblazoned on a wall or over your entrance, anything like that, on a plaque?
Okay, it's very common if you see even, you know, the U.S.
Supreme Court above the entrance, equal justice under law.
I think one of the things we have to do, and this is probably the more serious part of this lecture, we have to acknowledge That equal justice under law stated on top of the entrance to the building is more a goal than it is an accomplishment.
I think we're getting better, but we are a far cry from being able to say we've done it and rest on our laurels.
It's more often a goal in my mind than an accomplishment.
Now he goes on and on like that for a while.
He says it's important to work for equity.
He encourages affirmative action hiring.
He tells everyone to attend implicit bias training.
It's exactly what you would expect.
And proving again that Derek Chauvin had no chance.
The cards, the deck was stacked against him completely.
He had no chance.
The result was determined before he stepped foot in that courtroom.
Which is what makes the Derek Chauvin verdict one of the greatest injustices in the history of the American court system.
Now a few moments ago I mentioned revelations in the legal complaint by former Minneapolis prosecutor Amy Sweezy.
There were some other revelations related to these lawsuits and one of them, according to Alpha News, is that multiple employees of the Hennepin County Attorney's Office withdrew from the prosecutions of the other three officers, besides Chauvin, who were on the scene that day.
These prosecutors believed that charging these other officers violated their professional and ethical obligations.
But this judge, Peter Cahill, had no problem sentencing these officers to lengthy prison sentences, even though three of the people in the prosecutor's office didn't want to have anything to do with it.
It violated their oath of office to be involved.
Peter Cahill didn't have any compunction about it.
He smirked while he was handing down their prison sentences, in fact.
Again, if you've been following the Floyd case for a long time, none of these revelations are especially surprising to you.
It's been obvious from the beginning that Derek Chauvin was a sacrificial lamb being offered up to atone for the supposed sins of an entire race.
And now we have overwhelming evidence of that, and a lot of people, conservatives anyway, are coming out and saying so.
But speaking of conservatives.
One of the things that's so important about all this new information is that it underscores the cowardly and shameful silence of many conservatives when this trial was occurring and before it occurred.
Many right-wing politicians and activists didn't really stand up in defense of Derek Chauvin.
In fact, many Republican politicians and outlets explicitly accepted the narrative that George Floyd had been murdered.
You know, we don't have to go through all the examples, but you can go back to May and June 2020, And you may be surprised by what some of your favorite conservatives were saying back then about this case.
All along, it was an obvious scam.
And the con artists behind it are now rubbing it in our faces.
Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of BLM, is, for example, now embarking on a new career as a nude modern artist.
She's transitioned from one absurd form of performance art to another, somehow even more grotesque form.
This is the Hunter Biden approach, except instead of finger painting, Patrice Cullors is taking off all her clothing and making tapestries with gold and, quote, vintage mud cloth from Mali.
Just like Hunter Biden, the point of this new effort is to hide her own corruption.
As The Independent reports, quote, Cullors is leaning into her art these days, gaining sustenance and perspective from it.
She speaks of it as not just a vocation, but a means of salvation.
At one point, the impact of accusations of financial mismanagement at BLM, from which she resigned in 2021, wounded her so deeply, her mental health was imperiled and she felt her very life was in danger, she says.
What has ultimately saved her more than once, she feels, is her art.
Now there are pictures, by the way, of her nude performance art, but I will spare you those.
And a lot of people reacted to this news with surprise, as if it's somehow shocking that a grifter would find a new grift, but it's the most natural thing in the world.
And at this point, it takes no great strength to mock Patrisse Cullors as a scam artist, just like it takes no courage to admit at this point that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd.
The time to really point all this out, for conservatives to point all this out, was two or three years ago, when it mattered.
That was the time to organize mass demonstrations in support of the rule of law, to apply maximum political pressure on the corrupt prosecutors in Minnesota.
It was the time for Republican politicians to speak up forcefully about this travesty of justice that's occurring.
Were they gonna throw an innocent man in prison because he's white?
That's the only reason Derek Chauvin's in jail right now, is because he's a white guy.
But none of that happened.
And now, barring a miraculous Supreme Court appeal, Derek Chauvin will spend decades in prison.
Cities burned, innocent people like David Dorn died for no reason.
And Patrisse Cullors and her ilk have inspired a generation of race hustlers to rise up and seize power in virtually every major corporation and university in this country.
All this happened because a lot of people lacked the courage to say what they knew was right.
Even those prosecutors in the Minneapolis DA's office who refused to work on some of these George Floyd cases because they saw what a sham it was.
Well, they kept their opinions private at the time.
I mean, we're only finding out about it now.
The grifters see all this happening and they're emboldened by it.
The other day, Ben Crump held an indignant press conference on behalf of Leonard Cure.
That's the guy who tried to strangle a cop to death, got himself shot in the process.
According to Ben Crump, it's white supremacy when police officers shoot people who are trying to kill them.
And at some level, you almost have to admire it.
I mean, for all his many faults, Ben Crump, like Patrice Cullors, understands one thing very well, which is that modern conservatives are the most passive political actors on the planet.
For decades, universities have been slowly transforming into cesspools of anti-white racism and anti-truth insanity.
And many conservatives only went to war against these universities a couple of weeks ago after Hamas' attack on Israeli civilians, followed by massive demonstrations on college campuses on behalf of the terrorists.
It was shocking to Nikki Haley, for example, and she's now suggesting that some of these universities should lose federal funding.
And so are some other candidates.
She waited for the safest possible moment to go after the universities, and this is the tried-and-true Republican strategy.
And yes, we should go after them.
It'd be a good place to start, even if it's an extraordinarily delayed response.
But it's not nearly enough.
It should be the default response going forward to any corporation or school that discriminates against any religious belief or nationality or skin color.
And if the GOP takes this seriously, you'll see a lot less open support for terrorism on college campuses.
Affirmative action will be dismantled because there will actually be some teeth behind that Supreme Court decision.
Anti-white and anti-Asian racism and omissions and hiring will stop overnight.
That means there will be a lot fewer Ben Crumps and Patrice Cullors in the world.
And we'll lose out on, you know, tapestries of mudcloth from Mali.
But what we'll gain is something we haven't had in a very long time, even before the rise of BLM.
We'll have a conservative movement that actually conserves something.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You never know what kind of woke nonsense they're going to spring on you.
Sexual innuendos, crude language, the emasculation of men, and let's not forget toxic feminism.
That's why we're excited for the award-winning Miracle in East Texas, directed by and starring Kevin Sorbo.
This film should be a hilarious and family-friendly comedy in traditional Hollywood style, full of quirky laughs while telling an evoking but true story about entrepreneurship, the American dream, and the value of forgiveness.
Sorbo Studios wants to get wholesome values back into your theaters.
Make sure you get your tickets before they sell out.
This film has already received the Parents Television and Media Council Seal of Approval.
Miracle in East Texas opens on October 29th and 30th.
Go to sorbostudios.com for ticketing and all other information at sorbostudios.com.
There's a big report in the Daily Mail says a North Carolina lesbian slammed doctors who led her down a path of transitioning as a fractured and unstable adolescent despite suffering from multiple personality disorder.
Leighton Ullery took aim at high-profile medical doctors in a bombshell lawsuit obtained by DailyMail.com where she claimed that her mind and body were inhabited by eight separate identities after almost two decades of abuse at the hands of a cult.
After enduring 18 years of sexual, physical, and psychological torment, which also included conversion therapy to cure her from being a lesbian, she left the cult in 2015, while the trauma at the time saw her personality splinter into separate identities.
The lawsuit claims that because Leighton would suffer memory loss when she switched identities, her doctors were also providing medical treatment to other identities, including Liv, Jessie, Anna, Mason, Lee, AJ, and several fragmented identities.
Those are the names of all of her identities, allegedly.
Despite being practically and legally disabled under Rhode Island law, she underwent drastic gender reassignment therapy, including hormone therapy, because the surgeons prioritized their own agendas, ideologies, and professional interests.
ULRI is suing Rhode Island Treatment Center, Thundermist Health, along with a number of leading practitioners including Dr. Jason Rafferty, therapist Julie Lyons, and Dr. Michelle Forcier.
Those included in the lawsuit did not immediately respond to a request for comment when contacted.
Michelle Forcier, of course, you may recognize that name because she was the She is the chicken lady from What Is A Woman, the infamous Do Chickens Cry lady.
That's her.
And she's getting sued by this patient.
Now, it's a very important case, and we're seeing more and more cases like this, where
these people who were given, who were sterilized, castrated, mutilated, are now coming back
around and suing the doctors who did this to them, which is very good.
It's very good that they're suing.
And you know, we've talked about a DID, multiple personality disorder, before, and I've already
said that I think it's basically a fake disorder.
This is something that psychiatrists made up, and most of the famous cases of multiple
personality disorder, the ones that popularized it in the kind of public imagination, are
proven frauds.
Because the whole premise just doesn't make any sense anyway.
The idea that a human mind can contain like ten separate minds that exist independent of each other.
It just doesn't, it doesn't make sense.
I don't think that it's real.
I think anyone who's been diagnosed with DID is either faking it or they're very, very confused.
And it seems to be the latter in this case.
I think it sounds like this person is confused.
But real or not, the point is that this person, this patient, is obviously struggling with a bunch of issues.
And it's like, if someone goes in claiming that they have ten different conscious identities that operate independently in their own mind, and they have names for all these different identities, either it's real or they're faking it.
But again, either way, this is someone who's clearly troubled.
Very troubled.
So, and this is very common, by the way.
In almost every case, the gender-confused person who goes and seeks medical help or therapeutic help, in almost every case, they're going to have various other diagnosed or diagnosable mental problems.
And this is something that, by the way, the trans activists will admit.
They'll be the first to tell you.
They'll tell you that trans youth have many, what they'll call, comorbidities.
And by that, they mean that the, quote, trans youth also have, most of the time, they'll have anxiety disorders, depression, bipolar, etc., etc., etc.
In other words, these are confused, anxious people who lack mental clarity, and the gender confusion is part of that picture.
Yet doctors will ignore this fact, And affirm the delusions.
So a person comes to them and says, you know, I'm depressed.
I'm confused.
I'm anxious.
Nothing makes sense.
I don't know what's going on in the world.
Also, I think I'm the opposite sex.
And the doctors will go, well, then you are the opposite sex.
Eureka!
You're the opposite sex.
You must be.
They will look at it as, you know, either All of these other mental problems are stemming from the fact that they are, you know, a boy trapped in a girl's body and it's not being affirmed.
Or they'll see it all as a coincidence or something like that.
But what they will not, what they refuse to acknowledge is that, no, all those other problems come first.
This is just someone who's been confused for a long time and is struggling with all these different things.
And the trans stuff is part of that picture.
It's part of this person just kind of like grasping at some sort of clarity because they have a very clouded, muddled, confused mind.
And that should be obvious to any supposed medical expert, and I think it is obvious to most of them, but they will affirm the delusion anyway.
Which is obviously medical abuse and negligence.
And so this is exactly what needs to happen next.
This is the next step.
These quacks need to be sued into oblivion.
I mean, bankrupt them, destroy them, ruin them.
That's what needs to happen.
We've already demonstrated how these sorts of people, these doctors, including one of them specifically, that's named in this lawsuit, if you sit them down, And you put them in a position where they have to explain the rationale behind their treatment plans.
They can't do it.
They can't explain it.
You apply the slightest bit of scrutiny to the way that they're treating their patients, and it all collapses immediately.
But it's one thing to do that on a podcast or to do it in a documentary.
It's another thing to do it in a court when there's millions of dollars on the line.
I think there's going to be a tidal wave of lawsuits like this.
We're starting to see, it's not a tidal wave yet, we're starting to see some ripples.
And it's going to be a tidal wave soon, and it should be.
And I think that if there's anything that becomes kind of the final fatal blow to the gender transition industry, it's going to be this.
All right, I alluded to this in the opening monologue.
I wanted to mention it in more detail here.
This is the tweet that Nikki Haley put out.
She says, Now, this is incredibly frustrating.
It really is.
And I'm all for taking federal funding away from universities.
Don't get me wrong.
But this is what gets you to finally speak up?
I mean, now you want to take federal funding away?
Because of anti-Semitism on campus?
I mean, first of all, you could just, you can end the sentence, you know, several words earlier than that.
No more federal money for colleges and universities, period.
That should be the end of the sentence.
You don't need to give a specific reason.
There are enough reasons that just, they shouldn't be, just end the sentence there and we're fine.
But it's just interesting that this is what, and Nikki Haley is not the only Republican, not the only supposed conservative, who's finally speaking up about the madness on college campuses because of what's happened over the last two weeks.
And listen, I am as disgusted as anyone by the pro-Hamas sentiments on campus, but the truth is that, listen, anti-Semitism Isn't even in the list of the top 10 biggest problems in the American university system.
If I were making a list of all the reasons to defund the universities, anti-Semitism would not make it very high on the list.
In fact, the number one thing on the list is not any form of bigotry at all.
In fact, the number one thing on the list is that it's, well, if it is a bigotry, it's the anti-truth bigotry.
It's the fact that these universities are indoctrinating students into an insane, false worldview.
So that's the first problem.
But, you know, anti-Semitism is not one of the, is not among the most serious problems on college campuses.
And, you know, so if you were In favor of federal funding for universities up until two weeks ago, then I think that raises some questions.
And in terms of discrimination on campuses, universities have been openly hostile to white men for years and years.
I mean, they are openly demonized.
On every campus, everywhere.
Okay?
And that's a group that you're allowed to demonize without any pushback.
With antisemitism, if someone says something really antisemitic, they're going to generally be chastised by almost everyone for it, and most of the time they'll end up retracting and apologizing.
We've seen this play out over and over again over the last couple of weeks, where you've got college professors and other people that have come out and said these grotesque things.
We just had an example on Friday of a college professor saying Israelis are pigs and they should die and burn in hell.
I mean, horrible things to say.
And the fact that they would say it at all obviously proves that there's a problem here.
But the other point is, what happened then?
Well, 12 hours later, they're apologizing because they get attacked for it by everyone.
Rightly so.
Now, you compare that to what happens when you demonize white men.
Well, you can rip white men and white people in general to shreds all you want, and nobody will say anything.
And oftentimes, even the people who speak up will not call it what it is.
They won't say... Now, you can say anti-Semitism is a terrible thing.
Most people will agree with you.
Anti-white racism, though... You can't even get people to agree that that exists, even though it clearly does.
You know, the Nick Cannon situation a few years ago was, I think, a pretty instructive example of this.
In an interview, if you remember, on a podcast or something, he called white people savages and demons.
And other things too.
And then he also said that black people are, whatever it was, I think he said that black people are the true Hebrews or whatever.
You know, that black Hebrew Israelite thing he went on about.
And he ended up apologizing for being anti-Semitic, but he did not apologize for any of the anti-white stuff.
Even though the anti-white stuff was much more direct and egregious.
You know, what he said about being the true Israelites or whatever was, You know, stupid and weird and all of that.
But what he said about white people is that they're savage demons or subhuman.
And there was no apology for it.
No one even demanded an apology.
And that's because anti-white bigotry is truly the only acceptable form of bigotry left.
Other forms exist, surely, but they aren't acceptable.
They aren't mainstream.
They will be condemned.
That's why Biden will stand at the White House and denounce anti-Semitism.
He'll lump it in with Islamophobia and he'll do the moral equivalence stuff that we talked about last week.
But he will at least denounce it, right?
It may be, he might not actually mean it, but he will say the words.
He would never, in a million years, ever Say anything about anti-white anything.
You cannot imagine anyone at the White House denouncing anti-white racism.
It would never happen.
Ever.
And we all know it.
So all I'm saying is if you've just now decided that you want to really crack down on the universities because of anti-Semitism, And you weren't saying now if you've been saying all along that we should crack down the universities Withdrawal funding if you've been criticizing university system all along and then you add this into it That's just the latest example of moral insanity on college campuses then great.
I got no issue with you But if you're a Nikki Haley sort of person who has never said anything about taking funding away from universities until now Then It tells me you're either oblivious or a coward.
And this is what the right so often does, right?
It waits to make the case until it can frame the case in a way that the left will find acceptable.
Okay?
Like, the left may give safe harbor to antisemitism when it's convenient to do so, But the left will also at least allow you to talk about anti-Semitism and to acknowledge that anti-Semitism exists.
And the left will also acknowledge it.
They'll use the phrase and they'll say, yes, that's a thing and it's bad.
It will not acknowledge anti-white racism at all.
In fact, they'll call you racist for even using the term.
So that means that many conservatives, they're not going to speak up and say, you know what, anti-white racism on college campus is a big problem.
They're not going to say that.
Because the left does not accept those terms.
So they wait until they have terms that the left will accept.
But the problem is that that has not proven to be an effective strategy.
To adopt the left's terms is never a good way of defeating the left.
I think we've shown that.
Dip out of the five headlines a little bit early.
In fact, after only two headlines.
Because in the Daily Cancellation today, I want to leave some time for it.
It's an important conversation.
We're going to leave a little bit of extra time for it.
So let's get to, Was Walsh Wrong?
Bob Knows Nothing says, You would call Jesus woke and run him back up the cross.
You never understood him.
Hypocrites.
Sunday Divine says, If he was alive today, you people would kill Jesus.
Shelly Shell says, I thought Jesus was all about love and acceptance.
Will says, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors and preached against judgment.
He was kind and tolerant.
He wasn't an angry bigot.
Basically, he was the opposite of you.
A couple of things there.
First of all, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but And I don't think it actually is pedantic to point this out.
First of all, Jesus did not hang out with prostitutes.
You hear this phrasing a lot.
You hear it sometimes even in church.
Jesus hung out with sinners.
Okay, hang out.
That brings to mind an image of Jesus sort of just laying around, relaxing, chilling, throwing back a few beers with prostitutes.
That's not what happened.
Jesus ministered to these sinners.
Taught them.
Guided them.
Called them to repentance.
And that part right there is pretty important.
And people like those who left these comments, they forget about that part.
The call to repentance.
So anytime in the Gospel when we hear a story about Jesus interacting with a sinner, and everyone he interacted with was a sinner, And in particular, someone like a prostitute or an adulterer, there's always that call to repentance.
Go and sin no more.
Famous words in the gospel.
And he repeated those words.
It wasn't just talking to the adulterer who was almost stoned to death, but those exact words are words similar to it.
This was the message.
And that's a really important point here.
Okay, because the image that we get and the kind of modern image of Jesus is that he was, in fact we just heard it there in one of the comments too, that he was against judgment.
What do you mean against judgment?
He was against wrong judgment, judging people wrongly, in the wrong way.
But there was always that call to repentance and there was a reason why he was...
So of course, if someone's a sinner, he's not going to just leave them in their sin and say,
"You're lost. There's no hope for you."
But he also wasn't, you know, this sort of...
Apathetic or non-judgmental figure allowing people to sin in his presence without saying anything about it.
In general, Jesus was not the mild, inoffensive, Mr. Rogers sort of archetype that we've tried for decades to turn him into.
In fact, Jesus, the gospel clearly portrays Jesus in moments could be quite aggressive, even using physical force, driving the money changers out of the temple.
And also keep in mind that the Gospels, each individual Gospel, is pretty short.
And even together, you take the Gospels all together, it's still pretty short.
We're getting really only a snapshot of Jesus's earthly ministry.
A pretty short snapshot.
Which gives, obviously, a lot of weight to each individual story that makes it in, sort of like makes the cut.
And the fact that the cleansing of the temple makes the cut should tell us something.
As far as being angry, now, Jesus wasn't an angry bigot, that's correct, in that he wasn't a bigot, but did Jesus display anger?
Yes!
Quite frequently, in fact.
This is one of the things, if you've kind of absorbed this This idea from the popular imagination that Jesus is this Mr. Rogers type of very meek and mild, non-judgmental, didn't get angry.
If you absorb this notion and then you do something radical, like you actually sit down and read the Gospels for yourself, you're going to be shocked by just how angry Jesus was through portions of the story.
And just how sort of no-nonsense he could be when dealing with people, especially unrepentant sinners.
And why is that?
It's because, despite what some of these comments are saying, love and acceptance are not the same thing.
They do not go hand-in-hand.
In fact, oftentimes they can be the opposite.
To love someone is to will the good for them, it's to want them, it's to want what is best for them.
Ultimately, as a Christian, to love someone means that you want them to go to heaven.
That's what it means to love somebody.
And so if you are accepting parts of them and aspects of their behavior that's leading them away from salvation, then that's not love.
That might not be hatred either, it's indifference.
Which, as we know, is the true opposite of love.
All right.
We do have a winner, though.
I also wanted to mention this.
Walsh was wrong.
I actually was wrong.
On Friday, we talked about a professor called Micah Tosca, who landed in hot water for an absurdly over-the-top post calling Israelis pigs.
We should burn in hell.
We just mentioned that again.
I know absolutely nothing about Micah Tosca other than this post.
But I had several comments telling me that I got a crucial fact wrong.
Like this one from someone called Tafari.
He says, "That professor you're referring to is a male, and you're referring to him
as she.
Maybe it's a mistake, but I have to put it out there.
I hope it's a mistake, and you're not slowly caving to the mob."
Yes, it is a mistake.
Actually, like I said, I know nothing about this person whatsoever.
I read his name in an article, and that's the only thing I know.
But I did look it up after seeing a bunch of comments like this, and sure enough, it appears that Mike Tosca, well, Micah Tosca, probably actually Mike Tosca, is a man.
So we should correct the record there.
And you got me.
I was wrong about one thing.
As for the fear that I was aware of this person's true identity and decided to respect his pronouns anyway.
If you consider that to be even within the realm of possibility, then you must not listen to the show very often.
I've said before, and I mean it, I would not respect someone's pronouns with a gun to my head.
I truly wouldn't.
That's how serious I take it.
It was an error though, but you got me.
I was wrong.
One time.
Won't happen again.
Are you still getting your chocolate from woke companies?
Get Jeremy's Chocolate instead, and right now you can save big with 30% off.
Get great deals on our famous He Him With Nuts and She Her Nutless, because whether it's Halloween or not, Jeremy's Chocolate knows not everyone can be a mummy.
Get yours in full size or a shareable microaggression size, perfect for giving out to friends, families, and neighbors.
Time is running out.
Today is the last chance to stock up now in time for Halloween.
Go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
And it's easy to give him a hard time, seeing as he is such a smarmy, insufferable little British muppet.
But my biggest issue with John Oliver isn't that he is an annoying, smug bastard.
It's that he's an annoying, smug bastard who thinks that his own IQ is about 40 points higher than it really is.
He makes very lame and very trite arguments that, to the suggestible viewer, pass for clever and intelligent because he has a live audience of trained SEALs applauding the whole time.
He also spends a lot of time making his lame and trite arguments.
You know, he harps on one subject for almost half an hour, which tricks his gullible fans into thinking that he's being thorough.
They see that he has a 25-minute monologue on a certain subject, and they figure that it must be, like, the definitive smackdown on that topic because it's 25 minutes long.
What they don't realize is that he's actually just restating the same shallow, dubious premise over and over again for 25 minutes.
This is how he dupes the credulous rubes among us, which is a problem because there are a lot of credulous rubes among us.
So, when I heard that John Oliver took on the issue of homeschooling in one of his most recent shows, I expected his rant to be incredibly dumb and misleading, because they always are, but then I watched it and I discovered that it's even worse than I assumed.
As always with John Oliver, you'll find his monologues less and less persuasive the more personally knowledgeable you are about the subject.
And we have been homeschooling our kids for nearly a decade, so it landed especially flat for me.
But I'm going to go through the monologue in extensive detail so that you can hear it for yourself.
Unlike John Oliver, I don't believe in cherry-picking, so we're going to go through this.
Now Oliver's basic position is that there isn't enough regulation on homeschooling parents.
He insists that a large number of us are abusive and negligent and stupid, and we need greater oversight to make sure that we are teaching our children in a way that the state finds acceptable.
Actually, John Oliver wants to make sure that We're teaching our children in a way that John Oliver finds acceptable.
But it just so happens that John Oliver's views and priorities are indistinguishable from the state's.
He is paid millions of dollars a year to say things on camera, yet he never says anything that any generic bureaucrat wouldn't say.
He just uses a little bit more profanity when he says it.
Don't take it from me, though.
Let's dive in.
Watch.
We're gonna talk about homeschooling.
During the pandemic, many parents were suddenly forced to do it, and while some struggled, others, like this family, absolutely thrived.
♪ A, B, C, D, E, F, G ♪ ♪ H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P ♪ ♪ Q, R, S, T, U, V ♪ ♪ W, X, Y, and Z ♪ ♪ Now you know your ABCs! ♪ That is clearly excellent, but it's also, it is also a pretty mean way to make other parents look like total sh**.
Okay, now this is how Oliver begins the segment.
He gives props to some homeschooling parents so that he has license to spend the next 20 minutes accusing the rest of us of being Nazis and child abusers.
But keep in mind that this is what Oliver considers to be clearly excellent homeschooling.
Shooting a TikTok video of your kids dancing to an ABC rap when at least four of those kids are obviously way too old to still be reviewing the ABCs at all.
is what qualifies as homeschooling so magnificent, John Oliver says, that it makes other parents, quote, feel like s***.
That's something to remember as Oliver begins giving examples of what, in his mind, qualify as laughably awful homeschooling.
Also, you know, if you're the cynical type, you may have already noted that Oliver's example of good homeschooling comes from a black family.
And you might say to yourself, well, of course, yeah, that's what he would do.
And yes, you're right.
That is totally intentional.
Throughout the monologue, he gives three examples of sympathetic homeschool families, and they're all black.
All the examples of bad homeschoolers, on the other hand, are white.
That is how utterly predictable and contrived all of this is.
With that, let's continue.
And you may have heard a stereotype of homeschoolers being Christian conservatives who object to what kids learn in public school environments.
And I admit, those people do exist.
Take this man who offers this pretty shaky rationalization for pulling his kid out of school.
I think the type of content on what they're teaching about sex or anal sex that my third grade daughter should not be in a classroom where a teacher or someone else is teaching her about that.
And that was your experience in school?
I threw friends in other spots that hadn't been kids at those ages, because mine was only in first grade when we pulled him.
Well, that sounds like total bulls***.
Although I guess I do basically agree with him there.
Things that are definitely not happening should continue not to happen.
Now, here we have, of course, a patented John Oliver tactic, which is scoffing in place of an actual argument.
This is all Oliver will do to even acknowledge the concerns over sexually inappropriate subject matter in public school, despite the fact that these concerns are a major primary driving force behind the growth of homeschooling.
So you would think that he would spend a little bit more time on it.
But Oliver simply declares that all of those concerns are quote, total bulls**t, and moves on.
You notice what he doesn't do?
He doesn't go into any specific detail, or any detail at all, about the actual content of public school comprehensive sex ed curricula.
You know, he doesn't say, that's bulls**t, here's what sex ed classes are really teaching.
He doesn't do that because he knows that if he provided that kind of context, it would undercut his point instead of proving it.
He knows that there are a great many sex-ed courses in public schools like the one co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood for kids aged 11 to 13 and recently highlighted by the Daily Signal that, among other things, lists among its course objectives that it wants to, quote, normalize masturbation.
Now, John Oliver doesn't want to say, hey, you dumb parents, take it easy.
All the schools want to do is talk to your 11-year-old about masturbation.
He doesn't want to say that, so he doesn't say it, but that's essentially his message.
There are, of course, a great many specific examples like this of comprehensive sex ed classes in high school, middle school, and even elementary school that cover all kinds of sexually explicit topics that no sane parent wants some strange adult talking to their kids about.
There are also the pornographic books that are offered to students in schools all across the country.
Books like Genderqueer.
And that's a book that discusses and shows images of oral sex, masturbation, sex toys, etc.
And you don't have to take it from me that Genderqueer is in schools all around the country.
Take it from the leftists who have conniption fits and start screaming about book burning if you try to remove that book and those like it from the classroom.
Speaking of which, Ron DeSantis banned lessons about gender identity and sexuality for kids in pre-K through 3rd grade, and the left, again, exploded with rage.
John Oliver says that it's total bulls**t that any schools are teaching those kinds of subjects to kids that young.
Well, if that's the case, then why did his own side cry out in horror when DeSantis banned discussions that Oliver claims aren't happening anyway?
Now, these are questions that Oliver doesn't want you to ask.
Instead, you just clap along and laugh at his crappy jokes and don't think too deeply about any of it.
The ceiling of how good homeschooling can be is admittedly very high.
But the floor of how bad it can get is basically non-existent.
Because to an extent that you may not realize, in many parts of the country, homeschooling is essentially unregulated, which can result in enormous damage.
So given that, tonight, let's take a look at homeschooling.
Let's start with the fact that there is a lot that we don't know about homeschooled kids, from exactly how many there are to what they are learning.
When I said there are around two million of them, the reason that's an estimate is that, depending on the state, homeschooled families might not have to report what they are doing at all.
In these 26 states, parents simply have to file a notice once a year with officials to let them know that they are homeschooling their child.
In these 13, they only have to file a notice once with no requirement to check in ever again.
And in the remaining 11, they don't have to notify anyone at all.
Oh dear God, can you imagine the horror?
You mean to tell me there are potentially millions of parents out there who are, you know, talking to their kids and teaching them and guiding them and telling them things without providing the state and John Oliver with a full written account of everything they're saying?
I mean, it's almost like these families believe they should have privacy and self-determination and freedom.
How presumptuous of them.
How dare they?
You can't just go teaching stuff to your own children.
Especially if you haven't cleared it with John Oliver yet.
John Oliver will decide what you're allowed to say to your own kids in your own home.
Thank you very much.
After all, as he argues, many of these parents are providing inadequate educations to their children.
Here is one parent enthusiastically explaining how he taught his kids science.
I can't tell you how many times, you know, in my home, in our kitchen table, we've dissected, you know, sheep eyeballs or frogs.
Kitchens are great labs for this kind of thing.
Where does somebody get a sheep eyeball?
Well, John, you can just Google sheep eyeball for homeschoolers.
I didn't know that.
Yeah, absolutely.
First, are kitchens the best lab for this kind of thing?
I think probably labs are the best lab for this kind of thing.
I'm just like, maybe don't go dissecting sheep eyeballs in the same place where you cut olives for salad.
Yeah, you idiot homeschoolers.
I mean, don't cut into the carcasses of dead animals in your kitchen.
John Oliver would never do that, which I guess means he's never made any meat dish at all in his life.
I mean, I've cut into the raw flesh of cows, chickens, pigs, deer, turkey, other animals in my kitchen.
I didn't realize the kitchen was a place just for slicing olives, you dork.
Now, I will say that I certainly won't be accepting any dinner invitations from John Oliver.
First, because I'll never receive one.
Second, because he's apparently a vegetarian.
And third, because he evidently doesn't realize that you can use soap to disinfect your cooking surfaces.
But the real point is that Oliver is inviting us to laugh at a homeschool dad who's obviously going to great lengths to provide a very thorough scientific education to his children.
Like, this should be an example of one of the good homeschoolers, but this is Oliver's example of a bad homeschool education.
The ABC rap was a good example, but this guy who's doing dissections with his actual biology classes with his kids, that's a bad example.
If you needed more evidence that this guy is a clown who shouldn't be taken even remotely seriously, well, there you go.
And somehow, it gets worse.
It is absolutely a parent's right to educate their child with religion if they so choose.
But the quality of some of these books can be troubling.
For instance, one current Abeka history book says that the beginning of the 20th century witnessed a cultural breakdown that threatened to destroy the very roots of Western civilization.
The cause of this dissolution was an idea or philosophy known as liberalism.
Meanwhile, a workbook from A.C.E.
celebrates the Confederate General Robert E. Lee as a devoted Christian who practiced his Christianity in all his dealings with others.
Uh, yes?
What's your point?
Both of those statements are true.
At the very least, they are intellectually defensible perspectives.
But Oliver, again, simply scoffs at them and in the process inadvertently proves why homeschooling is so important in the first place.
He believes it is an objective and self-evident fact that liberalism has been an unquestioned force for good in the world and that Confederates were all cartooned villains fighting for nothing more than the continued subjugation of black people.
He's not even smart or introspective enough to realize that his views on those topics are subjective.
So, when his subjective views are taught as fact in public school, and they are, he sees no legitimate reason for anyone to object.
Indeed, anyone who does object is obviously a Nazi, and he makes that connection explicit.
Even that is a preferable alternative to the single worst homeschool curriculum that we found, whose creators excitedly promoted it on a podcast.
We are so deeply invested into making sure that that child becomes a wonderful Nazi.
And by homeschooling, we're going to get that done.
Well, that is terrifying!
Now, you should know that Oliver actually lingers on these Nazi homeschoolers for multiple minutes.
He dedicates a sizable chunk of his monologue to this podcast nobody's ever heard of or listened to and this one
random whack job who represents at most maybe I don't know point
zero zero zero zero zero zero zero one percent of homeschoolers if that many
He can't begin to engage with the actual arguments for homeschooling the reasons that the the vast majority of
homeschool parents would actually give So instead, he draws our attention to the most outlandish, obscure outlier he can possibly find.
Now, Oliver may be a pedestrian midwit, but he certainly at least realizes that the number of homeschool parents who want to turn their kids into, quote, wonderful Nazis, is not large enough to fill a school bus, much less warrant a mention during this segment.
But he throws them in there anyway as a means of blatant emotional manipulation and to set the stage for this.
Deregulating homeschooling doesn't just eliminate safeguards against parents who are bad teachers.
It also eliminates them against parents who are bad people.
For all the HSLDA's talk of parental rights, it's worth remembering, Elon Musk is a parent.
OJ Simpson is a parent.
Darth Vader is such a parent, he made it part of his fancy name change.
The point is, having a child does not inherently make you virtuous.
And one of the key problems here is child welfare laws were written before homeschooling was legal in all 50 states.
So they rely heavily on the premise that a child is going to be in school and seen by other adults.
Yeah, Elon Musk as a parent.
I mean, you wouldn't want Elon Musk teaching- You wouldn't want a guy who's building rocket ships going into space teaching your kids, right?
Obviously, a third grade science teacher is better equipped than Elon Musk to teach science.
Obviously.
So there it is.
Homeschool is a cover for child abusers, he contends.
Many homeschool parents are using homeschool to hide the abuse they're inflicting on their children.
Because of this, he argues, there should be all manner of regulation and monitoring and background checks imposed on all parents who wish to educate their own children.
He says that we should all be screened for red flags, among other measures.
Now, it's true, of course, that some parents are scumbags who abuse their kids.
It would follow that a certain portion of those scumbags, a small minority, are probably homeschoolers.
But it does not follow that all parents who homeschool should therefore be treated as suspected child abusers.
You know, homeschool aside, the sad reality is that a certain portion of parents will use the physical privacy of their homes as a forum for inflicting all manner of abuse on their children.
But it doesn't follow that all families who insist on privacy in their homes should be treated as suspicious.
Nor does it mean that locking your front door is a red flag indicating that you're likely abusing your children.
Now, I acknowledge that a minority of awful parents do terrible things to their kids, but I will not tolerate the state treating me like I'm one of those parents when I'm not.
See, this is not a hard concept to understand, or at least it shouldn't be.
Besides, John, the abuse problem cuts both ways.
Yes, some parents are abusive.
Also, some teachers are abusive.
Not just some, many.
In fact, the Department of Education's own study on this subject found that one in ten public school students are targets of sexual misconduct by school staff.
One in ten.
That is the Department of Education.
That is their number, not mine.
That works out to millions of victims at school.
Now Oliver says that school is a safeguard against abuse, but forgets to mention that for millions of children, school is the place where the abuse occurs.
Now this is a common theme.
He talks about the failures and pitfalls of homeschooling, but never acknowledges any of the failures and pitfalls of public schooling.
He tells us about what he considers to be the poor education provided by homeschool parents, but doesn't say anything about the fact that a large percentage of public school kids aren't learning much at all.
A recent report in the Scientific American revealed that two-thirds of kids in this country, most of them public-schooled, can't read fluently.
According to the NAEP, only a third of 8th graders are proficient in reading.
In other subjects, the picture is even more grim.
It's well known that a significant preponderance of American adults are shockingly ignorant about geography, history, civics, not to mention math and science.
Most adults today were public-schooled, and yet nobody would deny that we're surrounded by morons.
I mean, the proof is all around us.
Look at the poll released this summer, finding that 40% of Americans don't even know why we celebrate July 4th, for instance.
And we could go on and on with examples like this.
It's the world that public school has created.
And this is another major reason why parents are pulling their kids out of the system.
Because the system is failing in its basic responsibility to actually educate the next generation of Americans.
Oliver doesn't grapple with that.
Doesn't even so much as acknowledge it.
Instead, he says this.
The fact is, teachers serve multiple functions at school in addition to education.
They watch out for signs of abuse, they chaperone school events, and they pretend not to know why Ellie won't sit next to Rachel, Rachel won't sit next to Kelsey, Kelsey's not talking to Ethan, even though Ethan's having a joint birthday party with Kelsey's brother Bryce, who just happens to be Rachel's boyfriend since last period.
And they do all of that while also trying to teach long division.
Teachers are superheroes who should make a million dollars a year.
There you go.
Homeschool parents are Nazi child abusers and public school teachers are superheroes.
Never mind that they're churning out millions of kids who can't read or perform basic arithmetic or point to South America on a map.
They're superheroes.
That's it.
Please clap.
John Oliver has once again demonstrated that he has the intellectual depth of a piss-tainted children's waiting pool.
And we haven't even gotten to the worst argument he makes against homeschooling, which he saves for the very end.
Listen.
In a perfect world, we'd make sure that homeschooled kids were both safe and actually receiving a functional education.
And there are smaller organizations like this one pushing for those sort of changes.
But at the barest minimum, we could require in all 50 states to register a child as homeschooled so there's at least a record that they exist.
That is how low the bar is here.
Yes, a record that they exist.
Otherwise, nobody would know they exist.
There would be no record.
Of the child's existence, other than the child's birth certificate and social security number and medical records and the fact that they're claimed on your taxes and several other forms of documentation.
Aside from all that, aside from the fact that your child's existence is definitely already documented a dozen times over, aside from that, you need to report as a homeschooler to the state or nobody will know that your child is even a real person.
Now, Oliver makes the time to convey this delusional concern about homeschooling, but dedicates no time at all to honestly engaging with any of the concerns about public schooling.
Which is, of course, how he approaches every issue he talks about.
Because he is a self-satisfied, pompous, dishonest, mush-brained prick.
A man who, we can tell, was certainly not homeschooled himself, which is maybe the best argument for homeschooling that I can offer.
And it's also why John Oliver is today, once again, Canceled.
