Ep. 1249 - 11 Year Old Boy Used As Mascot At Pride Parade
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the grand marshal of the Orlando Pride Parade this past weekend was an 11 year old boy dressed up like a girl. LGBT activists claim that they aren't trying to indoctrinate our kids, but as always their actions tell a different story. Also, pro-Hamas rallies pop up all over the country. They seem strangely familiar to BLM rallies, because they're exactly the same thing. And Canada moves a step closer to "universal basic income." Plus a white woman is canceled for having the audacity to open a sushi restaurant.
Ep.1249
- - -
DailyWire+:
Check out Bentkey here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Stamps - Sign up for stamps.com using promo code "WALSH" for a special offer that includes a 4-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale: https://www.stamps.com/
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
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, the Grand Marshal of the Orlando Pride Parade this past weekend was an 11-year-old boy dressed up like a girl.
LGBT activists, of course, claim that they aren't trying to indoctrinate our kids, but as always, their actions tell a different story.
Also, pro-Hamas rallies pop up all around the country.
They seem strangely familiar and similar to BLM rallies, and that's because, well, they're exactly the same thing.
And Canada moves a step closer to universal basic income.
Plus, a white woman is cancelled for having the audacity to open a sushi restaurant We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall
Show.
Last month, the G20 announced a plan to impose digital currencies and digital IDs on their
respective population centers.
Central bank digital currencies allow the government to track every purchase you make.
They could even give officials the ability to prohibit you from purchasing certain items or freeze your account altogether.
There's reason to be concerned about this.
If you haven't yet, you need to call Birch Gold today and talk to an expert about preserving your savings in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
If you have an IRA or 401k from a previous employer that's just gathering dust, well,
you call Birch Gold and they will help you convert it into an IRA in gold.
You're not going to pay a penny out of pocket.
They will simply convert that 401k into physical gold, which unlike digital currency, can't
be tampered with.
Text Walsh to 98 98 98 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
If digital currency becomes a reality, you'll be glad you have something physical to fall
back on.
Text Walsh to 98 98 98 and claim your free info kit on gold today.
There's been a lot of talk lately, and rightfully so, about the many rhetorical excesses of
They keep coming up with new terms and acronyms and so-called neo-pronouns, as well as new genders and sexual orientations and phobias and so on, almost like it's some sort of addiction.
And for whatever reason, it's apparent that liberals feel compelled to have their own language that's totally divorced from the rest of the English language.
Maybe it's so that they can distinguish themselves from the unenlightened out-group.
Maybe they're just bored and neurotic, maybe it's a combination of all these things.
But in any event, conservatives have called out this phenomenon ad nauseum for quite some
time and for good reason.
But what you rarely hear discussed is that amid this great linguistic evolution and revolution,
really, that we're all living through, liberals have abandoned as many terms as they've invented.
It was just about a decade ago, for example, that female genital mutilation was a major point of concern among the left on college campuses all over the country.
Female genital mutilation in faraway countries like Somalia was considered one of the foremost human rights abuses on the planet, and you'd hear about it all the time.
But since the rise of transgenderism, the left has had a change of heart on that whole topic, as you might imagine, and now they endorse female genital mutilation.
It's one of the great switcheroos, one of the great sleight-of-hand tricks in politics that no one really talks about.
As the Post Millennial reported back in 2020, leftists were furious about a bill in Wyoming that promised to ban female genital mutilation in the state, and they went from protesting against it to protesting in favor of it in the span of Really just a couple of years.
So we've seen this kind of about face in several areas, many areas really.
It wasn't so long ago that corporate media outlets and left-wing activists claimed they were very concerned about a mental health disorder called Munchausen by proxy that we've talked about before on the show.
This disorder typically involves parents, almost always the mother, who pretend that their children are suffering from some kind of medical ailment.
Usually the mother invents a medical condition so that they, which is the mother I mean, can get attention. In 2014, less than a decade ago, CBS
News had this to say about the disorder, quote, "Dr. Mark Feldman, a psychiatrist and forensic consultant,
said he believes the internet has contributed to the number of Munchausen by proxy cases.
There are instantly accessible and endlessly supportive groups out there that will pray with you and cry
with you if you purport your child to be ill," Feldman said. Well, less than a decade later,
those accessible and endlessly supportive groups have all the power.
They won't simply affirm your delusions about your child.
They'll organize a mob to destroy the life of anyone who challenges those delusions.
And corporate media outlets have no problem with it whatsoever.
In fact, they are part of this mob.
They'll cheer it on.
Consider the case of Dempsey Jara, who's been in the news lately.
A couple of months ago, Dempsey Jara's parents explained why their boy was actually a girl.
Kind of a long clip, but it's important that you watch the whole thing and you see the reasoning that's given.
It's a very familiar reasoning you've heard many times before on this show, but here it is.
Dempsey is an 11-year-old girl.
She loves pink and stuffed animals and was born as a biological boy.
She lives with her parents in Florida.
You know, she started, um, putting pajama pants on her head and making pretend that was hair.
So this was before she even spoke.
I was really sad before I transitioned and, like, I knew something was, like, different about me.
So when my parents, like, finally decided to, like, take me to, like, a toy store, I'd always just go to the girl aisle and I just always I feel so much more happy seeing the pink and all those beautiful colors and I'm like I knew I was different and I knew like in my brain in my heart I'm a girl.
But then we started seeing she was being very persistent with that you know and Um, only wanted to play with girl toys.
And so, um, you know, eventually we started seeing just kind of a pattern.
She was very persistent with that.
And even it got then to a point where when we used to take her to get a haircut, it was awful.
You know, now that we look back at it.
How many times have we heard this story?
The boy liked the color pink, it stuffed animals, he put pajama pants on his head.
That was kind of a new one.
You don't usually hear them mention that as a reason why the boy is actually a girl.
Because girls put pajama pants on their head?
Is that a...
I mean, I have two girls.
I'm not sure I've noticed that to be a propensity among girls.
But anyway, he liked princesses and ponies, and as a toddler, he didn't like getting a haircut, much like literally every toddler who has ever lived on the planet.
So, this child decides on that basis.
The child decides, we're told, at the age of five years old, that the doctors had, quote, made a mistake.
When his five-year-old boy has overruled the medical doctors, he's come to the conclusion, independently, without any input from his parents whatsoever, that he's really a girl and that he needs to, quote, transition.
And his parents, it goes without saying, affirm that delusion and leftist media outlets cheer.
Now, this makes no sense whatsoever, of course, but just thinking through some of the implications, you know, imagine being a feminist with any integrity whatsoever, which is a hard thing to conceive of, and then you listen to that news report, which reduces womanhood to Liking the color pink and hating the fact that at the ripe old age of five years old you need to go to the barber, and also putting pants on your head, and that's what womanhood is.
Has any modern political movement ever been so humiliated so thoroughly?
It's hard to think of anything that comes close.
Of course, anyone who's ever had a child, as well as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human psychology, understands exactly what's going on here.
This five-year-old didn't decide to transition on his own.
He learned that concept from his parents, who planted this delusion in his head and then encouraged him to pursue it.
And the media is on board because this serves their political purposes.
Now, the parents of this child have made that very clear.
I want you to watch as they explain that they're planning to flee the country if Ron DeSantis becomes president.
Ron DeSantis might become the next president of the United States.
Yes, he might.
That terrifies me.
It terrifies me.
We have our passports updated.
Do we have exit plans in place?
Yes.
If that happens, we're going to have to leave the country.
I've never lived anywhere outside the United States.
We've traveled, but I don't know.
I'm terrified.
Well, I mean, just looking at what he's done just in Ford, and it's not just against trans people, it's against everybody.
Immigrants, black people.
It's silencing anything that he doesn't like.
It's just, let's just silence it.
And when will he stop?
And that's what I often say to people.
It's like, it might not be affecting you yet, but they will come for you next.
And that's the scary part.
And that is the best campaign ad for Ron DeSantis that you could possibly imagine.
The mother says that they've updated their passports, whatever that means.
Presumably it means that she has a current passport, which we're supposed to think is interesting in some way.
And then she says, quote, we're going to have to leave the country.
Ron DeSantis is going after black people, she insists.
This is meant to be taken seriously, like when Cher said that she'd leave the U.S.
after Donald Trump got elected.
These are threats that, tragically, are rarely followed through.
But more importantly, this is all child abuse, and in a sane society, no one would put up with it.
This is a young boy, who's not even a teenager, who's being force-fed propaganda about both gender and politics so that his parents can get on television and pretend to be heroes.
They're threatening to move their child out of the country based on these complete fabrications.
But, of course, we don't live in a sane society, so instead this child's delusions, really the parents' delusions, are being celebrated.
And that finally brings us to this past Saturday when this 11-year-old, using the name Dempsey Jarrah, served as the Grand Marshal of the Orlando Pride Parade.
As the Daily Mail reported, using this 11-year-old's fake pronouns, quote, Dempsey Jarrah became the youngest Grand Marshal in the event's history as she paraded in an open-top car through the streets of the Florida city at one of the world's biggest pride events.
Wearing pink heart-shaped sunglasses and a floral gown, she blew kisses to the crowd while clutching a puppy wrapped in blue as her parents beamed in the backseat.
Quote, she's just always gravitated toward girl things, girl toys.
School teacher mom, Jamie Jara, told the Orlando Sentinel, she'd say, I'm a girl in my heart and my brain.
She's been on this journey since she was five and she's living her best life.
So they took this young boy and dressed him up as a girl, paraded him as a mascot at a sexualized festival for adults.
And of course, for the most part, the media cheered the whole thing on and the left cheers on.
Even as we're told that there's no agenda at all to indoctrinate kids while they take a kid and literally make him into the mascot of the Pride Parade.
Here's what's interesting about all this, aside from the sheer depravity of it.
If you go and read that Daily Mail article or look at Dempsey Jarrah's various social media feeds, you'll find that the mother is prominent and the father is mostly absent.
He takes a back seat.
For example, he wasn't on stage a few months ago when GLAAD awarded this young child some kind of award.
Instead, only the mother was there, and she spoke, at length, mostly about herself.
And what she said is actually quite revealing.
Watch this.
Good evening.
My name is Jamie Jara.
Early this year, my family and I were featured on the season finale episodes of We're Here.
It was an incredible experience.
I am so grateful to the show's creator, Steven and Johnny, and the producers for sharing our story and believing in us.
Their dedication to elevating LGBTQ stories is so crucial right now.
One of the most empowering moments of my life was taking the stage in drab to perform with
my daughter and hearing the thunderous applause in honor of her.
The best part is hearing the thunderous applause, she says.
And truer words have never been spoken, at least not from this woman, we can be quite sure.
Of course, as the mother drones on and on, the 11-year-old boy doesn't say a word.
It's just the mother basking in the applause.
And keep in mind what she said.
She called it empowering for her.
Her son dressing up like a girl and being applauded empowers her, the mother, she says, as she accepts this award as like some kind of Oscar-winning actress.
This is her moment.
And the big applause line, of course, is that her son is transgender.
The speech goes on for several minutes after that.
It devolves into DeSantis bashing and all the rest of it.
She claims that her son is somehow in danger because of Ron DeSantis, etc.
But the politics of this situation are nowhere near as interesting as the psychology of it all.
A few years ago, in October 2017, the scientific journal Child Abuse and Neglect published an article entitled, quote, The Perpetrators of Medical Child Abuse, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a Systematic Review of 796 Cases.
And according to the researchers who wrote the article, quote, nearly all of the abusers were female, 97.6%, 97.6%, and about the same percentage were the victim's own mothers, 95.6%.
Now, this used to be an issue that, again, people talked about, the left talked about.
They don't talk about it anymore.
But the fact remains that Munchausen by proxy is one of the most serious mental disorders on the planet because it affects young children who can't protect themselves.
The impact of this disorder is often very uncomfortable to talk about, so most media outlets have decided to avoid the topic entirely, especially because they don't want you to make this connection.
They don't want you to realize that Munchausen by proxy is probably, probably more prevalent today than it's ever been.
It's just that now it's taken on the form of this.
It's taken on the form of what you just saw in that clip there.
Now here's one case that hasn't gotten much attention.
The Daily Wire just reported on the case of a woman who was abused by her mother, who suffered from Munchausen.
Quote, Gypsy was raised by her mother, Dee Dee, who forced her daughter to endure numerous medical treatments due to her own Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a mental disorder that causes a caregiver to fabricate or exaggerate medical conditions in another person.
DeeDee began making claims about her daughter's health when Gypsy was about three months old.
At the time, DeeDee was convinced Gypsy suffered from sleep apnea and began taking her to the local hospital.
Rod said doctors couldn't find anything wrong with her daughter despite numerous tests and a sleep monitor.
Nevertheless, quote, DeeDee persisted that her daughter was sick, coming up with new problems including a chromosomal defect and muscular dystrophy.
After a minor motorcycle accident that resulted in an abrasion to Gypsy's knee, Didi began claiming that doctors gave her daughter a wheelchair.
From then on, Gypsy was largely confined to the chair if she appeared in public.
Didi would also bring an oxygen tank and feeding tube to complete the illusion that Gypsy was severely disabled.
Now, there are other horrifying details, including how Didi administered treatments that caused her daughter's teeth to, quote, decay to the point that most of her front teeth were extracted and replaced by a bridge.
And as recently as 10 years ago, in the eyes of media outlets and even left-wing activists, Didi would be in the same exact category as Jamie Jara, the mother of the 11-year-old boy who's being paraded around Florida right now.
Both of them would be regarded as abusers who use their children to satisfy their own deep-seated mental compulsions.
In the past, Munchausen by proxy meant that you put your kid in a wheelchair that they don't need, and now it means you put your son in a dress.
And in both cases, you are administering medication that the child certainly doesn't need and that will harm them, poison them.
Of course, in the past few years, the left has come to embrace Munchausen parents in many contexts, because they've discovered that they can use them and their children as a weapon against politicians they don't like.
It's just they don't call them Munchausen anymore.
They can turn the pain and confusion of children as young as five years old into a political weapon.
And without any hesitation whatsoever, that's exactly what they're doing.
They have no concern for what happens to these children, neither do their parents.
They just want adulation.
And a lot of these parents are getting it.
And until that changes, many more young children, kids who aren't even teenagers in many cases, will suffer the consequences.
By the time they realize what their parents have done to them, they'll be in the same position as Didi's son.
They'll be broken and powerless.
And no one, especially not the adoring crowds in Orlando or a GLAAD, will lift a finger to help them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
One of the best ways to do that is by using Stamps.com for all of your mailing and shipping needs.
Stamps.com lets you print your own postage and shipping labels right from your home or office space.
It's incredibly convenient.
Your shipping labels are ready to go in minutes so you can get back to running your business sooner.
We don't waste time here at Daily Wire.
We've used Stamps.com since 2017.
Our office management staff loves Stamps.com because they don't have to spend hours at the post office.
Stamps.com offers rates you can't find anywhere else, like up to 84% off USPS and UPS.
Plus, they will automatically tell you your cheapest and fastest shipping options.
For 25 years, Stamps.com has been indispensable to over 1 million businesses.
You can print postage wherever you do business.
No lines, no traffic, no waiting.
They even send you a free scale, so you'll have everything you need to get started.
Set your business up for success.
Get started with stamps.com today.
Sign up with promo code Walsh for a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and free digital scale.
No long-term commitment or contracts required.
Just go to stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page, and enter code Walsh.
Newsweek has this report.
Radio Talk show host Charlie Kirk, who founded the American conservative organization Turning Point USA, said one of the group's staffers was attacked by pro-Hamas supporters in Skokie, Illinois, over the weekend.
Around 5 p.m.
on Sunday, a pro-Israel event was being held when roughly 200 pro-Palestine protesters showed up for a counter-rally.
The events descended into chaos, with reports of a gunshot and a Chicago police officer and two civilians needing treatment for minor injuries after someone discharged pepper spray.
Kirk said his TPUSA staffers were caught in the violence.
Kirk said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that two TPUSA staffers were helping escort an elderly Jewish couple from the pro-Israel rally when they were violently attacked by pro-Hamas supporters.
And there's a video of what that attack looked like.
like. Let's check that out.
OK, so pretty brutal.
The person is on the ground and being pummeled.
Also looks kind of familiar.
You know, a lot of these things, a lot of these protests and these demonstrations, these pro-Hamas demonstrations across the country, look very familiar.
They look like things we've seen over the last few years.
Because, in fact, it's basically the exact same.
If it looks familiar, it looks similar to what we saw at BLM rallies, it's because that's what this is.
And I'll probably spend more time on this tomorrow, but one thing that should be understood, and yet somehow is being missed by a certain portion of the right right now, is that the pro-Palestine movement, the free Palestine movement, whatever slogan they use, that in the United States right now, is just BLM reincarnate.
Okay?
It's the same thing, the same people, the same basic message, Okay, almost certainly funded by the same groups.
This is an anti-white, anti-Western movement.
It's just BLM.
Again, literally the exact same people are involved.
Same tactics, same everything.
And you don't have to take my word for it, just look at any, I mean, look, turn on your TV, look at any of the prominent politicians, the prominent people who are supporting all these rallies and are going out chanting free Palestine.
These are the same people Who, for years, have been chanting BLM.
And it's predictable.
In fact, this was all predicted.
It was prophesied by many people who said that BLM is going to be back out on the streets as we head into the election season.
Right?
It's about that time for BLM to show up again.
And we knew it.
What we didn't know is what the exact pretense would be.
Because you can never predict that.
You could have seen it coming.
I mean, a perceptive person would have been able to see the riots of 2020 coming.
Maybe not to that extent, but they knew something like that would probably happen.
Now, they didn't know that it'd be about George Floyd, but they knew there'd be some sort of pretense, and then these same people would be out in the street again, and so they found their pretense.
And I think perhaps this is confusing for some people in this country, because obviously the pro-Palestine forces here in this country are very different from who they are in Palestine, right?
I mean, Hamas is obviously not a left-wing organization.
And as conservatives are always pointing out, you take any of these People that are showing up at these Hamas demonstrations in the United States, or you take many of them and you bring them over to the Middle East, and they are not going to be welcomed.
Their reception is not going to be a very happy one for them.
Now, does that mean that Hamas as an organization is right-wing?
No.
It's just not the right way of looking at it, because it exists outside of the American ideological paradigm, okay?
In this country, when we say right-wing and left-wing, we mean certain things, but it doesn't always apply outside of this country.
We don't live in the Middle East.
We live here.
This is America.
And here in America, this conflict is filtered through American politics and American ideologies and interests, which means that the pro-Hamas side In this country, is left-wing.
Radical left-wing.
Anti-white, anti-western, anti-American, and so on.
The reason for this difference is easy enough to see.
The left is simply using the conflict overseas for its own purposes.
And largely, those purposes have little to do with Hamas's purposes.
Remember also that You know, BLM is a damaged brand.
Fatally damaged.
BLM is not just damaged, it's done.
BLM is finished.
We beat BLM as an organization and as a brand.
I just saw a headline about how, I think it was Coca-Cola, has finally deleted all mentions of BLM from its websites.
And that seems like a small thing, but it's really not.
It's emblematic of A cultural victory over BLM itself.
It took a while, took too long, but now the BLM brand is just, it's toxic.
Okay, but does that mean that, and the organization itself is bankrupt, and the people that used to run the organization are all off, you know, doing new things and new grifts and everything, and they're disgraced, and they're not going to be back on the public scene again.
But does that mean that The people and the interests that invested themselves in BLM are also going to just go away, slink off into the night, never to be seen again?
I wish, but that's not the way it works.
No, they're still around.
They've been searching for a new banner, a new Trojan horse to crowd into, and they found it.
And that's all this is, in this country at least.
This is probably a point that needs more elaboration than I'm giving it here, but it's an important point that should be made as often as possible.
And it's something that, again, it's quite evident that some people on the right don't understand this.
They don't understand what they're witnessing.
And when they turn on the TV and they see the clips of the protests and the marches, the Free Palestine marches, they don't understand that what you're looking at, that's BLM.
That's all the same people.
With the same intentions.
It's all the same.
That's why we hear about decolonization and all the rest of it.
That's all BLM language.
Should be obvious, but I think it isn't to a lot of people.
And just to emphasize the point here, this is, we'll go to Karen Jean Payer in the White
House, asked yesterday about the rise of anti-Semitism.
That was the question.
And here's what she says about it.
What's the level of concern right now about the potential rise of anti-Semitism in light
of everything that's going on in Israel?
So a couple of things.
Look, we have not seen any credible threats.
I know there's been always questions about credible threats.
And so I just want to make sure that that's out there.
But look, Muslim and those perceived to be Muslim have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks.
And certainly, President Biden understands that many of our Muslim Arab Americans
and Palestinian American loved ones and neighbors are worried about the hate being directed at their
communities.
And that is something you heard the President speak to in his address just last Thursday.
And so, one of the things that the President has done is directed his team --
us, Homeland Security team, to prioritize prevention and disruption of any emerging
Homeland Security team to prioritize prevention and disruption of any emerging threats
threats that could harm the Jewish, the Muslim, and Arab Americans, or any other communities.
that could harm the Jewish, the Muslim, and Arab Americans or any other communities.
And that is something that the President has sought to do since day one.
And that is something that the President has sought to do since day one.
As you know, the President ran on bringing – protecting communities, obviously, but
bringing people together, the sole – protecting the soul of the nation.
And so that is something that the President takes very, very seriously.
And we're going to continue to denounce any sort of hate towards any American here.
And so that's what we're going to continue to be steadfast on.
Again, he has advised, directed his Homeland Security team to make sure that they're
on top of this.
Okay.
So, asked about anti-Semitism and immediately goes to Islamophobia and claims that there's
were disproportionate impact.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
We're told that hatred is disproportionately impacting Muslim Americans.
There's no evidence provided for that.
There's been a greater rise in so-called Islamophobia.
Where are you getting that from?
Do you have any evidence of that?
Of course she doesn't.
And, you know, in almost any other context, if somebody like Karen Jean-Pierre was asked about anti-Semitism and the rise of anti-Semitism, she would go into a whole speech about how it's a terrible thing and anti-Semitism is terrible.
She'd be more than willing to talk about that.
In any other context, right, that's like a softball pitch.
But in this context, As a concern, anti-Semitism loses out in favor of the concern over quote-unquote Islamophobia, when you're sort of pitting the two against each other.
Which is what, on the left, which is what they instinctively do.
They're always pitting various victim claims against each other.
And on the left, the concern about quote-unquote Islamophobia, that is always going to be a greater concern.
That is always going to come before anti-Semitism.
And why is that?
It's very, very simple.
It's because from the leftist mindset, the way they look at it, it's the only thing they care about, they say that by and large, Muslims are less white Then Jewish people.
I mean, that's it.
That is the whole calculation.
That is the whole formula.
And they're looking at any conflict, anywhere in the world.
And what they're asking themselves is, which group is less white?
That's the group that we're in favor of.
The whiter group, we're not in favor of.
They're the bad guys.
It really is as simple as that every time.
And that is how That is how in this country, that's the filter that the powers that be are viewing all this through.
Okay.
Vice has this story.
Canada is taking a step toward making universal basic income a reality.
The Senate's National Finance Committee will study a bill on October 17th.
We already did study it, I suppose, about a week ago, which would create a national framework for, but not actually implement, UBI, according to a press release from the Office of Ontario Senator Kim Pate.
An identical bill exists in the House of Commons and is sponsored by a member of Parliament named Leah Ghazan.
The bill in the Senate, which received a first and second reading in 2021 and last April, respectively, would require provincial ministers and indigenous governing
bodies across the country to convene and determine how a UBI plan could work. So they're moving
closer to UBI, universal basic income, they're not there yet. Here's the sponsor of the
bill talking about it.
It is my privilege, honor and responsibility to be the sponsor of Bill S-233, which we've just
commenced study of in the Senate Standing Committee on Finance. The bill would introduce
framework to develop a guaranteed livable basic income.
Right now is the fact that we are struggling throughout this country with homelessness, food insecurity, poverty, health, mental health issues, and this is one way that we could start to look at these issues.
It's not the only way, but it's certainly a key way.
OK, so as this works through the bureaucracy, of course, it's not just going to pass it.
They have to first get together and agree to have a hearing.
And then in the hearing, they agree to form a proposal.
And then the proposal, there's another hearing.
So it's working through the bureaucracy.
I think ultimately it'll pass and there will be a so-called universal basic income, which is just a more extensive welfare plan.
And that will happen in Canada.
And of course there are many people that are pushing for a similar thing in the United States.
Many, many individual states that have been looking at plans like this.
And it feels inevitable in this country as well.
As we know, Canada is a couple of train cars ahead of us on the crazy train.
We're on the same track.
We're even on the same train.
There are just a few train cars up, but we're all linked.
So once we see them go over the cliff, we know that we're not far behind, unfortunately.
And so it's worth pointing out that universal basic income is a horrible idea.
Or at least, maybe I should There's a caveat there.
I should qualify it.
It's a horrible idea if you care about having a flourishing and healthy society.
If you care about that, if that is your objective, then this would be the worst way to try to attain that objective.
On the other hand, if you want society to decay and collapse under its own weight, then it's quite brilliant.
I mean, it's a great way to help bring that about.
And we know that the advocates of UBI, that's exactly what they want.
They want the collapse and decay of society, at least the people on top who are pushing it, right?
The people at the top levels, at the highest levels that are pushing it, that's what they want.
Now, the advocates, just like the people in the peanut gallery who are saying, yeah, we need a universal basic income, for them it's much simpler.
They just want free money.
And they don't, it's not that they, most of them directly, explicitly want society to fall apart, but they don't really care if it does or not.
They just want the free money.
The problem with this plan, well the problems, should be pretty obvious.
And I think the biggest issue is that, of course, as it is designed, it makes it a lot easier for people to not work.
And it encourages people to not work.
And thus puts a greater burden on those who are willing to work while increasing the rewards for not working.
So we're taking the kind of behavior that, again, if you want a thriving and successful society, the kind of behavior that you want, which is people that work and that they're productive, and you are punishing that while you are rewarding the kind of behavior that you shouldn't want.
Incentivizing unproductive behavior and punishing productive behavior.
Which, again, is simply the opposite of what you would do if you actually want your society to thrive.
Which these people don't.
Because look, what is the basic income?
I mean, the number.
Like, what is the number?
I'm not sure if they've settled on an exact number in Canada, but I saw, I think I saw $17,000.
Being tossed around, and it's usually around that, something in that range.
Most of the people that are advocating for UBI say $17,000, $20,000, $25,000, $30,000.
I've heard that number.
Let's just say it ends up at, I don't know, let's say it ends up at $20,000.
I mean, let's just say it ends up at, I don't know, let's say it ends up at $20,000.
There's another way to earn an income of $20,000, and that is you can work.
And here's the thing, you can work almost anywhere full time, and you'll make at least
that much.
Okay?
It is very easy.
So when we hear that, you know, everyone should have a basic income, everyone should be earning, every household should at least have a basic income, every household should at least have an income of $20,000.
I mean, at a minimum, at least.
And I agree with that.
Absolutely.
That's below what I would even consider basic.
You certainly shouldn't settle for that.
But the good news is it's very easy to attain that.
Very easy.
Okay, I was making around that when I was like 16 years old.
And not because I was some brilliant, super-competent 16-year-old.
Not at all.
It's just, that is not a difficult income level to achieve.
All you have to do is, I mean, literally, just, if you're willing to work, you'll make at least that much.
And when I say willing to work, like, you get a job, I mean, really almost any job, you work full time, you come to work every, you know, on time, every time that you're on the schedule, maybe you pick up a few extra hours here and there, you probably don't even need to do that much.
You come to work, you're presentable, you have a relatively positive attitude.
It's like basic, bare minimum.
You do the bare minimum and you'll make that kind of income and pretty soon you'll make more than that.
It's actually because it's increasingly easy to separate yourself from the pack.
As the bar for the pack gets lower and lower, the easier it is for you to get over it.
So really, you have kind of It's almost like both sides of this issue sort of agree on the basic premise that, you know, every household should be making this basic income.
$17,000, $20,000 at least.
We all agree.
Yeah.
Should?
Absolutely.
The question is, should you attain that income by actually going out and working and contributing in some way to society?
Or should you be able to sit at home?
And sit at home and enlist other people against their will to work on your behalf, because that's what it would mean.
I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious.
Before we get to was Walsh wrong, one other thing I wanted to make, we were just talking about Islamophobia, anti-Semitism.
So here's a report from Daily Wire.
Far-left climate extremist Greta Thunberg faced backlash on social media for posting imagery that was widely condemned as anti-Semitic and encouraging people to back organizations that support the extermination of Israel while posing in a photo with pro-Palestinian activists.
Week 270, Thunberg posted on X. Today we strike in solidarity with Palestine and Gaza.
The world needs to speak up and call for an immediate ceasefire, justice, and freedom for Palestinians and all civilians affected.
Thunberg's message echoed statements made by Islamic terrorist group Hamas when they launched unprecedented terror attacks against Israel, murdering more than 1,400 Israelis.
People in the photo held signs that said, free Palestine, climate justice now, stand with Gaza, and climate justice now.
There we go.
Free Palestine, climate justice now, this Jew stands with Palestine, stand with Gaza.
Okay.
So that was the picture.
In fact, just keep the picture up on the screen.
Because that led to a big backlash from many people, including people on the right.
Who said that this was anti-Semitic.
Journalist Ian Miles Chong noted that a light blue stuffed octopus, that is in the photo, was a reference to anti-Semitic imagery that has long been used to demonize the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
Thunberg claimed in a follow-up post that she had no idea the stuffed animal in the photo, when combined with expressing support for the group of people who had just committed terrorist attacks against Israel, could be interpreted as a symbol for anti-Semitism.
I was completely unaware, she claimed, adding that the stuffed animal was used by autistic people as a way to communicate feelings.
So.
Alright, so a couple things about this.
First of all, only demonstrates, again, this proves the point I was making at the top of the headlines, that this is, in the West anyway, Greta Thunberg's not from America, thank God, but in the West anyway, they look at this issue through a radical left-wing filter.
And I mean, you could probably this exact photo, if we were to go back in 2020, we'd see almost this exact photo with Greta Thunberg and instead of Free Palestine, it's BLM and the BLM fist.
It's like, it's the same thing to them.
They don't see it as any different.
And that's why she also, you know, you throw in something like climate justice and you piggyback that onto the issue.
Now, what in the world?
What does climate justice mean, first of all?
It's a nonsensical concept.
What does the climate have to do with what's happening in Israel right now?
Well, it's all part of the same jumble, is all.
So, I wanted to show this picture because it proves that point.
And also, I will say, look, far be it from me to ever defend Greta Thunberg.
In fact, I don't think I ever have in my life.
And so, this is Gonna be a first, but I buy her excuse.
Like, I don't think, you know, this is, and I know there's people on the right and conservatives that were jumping on this and saying that this is anti-Semitic because of the octopus.
Now, if you want to point out that, well, you got that free Palestine, the message of free Palestine, we're standing with Palestine after all those Israeli civilians were just murdered, And you want to point out how horrific and awful that is, agreed.
But when it comes to the octopus specifically, this is something, even though there's some conservatives that are jumping on this bandwagon and say, oh, the octopus, it's anti-Semitic imagery.
This is something you find on the left a lot, where they, you know, someone takes a picture and they're doing, and there's something really seemingly innocuous in the picture, and then the left says, Oh, that's bigoted, that's racist, because that, you know, image or that thing you're doing with your hand, you know, that hand gesture is linked to some white supremacist trope.
And most of the time you hear them making this connection, sometimes they're just inventing the connection, but even if it's true, it's like, who knew that?
That's really obscure.
Who knew?
I had no idea.
So the octopus imagery is linked to anti-Semitic imagery in the past?
I had no clue about this association.
I would venture to guess that 99% of people, if you asked them whether the octopus is linked to anti-Semitic imagery, I think 99% of people would say, what?
Octopus?
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm still a little bit confused about what the association is there.
So, it's a pretty obscure association, I think we can agree, or should be able to agree.
Is that what Greta Thunberg was trying to convey?
Or, is her excuse the more plausible scenario, which is that it helps her communicate feelings?
That sounds like something Greta Thunberg would do.
That she would have her emotional support stuffed animal with her to help her in this emotionally trying time.
That actually, that tracks with me.
I'm more than willing to believe that for her.
So, and either way, I mean, even if this was, even if having the octopus stuffed animal there was supposed to be some kind of obscure, subliminal, anti-Semitic thing, just as a strategic standpoint, it's best to ignore it because you sound overly sensitive and crazy.
By harping on that, say, oh, that stuffed octopus is anti-Semitic.
So if it was intentional, then she was, it was bait.
And she was putting the seemingly innocuous thing there to try to bait the other side into latching onto it and accusing her of being anti-Semitic for something that she could then turn around and say, what are you talking about?
It's just, it's a, it's a stuffed octopus is all.
So worst case scenario, it was bait, and then by latching onto it, then you have fallen for the bait.
Okay.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
People always say, happy dog, happy life.
Well, if that's really the case, you need to be giving your dog Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens Bring your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart trial bag so your dog can try it.
Get a free Jumpstart trial bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F, greens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Keith says innocent in reference to Derek Chauvin, maybe stretching it a bit far.
He was no saint by all accounts.
There's an important distinction between not guilty of the crime he was accused of and innocent when making public statements.
I don't think there is a distinction.
Innocent of the crime you're accused of and not guilty of the crime you're accused of mean very much the same thing.
But, well, I'll read a few more other comments and I'll elaborate on that.
Gashikta says, An innocent man, he may not be guilty of second-degree murder, but I don't know if putting your knee on someone's neck for eight minutes ain't guilty of nothing.
Wait, what?
I don't know if putting your knee on someone's neck for eight minutes ain't guilty of nothing.
There's so many double negatives here that I don't, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey.
Are you saying that he is guilty?
You're saying he's not guilty then?
I don't know if putting your knee on someone's neck for eight minutes ain't guilty of, ain't, he's not guilty of nothing.
He's not guilty of nothing.
So he is guilty of something.
Okay.
Anyway, Media Buster says, in all fairness, Matt, if he ignored him suffering and did nothing, that's a problem.
If an EMT ignored your daughter's inability to breathe, you would hold them liable.
Jay Sumabi says, Okay, first of all, I call him innocent because he's innocent of the crime of killing George Floyd.
George Floyd killed himself by intentionally ingesting lethal levels of a poison.
I'm not saying that Derek Chauvin is a saint or is an angel.
I'm not a saint or an angel.
You probably aren't.
Does that mean that we're guilty of murder?
No.
I mean, I'm talking about... I don't care what else... Any other facts about Derek Chauvin are irrelevant to us.
Okay?
I mean, he may be the biggest jerk on the planet.
I have no clue.
Or he might be a saint.
I don't know about that either.
I don't know anything about him.
But I do know that he didn't kill George Floyd.
And that's what matters.
Second, Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd's neck.
It was on his upper back.
We talked about this yesterday.
He certainly did not damage Floyd's neck.
There is simply no evidence at all that he obstructed Floyd's airway or suffocated him or anything like that.
Okay?
It didn't happen.
It just didn't.
Third, it's not as simple as, oh, Chauvin, he ignored poor Floyd's cries of suffering.
Because what you guys don't understand is that people, when they're getting arrested, And you would understand if you would listen to cops when they talk about this, who are in a position to know something about this because they've actually arrested people.
I've never arrested anybody.
But I do know that people, when they're getting arrested, they often start screaming that it hurts, that they can't breathe, you're breaking my arm.
Cops hear this all the time.
Not because these people are actually getting their arms broken and they're actually dying, but because people say this kind of crap to avoid getting arrested.
So, what do you want the cops to do?
You know, that's always what's missing from the controversies over any of these body cam videos or these videos of cops and any of the BLM martyrs.
One of the things that's missing is a vision of what the cops are supposed to do, practically speaking, in that situation.
George Floyd is tripping on drugs.
He's high.
He's already taken a lethal dosage.
And that's a fact.
It's a fact.
He took a lethal dosage of a poison.
And he's a huge guy.
He's a very large man.
He's resisting arrest.
What do you want him to do?
What do you want the cops to do?
Just let him go?
Stop restraining him?
Because if you tell me that they should stop restraining any suspect who says he can't breathe, then what you're telling me is that cops should never restrain any suspect ever again.
Because half of them already say that, and the other half will start saying it if this is the get-out-of-jail-free card.
So the reason he's on the ground in the first place, actually in Floyd's case he's on the ground because he asked to be put on the ground, he was in the police car already And he'd be alive today if he had just stayed there, but then he wanted out of the police car and said he wanted to be on the ground, okay?
But when you've got a guy who's resisting, he's delusional, he's high, you have to restrain him in some way.
And if he says, well, it hurts, I can't breathe, and you get off of him, well, now he can flip around, he can start attacking you, he can run away.
So what do you have him do exactly?
So, this is what it boils down to for me.
Because, you know, I'm all about personal responsibility, and I'm a broken record on that, and on so many other things.
So, this is how I look at it.
If you get high on fentanyl, and then you commit a crime, another crime, a second crime, well, the end result is on you.
It's not a good idea to take a lethal dose of fentanyl.
I wouldn't recommend it.
You shouldn't do it in the first place.
If you are going to do it, To then turn around and commit a crime that's going to end up with you getting arrested, it's just very bad timing.
Because now you're going to be getting restrained, you're in the middle of a medical emergency that you started yourself, that you chose to be in, and it's just, it's a really bad, potentially lethal combination for you.
But you have created the whole situation from taking the drugs to committing the crime.
All of that is intentional.
All of that is on you.
You did all of that.
It's not on anybody else.
And so whatever happens as a result is your fault.
That's it.
The idea that we should destroy some cop's life, even if we could agree that he could have navigated it a little bit differently.
Who gives a sh**, honestly?
Why is it on him?
What about you?
Don't be a freaking moron and take the drug and then go commit a crime.
That's on you.
It's totally on you.
There's an easy way around it.
There's like two different, really stupid, dumb things Floyd did.
If he hadn't, I'm not even saying don't do, like, he could do one of them.
I mean, he shouldn't do either.
But even if he had just done one of them, instead of both, then he'd still be alive today, most likely.
Well, he might have died of the fentanyl anyway.
No, two really dumb, self-destructive things, and he did both of them, and then we're supposed to go looking.
We're, like, casting about for someone to put in prison because of it.
It's ridiculous.
And not to mention, we gotta act like this is some great tragedy.
And even, even back at the time, you know, this is, we talked yesterday about conservatives and the response to the George Floyd thing.
And there were, there were many conservatives who at the time, you know, they jumped on the, on the, they, they jumped into the, to the lynch mob going after Derek Chauvin and they called it murder.
There's a lot of conservatives said it, but there were even, but there were others who Maybe didn't quite go that far, but they did say, well, clearly this is a tragedy.
Clearly this is a horrible event.
I'm devastated by it.
You're not devastated.
It's not a national tragedy.
People die every day.
There's no reason why George Floyd's death ever should have made the country especially sad.
People die every day.
Every day.
Why is this person special?
In fact, every day there are people who die who are much more productive, much better people, who are much more deserving of national mourning than George Floyd, who deserved no national mourning whatsoever.
And his death is totally on him.
And if you still don't understand that at this point, then you're just hopeless.
You've been asking us for an alternative in kids' media, and now it's finally here.
The Daily Wire just launched BentKey, our brand new kids' entertainment platform.
We're all sick of Hollywood pushing leftist propaganda on our kids, and now there's finally an answer for those of us looking for children's shows that we can trust our kids to see.
This is exactly what parents have been waiting for, and I don't just say that as someone who works for The Daily Wire, I say that because I am one of those parents who wants to protect my kids from corporate media agendas that don't align with values that I want to teach them.
The content is absolutely amazing.
It's high quality.
It's fun.
My kids really love it.
They, honest to God, do.
They watch it every single day.
If you're already a Daily Wire Plus member, you already have BendKey.
All you gotta do is download the app to start streaming now.
If you're not a member, there's never been more value to joining than right now.
You get all of the Daily Wire Plus content that you know and love, plus BendKey at no additional cost.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now to start streaming the next generation of kids' entertainment.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
For our daily cancellation today, we have a classic reverse cancellation
where we cancel the cancelers and it begins with a sushi restaurant.
Now, if you're chronically online, then you probably already know where this is going.
I don't know what that says about you or me or the world, but when I say we're doing a cancellation related to a sushi restaurant, many of you have already filled in many of the details in your head before hearing any of the details.
For those whose souls have not become so jaded, here's what happened.
As the Daily Caller reports, quote, an Australian-born restaurant owner who set up shop in New York City is experiencing a flurry of negative online reviews for being white and owning a sushi restaurant.
When Sushi Counter opened its doors, it was committed to serving affordable Australian-style hand-rolled maki in the Big Apple, where prices are typically sky high, the Publico reported.
Recently, however?
The restaurant has been subjected to negative reviews by online users who were put off by the fact that the owner, Alex, is white.
One vocal chef, Eric Rivera, took to Twitter in a now-deleted thread to shun Sushi Counter for being owned by a colonizer, a white woman, suggesting that she has no place serving the widely popular Japanese favorite, according to the public.
This is not the first time that Rivera has dubbed others tied to the culinary industry as colonizers, according to his Twitter posts.
Sushi Counter had previously received positive reviews by NYC sushi fans, according to the outlet.
The owner reportedly deleted a TikTok page that she made documenting her journey of opening the business.
The backlash also came with a flurry of negative Google reviews.
Now, to be clear, these are negative Google reviews panning the restaurant based on the race of the owner.
And this is the kind of thing that can only possibly go one way in our culture, of course.
Here are a few of those reviews.
"There are plenty of good, authentic sushi spots in this city and prices aren't crazy.
I suggest going to one of those.
This is a colonizer sushi spot ran by a woman who thinks that she can do better than actual Japanese people."
Another reviewer wrote, "Enough of the gentrification."
The last thing anyone needs are blonde-haired Australian white women appropriating Japanese cuisine.
We're sick of the disrespect inflicted upon our cultures by white people.
Enough is enough.
Now, of course, the backlash against the white-owned sushi restaurant went beyond Google.
On Twitter, a woman named Deidre Goldborn, who is a financial advisor and a self-described, quote, cultural historian, and goes by the handle Queer Latifa, posted this.
Why is someone who is not of Asian descent, better yet from Australia, opening a sushi spot in NYC?
She continues, the contradiction and cognitive dissonance is maddening.
She feels she can't afford decent sushi in NYC, a place that has one of the largest and vastly diverse Asian populations, so instead she finances her own sushi spot?
Colonization is white and quite scary to see in real time.
That tweet has thousands of likes and supportive comments, by the way.
A tweet that describes a sushi restaurant as both maddening and scary.
Now, as a sane person myself, I can't fathom how anyone could conjure those kinds of emotions in relation to a sushi restaurant.
And I suppose we could assume that the emotions are fake and that it's all performance, and that could well be the case.
But we also can't discount the possibility that some of these people are indeed as unstable and irrational as they present themselves to be.
Now there are a number of obvious points that we could make here, and we'll make them because stating the obvious is what this show is all about.
And the first and most obvious thing is that this deranged standard is only ever applied to white people and would never, and has never, gone the other way.
You'll never hear of a pizza place being bombarded with negative reviews because it's owned by an Asian guy.
Or a burger joint being protested because it's run by a Hispanic woman.
You'll certainly never hear anyone telling a black chef what sorts of cuisine he isn't allowed to cook based on his race.
Indeed, if we really wanted to play this game equally, then we would say that not only can a white person open a sushi restaurant in the United States, but in fact arguably only white people should open sushi restaurants or any other kind of restaurant in the United States.
If we apply the racial logic of wokeism consistently across the board, that's where it leads.
This is a predominantly white, historically white country, and therefore all of our restaurants should be operated by white people.
Except we don't say that because it would be insane.
Just as it's insane going the other direction.
Second, once again, You know, the woke crowd is insulting the people that they're supposedly standing up for.
Notice how queer Latifa says that sushi should be handled by the city's diverse Asian population.
Which, first of all, seems to suggest that it's the job of Asian people to provide her with delicious sushi.
And which also directly implies that all Asians are the same.
Like, sushi is a Japanese dish, historically.
She says it's an Asian dish.
But why would someone from, say, Mongolia, which is an Asian country, automatically be better suited to make sushi than someone from Australia?
Like, how does that logic work?
How is this any different from, like, walking into a room of strangers and searching for the most Asian-looking person you can find, and then walking up to them and asking them for a good recommendation to a sushi restaurant?
Or maybe asking them for karate lessons?
This is stereotyping, and it's lumping people of various ethnicities together just because they live on the same continent.
And the left does this kind of thing all the time.
Note how they constantly refer to indigenous or Native American culture as if the disparate array of tribes spread out across the hemisphere all shared one culture, or shared anything at all, for that matter.
Finally, we have the Of course, the inherent madness behind the idea of cultural appropriation.
And you would think that the people who love to see everything as fluid and on a spectrum and as a human construct would understand that culture is, by definition, the most fluid human construct of all.
Culture is simply the customs, traditions, arts, and institutions of any group of people.
And those customs, traditions, arts, and institutions, and their cuisine as well, are always evolving.
They're always in constant exchange with other cultures.
And especially in this day and age, that process is in hyperdrive, because we're even more connected than we've ever been before.
This is why, even if it made sense to accuse one culture of stealing something from another culture, which it doesn't, because theft deprives the victim of the thing being stolen, but nobody is being prevented from eating sushi, or making sushi, just because one white woman opened up a sushi shop.
But still, we couldn't identify who is actually guilty of stealing from who.
Humans have been making culture in some form or another for tens of thousands of years.
For most trends and fashions and foods, it's not possible to identify a definitive date or place of origin.
Even if you could, what influenced the person who came up with it?
And what influenced the influences of that person?
And so on.
In fact, as I was preparing this monologue, I found myself following down a Wikipedia rabbit hole about the origins of sushi, because I was just kind of curious.
And it turns out that sushi probably originates from the practice of fermenting fish and storing it in rice.
And that practice Does not originate in Japan.
It originates in Southeast Asian cultures thousands of years ago, most likely.
But nobody knows for sure the exact place of origin.
And if it does originate there, how was that practice picked up?
What was it based on?
And where did the thing that it was based on originate?
In fact, where did the practice of eating fish come from originally?
Who was the first person who ever thought, like, we should go into this body of water and try to find a creature in there and eat it?
When was the first time that ever happened?
What part of the world?
How many millennia do we have to go back to find the origins of that?
And what part of the world did that person live in?
Well, it's impossible to say, obviously.
Which means it's impossible to really enforce the cultural appropriation rule to begin with.
Even if the rule was worth enforcing, which of course it certainly isn't, you wouldn't be able to.
And this is wokeness for you.
Morally atrocious standards that are also totally incoherent and impossible to abide by consistently.
That's what it's all about.
That is ultimately why all of the people cancelling this sushi restaurant are today, themselves, cancelled.
