Ep. 1253 - Historic Monument Is Melted Down And Destroyed In Bizarre Humiliation Ritual
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a beautiful, historic monument torn down during the statue-toppling frenzy a couple years ago was just melted and filmed in a bizarre humiliation ritual. They told us that the statues would go to museums. But that was never the plan. Also, a professional hockey player is tragically killed during a match. The media says it was an accident, but was it? And we're once again being told that we should forgive those who pushed lockdowns during COVID. I'll explain why forgiveness isn't an option. Plus, a trans-identified male films himself trying to get random waiters fired for "misgendering" him.
Ep.1253
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your 30% off Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
Tax Network - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
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, a beautiful historic monument torn down during the statue toppling frenzy a couple years ago was just melted down and they filmed it in some kind of bizarre humiliation ritual.
They told us that these statues would go to museums, but that was never the plan.
Also, a professional hockey player is tragically killed during a match the media says was an accident, but was it?
And we're once again being told that we should forgive those who push lockdowns during COVID.
I'll explain why forgiveness isn't really an option.
A trans-identified male films himself trying to get random waiters fired for quote-unquote misgendering him.
him. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the left has lost their minds.
Leftism is their religion and abortion is their official sacrament.
Meanwhile, pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
Despite the narrative, pro-lifers have not gone away.
In fact, they're getting more and more active.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one's in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortions state by state.
They've opened a record number of locations since Roe was overturned and they continue to grow in volunteers.
They now have 1 million volunteers in 1,500 cities.
40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities in an effort to change hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
You can help 40 Days for Life fight ongoing legal battles to protect free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
For nearly a century, a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee stood in Charlottesville, Virginia.
In 1997, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which meant that, at the time, and this again was in the 90s, so not all that long ago, it was considered worthy of preservation for both its historical significance and its artistic value.
Little over 20 years later, in the midst of public hysteria over the overdose death of a criminal drug addict in Minneapolis, that 100-year-old work of art, which was supposed to be preserved, was instead torn down and, we were told, moved to a museum.
Well, last week, the museum, in a symbolic humiliation ritual, melted the statue down and destroyed it.
It will now be repurposed as an inclusive arts display.
This is how we treat our art and our historic monuments these days.
It's especially how we treat historical figures like Robert E. Lee, but it wasn't always this way.
Going back now to the early to mid-19th century, for more than three decades during that span, Robert E. Lee served as an officer in the U.S.
military.
He graduated from West Point, went on to play a key role in the Mexican-American War, which is a war that isn't talked about very much these days, even though it changed the country forever.
And at the end of it, Mexico ceded a lot of territory, including California, Utah, Nevada, a lot of what we now call Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
And Lee's role in that victory earned him a series of major promotions.
He was eventually named the superintendent of West Point.
Which was the military academy he once attended.
Just a few years after Lee left that post, the state of Virginia, where Lee was born, seceded from the Union.
And at that point...
Lee had a decision to make.
He could accept a post with the Union Army, leading the Union Army in fact, which was offered to him by Lincoln, or he could defend his home state.
If he decided to take the other option and to join the Union, then he would be marching against his state, his community, his family, even his own sons.
It would mean taking up the sword against his own family.
Now, even though Lee was no great fan of either slavery or the idea of secession, he chose to defend his state and his family instead.
In the end, he felt a greater loyalty to his state and to his community and to his family than he did to the federal government.
And back in those days, that's how a lot of people felt.
He resigned from the U.S.
military, joined the Confederacy, and won some of the most pivotal battles of the war, often when he was up against very long odds.
After the war, Lee became a college professor, And he worked to unify the North and South until his death.
He was remembered across political lines for many, many decades as both an ingenious tactician and a man of principle and faith.
Churchill called him one of the best generals in history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the President of the United States and former commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War II, had this to say about Robert E. Lee.
Listen.
I think there are a good many of you people here, both photographers and And, uh, representatives of the press have been going into my office for the past four and a half years, occasionally.
No doubt you've noticed that on the walls are the prints of four men.
Men that I consider, in my book, are, uh, about the four top Americans of the past.
They are Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, and Lee.
And anybody who ever tries to put me in any other ...relationship with respect to General Lee is mistaken.
Now, a few years later, a dentist wrote to Eisenhower and wrote him a letter demanding to know why he had that picture of Robert E. Lee in his office.
And this is part of Eisenhower's response.
He said, quote, he believed unswervingly in the constitutional validity of his cause, which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America.
He was a poised and inspiring leader.
From deep conviction, I simply say, a nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul.
Now, for the next few decades, most Americans agreed with that assessment.
In the 90s, we had movies venerating Robert E. Lee, starring Martin Sheen, and nobody lost their minds over it.
The Lee statue, and statues like it, stood in town squares all over the country, especially in the South.
It wasn't an issue.
They weren't vandalized.
There were no angry mobs demanding their removal.
Most people, including those who certainly cannot be described as Confederate sympathizers, recognize that the Civil War was fought at a different time, in a different era, and there were noblemen on either side.
That's how most people viewed it for decades and decades.
But somewhere along the line, just the past few years, everything changed.
Statues of Robert E. Lee and anyone like him had to come down, we were told.
They had to come down right away.
Okay, there was no time to talk about it.
There was no time to debate.
You weren't allowed to debate.
In fact, you weren't even allowed to express any of the viewpoints that nearly everyone held for a hundred years before that.
These statues were not a problem for a hundred years.
But in the last 100 seconds, they became a problem.
And it was our duty to simply watch as they were all toppled and carried away.
Now already, if you're a perceptive and insightful person, you might ask yourself, was this a sign of progress?
Like, was this a good sign when we started going around and had angry mobs tearing down all these statues that had been there for a century, and nobody complained, and then all of a sudden we had to take them out?
Was this a sign that things were heading in a good direction in our country?
Were we a better country back when a man like Robert E. Lee was widely respected?
Or were we a better country when we decided that we could not have any acknowledgement of him in any public place?
Which version of the country was better?
Which version of the country had greater racial harmony?
Was it the one back in the 90s when Robert E. Lee statues were being preserved as historic monuments?
Or the one in the 2020s?
What do you think?
Now to make the contrast even more clear, the media did not elevate voices as articulate as Churchill or Eisenhower to make the case against the Robert E. Lee monuments.
Instead, they thrust BLM activists like Ziona Bryant in our faces.
And here was her argument.
This is from two years ago, talking about this same monument.
Here's what she said.
Savannah, I know you've heard this argument before.
I'm hoping that you could go ahead and tell critics who feel like removing the statue is whitewashing history and a section of our history that we should be engaging with.
And by removing it, we're acting as though it didn't happen or we're trying to erase a section of our history.
What do you say to those folks?
I would say actually erecting these monuments is whitewashing our history.
At the time of emancipation, Charlottesville and the surrounding area was majority black, and you don't see that narrative by having Confederate monuments standing in the center of parks towering over whole communities.
What you see is you see a romanticized version of the South.
You see memorabilia that makes people feel good about the Civil War.
But it doesn't tell the story of the South losing.
It doesn't tell the story of the Confederacy falling.
And so I think that we cannot erase history.
We can't edit it.
In fact, history already happens.
So people can Google, people can use textbooks.
There are many other resources.
There are whole museums that teach people about those legacies and about the history of what happened here.
But what I think we're doing with removing these statues is we're no longer offering a platform for white supremacy.
And I think that by de-platforming and de-centering those harmful narratives that perpetuate violence and that perpetuate oppression is one of the most powerful things that we can do.
My lord.
So again, ask yourself, are we a better country when people like that, when their arguments are prevailing, or when, you know, when we're listening to Dwight D. Eisenhower and Churchill and those guys?
She says the monument was supposed to make people feel good about the Civil War.
What?
Is that what you think monuments are meant to do?
Nobody feels good about the Civil War.
What do you mean feels good about it?
When have you ever heard that opinion expressed?
What do you think about the Civil War?
Oh yeah, I feel great about it.
I feel really great.
I'm happy.
I feel good.
That doesn't even make any sense.
Monuments don't exist to make us feel good about the wars that they are remembering.
But they do exist to remember, because these are events that we should remember.
Now, first of all, if Ziona Bryant looks familiar, and she does have a distinctive look, we must admit, that's because you've probably seen her before on this show.
Bryant is the morbidly obese BLM activist who's officially sponsored by Dove, which
is supposedly a brand that promotes personal health and beauty, but obviously doesn't anymore.
Bryant became famous for destroying the life of a University of Virginia student with a
false accusation of racism.
So that's the person that we're consulting on issues like this.
But for a second, let's put aside what a horrible person Zionna Bryant is.
Let's listen to the argument again that she was making two years ago on behalf of BLM.
She's supposedly not objecting to the existence of the statue of Robert E. Lee, at least not explicitly.
Instead, she's saying that it doesn't belong in a prominent public place, that it shouldn't stand in the center of parks towering over whole communities.
She insists that there are, quote, whole museums that people can go to if they want to see statues like this one.
Maybe people can even Google pictures of the statue if they're so inclined.
Now, whatever the case, the argument was that BLM isn't trying to erase history or denigrate this nation's heroes or mock white people for honoring one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the country.
No, they're not doing any of that.
They're just trying to put everything in its proper historical context.
The Lee statue doesn't tell the story of the Confederacy failing, she complains.
As if the role of a statue is to explain 19th century history in detail.
There were a lot of black people in Virginia, she goes on to say, and Lee was not black.
Therefore, this statue needs to come down and go to a museum where it belongs.
Now, none of that made any sense at the time.
Unless, of course, the goal was never to move the statue of Robert E. Lee, but instead to destroy it entirely, if that was the intent.
Then everything just went according to plan.
As I said at the top, activists and university faculty members, with the help of local legislators, just melted down the statue of Robert E. Lee in secret in an undisclosed location.
After saying for years that they just wanted to move it to a museum, what they forgot to mention is that the museum they move it to is then going to take it and destroy it.
Now they won't even say what state this destruction occurred in, but the leftists who demolished Lee's statue made sure to release a video of it happening.
Here it is, watch.
[SOUND]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, so they not only removed the statue, they not only destroyed it, but
they melted it and took a video of it and made sure to publish the video.
They gave an inanimate statue of a Civil War general the Terminator treatment.
They melted it down and filmed it.
Now, why did they do that exactly?
It wasn't to make the area safer for anyone.
In fact, just a few days ago, a black male was murdered by another black male a short distance from where the statue used to be.
So, it doesn't seem like the area is now suddenly safer.
So what's the real purpose of all this?
Well, here's one big clue.
All those images of the statue being melted down were accompanied by a lot of gloating.
The Washington Post, for example, spoke to the executive director of Charlottesville Black History Museum, who said, quote, Well, they can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
That's according to Andrea Douglas, the museum's executive director, as she watched pieces of oxidized metal descend into the furnace.
There will be no tape for that, she says.
The post went on to interview another U of UVA activist behind this destruction who said quote
Jelaine Schmidt, who this is reading now from the article, Jelaine Schmidt,
who directs the memory project at UVA's Karsh Institute of Democracy,
said she felt like she was preparing for an execution of sorts.
Like if there's a rabid dog in the neighborhood that's been hurting people,
and it needs to be euthanized, she said.
Schmidt also said, quote, we want to transform it into a piece of art that community can be
proud of and gather around and not feel excluded or intimidated.
Yes, because of course, when you euthanize a rabid dog, you put it in a furnace
and everyone gathers around and celebrates it.
They won't be intimidated anymore.
Okay, what kind of dog euthanasia has this person been a part of?
But it all makes perfect sense, right?
Turning the Lee statue into an inclusive art display, it's not a humiliation ritual at all, we're supposed to believe.
We're also supposed to believe that the statue was hurting people.
Well, how was it hurting people?
What was it doing to them?
Was it coming alive like Night at the Museum and assaulting innocent civilians in the middle of the night?
What kind of damage was it causing?
And why didn't anyone ever notice this damage or mention it for the first eight or nine decades of the statue's existence?
Why are people in the 2020s more hurt by Civil War memorials than people who lived closer to the Civil War were?
Okay, how did the wounds of the Civil War become fresher over time?
How is some 20-something year old in the year 2023, how is it that for them it's like too soon for the Civil War?
We can't have Civil War acknowledgement anywhere.
It's too soon.
And yet it wasn't in the 1930s or 40s or 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s.
None of this makes any sense until you realize that the campaign to tear down Confederate statues was always, from the very beginning, a proxy in the overall war on American history.
They just can't be honest about it because they're never honest about anything.
And all the deception is necessary in this case because these activists have much bigger plans.
They never plan to stop with melting down the Robert E. Lee statue, and they haven't.
Indeed, the Lee statue is far from the only statue that's been destroyed, of course, or essentially destroyed, in recent years.
According to an investigation from the Madrid newspaper El País, the city of Richmond maintains a secret open-air graveyard for statues that were toppled in 2020.
These statues are disassembled and thrown into storage.
A lot of contractors apparently passed on these disassembly gigs for obvious reasons.
But eventually, Democrats in the state landed on a guy named Devin Henry, who is willing to destroy them.
Quoting from the investigation, Henry estimates that he has dismantled 24 structures between Richmond and Charlottesville.
The latter is home to the University of Virginia and is one of the cities that acknowledged historical pain and chose to melt down and reuse the materials.
Now, they've destroyed pretty much every statue remotely associated with the Confederacy, and that includes a monument to Stonewall Jackson, who likely was a hero of the Mexican-American War, widely regarded as one of the best military commanders in history.
David Henry also dismantled a monument to the Confederate General A.P.
Hill, who also distinguished himself in the war with Mexico.
As El Pais reports, the statue of Hill now has its head, quote, dishonorably stuck in a tire waiting to be wrapped up in white plastic.
All this to say, they're not putting any of these statues in museums.
The museum gambit was always a lie.
Something that only the most gullible among us could have ever fallen for.
And sadly, there are a lot of gullible people among us.
Now that said, there's maybe one exception.
The Jefferson Davis statue, post-BLM riots, was taken down and was displayed in the Valentine Museum in Richmond.
And this is how it's presented.
You can see the picture here.
Toppled, desecrated, and covered in graffiti.
In the museum.
There are many more examples, but you get the point.
There was never any intention to memorialize history here.
Leftists are doing something to leaders of the Confederacy that they won't even do to Nazis.
They're erasing them completely.
I mean, you could still walk into the World War II Museum and see Nazi artifacts if you want, posters, flags, weaponry, even Nazi games, board games.
But they don't want you seeing any relics of the Confederacy under any circumstance, whether it's in a museum or not.
In fact, even if you agree With removing the Lee statue in Charlottesville, which I don't.
But even if you do, you must at least acknowledge that it is a historic artifact.
It's literally registered as one.
All of the controversy over it just makes it more historically significant.
So there's no valid reason to destroy it.
You aren't literally destroying history when you destroy it.
And the destruction is a gratuitous act that can only be meant to send an ideological and political message.
And this goes well beyond the Confederacy.
That's why the mob quickly moved from the Confederacy to tearing down statues of pretty much any white person who happened to be born prior to the 20th century.
Even Teddy Roosevelt fell victim.
What this tells us is that leftists are preoccupied, above all, with erasing the history and traditions of this country.
It's about power.
It's about dominating and humiliating those that they identify as the enemy.
And in large part, they are succeeding.
We should remember that we're in this situation now because Republicans across the country, including in Washington, people calling themselves conservatives, that is, the people who are supposed to be conserving things like history, let it happen.
They were too afraid of being called racist to say anything about it.
They were too weak to stand up to this cultural vandalism when it took root.
And they're still too weak to stand up for it.
Or to it.
If Republicans had any moral fortitude whatsoever, they would respond to the destruction of the Lee statue by painting over every George Floyd mural and tearing down and destroying every single one of his grotesque, disgusting monuments.
If Robert E. Lee doesn't deserve to be honored, then a violent drug addict who robbed women and ripped off convenience stores certainly doesn't pass muster.
So throw his busts and golden coffins in the furnace as well.
But that won't happen, of course, because we've come a very long way since Eisenhower.
Unfortunately, we're heading in the wrong direction.
And frankly, at this point, it probably won't be long until Eisenhower's memorial is melted down, too, especially after they see that video.
They'll turn it into an inclusive art display, another display of inclusivity that excludes everyone who disagrees with them.
That is the left's goal, after all.
It's always been their goal.
And if we keep electing politicians who are too afraid to say so, Then ultimately they will achieve it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on your tax debt.
That's why you need to check out Tax Network USA.
The team at Tax Network USA has a track record of success.
They have reduced tax debt for numerous clients, totaling over $1 billion.
Whether you're looking at a $10,000 or a $1 million tax debt, they can help you win with
a settlement.
It doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, or even a whole decade.
Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
The expert attorneys and tax professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax
cases no matter how they started.
Don't let tax debt control your life any longer.
Take the first step toward resolving your tax issues by visiting taxnetworkusa.com/walsh.
That's taxnetworkusa.com/walsh today.
Adam Johnson, a former NHL forward, has died after his neck was cut by another player's skate during a game Saturday in Sheffield, England.
The fatal collision, which Johnson's team has called a freak accident, occurred midway through the second period of an elite ice hockey league game between Johnson's Nottingham Panthers and Sheffield Steelers.
Video footage appeared to show an opposing player's skate strike Johnson in the neck A terrifying scene that prompted officials to empty the arena as medical personnel rushed in.
Now, we do have Matt Petgrave, by the way, is the player that kicked him.
And we do have video of it, and it gets graphic at a certain point, but we'll play at least the first part of it so you can see.
You can see the kick.
There it is, right there.
Now, we're told this is a freak accident, but I'm not sure if we'd call that an accident.
And he was cut in the throat and he died basically on the hockey rink.
Terrible tragedy.
And I don't have any major insight on this.
I don't watch hockey.
I don't play it.
So I guess I can't say for sure that People don't generally get kicked in the throat while playing hockey, but I'm pretty sure that they don't.
I could say with relative confidence that this is not the kind of thing that usually happens.
There are collisions and injuries that happen out on the ice.
I think that this is the kind of thing that just in the natural course of playing hockey And I have talked to several people who do play hockey and are familiar with it, and they've all said that that doesn't, those kinds of, that does not look unintentional.
So just using some common sense, it certainly is hard to see how a person could be accidentally slashed in the throat with an ice skate while they're standing.
Now it's one thing if Johnson had fallen onto the ice first, and when I first heard about this, That somebody was cut in the neck and died while playing hockey.
I figured that they had fallen on the ice and then someone ran into them and injured them that way.
And then in that case, yeah, you would call that a freak accident.
This does not look so accidental to me.
Because he's upright and Petgrave flailed his foot up and kicked him
Even though the media has pretty much universally declared it as an accident and they're just saying well, that's an
accident nothing to see here I'm not so sure
So for my vantage point, it seems that the death was accidental but the kick was intentional
He was trying to kick him to impede his movements, or knock him down, or whatever.
I think we can assume he didn't expect that it would end with Johnson bleeding to death on the rink, but it did, and he needs to be charged and held accountable.
There can't be a sports exception for what is, at a minimum, manslaughter.
And it's no different than any comparable situation outside of a sports context.
It's like, you know, if you are in traffic and you get mad at somebody and it's a road rage thing and so you aggressively cut them off in a dangerous way and then they swerve and they get into an accident and they die.
Well, yeah, you probably didn't have that last part in mind.
Maybe you weren't trying to kill them, but you did intentionally do something dangerous and reckless in a way that was targeted at that specific person who then died because of your actions.
And obviously, in both cases, you have to be charged.
You have to go to jail for that.
Because someone died and you have to be held accountable.
So it's a terrible tragedy, but it's...
Kind of bizarre to me to see most of the media just immediately declaring, that was an accident, nothing more than an accident, that's it.
All right, Fox News has this report.
Real-time host Bill Maher confronted former Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on the nursing home scandal that plagued his handling of COVID.
While sexual harassment allegations led to Cuomo's ousting from office in August 2021, there was a lingering controversy over his ill-fated policy in March 2020 ordering nursing homes to accept COVID patients in order to prevent overwhelming New York's hospital system.
That led to the deaths of over 4,100 nursing home residents.
During Friday's Overtime segment on YouTube, Mar read a viewer question posed to Cuomo asking whether he would have done anything differently during COVID.
And Cuomo responded, the short answer is no.
First, this is Monday morning quarterbacking, by which I could make the New York Jets champion if we're going to do this.
When COVID started, all the disinformation was amazing.
It was coming from China, wet market.
Okay, so he's saying there was disinformation, it was coming from China, and they didn't know any better.
And so they did what they could with the information they had available.
That's basically his answer.
Now, along these same lines, we also heard in the same episode from NYU professor Scott Galloway, who was a big proponent of mandates and lockdowns and all the rest of it.
And here's what he had to say about the response from people like him to COVID.
Watch.
While I was on the board of my kids' school during COVID, I wanted a harsher lockdown policy, and in retrospect, I was wrong.
The damage to kids of keeping them out of school longer was greater than the risk.
But here's the bottom line.
Myself, our great people at the CDC, I'd like to thank the governor.
We were all operating with imperfect information and we were doing our best.
So let's learn from it.
Let's learn from it.
Let's hold each other accountable.
But let's bring a little bit of grace and forgiveness and that the show that was part
of it.
Yeah.
Okay, so we hear again about the need for grace and forgiveness, and as always, this calling for grace and forgiveness coming from people who would never extend it the other way to their own ideological opponents, and never do.
Um, and this particular guy, I don't know anything about him.
Um, but very often with these people, you know, if, if they say that they should get grace and forgiveness for doing things or, or for calling for actions that, I mean, that killed people, right?
In the case of, in the case of Cuomo, the case of Cuomo killed, directly killed thousands of elderly people.
And the people that were pushing for lockdowns for so long, I mean, that killed people too.
And isolating, taking kids and isolating them in this way, the damage that was done to those children is, it's literally immeasurable.
You can't measure it.
You can't quantify it.
Because they were damaged at such a deep level.
And so for that, they want grace and forgiveness.
But a lot of these people, if you were to ask them, you know, what about, um, what kind of grace and forgiveness would you give to someone for, I don't know, quote-unquote, misgendering a trans person?
For that, destroy their lives.
Get them fired, destroy their lives.
But hey, if you're a governor and you did something that killed thousands of elderly people, hey, it's, it's, uh, they're doing their best.
He tried.
That's all that counts.
Alright, a couple things about this in general.
First of all, if this was May of 2020, okay, if we were in May of 2020 right now, or June of 2020, and someone who advocated for lockdowns initially, a few months beforehand that would mean, was coming out and changing their mind, In May or June or July of 2020 or something like that, a few months later, then in that case, I would say, sure, okay, look, you got it wrong at first.
There was a lot we didn't know initially.
You were scared, whatever.
Okay, but it's not May of 2020.
It is the last day of October of 2023.
And that's significant because a lot of these people who are asking for forgiveness and grace now, COVID amnesty or whatever, whatever you want to call it, a lot of these people, maybe all of them, were still advocating for lockdowns and mandates in June of 2020.
I mean, they were pushing for it in June of 2021.
Okay?
So the timeframe is important here.
These people were pushing this for a year, a year and a half, two years, even longer.
You know, I remember I went to that Davidson County School Board meeting in, that would have been August of 2021, to speak out against their mask mandate.
And I was accused of being a homicidal, you know, COVID-loving maniac at the time.
All those many months later.
So that's where I stand on this.
No one is saying that everyone had to have everything figured out from the very first moment.
I mean, nobody did.
When it first happened and COVID first made it here to the United States, nobody knew everything about it immediately.
And no one is saying that you had to know everything about it immediately.
But these people were not Just pushing this tyranny in the first moment.
They were pushing it in the first moment and then in every other moment after that for years.
Not just weeks or months, but for years.
And they weren't just pushing it.
They were shouting down and trying to actively silence the people who were right.
And who the Scott Galloways of the world now admit were right.
Except they don't really admit it, do they?
Like, they're saying the things that we were saying before, but he's not saying, oh, those other people were right, because that's maybe the most important detail in all this.
Before I could ever even consider forgiving one of these people, or before I could ever consider giving a vote for amnesty for someone like this, and I still wouldn't, but before I could even consider it, what I would need to hear from them is not, Oh, I didn't know.
I didn't know.
I was ignorant.
I didn't know.
No, I don't want to hear you didn't know.
I want to hear you didn't listen.
Because that's what actually happened.
You didn't listen.
Okay, when it comes to, he was talking about shutting down schools.
From the very beginning, there were many people who were saying, don't do this.
You can't do this.
Here's why you can't do it.
And giving very intelligent reasons.
One of the reasons is that COVID was not especially dangerous for children.
And that is one of the things we knew about COVID basically from the beginning.
There are other things we didn't know from the beginning.
One thing, one of the facts that we knew from the beginning, and that was a fact that was established almost immediately and remained a fact the entire time, is that this is not especially dangerous for kids.
That the flu is more dangerous for kids than COVID.
We knew that right away.
Scott Galloway says he didn't know.
Well, what do you didn't know?
How did you not know and everyone else did?
Now, we knew, like we as in the universal, this was a known fact that was out there in the world.
It was a knowable fact.
But you didn't listen to the people who were trying to tell you.
Not only did you not listen, but you went out of your way to shut them down.
And, um, so that's what I would need to hear first, but I don't think we've heard that yet, have we?
We've heard for the calls for forgiveness and grace, but the people that are calling for this, they never say, hey, listen, I didn't listen to you guys.
I should have listened.
Okay.
I should have been more humble.
I didn't listen to, in fact, not only did I not listen, but I tried to shut you down.
I tried to get you deplatformed.
And I was wrong for doing that, and I'm sorry, and I'm not going to make that mistake again.
And in the future, when the other side is telling me things that I don't want to hear, I will at least listen to them and let them speak.
I don't think we've heard that from a single one of these people, have we?
We haven't heard anything even close to that.
Instead, all we hear is, well, nobody knew.
No one could have known.
Nobody could have known these things that millions of people were actually saying from the start.
So this is, you know, you can't really have, even if we wanted to talk about forgiveness, even if we were interested in forgiveness, you can't actually have forgiveness without accountability.
Because what are we forgiving exactly?
You haven't actually repented of anything.
And there's not any accountability.
They're not holding this person accountable.
So they're pretending that they are, but they actually aren't.
And the reason why someone like this is never going to come out and say, hey, I should have known, but I didn't listen to you guys.
He's not going to say that.
Because then he knows that going forward on any other topic, he's not going to be able to call for us all to be silenced on some other issue.
Because he'll already have admitted that, you know, there are times when instinctively he disagrees with what we're saying, but then he turns out to be wrong.
He doesn't want to admit that.
You know, they can take their COVID amnesty and shove it, as far as I'm concerned.
All right, quick political news from CNBC.
Former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday dropped his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, ending his campaign for the White House after struggling to raise money and gain traction in the polls.
Pence said at the Republican-Jewish coalition's annual gathering in Las Vegas, It's become clear to me this is not my time, so after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president, effective today.
Pence went on to tell the friendly audience, we always knew this would be an uphill battle, but I have no regrets.
The audience apparently reacted with audible surprise to the announcement and gave him multiple standing ovations.
If there's anything, it is somewhat, obviously it's not a surprise that his campaign was a failure.
It's maybe somewhat surprising that he's dropped out so early.
Because for a lot of these guys who have no shot of winning, you just sort of assume Right, those of us who are normal, we look at some of these people and we look at this crowded GOP field.
And all these people that are in it, there's no chance.
Asa Hutchinson is still in the race, I believe.
Nobody's sure.
Nobody knows.
Doesn't even exist in reality.
No one is quite sure.
But he's still in the race.
And you look at someone like that and you think, well, they must have something else in mind.
There must be some other reason why they're running.
They're trying to get a cabinet position.
They want to sell a book.
Something like that.
And in some cases, that's probably true.
But for someone like Mike Pence, actually not.
It appears he didn't have an ulterior motive.
He wasn't doing this to get in the cabinet.
That was never going to happen to begin with.
And probably he'll try to sell a book, but that wasn't really what it was about.
He actually thought he could win.
That's the only thing surprising about it.
Maybe.
When you see him drop out so early, you realize, oh, okay, he really thought he might win.
And then the polls, and then he could only get 0.01% in the polls, and then he eventually decided to drop out because he can't win.
So the only surprising thing is if someone like this thought he could win, but then what you have to realize is that most of these people, like, it's not good if people are running for president with an ulterior motive and it's all just a game and really they just want a cabinet position.
I don't like that.
But that at least is Probably preferable to the alternative, which is that these people are delusional.
And then you realize that this is what, these are the kinds of people that are attracted to this.
These are the kinds of people that often run for, like, you have to be, to start with, almost delusionally narcissistic to think that you even should be president to begin with.
And so it attracts a lot of people like that, who are deluded by their own narcissism.
And apparently that applies to Mike Pence.
But at least he listened to the wake-up call eventually.
Now he's out of the race.
Okay.
One thing we talk about on the show sometimes are national anthem performances.
And you know I take this very seriously.
As we all should.
It's the national anthem.
It is our anthem as a country.
We should treat it with respect.
And so often it is mangled and botched.
And so I am worried about this.
Fox has the report, rapper Flavor Flav drew mixed reactions from NBA fans after he sang the national anthem ahead of Sunday night's game between the Milwaukee Bucs and the Atlanta Hawks.
The six-time Grammy Award nominated artist, he's been nominated for six Grammys, sported a green Bucs jersey over a white sweatshirt and a matching white hat, who cares?
So Flava Flav performed, this is the guy that they enlisted to perform The National Anthem, and so you're expecting like a Roseanne performance of that infamous performance of the National Anthem back in the 90s.
Sounds really bad.
I haven't even listened to it yet.
Let's listen to some of this.
♪ Lovely we hail ♪ ♪ At the twilight's last gleaming ♪
♪ Whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ Through the perilous fight ♪
♪ O'er the ramparts we watched ♪ ♪ Were so gallantly streaming ♪
I gotta say, it's not as bad as I thought it would be.
Let's hear this part.
It's not good.
Okay.
I'm a little surprised.
It's not good.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not saying it's good.
It is a D minus performance of the National Anthem.
But it's not as bad as I thought.
And he is actually trying to sing it.
It's probably better than I would do, which is the lowest possible bar that you could imagine.
And I guess it's surprising.
He's actually attempting to sing it.
So he's attempting to do the song, do justice to the song and sing it.
And it's not a good performance.
It's not as bad as I thought.
I don't know.
I don't know what to say.
It's not as bad as I thought.
I thought it'd be a lot worse than that.
It's actually better.
Then, although it's a D-minus performance in the National Anthem, I would rank it ahead of many of the performances from actual gifted singers, like, you know.
So that, of the famous people, if we can call Flava Flav still famous, that have performed the National Anthem, it's a D-minus performance, but he's probably, you know, he's probably in the top 20.
Because, again, of how low the bar is.
And usually when you get someone performing the National Anthem, and they get some celebrity cameo to perform, they're trying to show off their voice too much, and they're trying to do too much with it.
And this is what, especially the actual talented singers, this is the pitfall for them, is that they're trying to showcase their own voices, and that's not what the National Anthem is for.
He has a terrible voice, so instead he just went very workman-like performance of the National Anthem, which is what it should be.
And so it ends up being a bad performance, but still better, but still ranks like in the upper echelon.
Very interesting.
Okay, another quick, I've had this story for several days sitting here, and I just want to mention it now.
This is a New York Times report.
So it's a few days after Beck Lawrence was profiled in a business newsletter about the tarot card readings they offered at their shop in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
The police chief dropped by for a visit, but it was not to have his fortune told.
Instead, Chief Chad E. Martin informed Mix Lawrence mx.lawrence at their witchcraft-themed store, The Serpent's Key Shop and Sanctuary, on October 5th, that any compliance about the readings would lead to an investigation citing an archaic state law that makes it illegal to predict the future for money.
Mix Lawrence, who uses they-them pronouns, said in a telephone interview on Friday, he informed me basically that he is not here to arrest me or press charges.
However, if he ever gets a report from anyone, he will be back on my doorstep.
Mix Lawrence, who moved to Hanover in 2019 and opened the shop in January, offers a menu of tarot card readings, which cost $10 to $100, either in person or over Zoom.
Signs are posted saying the services are for entertainment purposes only, candles, soaps, and other handmade merchandise.
Are also sold there.
It's actually a long report in the New York Times.
They're very troubled by this.
That there is a law, in Pennsylvania at least, that makes it illegal to, if you're a fortune teller, tarot cards.
I'm not sure if psychics would fall into this, but I'm assuming they probably would.
That technically it's illegal if somebody files a complaint.
Which I hope they do.
I hope they do, because I think this is a great law.
The fact that she identifies as mix, you know, because this is someone who identifies as non-binary and so they can't, she can't go by miss, she has to go by mix.
Now what does it mean to identify as a mix and MX?
Like how do you, so she's decided That miss doesn't work for her, she doesn't identify as it, but mix mx really speaks to her.
That speaks to her inner identity in a certain way.
How is that the case?
How do you discover that you're really a mix deep inside?
They don't explain that.
In fact, the New York Times just drops that mx thing into it and doesn't even, this is where we're at now, they don't even bother to explain it.
At least when they first started doing this.
Referring to quote-unquote non-binary people as MX.
Initially, if you saw it in something like a New York Times article, they would explain it.
And they would say, oh, Mix Lawrence identifies as Mix because of this.
Now they expect you to just accept it.
Which we shouldn't.
As for the law, I think it's a great law and it makes a lot of sense.
Because here's the thing about psychics and tarot card readers and so on.
There are really two options for them.
Either they're scam artists, or they're not.
And if they're not, then it's demonic.
So, either it's a scam, which is the case almost always.
They're scamming people for money, and that should be illegal.
Or, if you really do have those powers, then these are not godly powers that were granted to you, so you could sell them.
As a party trick.
This is a demonic power that you have, apparently.
So either you're, what is it?
You're either possessed by a devil or you're a scam artist.
Take your pick.
Either one, you belong in jail.
That's where it lands.
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 wheat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. 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.
Okay, happy Halloween everyone, by the way.
I actually forgot that it was Halloween until I saw someone here walking around dressed up like Winnie the Pooh, which is a thing that just happened a few moments ago.
And what I'll say to Everyone here at The Daily Wire who is dressing in cotton, I don't know how many people are wearing the costumes today, but they know they're lucky that I'm not in charge and that everyone in charge doesn't listen to me.
They're lucky on both counts because it's cause for immediate termination.
I've said this before.
I think that if I owned a company, if I was a manager, what I would do is I would say to my employees, sure, you can dress up for Halloween.
We're not going to have a Halloween party, because we're adults, and this is a place of employment.
But yeah, if you want to wear a costume on Halloween as an adult to work, go ahead.
And then, anyone who does, I would just fire.
So, let them make their choice, and then fire them for the choice they made.
That's what I would do.
So, Halloween is for children, folks.
In fact, even my own children are starting to grow out of it.
The older ones, anyway.
We took our kids to Boo at the Zoo a few days ago here in Nashville, which is a great event, a little plug for them.
It's their Halloween thing they do at the zoo.
All the kids come, and they're dressed up, and they get candy.
And we're walking around, and our 10-year-old twins were not that into it.
And my wife is distraught about it, because she's saying the whole time, why aren't the twins having fun?
What's going on?
They're growing up too fast.
Well, I said, they're 10.
That's what's wrong.
And this is how you know you're getting to the age.
This is always a controversy every year.
At what age are you too old to go trick-or-treating?
And I think the age fluctuates a little bit.
I don't know if there's one simple cutoff, but when it gets to the point where the only reason It's like when it gets to the point where the kids attitude to trick-or-treating it's like they're hitting the coal mines and it's just all they're doing they're not even really having fun they're just they're just in it for the candy and nothing else all of the real all the kind of like joy and all that of Halloween's kind of gone and all they care about is just going house to house and get as much candy as they possibly can I get it I understand it but at that point
That's when, it's like when they take that kind of really practical approach to Halloween, which is where my older kids are now, where they're already kind of mapping it out, they have a strategy, how can we get as much candy as possible.
Again, totally understand, but that's when you're getting to the age where it's probably, you're probably a little too old for trick-or-treating.
In my opinion.
Okay, we led the show on Friday with a discussion about the link between psychiatric medicines and mass shootings, and so a lot of people think I was wrong about that.
No big surprise.
Sky Gun says, you're making a false correlation here.
That's like suggesting the people that drink whiskey and coke, rum and coke, and coke and vodka, and get drunk, are getting drunk on coke because coke is the common denominator.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here, but I will say that the drugs are mind-altering substances.
In your argument, you're comparing the psychiatric drugs to the Coca-Cola, I assume, except the psychiatric drugs, I mean, they're more comparable to Coke back when they used to put cocaine in it, because the psychiatric drugs are mind-altering substances.
That's not my opinion, they're designed to be.
And so it's just a fact that a lot of the people who go out and commit mass shootings are on mind-altering substances.
And it's worth asking the question about whether that mind-altering substance had something to do with it.
And if their mind was not altered in that way, would they have committed the crime?
Observatim says, bro, you explore this after every single white mass shooting for all other racial crimes.
Racial crimes?
The only considerable factors to you are culture and genes.
You'll never address the cultural instigators of white shooters like this because that would require changing your show.
I talk about the cultural factors all the time.
In any kind of mass shooting, you're also going to find, very often, broken homes.
You're going to find that the father was not present.
Either physically not present, or was there, but wasn't doing much to raise their own kids.
Many mass shooters are products of divorce.
I've talked about that many times.
But that only emphasizes my point, I think.
That, okay, you have someone, you have a kid, let's just, a hypothetical scenario that we've seen play out many times in the past.
You have a kid who is very troubled and is becoming aggressive and hostile and violent and lashing out.
And then the kid goes in and gets put on a high dose of psychiatric medicine.
Except that, and then in some of those cases, the kid then goes on to commit a school shooting.
Well, to your point about the cultural factors and the family factors, you can look and see what's going on in their lives many times, and you can figure out why they were lashing out and getting aggressive and violent.
And a lot of times it has to do with a broken home, a divorce, all these kinds of things.
So the psychiatric medicine assumes that the person has some kind of mental sickness.
And I don't know how we can assume a mental sickness if we can look at what's going on in their life and easily identify major factors, major environmental type factors that are playing into this.
And so we should be addressing those factors rather than trying to do the band-aid approach of putting them a bunch of drugs to kind of numb them so that they're no longer as affected by this thing that's happening in their life.
Debbie says, the elephant in the room is a lack of God with a heavy dose of violent video games, time on the dark web, not practicing one's faith.
Drugs have to be monitored.
I have two kids on controlled meds, but that's only part of the treatment.
Cards issues started long before the voices.
I don't think that when it comes to this that we should be narrowing it down to any one thing.
Which is why you'll find with me when it comes to mass shootings, I've talked about every issue.
I've talked about psychiatric medicines, the kind of spiritual hopelessness and despair that's rife in our culture, broken homes, all these things, how they factor in.
And all of that should be part of the conversation.
But from what I've noticed, most of the things that you mentioned, Debbie, people do talk about.
The one thing that we tend to skip over are the drugs themselves.
And we have to stop doing that because, as we talked about on Friday, the drug companies themselves admit that the drugs that they're putting these people on can cause them to become aggressive, to become suicidal.
Which is really, I don't know, we're sort of numb to it in many ways.
But really think about that.
You're giving a drug to someone that, according to the drug maker, You could put thoughts in their head that they wouldn't otherwise have.
You're giving them a substance that can cause them to think things that they wouldn't have otherwise thought.
I'm not saying that there's never a place for those kinds of drugs.
Right now the place for those kinds of drugs is basically, you know, as soon as someone shows up at the psychiatrist's office and says, I'm struggling with this or that, immediately the pen comes out and the prescription is written.
And that's the issue.
This Halloween, remove the unpleasant taste of woke from your Halloween candy.
Get Jeremy's Chocolate instead.
We decided you deserve a treat for dealing with all the woke around you.
That's why, for Halloween, we're giving you 30% off of Jeremy's Chocolate.
That means our famous He-Him with Nuts and She-Her Nutless are 30% off.
Get yours in full size or our shareable microaggression size.
Perfect for giving out to your friends, family, and neighbors.
Time is running out.
Today is the last chance to get 30% off your Jeremy's Chocolate.
Go to Jeremy'sChocolate.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation we have a classic.
This is a new viral video, but it belongs to a trusty genre.
Here we have a trans-identified male who apparently enjoys going out to restaurants alone so that he can film the waitstaff quote-unquote misgendering him.
He dangles himself out as bait, waits for some unsuspecting service worker to accurately identify him as a man, captures it on video, and then posts it for likes and supportive comments.
And sadly, he gets a lot of both.
Here is his latest compilation.
Watch.
watch. It looks like he's having a nice feast. It's okay.
It's all good. But it was not all good. Okay, let's pause it just for a moment to clarify something.
The waiter in that first clip appears to be speaking directly into the camera and describing the dish that was just served to the trans-identified dude.
And so, these are the lengths that the dude is going to, all in an effort to bait people into, quote-unquote, misgendering him.
Because, so we can assume that, like, he asked the waiter to address whoever his audience is on the phone and describe the dish.
And he knew that the waiter would likely use third-person pronouns when talking about the dish that he had just given to the guy.
The waiter's just trying to do his job while this guy springs elaborate traps just so he can get off on being faux persecuted.
Let's continue.
Hi.
I use she-her pronouns.
I'm not sir.
Yeah, like, it's like a knife in the heart.
I also, I did specifically ask ahead of time not to be called sir.
Yeah, I'm just gonna go.
I mean, I'm so sorry.
I apologize.
I'm sorry about that.
I'm so sorry. I apologize.
You're just always like a knife. It always hurts. Every single time.
I was wondering if there's a manager I could talk to about something that happened.
Yeah, I was called sir.
Oh, okay.
It just really sucks every time it happens.
Sorry about that.
I don't need to be called ma'am. I just need to not be called sir, you know?
Thank you.
Can you call me sir?
I just want to tell you that the person who gave me this called me sir.
Called me sir.
It's just like it kind of just hurts a lot to get called sir.
Very good.
Thank you so much.
No.
Oh, yeah.
Thank you.
I'm not a sir.
Nothing like a good misgendering.
It is a knife in the gut when I get called sir.
I feel like I need to tell him.
I need to tell him that that hurt.
It hurts more when it's not intentional because it means like, this is sir to him.
I know you didn't mean it, but I'm not a sir.
I'm so sorry.
It's okay.
I know you didn't mean it.
It's just, you know, it hurts.
I know when people clock me, it's fine, but like, it does kind of hurt.
Thank you.
I'm not, sir.
Oh, sorry.
Not, sir.
I got one.
Not sir.
The guy who dropped the food off, he called me sir twice in a row.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Now, the thing that makes this video interesting and somewhat challenging is trying to decide what is the most reprehensible and disgusting thing about this man.
Is it that he goes around trying to get random waiters fired for being polite?
Is it that he dresses in crop tops that expose his flabby, disgusting stomach?
Is it that he wears matching outfits with his dog?
That he also brings into restaurants with him?
In a baby stroller?
It's just his general aura as an entitled, narcissistic, callous, manipulative jackass.
Whichever you choose, the point is that this man couldn't be more viscerally unlikable if he tried.
And he is trying.
But we should be thankful for the service he's providing here, because if there's anyone in America who still somehow was not clued in yet, maybe this will do the trick.
Maybe this will finally prove the point that I have been trying to make all along, which is that trans ideology is not primarily a product of innocent confusion.
Okay, a seven-year-old boy who identifies as a girl is confused because he's been made confused.
Same for an adolescent girl who identifies as a boy.
But a grown man like this, this kind of guy who represents the vast majority of trans activists, by the way, he is not really confused.
It's doubtful that he actually thinks he's a woman.
He likes to present himself as a woman, which is not the same as presenting himself badly as a woman, but that's how he presents himself.
But that's not the same thing as thinking that he is one.
But whether legitimately confused or not, he is a fetishist, and wearing women's clothing is really a secondary aspect of his fetish.
The primary thrill for him is manipulating and controlling people.
He wants to make the world bend to his whims.
He enjoys wielding his emotions like a sledgehammer, smacking anyone over the head who happens to briefly interact with him.
He claims that it's a dagger in the heart when he is misgendered, quote-unquote.
And yet he goes out of his way to film these moments and to put people in a situation where they might do the thing he claims he doesn't want them to do.
And that's because his emotions are as fake and contrived as his womanhood.
It is all performance.
There is nothing authentic about any of this.
He is a fraud and a bully.
And yet he's been empowered not just by the left, but even by many on the right, who for so many years refused to be honest about and to guys like this.
You know, the correct response to this man, if he tries to lecture you for accurately gendering him, is to say something like this.
Oh, sorry, you're right.
I shouldn't call you sir.
Sir is a word denoting respect and dignity, but you have none of the latter and I have none of the former for you.
Instead of sir, I'd be happy to call you dude or fella or chief.
Take your pick.
But what I won't call you is anything that denotes womanhood, because you are not a woman, champ.
You aren't even a convincing imitation.
You're just a narcissist, and narcissist is not a gender, chief.
It's a personality defect.
So I will continue to call you whatever the hell I want to call you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
I'm not sorry if it offends you, and I care about your feelings about as much as you care about anyone else's, which is not at all.
You got that, big guy?
Now, that is both the most accurate and most moral way to respond to somebody like this, except that, you know, if the waiter at the restaurant says that, or anything close to it, he'll be fired and publicly shamed.
It would be heroic and good if he said it anyway, and sacrificed himself, or at least his job, for the sake of truth and justice, but that's not a choice that most people will make, and that's understandable.
And bullies like the guy in the video, they know that, and so they specifically pick on people whose lives they think they can destroy.
It's what manipulative narcissists do.
It's their MO.
It's why we've seen a lot of videos like this, and it's almost always, have you noticed, in a customer service setting.
Because these are people that they feel they have control over.
They don't usually go up to random people on the street.
They don't come up to me.
I wish they would.
I'm just waiting for me to get one of these TikTok videos.
Oh, excuse me, you called me, uh, you called me, sir.
Oh, did I?
I'm waiting for that moment.
It never happens.
Because they're picking on people they think they can control.
Which is why it's all the more important for those of us who are not as vulnerable as the waiter to speak up.
And it's not enough to just meekly raise your trembling hand off at a distance and say, well, jeez, I'm not trying to hurt anyone, and sorry if this offends you, but I guess I just, I feel like maybe it's okay sometimes if some people don't agree that men are women.
Please don't be mad.
That kind of soft and scared approach doesn't work, in general.
It especially doesn't work when you're up against ruthless sociopaths who will happily take someone's job for noticing that a man is a man.
The only effective strategy is to be blunt and direct and utterly dismissive of their fake, performative feelings.
It's the only way.
It's always been the only way.
And maybe now the country is starting to figure that out.
We can hope, anyway.
But in the meantime, this guy and his matching dog outfits are today cancelled.
