Ep. 1255 - The White House's War On 'Hate' Is Really A War On Free Speech
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the White House announces a new "war on hate" to combat alleged Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry. They claim that "hate is on the rise"? But is that true, and even if it is, does the government have any business policing hate? Also, a caravan of thousands of illegal alien invaders makes its way to the southern border. More families are homeschooling than ever before, according to a new report. An organization of bird watchers ends racism by getting rid of racist bird names. And a viral video raises the question: is it okay to recline your seat on an airplane? The answer is no.
Ep.1255
- - -
DailyWire+:
Binge ALL 10 episodes of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Genucel - Fall Classics Package – Exclusive discounts! https://bit.ly/3L83Xzi
Stamps.com - Get a 4-week trial, free postage, and a digital scale at https://www.stamps.com/Walsh. Thanks to Stamps.com for sponsoring the show!
- - -
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 White House announced a new war on hate to combat alleged Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry.
They claim that hate is on the rise, but is that true?
And even if it is, does the government have any business policing hate?
Also, a caravan of thousands of illegal alien invaders makes its way to the southern border.
More families are homeschooling than ever before, according to a new report.
An organization of bird watchers ends racism by getting rid of racist bird names, finally.
And a viral video raises the question, is it okay to recline your seat on an airplane?
The answer is no, but we'll talk about that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Our friends at GenuCell have launched a new product called GenuCell 3 which works fast
on your under eye bags and puffiness.
GenuCell 3 is smoother, more luxurious, and it uses advanced technology to deliver complex vitamins and minerals directly to your face for instant hydration.
It's like Gatorade for your skin.
This new GenuCell technology keeps your skin looking young and healthy for years to come.
The GenuCell Fall Classics Package also includes a jawline treatment for a more firm neck and jawline.
It also includes GenuCell's Anti-Wrinkle Moisturizer and Deep Firming Serum.
Of course, any GenuCell Luxury Box isn't complete without the great GenuCell XV Anti-Wrinkle Moisturizer and their world-famous Deep Firming Serum.
Get your skin ready for the cold and dry weather.
If you don't look and feel your absolute best, you'll get your money back, no questions asked.
Go to Genucel.com slash Walsh or you can call 800-SKIN-211 for extra discounts on this amazing fall package.
Get results in 12 hours or less.
The immediate effects are included for free.
That's Genucel.com slash Walsh or by calling 800-SKIN-211.
Well, it's been a while since we've heard from Kamala Harris, and if you've been paying attention to anything Kamala Harris has done over the past three years, that's not especially surprising.
She has failed spectacularly at every single task she's been assigned since she became vice president, almost as if her whole job is to pretend to solve problems while actually making them worse, which I guess is basically the unofficial job of nearly everyone who's held a job in Washington at any point this century, or really for most of the century before that.
As for Kamala, in 2021, for example, the White House put her in charge of managing the crisis at the border.
But, unbelievable as it may be, her strategy of wagging her finger at Guatemalans and telling them, do not come here, did not prove to be especially effective.
A year later, the Biden administration dispatched Harris to Germany just a few weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of seeking to avert a war, as the Los Angeles Times reported at the time.
And in the end, as we know, the Russians, I guess, took one look at Kamala Harris and went into Ukraine immediately.
With a track record like that, it's not hard to imagine that Muslims all over the United States are quaking in fear today.
And that's because this week, the Biden administration gave the woman who somehow became vice president yet another task.
And this time, her job was to announce and to lead the first-ever National Strategy to Combat Islamophobia.
Harris herself made the announcement in a video message.
Watch.
Our nation was founded on the fundamental principle that all people should have the freedom to live, to worship, and to be without fear of violence or persecution.
Every person has the right to live safe from violence, hate, and bigotry.
And for those reasons and so many more, President Joe Biden and I have a duty not only to keep the people of our nation safe, But to condemn unequivocally and forcefully all forms of hate.
That's always a really bold message.
We condemn hate.
We condemn bad things.
We don't like bad things and bad feelings.
We're against them.
Now before we get into the whole strategy to combat Islamophobia, it's important to pause the video, I think, just to highlight what she says in the first 30 seconds of her big announcement.
She says that every person has the right to live safe from violence.
That part we can agree.
But then she also says, live safe from bigotry and hate.
Well, see, that part's not actually remotely true, and only someone like Kamala Harris could be dumb enough to think that it is true.
No, you don't have the right to live safe from bigotry, and that's because other people have the freedom of speech and freedom of thought, and they're allowed to think less of you for good reasons, or bad reasons, or smart reasons, or stupid reasons, or even for racist reasons.
They're allowed to.
They have that right.
People can be as bigoted as they want, in fact, as long as they're not committing any crimes in the process.
Nobody has the right to be free from the bigoted opinions and views and attitudes of other people.
That's the whole point of the First Amendment.
It protects speech that you think is good.
It also protects speech that you think is bad.
And as everyone says, but few seem to really believe when it comes down to it, the First Amendment is really only ever needed for that latter category.
If the First Amendment does not protect speech that people find abhorrent, then the First Amendment effectively protects nothing at all.
But the Biden administration apparently disagrees, and now out of nowhere, They say you have a right to be safe from bigotry.
Well, how will the government enforce this new right, you might ask?
And what exactly qualifies as bigotry?
Is it still acceptable to discriminate against white males, for example?
If not, that's bad news for literally every corporation, university in the whole country.
Do they have to revise all their policies overnight?
I mean, is that what we're talking about?
Well, we already know the answer to that question.
Of course, only certain kinds of bigotry are forbidden.
The kinds of bigotry that predominantly affect loyal voters of the Democratic Party.
And to that end, here's Kamala Harris explaining the administration's plan to combat Islamophobia.
And today, we take another important step forward in our fight against hate.
For years, Muslims in America and those perceived to be Muslim have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks.
As a result of the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, we have seen an uptick in anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic incidents across America, including the brutal attack of a Palestinian American woman who was Muslim And the killing of her six-year-old son.
A senseless act of violence that the Department of Justice is investigating as a hate crime.
For so many people in our nation, the past few days and weeks have brought about all too familiar fears.
Fears that they will be targeted, profiled, or attacked simply because of who they are, how they worship, or how they look.
And so today, I am proud to announce the Biden-Harris administration will develop our nation's first national strategy to counter Islamophobia.
This strategy will be a comprehensive and detailed plan to protect Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim from hate, bigotry, and violence.
Now for an address that's intended for a domestic audience, it's all very war-like.
Our fight against hate is underway, Harris says, as she sits sternly at her little desk in front of the American flag.
We have a strategy that's comprehensive and detailed, she declares.
But social media Kamala Harris went further, saying, this action is the latest step forward in our work to combat a surge of hate in America.
Well, hearing a sitting Vice President talk like this about American citizens is unsettling, to say the least.
This is the kind of language you normally hear our leaders use when they're announcing a targeted strike against terrorist cells in the Middle East.
And now that language, once again, is being turned inward against American citizens.
The Biden administration is on this war-like footing against its own citizens.
And what could possibly justify this, you might ask?
Better be something good.
There had better be a reason for this kind of hostility and brazen disregard for the Constitution, and in particular the First Amendment.
But there's no reason for this whatsoever.
The only justification that Kamala Harris provides in her speech is that, she says, that number one, she says that for years there's been a disproportionate amount of hate being targeted at people perceived to be Muslim.
She says that's been going on for years.
And then, on top of that, there's supposedly been an uptick in what she calls Islamophobic attacks in the United States since October 7th.
Well, is that true?
I mean, have Muslim Americans been disproportionately targeted for years?
And has there been an uptick?
Kamala Harris didn't provide any kind of citation.
In fact, almost every single time that we hear about some group or another that's being disproportionately targeted, Nearly every case, there's no citation offered.
It's just asserted, it's stated, and we're supposed to accept it.
Well, in this case, I went looking to find out where this claim is coming from.
As far as I could tell, the source for this claim is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.
And there are obviously reasons to think that CAIR might not be the most unbiased source on something like this.
So I was very interested to know how exactly they determined that anti-Muslim attacks are on the rise in the United States in just the past month.
Well, on CARES website, they provide this explanation, quote,
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,
today said that it has received 774 complaints, including reported bias incidents since the escalation of
violence in Israel and Palestine on October 7th."
You know, that's supposedly more complaints than they normally receive in similar time periods, they say.
Now, to be clear, these are not reported crimes or documented arrests, much less are they, for the most part,
violent attacks or anything close to that.
This statistic is based on reports that somehow get filtered to care.
These are complaints.
So, the actual headline, if you care about being honest and accurate, is that there has been an uptick in complaints.
Complaints are on the rise.
Well, are the complaints true?
Are the complaints complaining about actual incidents of bigotry?
And what qualifies as an incident of bigotry?
On that last question, we might be able to come up with some kind of answer.
There have been, after all, some more widely reported incidents of alleged Islamophobic bigotry.
One of those reports, according to Care, involved, quote, a man who reportedly drove his truck through and brandished weapons against pro-Palestine protesters in Minnesota.
Well, that sounds pretty bad.
It sounds hateful, even.
So, I looked into that incident a little bit more, and here's the video of what happened, which CARE actually provides the link to, and here's what happens.
happens. Watch.
I'm right here.
[crowd noise]
I'm right here.
[crowd noise]
I know.
[crowd noise]
So that changes things a little bit.
For one thing, there was no truck involved in this incident.
It's clearly a sedan, what looks like a Ford Fusion.
You know, just semantics, but if we care about being accurate.
And it's obvious from the footage that the mob of so-called pro-Palestine protesters were blocking the street.
They were standing in the middle of the intersection.
Just blocking off the intersection, which they have no authority to do.
I know that leftist protesters do this all the time, and I guess, I don't know, people assume that they have legal authority to do it.
They don't.
Actually, it turns out that just because you have some cause that you care about, that doesn't give you the authority to just shut down traffic whenever you feel like it.
And so the man attempts to continue on his way.
The mob surrounds the car, starts banging on the windshield, kicking the car, and going crazy.
And by the way, at this point, they've surrounded the entire car so that no matter where the guy goes, he's going to be running into protesters.
Right?
If you don't want to be run into, don't surround every escape route.
There are people around it.
There's nowhere he can go.
What is he supposed to do?
Just offer himself up to the mob to be torn to pieces?
Now, even if you think the driver was in the wrong somehow, which he wasn't, there's also no indication that he hates Muslims.
If anything, he seems to hate protesters who block traffic.
And that is a form of bigotry that nearly everyone can relate to.
Now according to a blogger who was on the scene, one protester complained, quote, it was scary, honestly, because there have been protests where people run through the crowd with their vehicles and people, like, ended up dying.
And then knowing he was armed, like, a part of me wanted to run away, but a part of me was, like, trying to assist everyone else in, like, stopping this car from causing more harm, too, because there's children here.
There's families here.
Well, here's an idea.
Uh, maybe don't take your children to the middle of the road and block traffic?
Okay, maybe don't stand in an intersection with your children?
But that concept is unthinkable to these protesters, apparently.
And in their effort to sell this incident as Islamophobic, various left-wing activists uploaded additional footage.
And in this one, we can see the man brandishing a knife after he was surrounded.
Let's watch that.
[MUSIC]
Okay, so they're making this guy out to be some kind of white supremacist,
some kind of Islamophobic terrorist because he was driving in his car.
A mob surrounded him and he brandished a knife to defend himself.
And then he quickly realized that a knife against this whole crowd, this whole mob, is not going to do much good.
He gets back into the car.
Didn't actually hurt anyone.
And this is the kind of incident that CAIR is classifying as Islamophobic.
When there is no evidence at all that this guy has any Muslim, anti-Muslim bigotry, period.
And in turn, the White House is using incidents like this to claim that Muslims are seeing some kind of heightened backlash, which justifies wartime footing against MAGA Republicans and all forms of quote-unquote hatred.
They're also using incidents, it would appear, that are far more ambiguous and irrelevant than this.
Keep in mind that, again, reports, mere reports, of biased incidents are being counted in the total.
Well, what is a biased incident?
There is no one single definition, and that's the point, really.
It's just something.
It can be whatever they want it to be.
But every university in the country has its own bias incident response team.
And if you go to any university website and you find their bias incident page, you'll see some kind of definition.
And all the definitions are very similar.
And so generally, when anyone on the left talks about bias incidents, this is what they're talking about.
Here's the University of Denver, for example.
This is how they define it.
The university defines bias incidents as any behavior that targets individuals or groups based on their actual or perceived group identities.
Examples may include, but are not limited to, graffiti, harassment, jokes, direct insults, etc.
The specific forms, content, motivation, intention, and impact of bias incidents vary.
Jokes.
So a biased incident is anything that someone says or does that someone else interprets as biased.
Which is to say that an increase in biased incident reports really doesn't mean anything at all.
And if you announce ahead of time that a certain group is going to start experiencing more biased incidents, and then members of that group immediately start complaining about biased incidents, That does not indicate that there are actually more biased incidents, whatever a biased incident even is.
All it indicates is that the people in that group are being encouraged to interpret incidents that way.
So why exactly is the Biden administration doing this?
The most benign possible explanation is that they're not planning on really doing anything.
Like, this is not anything.
It's just theater.
And they're just trying to win some votes in swing states, like Michigan, by pandering to various Muslim communities, by announcing a national strategy to combat Islamophobia.
And if that's true, it wouldn't be the first time that the White House has done something like this.
In fact, just a few months ago, the White House announced its bold new national plan to combat anti-Semitism.
They pledged that it would end hatred against Jews in the United States.
But if you've been, you know, seeing any of the footage from college campuses recently, you know that the White House's plan hasn't exactly accomplished much.
It was all PR.
So maybe the same thing is happening here with this new plan to combat Islamophobia.
Maybe they're just going to record a video and release a press release and just move on.
But there's reason to think that something else is going on here.
You might have noticed that over the last few years, the left and the media tend to announce ahead of time that there will be a rise of a certain kind of hate crime according to current events.
And then, like magic, the prophecy curiously tends to fulfill itself.
And then the left uses that increase in hate to assume more power and to demonize their political opponents.
We saw this during COVID.
Nearly as soon as COVID made its way to the United States, Democrats, if you remember, started declaring that the worst thing about the virus is how it would lead to anti-Asian sentiment.
And they started saying this right away.
And then, what do you know?
That uptick happened right on schedule.
As ABC News reported in 2021, quote, a new study suggests that former President Donald
Trump's inflammatory rhetoric around the coronavirus, which is believed to have
originated in China, helped spark anti-Asian Twitter content and likely perpetuated racist
attitudes. At the same time, Democrats refused to acknowledge the obvious fact that the so-called
hate crime surge against Asians during COVID was almost entirely driven by black perpetrators,
which is a demographic group that votes Democrat, a demographic group which votes Democrat by a
margin of 9 to 1. As City Journal reported, quote, blacks are responsible for 305 percent
more violent crime against Asians than neighborhood demographics would predict,
while whites and Hispanics commit significantly fewer attacks against Asians than would be expected.
Democrats never talked about those numbers because they didn't want to demonize one of their primary voting blocs.
They constructed a narrative, and they followed through with it, no matter how obviously false it was.
That's how cynical these people are.
But also profoundly unoriginal, which is why we're now seeing this same strategy play out all over again in exactly the same way.
They're desperately hoping that their whole narrative about quote-unquote Islamophobia will manifest in reality if they just keep pushing it over and over again.
And either way, they'll pretend it has manifested whether it really has or not.
But the key point is that Even if you concede the left's central claim, even if you pretend it's true that we're seeing a rise in attacks on Muslims in this country, then there's still no justification for the federal government to announce a plan to police hate.
Because whether it's hate against Muslims or Jews or white people or anyone else, hate itself, on its own, is not something the Biden administration has any authority or any ability to resolve.
Hatred is an emotional state.
It exists in the human heart.
You cannot eliminate it, even if you tried.
Which is, of course, good news for liberal activists, the very people who are pushing this federal war on hate, because they're among the most hateful people on the planet.
They're gleeful whenever any of their political opponents lose their jobs or even their lives.
So if anyone should be jailed under some grand new plan to punish hateful people, then it's them.
But you can't do that.
You can't police hate.
Now, if somebody commits an actual crime driven by hate, you can punish the crime, but then the fact that it was motivated by hate as opposed to some other nasty emotion is basically irrelevant, or it should be.
Hate itself, the emotion, the thought, is outside the purview of the government.
When the White House announces yet another war on hate, it's actually announcing a war on feelings that it thinks we shouldn't feel.
The Vice President is saying, there are a lot of people feeling unapproved emotions, and we're going to put a stop to that.
And when you think of it that way, which is the accurate way, you see how dystopian this really is.
It's also, again, impossible.
They cannot stop hate, even if we agree that they should try, and we do not agree.
But they can use the pretense of a war on hate to seize more control over our lives and, they hope, our minds.
And of course, that's what all this is really about.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
One of the best ways to do that is by using Stamps.com for all your mailing and shipping needs.
Stamps.com lets you print your own postage and shipping labels right from your office or your home.
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 The Daily Wire.
We've used Stamps.com since 2017.
Our office management staff love 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.
Just go to stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page, and enter code Walsh.
Yahoo reports a large migrant caravan comprising many Central Americans and Venezuelans left southern Mexico on Monday for the United States, organizers and officials said, as Washington grapples with renewed pressure on its southern border.
Officials in the southern state of Chiapas said that some 3,500 people set off on foot from the city of Tapocla—Tapocla?
Tapocula?
Tapachula?
Anyway, it's near the Guatemalan border.
Well, one of the caravans' organizers said there were around 5,000 in the group.
U.S.
President Joe Biden, who is seeking re-election next year, is under pressure to curb the number of people crossing illegally in the United States.
But most of the latest caravan are from Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Venezuela, and other countries as well.
And it's making its way here.
Maybe the most important thing is just to see the footage of this caravan, which we have here.
here, let's watch that.
So in other words, it's a lot of people, as you can see.
Just a whole parade of them, walking casually to the southern border of the United States, while our government stands there and watches them helplessly.
It just shows how impotent Our government is that you know, it's one thing when you've got people that are sneaking across in the middle of the night running across the border I mean, that's not good either and we should be able to put a stop to that if we actually tried but when you've got a whole group of people that are just walking you can see them hundreds of miles away and we know exactly where they're going and We sit here as if we're powerless to stop it That makes it even more pathetic
And look, I know that there are important events happening overseas right now.
There are always important events happening overseas.
But the most important thing to us in this country should be preserving and protecting our own country.
And we can be of little use to any ally if we cease to exist.
And that's what we are confronting right now.
That's the reality that we face.
We hear a lot about existential threats these days.
Well, what you just saw in that video, that's it.
That's just one small portion of the existential threat.
It really is the end of the country.
The constant invasion from the South represents the end of this country.
These people, the people in the caravan, were told, well, they're looking for a better life.
Right?
They're trying to take care of their families.
And in some cases, that's true.
In fact, in many cases, that's true.
But we as Americans are also looking for a better life.
We also want to take care of our families.
And that means protecting our border, protecting our sovereignty, our national identity, our way of life.
That's what it means.
At least that's what it should mean.
Speaking of protecting our families, we have this from Daily Wire about the homeschooling surge,
which is still continuing. Homeschooling has become America's fastest growing form of education
and continues to explode in popularity long after pandemic-era remote learning has ended,
a new Washington Post analysis found. The dramatic rise in homeschooling that began
during the pandemic continued through the school year that ended this past spring,
according to the Post analysis, which looked at data from nearly 7,000 school districts across
the country.
Homeschooling's continued popularity flies in the face of predictions that most families would go back to in-person classes at schools once controversial pandemic restrictions like mask mandates ended.
Another concern parents had after the pandemic is learning loss in public schools, which may also be driving some families to homeschool.
The post-analysis stated, Which is an important point in all this, and a very significant point, that for a long time, we've associated homeschooling with a kind of conservative, Christian demographic.
And It's, I imagine, still predominantly conservatives who homeschool, Christians who homeschool, but it's not only that.
We're seeing a stark rise in homeschooling that cuts across demographics, which is very significant, obviously.
The analysis looked at data from 32 states and District of Columbia, which represents more than 60% of school-aged children.
The data is incomplete because some states do not have reliable tallies of homeschoolers, and 11 states, including Texas, Michigan, Connecticut, and Illinois, do not require families to notify the state when they decide to homeschool.
The numbers that are available indicate that homeschooling has become a mainstay of the American educational system.
Before the pandemic, there were 1.5 million homeschoolers in the U.S.
Now there are between 1.9 million and 2.7 million homeschoolers in the country, according to the Post's analysis.
And that again, as it says, that's probably an undercount because there are the states where homeschoolers have to declare themselves, and then there are states when there is no requirement.
And so you can only sort of guess.
And by the way, there shouldn't be any requirement.
Like, I shouldn't have to say anything to the school system.
If I'm opting out of the school system, I don't have to ask your permission.
I don't have to tell you what business is it of yours.
You don't own my child.
I don't have to account for my child to you in the public school system if I'm pulling my kids out.
At least I shouldn't have to.
And that's the way the law is in many states.
So they can only guess.
And my guess would be, you know, if they're talking around 3 million homeschoolers, it's probably more than that.
But the most important fact is that it's significantly more than it was even a few years ago.
And, you know, we talked about homeschooling in detail Last week, in response to the broadside against homeschooling that was launched by John Oliver, we don't need to repeat all that.
All I will say is that, as I predicted at the time, going back to when all the lockdowns were happening, I said this at the time, the public school system made a massive strategic error by shutting down and going to remote learning, quote-unquote, for half a year or a year or more in some cases.
Now, it was bad for kids, which is the most important thing, but the system also shot itself in the foot.
Because it gave parents a chance to see and to hear what is actually being taught in the classroom.
What's actually happening in the classroom.
They got an inside look, they got a kind of behind-the-scenes look, and many of them didn't like what they saw.
Because prior to that, if you wanted to know what was happening inside your kid's classroom, you could ask your kid, And kids sort of notoriously can be very light on details.
You know, you ask them how their day was, and you might get a, fine, like one word to summarize an entire day.
So you could try to find out that way, or you could visit the classroom, and there might be specific days when it's parent day and parents show up.
Any of us who went to public school, we remember what that was like.
We remember the specific days, a couple days of the year when the parents come and they follow you around and they're watching.
And we can all remember that we liked those days because the teachers changed quite a bit.
They were on their best behavior and they were much friendlier when the parents were around.
Well, it was kind of, it was sort of a double-edged sword, because the teachers were nicer and they were friendlier when the parents were there, but they also made you do actual work if the parents were there.
So they weren't going to, you know, the teachers that would usually just put on a movie, they're not going to do that when the parents are visiting.
But either way, this was different because it gave like a everyday look into what was
going on and parents saw that and a lot of them didn't like it.
Also parents were forced to keep their kids at home and many of them started homeschooling
or quasi homeschooling out of necessity and they found out during the process that they
can do it.
It's good for their kids, it's good for their family and they can do it.
See, this is the one advantage that the public school system had.
They forfeited this advantage.
But, you know, homeschooling was always a better option.
It was always superior.
But the public school system had the massive, seemingly insurmountable advantage of being the default.
Right?
Being the system that nearly everyone had inherited.
And for many parents, doing anything else seemed incomprehensible.
Change is hard.
Change is scary.
And even if you can intellectually understand the benefits of the change, it's still very, very difficult to make the leap and to take the risk and to say, OK, you know, I'm going to do this thing that will profoundly change my life and my lifestyle, but I'm going to do it and I'm going to accept that change.
Most people just aren't going to do that.
They don't want to make the jump because they're afraid.
But then the schools shut down and people were forced to.
The default was changed, which is to say the one thing the public school had going for it, it's one sort of defense mechanism, which is that it was the default option, was taken away.
They gave it up.
They forfeited it.
And suddenly lots of parents said, oh, you know, actually I can do this.
It turns out I can do this.
I don't know what I was so afraid of.
I don't need the system.
It's also, you know, I've used this analogy before, but it is very much like if you work at your job, especially if you're kind of a middle-of-the-pack sort of talent, and you're not great at your job.
Maybe not terrible, but you're not great.
And maybe you're doing a job that really doesn't need to be done.
You're doing a lot of busy work, and you don't really have any kind of necessary role in the company, and you're aware of that.
Well, if you're in that boat, it could be a dangerous thing to take a lot of time off of work.
Like, you might not want to go away on vacation for two weeks.
You might want to make it only a few days.
Because when you're gone, everyone else is going to look around and they're going to realize, oh, we actually don't need you.
Like, we can, we get, oh, this person's gone.
We didn't even notice they were gone.
And then when you come back, there might not be a job to come back to.
And I think that's what happened with the public school system.
A lot of people, they kind of said, oh, you know what, we don't really need them.
I thought I did, because we always had them, but now that they're gone, we don't need them.
Okay, here's an article from The Advocate.
Apparently, I've been at the center of a controversy, which has been raging over the past week or so, that I was not aware of.
There have been articles written.
YouTubers have been responding.
Furiously to what I said.
I didn't even, I didn't even know any, I didn't know they were mad.
I'm not surprised they were mad at something I said, but I didn't even know about it.
The article says, Matt Walsh, host of The Daily Wire's The Matt Walsh Show, recently sparked an uproar by expressing support for conversion therapy, challenging the widely accepted notion that sexual orientation is immutable.
Particularly controversial were his remarks concerning being born gay, which he mocked, according to a Media Matters transcript published last month, by suggesting the idea implies the existence of homosexual infants.
Quoting me, if people are born gay, like born gay, you're gay from birth, right?
Well, that's what that would mean, and then that means that there are, what, homosexual infants out there?
Again, no sane person thinks that.
Walsh's comments have been criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misinformation regarding the LGBTQ plus community.
His remarks come at a time when a significant coalition known as the United States Joint Statement is working tirelessly to eradicate the harmful practice of conversion therapy.
The USJS, comprising 28 influential mental health and medical organizations in the United States, has been making strides in advocating for the rights of LGBTQ plus individuals.
Critics argue that Walsh's comments dismiss the substantial evidence and the consensus within the medical community regarding the damaging impacts of conversion therapy.
This practice, aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, has been associated with severe psychological trauma, depression, anxiety, and long-lasting emotional distress.
Okay, a few things.
First of all, a medical consensus or a consensus in the medical community, it just doesn't mean anything anymore.
Nobody cares.
And that's not my fault.
Okay, I wish that wasn't the case.
I wish that we lived in a country where, when you hear the phrase, consensus in the medical community, it really meant something.
I wish, I deeply, deeply wish that we lived in that kind of country.
I wish that we had that kind of medical community.
Where if there was actually a consensus among them about something, you could go, oh, well, okay, I guess it's, well, that's pretty powerful.
Okay, I guess whatever they're saying is good because, you know, if they all agree, these are the experts.
I wish that we could say that.
But we can't anymore.
We can't.
And so it doesn't, it just doesn't mean anything.
And when people hear about medical consensus, they ignore it.
In fact, they laugh.
They don't just ignore it, they laugh at it.
For people on the left and in the media, this is hard for you to wrap your head around.
Because appeals to authority, that's like your only move.
That's all you have.
You have ad hominem and you have appeal to authority.
That's all you've got.
But what you have to realize is that for normal people, and not just right-wing radicals like myself, when they hear, oh, there's a consensus in the medical community, they laugh at it.
Because we know, we can look at recent examples of things that have earned a consensus in the medical community, and we know that it's total nonsense.
There was a consensus in the medical community about the efficacy of the vaccine, for example, and masks, we all remember that.
There are many different examples of a consensus in the medical community around COVID that turned out to be not correct.
There's a consent, there's essentially, there's wide agreements, apparently, in the medical community, that, you know, that it can be a good idea to chemically castrate kids.
There's also a quote-unquote consensus about that, which is why the consensus doesn't mean anything to us.
Also, second, my point about being born gay absolutely still holds, and just scoffing at it is not an argument.
The logic is simple, right?
If people are born gay, as the left claims, that means that they are gay from birth.
Like, what am I missing here?
If you're born gay, to be born something is to be that thing from birth.
If you're not that thing from birth, then you were not born it, right?
And if you are gay from birth, if you are gay at birth, from birth, then that would mean that there are homosexual infants.
And if that concept seems ridiculous to you and disturbing and just wrong, and it should seem like all those things because it is, then you apparently agree that the whole idea of being born gay is inherently flawed for that reason.
And finally, I keep hearing about the huge mounds of evidence that quote-unquote conversion therapy is horrifically damaging and harmful, but I've never seen any of this evidence, and that's because the evidence doesn't exist.
Now, yes, I think as I acknowledged at the time when we talked about this the first time, if you're talking about some kind of Archaic, weird, electroshock therapy thing from the 50s, back when psychiatrists were giving electroshocks to everybody for everything, because psychiatrists have always just been making crap up as they go, which they're still doing now.
But if you're talking about that, then yeah, that's bad.
But nobody is doing that.
Conversion therapy, so-called, in reality, in practice, what they call conversion therapy, usually just means That somebody with same-sex attraction doesn't want to have that attraction, it causes them, it disturbs them, it causes them distress, and they're not happy with it, and so they seek counseling about it.
That's what quote-unquote conversion therapy is in practice.
And when you hear about, you know, when you hear these days someone accused of engaging in conversion therapy, that's what it is.
That's all it is.
And why shouldn't people be able to do that?
I mean, the left would have us believe that it is valid for a man who doesn't want to be a man to seek counseling in an effort to become a woman.
And yet, a gay person who doesn't want to be gay should never seek counseling in an effort to become straight.
And that doesn't make, that dichotomy is completely insane.
Okay?
It is totally crazy, which is why you can't defend it.
Okay?
Someone explain to me how it could be possible for a person to change their sex.
How is it possible that sex is not immutable, but sexual orientation is?
Go ahead and lay that out for me.
You can't do it because it's nonsense.
All right, let's see how much time we have.
Okay, we got to get to the next segment, but before we do, I've ruled on this issue already in the past, but it seems necessary for me to speak up again because it is shocking to me how many people are wrong about this, how many people don't understand one of the basic rules of etiquette and of life So here's a quick viral video making the rounds right now.
It is an argument on an airplane over the issue of reclining your seat.
Let's watch.
The whole trip she pushed my seat.
No, you seen it.
No, she didn't.
She put, no.
I'm allowed to put my seat back.
Okay, so I don't know where this video is from, but it's making the rounds right now.
I don't know if it's recent or not.
I don't know any other context behind it.
I don't know who those people are.
But I think we can assume from the context that this dispute started because the woman was putting her seat back and the guy behind her did not like that.
And apparently from what I read, he was kicking the seat or something.
So it is apparently necessary, as I did on Twitter this morning, It's apparently necessary for me to stipulate once again, you do not recline your seat in coach.
Okay?
If you want the right to recline your seat, get a first class ticket.
You can recline your seat in first class.
Okay?
Because there's enough room.
And you can recline your seat without impeding the person behind you.
And also, in first class, for example, the tray table, most of the time, is not attached to the seat in front of you.
Usually, in first class, they have the tray table that comes out of the armrest, which means that if a person behind you reclines a bit, and you're trying to eat your meal on your tray table, it's not going to interfere.
But in coach, the tray table is attached to the seat behind you.
And so oftentimes if you have a tray table down and the person reclines, the tray table is not even usable anymore.
Can't use it.
And then there's the legroom issue.
Okay?
You have like two inches of legroom to spare if you're in coach.
You have barely any, barely any leg room to begin with.
You've got maybe two inches to spare.
And when I say to spare, I mean like, there's, you might, if you are, yeah, look, if you're a very short person, this might be different.
But if you are even average height, or slightly above average height, you've got where your knee ends, and then you've got maybe like two inches before it's hitting the seat in front of you.
If that person declines, that room is gone now.
And now your knee is wedged up against that person's reclined seat.
Just because, and I don't want to hear, as she's arguing, I'm allowed to recline my seat.
Yeah, you're allowed to.
Unfortunately, there's no law saying you can't.
There should be a law, but there's not.
You're allowed to do a lot of things that you still shouldn't do.
That's what etiquette is.
There is not force of law behind most rules of etiquette.
Again, if I was in charge, then it would be.
But I'm not.
Unfortunately for everybody.
But that doesn't invalidate the rule of etiquette.
You're allowed to walk through a door and shut it on the person behind you.
You're allowed to do that.
You're able to do that.
Does that mean you should do that?
Does that make it not incredibly rude to do that?
You know, here's another analogy.
For all the people that say, well, the seats can recline.
Is that how simple your mind is?
That you say, well, it can do it, so that means I should do it.
Yeah, it can do it, but you shouldn't.
Just like, take this.
Maybe you live in an apartment, okay?
You have a TV.
You're allowed to have a TV in your apartment.
That TV goes up to a certain volume, right?
It goes up to volume 75 or whatever.
So, you're allowed to have a TV.
You're allowed to be in your apartment.
The TV is, you're able to turn it all the way up.
It has that capability.
But should you put the TV on full blast so that you're disturbing the people who live around you?
No!
Even though you can, even though you're able to, you still shouldn't because it is rude to the people around you.
And when you decide to recline your seat in coach, you are making the decision to invade the personal space of the person behind you and to take what little comfort they had away from them.
And you're trying to increase your comfort by a little bit by taking the comfort away from the person behind you.
That is, by definition, a rude thing to do.
All right.
Moving on.
Actually, we're not going to move on, because as we move on to the next segment, we will stay on this very important subject.
Let's get to that now.
OK, so as I mentioned, we talked about this.
I want to say I gave my opinion on the leg room or the seat reclining issue.
I didn't give my opinion.
I stated what is a fact on Twitter this morning.
Shockingly, a large percentage of people somehow are disagreeing with me.
So I'll read a few of these comments.
She's right, Matt.
The reclining function is there to be used.
You decide or need to fly.
Bear with it.
That doesn't entitle the person behind you to push and kick the seat in front.
Abby says, seats recline a tiny amount.
It's hardly noticeable to either party.
Smooth Op says, I'm putting my **** back.
It is what it is.
I've paid for that seat and all the amenities that come with it.
Dr. Dre, I don't know if he's the one and only, says, Disagree, it only reclines about an inch and the back table is still usable.
Kara says, These seats are designed to be the smallest possible to maximize airline profits.
Why does logic always elude you, Matt?
And Aaron says, The seats only recline a couple of inches.
Stop being a drama queen.
Fly first class if you really care about legroom that much.
Number one, I do fly first class.
This is me.
I'm speaking up for the common man here.
So I'm not even personally affected by this anymore, but even so, it enrages me to know that the people back there are suffering in this way.
I almost want to give my seat up for them.
Well, no, I would never do that.
But still, I don't like to know that this kind of, that this rudeness is happening.
And also, because of the rudeness, that this great suffering is happening as well.
It only reclines a couple of inches.
That's true.
But once again, there is only a couple of inches back there to spare to begin with.
And so you're taking away what rightfully belongs to the person behind you.
Now, who's the ultimate villain in all of this?
Is it the airline?
Yes, I totally agree with that.
Okay?
The airlines, they're treating their passengers like cattle, basically, just shoving them back there.
And then on top of it, they have the recline function on the seats, which is insane.
Like, why do you even have—why are the seats able to do that?
It's crazy.
They are to blame ultimately for this, but look, we get into the plane, especially if we're sitting back in coach, you know, as they said during COVID, we're all in this together.
And we should have a lot more room.
We don't.
We shouldn't be treated like cattle, but we are.
And so we all just need to, you know, we just got to work together a little bit, okay?
You don't very often hear me with the kind of kumbaya message, but this is one of those times.
And usually when you see these incidents on planes, it's a high stress situation.
Traveling is high stress.
People are, their nerves are already frayed.
And so you just gotta, just like basic etiquette, basic politeness, be considerate to the people around you in just real basic small ways.
And there's all, you know, if there's someone on a plane that's not cooperating with that program, it's just all hell breaks loose.
So that's it.
This should be the last time that we have to talk about this.
The rule has been stated again.
You know the story, but do you know the truth?
Convicting a murderer, the new 10-part docuseries by Candace Owens and Delaware Plus has done an excellent job at convincing even the strongest of Stephen Avery supporters that he is guilty.
Candace has shed a light on the manipulation by Hollywood when depicting Stephen Avery's involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach.
If you have not seen the full series, all episodes are now available exclusively on Daily Wire.
Plus, the final episode of Convicting a Murderer reveals who the real villains of the story are.
Stephen Avery, his family, and the filmmakers who portrayed him as innocent and fooled millions of viewers.
Here's a teaser of the series.
Take a look.
We're going to direct your attention specifically to October 31st of 2005.
You need to tell us about it so we know you're telling us the truth.
So Steve stabs her first and then you cut her neck.
We sat at her house and waited for the garage door to open, hoping that she was coming back.
Garage door never opened.
It's almost as if she was murdered and then murdered again by these two documentary makers.
I love my sisters and my whole family, of course.
Well, you can binge all 10 episodes now, but only if you're a Daily Wire Plus member.
So sign up today at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch the entire series.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Well, if you keep track of the happenings over at the American Ornithological
Society, as I'm sure you do, then you already know all about the momentous
announcement the organization made this week.
But if for some reason you are not up to speed on the latest developments in the bird-watching community, then you may be in the dark about this.
And in fact...
Just now hearing that there was some kind of significant event in the ornithology space, you're probably assuming that a major bird-related breakthrough has occurred, as the American Ornithological Society discovered a new species of bird that will redefine society's expectations of what a bird can be.
Or maybe they identified a new invasive bird that's going to destroy all the crops and bring about the end of civilization.
Perhaps there's something more salacious happening in the avian world.
Maybe Taylor Swift is dating a famous bird watcher.
Maybe she's dating a bird.
These are all logical guesses.
But that is where the disappointment sets in.
It turns out the big announcement instead was this.
After more than two years of deliberation, this bird society has decided that at long last they're going to decolonize the hobby of bird watching in all related fields.
And they're going to do that by changing the names of a few dozen birds.
As USA Today reported without the slightest hint of irony or self-awareness, quote, dozens of birds to be renamed in an effort to shun racism and make science more diverse.
Now, after realizing how absurd that headline was, USA Today quickly changed it later in the day, and now the headline reads, quote, dozens of birds, including ones named after white supremacists, are being renamed.
The article goes on to explain that, quote, the society plans to remove all human names from the common names for birds within its jurisdiction to create a more inclusive environment for people of diverse backgrounds interested in birdwatching and ornithology.
The public process, yet to be fully defined, will include 70 to 80 birds in the U.S.
and Canada, according to the society.
The New York Times elaborated on the situation with their own article, quote, Advocates of this change believe that many English common names for birds are isolating and demeaning reminders of oppression, slavery, and genocide, according to a petition in 2020 that was addressed to the American Ornithological Society.
The petition was written by Bird Names for Birds, an initiative founded by two ornithologists to confront the issue of these bird names, which it describes as verbal statues.
So they're going to tear down the verbal statues, just like they tore down the actual statues.
And they'll make sure that no bird is named after a human, at least not any white human.
And that means there will be no more McCown's Long Spur.
That's a bird named after John P. McCown, who discovered it.
But John P. McCown fought for the Confederacy, and he didn't want the Seminole Indians to rule Florida, so needless to say, the name of that A particular bird needs to change.
The Scott's Oriole also needs a new identity because it was named after Winfield Scott, who relocated Indians in the 19th century in the so-called Trail of Tears.
And of course, the bird's named for John James Audubon, who basically created the whole field of modern ornithology.
And that needs to change as well because he owned slaves.
That's a big problem for the Audubon's Shearwater, which is a bird that lives off the coast of the southern United States, as I'm sure you know.
Now, it goes without saying, of course, that these bird names have caused untold trauma for bird watchers and civilians alike.
It's impossible to know just how many people have collapsed in shock and suffered heart attacks after learning that, you know, a species of North American sparrow was named after an obscure Civil War general, or that a certain type of crow bears the name of a guy who owned slaves 265 years ago, or whatever.
But we also give less thought to the birds themselves, who have for decades been saddled with these ostracizing names, and think of how difficult that must be for them.
That's why the American Ornithological Society is getting rid of these genocidal names, and instead using names that describe a bird's physical features.
Now, granted, it's only a matter of time before that becomes a problem, too.
Now, I can't think of any reason why the name Blackbird is racist, but I'm sure somebody will think of one.
It just may take a while.
Indeed, it took more than two years for these bird experts to make this decision to rename all these birds, and they still haven't renamed them, by the way.
They've just confirmed that they're going to do it.
More than two years ago, The Washington Post published a deep dive into the field of birdwatching, noting that many birds carry a, quote, racist legacy.
And now, two years later, we have some results.
Almost.
This is how long the process takes to give birds more politically correct names.
For comparison, it took less than three weeks to write the Declaration of Independence.
But then again, the Declaration of Independence is not nearly as important a document as the Declaration of Anti-Racist Bird Names from the American Ornithological Society.
Now, if you want to know more about this laborious process of identifying the racist birds, and I'm sure you do, I have a clip from the American Ornithological Society meeting two years ago, where they first discussed this issue.
The meeting was hosted by a woman named Amelia Juliet Demery, who's a member of the American Ornithological Society's Diversity and Inclusion Committee.
And yes, the American Ornithological Society really does have a Diversity and Inclusion Committee.
I'm not making that up.
Somehow I'm not making any of this up.
Now, if you thought that Regular human diversity and inclusion committees were useless?
Well, wait till you get a load of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee for Birds.
Actually, I must admit that the video of this bird diversity meeting is two hours long, and I was not committed enough to endure more than a very short snippet, so I kind of just started at a random timestamp and watched for about 90 seconds, and this is the part that I saw.
Watch.
So I'm a professional communicator and talking about birds like Bachman's Sparrow are really challenging because it looks like another sparrow.
Why should someone that doesn't think it's super cool care about this this near threatened species, right?
Well, if we could all get excited about, you know, we have to do this community education aspect to this campaign for it's now the most awesome sparrow instead of a sparrow that represents a Lutheran pastor that talked about white supremacy, then that's really cool too.
And maybe we can do really cool art and storytelling and get the community involved and talk about, again, the threats and conservation needs
that birds have.
Maybe we can talk about some of the stories and experiences that the bird community members
that aren't represented today have with this bird and all of the other ones.
I just think that it's exciting what our future could be, especially because I think the biggest opportunity is that
this could be our chance to have a concrete statement, say,
the tendrils of all social justice have reached to the point of bird names.
And we're going to do something about it.
No, it won't end racism.
It won't fix colonialism.
But it's something that we can do right now today as our community.
And the bird community is so big.
The impact of this could be massive.
That is the saddest video I've ever seen in my life.
I find it sad on such a deep level, it's hard to even express.
Now, a couple of things here.
I am not going to say anything about the guy on the lower right-hand corner.
I did just say something about him, but I'm not going to say anything else.
All I will say is that he's exactly what you imagine when you hear that birdwatchers have a diversity and inclusion committee.
Somehow that guy in particular manifests in your mind before you even see him.
And that's all I'm going to say.
Also, this fact may interest only me, but I want you to know that the title of this video on YouTube is AOS Community Congress on English Bird Names.
It is, as mentioned, two hours long.
It's been on YouTube for two years and it has 1,700 views, and it's monetized.
They are running ads on that video.
I don't know what profit potential they thought this content had, but I hope that it lived up to those expectations.
In any case, This is big stuff, the lady says.
This is massive.
This is major.
They are changing bird names.
Sure, sure, she acknowledged, it won't end racism.
It won't fix colonialism.
It won't usher in a progressive utopia on its own.
It will only get us, like, 95% of the way there.
To get us the rest of the way, we're gonna have to rename a bunch of racist insects and bugs, too.
But that would require those slackers in the Entomological Society to get their act together finally and confront this problem, and it's about time for that.
But the bird lady did say one thing worth thinking about.
She said, with great pride, that the tendrils of social justice have reached bird names.
That is, indeed, how pervasive wokeness has become.
It has reached into every corner of society and infected every institution, even organizations of bird watchers.
The revolution demands total compliance everywhere, among everyone.
Even birds are not exempt.
Everything must be brought into conformity.
Everything must be changed, redefined, renamed.
That is the dark reality underpinning this otherwise absurd and unintentionally hilarious story.
But we don't need to focus on that for now.
Instead, let's just point and laugh at this, because sometimes that's all you can do, or should do.
And we can also say to the American Ornithological Society what I never thought we'd have to say to the American Ornithological Society because, frankly, I never thought we'd have to say anything to the American Ornithological Society.
