Ep. 1256 - They Want You Dead And They Aren't Trying To Hide It
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a major publication publishes an article claiming that "MAGA Republicans" are more dangerous than Hamas. This is all part of a far ranging plan by the Left to demonize and dehumanize their political opponents. And we all know where it leads. Also, a senate Republican has been holding up senior military promotions in an effort to stop tax money from being used to facilitate abortions for military members. The battle over child gender mutilation finally makes it to the Supreme Court. And a restaurant in Georgia goes viral with a surcharge for parents.
Ep.1256
- - -
DailyWire+:
Check out Bentkey Kids Entertainment here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Wall Show, a major publication publishes an article claiming that MAGA Republicans, quote-unquote, are more dangerous than Hamas.
This is all part of a far-ranging plan by the left to dehumanize and demonize their political opponents, and we all know where it leads and where it's supposed to lead.
Also, a Senate Republican has been holding up senior military promotions in an effort to stop tax money from being used to facilitate abortions for military members.
The battle over child gender mutilation finally makes it to the Supreme Court, and a restaurant in Georgia goes viral with a surcharge for parents.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The holidays are coming up fast.
While you're out shopping for your kids, family, and friends, don't forget to shop for your pets too.
Give your dog the gift of a healthier and happier life with 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, just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat.
And that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic 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 out.
That's 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.
For nearly a month now, pretty much every college campus in the country has made it clear that decolonization means basically kill whitey.
It's long been obvious this is always what the left meant by decolonization, as I outlined on this show a few weeks ago, but after Hamas' attack on Israel, activist groups have made it explicit.
They want similar murders to happen in this country.
They don't view their enemies as human, and they basically want them exterminated.
Now, for its part, the establishment left didn't quite join in on these calls for violence, at least not directly and explicitly, but that's all starting to change, especially when you look at what was posted online at the outlet Salon yesterday, which passes for mainstream among leftists, I suppose, and it published an op-ed from a journalist named Brian Karam.
Now, in no uncertain terms, the point of this op-ed is to justify the dehumanization of conservatives, and in particular, conservative Christians.
Karim's piece is titled, MAGA AND CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM, BIGGER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN HAMAS COULD EVER BE.
This article went viral the other day.
Elon Musk tweeted about it a few times, caused a lot of outrage.
What a lot of people are missing is that this op-ed is just the latest iteration of a long line of op-eds from this same guy in Ceylon that accused conservatives of being terrorists.
In fact, just a month ago, Karim wrote a piece in Ceylon entitled, But Hamas and the GOP are both terrorist groups.
It's just a matter of degree.
Now, in that article, Karam asserted, quote, there's little or no difference between most of the GOP leadership, including Jim Jordan and Donald Trump, and the leaders of Hamas.
Both groups will do anything they can to win.
Both groups have engaged in atrocities.
Both groups continue to lie.
Both groups use human beings as hostages.
Both groups are extremely dangerous.
Both groups threaten to the world's internal and external peace.
The fact is, many Americans viscerally understand this.
Donald Trump and his followers are terrorists.
And of course, you listen to that and you wonder, well, when has Donald Trump held people hostage?
What atrocities did he commit?
As melodramatic and deranged as that op-ed was, no one paid any attention to it whatsoever.
So this week, Karam basically rewrote the same article, except he added a little more bite to it this time around.
Before I get any further into specifics of this unhinged screed, it's important to emphasize a couple things.
First of all, Karam is not an intern or a random troll or anything like that.
He is the former senior White House correspondent for Playboy, and for years he's been a credentialed member of the White House press pool.
This is one of the most coveted positions among mainstream journalists.
Back when we had journalistic standards, it used to mean something to be a White House correspondent.
But we don't have journalistic standards anymore, and so Brian Karam is free to publish op-eds saying that his domestic political opponents are worse than Hamas terrorists who kill civilians while retaining his White House press credentials.
In a serious country, if you write something like that, you're not going to be invited into the White House press pool.
But, again, we're not a serious country.
The other important point to emphasize is that While I'm going to refer to Karam's writing specifically in this monologue, he's far from the only prominent figure on the left who feels this way.
First of all, whatever editors still work at Salon had to approve his pieces and publish them.
But more to the point, the leaders of the Democratic Party have been demonizing their political opponents using these terms and in this way for years, and doing it in ways that are not that dissimilar to what Karam is doing.
It was just a year ago, who could forget that Joe Biden all but declared war on quote-unquote MAGA Republicans, calling them a threat to democracy for disagreeing with him.
Let's relive that moment together.
Too much of what's happening in our country today is not normal.
Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.
I want to be very clear, very clear up front.
Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans are MAGA Republicans.
Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.
I know, because I've been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
But there's no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans.
And that is a threat to this country.
So there's Joe Biden doing something, by the way, that we're used to it now from him, but that is that is unprecedented and that presidents don't generally do, which is openly demonizing not just political opponents.
I mean, that's been done before.
But but voters like normal voters, MAGA Republicans, of course, include Donald Trump supporters and there's millions of them.
That's something Donald Trump himself never did.
He never demonized voters.
He demonizes or he attacks people who attack him, especially politicians and celebrities and those sorts of people.
He doesn't go after normal voters.
Joe Biden does.
So there he is, standing in front of the Marines with the blood red backdrop, shaking his fists and telling the country that democracy means voting for Joe Biden.
Everyone who doesn't vote for Joe Biden, by contrast, is a terrorist.
We saw that kind of rhetoric constantly last year, around the same time as Joe Biden's diatribe about MAGA Republicans.
Various outlets, including the Daily Beast, labeled me a stochastic terrorist.
They used the same term to describe lives of TikTok and many others.
And it's a term that means nothing, basically, but sounds vaguely intelligent, I guess, so you hear it all the time now.
It also has very clear implications.
You know, everyone instinctively agrees that terrorists should be killed.
They're a threat to the country.
So, when you call someone a terrorist, well, it's not hard to connect the dots.
But this salon piece still stands out for how blatant and flagrant it is.
Here's how the piece begins.
Quote, The House of Representatives, now run by Mike Johnson, offers a discount version of the apocalyptic orgasm that Holy Rollers have dreamed of for years.
They've renewed the Inquisition and seem determined to convert the U.S.
into a theocracy run by people who will thump you with the Bible but haven't read much of it.
Now, at this point, you're probably wondering, where has that happened?
Like, what is he talking about?
Where have Republicans done anything that could be remotely compared to the Inquisition?
Now, of course, the Inquisition gets a bad rap anyway, but that's a topic for a different day.
But in what way is Mike Johnson ushering in a theocracy?
Is he proposing making church attendance compulsory?
Has he tried to pass a law forbidding the practice of non-Christian religions?
Has he burned any atheists at the stake recently?
As far as I know, the answer is no on all accounts.
It appears that he has earned the label of theocrat simply because he's a Christian with conservative political views.
And that might not seem like a big deal to you if you're a well-adjusted sane person, but the left-wing media, of course, is comprised of people who are neither of those things.
And for a long time now, Brian Karam specifically has viewed Christians who hold conservative political views as demonic.
Here he was in the White House Rose Garden just a couple of years ago during the Trump presidency explaining that conservatives are, quote, eager for demonic possession.
Watch.
Don't be sad.
Don't be sad.
No, I'm just standing alone.
This is a group of people that are eager for demonic possession.
-Demonic. -You're a journalist, right?
-Yeah. -You call yourself a journalist.
Yeah, you're crediting me now in the White House.
In the "Road Scoff." You're crediting me in the "Road Scoff."
You are a punk! You're not a journalist.
You're a punk! -You're a god-forsaken journalist.
-You're a god-forsaken journalist. -You're a god-forsaken journalist.
-Good job. -You should stop.
You're a god-forsaken journalist.
Just for the record, he'd kick your punk ass.
And that's a measure of everything.
He's a real journalist, thank you.
I'm not exactly sure what eager for demonic possession is even supposed to mean, to be
But at the time, you know, a handful of commentators chastised Brian Karam for acting out.
They praised Sebastian Gorka for putting him in his place.
But in reality, his outburst was a revealing moment.
He was echoing an increasingly common view on the left, which is that conservatives, in particular Christians, need to be eliminated.
They need to be exercised.
This is a view that wasn't advertised widely a couple of years ago, but you see it all over the place now.
A couple of days ago, for example, Rolling Stone ran a detailed hit piece on Johnson, focusing on his work at Alliance Defending Freedom for nearly a decade.
In that capacity, Johnson advanced legal positions that are completely consistent with his faith.
He opposed his faith.
He opposed sodomy.
He rejected the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.
And he wrote an op-ed predicting, correctly, that the so-called LGBTQ movement left unchallenged will be, quote, the harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.
Now, you could disagree with Mike Johnson's views, but there's no denying that every single one of them is consistent with a Christian worldview.
He was also undeniably correct in that prediction, as recent events have repeatedly shown.
In fact, his views are completely consistent with the Democratic Party's platform circa about 2006.
The 2008 version of Barack Obama wouldn't take issue with any of it.
At least not publicly.
And yet, back when most people thought like this across the political spectrum, we were not living, as the media now predicts, in a theocratic, dystopian wasteland.
In fact, most people would agree we were living in, by almost every measure, a better country.
Now, Karen's piece doesn't grapple with any of this.
Instead, in something of a manic rage, he goes on to ramble about everything from Israel bombing a refugee camp in Gaza to artificial intelligence to the dangers of climate change.
Quote, That is our world today.
It took an asteroid the size of a modern city to wipe out the dinosaurs.
People, being smarter than dinosaurs, have figured out how to destroy everything all by ourselves.
Climate change is slowly creeping up on us, and we are killing each other at an increasing rate.
It took a Category 5 hurricane to kill 40-odd people in Acapulco last week.
We killed that many in two mass shootings in the U.S.
in about the same amount of time and spared the property.
Pogo was right.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Now I'll pause here to note, as I did a few days ago, that when the left talks about mass shootings, they love to imply that it's always quote-unquote MAGA Republicans who are doing the shooting.
Get a lot of mileage out of that, but that's almost never the case in the overwhelming number of cases, including one of the shootings that Karam appears to be referencing there.
These mass shootings are taking place in overwhelmingly black neighborhoods.
More than a dozen people were shot by a felon at a Halloween party in Chicago just a couple of days ago.
You probably didn't hear much about that in the media, but it did happen.
That's a mass shooting.
But we don't talk about it as much because it's not the result of Christianity or Christian nationalism or Trump supporters or MAGA Republicans.
Maybe the reason the media buries any mention of these mass shootings in black communities is that if they covered them, then everyone would realize what an absurd and counterfactual talking point all of this is.
But even if you accept everything that Karam says, even if you suspend reality for a second and agree that MAGA Republicans are somehow doing all these mass shootings, it still wouldn't come close to supporting his thesis, which is that conservatives are a terrorist group that are more dangerous to Americans than Hamas.
There are well over 200 million Christians in this country.
If you polled those Christians, you would find 0% support for murdering non-believers.
Like, literally 0%.
There would not be any enthusiasm at all for gunning down elderly women at bus stops.
By contrast, the founding charter of Hamas calls for genocide.
Every single militant of Hamas wants to murder non-Muslims, and in particular, Jews.
And as we've learned recently, some of these militants could easily be entering this country through the southern border.
Now, of course, the media knows this.
Brian Karam knows that.
So do his editors, and so does the rest of the media.
The reason there will be no condemnation from anyone, from the left-wing media, to the White House press corps, to the Biden administration, is that they understand what he's really getting at here.
He's not really trying to make any meaningful point about Hamas or artificial intelligence or climate change.
He's trying to communicate the same message that Joe Biden did one year ago, except he's putting a finer point on it.
And that message is that many on the left want their political opponents to be eliminated, to die.
They don't just want them to lose elections.
They don't just want to censor them.
They want to dehumanize them.
Criminalize them.
And worse.
A lot worse.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Balance of nature fruits and veggies are a great way to make sure you're getting
essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Balance of Nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process to preserve the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients of the fruits and vegetables that they use.
The capsules are whole food supplements with no additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in their capsules is pure fruits and vegetables.
Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the studio for my team to try.
We all love them.
With Balance of Nature, I get the nutrition of over 10 servings of fruit and vegetable in just a few easy-to-swallow capsules.
No matter what my day looks like, I start my each morning with Balance of Nature fruits and veggies.
When you're disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all kinds of benefits.
Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
That's balanceofnature.com promo code WALSH for 35% off your first preferred order.
Here's a report from the New York Times.
Senate Democrats are trying a novel strategy to break Senator Tommy Tuberville's blockade of senior military promotions as pressure builds among his fellow Republicans and Defense Department officials to end his months-long hold in protest of the Pentagon's abortion access policies.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, and the majority leader said on Wednesday
that he would seek to temporarily go around the chamber's rules to allow confirmation
of almost all military nominees as a block.
A vote could take place as soon as next week.
That would restore what had been routine practice in the Senate before Mr. Tuberville and Alabama Republican
in February held up a package of officer promotions over a Pentagon policy offering time off
and travel reimbursement to service members seeking abortions or fertility care.
-By the way, Tuberville's issue is with the abortion part, not the fertility care.
In fact, I'd be quite sure that if there was a deal struck and said, all right, we won't offer reimbursements for abortion, but we still will for fertility treatments, I could be 100% certain that Tuberville would say, okay.
Because not only are abortions and fertility care not the same thing, they are, in fact, opposite things.
While it's not clear that Mr. Schumer will have the support for his maneuver, he announced that he would attempt it amid mounting frustration among Republicans and at the Defense Department about Mr. Tuberville's nine-month blockade.
And this, as it mentions, you know, is frustration that includes Republicans.
So Tuberville is holding up military promotions, senior military promotions, because of the military's policy that would offer reimbursements, tax-funded reimbursements, to female military members who want to travel to kill their babies.
Now, even if you didn't know the details about the thing that Tuberville is objecting to, even if you had no additional information about it, you would already know that he must be doing something right if the Pentagon, Democrats, and, like, Lindsey Graham object to it.
So he has upset the unholy trinity of establishment, sort of the unholy establishment trinity here, which means that he must be really on to something.
And then, when you find out the details, it becomes even more clear just how right he is.
Before we talk more about that, let's listen to Lindsey Graham.
As mentioned, he was on the floor of the Senate this week.
He's very upset that Tuberville is blocking these promotions in an effort to stop this policy of funding the abortions.
And here is Lindsey Graham issuing this objection.
Let's watch.
It's about keeping politics out of the military.
I did not put it in the military.
Joe Biden and Secretary Austin put politics in the military.
And it's about the right to life.
These are some of the most important things in the world to me.
And so, Mr. President, I object.
Objection is heard.
Mr. President.
Senator from South Carolina.
Yeah, I'll have another one.
Let me respond to my colleague respectfully.
We have courts.
If you think they've done something illegal, go to court.
That's how you handle these things.
The Pentagon has issued a legal opinion I disagree with, saying this doesn't violate the Hyde Amendment.
I disagree with it.
Here's what's going to happen.
You've just denied this lady a promotion.
You did that.
All of us are ready to promote her because she deserves to be promoted.
She had nothing to do with this policy.
Let me say it again.
Everybody in this body could find an issue with any administration they don't agree with.
And what we're going to do is open up Pandora's box.
Today is abortion policy.
If we take back the White House, we'll go back to the Mexico City policy, limiting dollars to be given to overseas entities that are engaged in the abortion business.
Some pro-choice people don't like that.
What would happen if they put a hold on all the officers because they don't agree with the Republican administration?
Well, first of all, Lindsey, what will happen is...
Will Democrats do that in response to Tuberville blocking these promotions?
No, they'll just do it anyway.
If they decide they want to do it, they will do it anyway.
They're not waiting for permission from Republicans.
They don't need to have the precedent of Republicans doing something in order for them to do it.
So if they decide that they Want to advance their baby-killing agenda, and it will help them in some way, you know, and holding up military promotions as a way that they could do that, then they'll do it!
But oh no, it's a Pandora's box!
What a disaster!
You know, they want to put another middle-aged woman into a senior military position, and they won't be able to now for... they haven't been able to for a few months now!
It's the end of the world!
Or is it really?
Like, what exactly is the implication here?
What is the worst case scenario?
How are we greatly endangered if senior military promotions are held up for a little bit?
Why does that matter?
They'll just tell me that it's a disaster!
They're not getting their promotions!
So?
Why do I care?
What does that matter?
Some glorified bureaucrats won't get their promotions?
So what?
And by the way, senior military officials haven't done much good for this country in, I don't know, decades?
These people have actively made the country less safe, more broke, weaker, etc.
When's the last time you heard a story about a senior military official doing something good?
Like, when's the last time you said to yourself, man, thank God for those senior military officials.
They're doing a great job.
Now, I don't know who that woman was that he was waving around there.
He says that she earned the promotion.
Did she earn it?
I don't know.
What did she do?
What did she do to earn the promotion?
How did she earn it?
Because there are certainly a lot of women earning senior military positions these days.
Almost as if they aren't earning the positions at all, but they're just being given those positions for political reasons.
And regardless, okay, even if All of these senior military officials are a bunch of wonderful, competent patriots and not the left-wing bureaucrats that they almost certainly are.
Still, that wouldn't change anything or make Tuberville any less right or righteous in his stance.
It is an absolute disgrace to force taxpayers to pay for military members to get abortions.
We should be paying military members to protect innocent life, not destroy it.
And this is not only wrong, but it's the kind of thing that severely compromises whatever moral authority we think we have on the world stage.
I mean, is our military supposed to be the guardians of truth and justice and freedom, even as we use tax money to help them murder their own children?
It's a joke.
It's a sick joke.
And you know what?
The justification for this, what we're told by the left, like why we need to have this policy of helping to facilitate the abortions for female service members, we're told that, hey, if we don't have this policy, then it's impossible for women to be in the military.
Now, I don't think that's true, actually.
I think that it's quite possible for women to be in the military without having tax funds facilitating their abortions.
Let's go for that.
Let's go with that for a second.
If you tell me that there is no way to have women in the military without also paying to facilitate their abortions, if that is a requirement of entry, well then I guess we need to get the women the hell out of the military.
Like, that's an easy choice.
Pretty easy solution in that case.
If you're making me choose between dead babies or an all-male military, well, that's no choice at all.
I'll take the all-male military.
In fact, I'll take that regardless of the abortion issue.
But I'll especially take it when you factor this in.
So, Tuberville is 100% right.
And the fact that he does not have... The fact that he doesn't have 100% support from his fellow Republicans just shows you how utterly worthless these people are.
This should be obvious.
The stance from every Republican should be, we're not doing a damn thing.
If there is one single dime of tax money being used to help facilitate an abortion, we're not doing anything.
We're not funding a single damn thing until that's gone.
It is a, you should consider it a scandal of immense historic proportions for even one dime to be taken out of the pocket of a taxpayer and given to someone to help them kill their kid.
That's how you should view it.
But most Republicans don't view it that way because they don't care.
They just don't care about any of this.
Totally worthless.
All right, I wanted to mention something about this.
There's been a lot of talk on Twitter, though I imagine probably nowhere else, about Ron DeSantis and his boots.
And not something I really wanted to talk about either, but it's just...
Eventually, I get baited into talking about things when I get so annoyed by them, and so here we are.
For a long time, DeSantis's opponents have accused him of putting lifts in his boots to make himself taller, and this has been a meme for a while.
DeSantis never addressed it, and I don't know if it's true or not, obviously, but that's the claim.
And then he appeared on the podcast of Patrick Bet-David, and Patrick Bet-David brought it up, brought up this issue of the boots.
And kind of made fun of DeSantis, and then made a big show of giving DeSantis new shoes.
Right?
To make a joke about the lifts in the shoes.
And you know...
I have to say, I have no issue with Patrick Bet-David.
I have no problem with him.
But it is a low move to do that.
And you're bringing a guy on your show, and you're just embarrassing him.
And we could be fairly certain that he would never do anything like that if Trump was on the show, right?
Like, he's not going to ask Trump about his makeup and then give Trump a gift of makeup remover.
He would never do that.
Now, if he would, and if he has, then I will amend, you know, if it's just like this, well, yeah, this is what we do on this podcast.
And you come on and you're a politician, we're going to embarrass you.
That's what we're going to do.
And if that's like a general policy, then okay.
In fact, I could, I could, I could quite respect that.
If it's a general policy and you do it to everybody, when you do it to every politician, rather, but I don't think it is.
And I don't think that would ever happen.
So, that's the first problem.
And you know, here's the other thing, if he did that, most of the people laughing about this boot stuff, you know, the Trump supporters, so imagine Donald Trump goes on a podcast, the podcaster says, you know, people say you wear a lot of makeup, is that true?
Here's a gift I got you, a little gift bag, makeup remover.
If a podcaster were to do that, Of course, we know that the Trump supporters that are laughing at the boot thing, they would be furious.
Like, they would be apoplectic about it.
They would say that this podcaster is, you know, they would want nothing to do with him.
They would say that this is an irrelevant issue, you're mocking, you're being disrespectful, you're only doing that because you don't want to talk about the issues, so on and so forth.
So we know all that, right?
We know that's how that would go.
And that is one of the seemingly kind of unspoken things here.
You know, if it's true that DeSantis wears lifts in his boots—I don't know if it is—it is also definitely the kind of thing that Trump would do.
I mean, he wouldn't do that specific thing because he's tall, and so he wouldn't do that.
He wouldn't need to.
But we all know that just in general, doing something to— You know, accommodate for what you consider to be a physical flaw or whatever.
Like, sure, Trump would.
You know, Trump wears makeup.
You know, we know he does something about his hairline.
He takes something.
That's why he has so much hair at 80 years old.
And I don't care about any of that.
Okay?
To be clear.
I don't care.
And if you're on TV a lot, and you're being judged based on appearance, you do things like that.
I don't care.
It's fine.
Just like if it's true that DeSantis wears lifts in the booths.
Doesn't matter to me.
I don't care.
I'm just saying that all of these things, the hair, the makeup, the lifts in the boots, if that's even true, they're all in the same category, okay?
They're all the same kind of thing.
And you're just a ridiculous hypocrite if you laugh about one but pretend that the other doesn't matter.
It's all the same thing.
It's all the same sort of thing.
Anyway, here is DeSantis talking about this on, I think this is Newsmax.
Can we do this?
Can we get this off the table first?
I've been watching over the last, I don't know, maybe 10 days or so, and there are these gotcha people.
These people who just want to sit there and they want to talk about how tall you are, whether you're wearing boots with, what do they call it, heel extenders inside.
I mean, Governor, the southern border is a disaster.
Terrorists are coming across the border.
We got two wars that we're kind of funding, and they want to talk about how tall you are.
Look, Eric, this is no time for foot fetishes.
We've got serious problems as a country.
We've got war in the Middle East.
We've got terrorists coming across our own southern border.
We have an American dream that's out of reach for millions of Americans because of the Bidenflation and the high energy prices.
We've got schools that are indoctrinating kids, not educating kids.
And we've got cities that are being overrun by crime.
And I know people want to try to divert onto other issues.
I know Donald Trump and a lot of his people have been focusing on things like footwear.
I'll tell you this, you know, if Donald Trump can summon the balls to show up to the debate, I'll wear a boot on my head.
This is a time for substance.
This is a time for us to debate the issues that matter.
And he's right, obviously.
This is not even on a list of the top one million most important issues to be discussing, and the best thing that DeSantis can do is ignore it.
Obviously, in this case, and on the podcast, he was asked about it, so it was brought up.
He has to say something, so you can't blame him for that.
But the mistake from DeSantis would be to in any way lean into this or bring it up himself
because he thinks it makes Trump look petty or whatever.
I don't think he's going to do that.
He hasn't yet.
But that's what they're trying to bait him into.
It's a very obvious strategy.
That's what they're trying to get him off on this kind of topic.
Because we know how that worked out in 2016.
This is just a replay of 2016, playing the greatest hits.
And 2016 was the same thing, where Trump would go after his opponents for these petty and ridiculous reasons, making fun of their physical features and everything else.
Baiting them, trying to bait them to respond in kind.
And then we know that when that happened, Rubio in particular, it never worked out well for the non-Trump person.
Because in that game, just the way it is, that's a game, if you play it with Trump, he automatically wins.
And so that's the strategy here.
And look, the other thing is, Ron DeSantis remains the best governor of my lifetime.
I don't know who else is even competing.
Look, there are a few other governors, past and present, who would be in that conversation, but it's a very, very short list, okay?
It's a list with only a few names on it.
And it really tells you everything you need to know about the modern American conservative movement that the best governor of a generation comes along and a lot of right-wingers are like, yeah, but he's short though!
Ha!
Got him!
You've got someone who's like moving the ball in really substantial ways and landing blows on the left and not just through tweets, not just through media hits, but like Through legislation, through wielding his power as a governor.
And he's doing all that, and then you've got some right-wingers who are saying, look how short he is.
Am I right?
You're just not serious about saving the country.
You're not serious.
It's a game to you.
I can't afford to see any of this as a game because I have a family to take care of that has to live in this country.
But it kind of tells you everything you need to know, I suppose.
All right.
It's a great situation, isn't it?
I mean, we've got establishment Republicans in Washington who are...
Insisting that we have to continue funding abortions because otherwise, you know, these women will not get their military promotions.
And then we've got other right-wingers who are busy talking about how tall DeSantis is and whether he has lifts in his boots.
I mean, this is the state of conservatism right now.
It's fantastic.
I want to briefly mention this.
USA Today says a years-long legal battle over gender-affirming care for transgender young people has reached the Supreme Court, handing the justice an opportunity to resolve a dispute that has divided lower federal courts and emerged as a leading front in the fight for LGBTQ plus rights.
The parents of the three transgender children are asking the Supreme Court in an appeal filed Wednesday to block a Tennessee law signed by Republican Governor Bill Lee in March that bans all medical treatment for gender dysphoria in adolescents, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
This is great.
I'm very excited about this.
And this was inevitable.
We knew this was going to happen.
We knew it was going to go to the Supreme Court.
And all I could say is, like, let's do this.
Yeah.
Yes.
Let's have this fight in the Supreme Court.
I don't want to get too cocky, because I'm not going to pretend that I have 100% confidence in the Supreme Court with its current makeup to get this issue right.
But I am pretty confident.
I'm pretty confident that they will not come down on the side of saying that parents have a constitutional right to have their kids castrated and mutilated.
I'm pretty confident that won't happen.
Now, they could always punt the issue in some ways.
They could refuse to take it up.
I mean, there are a lot of things that could happen that are probably more likely.
But if they take up this issue, And they issue any kind of actual ruling on it.
I feel substantially confident that they'll get it right.
Because in truth, with the rights claims here, and whose rights are being infringed on, well, no, parents do not have any constitutional rights.
You don't have a constitutional right as a parent to abuse your children.
Period.
That is not a constitutional right that you have.
And mutilating and castrating a child is certainly abuse, and so that's not a constitutional right.
On the other hand, children have a constitutional right to not be treated that way.
Children have a constitutional right, have a human right, to be free from that kind of treatment.
And I guess, hopefully now, this will be an argument that happens in the Supreme Court.
But before we get to the next segment, here's a report from an outlet called Atlanta News First, in Georgia obviously, about a restaurant that has created controversy because of a fee that they have passed down for bad parenting.
Let's watch a little bit of this.
A North Georgia restaurant going viral on social media for having what's called a parent surcharge on their menu.
This is pretty interesting.
The charge, according to the restaurant, is for adults who can't parent their children.
Atlanta News First reporter Amanda Rose spoke to the restaurant today on Aska Road in Blue Ridge after a bad online review sparked a national conversation.
I've never left a review in my life of a business.
When I left there, we were leaving reviews.
Brian Carciolo is still in disbelief after what he calls a nightmare experience at Takoa Riverside Restaurant in Blue Ridge.
The restaurant now gaining national attention for one star reviews left by Carciolo's friends online who say the restaurant wanted them to pay extra for bad parenting.
He basically said he has raised his children.
He's not going to raise ours.
Carciolo, a restaurant owner who lives in Central Florida, says five families, including his own, visited the restaurant on vacation with 11 children, all under the age of eight.
After finishing their meal, Carciolo says someone from the restaurant made a surprise visit to their table, saying the group should pay a parent surcharge.
The fee is listed on the restaurant's menu, next to three dollar signs and the words, unable to parent.
Carciolo says he thought it was a joke.
The owner tells me he's had this parent surcharge on the menu since the pandemic, but he's never had to enforce it on any of his customers.
He wants to emphasize that the charge is not for kids, but for adults who don't know how to parent.
The restaurant says they never charged Carciolo and the others the fee, but they told us the group had to be quote, really bad for them to bring it up at all.
A representative for the restaurant went on to say there's nothing wrong with kids and families coming to the restaurant, but kids running wild through the dining room is So, you get the basic idea.
I'll admit, that's a good line.
I raised my own kids, I'm not going to raise yours.
Let's try to sort through this.
We have the restaurant saying that kids are running wild.
We have the parents saying the restaurant owners are rude and nasty, and that their kids are not running wild, but they're being discriminated against, you know, just because they have a large family.
So, we'll try to figure this out.
Is that one of these angry reviews from a parent says that the owner told them that it is a fancy restaurant and you can't have kids acting up in a fancy restaurant.
But, it's actually an important point that, like, we saw the outside of this place, that ain't fancy.
Okay?
Like, when you have an ATM sign outside of your restaurant, that's a telltale sign that it is not a fancy place.
When there's a sign that says, ice cream and t-shirts, which there is outside of that place, and candy, they have a sign saying candy outside of the place, that is, uh, that's a very good indication that it's not a fancy place.
In fact, as a parent, If I am in an unfamiliar area looking for somewhere to eat with my kids, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for to tell me that it is a family-friendly, non-fancy place.
If I'm driving by and I see that place and my kids are hungry and I'm just visiting and I don't know what's around, and I see that place, I'm like, oh yeah, we're good all day.
This is where we need to be.
I mean, this is obviously a place where you could bring your family.
This is not a fancy place.
You can just tell from the outside.
So, you just can't have a place like that and then expect that people won't bring their kids.
It's like opening up a mini golf course and then getting annoyed when a bunch of kids show up.
It's like, what did you expect?
And this is a point for customers too, by the way.
Because there are certain kinds of diners who get very annoyed sharing a restaurant with children.
And fine, if that's how you feel, fine.
But the point is you can certainly avoid kids at a restaurant, you just need to go to a place
where the entrees are $25 or more on average per plate.
Probably even $20 or more per plate is enough.
No kids menu, $20, $30 entrees.
Guarantee you're gonna see very few kids in a place like that, 'cause that's just,
you're not gonna bring your family.
I'm not going to bring my kids.
I'm not spending $200 on a family dinner.
So if you want to avoid kids, pay up.
Go to a more expensive place.
Go to an actual nice restaurant, and then it'll be kid-free pretty much at any time of day.
But you can't go to an affordable place and then get mad when families are there, because those places are for us, mainly.
Where else do you expect us to go?
Are we not supposed to go to any restaurants?
Now that said, if these families were actually being obnoxious, if the kids were running wild, then sure, I support the owners putting their foot down.
Letting your kids run around a restaurant is crazy.
Most parents don't do that.
I've very rarely seen anything like that at a restaurant.
I've been in many restaurants where there are kids, and I've very rarely seen kids literally running around the restaurant like it's a jungle gym.
Every once in a while, but it's a pretty rare occurrence.
And if that happens, then yeah, I think for the owner to say something is perfectly fine.
But here's my question.
Why don't you have A surcharge for obnoxious people.
Why not have a rule that if your table is disruptive, then you will be charged more?
A disruption fee.
Not only would I be fine with that, I would love to eat at a place that has a rule like that.
I would support it.
I'd go to that place every week.
I'd give that place money even if I'm not eating there.
Just a donation.
And I've been in plenty of restaurants and other public situations where adults are being disruptive and obnoxious.
That happens too, all the time.
So my question is, why are you singling out parents?
Why not just, if you have an issue with people being disruptive, just, it's a disruptive table, we charge you a fee.
It doesn't matter why you're being disruptive.
It doesn't matter if it's a kid, an adult, whatever.
So the fact that they're singling out parents, that tells me that this guy really does just have a problem with kids.
He wants to have his cheap restaurant with the ATM machine and ice cream and t-shirts and candy, but he doesn't really want families.
Even though without families, his place would go bankrupt.
So, ultimately, he is the a**hole.
Turned into an M.I.
the a**hole, I guess.
Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a beard.
♪ Hey, we're the sweet baby gang ♪ - Hugh says, "I remember Steve Harvey said in an interview
"that everyone should find a way "to fly first class one time."
They'll enjoy it so much, they'll work their butt off to be successful and always fly that way.
I would recommend the opposite.
I mean, if you want to make yourself miserable, even more miserable flying, then you should do that.
I understand the motivation that's supposed to be behind it, but it's just, that's a high risk situation because if you fly first class one time, And then for the rest of the time you go back to coach.
You've just made coach so much more miserable when you see what you're missing out on.
And by the way, first class is not even... First class is just normal.
First class is what normal should be.
It's not even... Unless you're flying first class on some overseas, international flight, where they got the pod and all that, and they give you your own pajamas to sleep in, and that sort of thing, and they're really pampering you.
But usually, on just your standard United first class experience, it's really just what a flight should be for everyone.
You're just treated like a normal person, really.
You have a normal human amount of leg room, And maybe they give you some food.
They don't even do that a lot of times in first class.
So, it's actually just what flying should be for everybody.
But that said, it is way better.
I mean, it is way better than coach.
What I'm saying is that you don't... To experience it and then go back to coach makes it so much worse.
Which is why I tell people this about everything.
Like, don't... Don't go eat, even to treat yourself, at a super nice steak restaurant.
If you can't afford to eat there all the time, because here's what's going to happen.
Once you experience, once you know what a $75 steak tastes like, you'll never be able to go back to Outback again.
You'll have ruined Outback for yourself.
If you never experienced that, then Outback is great.
And so, let it be great.
Um, that's my recommendation.
You just, you want those, you want those kind of frills in life.
You want, you want to, you want to, you want those, the frills to kind of move up along with your income level.
You don't want to jump ahead and then just make yourself miserable is what I would say.
Eminem says, Matt, you have repeatedly stated the middle seat in coach has no human rights.
This applies to all of coach.
Coach passengers are essentially cattle, as you said.
If there are no human rights, there are no expectations for etiquette.
No, I never said coach passengers are cattle.
I said they're treated as cattle.
Treated as cattle, they shouldn't be.
No, the middle seat.
I'm not going to allow you to let middle seat off the hook.
This is a distinction that belongs to the middle seat.
If you live in the middle, if you are sitting in the middle seat, then you have no human rights.
You have no right to any armrest.
You have no right to anything, really, in the middle seat.
That's just how it is.
And it's got nothing to do, a lot of times you end up in the middle seat by accident.
Like it might not even, it's not even your fault.
It's just luck of the draw.
But that's where you are.
And that's, you have to abide by the rules of the middle seat.
Andrew says, my guess is thefts have risen so much across the country that the cost of stolen goods is starting to outweigh the cost of cashier salaries.
Talking about self-checkout.
Well, yeah, this is one of the problems with self-checkout.
They make it so easy to steal, especially when they make no real effort to check the receipts at all.
It's like amazing how lackadaisical these places are about that.
Just the other day, I went through I was leaving, I set off the alarms, I don't know why, and the guy comes over and he glances at the receipt.
He does this.
Okay.
I've got probably, I don't know, 25 items in my cart.
Are you going to make any effort to check?
I am not even as confident that I didn't steal something as you are.
I am more suspicious of myself in this moment than you are apparently.
Especially when you've got kids.
Like, you never know, you know, maybe one of your kids took something and put it in their pocket.
Who knows?
Or they put something in the cart and you didn't see it.
Like, those kinds of things can happen.
But the problem is you also have people, you've got people guarding the doors at these places, and they're getting paid minimum wage, and they don't care at all whether you stole.
It just doesn't matter to them.
It's not any skin off their back.
And so they have no stake in it.
And that's part of the issue here.
John says, here's the deal.
We live in a society where human interaction is rapidly disappearing.
Many people spend their days now doing their jobs at home.
These same people now jump into their automobile to go shop for groceries.
Jump into their automobile?
I just called a car.
Anyway.
Run through self-checkout, drive home.
No meaningful human interaction.
We are social creatures.
We need to interact with other people.
Before long, we live in a totally automated society where nobody runs anything.
We'll be devoid of a large part of what makes us human.
Yeah.
But still.
I mean, you're right, objectively.
But I still don't want to talk to people.
So, you're probably right, though.
I just don't want to talk to people.
You're correct.
I actually recognize that for society and for humanity, the more that things are automated, even when you go into a fast food restaurant now, you could go to McDonald's and they've got the screen there.
You just do the touchscreen and order the food yourself.
And one of the problems there is you're touching the same thing that all these other greasy-handed people have touched, and it's disgusting that you're going to eat your food.
So everywhere you go now, everything's automated.
Of course, we all know that.
And is this a positive development for society?
Almost certainly not.
There's fewer jobs for people.
And then also, as you point out, it's less and less human interaction.
But at the same time, I will almost always choose the automated option because I don't actually want to talk to people.
But I guess I should probably be forced to.
Like, there should be more situations in life where I am forced to interact with people.
You have to force me to do it.
I can't believe I'm saying that, but it's true.
Well, you've been asking us for an alternative in kids media, and now it's finally here.
The Daily Wire just launched BentKey, our brand new kids entertainment platform.
We're all sick of Hollywood pushing leftist propaganda on our kids, and now there's finally an answer for those of us looking for children's shows that we can trust.
This is exactly what parents have been waiting for.
I don't just say that as someone who works for Daily Wire, I say that because I am one of those parents who wants to protect their kids from corporate media agendas that don't align with values that I want to teach them.
The content is absolutely amazing.
It's high quality.
It's fun.
My kids really love it.
It totally exceeded my expectations, and my expectations were already really high.
So if you're already a Daily Wire Plus member, you already have Ben Key, just download the app to start streaming now.
If you're not a member, there's no better time.
To join them right now.
You get all the Daily Wire Plus content that you know and love, plus bent key at no additional cost.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now to start streaming the next generation of kids entertainment.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Today for our Daily Cancellation we refer again to our dear friends over at the gay
news site Pink News where all the most important reporting happens.
And the big headline this week is no exception.
Pink News reports, only one in six asexual people have had a universally positive experience of being out.
New research highlighting the negative experiences of ace people in healthcare, work, and society has shown.
A joint collaboration between Stonewall and asexual activist and researcher Yasmin Benoit Yes, this is the oppressive reality that asexual people, ace people as they're called apparently, face in this world.
This is how difficult their lives are, how painful.
little fluctuating or no sexual attraction and how discrimination has
impacted their lives. Yes, this is the oppressive reality that asexual people,
ace people as they're called apparently, face in this world.
This is how difficult their lives are, how painful. It is so bad that
five out of six asexual people have not had a universally positive
experience. Can you imagine that?
Can you even fathom?
Well, actually, yes, you can imagine, because this is the experience of literally everyone on Earth, in literally all contexts, when it comes to literally all experiences.
Nobody has a universally positive experience of anything.
There is no such thing as a universally positive experience.
That is a type of experience that does not exist in the universe.
Life itself is not universally positive, not even close.
Life is a mixed bag.
All aspects of life are a mixed bag.
So, welcome to the experience of being human, asexuals.
What did you expect?
Can you imagine complaining that your experience is not universally positive?
Did you actually think that it would be?
Well, maybe they had reason to expect that, because according to this poll, nearly 20% of asexuals, in fact, do have a universally positive experience.
This is an astoundingly high number.
That would mean that self-identified asexuals have the easiest lives out of any group on the planet, I guess.
Because nobody has a universally positive experience of anything except for these 20% of asexuals.
We're supposed to come away convinced that asexuals are especially persecuted, but really this report has shown very much the opposite.
So let's continue.
Due to many factors, ace people are less likely than other groups to be open about their identity with friends and family.
Negative reactions include inappropriate and intrusive questions about their identity, many of which feel would never be asked if they had a different sexual orientation.
Quote, I have definitely had plenty of intrusive questions.
You know, things like, do you masturbate?
Do you watch porn?
And then there was, how do you feel when a sex scene comes on television?
You just think that you wouldn't ask anybody else that question, any other kind of sexual identity, so why ask me, another respondent said.
In work settings, just under half of ace people, 49%, said that they are not out to their colleagues as far as a far higher figure than the rate for all LGBTQ respondents, which is 18%.
Okay, so...
Half of self-identified asexual people are not out to their colleagues, which shockingly means that half of them are.
Which means that half of these people have apparently gone up to their colleagues in a work setting and announced, unsolicited, that they don't experience sexual attraction.
What the hell kind of thing is that to tell someone at work?
What do you want them to say to that?
How are they supposed to respond?
And why would you be telling them this in the first place?
In what conceivable context would a co-worker need to know that you do not experience sexual attraction?
I'm just trying to play out in my mind, like, what this would look like.
So someone comes up to you in the break room.
Hey, I don't know if we've met.
I work in accounting.
Anyway, I'm not sexually attracted to anyone.
Just thought you should know.
Okay, see you later.
Is that how it goes?
I guess so.
And then apparently the asexual gets offended when the other person asks basic follow-up questions, which is something they probably only do to be polite.
You think they actually want to know?
They're just trying to be courteous.
What else do you want them to do?
If you don't want to answer questions about your sex life, or lack thereof, the best approach is to just not bring it up.
But if you bring it up, the other person might feel that they have to ask about it.
It might feel very awkward to hear that announcement about your sexlessness and then simply respond, OK, well, thanks for letting me know.
Anyway.
Now, if it were me, I'd respond with something like, why the hell are you telling me that?
Why is this information that I needed to know?
But most people are more polite, unfortunately, and so they feel like they have to ask, like, oh, okay, what's that like to not have sex with anyone ever?
Tell me more about it?
But, of course, I know why the asexuals are telling people.
It's because you've convinced yourself that your lack of asexual attraction is itself an identity.
Which, even if it is, even if it's true that your lack of sexual attraction is an identity, you still don't need to tell people about it.
But it isn't an identity.
Asexuality certainly is not a sexual orientation, first of all.
It is literally the opposite of asexual orientation.
It is the negation of sexual orientation.
It also is not an identity.
Asexuality is a lack of something.
It's the absence of something.
It is not healthy or even coherent to find your identity in the absence of a thing.
You are defining yourself by what you aren't, rather than what you are.
It's like if I walked up to somebody and said, Hey, I'm Matt.
I'm not Chinese.
Now, it's true that I'm not Chinese, but it's very strange to lead with that fact.
Why would I find my identity in my not-Chineseness?
Am I so lacking in personality that being not Chinese is the most interesting thing about me?
I am a-Chinese.
A-Chinese.
A-Chinese.
One word.
Of course, the difference is that it's true to say that I am not Chinese.
Someone who claims to be asexual, on the other hand, is not only giving you incredibly irrelevant and uninteresting information about themselves that you didn't care to know, but they're also not really making sense.
Because typically in the animal kingdom, asexual means that a certain species can reproduce without mating.
Komodo dragons, for example.
And if your colleague at work is a Komodo dragon, that would be an interesting fact to know about them.
So, I mean, in that case, if you're a Komodo dragon, you should probably tell people at work.
At least it's interesting for them to know.
But most likely, if the person is human, asexual doesn't mean that.
It just means that they supposedly don't experience sexual attraction.
And it is, at the very least, convoluted to call this asexual.
It's not really asexual.
Either way, there's no reason to think that a person's lack of sexual attraction at any given moment is some kind of immutable state inherent to their identity.
And if it is, that's an indication that something is wrong.
Because human beings are sexual creatures, not asexual creatures.
A human who has no sexual attraction at all is suffering from some kind of deficiency.
Now, it doesn't make you inferior in any way, but it does mean, again, that it is unhealthy and strange to turn that into an identity in and of itself.
It's like making a vitamin C deficiency into your identity.
It just doesn't make any sense.
It would be better to get the problem fixed, if you can.
If you can't, then you live with it.
But you don't need to live as it.
And there is a difference.
And those self-identified asexuals who struggle to see that difference are today, for all of these reasons, canceled.
