Ep. 1257 - The Media Attacks Republican For Protecting His Kids From Porn
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media has found a new line of attack against the new Republican speaker of the house. They're upset that he doesn't let his kids watch porn. This is what passes for a scandal these days. Also, new polls show Biden losing in several key states. But Democrats know who's to blame for this: the voters. Plus, Obama offers his insight into the war in the Middle East. It's even more inane and pointless than you expect. Finally, a public official's suicide is being falsely blamed on conservatives. The full story is pretty disturbing but it's worth talking about.
Ep.1257
- - -
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 to convert your existing IRA or 401(k) into gold and receive a FREE bar of gold! https://birchgold.com/Walsh
BULLETPROOF EVERYONE - Get 10% off plus a FREE bulletproof backpack with any clothing purchase. Use promo code WALSH at https://www.bulletproofeveryone.com
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media has found a new line of attack against the new Republican Speaker of the House.
They're upset that he doesn't let his kids watch porn.
This is what passes for a scandal these days.
Also, new polls show Biden losing in several key states, but Democrats know who's to blame for that.
The voters.
Plus, Obama offers his insight into the war in the Middle East.
It's even more inane and pointless than you expect.
Finally, a public official's suicide is being falsely blamed on conservatives.
The full story is pretty disturbing, but it's worth talking about.
all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Yet again we're facing the threat of a government shutdown later this month and
the administration will ultimately deal with it the same way they always do with
More spending will inevitably devalue the dollar, protect your savings then, by diversifying into gold with the help of Birch Gold Group.
And here's the best part.
When you open an IRA with Birch Gold, for every $10,000 you spend, by December 22nd, Birch Gold will send you a free gold bar.
Just text Walsh to 989898 to claim eligibility before Black Friday.
Birch Gold can even help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold without taking any money out of pocket, and you still get the free gold bars too.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of satisfied customers, you can count on Birch Gold to help you transition an existing IRA into an IRA in gold.
Don't let your savings fall victim to further devaluation of the dollar.
Text Walsh to 989898.
Receive a free info kit on gold and claim your eligibility before Black Friday to receive free gold bars on your qualifying purchase.
That's Walsh to 9 8 9 8 9 8 When Republicans selected their new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, I was, at the time, critical of the pick because of some of the stances that Johnson has taken in the past.
Primarily, I was concerned with his past support of the BLM narrative and his expressions of outrage over the, to use his word, murder of George Floyd.
But since then, despite these potentially serious qualms, The media have been doing everything in their power to make me like Speaker Johnson.
They're not doing this on purpose, of course.
They're trying to make him look bad.
But as we know, nothing makes a person look better than when the media tries to make them look bad.
And to that end, they have attacked Johnson repeatedly over the last few weeks for several
reasons, mainly for being a Christian, for being socially conservative, and for being
a theocratic fascist.
Now that last description is not remotely accurate, sadly, but when a person is attacked
along these lines, it only gives them more credibility.
And Johnson is in this way racking up lots of credibility.
And now we have the most desperate line of attack of all.
So the latest crime committed by the new Speaker of the House, according to the media and the gaggle of brain-dead leftist zombies on Twitter, is that, get this, He tried to prevent his children from looking at pornography.
And in the minds of these porn-crazed hyenas, this is a big problem.
This is an outrage.
Mike Johnson's attempts to protect his children from graphic sexual content is one of the great political scandals of our time.
What kind of freak doesn't want his kids to watch porn, they ask incredulously.
They're pretending that they don't understand it.
They can't possibly understand it.
Or maybe they're not pretending.
Maybe they really don't understand why a parent wouldn't want his kid to look at porn.
Either way, this latest faux-controversy, like so many faux-controversies before it, starts with a Rolling Stone article.
Rolling Stone, of course, is an amazing publication in a certain way.
Even amid a media landscape populated almost entirely by lying, scheming, soulless parasites, Rolling Stone still manages to stand out.
They, you know, they are the gutter journalists that make other gutter journalists cringe.
And this article is no exception.
And just to give you an idea of how weak this hit piece is, you should know that the entire article is, from the Rolling Stone, is just 373 words long.
That's because the article is irrelevant.
They don't spend much time on the story because there is no story.
They just want to publish the headline, and the headline says this.
Mike Johnson admits he and his son monitor each other's porn intake in resurfaced video.
Now, this framing has, of course, been immediately adopted by other media outlets and hundreds of leftists on social media.
Many articles and posts have repeated it or a version of it.
The left insists that this supposed revelation is creepy and weird and gross.
They've called Johnson a predator and so on.
And of course, if this headline was literally true, if Rolling Stone was not a worthless propaganda rag, then we'd have to agree.
You know, you note the carefully selected phrase, porn intake.
Which suggests that Mike Johnson is actively consuming porn and sharing the material with his son.
Porn intake means that Johnson is a porn viewer and his porn viewing is being monitored by one of his kids.
In fact, the website Political Wire makes this claim explicitly.
Here's the headline.
Mike Johnson admits his son monitors his porn viewing.
Now this implies, doesn't really imply, but outright claims, that Mike Johnson is actively watching porn and the porn is being shared with his son.
If that was really the case, then yes, it would be extremely disgusting.
But it is not the case at all.
It is a slanderous lie by people who are determined to make normal, responsible parenting into something bizarre and even abusive.
This all becomes obvious if you read the article to the extent that there even is an article to read.
But better yet, you could just watch the resurfaced clip for yourself to see what he really said.
Here it is.
Covenant Eyes is the software that we've been using a long time in our household.
I first learned about it at, I think, a Promise Keepers event in the early 2000s.
I think it was developed in about the year 2000.
But it's the largest accountability software that there is, and there's some paperwork out there on the table that I think everybody may have picked up on the way in.
If not, go get it.
It's a subscription-based, I mean, we don't make any money on this.
I'm telling you, we use it, okay?
I'm endorsing it because I'm a user.
It's about $15 a month, $16 a month, something like that.
And you get up to 10 devices.
And what it is, it's accountability software.
So, men in a church, you know, men's Bible study groups will do it.
That's how it was presented at Promise Keepers.
But they also mentioned, hey, when your kids become teenagers, especially if you have boys, dads, they're talking to the guys at this event, you might want to think about doing this with your sons.
And so we've been doing that.
And so what it does real simply is it has an algorithm and software.
It's way above my head how it works, but it scans.
You obviously opt into it, but it scans all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, tablet, what have you.
We do all of it.
And then it sends a report to your accountability partner.
So my accountability partner right now is Jack, my son, right?
And so he's 17.
So he and I get a report of all the things that are on our phones or all of our devices once a week.
If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice.
I'm proud to tell you my son has got a clean slate, all right?
Okay, so what's the actual story here?
The story is that Mike Johnson monitors his child's internet usage to make sure that his child is not accessing harmful and objectionable material, and the app he's using, Covenant Eyes, also gives his son access to the content Johnson is viewing on his own phone.
Now, anyone who is not an insane idiot immediately understands the point of this latter step.
You have to be a perverted freak yourself to see it as something perverse.
Johnson is obviously trying to model good behavior for his son.
He's not having his son monitor his porn intake because there is no porn intake.
The whole point is that Johnson doesn't look at porn and he wants his teenage son to know that he doesn't look at it because he's trying to be a good role model.
This is called responsible parenting.
It may be necessary because Johnson's teenage son is living in a culture, same as the rest of us, where people often claim that everyone, especially every man, looks at porn.
Porn consumption is treated as some sort of inevitability, as if it's literally physically impossible to refrain.
It's important for a teenage boy to know that that isn't true, okay?
It's a lie.
It is possible to live free from the clutches of porn.
It's more than possible.
And there are plenty of men who are, in fact, living that way.
This would seem to be the point that Johnson is trying to make to his son.
It's an important point.
Now, I grew up in a time before smartphones, but we had, I guess you might say, a version of this kind of system in my house as a kid.
The system was simple.
We had one computer.
It was in the most public and visible area in the house, and anyone could see what anyone else was doing if they happened to walk by.
My parents didn't have their own computer in their room or whatever.
They used that one computer because they had nothing to hide, and they wanted us to know that they had nothing to hide, and everyone just used the computers.
That's it.
This is called setting a good example, which is a concept utterly foreign to the leftist social media mob.
Now, of course, these days it's not necessarily practical to have only one stationary device with internet access to be shared by everyone in the home.
So smart parents, in that case, look for other ways to practice openness and accountability in cyberspace.
Smart parents, or just smart people in general, parents or not, understand that a desire for secrecy on the internet, wanting to keep your internet activity hidden from your loved ones, ...is almost always a sign that you're doing things you should not be doing.
Things that are harmful to you and to your family.
Now, of course...
The left has looked for other reasons to object to Johnson's responsible parenting as well.
The Rolling Stone throws another line of attack against the wall, quote,
"Outside of the creepy big brotherness of it all, Receipt Maven also aired concerns about whether
Covenant Eyes, which is still a working subscription-based service, might compromise
Johnson's devices if he's still actively seeking accountability," quote, "A U.S.
congressman is allowing a third-party tech company to scan all of his electronic devices daily and then uploading reports to his son about what he's watching or not watching.
Receipt Maven wrote, I mean, who else is accessing that data?
Now again, if you think it's creepy or Big Brother for a father to monitor his child's internet usage, you are simply too stupid to be participating in this discussion or any discussion.
The best thing you can do is shut up, you stupid child, and let the adults have this conversation.
Now I assume you're also the kind of person who would say that telling a child to do chores is forced labor and sending him to his room is false imprisonment.
I can only take solace in the fact that most of these people are childless losers and will remain so for the rest of their miserable lives, which is a good thing because they'd be horrible parents.
But as for the other concern, I think we can use our brains and assume that Johnson does not have Covenant Eyes installed on his work devices.
It's pretty clear that he's referring to his personal devices and the ones in his home.
So, in the end, there are two ways of interpreting this story.
One interpretation is that Mike Johnson has installed surveillance software on all of his phones and computers, including his work phone and the computer in his office on Capitol Hill, where he then proceeds to download an unlimited supply of pornography which he shared with his son.
The other interpretation is that Johnson has this accountability program on his family's personal devices so that he can protect his kids from pornographic content while also modeling good behavior for them.
In other words, you can interpret this like a deranged lunatic who can't comprehend the English language, or like a normal, sane person.
And that choice is really up to you.
But obviously, this is not really a matter of misinterpretation.
We know the real reason why the left is going after Johnson for this.
And this is the real point.
This is the most important point.
That these are weak, frail, porn-obsessed automatons who lack willpower and self-control, and they feel shamed.
They feel rebuked whenever they encounter someone who doesn't look at porn.
Someone whose life isn't dominated by it, like theirs is.
You know, they view these people People who try to live, who make any attempt at all, really, to live a virtuous life, they view them with a mixture of astonishment and hatred and, of course, resentment and envy.
They themselves, being so emasculated and feeble and weak and pathetic, can barely even conceive of the possibility Of not watching porn.
They can't even wrap their heads around the potential of not being a slave to your vices.
They are themselves such slaves to their own impulses that they think anyone who exercises self-control is some kind of mutant.
And this is not just about pornography, by the way.
Anyone who engages in healthy practices in basically any aspect of life is a freak of nature in their eyes.
They instinctively lash out against the person because if they don't lash out against that person who's trying to live a healthy life and live a virtuous life, if they don't lash out, if they don't attack, then the other option is introspection.
The other option is that they see this person, maybe they see a family, they see parents that are attentive and care about their kids and are making a real effort To protect their kids and protect their souls.
And they see that and they know that they don't do any of this.
And, you know, they can again lash out at that person and try to destroy them.
Or they can look at themselves and think, well, man, if this person can make healthy choices and live a good moral life, or at least try to, you know, not perfect, but they're trying, then Maybe it's not as impossible as I've convinced myself.
You know, maybe I'm living this way not because it's impossible to live any other way, but just because I'm a coward making excuses for myself.
This is the rabbit hole that you threaten to send these people tumbling down if you attempt to live a virtuous life in their presence.
But they're too scared to take the ride.
They're too timid and craven to actually look honestly at themselves.
So instead, they descend on you and try to rip you to shreds for committing the crime of being a better person than them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Bulletproof Everyone is a premier American body armor manufacturer and supplier designed and built for everyday
wear.
Their unique armor systems offer 25% more coverage than standard armor while maintaining flexibility and all-day wearability.
Bulletproof Everyone's ultralight armor system is so light and thin, you might just forget you're wearing it.
Your safety and discretion is their top concern.
Unless someone puts their hands on you, no one will have any clue you're protected.
With Bulletproof, everyone, you're not a walking billboard.
There are no visible logos, no flashy designs.
Their comfortable, tailor-made clothing system goes above and beyond adding additional security by keeping you incognito and under the radar.
Bulletproof, everyone, sent me a custom jacket and backpack, by the way.
And I have the backpack here.
This is not only one of the backpacks they sent me, but the same backpack you'll get free with any purchase of clothing.
I travel a lot, so it's nice to have peace of mind that I'm always protected.
Very high quality backpack as well.
Work or play, Bulletproof Everyone has got the perfect armor system to fit your everyday lifestyle and everyday budget as well.
Right now, my listeners can get 10% off plus a free Bulletproof backpack with the purchase of any Bulletproof clothing.
Just use code WALSH at checkout at bulletproofeveryone.com.
That's bulletproofeveryone.com, promo code WALSH.
Tragic news for the Democrats to start off the 5th of July.
CNN has a report.
Former President Donald Trump holds an edge over President Joe Biden in a series of hypothetical match-ups among registered voters in four key swing states.
New polling from the New York Times and Siena College shows.
In Nevada, a state Biden narrowly carried in the 2020 presidential election.
Trump boasts 52% support to Biden's 41%.
Which is a wide margin.
Trump also tops Biden in Georgia, a state that was central to his ploy to overturn the last presidential election, just reading verbatim from CNN, with 49% to Biden's 43%.
Trump leads Biden in Arizona, too, with 49% to the president's 44%.
In Michigan, Trump holds a five-point lead as well, 48% to Biden's 43%.
Each poll has a margin of sampling error between 4.4 and 4.8 points, and the head-to-head matchup remains theoretical.
Primary voting does not begin until next year.
So that's the story.
Anyway, that's that's the latest poll.
It is interesting.
I mean, the poll results are interesting.
The fact that the media is choosing to amplify these polling results is also interesting because, of course, we know that they are not exactly Trump.
You know, they're not exactly Trump fans.
And I think part of the reason for them is, of course, that they want Biden out.
I mean, I don't think this is no secret now.
It's no conspiracy theory either.
They want Biden out.
They don't want him as the nominee.
They realize that they need a different nominee because Biden is already dead, basically, and they need someone who is at least still breathing.
And so I think that's part of the part of the strategy here.
The poll results, not just reporting on the poll results, but making it like big headline news.
It's putting pressure on Biden.
Which is why you've got more and more people predicting that Biden will not be the nominee eventually.
Ultimately, it'll be Gavin Newsom or somebody like Gretchen Whitmer.
Whitmer or something like that, Gretchen Whitmer.
But I think at this point, it's hard for me to see how it's not Biden at this point.
I mean, it's getting pretty late in the game to try to throw somebody else in there, and maybe that's part of the point.
But if I had to put money on it right now, and I would not have said this two months ago, if I had to put money on it right now, I would say Biden is the Democrat nominee.
Because I think they are just They're putting all their eggs in the basket of Trump getting knocked out by the lawfare strategy that they've chosen against him.
That's what they're planning on.
And I could obviously be wrong.
This is why I usually don't make political predictions of this sort.
And the fact that I've just made this prediction probably means that the opposite will happen.
But still, that's what I would say.
Either way, it's bad news for Biden.
And the news gets worse and worse, especially when you look at Biden's shrinking base of support in the black community and other demographics that have been the Democrats' most dependable voting blocs historically.
But, like we talked about in the opening, about introspection, looking at yourself, well, is all of this going to cause the Democrats to look at themselves and think about what they're doing wrong?
Of course not.
Instead, here's a Democrat representative on CNN explaining that it's all the fault of the voters, of course.
Here's the deal.
Perception is reality.
And so when you look at the data that was provided in this poll, it talks about how people feel.
And when people decide whether they're going to the poll or whether they're not going to the poll, it's all about how you feel in that moment.
And so while the facts may not align with their feelings, Their feelings are dictating their reality.
Their reality is that they said that they feel better or they felt better when Trump was in office.
But we've been trying to push back.
We've got some very popular African-American artists that are out here saying things like, oh, I got checks when Trump was in office.
I want those checks again, not understanding that that really came from Congress.
So we've got a couple of things, the perception issue and then we also have an issue as it relates to civics in this country and people not understanding exactly how any of this works.
I love that.
That's great.
That is amazing.
I do love it.
According to this Democrat representative on CNN, what she is saying is that black Americans are less enthusiastic about Biden this time around because they, the black Americans, are emotional, immature, and ignorant.
That's exactly what she just said.
They don't understand civics or how the government works.
That's what she's saying.
And you know, in general, when it comes to voters, you know how I feel about this, when it comes to voters in general, I agree that there is a lack of understanding of civics and how our government works.
In fact, if we can all agree that this is an issue, then we should start finally talking about
how do we start weeding the people out who are going to vote on election day
or before election day without even understanding anything about the system
that they're participating in.
But of course, nobody wants to have that conversation.
But in this case, she is referring specifically to black Americans.
And I know that the next part doesn't need to be said, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
In fact, we can all join in because we know what it is.
Can you imagine if the situation was reversed?
And seriously, though, can you?
Can you imagine a white Republican blaming Trump's lack of black support on the emotional immaturity and ignorance of the black community, as this woman just did?
I mean, there would be a nuclear explosion of outrage over that, obviously.
And of course, in this case, the people, black or white, who are leaving Biden, or at least aren't going to show up for him, looking to support somebody else, for those people, it's not emotionalism or ignorance.
It's actually pretty simple.
They are asking themselves, has anything in the country improved since Biden was in office?
Like, what has this guy done to improve anything?
Now it's not that the president is responsible for every personal problem you have.
That's not the point.
But on a national level or on a community level, especially when you look at the communities that most black voters live in, you have to ask yourself if the people in charge of leading the nation or of your community are doing it well or not.
Is there any evidence that they're doing it well, that they are leading well?
And that's it for Biden.
It's as simple as that.
He's not leading well.
He's not leading at all, because he's barely sentient.
The proof is in the pudding, and there's no need to speculate.
If anyone's life has improved over the past three years, and I'm sure for some people it has, but if it has, it is in spite of the people running things, not because of them.
But this is always what the media does, of course.
They tell us to ignore the reality in front of our faces, Don't pay any attention to that.
That's what the Trust the Experts is all about, and that's essentially what you just heard in that clip.
It's a version of Trust the Experts.
She's saying, yeah, these black Americans, you know, they're looking at the country, they think that they can see that the country's not in good shape, that it's gotten worse over the last few years.
They think they see that.
But no, you can't trust your own eyes.
You have to let the experts.
The experts will tell you.
The experts will tell you whether the country is in good shape or not.
Who are the experts?
Well, it's just whoever happens to be speaking on CNN.
Well, they're all the experts because they're on TV.
They're in front of cameras.
So don't make common sense judgments.
Don't decide anything for yourself.
They'll decide.
That's basically the argument.
All right, Fox News has this report.
Police in Washington, D.C.
arrested just one person as tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated in the city on Saturday night.
Protesters could be seen vandalizing the White House fence and wrenching at the gate, and anti-Semitic graffiti was left on several buildings along the protesters' path through the city.
The Metropolitan Police Department says it made one arrest of an adult male during the hours-long march.
And as far as the vandalism goes, the protesters can be seen defacing multiple statues in downtown Washington, wrapping Palestinian flags around a statue of Benjamin Franklin, another of General Marquis de Lafayette near the White House.
There were other statues as well.
I think Andrew Jackson was another one that got that treatment.
We have some video of that.
that let's watch that.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
Thank you.
Love you.
Roll, baby, roll.
I'll miss you.
[CHEERING]
[END PLAYBACK]
OK.
So a lot of that kind of thing.
And this is, first of all, why I've been saying all along that what we're seeing now with the quote-unquote free Palestine movement, it really, it is just BLM repackaged.
It's the exact same thing.
That's why you see all the same sorts of signs.
It's all the same methods that are being employed.
I mean, they're defacing the same statues, just with different graffiti this time around.
The only thing we haven't seen yet is rioting on a large mass scale.
So we haven't seen that yet.
And I'm emphasizing yet, because I think that's what's coming next.
But it's the same funding, the same people, the same activists.
They're just waving a different flag.
A lot of the same flags, actually, but just adding it.
It's not even different slogans, it's just adding in a few other slogans as well on top of it.
And when it comes to defacing statues like this, I mean, that Fox News article says that one person was arrested, which is no surprise.
This is what we have grown accustomed to.
But still, I think it needs to be said that if we were a serious country, We were serious about our country and our history.
We would not tolerate people treating our statues and monuments this way.
It will never, no matter how often we see it, I will never fail to find it enraging.
And yes, maybe that's why they're doing it, so you're taking the bait if you get all angry about it.
But I actually respect and cherish our national history.
And so I think, and if you do, it should make you angry to see people disrespecting it this way.
I mean, if you treat our monuments like this, it should be like, get the hell out of our country.
It should be a simple, it should be automatic deportation.
Get the hell out of our country.
If you don't respect our monuments and our statues and our history, just get the hell out.
You don't belong here.
This is not your country.
You do not belong here.
Go somewhere else.
Or better yet, don't leave because we're going to put you in prison first.
I, unironically, Okay, if they passed a law tomorrow saying that if you deface one of our historical statues, you get 10 years in prison automatically, even if you just hang a flag on it, that's it.
There's no permanent damage being done.
10 years in prison.
If they pass that law, I would support it.
I would throw a parade in the- I'd throw a one-person parade in the street supporting it.
That's how much I would love it.
And it's not hyperbole or exaggeration.
This is the kind of thing.
If you want to have a country at all, then you need to take it seriously.
I mean, it's taking your history and your culture seriously.
And these kinds of cultural vandals should not be tolerated.
I mean, think about it this way.
Go to a non-Western country And go to a major city, or maybe their capital city, go somewhere downtown, find a monument to one of their historical icons or heroes, and climb up on that monument and spray it with graffiti.
What do you think's going to happen to you?
In pretty much any non-Western country.
How are they going to respond to that?
If there was a mob of people doing it, you think there's just one person arrested at the end?
Maybe they get hit with a $50 fine?
For being a public nuisance?
You think that's what happens?
There's a good chance that everybody involved, we never hear from them again.
But if we do hear from them again, it's going to be years later and they're going to have a very unfortunate tale to tell about what they've endured.
But you know what?
The other thing is, non-Western countries generally, these days, they take their own history and their culture a lot more seriously than we take ours.
To their benefit, and our detriment.
Because we should be doing the same thing.
There should be some things that are just, we do not tolerate.
Of course, we tolerate everything.
You know, I would like to...
Maybe take that list of, right now, if we have a list of tolerable things, that everything is tolerable, that we tolerate everything.
The intolerable list is empty.
I'd like to start putting a few items back on that list.
This should be one of them.
Speaking of intolerable, moving to this, Daily Wire has this report.
Former President Barack Obama whitewashed the Islamic terrorist attacks that Hamas committed against Israel last month, where terrorists murdered 1,400 Israelis, wounded 5,300, and kidnapped more than 240 people.
Obama made the remarks during an appearance on the leftist podcast Pod Save America late this week, according to a preview clip released by the podcast.
So, it's kind of a long clip.
I probably won't play the whole thing.
Here's Obama.
I think it's the first time we've really heard from him, at least in person, since everything started back in early October.
And here's Obama, and to save the day, with what is supposed to be his kind of sophisticated, nuanced, moral perspective.
That's his whole shtick, right?
That's his gimmick, to pretend to be morally sophisticated.
So he's the guy that's gonna come in and say, no, no, no, you're all, let me, you're all so, you simpletons, let me explain to you the complexities of this situation, and he tries that here, but not to spoil the ending.
Spends a lot of time babbling about it, at the end he says basically nothing.
Let's watch.
If there's any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, It will require an admission of complexity.
And maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory... Okay, just pause for a second.
It's exactly what I'm talking about.
We must maintain... It requires an admission of complexity.
What does that mean exactly?
So right off the bat, he just has phrases like this that he drops.
It's instinctive for him.
Phrases that Maybe on the surface, initially, if you're naive, may sound smart.
And then you think about it for one second, you say, what does that mean?
What?
Admission of complexity.
OK, let's continue.
What Hamas did was horrific, and there's no justification for it.
And what is also true is that the occupation, And what's happening to Palestinians is unbearable.
And what is also true is that there is a history of the Jewish people that may be dismissed unless your grandparents or your great-grandparents or your uncle or your aunt tell you stories about The madness?
I can't even listen to this.
Everything about it, including the tone of voice, this is maybe a pet peeve on my part, but it's very common these days that people speak and then their tone goes up at the end of the sentence to make it sound like every sentence is a question.
And that's exactly what we're hearing here.
Every statement he makes, Notice at the end, the tone goes up so that every statement is phrased like a question.
And I don't know what that is exactly, or when that became popular, but people like Obama, this is what you always hear.
But we haven't gotten to the most absurd part yet, so we gotta keep listening.
Semitism.
And what is true is that there are people right now who are dying.
Who have nothing to do with what Hamas did and what is true, right?
I mean, we can go on for a while.
And the problem with the social media and trying to TikTok activism and trying to debate this on that is you can't speak the truth.
You can pretend to speak the truth.
You can speak one side of the truth.
And in some cases, you can try to maintain your moral innocence, but that won't solve the problem.
And so, if you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth.
And you then have to admit nobody's hands are clean, that all of us are complicit, To some degree.
I look at this and I think- Actually, no.
This last part, let's listen to this.
Go ahead.
Think back, what could I have done during my presidency to move this forward?
Okay, alright.
So that was it.
That's what I wanted to get to.
So most people are focusing on the moral equivalence of it and he's just rambling and not saying anything.
You know, it's rather than simply stating When terrorists go into a country and massacre innocent people, it's a horrible thing.
He can't just say that.
He has to list, do some moral equivocation, back and forth, back and forth, until you lose track of what you were even talking about.
And that's really the point here.
It is obfuscation disguised as being morally sophisticated.
So most people are focusing on that, and for good reason.
But I love that part at the end there, where he says, none of our hands are clean.
And we have to realize, we're all complicit.
What?
No, Barack, my hands are clean on this one.
I'm not complicit at all.
I will tell you right now.
I'm not a perfect man by any means.
I have nothing to do with any of this.
I am not remotely complicit or even partially to blame for anything that is happening in the Middle East, actually.
Anywhere in the Middle East.
None of it has anything to do with me.
I could have never existed and it would all be happening exactly as it is currently happening.
Okay?
Maybe I would like to think that I am, as an individual, so significant.
That everything on the planet would be different if I didn't exist, but that's not the case.
So if I never existed, everything currently happening would still be happening.
Everything that happened on October 7th would have still happened.
Everything happening in Israel would have still happened.
And that's the case for you, whoever you are watching this, most likely.
You're an important person.
Every life is cherished.
Every human life is important.
But you could have never existed and all of this stuff would still be happening.
So you are not remotely complicit in any of this.
You have nothing to do with it.
Same for me.
So this statement from him, well, we're all complicit.
Who's to say, yes, the Hamas terrorists, they went into Israel and they massacred innocent people, but all of our hands are dirty.
We're all partially responsible for that.
What?
Explain that.
Now, of course, the Pod Save America dudes are just sitting there soaking this all in.
There's no follow-up question, okay?
There's no, hang on, what was that?
Can you explain that a little bit?
What do you mean, we're all complicit?
You got an audience full of people.
I mean, how, what did they do to contribute to this?
They didn't do anything.
And then, to support that statement, he says, you know, we're all complicit, and I think of myself, and what could I have done?
Yeah, well, you were the president.
So, yes.
If you want to give yourself some of the blame, you were the president of the United States of America for eight years.
You were in charge of American foreign policy.
You made decisions about the things that we were going to do overseas.
And so if you're looking at the state of the world and saying to yourself, it looks pretty bad right now.
Maybe I could have done more.
Maybe I could have done things differently.
You should be saying that.
So no, no, no Brock.
It's not, we don't all share the blame.
You share Some of the blame.
But that doesn't mean we all do.
Because only you were president.
Maybe he's saying that everyone shares the blame because he is partially responsible, according to him, and anyone who voted for him is therefore partially responsible for that.
I mean, maybe in that sense, sure.
I guess.
I mean, if Barack Obama is admitting, according to his own admission, that he's partially complicit in what's happening in the Middle East, If that's the case, then I guess people who voted for him do share some of the blame.
They put him there.
But I didn't vote for him, either.
So, I didn't vote for any of the people that are causing this problem or contributing to it.
I had nothing to do with it.
So, no.
We are not all complicit.
We do not all share the blame.
And, you know, I know I'm taking this literally because it's such a literally ridiculous thing to say.
But he doesn't mean for it to be taken any way at all.
He's just babbling.
He's babbling around the issue.
But the underlying point is to avoid condemning evil acts and the people who choose to carry them out.
This is all an elaborate way around any kind of personal responsibility.
Because when any bad thing happens, or I should say, when any bad act is committed anywhere in the world, there are people responsible for committing that act.
And then there might be other people who are indirectly responsible or indirectly contributed to it.
Okay, so the blame might fall squarely and only on the shoulders of the person who does it, or the people who do it.
It may go beyond that.
But it is not true to say that we're all responsible for every bad thing that happens.
And you only try to claim that if you want to avoid, again, personal responsibility, if you want to avoid blaming the people who actually carry the blame, and who are responsible.
All right, one other thing before we get to the next segment.
This is a video that's gone viral.
I've seen it circulating by several different accounts over the last couple of weeks.
It's kind of an interesting video, though.
This is a young woman coming to a realization about why she's still single.
And I think there's a reason why this video is resonating.
It's not actually, I guess I should amend that, it's not that she's coming to a realization about why she's still single, it's about why she can't find a husband specifically.
And let's watch a little bit of this.
I just came to the realization why I'm single.
Every guy that I'm like, oh yeah, he's attractive.
Okay, this is not supposed to be offensive, but I see their wives and they just look like, so like, you know, like not like this, just like, you know, like I pretend my tattoos are gone.
Dude, I look crazy!
Like, that's why guys don't want to wife me up!
And I just come to this realization!
Today!
See?
Or maybe it's because all of them see me eat sushi after I get out of the grocery store
in my car with my bare fingers.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
and drink sweet tea.
Oh no.
Guys!
I thought these men wanted like, you know, big strong tough girls.
I don't know.
I feel like all of them are like, like super girly and all these guys are like, yeah, that's my girl.
That's just like... Okay, we can pause there.
So I actually feel bad I feel bad for this this woman and I can well first of all I can say it's got nothing to do with sushi It's not because you eat sushi and drink sweet tea.
That's not I've never heard a guy.
That's There's never been a guy in history in fact who was attracted to a woman and said well I like everything about her, but she eats sushi with her fingers so never mind that that has never Been the case so it's not that But You know, with this woman, she's, first of all, you know, she's really into fitness, which is, in and of itself, not a problem.
But she's kind of like bulked up, as she said there.
You know, she thought that men were attracted to big, strong women.
And so she got, she's gotten big and strong.
Like, you know, very, very muscular and all of that.
On top of that, covered in tattoos.
I think she goes on in the video to talk about how she owns her own business, which, again, that's not a problem.
No one has an issue with that.
But, you know, she went for the sort of girl boss thing, being kind of loud and rude and crude and a lot of piercings, a lot of tattoos, bulking up at the gym.
And she thought that that's what men would be attracted to, and they're not, she's discovering.
And some of these things in moderation, even like a piercing.
There's not a lot of guys out there who say, well, I won't date any woman who has any piercings at all.
Not all piercings are made the same, though.
The septum piercing on the nose there, that's... Maybe it's a small thing.
I have no idea.
Like, I don't know anyone All of the people on Earth who think that that particular piercing is attractive have that piercing.
There's no one who doesn't have it who thinks it looks good.
Everyone else, so, you know, there are, I don't know, you got 1% of the population that has that piercing on the nose piercing there, and then 99% of the rest of the people all find it, like, kind of off-putting.
So, moderation, not all things are the same.
But overall, she was convinced, again, that men are attracted to girl boss, large and in charge, loud, you know, a girl who can fit in with the guys, loves going to the gym all the time, bulking up.
That's what she believed.
And she believed it because that's what she was told.
This is the message from the culture, and she's been absorbing That messaging her entire life, and only when she gets into adulthood does she discover that it's a total lie, that this is not actually what men are attracted to.
Now, I think she misinterpreted the messaging a little bit.
Because it's not exactly, the messaging was never, men are attracted to this.
In women, the messaging was more, men should be attracted to these kinds of women.
That's the message from the culture.
And maybe she thought, well, this is what men should be attracted to, says the culture, and so they are.
But they're not.
We're not.
Like, as it turns out, yes, do men prefer feminine women?
Yes.
Because we're men.
And we're not looking for, you know, if you're a heterosexual man, you desire a woman and that's a particular sort of desire that you have because you want to get married, you want to have kids, you want a family.
It's all natural desire for human beings to have, for men to have.
But you don't need a woman who acts like a man, or looks like a man, or takes on the mannerisms of a man.
Why would you want that?
You have guy friends that you hang out with, but you don't need women to fill that role.
You're certainly not desiring to marry a woman of that sort.
And this is just, this is hardwiring.
This is natural.
This is nature.
This is how we are made.
This is how God made us.
And for years and years and years, the culture has been telling women like this that that wiring can be sort of overridden, and it can't.
The good news is, though, that she's coming to this realization now.
It's not like she's, I don't know how old she is, but it's not like she's 65 years old and realizing this.
So there is time to change.
Take out the piercing.
Can't do much about the tattoos, but there's time to change.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
The holidays are coming up fast, and while you're out shopping for your kids, family, and friends, don't forget to shop for your pets, too.
I never do.
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.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free JumpStart trial bag so your dog can try it.
Get a free JumpStart trial bag delivered straight to your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens dot com slash matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Okay, so we got just two comments today that need to be addressed.
Well, the first is from Marky Mark who says, how about parents control their kids just because it's a kid-friendly restaurant doesn't mean unruly kids.
Only parents have this perception that their decision to have kids should be tolerated by everybody else.
Yes, why would you want to tolerate someone's decision to have a child?
You know, the decision that parents make to have kids, It's only a decision that keeps human civilization in existence.
Okay, so those of us having kids and having families, we are holding human civilization in existence.
It would cease to exist without us.
So we're doing basically all of the work to continue human civilization.
From the sound of it, Marky Mark, you're not doing any of it.
So, I don't know, maybe that's one reason to have patience for parents with young kids, even in places like restaurants.
That doesn't mean that parents should let their kids run wild and do whatever they want.
That's not the point.
Very few people will come out and say that a kid should just be able to do whatever they want everywhere and not be controlled.
No one's saying that.
But, Kids are naturally energetic and exuberant.
They tend to be a little bit louder.
And again, it does not mean they do whatever they want, but that's just how kids are.
And so if you go to a place where there are a lot of kids, even if all the kids are pretty well behaved, it's still going to be a little bit louder.
It's going to be a little bit more energetic.
Now, you could view that as a positive thing, a positive and beautiful thing.
You could go to a place and say, you know, you could go even to a restaurant and say, well, all these families are here spending time together.
That's a great thing.
Apparently, you know, this community where this restaurant is, apparently there are a lot of young families here.
It's a lot of great positive energy.
That's wonderful.
You could look at it that way.
Or you could sit and stew in resentment.
If anything, they should be resentful towards you, because again, they're doing all the work, right?
We are doing the work to keep civilization going.
You're not doing anything.
We're doing it.
And if that means you gotta listen to, you know, you gotta hear kids sometimes, well then just deal with it.
Because that's the other point.
Like, I don't care.
If I make sure my kids are well behaved, okay, we don't let them run the house, we don't let them be inordinately disruptive.
But if I bring my kids around somewhere, I bring them into a restaurant, and just their very presence is annoying to you, I don't care.
Just deal with it.
You can sit and stew and scowl all you want.
Don't care.
Your opinion and your preferences mean nothing to me.
So there's that, too.
Critical Bass Theory says you talk about your wife all the time.
In other words, you are out about your heterosexuality and shoving it at people unsolicited.
Yet this is just another sad attempt to bully people who are different than you.
You're stuck in grade school just like your education.
This was in response to our discussion about asexuals who complain that they don't have a, quote, universally positive experience of being out.
We talked about that thing on Friday.
And they complain that they don't feel comfortable coming out to their co-workers and so on.
So what is the difference between an asexual coming out and me talking about my wife, thus outing myself as a heterosexual?
Well, first of all, a few differences, a few distinctions.
The first is that heterosexuality Exists, okay, whereas asexuality in humans really doesn't, at least not in a literal sense, okay, as we talked about.
There's really no such thing as an asexual person, at least not in the traditional sense of that term.
What you do have though are people who have low libidos or who do not experience sexual attraction to the same degree.
We don't need a whole new category to describe people like that.
And the word asexual is very misleading, at a minimum, to describe people like that.
And the second thing is that, you know, when I talk about my family, my wife being a married man, I'm talking about a healthy and normal aspect of life.
And there is a difference between talking about healthy and normal aspects of life and talking about things openly that are abnormal and unhealthy.
You know, yes, we should be more open about talking about the healthy and normal aspects of ourselves than about the things that are abnormal and unhealthy.
So yeah, I can go around anywhere and talk about my wife and kids.
It's never inappropriate.
At all.
However, if you identify as an asexual, there are plenty of circumstances where it's not appropriate to talk about.
It's an abnormal, it's an unhealthy thing.
It's like there's some sort of deficiency.
There's a problem here.
Doesn't mean you're inferior, doesn't mean anything like that, but something has gone wrong if you truly do not experience any kind of romantic attraction to anyone.
That's a part of the human life and existence that you are supposed to be able to partake in, and if you can't, then there's a problem.
And I hope that you try to get it fixed, but when you're talking about your problems, it's not always going to be appropriate to talk about in every circumstance.
And then finally, my family comes up in conversation naturally.
When would being an asexual come up naturally in conversation?
Like, I might say, oh, you know, I was with my wife the other day, we were doing this.
It naturally comes up.
What would you, how does asexuality come naturally?
You say, oh, you know, the other night I was not having sex with somebody.
I just, I can't imagine a scenario where it would ever naturally come up in conversation.
So that's the issue.
Aside from that, yeah, exactly the same.
You've been asking 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 a leftist propaganda on our kids, and now there's finally
an answer for those of us looking for children's shows that we can trust our kids to see.
This is exactly what parents have been waiting for.
The content is absolutely amazing.
High quality.
It's fun.
My kids really love it.
It exceeded my expectations.
My expectations were already very high.
I could have never imagined that The Daily Wire was going to provide all of this for
its members without increasing the price of an annual membership.
It's a $99 value that you get completely free.
If you're already a Daily Wire Plus member.
You already have BentKey, just download the app to start streaming now.
If you're not a member, there's never been more value to joining than right now.
You get all the daily wire plus content that you know and love plus bend key at no additional cost
We end today sadly with something dark and disturbing And I don't say that in an ironic way, as I so often do during this portion of the show.
It is actually dark and disturbing, enough that we aren't really going to be doing a daily cancellation today.
This story doesn't exactly lend itself to that, but it is still worth talking about.
So, on Friday evening, around 5 p.m., police officers tried to conduct a welfare check on the mayor of Smiths Station, which is a small town in Alabama, population about 5,000 people.
The mayor, whose name was Fred Bubba Copeland, was driving in his car at the time, and at some point he noticed that officers were tailing him.
After a brief, slow-speed pursuit, Bubba Copeland exited his car, pulled out a handgun, and shot himself in front of the pursuing officers.
And the married father of three died at the scene.
Now, in a country with any kind of underlying moral code whatsoever, those facts alone would allow for some obvious conclusions.
For one thing, Bubba Copeland was a deeply troubled man.
Also, Copeland's last act was a choice that he made, a wrong choice, but a choice all the same.
Now that may seem too obvious to even say, but we tend to speak in euphemisms about these kinds of situations, and all of the euphemisms are carefully crafted to minimize or erase any degree of personal responsibility whatsoever.
That's why the response to Copeland's death from pretty much everyone on the left who has commented on it, from activists on social media to elected officials to corporate media outlets, has been so depraved, but also so predictable.
In our culture, which has long jettisoned any sense of objective truth or morality, Copeland is not seen as accountable for any of this.
Instead, pretty much without exception, the left is blaming conservatives for this man's death.
In particular, a small conservative news outlet in Alabama called 1819 News.
Five days ago, 1819 News published a story reporting factually accurate information about Copeland.
Specifically, ...that he, Copeland, had publicly posted pictures of himself wearing women's clothing under a pseudonym on various online fetish websites for people identifying as trans.
These were not photos from decades ago.
They were live on the internet at the time that 1819 News began investigating them.
Copeland also posted a lot of sexual content and encouraged others to take cross-sex hormones, even though, by his own admission, he apparently wasn't taking them himself.
Additional reporting from Redux revealed that Copeland had also allegedly posted several disturbing short stories and erotica online, including one piece in which he fantasized about killing a local constituent who runs a small business and assuming her identity as a woman.
To be clear, Copeland used the identity of an actual constituent in this story.
It was not a fictional person.
He was openly fantasizing about killing a female constituent and taking her identity.
This is the mayor of the town, just to emphasize.
I'll talk more about exactly what Copeland was posting in a minute, but for now, it's important to underscore that he uploaded all this material voluntarily to the internet while he was serving as mayor, and since everything that a public official uploads to the internet is newsworthy, especially when it's perverted and depraved, that's an important fact to highlight.
With that in mind, let's go through some of the coverage of this episode.
Here, we'll start with this.
This is a video from the New York Post, for example.
This contains a lot of text, so if you're listening to the audio-only podcast, I'll repeat the important part in a moment.
The footage begins with a clip of Copeland's address to First Baptist Church, where he was also the pastor.
This footage is from shortly after the 1819 news story broke.
Watch.
I've been an object of an internet attack.
An article that was written about my capacity as a mayor, capacity as a pastor.
The article is about who or what I am.
Okay, so the New York Post plays the sad piano music.
They have Pastor Copeland saying he's the victim, he's being attacked.
He suggests the story is misleading without explaining how it was misleading exactly.
And then New York Post explains in the written caption that Copeland had been, quote, outed for having a secret life he shared online as a transgender curvy girl.
Copeland, the Post explains, was, quote, exposed by 1819 News in an article which describes Copeland's secret life online as a transgender woman under the pseudonym Brittany Blair Summerlin.
Now, for a second, put aside the description of this man as a transgender woman, and notice the framing here right away.
Bubba Copeland was outed, according to the Post.
The implication is that this poor transgender woman's, quote-unquote, privacy was violated, and we should, you know, feel sorry about that, and we should be angry at the people who outed him.
They're acting like someone hacked his hard drive or wiretapped his phone calls, when in fact, what happened was that a website looked at material that Copeland himself had posted publicly for everyone to see.
But this notion that Copeland was outed somehow became the framing of every major news outlet and prominent politician.
They're all pretending like Bubba Copeland was an innocent victim and, you know, a paragon of the community.
Former U.S.
Senator Doug Jones, for example, lamented, AOL.com, a popular outlet in the region, had a senior editor live-tweeting eulogies of Copeland a couple days ago.
The Daily Beast faulted a right-wing blog for, quote, outing Copeland's, quote, private life.
Newsweek reported that a right-wing website had, quote, outed Copeland, who was supposedly, quote, a transgender woman.
The gay news site The Advocate claimed in its headline that Copeland, quote, died by suicide after being involuntarily outed as a transgender woman.
Involuntary is a strange way of describing a report detailing content voluntarily and publicly posted to the internet.
And of course, trans activists have been hammering this theme as well.
They're following corporate media's lead.
Mark Pitcavage, a self-described senior research fellow at the ADL Center on Extremism, wrote, The mayor of an Alabama town and pastor of a local church killed himself after a right-wing news website called 1819 News, praised by Steve Bannon, cruelly doxed him as transgender.
A guy named Zack Lambert, who bills himself as a pastor, quote, passionate about equality and holistic justice, whatever the hell that means, declared that Copeland's suicide proves that, quote, anti-LGBTQ plus rhetoric has deadly consequences.
That post has 36,000 likes, by the way.
It's the narrative that the left is going with.
When a man posts about his weird fetishes online and other people notice and don't approve, the real lesson, they say, is about the dangers of anti-LGBTQ plus rhetoric.
On a similar note, Alejandro Caraballo, who's a trans-identified male Harvard instructor,
wrote, "1819 news, a far-right, dominionist outlet, outed an Alabama mayor and pastor as
being trans. The mayor subsequently took their own life after being outed."
Now, in case you're keeping track, by the way, Alejandro Caraballo, who attacked,
is the same person who attacked Lauren Boebert in graphic terms just a few weeks ago after
someone leaked surveillance footage of Boebert and her dates getting handsy while watching
Beelzeuse in a local theater.
In fact, I'd wager that nearly everyone on the left condemning those who outed Copeland Also went after Boebert for the Beetlejuice incident.
Except in that case, Boebert's behavior ended up on the internet because someone took the surveillance footage and posted it without her knowledge.
In Copeland's case, he put his sexual fetishes online himself for everyone to see.
Yet we're supposed to respect the privacy of the second person and not the first.
This is the kind of logic we're dealing with.
And what trans activists and the ADL and corporate media don't want to talk about is what exactly Copeland was uploading online in the first place.
I alluded to this earlier, but it wasn't just weird images and fetish content for trans communities online, even though by itself that would clearly be newsworthy.
As Redux reports, quote, Copeland's fictional exploits took a dark turn in 2021 when he published Dangerous Obsession.
In the story, Copeland describes becoming obsessed with a local business owner who he ultimately murders to assume her identity.
The woman murdered in the story is a real individual who lives in Copeland's community.
Now here's some select quotes from Copeland's story.
"I wanted her life.
"Staring at her on the latest social media application, "all I could think about was how amazing
"it must be to be her.
"At 29 years old, married and due to gastric bypass surgery, "had lost a lot of weight.
"She looked on top of the world."
Copeland's character ultimately stalks this business owner and murders her on a cruise ship by throwing her overboard.
And those details didn't make it into the New York Post.
Sad YouTube video with the mournful piano music.
They don't make it into many of these reports because they don't exactly inspire sympathy for this guy.
So they just leave it out of their stories completely.
So there's a lot of lying and obfuscating going on here as usual.
But if we look deeper, we can learn two important lessons.
The first is that the left Is desperately looking for, to borrow James Lindsay's phrase, their own trans Floyd, their trans George Floyd.
LGBT activists want to duplicate the protests, rioting, and general mass psychosis of 2020, but with themselves as the victim group in the center of it all.
But in order to do that, they need a martyr.
They need a death that they can pin on their enemies.
They already do this in broad terms, of course, telling us about the suicide rate of trans and LGBT people and declaring that all of it is somehow the fault of conservatives.
But broad terms are not good enough.
They need a name, a face, some individual person, a martyr, their own George Floyd, to make into the face of the persecution they've invented.
Now, I think that the unfortunate death of Bubba Copeland will not be the George Floyd moment they're looking for, but the point is that they are looking for it.
And eventually, they will find it.
And they will exploit it to the fullest extent possible.
Mark my words about that.
Second, it's important to note the total lack of internal logic on display here.
Trans activists and the media are calling Bubba Copeland transgender, but this is a guy who admitted to cross-dressing for his own sexual pleasure.
Copeland didn't think he was a woman.
He was aroused by pretending to be one.
He told 1819 News he was transgender, but only when he's wearing clothing and cosplaying as a woman.
He told his church that he was joking around.
But now that Copeland is dead, you're instructed to refer to him as a brave transgender woman because off and on he liked to wear women's clothing.
And to be clear, we've known for a long time that the overwhelming majority of trans-identified adult men are playing a sexual game of sorts and demanding that the rest of us play along.
It's called autogynephilia.
And even though the media never talks about it, it's a known condition in which men are aroused at the thought of themselves as female.
For years, we've been told with a straight face to believe the lie that men with this very obvious fetish are, in fact, women, simply by virtue of the fact that they have this fetish.
They've repeated this lie over and over again with maximum sincerity, as if it's gospel.
But lies that are this grandiose and this absurd inevitably break down.
They're not sustainable.
One way or another, at some point, liars like this must admit the truth, if only by accident.
And with the suicide of Bubba Copeland, That's exactly what's happened.
The trans movement stands for the idea that a woman is someone who wears his wife's clothes for fun and then uploads some photos on Reddit to arouse himself and, quote, blow off some steam, as Copeland said.
That's the extent of the trans-led ideology's definition of womanhood.
If you are a woman, that's what they think of you.
If you have a wife or a girlfriend or a sister, that's what trans activists and the corporate media think of her.
