Ep. 1282 - Colorado Supreme Court Commits An Insurrection
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Colorado Supreme Court takes Trump off the ballot with the flimsiest and most ridiculous legal reasoning you've ever heard. Also, a group of teens are arrested after viciously beating a classmate. This is becoming a pattern. And as always, the media is leaving key details out of their reporting. Plus, one of the most popular kids shows in the world releases an episode featuring a young boy dancing in a dress for his gay dads. Meanwhile, the New York Times attacks Bluey and our own show, Chip Chilla, for committing the crime of portraying loving and involved fathers.
Ep.1282
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DW+ Member for 30% off during our Christmas Sale: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
HigherBond - Sign up for HigherBond before December 31st and get 3 months FREE of premium. https://www.Higherbond.com
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 855-225-1040 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
- - -
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 Colorado Supreme Court takes Trump off the ballot with the flimsiest and most ridiculous legal reasoning you've ever heard.
Also, a group of teens are arrested after viciously beating a classmate.
This is becoming a pattern, and as always, the media is leaving key details out of their reporting.
Plus, one of the most popular kids shows in the world releases an episode featuring a young boy dancing in a dress for his gay dads.
Meanwhile, The New York Times attacks Bluey and our own show, Chip Chilla, for committing the crime of portraying loving and involved fathers.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Well, if you're single, you've probably seen or heard about all the insane dating apps out there
But what if I told you there was a dating app that actually cared about your morals and biblical values?
Higher Bond is a new Christian dating app built to be safer, less stressful, and more Christ-centered.
Higher Bond is completely different than anything else out there.
There's no addictive swiping.
The focus is truly on quality over quantity and is designed to form lasting marriages.
Hirebond is veteran-owned by a husband and wife looking to change the way Christian singles meet online.
It's no secret that left-wing media and big tech companies are against companies like Hirebond.
In fact, one of the major big tech companies is preventing Hirebond from running ads on their platform.
If you're single, you need to check out Hirebond.com.
Sign up before December 31st and get three months of Hirebond premium absolutely free.
That's Hirebond.com today.
Just a couple of minutes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the presidential frontrunner was ineligible to appear on the ballot, a giddy MSNBC anchor immediately started paging through the court's opinion on air.
And after a little while, she stumbled on what I think is the single most important part of the decision.
This is the portion of the ruling that isn't about the technical definition of an insurrection or about parsing whether a president is considered an officer of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Not to be clear, as many legal experts have said, those are important aspects of the opinion, and I'll get to them in a second.
But for now, I'm referring instead to the section of the Court's opinion that addresses whether, under the First Amendment, Donald Trump can be considered a violent insurrectionist merely because of his political speech.
This part of the ruling begins on page 116, and it's especially important because it applies to everyone.
It doesn't just affect presidential frontrunners and candidates for office.
It has the potential to affect every American who engages in political speech of any kind at all long after Donald Trump is gone.
So here's how the MSNBC anchor covered this part of the opinion live on air last night.
Watch.
In addition, Glenn, the District Court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted a, quote, insurrection.
The District Court did not err in concluding that President Trump engaged in, and that's in quotes, that insurrection through his personal actions.
And then President Trump's speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment.
Glenn, we've been talking for days, if not weeks, about this idea of Donald Trump trying to hide behind the First Amendment to be able to give an excuse for what is otherwise going to be clear criminal conduct.
Your thoughts about what this Supreme Court ruling has now said as well?
Okay, we don't need his thoughts.
The most important part there is where she says, we've been talking for days, if not weeks, about Donald Trump trying to hide behind the First Amendment to give an excuse for what is otherwise going to be clear criminal conduct.
So, she's relieved to report now that Donald Trump can't hide behind the First Amendment.
And that's how someone calling herself a journalist at a major media outlet is describing the single most important amendment that we have in the Constitution, and they put it right there at number one, the First Amendment.
Now apparently the First Amendment is just something that MSNBC's political opponents like to hide behind.
In MSNBC's view, it's a mere technicality designed to shield criminal conduct.
That's how the corporate media views the Constitution at this point.
That's how they viewed it for a very long time.
They see it as a sort of temporary obstacle to imprisoning Joe Biden's primary political opponent.
So let's get specific about what the Colorado Supreme Court said about the First Amendment and why they're claiming that it doesn't protect Donald Trump from this charge of insurrection under the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
These specifics matter because they highlight how easily this decision can be used to crush any political speech that the left doesn't approve of.
That's the whole point.
So on page 123, the Colorado Supreme Court begins its explanation of why Donald Trump was supposedly inciting a violent insurrection on January 6th instead of engaging in lawful political speech.
But they don't start with anything that Trump actually said.
On January 6th.
Instead, they go back several years.
So quoting from the decision, which cites the district court, quote, at a February 2016 rally, President Trump told his supporters that in the old days, a protester would be carried out on a stretcher and that he would like to punch him in the face.
In March 2016, President Trump responded to questions about his supporters' violence by saying it was very, very appropriate and we need a little bit more of it.
And during the 2020 election cycle, President Trump threatened to deploy the military to Minneapolis to shoot looters amid protests over the police killing of George Floyd.
Now again, these are a series of comments, taken out of context by the way, but let's put that to the side for a moment, that Donald Trump made long before January 6th, 2021.
So why are we talking about that?
I mean, in some cases, these comments occurred more than four years earlier.
And they obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with January 6th or voter fraud or anything like it.
Well, the Supreme Court says that somehow these comments are evidence that Donald Trump committed insurrection on January 6th.
They're proof that he intended to incite violence on that day, but how could that be?
You know, it's like if a guy is charged with murder and the prosecutor brings up during the trial that the same guy got a parking ticket five years ago.
I mean, what does that have to do with anything?
Now, to square the circle, the Supreme Court relies, and I'm not making this up, by the On the testimony of a sociology professor at Chapman University named Peter Simi.
So this random professor of sociology apparently convinced both the District Court and the Supreme Court that Donald Trump knows how to, quote, deploy a shared coded language with his violent supporters.
And supposedly Donald Trump's statements from 2016 to 2020 are evidence that he deploys this code all the time, this secret code.
Even though he didn't, in fact, use the military to crush the BLM riots or have any protesters beat up at his rallies.
None of that happened.
You'd think if he was using violent coded language for years that some violence would have resulted from it, but apparently not.
Still, this professor has discovered, like, the verbal invisible ink.
You know, the words that are written in the margins that nobody can see but him with his magical decoder ring.
That's what we're supposed to believe.
The sociology professor testifies that based on Donald Trump's statements from 2016 to 2020, we can conclude that all of his comments on January 6th about fighting to preserve the country and so on were really coded language designed to incite a mob to commit acts of violence at the Capitol.
That's the argument.
This is not simply a reach.
I mean, this decision, if upheld, is the end of freedom of speech in this country, not just for Donald Trump, but for everyone.
To arrive at its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court, used past comments that they just didn't like.
They weren't illegal, just didn't like them, in order to twist the meaning of what Donald
Trump actually said on January 6th.
Now, if you remember, in his remarks on January 6th, Donald Trump did not tell his supporters
to commit any acts of violence, or do anything illegal, or any act of insurrection whatsoever.
Instead, he specifically told his supporters to head to the Capitol and protest, quote,
peacefully.
Let's watch that again.
Know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully
and patriotically make your voices heard.
Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.
So we're supposed to disregard the fact that Trump told his supporters to be peaceful on January 6th, this is according to the Colorado Supreme Court, because he said some stuff that they didn't like back in 2016.
And therefore, Trump's address to the crowd on January 6th was really a coded message calling for violence.
But we need to bring in the sociology professor to crack the code.
In its opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court barely even acknowledges that Trump explicitly told his supporters to be peaceful on January 6th.
On page 127, they dismiss this as an isolated reference that doesn't neutralize anything unpleasant that Donald Trump has ever said.
Therefore, even though he explicitly called for peace, we could just ignore that and conclude that he was really calling for the violent overthrow of the federal government.
So you see how this works.
They're taking Donald Trump's explicit call for peace, And just discarding it out of hand.
At the same time, they're accusing Donald Trump of making implicit calls for violence,
going back several years, and concluding that it amounts to an insurrection within
the meaning of the 14th Amendment. And to reach the conclusion, as the dissenting opinion notes,
the Colorado Supreme Court never afforded Donald Trump any due process concerning the
determination of whether an insurrection had even occurred at all. The Colorado Supreme Court
didn't bother with the inconvenient fact that there's a federal insurrection law on the books,
And Donald Trump has never been charged with violating it.
Now, in case your memory is a little bit foggy, let me remind you that Donald Trump did not lead an army to overthrow the government or even to secede from it.
He didn't form his own country or announce his intent to do so.
Instead, Trump was trying to maintain the status quo by telling Mike Pence to reject electors that he believed were fraudulent.
Trump was the chief executive of the government on January 6th, and he wanted to remain the head of the government.
As legal analyst Nick Rikita pointed out last night on his YouTube channel, a government cannot lead an insurrection against itself.
Or if it can, there's zero evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever intended to apply to an unprecedented situation like that.
So, to recap, the Colorado Supreme Court didn't have a conviction against Donald Trump for insurrection, nor did they have any reason to think that the 14th Amendment applied to what Donald Trump did.
But they decided that didn't matter.
They just unilaterally decided on their own that they know what the word insurrection means, and they went with it.
By the same logic, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could be disqualified for inciting violence all across the country in 2020, including riots at a federal courthouse in Portland and at the White House, including riots that burned down a police station in Minneapolis.
So we can now have an endless tit-for-tat of political disqualifications in various courts instead of actual elections.
That's according to the logic from the Colorado Supreme Court.
That is the precedent that they would seemingly be intentionally trying to set.
I can go on about all the other problems with this ruling.
Other commentators in several federal courts have already pointed out that the President, under the 14th Amendment, isn't even capable of being barred from the ballot as an insurrectionist.
The Constitution spells out exactly who can be barred for committing insurrection, and the President is not named.
Senators are named, representatives are named, electors for President and Vice President are named, but not Presidents themselves.
I could also go into the various political ramifications of this decision.
Yes, this particular ruling is almost certainly going to be overturned by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In fact, the ruling has already stayed pending the Supreme Court's review.
And yes, it's a clearly partisan document.
Every single member of the Colorado Supreme Court was appointed by a Democrat governor.
And even then, the decision in this case was still 4-3.
There's also the whole absurdity of every single state Supreme Court separately making a decision that clearly has implications for a national presidential election.
So it's not remotely clear how Colorado has jurisdiction to even do that, according to the text of the 14th Amendment.
John Bolton, just to show you how weak the case is, John Bolton, who is not exactly a Trump ally, outlined this problem on CNN last night, watch.
I think it's completely misplaced.
I think this Colorado Supreme Court decision is badly wrong for multiple reasons.
Number one, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that Congress can pass legislation to carry its provisions into effect, which Congress has done on many aspects.
It has not put anything with respect to Section 3 on the books since just after the Civil War.
Second, the idea that Fifty different state courts can decide a question involving the highest elective office in the executive branch, interpreting the federal constitution as to what constitutes an insurrection against the federal government, is incoherent.
And I think, undoubtedly, the Supreme Court's going to have to clear that up.
In terms of what the framers of the 14th Amendment meant, I think it's quite clear that the radical Republicans in Congress, who wanted to suppress the secessionist advocates and governments of the southern states that succeeded, would not provide on this critical question of the offices that are going to be denied to people who broke their oath to the United States, that you're going to put decision-making authority on that in the hands of the states,
Including the former secessionist states.
If that was their intention, they were delusional when they did it.
So I'd be willing to bet a small amount of money here that the Supreme Court, if it gets to the merits of this, if it has to, will reverse.
There's no other logical way you can apply this, and it would sow chaos in elections as far as the eye could see.
So, you can make a lot of other points, too, about the limited impact this decision will have, regardless of what the US Supreme Court does.
You can note that Colorado is a state that obviously isn't going to determine the outcome of the next election.
If anything, this decision will probably help Donald Trump in the polls.
And already, Colorado Republicans have suggested that they'll simply hold their own caucus and submit the results to Congress, which, if it's Republican-controlled, can simply reject any Biden electors from the state on the grounds that no fair election took place.
It's possible that this decision will actually cost Joe Biden electoral votes from Colorado, a state that he's virtually guaranteed to win otherwise.
But even if this Colorado ruling is overturned tomorrow, and even if no other state Supreme Court issues a ruling like it, the fact remains that this decision out of Colorado highlights a much deeper issue that will not go away.
Journalists and leading political figures in this country are now openly saying that their political opponents should not have a say in elections.
They've been building to this point for a while, of course.
They've been imprisoning meme makers and raiding the homes of pro-lifers and investigating parents for criticizing trans propaganda in schools.
They've been doing all of that.
But in the wake of this Colorado decision, it's now totally explicit.
So here was Congressman Jamie Raskin yesterday, for example.
This is just a question of law.
It's like if a 14 year old tried to run for president, would that person be kept off of the ballot because the Constitution says you have to be 35 years old to run for president.
And this disqualification clause says you cannot be on the ballot for president or you cannot serve as president if you have Everybody should agree that this should be settled by the courts.
Well, actually, no.
against the United States.
And so I would think that regardless of what your politics are, what your party is, everybody should agree
that this is a question of law that's gotta be settled by the court.
Everybody should agree that this should be settled by the courts.
Well, actually no.
Four judges selected by Democrat governors should not in fact settle the issue
of whether American citizens can vote for the clear front runner in a presidential election.
It's hard to believe that anyone with any amount of shame even suggest something like that, but there's a sitting US.
senator, or congressman, rather, explaining that to uphold the law, you need to agree with him on this point.
Once again, you're being told that in the name of the law, you should accept a decision that shocks the conscience of any reasonable person.
You're told that the same constitution that explicitly guarantees your right to freedom of speech, in reality, is actually restricting it.
Now from a historical perspective, this is nothing new.
You might remember that the USSR had a constitution complete with guarantees for freedom of speech and political expression.
Didn't work out too well for them.
That's because the Soviets discovered that words in a constitution aren't actually self-enforcing.
Right?
So there's nothing magical here.
They're just, they're words.
They can be discarded.
You need a population and elected officials who actually respect the document.
If they don't, then it's trivially easy for them to twist the words of the Constitution around to the point that they become meaningless, or that they actually do the opposite of what they're intended to do.
That was Justice Scalia's famous line about how the Constitution is a parchment guarantee.
Now, at the end of the day, the Constitution is words on paper.
Those words can be manipulated and just discarded in an instant, and that's what they're trying to do right now.
That's what happened in Colorado.
Four activists on a court and a Chapman sociology professor tried to rewrite the First Amendment, not just for Donald Trump, but for you, for me.
And if they're allowed to succeed, then they will have dismantled the foundational legal principle of this country, which is the freedom of speech.
They will have ensured an unprecedented level of political violence and discord in the process, and in short, they will, by their own definition, be guilty of insurrection.
And they'll have no reason to complain when they inevitably pay a very heavy price for it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents, while in these challenging times your best defense is to use Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, Tax Network USA has saved their clients over $1 billion in back taxes.
They specialize in negotiating with the IRS and they aim to reduce Your debt significantly.
Tax Network USA doesn't just negotiate, they protect your assets from IRS seizures and manage your yearly returns for ongoing compliance.
They're licensed to help with all state tax issues regardless of where you live in the U.S.
Seize control of your financial future now and don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 855-225-1040 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
1040 or visit TNUSA.com/Walsh.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
That's TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
ABC News reports presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pledged on Tuesday to remove himself from Colorado's Republican primary ballot in response to the state's Supreme Court ruling that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to run in the state over his activities surrounding January 6th.
Ramaswamy promised to stay off the ballot until Trump's eligibility is restored.
He called upon his and Trump's 2024 GOP primary opponents To take the same steps.
Ramaswamy's statements came shortly after the Colorado Supreme Court decided on Tuesday evening that Trump is disqualified.
That's what I know about that. Here is Ramaswamy on Twitter last night with a video explaining this decision
and why he's doing it. Let's watch.
They have just tried to bar President Trump from the Colorado ballot using an unconstitutional maneuver
that is a bastardization of the 14th Amendment to our US Constitution.
Constitution.
This was a provision, Section 3, that was designed to bar Confederate members, people who switched to the Confederacy, from actually being able to serve.
That's very different than what's at issue here, to say the least.
This is a hollowed out husk of what the country was built on.
The basic principle that we the people select our leadership, not the unelected elite class in the back of palace halls.
That's old world Europe, not the United States.
That's why I'm making a pledge today that I will withdraw.
I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot unless and until Trump's name is restored.
And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie and Nikki Haley do the same thing, or else these Republicans are simply complicit in this unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional republic.
I refuse to be complicit in that.
I think what they're doing is wrong.
And I think it's up to Republicans to step up and stand up with a spine for our country's future.
That's really what's at stake.
Whether we the people actually have...
So there he is making the case for it.
Unpopular opinion, I realize, on the right anyway, but I don't really, you know, I don't, I don't like this move from the VEC.
I like a lot of what he does and says, but so it's somewhat rare that I would disagree.
I just, on this one, I don't see it.
I don't get it.
I mean, first of all, Trump is still on the ballot because the decision has been stayed and it'll be overturned.
So maybe it's all like, it's maybe kind of a moot point in that sense.
But at the same time, you know, I don't see, like, just speaking in principle here, I don't see how you punish the left and these activist judges by voluntarily withdrawing from the ballot as a Republican.
Because isn't that exactly what they would want you to do?
I mean, if anything, doesn't that encourage them to do more of that kind of thing?
Because they're getting, it's like a two-for-one special now.
So we could take Trump off the ballot, and then the rest of you, too, will kind of self-select to be off the ballot.
So, like, from their perspective, you know, you gotta imagine, if you're from the perspective of your opponent, and they look at that, are they going, oh, no, don't do that, well, that's terrible, don't leave the ballot, don't, no.
Like, aren't you rewarding them for their efforts?
I know that's not the intention, obviously, but isn't that the result?
So I'm just trying to figure out the strategy.
It's like, oh yeah?
Well, if you won't let Trump on the ballot, then this other guy you also hate will also not be on the ballot.
So there.
What do you say now?
We gotcha.
So I don't see the win there.
I made this point on Twitter and a lot of people are very mad at me.
I said it's an unpopular opinion.
Because we're supposed to, you know, it's like we're supposed to just be cheerleaders for this kind of thing.
There's no room for anyone to have a dissenting opinion.
That's the way it goes.
But I really am curious.
Like, no one is explaining the win.
Maybe there is one.
I just don't see.
That's quite possible.
It happens sometimes.
I don't see things.
But there's a lot of this, well, it's the right thing to do.
It makes a statement.
I don't care about making statements.
You know, I care about the win.
I care about the strategy.
That's really the only thing I care about.
What's the win?
What's the strategy?
And I think, again, it's general principle, the right political strategy, and this is simplistic.
Well, I would call it simplistic.
I would say it is simple, though.
Simple way of looking at it.
I think it's the right way of looking at it, which is general strategy.
You know, figure out what your enemy would want you to do, and then do the opposite of whatever that thing is.
Never do anything that your enemy will be happy about you doing.
So if you're doing something and your enemy goes, great, this works out great for us, then it's probably not a good strategy.
And with something like this, I don't see how it's the opposite of what your enemy wants.
Like, I think it's clearly what they want.
You know, there's a lot of, that's why it matters, because it does seem like there's a lot of this kind of thing on the right.
And so even if, like, ultimately this is overturned by the Supreme Court, Trump and Vivek are back on the ballot, so it's all sort of the same in the end anyway.
The reason why it matters to me is because it's just, it shows a problem on the right in general that you find.
It's like when people tell me, just as another example, they say, well, hey, you need to stick it to YouTube by leaving the platform entirely.
Don't put any content there.
That's how you've got to stick it to them.
Right?
Make a statement.
Okay, but that's exactly what they want.
They'd be very happy about that.
If I don't have nothing on YouTube, YouTube's not going to go, oh, no, Matt Walsh isn't here anymore.
This is terrible for us.
We hate this.
No, they'll be extremely happy about it.
They'll pop champagne.
They could be more happy.
So, that seems like it's clearly not the right strategy.
And this goes for a lot of these big tech companies.
You always hear, there's always this thought of, you know, get off the platform.
You know, show them what's what by leaving the platform.
But, I understand the idea behind it.
Like, I get it.
I understand the thought process, but I don't think it makes sense strategically, because that's exactly what the platforms want.
They want you to be silenced.
They don't want you using their platform to spread a message that they disagree with.
And so if you just leave and make yourself irrelevant and go off to some ghetto somewhere, then some internet ghetto somewhere and speak to an echo chamber, they love that.
That's great for them.
That's the best possible scenario as far as they're concerned.
It's exactly what they want you to do.
And so for that reason alone, you shouldn't do it.
Which is always, you know, even though I think that's a simple, common sense way of approaching things, it doesn't always tell you the whole story.
Like, it's a way of knowing what you shouldn't be doing, but it doesn't always tell you exactly what you should do.
Yeah, leaving all the big tech platforms, silencing yourself, not a good strategy.
What do we do about the big tech platforms, though?
There's a whole other question that's opened up, I realize that.
But it is useful, at least, to establish what we shouldn't be doing in response to things like this.
And so, I think strategically, it's just not the smartest move.
All right, this is from NBC News, says a fifth teenager who surrendered to police in Florida on Monday was charged in connection with a brutal beating videotaped near the scene of a deadly 2018 school shooting.
Jameer Bozel, 17, turned himself in and was charged with felony battery in the attack just outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
Four other teenagers, Caleb Hensley, Sylvester Hicks, Chinua Leifat, and Jordan Thompson were arrested last week
and charged with the same offense, all except Leifat, our students at the school.
The four appeared in court Friday, were released to the custody of their parents.
The victim was slammed to the pavement and beaten on December 12th at North Community Park,
which serves as an overflow parking lot for students at the school.
And there's a video of this beating that is making the rounds online.
I'm not going to play it for you here.
But it's quite brutal.
I mean, the worst part is slamming his head on the pavement.
Thank God the victim was not killed in the assault, but easily could have been killed.
It's just luck of the draw at that point.
You get your head slammed against the pavement, it's luck of the draw whether it kills you or not.
It just depends on how your head hits, you know.
But brutal, savage attack.
And this is just the latest story of its kind.
If you hear this and it sounds familiar, and you say, well, didn't we hear about this exact story three weeks ago?
Well, you did.
It just wasn't this exact case.
It's happening a lot.
A kid getting beaten savagely by a group of other kids.
It's been happening a lot this year, with devastating consequences for the victims, obviously.
And the other thing you notice, of course, is that the media goes very light on the details about the attackers and the victims in these cases.
That's why I read that NBC News article.
I could pull up any other article from any other corporate media outlet, and what you're going to find is that they'll talk about teens, they'll talk about kids, but they're going to be very gentle about offering any kind of description of who these people are.
Because the one thing they're not going to tell you, of course, is the races of the people involved.
And that's because in this case, just like in so many of these cases, the assailants are black and the victim is white.
And that's the reality.
Should that be mentioned?
Does that matter?
Yes, it should be mentioned.
And for two reasons.
The first is the really obvious one, that If the situation was reversed, it certainly would be mentioned.
You know, a group of white kids beating the hell out of a black kid.
Definitely, that's, that's, the races, they're not just going to be in the article.
That's in the headline.
That is the headline at that point.
It's not just in the headline, it is the headline.
That a group of white kids beat a black adult.
That's hard to imagine because that sort of thing just never happens.
Like, it almost never happens.
That's not to say that white kids and white people, white teens, white people any age don't commit acts of violence.
Of course they do.
But this particular thing of getting together as a group and ganging up on one person, in particular a group of white teens ganging up on a black teen, Beating him senselessly, slamming his head against the pavement.
It just, like, it never happens.
I don't know.
If you go back, and I'm sure there are plenty of people fact-checking me on this, but go back the last 15 years.
Let's just go back to the year 2010.
Okay?
Just to make it easy.
From then until now, how many cases are there of a group of white people beating up a black person?
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find even, like, two or three.
It just almost never happens.
It's, like, unheard of.
But going the opposite way, it happens quite frequently.
And so that's one reason why the races matter and should be mentioned.
But the other reason, too, is that, you know, it matters because it matters.
I mean, it's part of the story.
Now, it is true that in this particular case, was race an immediate inciting factor?
Did they chase this guy down and attack him because he's white?
Is that the reason that they gave?
Were they shouting anti-white slurs at him while they were beating him?
As far as I know, the answer is no to that.
As far as I know, that's not the case.
And in many of these kinds of cases, You know, the attackers are not, if you ask them why they did it, in many of these cases, not all of them, but in many of these cases, they would not say, they're not going to tell you, well, it's because of the guy's race.
We don't like him because he's white.
That doesn't mean that race is not a factor here.
Because all of this is happening within a cultural context where white people are painted as the enemy.
Painted as the other.
And non-white people, racial minorities, are being told from a very young age that, oh, that group over there, they're the oppressors.
Right?
All the evil in the world comes from them.
And everything happening to you that you don't like, everything about your life that you don't like, one way or another is traced back to those people.
Like, it's all their fault.
One way or another.
No matter how many dots you have to connect.
We tell the young black kid in school, whatever your problems are, look at that white kid, your classmate.
One way or another, it goes back to him.
He's involved.
This is the message that they hear.
That's the context in which these things are happening.
So, whether race is cited, As a sort of conscious motivating factor, this is the cultural context.
And the thing is, in most cases, the left in particular, they're eager to bring up things like cultural context.
In most cases, if they're looking to excuse or mitigate a crime that some criminal commits, they want to come up with an excuse for putting that person back on the street as quickly as possible.
Man, they're all about context.
Like, well, you have to understand the context, the pressure this person has suffered, and so on and so on.
But when it comes to something like this, all of a sudden, they're not worried about that context quite as much.
They've created a context of, again, white people being demonized, blamed as the enemy.
Whiteness is a cancer, whiteness is a whatever.
It's an epidemic.
It has to be cured.
And you see a lot of violence being committed of this kind against white people, and then all of a sudden the context doesn't matter as much to them, which is interesting.
All right, next, you know, you've heard about gender dysphoria.
Of course, we've talked about that plenty.
Well, something we haven't talked about as much, because it's nonsense, but still, it's alleged opposite, which is gender euphoria.
So there's gender dysphoria, where you feel like you're in the wrong sex.
And there's gender euphoria.
And LibzaTikTok posted this video today, which has gone viral, of a guy pretending to be a woman and talking about the gender euphoria he experiences when he, in his mind, acts like a woman.
Let's watch that.
Things that give me gender euphoria, but it gets increasingly more unhinged.
Doing housework.
There's just something that's so mommy coded about destroying a mountain of dishes or, like, crisply folding laundry.
Beating men.
Not, like, physically beating men, but, like, winning against men in, like, sports or a video game or life itself.
Also, the color green.
I understand that colors don't have gender, but a good green, that's just for the girls, babe.
Next, I'm gonna have to say crying.
Before I transitioned, I was one of those girls-boys who, like, never cried, and now it's everyday, like, clockwork, and honestly, what is girlier than sobbing uncontrollably?
Next, doing any activity with the wind in my hair, like running, biking, convertibles, boats, wind tunnels.
Okay, those last three I actually haven't experienced, but I imagine the euphoria would be off the chart.
Also, reminder that there is an ongoing genocide that we need to be paying attention to, talking about, and calling our reps about.
Just because your feed is back to normal doesn't mean the world is back to nor- Hmm.
Ongoing genocide that he's talking about as he's doing his nails or whatever.
Yeah, it's an ongoing genocide.
He seems to be, I assume he's talking about the totally fictional trans genocide, the genocide of trans people that doesn't exist.
And, you know, he seems real concerned about it, doesn't he?
Like all these people, they talk about the trans genocide.
Judging based on their actions and the way they present themselves and what they do and say, they don't seem to be worried about that at all.
They're not acting like the victim group when there's an actual genocide happening.
But a couple interesting things here.
The first and most obvious is this just another Dylan Mulvaney situation, as is always the case.
You get this cartoonish, degrading caricature of womanhood, as always.
And that's what it always is, right?
I mean, there's no version of this that is not cartoonish and degrading.
Anytime you have a man quote-unquote identifying as a woman, it's always this.
And then you also see the...
The performance, like it's nothing but performance for these people.
It's interesting that he says even when he gets euphoria from it, he lists a crying.
So yeah, that's kind of an insulting stereotype of womanhood.
What he's saying is when you cry, you're acting like a girl.
The kind of thing to say that in any other context would be horribly sexist.
And yet that's what he's saying here, and I guess as long as you're a man wearing makeup and with long hair and you say that, then suddenly it's okay.
But aside from that, he says that he gets this feeling of euphoria while he's crying.
What?
How is that even possible?
Like, how can you experience those two things at the same time?
Unless you're crying tears of joy, but I assume you're talking about you're crying because you're sad about something.
So, you're sad and you're crying and at the same time you feel euphoric about the fact that you're sad and crying?
That doesn't make any sense.
It's schizophrenic to even imagine holding both of those feelings in your head at the exact same time.
But what it shows you is that You know, even when he's crying and having a crying fit, it's all performance.
Everything's totally artificial.
But most importantly, there's this whole concept of gender euphoria.
It's like a relatively new concept.
And we've been hearing about gender dysphoria for a long time.
Gender euphoria is a newer idea.
But you hear about it a lot from the trans-identified people.
And it only goes to show that what they're really doing, what all of this is, is just chasing a feeling.
That's all.
This is why I always think it's important to stipulate that for most of these people, they are not actually confused.
And I understand why that can be confusing.
Like, when you see something like that and you hear that, you... It's like, well, clearly, that's very... That seems like a confused person.
So you'd be forgiven for assuming that that's a confused person.
He certainly seems confused.
But most of these people are not.
They're not actually confused.
They don't really think... You know, these men, they don't really think that they're women.
You know, they grasp the basic concept of human biology.
They do.
They do understand it.
Because how can you not?
So it's not that they're really confused about it.
It's that they're chasing a feeling.
And if you listen to them talk, they'll be very... they're actually honest about that.
But for whatever reason, it makes them feel good to put on the makeup or whatever and whatever else he was listing there.
Looking at the color green, I don't know why you need to identify as a woman to do that.
But whatever it is, there's a certain feeling that they get from it.
And all of the performance, everything is just about them chasing that feeling.
So why are they identifying as a woman?
Is it because they are a woman?
Well, obviously not.
Is it because they think that they're women?
Actually, no, for most part.
It's because it makes them feel good to pretend.
And that's what almost all of this is.
Which is an important stipulation, I think.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the left has lost their minds, making abortion their official sacrament.
But the grassroots pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
Pro-lifers haven't gone away.
In fact, they've only increased in number.
One of the efforts that I support is 40 Days for Life because they're changing hearts and minds in blue pro-abortion states.
With 1 million volunteers and 1,600 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
40 Days for Life has opened a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they've grown in volunteers.
This success has come with new, unwanted attention from the DOJ.
40 Days for Life just made national headlines because they're suing the DOJ on behalf of their volunteer Mark Halk, who had his house raided by the FBI.
They're going on offense against our compromised FBI and DOJ.
You can help them fight their ongoing legal battles and pursue free speech for their volunteers, including Mark Halk.
By giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
Okay, so today, I think I'm going to go back to what's the most important segment from the show this week, and probably this month, which is about Elf on the Shelf.
And I spent about eight or nine minutes on the show a couple days ago complaining about Elf on the Shelf, because again, it is important.
I know you might say, well, of all the things going on in the world, does that really deserve eight or nine minutes?
Yes, it does.
And now you're gonna get more Elf on the Shelf content.
Because someone needs to talk about this scourge.
Although there are people that disagree with me.
Shockingly.
So, we got a few comments from those people.
First one says, I love it when Matt goes full Grumpy Grinch mode.
I personally love the Elf on the Shelf thing.
One year, struggling for ideas, my wife and I went so far as to move our car around the corner with the elf at the wheel, suggesting that he tried to steal it.
Okay.
You have a problem.
You have a problem.
You and your wife both have a problem.
And not only is this far too elaborate, but you're already telling you you're struggling for ideas.
Why?
Why are you struggling for ideas?
It's the fact that it's a it should not be the moment where there is any like you look at that the little toy elf.
That little thing should not bring any struggles into your life at all.
I don't know anything about you, I don't know anything about your life.
Maybe you'll lead a good life.
But I'm sure there are difficulties, as anybody does, suffering and difficulties that you have in your life.
That doesn't need to be a part of it.
So the moment that there's like the slightest ounce of struggling or hardship associated with that thing, there's a problem.
Do you see that?
And then, so not only Have you made this far too elaborate?
And also, by the way, you're making it harder for everybody else, all the other parents with the elf thing.
Because then, right, like, your kid goes to school, goes, oh, guess what my elf did last night?
And then those kids go home, and they're upset because their elf is not as, you know, their elf isn't doing as many crazy things.
And that's how there's like this, it's just, there's this one-upmanship that goes on.
But also, what message are you sending to your kids about this elf?
And I think that a lot when I see these parents and some of the elf on the shelf displays that they're very proud of.
What do your kids think about the elf?
So this is what, an evil elf who stalks your home at night and commits crimes when you sleep?
Your children are probably terrified.
You think that they are having fun?
They're only acting like they're having fun because they think that an evil, crime-committing elf is haunting their home.
Think about that for a second.
Like, what would you think if you actually thought that was real?
Like, what if that actually happened?
That a little elf toy came to life and stole a car?
Would that bring you Christmas merriment and delight?
No, you'd be terrified.
It's literally a horror movie set up.
And this is what you're doing to your children.
Think about that.
Another one says, here's an idea.
Tell them the elves are giving them treats instead of playing around next year.
Set them up around an advent calendar you only have to prepare once.
They still get a present or treat every morning.
You can move their arms or something if you want.
No.
I don't want to do that either.
Because also, why should my kids get a treat every morning?
Okay, this is not the whole thing.
Why should there be something every single morning?
I mean, if you really want to go traditional, you want to do 12 days of Christmas, then do that.
You're doing like 25 days of Christmas?
I never got that when I was a kid.
Again, for me, Christmas was one morning.
The fun thing happened one time.
That was the only fun day of the entire year when I was growing up.
That was it.
That was all we got.
And we were grateful for it.
And now we think our kids, oh, give them a treat every morning?
My kids don't deserve a treat every morning.
Do yours?
No kid does.
Let's see.
Finally, okay, Matt, you missed the point of having six kids.
You get the eldest two kids to take on elf duty.
Well, funny you should mention that, because that's exactly what we did.
So this year, the elf baton was passed to the two eldest, and there was a whole ceremony and everything.
They received their elf diplomas and graduated the chief elf mover, and it was a whole thing.
And so I thought that this would take the burden off of our shoulders, or off of my wife's anyway.
But it actually hasn't.
Because all that happens now, in most nights, is that now there are three people, my wife and the two oldest kids, like teaming up for elf duties.
So it actually made the whole operation more complicated.
I was trying to make it simpler by saying, okay, you two, you can do the elf thing.
Yeah, you know the whole elf thing?
They're not real, we move them, you can do it now.
And I thought I'd make it a lot easier, but it didn't.
And so, and plus now, they have to stay up.
Until the youngest kids fall asleep, so they can do the elf thing.
So I try to put the kids to bed every night, and then I have my daughter whispering to me, remember we have to do the elves?
You're going to wait until she falls asleep and we do the elves?
Okay.
We don't want to forget about that.
And they're so obvious about it too.
Like, I don't know how the younger ones haven't caught on.
They're pretty gullible, I guess.
Because every morning, my daughter takes the younger ones to show them, because she's so proud of where she put the elves, and so she'll take the younger ones, like, by the hand and show them, here, look where this elf moved on his own.
No subtlety to her performance at all.
And the other kids never question it.
They don't question why, like, they don't ever think, okay, why does my sister know where the elves are going to be?
When we all walk down the stairs together in the morning.
How does she always know that?
They don't question that.
No skepticism with these kids at all.
Anyway.
Well, we got one more day in the year for me.
So I can complain about Elf on the Shelf again tomorrow.
Maybe I'll just do the whole show on that tomorrow.
60 minutes.
Christmas is only a few days away, and if you're searching for the perfect gift for your family, your friends, your colleagues, your neighbors, or even yourself, we've got you covered.
Daily Wire Plus annual subscriptions are 30% off.
That's one year of unlimited access to ad-free, uncensored, exclusive content from all of your favorite Daily Wire hosts for 30% off.
Along with on-demand access to groundbreaking entertainment and documentaries, leading the charge in the culture war.
Trust me, you don't want to miss what we have coming in 2024, like Mr. Bircham, the hilarious animated series with a star-studded voice cast featuring Adam Carolla, Roseanne Barr, Megyn Kelly, and our very own Brett Cooper, plus many more.
We have the highly anticipated release of The Pendragon Cycle, bringing the legendary story of King Arthur to life like never before.
DailyWire Plus memberships also unlock the DailyWire's new kids app, BendKey, at no extra charge.
Enjoy over 20 titles and hundreds of episodes that are kid-friendly and age-appropriate.
And yes, BendKey is where you'll be able to watch Snow White and the Evil Queen in 2024.
Plus, so much more in the works that I can't even tell you about yet this Christmas.
Then give the gift of a DailyWire Plus annual membership for 30% off.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
Here's a story you've heard before.
Another popular children's program has decided to go all in on left-wing indoctrination.
And this time, as the Twitter account EndWokeness reports, it is the show Cocomelon Lane, which is apparently a spinoff from the extremely popular Cocomelon Show.
And the clip circulating social media today is from episode 8 of the show's recently released first season.
In the clip, we see a young boy, a character named Nico.
Dancing around in a dress and a tiara while his two gay dads look on approvingly.
It's so on the nose that you would be forgiven for assuming that it must be like a parody, but it's not.
Not intentionally, anyway.
Sadly, this is very real, and here it is.
Watch.
How about you break out those moves?
♪ About you, you learn to get up and dance ♪ How about you break out those moves?
♪ For your two biggest fans ♪ ♪ ♪
♪ If you're not sure what to choose ♪ ♪ Think about all the things you like to do ♪
♪ Just be you ♪ Yep!
Just be me?
Yep.
When you're trying to decide, think about all the things you like to do.
Just be you.
Just be me!
Now before we get to the biggest and most obvious problem here, I should say that Coco
Mellon is one of the many shows that you should ban from your household, have already
You should have already banned it, simply because it's annoying and obnoxious and dumb.
So we focus so much on the wokeness, and for good reason.
It's also worth noting just how bad most of these shows are, like, even aside from the wokeness.
Bad music, bad voice acting, bad singing, very bad, lifeless, ugly animation.
The whole show looks and sounds like something that was generated in 12 seconds by AI.
And that is basically how these shows are made, or that's how they will be made, at least in the very near future.
And most parents will agree with my assessment of Cocomelon.
I don't know any parent, Kokomo is one of the many shows that every parent complains about.
But then they'll say that they let their kids watch him anyway because they say that their kids love the show.
Well, the problem is that, first of all, my kid wants to do it is never a sufficient reason for allowing them to do anything.
And second, they don't actually love the show, okay?
Nobody could love what you just saw there, not even a child.
They don't love these shows.
They are sedated by them.
They are hypnotized, stupefied.
That's why you've never seen a child, if you've ever seen a child like watching a show like this, or walked into a room when a kid's watching a show like this, you'll notice that the child isn't laughing or smiling or really reacting at all.
They just sit there, glassy-eyed, distracted by it.
For whatever reason, stuff like this is compulsively watchable to a three-year-old, but they don't love it, and they certainly aren't gaining anything from it.
It's just that companies like Netflix specialize in churning out content that is compulsively watchable, stuff that will keep you sitting there slack-jawed and tranquilized.
They produce that type of content for adults and kids alike.
And that brings us to the most significant problem here, which is the message that the content is delivering.
Whatever the message is, the child watching the show will be perfectly susceptible to it.
Netflix has your child where they want him.
Sitting there, eyes glued to the screen, passively absorbing whatever images and sounds and ideas emerge from it.
And if your kid happened to be watching episode 8 of Cocomelon Lane, then he would passively absorb the idea that it's normal for boys to dress like girls and that there's nothing strange about a child having two dads.
It's not an accident, by the way, that this scene happens in episode 8.
Because Netflix, they're strategic about this sort of thing.
Like any groomer, it wants to lure parents into a false sense of security.
They see, so like parents will see the first couple episodes, everything looks pretty normal and harmless, not knowing that the gay dads and the cross-dressing kid is buried midway through the 8th episode.
It's all very deliberate and very evil.
And sadly, very effective.
The left obviously has other, much more blatant ways of encouraging cross-dressing and gender-bending and instilling confusion in people's minds, but none of those other efforts will be as effective as even this one little two-minute scene in Cocomelon.
Because this is where they really mold the next generation into whatever twisted shape they want them to be.
It's with a show like this, targeting children in this age range, planting seeds in very young minds that are not capable of any sort of skepticism or critical analysis.
Now, meanwhile, as this is all going on, the corporate media is busy this week attacking the few kid shows that don't engage in this kind of perverse brainwashing.
The New York Times has a lengthy article criticizing both Bluey and our very own Chip Chilla on our Benkey Children's Entertainment app.
And the crime that they're criticizing these shows for is the crime of portraying happy, well-adjusted families with attentive fathers.
So here's the title of the article, just to give you an idea of where the writer's coming from.
The title is, The Fantasy of the Fun TV Dad.
Yes, because a fun dad who loves his kids and likes spending time with them is a fantasy.
Now, it certainly is, we can assume, in the personal experience of feminist New York Times writers.
But I don't know if it's a fantasy in general.
The Daily Wire summarizes the article, quote, NYT writer Amanda Hess noted in her article how in the first episode of Bluey, the archaeologist's father, Bandit, keeps house while his wife works outside the home.
She describes Bandit as a fun dad who does housework, too, and always plays with his kids.
Hess views this portrayal as unrealistic, writing that his omnipresence is odd and striking.
The writer goes on to describe how her own child is often staring at a screen while she takes care of household chores like laundry.
Quote, Bandit represents a parent freed of drudgery, one whose central responsibility is delighting his kids, Hess adds, claiming that parents don't play with their children in real life because they're too focused on other tasks.
Hess has the same complaints about Bentke's Chip-Chilla, which is about a homeschooling family with the dad, Chum-Chum, serving as the children's instructor.
She describes Chum-Chum as a highly involved father and unrelenting jokester who rarely seems to have to work.
Yes, well, you know, it's important that the cartoon chinchilla has a more realistic work-life balance.
It's odd to have an omnipresent dad.
Now, she doesn't seem to have noticed that the main characters in cartoons generally tend to be omnipresent.
Like, that's what makes them the main characters.
Does Chip Chilla need to have an episode where the dad gets in his car and drives to work and sits for nine hours in a cubicle just to establish that this is also part of the daily routine?
Apparently Amanda Hess is not able to use her imagination on this point.
Come to think of it, it's also odd that we never see any of these cartoon characters sleep.
Are they always awake?
Are they awake all the time?
There should be at least one seven and a half hour episode where the characters just sleep the whole time.
Because that'll really help with the realism.
And by the way, Hess also complains, of course, about the show featuring, quote, lessons about dead white people.
Quoting from the article, So, this is what the media wants you to be worried about.
can fulfill a fantasy of their own, combating the perceived indoctrination of public school
by screening homeschool themed content afterward, featuring lessons about dead white people and classic texts.
So, this is what the media wants you to be worried about.
While one of the most popular kid's show franchises in the world has a cross-dressing boy
dancing around the room for his gay dads.
There certainly is not gonna be any lengthy New York Times think piece about that,
except perhaps maybe to praise it.
But the criticism will go to the few shows left that show happy, normal nuclear families with normal parents and normal kids doing what happy, normal families do.
Because there's nothing that these people hate more than normalcy.
That's why they're determined to destroy it.
And to destroy your child in the process.
And they will use whatever tools are available in that effort.
Which includes, in fact, especially includes shows like Cocomelon.
And that's why we created Benkey in the first place.
And it's also why, if you have kids, you should sign up for it.
And it's why Netflix and Cocomelon are today, and should be literally, in the Bud Light sense, cancelled.
