Ep. 1284 - Another Cowardly Republican Gov ernor Caves To The Trans Agenda
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the cowardly Republican governor of Ohio vetoed a bill that would have banned child mutilation in the state. There couldn't be any good reason to make that decision, but his reasons are even worse than you expect. Also, a list of Epstein associates is supposed to be released any day now. What can we expect from this release? Should we expect anything at all? And gay activists in Seattle are protesting a playground. Wait until you hear why.
Ep.1284
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Check out Bentkey Kids Entertainment here: https://bit.ly/46NTTVo
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Legacybox - Shop Legacybox with my exclusive discount: https://www.legacybox.com/Matt
- - -
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 cowardly Republican governor of Ohio vetoed a bill that would have banned child mutilation in the state.
There couldn't be any good reason to make that decision, but his reasons are even worse than you expect.
Also, a list of Epstein Associates is supposed to be released any day now.
What can we expect from that release?
Should we expect anything at all?
And gay activists in Seattle are protesting a playground.
Wait until you hear why.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Last year, because of you, Preborn's network of clinics saved over 58,000 babies.
Thank you to all who made this possible.
Let's celebrate these precious babies.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
My name is Seanan.
I just want to share a little experience with you throughout my pregnancy.
I am 32 weeks pregnant.
When I found out I was pregnant, that was seven weeks.
My pregnancy was an unplanned situation.
I was unplanned, but my boyfriend, he always needed a child.
And abortion was in the back of my mind, but I know if I did, that would ruin our relationship.
But doing my first ultrasound, seeing my baby girl moving, And hearing the heartbeat, it was so overwhelming.
It was a joy for us.
Both of us were happy.
We're excited.
We can't wait to welcome our baby girl into this world.
And I want to thank Mission Preborn for the Hodgestone.
I thank you for everything that you have done for us.
Thank you so much and God bless you.
[MUSIC]
When Charlotte found out she was pregnant, she was seven weeks along.
In the back of her mind, she thought abortion was the best solution.
She went into a pre-born clinic, and after hearing her baby's heartbeat and seeing her beautiful baby on ultrasound, she chose life.
Her heart is filled with gratitude for all of you who made this possible.
Each of these babies are truly miraculous, and every day pre-born celebrates 200 miracles.
Just $28 a month can be the difference between the life and death of a child when a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat.
It's a divine connection that doubles a baby's chance at life.
So let's join together and help mothers choose life.
To donate, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250, say the keyword baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash matt.
That's preborn.com slash matt.
You know, it used to be a long time ago that senior officers in the U.S.
military made a point of staying out of politics.
At least in public, they focused their attention solely on foreign enemies that could threaten the United States.
George Marshall, the Army officer who became Secretary of Defense under Truman, famously refused to vote in any election for any candidate.
And that kind of thinking was the norm, and you could see why.
Once the military starts trying to pick fights with domestic enemies, things can get very third world very quickly.
In just about a half century, though, we've come a long way from George Marshall.
Leaders like that are now very hard to find in the Pentagon.
In their place, we have men with names like Brie Fram.
Now, Brie Fram is a colonel in the Space Force, which is part of the Air Force, and based on his public appearances, Fram's main credential seems to be that he likes to dress up as a woman.
That's his whole thing, and he devotes the vast majority of his time to political campaigning on behalf of trans activists.
A couple weeks ago, for example, Fram headlined a forum sponsored by Fortune magazine.
This is an event that was entitled, Fortune's Most Powerful Women of 2023.
And naturally, Fram, as a middle-aged adult man, took the stage.
He insisted that the military and major corporations have no choice but to hire more crossdressers.
Indeed, our national security, he says, depends on hiring more crossdressers into the military.
Watch.
Inclusion is a national security imperative.
We fight today and we are going to fight in the future using brain power.
And if that brain, who's going to revolutionize the way we fight in space, we fight in cyber, just happens to be in a trans body, you should want them all serving alongside me.
And for your organizations, it's the same way.
Those perspectives that we get from a diverse set of individuals, it's been talked about on stage a lot regarding the science behind high-performing teams.
We need those perspectives.
But it's inclusion that actually drives that.
Because you can bring people in and if they don't feel safe to speak up, if they don't feel safe to bring their full selves to work, you're not going to get the value of the diversity.
Yes, we fight using brain power, which is why, says Brie, it's important that we get more brains that are mentally ill involved in the military.
It's funny that he's highlighting the one thing that's the biggest problem.
He says, well, you can hire trans people because it's about what matters is the brain.
Well, yeah, your brain is the problem, though.
That's the issue here.
But he says this will make us safer, it'll make the country stronger.
Why is that the case?
How can it be the case?
Well, he never explains that, and he can't explain it because it's nonsense.
But be that as it may, if you go on Brie Fram's social media, you'll find that he was just promoted by the Pentagon precisely for relentlessly pushing this kind of propaganda.
So this is what the Defense Department wants him to be doing, even though nothing he says makes any sense whatsoever.
And by the way, the people who don't feel safe to speak up, to use Brie Fram's language, are not the trans activists.
It's the people who recognize that putting a wig on a guy or cutting off his penis doesn't magically transform him into a woman.
Those are the people who are afraid to speak up because then they'll be fired for it.
And that's true in every major corporation in this country.
It's also true in the military.
Nobody wants to tell the truth or else they'll be destroyed.
Unlike what Brie Fram is complaining about, this self-censorship, this denial of reality, is definitely a national security threat.
And it's easy to see why.
I mean, as a general rule, you cannot defend yourself or your nation in reality unless you are living in reality yourself.
I mean, America exists in reality, in the real physical world, and so It makes sense that we want everyone who is defending the country to also be inhabiting that world and acknowledging that world and be able to see that world for what it is.
Trans-identified people have trouble living in, accepting, or understanding reality.
And that's why they identify as trans.
They are a demographic that suffers from serious mental illness at a rate dramatically higher than the general population.
They're a much greater risk to the military for that reason alone.
Not to mention the fact that most of these activists hate this country and want to destroy everything it stands for.
And yet we're being instructed by trans activists like Brie Fram that we shouldn't be allowed to say anything like this out loud.
And if we do, we're told that we're supposedly the ones who are endangering national security somehow.
And that's just scratching the surface of what Brie Fram has been saying.
He's also openly criticized state legislatures that have passed bills that trans activists don't like.
In March of last year, for example, Fram tweeted a meme of a Star Trek actress mouthing the words, are you effing kidding me, in response to what Fram called, quote, all the anti-trans legislation being introduced and passed in so many states.
So here we have a colonel working for the U.S.
Armed Forces Publicly condemning legislation that was passed by conservative voters by overwhelming majorities in several states.
And there are many more posts like this on Fram's social media feeds.
This isn't just, like, inappropriate.
Coming from the military, it's threatening.
And completely intolerable.
These are people with the most advanced military equipment on the planet.
They have the power to kill anybody they don't like.
And therefore, we decided a long time ago that You know, they answer to civilian leaders.
They don't get to push their politics on us.
It's not their job.
And if they start doing it, they should be fired immediately.
That's the actual national security threat here.
But as far as I can tell, outside of social media accounts like Libs of TikTok, Republicans haven't reacted much to this at all.
They don't seem to care that a senior military officer is a cross-dressing political activist.
And he's not the only one.
They haven't called on Brie Fram to resign or be fired or anything like that.
In fact, the opposite is happening.
Republicans are actually taking Brie Fram's advice and taking his side.
And that brings us to what happened on Friday in the waning moments of 2023.
On that day, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine took a break from celebrating the made-up fake holiday of Kwanzaa to veto House Bill 68.
Now, this bill would have prohibited doctors in the state from prescribing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to children.
The bill also would have prohibited boys from playing in girls' sports.
Now, it passed overwhelmingly in the Ohio House by a vote of 62 to 27, and in the Ohio Senate by a vote of 24 to 8.
And these are margins that are so large that they'd allow the legislature to override DeWine's veto, but he went ahead and vetoed it anyway.
In a 30-minute press conference the other day, Mike DeWine explained his reasoning, such as it is, and I'm going to Present DeWine's arguments as thoroughly as I possibly can so that you can see all of his reasons for and hear all of his reasons for vetoing this bill.
He is just parroting trans propaganda and for the most part without even questioning it.
Now, we know the only way to stop this insanity is to confront it, so here it is.
Here's the first key claim that Mike DeWine made during the press conference to justify his vetoing of the bill.
Listen.
Were I to sign House Bill 68, or were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most, the parents.
Now, while there are rare times in the law, in other circumstances, where the state overrules the medical decisions made by the parents, I can think of no example where this is done Where it is not only against the decision of the parents, but also against the medical judgment of the treating physician, and against the judgment of the treating team of medical experts.
What a just pathetic, gutless rat this guy is.
So, DeWine begins with a variation of a common argument you hear from trans activists, which is that parents always know what's medically best for a child.
Now, of course, trans activists don't actually believe this.
That's why they want to empower school districts to hide children's so-called gender identity from their parents.
It's also why they're allowing minors to take these sterilizing drugs without parental involvement in states like California and Washington.
Because, by the way, if parents decided, you know, if there are plenty of parents who have a child that falls into this trap, this cult, and the parent makes the right decision, And does not take the child to be castrated.
And in those cases, the trans activists, and presumably Mike DeWine, would say that, no, no, no, no, this is abusive.
So, no, we should trust the parent's judgment if the parent makes a judgment that is in line with trans activists.
That is the qualifier that Mike DeWine forgot to mention there.
But even if Mike DeWine and trans activists actually did believe what they're saying, Which they don't.
They don't care about parental rights at all.
The argument still fails, and that's because common sense and our basic human moral intuition tell us that chopping off a healthy girl's breasts or castrating and sterilizing a boy for life is not only wrong, but a moral atrocity that cries to the heavens for vengeance.
Yes, parents have a right to raise their children.
They don't have a right to abuse their children.
We all understand that.
They don't have a right to mutilate them, which is abuse, obviously.
Doesn't matter what the parents say or what the doctors say.
Some things are wrong because they're just wrong, regardless of your title or position or your relationship with the child.
Now, this is an obvious point, which is why Mike DeWine tries to head off the argument by saying that, in this case, parents and experts agree that these procedures are medically necessary.
And he says he can think of no other example where the state has banned procedures on children where both parents and medical experts agree that they're necessary.
Now, this is a remarkable statement from the governor, given that it was less than a century ago that children were getting lobotomized in this country.
Parents and medical experts thought that lobotomies were a great idea, so they happened at scale.
Walter Freeman traveled around psychiatric hospitals in the US in the 1950s sticking spatulas in people's brains.
It wasn't all that long ago.
The medical experts all agreed that this was the best way to treat any number of ailments.
One of his patients was a 12-year-old named Howard Dully, who was lobotomized because his mother demanded it.
Medical expert, parent, both agreed.
Several decades later, Dully told NPR, quote, I'll never know what I lost in those 10 minutes with Dr. Freeman and his ice pick.
Now, lobotomies aren't performed in this country anymore.
Many states have imposed restrictions on all forms of quote-unquote psychosurgery.
And any doctor who performs a lobotomy would probably be bankrupted in a malpractice lawsuit, if not sent to jail.
But DeWine has apparently forgotten about all of that, and he has absolute trust in parents and doctors.
I mean, they could never be wrong.
If they agree, they can't possibly be wrong.
Anything they agree on must automatically be legal in the state of Ohio, is what he's saying.
Now what's interesting about this argument is that, as DeWine himself points out, these parents have given their reason for opposing the bill, and their reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or science.
Watch.
Ultimately, I believe this is about protecting human life.
Many parents have told me that their child would not have survived, would be dead today, if they had not received the treatment they received from one of Ohio's children's hospitals.
I've also been told by those who are now grown adults that, but for this care, they would have taken their life when they were teenagers.
So DeWine begins by saying that parents have told him that they had to transition their children or else their children would have committed suicide, which is not a medical judgment.
That is, at best, a parent acting out of pure desperation and caving to the worst form of emotional blackmail imaginable.
And like most judgments made out of desperation, it's a very bad one.
Now for one thing, as I've pointed out a thousand times, the claim that children need to be transitioned in order to stop them from killing themselves is belied by the fact that for most of human history, no children were transitioned and also no children were killing themselves because of it.
It is only in the last few years that this need has arisen, which means that the need is an illusion.
We have to destroy the illusion, not give in to it.
But Mike DeWine has no problem with this.
He says that because he met with a handful of parents who tell him that sterilizing hormones save their kids' life, that he's convinced they must be right.
And what's extraordinary about this is that at the beginning of his press conference, DeWine claims that he talked to detransitioners also, and people who regret getting these hormones at a young age.
He never explains why he disregarded their concerns and sided with the handful of parents that he spoke to.
In Ohio, they're legalizing, or he wants to legalize, the sterilization of children based on a handful of selective anecdotes.
That's where we are.
This gets even weirder when you listen to the rest of DeWine's press conference where he explains that he has no data at all to suggest that sterilizing children actually improves their well-being.
Watch.
Number one, I adamantly agree with the General Assembly that no surgery of this kind should ever be performed on those under the age of 18.
I am therefore directing our agencies to draft rules to ban this practice in the state of Ohio.
Number two, I share with the Legislature their concern that there is no comprehensive data today regarding persons who receive this care, nor independent analysis of any such data.
Therefore, I am today directing our agencies to immediately draft rules to require reporting to the relevant agencies, and to report this data to the General Assembly and the public every six months.
We will do this, we will do this not only when the patients are minors, but also when the patients are adults.
Number three, I also share the legislature's concerns about clinics that may pop up and try to sell patients inadequate or even ideological treatments.
This is a concern shared by people I spoke with who have had both positive experiences And those who've had negative experiences with their own treatments.
You know, when you look at this field, the first thing that you figure out when you kind of dig into it is there isn't a whole lot of data of what's going on specifically in Ohio.
You need to know that.
And frankly, you know, over time we need to have longitudinal studies as well.
So we have, you know, but there's some information that we can get immediately.
And, you know, that's what we need to do.
We need to start getting, you know, who's getting this care?
How many come in?
How many start the process?
How many finish?
How many go to this?
How many go to that?
Just data.
So we have no evidence to suggest that any of these treatments are helping kids.
The governor admits that.
In fact, we have live evidence that it's hurting them, as he says.
And that's why DeWine doesn't want to authorize surgeries on minors.
Even though he also said before that parents and doctors are the ones who make decisions, and there are doctors out there who say that minors should get the surgeries.
So in that case, you are admitting that the doctors can be wrong, you moron.
But at the same time, he's fine with legalizing procedures that will sterilize children against the will of the people of his state, even though he acknowledges there's no science to justify it.
He's greenlighting child butchery by his own admission so he can collect more data on how it affects children in 20 years.
So let's just castrate the kids now and check in in 20 years to see if it worked out.
That's his argument.
It's so ghoulish and so completely illogical that it's hard to believe it's real, but that's what he said.
So if you're a sane person, you're left wondering, what could possibly explain this?
I mean, it's always worth laying out the case against the medical abuse of children, but we all know that Mike DeWine doesn't actually need to be told any of this.
It's well established.
DeWine is a contemptible weakling and a pathetic coward, but he's not actually psychotic.
He's only pretending to be in this case.
And the question is why?
I mean, why is he telling legislators to scrap this bill following his veto in favor of some vague administrative regulations that mean basically nothing?
The first answer probably has something to do with the campaign contributions that Mike DeWine receives from the very organizations that perform this butchery.
The Daily Caller is reporting that, quote, From 2018 to 2023, the governor received $40,000 from the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, Cincinnati Children's, Nationwide Children's Hospital, and ProMedica Children's Hospital, all of whom support transgender medical care.
Now, these are the same children's hospitals that, in his press conference, DeWine said he had consulted before vetoing the bill.
So he had to consult with his donors before making a decision on this.
But the governor never discloses the donor part of it during the press conference, so, you know, that's conspicuous to say the least.
There's also the fact that under DeWine, Ohio has resumed working with Centenni Corporation, even though they just settled with the state on charges that they defrauded Medicaid.
Various local news outlets have pointed out that one of DeWine's longtime friends is a lobbyist for this organization, which incidentally also claims that gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, is medically necessary.
Is this corruption?
Well, undoubtedly it is.
But it's also not a complete explanation for what we're seeing in Ohio.
This is, you know, a cancer that's spread far beyond one governor's office.
DeWine represents the Republican establishment.
An establishment for the Republican establishment will always do the bidding of the LGBT lobby when push comes to shove.
And we've seen that all over the country repeatedly.
Obviously, there was the gay marriage debate where the right folded virtually overnight, or at least the establishment Republicans did.
There are many more recent examples.
There's the case of Spencer Cox, the Republican governor of Utah, who recently introduced himself to a roomful of children by giving his preferred pronouns.
In 2021, the Republican governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, vetoed a bill that would have banned men from competing in women's sports.
That same year, the Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, vetoed a bill that would have banned so-called gender-affirming treatments on minors.
The state legislature later overrode that veto, but that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
And for the sake of thousands of children, we need a similar veto override in Ohio.
But that can't be the end of it.
Because if the leaders of the conservative establishment want anyone to believe that they can conserve anything, you know, they should start by explaining why Brie Fram is allowed to lecture us in uniform about the importance of hiring mentally ill crossdressers.
Then the Republican Governors Association should explain why so many governors are ignoring what the vast majority of their constituents want.
If the leaders of the establishment right can't do any of that, and honestly they probably can't, then they serve no purpose.
They are every bit as spineless and pitiful as Mike DeWine.
And if there's any resolution worth making in 2024, it's that we need to be done with these useless cowards once and for all.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Think about your favorite childhood memory that you caught on film or videotape.
Do you have an easy way to watch it or share it with friends and family?
If you're like most people, you probably don't.
And lucky for you, we have found a solution with Legacy Box.
Legacy Box makes this easy to do.
Simply send your Legacy Box filled with camcorder tapes, film reels, and pictures.
Get back digital copies that can be easily enjoyed, shared, and organized.
It's like magic.
It's that easy.
Legacy Box is the world's largest digitizer.
They've helped over 1 million families relive their wedding days, chaotic childhood Christmases, and even road trips to Yellowstone.
And by going to Legacybox.com slash Matt, you can enjoy 50% off when you get started with Legacybox today.
Kick off their new year by rescuing your family's most cherished memories that haven't been watched or enjoyed in years.
Go to Legacybox.com slash Matt to save 50% by today.
Send it in when you're ready.
Go to Legacybox.com slash Matt.
That's Legacybox.com slash Matt.
We start with this from the Daily Wire.
As scores of previously sealed court filings regarding sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are about to be made public, a report states that former President Bill Clinton is mentioned in more than 50 of the redacted filings.
In December, Manhattan federal judge Loretta Presko ordered the release of sealed documents from a defamation suit From Virginia Giuffre, I think that's how you pronounce her last name, who claimed that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17 at Epstein's home.
This suit was filed in 2015 against Epstein's Madame Ghislaine Maxwell.
Giuffre tweeted this week saying, Finally, we're hearing members of the U.S.
government, Senators, about the need for transparency and a call to arms for accountability.
There's going to be a lot of nervous people over Christmas and New Year's, 170 to be exact.
Who's on the naughty list?
This wouldn't be possible without the Honorable Judge Preska.
Merry early Christmas, she tweeted.
Additional details are expected from Jane Doe 162, who testified that she was with Prince Andrew, Maxwell, and Giuffre at Epstein's New York mansion in 2001.
Giuffre has claimed that she met Clinton on Epstein's private Caribbean island.
They're saying that Clinton's gonna be mentioning his documents, but the real, you know, the sort of bigger story this is a part of is that all of these documents are supposed to be released.
I think the last I saw was supposedly on Tuesday, which is today, in fact.
The documents are supposed to be released, which are going to, you know, implicate lots of powerful people, and we're gonna finally find out the truth about who, in fact, who exactly was involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
Now, I hate to spoil the party here, but I have to be that guy in this case, because I'm always that guy.
And look, I hope I'm wrong about this.
I really, really hope I'm wrong.
But I would bet a lot of money that we will never be given anything close to the full list.
My guess is that when these documents are released, it will only implicate The people who've already been implicated, right?
And even for them, they're not going to release anything that definitively proves that these people, who are definitely guilty, are guilty.
So we'll get vague references to people like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, which we already have, we already knew about that.
People who have been long since tied to Jeffrey Epstein.
People who we already know are degenerate creeps.
And maybe we'll throw in a few more names of people that the powers that be don't mind implicating, but the full list, I mean, the real truth of everything that happened, is probably lost forever at this point.
I mean, it's been, what, well, it's been five years since Jeffrey Epstein quote-unquote killed himself, and, like, what do you think they've been doing during that time?
Do you think documents that establish the guilt of the most powerful people in the world are just like sitting in a vault somewhere waiting to be released?
I hope.
But it doesn't generally work that way.
And I'm not saying those documents never existed.
I'm saying I doubt they exist now.
All that evidence is probably destroyed.
I mean, what do you think the FBI did when they raided Epstein's properties?
Again, what do you think happened after Epstein mysteriously quote-unquote killed himself in prison?
Does the evidence still exist?
Probably not.
I mean, what do we think, that the most powerful people in the world, who definitely were all connected to Epstein, that they're going to play fair here and keep the evidence intact in the interest of justice or whatever?
Probably not.
I mean, it's probably all gone.
And so whatever is released will not live up to your expectations if you have any expectations.
And it seems to me, at least based on the chatter on social media, a lot of people are expecting like a, you know, a real moment of truth and transparency and, you know.
I hope I'm wrong.
I really do.
I mean, like you, I would love nothing more than for the most powerful and corrupt people in the world, politicians and judges and these corporate CEOs who are all tied to Epstein.
I'd love to see them all frog-marched into jail, held accountable for their crimes.
I mean, all of Epstein's clients should be executed.
That's what I would like to see.
Maybe brought up in the sky on a jet.
Tossed off at cruising altitude.
Legally, I mean, as a legal punishment.
I'd like to see that sentence passed down in a court of law and then legally enacted.
But that's not going to happen.
That's not how the world works.
And in this world, everybody involved with Epstein, or most of them, probably get away with it.
And I say that based on the fact that I've seen how the world works in my 37 years of existence, but also based on the fact that it's been this long.
You know, it's been this long.
There's no reason why it should have taken this long for any of these documents to be released.
And so you just have to ask yourself, what have they been doing in the meantime?
So we'll see.
I mean, it's supposed to be today or tomorrow or this week that these documents will be released, and maybe it'll, you know, maybe we'll All go on Twitter and we'll find the trending names of a lot of very famous, powerful people who have been, you know, implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
And it really will be that moment of, you know, justice and truth that we're all hoping for.
But I don't have a lot of hope in that.
So here's a controversy I missed over the break.
This is from last week, and maybe you heard about it, or maybe you value your own sanity, so you instead took a break from news and social media over Christmas and didn't hear about it.
Whichever the case, Nikki Haley got herself into trouble because of an answer that she gave at a town hall about the Civil War.
Well, the town hall was not about the Civil War, but there was a question about the Civil War.
I don't know why this question was asked.
I mean, I don't know why You know, you have a chance to ask a question to a presidential candidate, and you're asking about a historical event from 150 years ago.
I'm not sure why that would be your question, but it was.
And the question was specifically, what was the cause of the Civil War?
And here is what Nikki Haley came up with on her first try.
And there were many more tries after this, but here was her first try.
Let's watch.
What was the cause of the United States Civil War?
Well don't come with an easy question.
I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run.
The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.
What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?
I'm sorry?
I mean I think it always comes down to the role of government.
We need to have capitalism.
We need to have economic freedom.
We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so
that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything
they want to be without government getting in the way.
What do you want me to say about slavery?
Thank you.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Next question.
Okay, so she did not say that the Civil War was caused by slavery, and then she was asked about it.
It's kind of hard to hear what the guy's saying exactly, but you can take context clues.
She was asked again about slavery, and then she says, next question.
Like, she's trying to dodge it.
Like, she's afraid to just say slavery is a terrible thing.
It's awful.
I'm opposed to slavery.
Put me in the anti-camp when it comes to slavery.
She didn't want to say that, so instead she said, next question.
Um, and this set off several days of controversy and outrage.
The corporate media and also the establishment right, uh, usually defend Nikki Haley.
You know, usually they're big Nikki Haley fans, but on this one, uh, they turned on her and they went after her.
And so over the next few days, she made multiple attempts to kind of clean up the mess.
But she really didn't make things much better for herself.
So here she was, I think this was a day later, and here she is addressing the controversy and sort of trying again with an answer.
Let's watch that.
I guess if you grow up in the South, it's a given that it's about slavery.
To me, it was about freedom.
It's bigger than slavery.
That was such a stain on our history.
But what do you take from it going forward?
Yes, of course, slavery can never happen again.
But going forward, doesn't that mean we should focus on the freedoms of people to live their life, not to have government, not to have any other person tell them what they can and can't do?
That's been trampled on the past few years.
That's the part we've got to make sure we never take anything away from.
So, look, I mean, you guys can make it about something else, but if you look at my record in South Carolina, we dealt with this a whole lot.
And what I'll tell you is, yes, you can acknowledge a point in history, but what do you do with that point in history?
You gotta make sure the lessons constantly go forward so that we never see it again.
I mean, that's mostly word salad.
If you were to look at a transcript of what she just said, you wouldn't even know where to place punctuation because it's so rambling and nonsensical.
But she does at least say that slavery shouldn't happen again.
So we have her.
Nikki Haley breaks her silence about slavery.
So now we know that she does oppose slavery.
She doesn't want to reinstate slavery.
So that's good.
Because we weren't sure.
We definitely weren't sure.
You know, it's all kind of funny because her answers are so incredibly stupid, and she kind of reminds me of that clip of, what was it, the Miss America contestant from like 15 years ago, or whatever pageant it was, trying to talk about geography, you know, that infamous clip.
So she reminds me of that a little bit, just totally clueless.
And that's what you're seeing with Nikki Haley here.
Everyone is accusing her of refusing to mention slavery because she's some kind of Confederate sympathizer.
And that is obviously not the case, okay?
And I'm not a Nikki Haley defender myself, but I will say, even though I don't like Nikki Haley, I will say, I feel relatively certain that she is not in favor of slavery.
And she's also not a secret Confederate sympathizer.
Like, I don't think if you went to her house, you would find a room full of Confederate flags and memorabilia that she keeps in a secret vault somewhere.
I don't think that.
I mean, she put herself on the map politically by removing Confederate flags from the South Carolina State Capitol.
She has long been a champion of tearing down flags and statues.
She worshipped at the BLM altar during George Floyd.
So she would have no problem giving the standard sort of acceptable answer to that question.
And, you know, saying that the Civil War is about slavery and nothing else.
I don't think she was trying to I don't think that's what was happening there.
I think she's just an airhead.
And that's it.
The truth is, she really doesn't know anything about the Civil War.
So I think when she was asked that question, she panicked.
Not because she's afraid to talk about slavery, but she probably doesn't even know what century the Civil War was fought in.
And it's not just her, by the way.
It's like most politicians.
One thing you have to understand is that most of our politicians, not all of them, but most of them, are actually very stupid.
These are not intelligent people.
This is probably, if we could do an IQ test of everybody in the Senate right now, in the House, everyone in Congress, let's say, do an IQ test.
I doubt on average that they break 85, okay?
So they're like barely above room temperature with their IQ.
And that's what you saw there.
It's not any secret thing where she's racist.
No, she just doesn't know.
She was way over her skis.
The moment someone brought up the Civil War, she was way over her skis and she knew it.
And that's why she tried to pivot back.
Well, what do you think?
I don't know.
What's your opinion?
You know, that classic tactic.
I tried that myself when I was a kid and I'd get a pop quiz.
And I'd ask the question by my teacher.
I'd say, what do you think?
You tell me what your thoughts.
I want to hear your thoughts first.
Then I'll let you know.
Also, being an establishment GOP type, she instinctively wants to tie everything back to establishment GOP talking points, and that's why she went on about the role of government and freedom and capitalism.
I mean, the role of government and capitalism had nothing to do with the Civil War, okay?
They were not fighting over capitalism.
But she ties it back to that because those are the talking points, and it's all she knows, and this is what they do.
This is every question.
Every question.
You're gonna get something about, well, you know, the government's too big.
Government's too big and when it's economic freedom, lower taxes, that's it.
That's all.
You could ask her, like, I don't know, what's the surface temperature of the sun?
And she'll give you something about the role of government.
All that said, most of her critics on this issue are also wrong, or at least not fully right.
Because everyone just wants her to say that slavery was the cause, and that's it.
As if that's all that can or should be said about the Civil War.
But like literally any other war that's ever been fought anywhere on Earth for the entirety of the history of human civilization, it is more complicated than that.
Okay?
No war that's ever been fought can be explained with a single word.
It just doesn't, the history of the world doesn't work that way.
There's always more to it.
Which doesn't mean we can't identify good guys and bad guys.
I mean, some wars you can, some wars you can't.
We're talking about a broad subject of war here, but all I'm saying is that there has never been a war so simple that if someone asks you what caused it, you can just give them one word, and that's it.
And with the Civil War, there was more to it.
I mean, obviously slavery was a significant factor.
But the division between the North and the South ran deeper than that.
But I think more importantly, and this is the important distinction for me when it comes to the Civil War and history of the Civil War and the causes, the motivations rather, really.
This is the most important distinction, and this is also the point that should come into play when we're talking about, you know, a statue of Robert E. Lee or something, and whether we should tear it down.
And we shouldn't.
And the reason that we shouldn't is that there is a distinction to be made in every war, but especially in the Civil War, between the political macro-level causes and the personal motivations of the people doing the fighting.
So, in the macro, slavery was a central cause of the Civil War.
It's a well-established historical fact.
Individually, however, the men who did the fighting did not consider themselves to be fighting over slavery on either side, for the most part, and especially in the beginning.
The men who marched down from the north were, as far as they were concerned, were not going to war to free the slaves.
Most of them would not have taken up arms for that purpose.
Um, and the men fighting in the South were certainly not going to war as far as they were concerned to keep slaves, considering that almost none of them had slaves.
I mean, the men who were doing the fighting, these were poor farm boys that, like, most of them didn't have shoes, okay?
They didn't have slaves.
And, uh, they weren't, they weren't, uh, out there bleeding and dying to protect, uh, the, you know, uh, Farmer Jim's Plantation down the street and the slaves.
Like, that's not what they were, that's not what moves people to fight.
And to die in such a desperate situation.
The men from the North thought of themselves as fighting to preserve the Union, and the men from the South thought of themselves as fighting to defend their homeland.
And if you were to ask them, if you were to go back in a time machine to 1861, and go up and, you know, walk onto the battlefield, which I wouldn't recommend, and ask any of the Confederate soldiers why they're fighting, that's probably the answer they would give.
They probably would not say, we want to keep slaves.
They would say something like, I'm defending my home.
This is my home.
Robert E. Lee famously decided to fight for the South rather than, you know, being a commander in the North.
And he made that decision not because he wanted to keep slaves, but because from his perspective, He needed to defend his home and he considered his home to be Virginia more than, you know, if he were to think about what's my home, it would be the state of Virginia, not the United States as a whole.
That's the way he saw it.
That's the way he thought of it.
That's the way most people thought of it back in those days.
And that's what I'm talking about right now is not some like deep.
Brilliant insight.
This is just the general understanding and the insight that most people have understood for, you know, almost since the war was fought.
And that's why most people, up until recently, have not had much of a problem with the statue of Robert E. Lee, the building named after him, because they were able to separate, even if they wouldn't have explained it in quite these terms, they were able to separate the macro-political causes from the men themselves.
And they were able to understand that this was not a cartoon being fought.
This was not a cartoon.
These were not cartoonish villains.
These were human beings.
And their motivations and what drove them was far more complex than what we like to pretend today.
So, anyway, Nikki Haley could have said something like that, but I guess I'm not surprised that she didn't.
All right.
Finally, okay, one other thing.
I wanted to play this video that's making the rounds on Twitter, and I'm not sure when it was recorded, but it has something to do, it relates to something that's been, that I've seen mentioned, heard mentioned a lot recently, and this is something that's popular among trans activists.
It's called the button test.
And maybe you haven't heard of the button test yet, but you're about to hear about it.
But if you go on TikTok or Reddit or wherever, you'll find trans activists talking about this now.
It's very popular, this button test thing.
And the button test is supposed to be a test that determines if you're really trans or not.
So it's like the Turing test, but for trans instead of robots.
And this, according to trans activists, is what decides if you're actually trans.
If you're questioning whether you're trans, well, they'll tell you.
Take the button test, and if you pass it, then you're trans.
Let's listen to this trans activist explain it.
Go ahead.
There's a test that's been going on in the transgender community for years called the button test.
And this is a test to determine whether or not a questioning person may be transgender.
So the test goes like this.
Imagine there's a button that's placed in front of you and it will change your gender.
Everybody will see you as that gender and imagine you've always been that gender.
Do you press it?
Now usually there's also a catch added to the end.
It will only appear in front of you once, so this button cannot be reversed.
Once you press it, your gender is changed permanently.
So if you're a questioning person and you found yourself answering yes before I got to the end of that sentence, That's a very common reaction among questioning people that later do transition.
So the reason that this works is because most pre-transition people would love to exist as their desired gender, but the process of transition is far too scary for them.
And I just want to let those people know that I was scared too whenever I transitioned.
But being scared does not make you not transgender.
It makes you normal.
So, if you're a man who would press a magical button to become a woman, then you're trans.
And this, again, is what they have come up with to determine this.
It almost sounds like a straw man invented by the other side.
But it's not.
This is what they've come up with.
And it completely undermines their own position.
For many reasons.
And let's just look at one reason.
The most obvious, which is that this test could be applied to literally anything.
Okay, there are lots of short men who would certainly press a button to become six inches taller.
So, you know, does that mean that a man who's five foot six is really a trans six footer?
There are women who would press a button to have a different body.
Still a female body, but just like a different body than the one they have.
There are people who I'm sure would press a button to become an eagle flying gracefully in the sky.
There are people who would press a button for sure.
I wouldn't, but there are plenty of people that would press a button to become Jeff Bezos.
Okay?
Does that make them trans Bezos?
Because they would press the magical button to become him if they could?
You know, the fact that you would press a button to become something other than yourself does not mean that you are something other than yourself.
And that's the biggest problem here.
Because remember what they say.
They say, you know, trans women are women, right?
That's what they claim.
So, what he's saying is that a man who would press a button to become a woman is a woman.
The very fact that you desire to be a woman means that you are one, is what they're saying.
But how can you have a desire to become something that you already are?
I mean, the fact that you would press a button to become a woman actually means that you are not a woman.
I mean, that in and of itself proves that you're not one.
Give that same test to any woman.
Give them the magical button test.
Would you press a button to become a woman?
They would say, no, I wouldn't, what do you mean press it?
I am.
I press it to become what I am?
And yet, so, this is actually a thing that proves that you're not a woman, and yet they use it as proof that you are.
I mean, but notice something else.
Notice what we're talking about.
We're talking about desire, right?
We're talking about what someone desires to be.
And that brings us back to something that I've been telling you for a while, which is that most trans people are not actually delusional in the sense that you might think.
Because being trans, despite what we've been told, doesn't actually mean that you think you are something else.
It just means that you want to be something else.
A quote-unquote trans woman is not a man who thinks he's a woman.
I mean, in some cases, maybe.
But really, in most cases, this is just a man who wants to be a woman.
So when we affirm his womanhood, we're not affirming his delusions.
That'd be bad enough, right?
Playing along with some confused person's illusions is bad, but it's worse than that because actually we are affirming his desire.
We are saying, well, you want to be this, but you're not this, so we'll pretend you are that to make you feel better.
And, of course, you might say, well, that's, of course, that's always woman.
But the point is that even on the trans side, that's how they see it.
They don't actually, the guy you just saw in that clip, he doesn't actually think he's a woman.
He knows he's not.
He just wants to be one and he likes being seen as one.
It's about desire, not about delusion, actually, most of the time.
Now you might say it's kind of semantics, because whether it's desire or delusion or both, you're still not a woman.
But I do think this is an important detail that they have unwittingly revealed.
All right, let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Okay, so for our What's Wrong segment, we're going to go back to a video that we posted to my YouTube channel over the break, and it's probably the most important video we've ever produced, or that anyone at The Daily Wire has ever produced.
And in the video, I come to the defense of some of the most unfairly maligned Disney villains, you know, from the classic Disney films.
I explain why some of the classic Disney villains were actually right.
Why did we make this video?
Well, self-evident, because it's an important topic, obviously.
So, lots of comments and disagreement.
We'll read some of them.
First one says, in Gaston's case, there was the whole thing of Gaston getting the owner of the insane asylum to come for Maurice so Gaston could blackmail Bell into marrying him.
That was definitely on the evil side.
Yeah.
Even if this is possibly a parody, you do propose some interesting ideas, and I wouldn't mind seeing your take on other villains.
An easy one might be the villain in Up.
I never saw Up.
Isn't that the one where he floats into the sky on a balloon or something?
He ties balloons to his... I never got that one.
I never understood.
See, isn't that what happens in that one?
So, is there a villain in that movie?
Who would the villain be?
Gravity?
I'll come to Gravity's defense any day.
The man, the myth, the legend says, I can't tell if Matt is joking about Gaston or if he's serious.
Like, the dude tried to force Belle into a relationship with him by threatening that if she didn't, he would have her father thrown into an insane asylum.
He's clearly a narcissist, never would have actually treated Belle as a partner.
The dude is basically the Andrew Tate of Disney villains.
Also, to top it all off, You watch the film Gaston at multiple points shows extreme lack of gun safety pointing his gun at others and at a certain point even has his own barrel pointing at his own head as he rests on it.
As a deer hunter this lack of safety and carelessness cannot stand.
Listen, I never said Gaston is perfect.
I mean, we all have flaws.
But I also, and the gun safety, I mean, that is, that's one point against, probably the only point against him is the gun safety bit, which you're right about that.
I also think he was probably justified in putting Bell's father, that's Maurice, right?
Is it Bell's father?
I'm also at a disadvantage in this because you should also know that we made this whole video about Disney movies and I have not seen any of these movies in like 30 years.
So I'm going based on vague memory.
Which isn't to say that I'm not 100% right about everything I said.
Of course I'm 100% right, but I also... I'm reading some of these comments and I'm like, I don't know who that is.
Who's Maurice?
I think that's Bell's father, right?
Well, he deserved to be put in a status.
That guy's crazy, right?
He's in his basement, making these weird inventions, neglecting his daughter, who's like starving to death or whatever, right?
I mean, that's part of it.
I think.
Another one says, tidbits of wisdom from Matt Walsh.
Killing your brother and trying to kill your nephew is inappropriate.
That is, you know, and look, we talked about Scar from Lion King, another unfairly maligned villain.
I will say again, none of these guys are perfect.
Nobody is.
And I think Scar's one misstep that I'm perfectly willing to say is inappropriate behavior is, yeah, he did kill his brother.
And he tried to kill his nephew.
I certainly would not condone that kind of behavior.
But other than that, I think you can kind of see where he's coming from.
Abe versus the world says, actually Matt Snow White was put to sleep.
That's why the body was not decaying.
And when Gaston was marching to kill the beast, he locked Bell in her cellar.
I think his motive was just to stroke his ego, not save Belle.
As for the rest of your points, it was funny and made some points.
You know, I saw a lot of this, you know, because Snow White didn't really die, she was asleep.
Okay, fine.
They didn't know that, though, so this is my point.
They didn't know that she was, that the apple had put her to sleep.
I also, like, why is that the case?
So, the Evil Queen Poisoned Snow White with a poison that only knocks her unconscious?
Why wouldn't it have killed her?
What was the plan there?
But at any rate, they thought she was dead.
They had her in a coffin, and they were having this wake for her.
And then the prince shows up, who does not know her, and kisses a woman who he thinks is dead on the lips.
I mean, speak of inappropriate behavior.
Can we not agree that's a little bit strange, at least?
You don't know this person.
What are you even doing at the wake?
And, of course, nobody stops and asks that question.
Like, how do you know the deceased?
No one asks that.
And then he walks up and kisses her on the lips, thinking that she's dead.
Have you ever seen someone do that at a wake?
What if your grandmother died, and someone who's not even affiliated with your family walks into the wake?
It kisses her on the lips when she's in the coffin.
Think about it.
Alright.
I think we probably... Okay, one other.
Sneaky says, The Little Mermaid is when Disney began their Your Parents Are Wrong and You're Right binge.
From that point on, a protagonist's parents were flat-out wrong, complete idiots, the villains themselves, or in the best case, absent with little to no input.
The exception is the Lion King, whereas Matt points out the supremely wise, strong, gentle father is actually a cruel, authoritarian dictator who uses religion to justify killing his subjects whenever he wants.
I mean, yeah, but that was the positive side of him.
Yeah, you know, Ariel's father is maybe the best example of this.
I don't even think we mentioned it in the video.
And I guess he's not the villain of the story, technically, but I think from what I remember of that movie, we're supposed to think that he's overly strict or something because he doesn't want Ariel, who in the movie is like, she's a kid, and he doesn't want her to go to the surface of the water.
But think about it, and we're supposed to be, like, against him, but from a mermaid's perspective, going to the surface of the water is like a human going to the bottom of the ocean.
And so, what, it's like, okay, would you allow your child to just jump into the ocean whenever they want and swim to the bottom of the ocean?
No, you wouldn't.
So I think it's just basic responsible parenting.
And yeah, he doesn't want her to affiliate with the humans at the service, because he knows the humans will think she's some kind of monstrous freak.
It's unsafe for her.
So, that's another one too.
We could talk about this for...
You know, for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe we should, but instead we'll move on.
It's time to start 2024 off right.
The fight to reshape our culture has never been more crucial, and at The Daily Wire, we're leading the charge.
We've got some incredible things lined up for you this year, with new series like The Hilarious Mr. Bircham coming early 2024.
It's The Daily Wire's first ever animated series, featuring an all-star cast including Adam Carolla, Roseanne Barr, Megyn Kelly, and More.
Plus, brace yourselves for The Daily Wire's highly-anticipated series, The Pendragon Cycle.
We're breathing new life into the legend inspired by the works of acclaimed Christian novelist Stephen R. Lawhead.
Filming just wrapped, and right now you can catch a sneak peek of what's to come with our incredible Pendragon Cycle production diaries at dailywire.com.
And the 2024 election will be one of the most pivotal in our country's history.
The Election Wire is your source of truth, bringing you everything from the campaign trail to the debates and Election Day.
And for our younger audiences, DailyWirePlus members now can unlock our brand new kids app, BentKey, at no additional cost.
This is where you can find shows that kids love and parents can trust.
And of course, you'll be the first to see Snow White and the Evil Queen, featuring our very own Brett Cooper exclusively on BentKey.
In 2024, your DailyWirePlus membership will give you more of Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin, Jordan Peterson, PragerU, and myself.
That's just the beginning.
This will be The Daily Wire's biggest year ever, and we can't do it without your support.
So join the fight to reshape and take back our culture today at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
For our first cancellation of the new year, we head up to beautiful Lake Washington
near the city of Seattle.
Now, just to be clear, I use the word beautiful to describe specifically the physical topography of the area.
If you are standing on the bank of the lake and looking out straight ahead, you might admire the clear water and the trees and the mountains in the distance.
Just don't look over to your side or over your shoulder because if you do, depending on where you happen to be standing along the shore, you might find yourself staring at a collection of very naked people engaged in all manner of activities that you do not want to see them do in the nude or at all.
The only thing standing between your eyeline and their fully exposed physique will be the glare reflecting off of their many body piercings.
Now, of course, You stand the risk of getting an eyeful of naked flab if you travel anywhere in the Pacific Northwest.
But on Lake Washington, the risk is even greater because that is where it is the site of something called Denny Blaine Park, which is, we are informed, a beloved nudist beach popular with the LGBT community in the area.
In fact, this nudist beach is so popular and so beloved that the LGBT community recently came together, no pun intended, to protest what they perceived as a mortal threat to this hangout spot, no pun intended.
And the threat came in the form of a playground.
So backing up a little bit, a few months ago, it was announced that Seattle Parks and Rec, with the assistance of a sizable donation from a private donor, planned to build a playground nearby.
And this is a problem for the exhibitionist gays over at Denny Blaine, because although it's legal for them to gallivant around naked almost anywhere in the city or state, they still aren't allowed to get naked in front of children.
So they're only allowed to expose themselves to other adults, which is a limitation that these people, as we know, find quite cumbersome.
And this means that a playground in view of the nudist speech might, one would certainly hope anyway, effectively shut down the nudist speech.
They wouldn't be allowed to be nude there anymore because they're kids.
Which would force gay nudists in the state to get naked in any of the thousands of other places where the behavior is allowed.
Or better yet, in their own homes!
Where you can be naked all you want, because I don't have to be in your home, or sit on your contaminated furniture.
But that was not an acceptable compromise, because no compromise of any kind, in any context, is ever acceptable to these people.
The Postmillennial reports, quote, Colleen Kimsey Love told King 5 News that the beach, quote, has always been a place for the weird and the wonderful, noting that what makes Seattle such a wonderful city is the weirdos.
In an open letter, advocates said that were Seattle Parks and Rec to go along with the plan, it would be nothing short of gentrification, arguing that LGBTQ plus people do not have other spaces to go to because But there are other spaces for a children's play area to be built to meet the stated need.
According to the King 5 News, Denny Blaine Park was originally chosen due to the fact that there are no playgrounds for residents within a 10-15 minute walk.
The $550,000 children's outdoor space was set to be entirely funded by a single donor who has remained anonymous throughout the process.
Okay, so what is more important?
What's the priority?
Should we make sure that families have a place within walking distance to take their children to?
Or is it more crucial that we give gay adults yet another place to be naked in public?
Well, LGBT activists had their answers.
So they protested the playground, they organized, they got a petition together, got nearly 10,000 signatures on the petition.
They were absolutely incensed that the city considered prioritizing the needs of children over the desires of self-described weirdos.
Local news had more on the controversy.
Listen.
I'm in Denny Blaine Park.
Hundreds of people showed up at that meeting tonight because they say this place is a safe space and putting a playground here would forever change that.
As expected, the proposal to put a playground at Denny Blaine Park brought out a lot of people, all of them with their own story about the park and why they're against the proposal.
We can just be ourselves, where we can feel safe, where we can feel heard, where we can see one another.
This is a place where people come up and they ask, is it safe here?
And we accept it here, and every time I've smiled and said, yes!
Denny Blaine is a noted LGBTQ plus safe space.
It's been that way for decades.
Under Washington law, it's not illegal to be naked in public.
However, it becomes illegal if kids are nearby.
That's what this playground would do.
The people who showed up here believe the private anonymous donor who's willing to front $550,000 for a playground wants to take that space away from them.
They say that it's not an intention to displace queer communities, or any specific community.
And that may be true on the park side, but I'd love to ask the anonymous donor whether that's true.
There's also concern that someone with money to burn can make such a big change to a public park.
Instead we're letting people with a fair amount of money do an anonymous donation, clearly choosing how they want to see our park.
I asked Andy Scheffer with Seattle Parks and Rec about that anonymous donor.
His response?
Well, I can't really talk about it a whole lot because it's anonymous.
But he did talk about how moving the public comments were.
God, you heard those stories.
You know, if more people could hear these stories, it's much bigger than this park.
Yes, the stories, the incredible stories, the inspirational, heartwarming stories about gay people exposing their genitals to strangers.
I mean, if only more people could hear how important it is to gay people that they be allowed to expose their genitals to strangers.
If only more people could understand just how devastating it is for the LGBT community when they're prevented from taking their pants off in public.
Well, not prevented.
I mean, they're just told to move a few blocks over and take their pants off over there instead.
Still, that's simply too great a burden to bear.
I mean, they want to take their pants off now, right here, in this exact location.
If they can't, they will die.
It will be a genocide, a holocaust, if they cannot take their pants off right now, in this place.
Indeed, LGBT people who aren't able to take their pants off anywhere and everywhere they want, all the time, without restriction, are truly the most downtrodden among us.
I mean, these are the suffering and the needy.
Forget starving people in Africa, forget children dying of cancer, forget everyone.
And focus instead on LGBT people, always.
Give them everything they want, always, all the time, no matter what it is.
Because if you don't, then you are killing them.
You are literally killing them.
That's the message.
You heard it from the gay activists themselves.
They said they want to be themselves, feel safe, be heard.
Now, you might point out that You know, gay people can be themselves and feel safe and be heard everywhere in the country.
There's probably no group safer, and certainly there's no group heard more often and louder than them.
But I think a more pressing question is why being yourself and feeling safe and being heard must always involve getting naked?
I mean, why is LGBT safe space always a euphemism for LGBT sexual exhibitionist zone?
It doesn't work that way for any other group of people.
Have you noticed that?
If you take any other group and you say, well, here's a safe space for you, they're not going to immediately strip off their clothes.
That's only how it works with LGBT safe spaces.
And it's worth asking yourself why that is.
I mean, I know why that is, but you should ask yourself.
But we haven't gotten to the best part of that local Seattle news report.
I want you to listen to what this reporter mentions very briefly.
At the end, listen.
No one at the meeting spoke for the playground at this park.
I have put in a public information request for the name of the anonymous donor.
And something else to note, many people brought up a drowning risk.
They say there's no lifeguards at this beach, and if you put a playground here, kids will be here, upping the chance they could drown.
Okay, so as a brief aside, as a minor additional detail, we're told that if they build a playground at this location, children might drown.
Now, the drowning risk thing is probably mostly contrived.
Playgrounds are built next to lakes all the time.
You know, if you're watching your children on the playground, then it's not a problem.
I take my kids to playgrounds near lakes all the time.
It's like, it's not an issue.
Because, you know, most people are not dropping their five-year-old off at the playground, and then coming back to pick them up before sundown.
Generally, the children are watched by adults, and adults can keep them from wandering down to the water unsupervised.
But be that as it may, If you're actually worried that the playground presents a significant drowning risk to children, how is that not your top concern?
How is that not the headline?
I mean, these people claim that a playground at that location may well lead to children dying, and yet that is somehow not their key objection.
Their key objection is that the children will interfere with their ability to be naked in public.
So their list of priorities has getting naked in public at the top and preventing children from drowning somewhere down below that.
These people are so unbelievably selfish that they can't even pretend to care about anything more than satisfying their own sexual desires.
I mean, it's the only thing they care about in this world, period.
And yet, prepare yourself for the not-so-twist ending here, the LGBT protesters prevailed.
Seattle ultimately decided to reject the $500,000 donation and scrapped the plans for the playground at that location.
On one hand, you had families who wanted a place to take their children to the park, and on the other, you had selfish degenerates.
And the selfish degenerates won.
And by the way, when I call them degenerates, I'm only respecting their own preferred adjective.
An op-ed in the local Seattle publication The Stranger, addressing this controversy a few weeks ago, had this headline, quote, And the author who remained anonymous wrote, I've gone to this park for years and as a child of a queer person who has lived in Seattle since the 80s, I know how critical it is for us to maintain spaces where queer people don't need to worry about optics every damn second.
In a world that's constantly repressing our identities, is it not possible for queer people to have one space?
Really hoping the parks department chooses another site because I don't know where else I can go and feel comfortable in my body in this damn city.
Yes.
Where else in Seattle can a gay person go?
There's nowhere else for them!
In Seattle.
It's a funny thing.
You know, most of us walk around in public every day feeling comfortable in our bodies the whole time, and yet we never feel the need to strip our clothes off and expose ourselves to strangers.
But for this self-described degenerate and his friends, the only way that he can feel comfortable in his body is if his body is on full display for the world to see.
Now, in a sane society, we would hear that argument and we would simply respond, OK, well, I guess you're just not going to feel comfortable then.
I mean, if this is what you need to feel comfortable, then you're just not going to feel comfortable.
Because we don't really care about your comfort that much.
It's not our problem.
But in our society, which is losing its grip on whatever semblance of sanity it still possesses, we cave and give these people whatever they want.
Their sexual desires come before everything and everyone all the time.
And that's how the gay nudists at Denny Blaine Park got their way, and it's also why they are today cancelled.
