Ep. 1286 - The Epstein Files Are Released But The Cover Up Continues
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the long awaited Epstein files were released yesterday. But the cover up continues. In fact, this release is part of the cover up. I'll explain. Also, a new curriculum for schools plans to teach your three year old how to be anti-racist. A defendant assaults a judge in court and it's all caught on video. And CNBC releases a documentary meant to promote the child free lifestyle. But it unintentionally makes the opposite case.
Ep.1286
- - -
DailyWire+:
Unlock your Bentkey 14 day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
HigherBond - Make 2024 special and meet someone new! Sign up for FREE at https://www.Higherbond.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the long-awaited Epstein files were released yesterday, but the cover-up continues.
In fact, this release is part of the cover-up.
I'll explain.
Also, a new curriculum for schools plans to teach your three-year-old how to be anti-racist.
A defendant assaults a judge in court, and it's all caught on video.
And CNBC releases a documentary meant to promote the child-free lifestyle, but it unintentionally makes the opposite case.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
have come and gone and once again you were very generous.
Don't worry though, Pure Talk has your back.
Instead of paying your current cell phone provider $60, $70, or $80 per line, Pure Talk has unlimited plans starting at just $20 a month.
You'll get the same phenomenal coverage you're used to on America's most dependable 5G network for just $20 a month.
This is how the average family saves almost $1,000 a year.
It's time to switch to a wireless company that shares your values, a company that isn't afraid to invest in shows like mine, a company that is veteran-owned and serves veterans.
So what are you waiting for?
Switch to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes and start saving today.
Their U.S.
customer service team is waiting to serve you.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh, and right now, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh to be connected now.
Again, puretalk.com slash Walsh to start off the year saving on wireless with a company you can be proud of.
Now, normally the confirmation process to anoint a new Secretary of Labor isn't especially interesting.
We certainly don't learn anything new or scandalous most of the time.
But in 2017, the confirmation process of Alexander Acosta was a very notable exception.
At the time, the Trump administration was vetting Acosta and they asked him whether anything in his past might pose a problem during his confirmation hearings.
And that's when Acosta told Trump officials about his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein criminal case back when he was the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2007.
Costa recounted that he had agreed to give Epstein, like, the mother-of-all-sweetheart deals.
He granted immunity, not only to Epstein, but also to any potential co-conspirators, known or unknown.
Costa also hid the existence of this non-prosecution agreement from Epstein's victims in violation of the law, and as a result of the deal, the federal investigation into Epstein was shut down.
Epstein ultimately pleaded guilty to a state charge for procuring a girl for prostitution under the age of 18, and he was out of prison in a few months.
Now, all of that was known to the Trump team when they interviewed Acosta.
These are the kinds of facts that could have killed his nomination to be Secretary of Labor, but Acosta offered an explanation for his handling of the Epstein case.
He told investigators for the Trump administration that he had been directed by U.S.
intelligence agencies to let Epstein off the hook.
He was told that Epstein, quote, belonged to intelligence, that the matter was, quote, above his pay grade, and that he needed to, quote, leave it alone.
Now, when this news broke a couple years later, following Epstein's arrest, Acosta was asked about it, and he refused to say that it was false.
He gave maybe the most equivocal answer he could have possibly given.
This will go down in history as maybe one of the worst attempts to evade an answer that has ever occurred in a press briefing in Washington, which is really saying something.
Mr. Secretary, were you ever made aware at any point in your handling of this case that Mr. Epstein was an intelligence asset of some sort?
So there has been reporting to that effect.
And let me say, there's been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now, but over the years.
And again, I would You know, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.
This was a case that was brought by our office.
It was brought based on the facts, and I look at that reporting and others.
I can't address it directly because of our guidelines, but I can tell you that a lot of reporting is just going down rabbit holes.
A few more questions.
Yes, yes, there's been reporting to that effect.
But, you know, there's reporting to a lot of effects.
He actually said that.
And so that's an admission, obviously.
There's no other way to interpret what Acosta was doing there.
He's not a particularly good liar.
I mean, if it didn't happen, you know, then you just say, no, that's not true.
So the non-denial, we can take reasonably as confirmation that, yes, Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.
He was being used by the intelligence agencies, and therefore he couldn't go to prison for amassing an army of child sex slaves.
And that's not all the help that Epstein and his associates received.
On July 6th and July 7th of 2019, shortly after Epstein was arrested on new sex assault charges, FBI agents photographed a variety of evidence in Epstein's New York townhouse.
And they discovered binders with CDs and photographs lining the shelves.
Inside a safe, which they opened with a saw, the agents found photographs of... pornographic photographs of children.
They also discovered even more CDs that had handwritten labels on them with the names, in some cases, of two individuals on some of the labels.
Now, it's not hard to conclude that this was probably blackmail material.
According to the official story, agents simply photographed all of these items, but they claim they didn't take them because they didn't have a search warrant.
Incredibly, the agents left the property to get a warrant, which somehow took four days to acquire, so they went there to raid the property, they found the stuff, they said, oh, whoops, we never got a warrant, and so they left the stuff there for four days.
Before they came back.
And this by itself is ridiculous, since in a high-profile case like this, judges could obviously have approved a warrant almost immediately, while agents remained on site.
But in this case, the agents left the property, and they didn't come back until four days later.
And by that point, the materials they had photographed were missing.
Hmm, imagine that.
Supposedly, one of Epstein's lawyers later brought the property to the FBI, but of course, there's no way of knowing if the CDs that they brought to the FBI, if they even brought them, are the same ones that were removed from the safe.
And we can be pretty sure that they weren't.
There's no way of knowing how much evidence was tampered with, but we can assume as reasonable people that much of it was.
Given this history, there was really no conceivable way that we're ever going to learn the truth about exactly what Jeffrey Epstein did and who his associates were.
But in 2017, the independent journalist Mike Cernovich did his best to get some answers anyway.
And the kind of thing that you would think the corporate media would be doing.
But they have no interest.
Cernovich did.
He tried to force the government's hand.
He filed an intervening motion in an existing defamation case concerning Epstein.
And this motion, which went all the way up to a federal appellate court in New York, demanded that the government release information it possessed about Epstein.
And the courts ultimately agreed.
But just days before documents were set to come out, coincidentally enough, Epstein, and Epstein alone was the only one, was booked on the new sex assault charges by the federal government.
And so, coincidentally enough, that arrest delayed the release of the documents pending the prosecution.
Of course, that prosecution never came, because Epstein, quote-unquote, committed suicide.
The materials in his safe started to disappear, and outside of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's associates evaded scrutiny.
And the legal documents containing the names of many Epstein associates, as well as transcripts of key witness depositions, remained redacted.
Now, last night, after many years of delays, we finally got a partially unredacted look at some of the documents that Cernovich has been seeking for the better part of a decade.
And more documents are expected to be unredacted in the coming days, so this is just the first batch.
But most of the material that we're now allowed to see, as you probably guessed, most of this material is not especially shocking.
And in fact, before any of this was released, I said on the show a few days ago that if you're expecting them to actually release major damning evidence implicating high-profile people beyond what we already knew, if you were expecting that, then you have way more faith in the system than you should have.
And, you know, what I said at the time is that most likely, when this thing comes out, it is not even going to come close to living up to the hype, and it appears that I was unfortunately correct.
So, we all knew, for example, that Bill Clinton had flown on Epstein's private jet, had been photographed with some of Epstein's victims.
So we knew about that.
I mean, he should already be in prison.
It's not ever going to happen.
What's new is unredacted testimony from Johanna Joberg, one of Epstein's victims, and she was asked, quote, did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill Clinton?
In response, Joberg testified that, quote, he said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.
It's not clear whether the testimony refers to underage girls.
We can assume it does.
But nor is this especially new information.
That's the main thing.
Neither is the fact that, according to one witness, Michael Jackson once visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach.
And to be sure, there are more alarming accusations in these documents, although for the most part they aren't new.
There's the testimony from Epstein victim Virginia Dufresne that she was directed by Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with Prince Andrew, for example, as well as hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin.
So that's in the documents.
There are also renewed claims in these documents that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz had sex with one of Epstein's underage victims.
Again, we've heard that claim before.
Going down the list, the billionaire executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels, Thomas Pritzker, has also alleged in these documents to have had sex with one of Epstein's victims.
Pritzker, incidentally, is related to Illinois Governor J.B.
Pritzker, as well as the Harvard board member Penny Pritzker, who played a key role in promoting Claudine Gay to the Harvard presidency.
So just in case you thought this week somehow couldn't get any worse for Harvard, It just continues.
Now, there are some mildly interesting tidbits.
All the same, for example, the magician David Copperfield's name appears in these documents, and he appeared to be aware that Epstein was recruiting underage girls.
There's no direct evidence in the documents that Copperfield himself engaged in illegal activity.
There's also the news that Epstein wrote an email explicitly denying that Stephen Hawking had ever participated in an orgy at his island.
Which is like a strange email to write.
Yes, he's denying it.
That in and of itself seems pretty damning.
The only thing worse than being named in an email by Jeffrey Epstein as having participated in one of his orgies is being specifically named as someone who didn't.
But regardless, this isn't exactly groundbreaking stuff, nor does it provide much clarity.
And there are still many more questions than answers.
If you go through the nearly 600-page documents that were released last night, you'll still find a lot of very conspicuous redactions.
On page 497, for example, you'll find this question that was posed to Virginia Giuffre.
It says, quote, The name of the person is hidden.
And by the same token, on page 502, you'll find this question to Giuffre.
Now, once again, there's a name missing from the list in that question.
Prince Andrew, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, another prince, the large hotel chain owner,
and the late MIT professor Marvin Minsky.
Is there anyone else Giselaine Maxwell directed you to go have sex with?
Now once again, there's a name missing from the list in that question.
And for some reason, we're still not allowed to know who that is.
Now there could be good reasons for concealing some of the names.
Maybe some of the names are underage victims of Epstein's who are not being named.
That makes sense.
On the other hand, maybe it's someone with a lot of power who's still under the control of the intelligence agencies.
We really have no idea.
Whatever the case, there are a lot more redactions like this.
You can download the documents and see for yourself.
What this means is that several years after Epstein's death, we're still left to fill in the blanks of these court documents that were supposed to be made public before Epstein died.
We're not entitled to know anything more than basically what we already knew.
And we're definitely not allowed to know what exactly was on those blackmail CDs that disappeared mysteriously from Epstein's safe.
Most of what appears in the documents released yesterday leave plenty of plausible deniability for those named.
None of it amounts to actual solid proof of wrongdoing.
Again, raising more questions than answers, but there's very good reason to believe that there exists out there somewhere, or did exist at one point, actual physical direct proof that a bunch of powerful people raped children on Epstein's Island, or on one of his other properties.
Like, we know that that exists or existed out there somewhere.
But that proof is not being released.
And nobody's ever been arrested.
It's a funny thing, isn't it?
Epstein was an international pimp and pedophile, but apparently he had no clients.
An international pimp with no clients.
I mean, he was pimping out these sex slaves, but to who?
Apparently nobody.
That's what we're supposed to believe anyway.
But we can't believe that because it's nonsense.
Which means that the truth, the real truth, the full truth, is still being kept secret from us.
And those are secrets, as Alexander Acosta said, that are above our pay grade, quote unquote.
And they will remain above our pay grade, at least until the people Epstein was blackmailing step out of line.
Then we might see the names on some of those CDs, Then we might learn the identity of at least some of the people in those binders in his New York townhouse.
Otherwise, the Feds will continue to stonewall Cernovich and everyone else who's been seeking the truth.
And that's because more than four years after Jeffrey Epstein's death, he still belongs to the intelligence agencies.
You know, the CIA has a term that maybe you've seen circulating over the last day.
It's a term called limited hangout.
And this is a tactic where some small portion of the truth, and this usually happens when a cover is blown and people know something's up.
The tactic is to take some small portion of the truth and make it public, while the most important details, the stuff that really matters, the key information is still kept hidden.
Intelligence agencies do this in hopes that the stuff they release will satisfy everyone's curiosity.
And they'll stop asking questions.
These Epstein files appear to be exactly that.
This is a limited hangout.
A diversion meant to satisfy you without actually telling you what you need to know.
Because they want you to stop asking questions.
So don't fall for it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Hirebond is a new Christian dating app built to be safer, less stressful, and more Christ-centered.
Hirebond is completely different than anything else out there.
There's no addictive swiping.
The focus is truly on quality over quantity, and it's 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 are against companies like Hirebond.
In fact, one of the major tech companies is preventing Hirebond from running ads on the platform.
Our society and our country need what Hirebond is providing more than ever.
So, what are you waiting for?
Sign up today for free at Hirebond.com.
Make 2024 special by meeting someone new with Hirebond.com.
That's Hirebond.com today.
Daily Wire has a report that says, the title is, Academics Call for Critical Race Theory to be Taught in Kindergarten, Worn of Racist Three-Year-Olds.
Gotta watch out for those racist three-year-olds.
It says, Academics and activists teamed up to create a guide to teaching critical race theory to young children, arguing that kids exhibit racial bias from as young as three years old.
Titled Reflections on Children's Racial Learning, the guide was created by a leftist organization called Embrace Race and shares strategies to effectively inculcate liberal beliefs on race among young children.
It was written in part by professors at prominent universities such as the University of North Carolina and Wake Forest University, who urged parents to have courageous conversations about race with their toddlers.
It says, quote, children will naturally grow up to be non-racist adults only when they live in a non-racist society.
Until then, adults must guide children's anti-racist development.
The guide adds, quote, we have far to go before the U.S.
can be considered a non-racist society.
It also claims that, quote, by about three to four years old, white children generally show clear pro-white biases.
Embrace Race, the organization behind the guide, claims that children's racial sensibilities begin to form in infancy and that kids develop racial and other biases by kindergarten.
Embrace Race bemoans that most racial learning doesn't take place until middle or high school and exists to provide resources for early and elementary childhood educators.
Now you notice a few things are interesting here.
You notice how You know, they say we have far to go before we live in a non-racist society.
But as far as I can tell, they don't really give any indication of what a non-racist society would look like, or how we'll know when we achieve it.
You know, like, if you're going to talk about a non-racist society, and we got far to go to get, okay, well, if we have far to go before we get there, that means that we can get there.
And what does that look like?
How do we know?
How do we know we're getting closer?
Well, they don't really explain it.
It's not because they have no vision of what a non-racist society would be.
They do have a vision of it.
Now, of course, in reality, a non-racist society is impossible.
A society without racism, that's like talking about a society without anger, or a society without hatred, or a society without sadness.
That only exists in crappy John Lennon lyrics.
In reality, we will always have all of those things to some extent, and that will always exist in any human society.
But in fact, You know, we already came about as close to being a non-racist society as any society could ever reasonably expect to come.
We were never non-racist completely.
Again, no human society ever will be.
But, I think we came about as close as you could come.
I'd say America from about 1995 to 2008.
Was not non-racist completely.
It was racism among all races of people.
But it was the most non-racist society that has ever existed on Earth.
I mean, like, easily.
There's not even a close second.
So we got as close to the non-racist utopia as you could possibly get, although you can never get all the way there.
And that is until Barack Obama got into office and set to work to deliberately provoke racial tension and get the tribalism going again and setting back race relations by about a century.
And he did it on purpose.
This was all intentional.
But before that, for, you know, before what certainly has already gone down as the most disastrous presidency in American history, which will be, if it's topped by anyone, it will only be by Biden, but I think even Biden can't, probably can't beat that.
But before that, for about a decade before that, you know, that was about as good as it's ever going to get, racially, in this country, or any country.
But that's not what they're talking about when they say non-racist country.
For them, and this is why they won't spell it out, for them a non-racist country is a country without white people.
That's what they mean.
So when they say non-racist country, they mean non-white country.
So get rid of the white people, and then you'll have a society without racism.
Which is nonsense, of course.
Like, non-white countries are by far more racist than white ones.
I mean, that's undeniable.
But that's what they're talking about.
That's what they mean.
And that's why they say that white kids show racial preferences at a young age.
They don't say anything about black kids.
This is supposedly a sickness that only white kids are infected with.
Which, by the way, You know, I actually don't deny, or I wouldn't doubt, that white kids at the age of three or four show, in some sense, like pro-white racial bias or preference or whatever.
Just like kids of other races do for their race.
I mean, I wouldn't doubt that.
I haven't looked at any of these dumb studies they've done, but it wouldn't surprise me.
It doesn't mean that the kids are racist.
There are no racist three-year-olds running around.
That's not what's happening.
All that means is that a three-year-old is going to look at himself and look at his family and look at his parents and kind of naturally identify himself and maybe feel safer with people who look like that, who look like his parents.
And that's perfectly normal.
It's perfectly human.
It's not racism.
And if you find that kind of, you know, instinct, you find it in children of all races.
And I don't even know what studies they've done to prove this.
I'm sure their studies are ridiculous.
But I would guess that if you did, I don't know, some kind of study where you took a white three-year-old and you, I don't know, you showed him a generic white woman and a generic black woman, and you let him choose which one would babysit him while his parents are out for a few hours.
If he did something like that, he probably would choose the white woman.
Because she looks more like his mom.
Do the same thing with a black three-year-old, it's good to choose the black woman.
Asian, choose the Asian, and so on.
And so I'm guessing that their studies are kind of like along those lines, but maybe not exactly that.
And all that would show is that people, you know, initially gravitate towards those who look like them, who look like their tribe, their family, you know, the people that are closest to them.
Does that mean That you need some kind of re-education camp, some kind of intensive curriculum to get rid of those instincts.
Does that mean you need to have difficult conversations with your three-year-old about race?
I don't know about you, but I've never talked to my three-year-old about race.
I don't even know what that would look like.
Okay?
Because I'm not an insane person.
So I've never sat down with my three-year-old and said, let's have a discussion about race.
It's never happened.
And I never will.
Because those instincts are not driven by animus.
It's a basic survival instinct, but if kids are around people of other races, then naturally they start to make friends with those other kids, and just everything will be fine.
Growing up in that zone of 1995-2008, I had friends of all different ethnicities when I was a kid.
Never had any racial training, okay?
We never had any... I'm sure we had... There were times when the guidance counselor would come in and say, you know, racism is bad, kids.
So I'm sure we had a little bit of that, but we didn't have any kind of critical race theory, intensive racial training.
Didn't happen.
And we just went to school, and there were kids of all different ethnicities and backgrounds and whatever, and we just made friends with kids, and we didn't think much about it.
It was normal.
It wasn't a big deal.
If you don't make it a big deal, it won't be a big deal for kids.
Which isn't to say they don't notice.
Of course they notice.
They notice that people look different.
It doesn't necessarily mean much to them.
Unless you make it a big deal.
You leave kids alone about the race stuff, and everything is going to be basically fine.
But as we know, the racial education is meant to create racism, not to cure it.
So that really is the whole point.
If you sit the kids down and you make them focus intensely on that, because they're not focused on it.
They're not thinking much about it.
Which, if you really wanted to have less racism in society, then that is the attitude you'd want to have kids to have.
You'd want them to just not really be that focused on it.
You make them focus on it, and then you create exactly the sort of environment that these people want.
Speaking of creating racism, not curing it, we've got another, it seems like there's been a kind of revival of the statue toppling brigade.
They never went away, but it's kind of, they toppled all the statues, and they took a break, I guess, for a few months, and now they're back at it again.
This is from USA Today.
Cruz removed a Confederate monument from a Jacksonville, Florida park earlier Wednesday morning after years of debate and controversy over its removal.
Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan ordered the removal of the Tribute to the Women of the Southern Confederacy monument, which has stood north of downtown and Springfield Park since 1915.
Deegan said the monument was a divisive presence that had no place in a city park.
She said, quote, Symbols matter.
They tell the world what we stand for and what we aspire to be.
By removing the Confederate monument from Springfield Park, we signal a belief in our shared humanity, that we're all created equal, the same flesh and bones, the same blood running through our veins, the same heart and soul.
A crowd gathered on the sidewalk erupted in cheers as Cruz took down two bronze statues,
one of a woman in robes carrying a Confederate flag, and the other of a woman reading to
two children.
In an opponent to the removal, state representative Dean Black blasted the move as a stunning
abuse of power by Deegan.
He said, "Doing it without consulting city leaders or having a vote by the city council
is another in a long line of woke Democrats' obsession with cancel culture and tearing
down history."
So, once again, this was something that was done just like over Arlington National Cemetery.
And they're doing this without any authority to do it.
They're just taking it upon themselves to do it.
Here's some photos.
I just want you to see photos of them taking down the statue.
So there they are.
I just want you to get a look at that statue.
Look how offensive that is.
Look how gross and offensive and objectionable.
Sure, I'm glad they got rid of that finally.
I mean, look at that.
Just terrible.
You know, a woman reading to a child?
Very offensive stuff.
It's just gratuitous.
You can't have that in a park.
What will the children think?
What will the children think if they look at that statue of a woman reading?
Well, once again, you know what the children will think?
They'll think nothing.
Like, they'll think, oh, that's a pretty statue.
It'll be no big deal to them, unless you make it a big deal.
You know, I was thinking about this the other day, you know, because they say that, I mean, and this one is a particularly egregious example, where they tear down a statue that, it's like, you look at the statue, and even, you can read, in most cases, like the plaques and stuff, it doesn't look offensive, nothing about it appears objectionable, These are, for the most part, not statues showing, like, a plantation owner beating a slave or something.
That's not what these statues are.
This one is a woman who's reading to her children.
But they say, well, even though they don't look offensive, they have to come down because of the intention behind them.
That's what they say.
And the claim is that the monuments went up during Jim Crow as a racist symbol, and so they have to be removed.
I don't think that's true for most of them.
Many of them, including this one, did go up 100 years ago, which is all the more reason to keep it up, by the way.
The fact that it's been there for 100 years, that in and of itself, just because something is there for 100 years, in and of itself alone is not always a reason to let it stay there.
But that should always be a factor in its favor.
And I don't agree that these statues had racist intentions, but even if that was true, I mean, let's pretend that they had racist intentions in putting up the statues in some of these cases.
Well, first of all, first of all, why can't we give the statues a new intention, a new meaning?
You know, if the person who put up the reading statue was a racist engaged in a racist conspiracy, Why can't we look at the statue today and see it as, well, we could say, well, that might be what he intended, but today we see it as it promotes motherhood and family, literacy.
And before you say that's ridiculous, you know, you say, well, we can't come up with a new meaning for a statue.
This happens all the time.
Look at what happened with the n-word.
An actual racial slur was taken and turned into this all-purpose word that appears five times per sentence in every rap song.
It's even used as a term of endearment.
And say what you want about that.
The point is just saying that a racial slur can become A greeting for the people who the slur was originally used against, and yet a statue of a woman reading to a child can't be interpreted or seen in any way beyond how it was allegedly intended when it was erected a hundred years ago?
And again, I'm not agreeing that it had a racist intention.
I'm saying for the sake of argument.
But here's the more important point.
If the alleged intent behind the statue is what matters more even than like the statue itself, Then so does the intent behind removing it.
And this has always been my argument all along.
Or one of my arguments, anyway.
No matter how you feel about these statues in a vacuum, what you have to remember is the intent.
The people who are taking it down, why are they doing it?
And what message are they trying to send?
You can claim that the statues were not intended to be unifying, but you removing the statue is also not intended to be unifying.
None of this is about racial unity or healing or anything like that.
And it never has been.
This is part of a radical left-wing campaign To erase history, and to rewrite it.
I mean, that is the intention.
That's what they're trying to do.
Which is why, if you're a smart person, even if you tend to feel yucky about these statues for whatever reason, you should still say, and even if, as I said all along, some of these individual statues, You might look at some of them individually in a vacuum and say, yeah, you know, for that particular one or this one, I could see an argument for taking it down.
Even if you said that to yourself, you should still be smart enough to realize that, okay, yeah, I could see an argument in a vacuum, but we're not in a vacuum.
And even if there's an argument for taking this particular statute down or that statute down, it should not be taken down like this, for this reason, by these people.
It should not be done as part of a moral panic in response to the drug overdose death of a scumbag criminal.
Even if I don't like the statute, you can find a statute that I don't even like.
And if you had this mob coming to tear it down, I would say, no.
You know what?
Now I'm a fan of the statute, because not you people.
You're not going to be the ones to do this, and not for this reason.
That should be how we look at these things.
One other thing here that this video has gone viral, pretty disturbing and kind of certainly shocking.
KTNV in Las Vegas has a story.
Channel 13 has obtained video of a Clark County District Court judge being violently attacked by a man during a hearing on Wednesday morning.
The man involved in the attack is, it looks like his name is Debra.
Deobra?
D-E-O-B-R-A.
You give birth to a son, you name him Debra?
It's probably not Debra, it's probably Deobra or something like that, but it's too close to Debra.
Anyway.
That's really not the point at all.
The man involved in the attack is...
Deborah Delone Redden, who is being sentenced for aggravated battery with substantial bodily harm prior to the attack on Judge Mary Kay Holthus.
He entered a guilty plea in a previous hearing.
The video shows Judge Holthus denying Redden's request for probation due to his criminal history and preparing to sentence him to jail time.
So, this is a very interesting case because of, along with being disturbing, you know, As we have talked about plenty on this show, we have a real serious crisis in this country of violent criminals being released from jail, given probation, allowed out on bail, paroled, whatever the case may be.
They are allowed to avoid jail time or they're released from jail, even though they are still violent criminals.
They are violent people.
And so, in this case, you had at least one judge in Las Vegas who said, no, you know what?
You committed a violent crime.
We're not just going to let you go free.
You have to go to jail.
And right in that moment, this guy, this criminal, decided to prove exactly why that judge was correct in making that decision.
Let's watch the tape.
I appreciate that, but I think it's time that he gets a taste of something else, because I just can't with that history.
In accordance with the laws of state of Nevada, this court--
[SHOUTING]
Judge, man, what the [BLEEP
[SHOUTING]
What the hell's wrong with you, man?
[SHOUTING]
[SHOUTING]
Hey, hey, hey.
[SHOUTING]
Hey, get off her.
Get off her.
Get good, get good. Stop.
Don't do this.
[SHOUTING]
Hey, voice Mary, catch.
Is she OK?
So apparently the judge, from what I understand, the judge was basically uninjured,
thank God, in the attack.
There was another injury though, someone else was injured.
Somehow the guy, now, I mean, personally, they spent, and that video goes on, I mean, they spent at least a minute, they spent at least like a full 60 seconds trying to pry this guy off of the judge in the courtroom that he was assaulting.
You know, one question I have is like, why does he get 60 seconds?
I'd give him like zero seconds.
From the time when the assault happens, To when you pull your gun, there should be like one second that elapses.
Now, it might be the case that they weren't able to do that, because if they had done that, depending on what was happening, maybe the judge, you'd end up harming the judge in the process, so that might be why.
But if there's ever a time to use lethal force, it's when someone is physically assaulting a judge in a courtroom.
There are many other times to use it too, but that should be one of them.
And now, the articles about this attack all mention that this guy is expected to face additional charges.
Well, yeah, I'd certainly hope so.
And the additional sentence?
Like, he should go to jail for a hundred years now.
They should pass down a sentence of a hundred years in prison.
Which obviously means you're gonna die in prison.
Because this is...
You cannot allow this.
I mean, for all we hear about protecting the integrity of our system and all the rest of it, you need to make an example of this guy.
So he was upset because he was going to—it probably would have been a relatively small amount of jail time, given the charges.
Now you come back, and you bring him in in chains this time.
You bring him in chained, and you say, hey, guess what, scumbag?
Now you're going to jail for 100 years.
Good job.
Your life's over.
Your life's over because we don't, you know, society, we don't need you.
You'll never be in society again.
You're gonna suffer in a cage for the rest of your life.
Congratulations.
That's what should happen.
If you're serious about defending the integrity of our justice system, what little of it is left?
If you want to see a lot more of this kind of thing, then come back with an additional charge and put him in jail for like a year because of it.
If you want to see more of this.
But again, I mean, this, this is exactly why, you know, She unfortunately was made to pay a price for it, but this proves exactly why this judge made the right decision.
You can hear what she said prior to passing down the sentence.
She said, no, based on the charges, you need a taste of something else.
You need a taste of justice is what you need.
And prior to that, this guy was making, he was giving the normal sob story.
I'll never do it again.
I've changed my ways.
Your Honor, I'm a different person.
You see, I'll never do it again.
I've been reformed.
And how many times do judges get this sob story, and for whatever reason they believe it, and they send the person back out on the street until something heinous happens?
And this guy switches in like 30 seconds from, I've changed my ways, to leaping over the judge's bench and assaulting the judge in the courtroom.
Tells you everything you need to know.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
First comment says, Matt, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree that enjoyment of making people uncomfortable is a sign of sadism.
All during Pride Month, I wore a shirt that read, I don't care about your pronouns.
In addition, I have a punk rock patch jacket I made myself.
And one of the patches I made reads, it's a child, not a choice.
Both of these statements are true, but they make many people uncomfortable.
They don't cause discomfort because they're wrong or perverted or because I'm a sadist, but because society has become wrong and perverted when it comes to sex binary and the value of human life.
I enjoy and delight in the discomfort and seething rage I supplant in feminists when they read my clothing and pray for the day one of them decides to challenge me so I can further burst their comfort bubble by asking them, what is a woman?
Yeah, well, I think that that is joy that you are taking, really, in the truth and in telling the truth.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
I also take joy in that.
What we had from who was going to be the new director of Star Wars yesterday is saying that she enjoys just making men in general uncomfortable, which I would put in an entirely different category.
To understand how sadistic that is, there's a statement like, I enjoy making men uncomfortable.
All you have to do is imagine what it would sound like when you said, yeah, I like making the feminists uncomfortable when I say truthful things around them.
But imagine a man saying, not feminist, but a man saying, I enjoy making women uncomfortable.
Imagine a man saying that.
You hear that and you think, well, this guy's like a predator.
You enjoy making women in general uncomfortable?
You enjoy it?
You should be on a registry somewhere.
And it's just as disturbing and creepy when a woman says it, and in this case it's going to be the woman who's directing the next Star Wars film, which are still films that it's like a vastly majority male audience that goes to see these Star Wars films.
I don't know why.
I don't know why men still go see Star Wars.
I don't know why anyone still goes to see Star Wars.
I mean, people still go see Star Wars films, even though we all... Everyone acknowledges that if there was ever a good Star Wars movie, the last one was in, like, 1983 or something.
And people still go see them.
Now, of course, as you know, my opinion on this, there has never been a good Star Wars movie at all, but if there ever was one, it's been, like, 40 years since there's been a good one?
I think at this point, from what I can tell, people still go see the Star Wars films, one, because it's a compulsion or something, but also I think it's this weird... Star Wars fans now, being a Star Wars fan from what I can tell, is as much about enjoying Star Wars as it is about complaining about the new ones, and so it's a whole new The next Star Wars movie everyone knows is going to be terrible and yet the fans will go see it so they can see how terrible it is and then complain about it.
But they'll still make a billion dollars just on that alone.
I can't believe Matt repeats the idiotic claim that the world isn't overpopulated because, I don't know, every human on earth could fit in the Grand Canyon.
Every problem we have is only made worse by more people and our way of life is already tottering.
Another one says, the world is overpopulated.
It's not just about how many people can fit in an area.
It's about the resources that are needed to sustain all the people.
Nature is out of balance because we are using and destroying far too many natural resources.
Learn some science, man.
Yeah, it's good to know science.
Part of knowing science is like understanding Basic facts of the world that we, this planet that we live on and how vastly enormous it is.
And I don't just mean in terms of the amount of space, but also in the resources that it produces and can produce.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that we are obviously nowhere close to running out of space.
We're also nowhere close to running out of resources.
It's, we're not even, we're not close to it.
And adding more people doesn't mean that we all have less resources to split among us.
It doesn't work that way.
And one of the ways you know that is, I mean, look back 300 years ago.
There were far more people living in poverty 300 years ago than there are today.
And yet there was a fraction of the population.
That's interesting, isn't it?
Now, yes, there are plenty of people living in poverty today as well.
And there are plenty of people who live in places where they don't have access to some of these basic resources like food and clean water.
But that's not because there are too many people around.
You know, that's a problem with corrupt governments.
That's a problem with the lack of infrastructure.
That's what it comes down to.
Political corruption, infrastructure, all these things.
But if you were to go into those areas, where they're into, I don't know, Somalia or something, where there's just dirt poverty and people without access to basic resources, and you were to erase half of the people who live there, guess what?
The half that still survive, they're going to be in the same spot they were.
Because it's not about there being too many people.
And it's not a problem that can be solved by reducing the number of people or having the population trends reverse.
And I can guarantee you that.
You're going to be hard-pressed to find me an example of a civilization that began to thrive as populations declined.
Okay, show me an example of a civilization where prosperity went this way and population went that way.
Can you show me that?
Population decline is civilizational decline.
Economic decline.
It's decline in every sense.
So I would say, you know, maybe learn not just science but also just basic facts like the history of the world and how human civilization works.
You might try that.
Now's the perfect time for your family to discover BentKey, an entirely new streaming platform for kids entertainment created by The Daily Wire.
BentKey is dedicated to telling timeless stories that kids will love and parents can trust, all 100% ad-free.
with hundreds of thousands of downloads and hundreds of five-star reviews,
Bent Key is quickly becoming a favorite for parents, grandparents, teachers, and more
who believe that their kids deserve the best.
Plus, new episodes are released every Saturday.
That's right, we brought back Saturday morning cartoons, and if you wanna be a part of it,
you have to get a Daily Wire Plus membership, but if you already have one,
then you already have access to Bent Key.
If you're not a member, this is your invitation to try Bent Key for free.
That's right, we're giving everyone a 14-day free trial of premium kids content at Bent Key.
Go to bentkey.com and use code UNLOCK at signup to start your free trial today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
You know, I try not to repeat myself on this show, but I don't try very hard,
which is why I end up repeating myself all the time.
So the subject of so-called DINKS, Childless by Choice Couples Who Have a Dual Income and No Kids, hence the acronym, is one that I have revisited on multiple occasions, and in fact, you might think that I have said every last thing one could possibly say on the subject.
Which is undoubtedly the case.
I've made my point about the dinks and that there is, you know, there's not much else that needs to be added.
But then, over the weekend, CNBC decided to release a mini-documentary about the dinks.
It's titled, Why More Americans Are Going Child Free.
It already has over half a million views on YouTube.
And I watched the video, and it is, as expected, so perfect for the Daily Cancellation, so seemingly tailor-made for this segment, that I have no choice but to come back to this well one more time.
So we'll go through some of the clips from this little video, this documentary, but before we do, before you see a single frame of it, I should tell you that the video focuses mainly on one young married couple from Massachusetts who self-identify as Dinks.
Now, just as a fun exercise, I want you to imagine what a millennial Dink couple from Massachusetts might look like.
Conjure an image with your imagination.
What does the Dink wife look like?
Most importantly, what does the Dink husband look like?
Draw a picture in your mind.
And now we'll watch the video and you will see that the image in your mind is exactly correct.
You have used your psychic powers to see this couple before you actually saw them.
Watch.
We got married fairly young and we both just decided for many reasons we didn't want kids.
And then at some point we heard the acronym DINK and I think just really fell in love with it.
Okay, first of all, I mean, that's exactly what you pictured, isn't it?
You might have been slightly off on the wife, that was a little ambiguous, but the husband, I mean, you had figured out.
The long hair, the nose piercing, all of it just screams Dink.
I mean, it screams the kind of man who would confess to falling in love with the name Dink.
Which... How is that possible?
How is it that you heard Dink and you're like, wow, I love that.
That is great.
That's what I am.
It resonates.
It sounds like a name that was invented by someone like me to make fun of you.
But instead, they came up with it themselves, apparently.
Because they're a bunch of damned dinks.
Let's continue.
There are more Americans that are deciding not to have children, and it's purposeful.
This new trend has led to the rise of a new type of household, more commonly referred to as dinks.
Dual income, no kids.
Oh yeah, dual income, no kids.
That's perfect for us.
That's absolutely right.
Children are the death of net worth.
Pretty crude, but honestly very true.
This household configuration of dual income partners living alone without children is on the rise.
In 2022, it was around 43% of households, and that's about a 7% increase from a decade previously.
In 2022, 43 percent of Americans surveyed said they'd want to get married.
But just a little more than a quarter said they were sure about wanting children.
The term dink is becoming more prominent now because of financial challenges.
And they see children as just another financial challenge that maybe they don't want to take on.
Of course they have a dog too.
It looks like a dink dog.
It looks like a dog a dink would have.
Everything about it.
Their house.
Everything.
They say children are just another financial challenge.
That's all they are.
The word just is quite telling.
Because there's apparently nothing else to say about new human life other than the fact that it's an economic burden.
A child is a bill and nothing more.
The idea that there may be more to life, that some things transcend material concerns, that not everything has a price tag, that there is more to life than the bottom line.
None of that is taken into consideration at all.
Let's continue.
According to a 2023 survey of DINKS, finance played a major role in their decision to not have children.
More than a quarter of respondents said they simply aren't able to financially support a child at the moment.
When we advise clients about having children, we honestly don't even give them the full, real details and the real numbers.
It's one of those things, if you actually see the math of it all, it might make you decide to not have children.
It costs the family an estimated $310,605 to raise a child born in 2015 to age 18, adjusted for higher future inflation.
And that doesn't even include the cost of college.
Okay, now this really isn't the point I want to focus on, but it should be noted that everything you've just heard is nonsense.
33% of the dinks say they can't afford a child.
Now, I believe that 33% said that in a survey, but what they're saying is ridiculous.
I mean, there are families with significantly less financial means who are managing to raise multiple children and can still live perfectly comfortably and care for their children and themselves without the risk of starvation.
Now, as a general rule, if you have decided that something is financially impossible for you, but then you look around and you see that literally billions of people throughout the history of the world have done this impossible thing with less financial means than you have at your disposal, that's a good indication that the problem isn't really your finances.
Also, okay, I mean, you hear these figures all the time.
It costs $87 million to raise a child for one day.
No, it doesn't.
It does not cost $310,000 to raise a child to the age of 18.
It doesn't.
That's almost $20,000 a year.
By that logic, I should be spending $120,000 a year just on my kids.
I assure you, I am not.
In fact, when we had our twins, I was making $44,000 a year.
This was 10 years ago.
Now granted, this was 10 years ago, okay, so there's been inflation, but that would still mean that nearly all of my income was going to my kids.
I mean, we would have been homeless and starving.
But we weren't.
I mean, it is more than possible to raise a child on significantly less than 20 grand a year.
It just might mean that you're driving a less fancy car, and you're buying a less fancy TV, and you're going on less fancy vacations.
And you're learning how to actually make meals from scratch at home instead of ordering DoorDash five nights a week.
I mean, there are ways to raise children without spending over a quarter of a million dollars to do it.
I know there are ways because, again, literally billions of humans since the dawn of the species have figured out how to do it.
We're the only ones.
It's like five minutes ago, we all looked around as a species and said, this is too expensive.
We can't do this anymore.
We've been doing it the whole time!
What do you mean it's too expensive?
Makes no sense.
Let's continue.
Seeing our friends really struggle with that balancing act has, I think, made me appreciate the flexibility that we have financially because we don't have children.
Yes, that dude is reading a book titled Hot and Unbothered.
I looked it up and apparently the full title is Hot and Unbothered, How to Think About, Talk About, and Have the Sex You Really Want.
So yes, behind the scenes here, the CNBC crew came to this dink's house.
They wanted to get some b-roll of this couple sitting on the couch and pretending to read together, which is something they've probably never done even once in real life, okay?
They've never sat on the couch and read together.
They're just on their phones all the time, not even looking at each other.
But they wanted to get this.
And so this guy decided to pull hot and unbothered from the shelf for the scene.
That's the kind of book that if you have it, you take it down from your shelf and you hide it under the couch when the film crew comes.
It's not a book that you deliberately showcase.
But then again, these are obviously not people who have much of a capacity for shame because they're dinks.
Watch one more clip and I think that will be enough.
Here it is.
Besides saving on childcare, Dinks can also fully reap the benefits of combining their finances.
To look at both of our incomes coming in and see how we're able to handle all of that because we don't have extra finances with a child, it's much more comfortable.
We get to focus more on the things that we want to do and saving a lot of that money for the future and worry less about the day-to-day finances of the house and our bills.
Money isn't the only expense that dinks can save on.
The free time is actually one of the biggest things for me.
So we built me a little office slash bedroom out here.
We definitely have some more expensive hobbies.
I build mechanical keyboards, like computer keyboards, in my spare time.
And just parts and stuff for that can be very expensive.
Not having children has given us the freedom to pursue other things.
Remodeling our home.
I'm a beekeeper.
I'm really handy and I like doing stuff around the house.
I wouldn't have the time to just do that after work if I feel like it, if I had, you know, a child to care for.
Fewer expenses leave dinks with more disposable income to play with.
Disposable income is power, it's stability, and for many couples, it's security.
The security that having, you know, six months of income saved for emergencies gives you.
Okay, I got all this extra time and money they can't even update their kitchen, but let's review a few things here.
First of all, I have more than six months saved and I have six kids.
We've also remodeled multiple homes.
I've even kept bees, okay, all with kids.
So they have not listed one single thing that people with kids can't do.
They haven't listed one single thing that I myself haven't already done or am not currently doing.
Besides building keyboards in my spare time.
I haven't done that.
I also don't have a separate bedroom from my wife, as this guy apparently does.
I mean, because he's absolutely determined to fulfill every single last demeaning stereotype of a male millennial dink that he can think of.
So, when you hear this...
Anti-natalist propaganda telling you about all the things you can't do when you have kids.
It's always important to remember that it's a lie.
I mean, again, there is nothing that these people can do that I can't.
Or that you can't, if you have kids.
Now, in some cases, it may take more effort.
It may take more planning.
It may take more sacrifice.
But it can be done.
You can save money.
You can plan for the future.
You can have free time.
You can be financially secure.
You can even build keyboards if you want, for some reason.
You can do that too.
Now, you may suffer misfortunes or setbacks that may make those things more difficult, but that can happen and will happen in one form or another, whether you have kids or not.
But all that is beside the point.
Arguing the case on financial terms is playing right into the dink hands, which is never good because you never know where their hands have been.
Even if financial security and prosperity is perfectly possible and attainable for families with children, and it is, it is still true that your life will be easier financially if you don't have kids.
I mean, that is true.
I don't deny that.
Kids don't cost or don't need to cost $310,000 to raise, but they do cost something.
I mean, it ain't cheap.
There's no question about that.
So yes, in the end, it's true that the dinks will avoid certain financial difficulties.
For now, anyway.
Until they're old and the money runs out and they end up alone in a nursing home because they don't have any kids to care for them or support them.
But for now, it will be easier.
Sure.
And that is the only selling point.
You'll notice that every time we get this kind of advertisement for the dink lifestyle, the only thing they ever want to talk about is the finances.
The supposed benefits of being a dink all fall into one bucket.
That's it.
And even in that bucket, the benefits are greatly exaggerated, but the point is that they don't have anything to say outside of the money.
They never even bother claiming that being a dink will give you a more purposeful life or a more exciting and interesting life.
They never say that it'll bring more meaning into your life or more love into your life.
They don't even try to claim that the dinks have greater opportunities for joy or fulfillment.
They certainly don't mention anything about legacy.
You know, joy, meaning, love, legacy, purpose.
These aren't even part of the sales pitch, which really tells you what you need to know.
Yes, some aspects of life will be easier for a while if you don't have kids, but why are you living a life in the first place?
What is the point of it?
What should you be doing with your life?
What gives life meaning?
These are questions that the dinks in that video don't seem to have asked themselves.
They're too busy reading self-help sex books in their separate bedrooms.
Gloating over how easy their lives are, while never stopping to consider what life is, or what they are meant to do with it, or what will make it meaningful.
And that is why they are today, once again, cancelled.
