Ep. 1294 - The Deep State Announces Its Plan To Destroy The Next Trump Administration
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, on the heels of Trump's win in the Iowa caucus, the Left has been very clear about its plan if Trump wins the presidency again. they have now announced, openly, a deep state plot to usurp his authority. Also, disturbing images reveal that the CEO of United Airlines is a drag queen in his spare time. But does that matter? Yes it does. And Gen Z often complains that they have it much worse, economically, than their parents and grandparents did. Is that true? And if so, what do we make of it? Finally, a group of exhibitionists in Phoenix hold something called No Pants Light Rail Day. Which is exactly what it sounds like.
Ep.1294
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to shows, documentaries, movies and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Unlock your Bentkey 14 day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/WALSH
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
- - -
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, on the heels of Trump's win in the Iowa caucus, the left has been very clear about its plan if Trump wins the presidency again.
They have now announced openly a deep state plot to usurp his authority.
Also, disturbing images reveal that the CEO of United Airlines is a drag queen in his spare time, but does that actually matter?
Well, yes it does.
And Gen Z often complains that they have it much worse economically than their parents and grandparents did.
Is that true?
And if so, what do we make of it?
And finally, a group of exhibitionists in Phoenix held something called No Pants Light Rail Day, which is exactly what it sounds like.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know, when you're running a business, time is money.
That's why I'm so excited to have RAMP as a new sponsor for my show.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is the corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
with RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions, automate expense reporting,
and stop wasting time at the end of every month.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time
so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again and your employees will no longer spend hours
submitting expense reports.
The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
RAMP is easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes whether you have five employees or five.
Get $250 when you join RAMP.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, spelled R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
Well, the Iowa caucuses are over, and as expected, Donald Trump won overwhelmingly.
He is effectively the Republican presidential nominee at this point, and just like in 2016, Trump is leading in pretty much every poll in every state.
In fact, he's doing better this time around than he was in 2016.
So, from a historical perspective, this is a unique moment in American politics.
It's rare for a former president to run for office again.
And also have a serious chance of winning.
It's only happened a handful of times in the history of this country.
And that leads to some, shall we say, quirks in the process.
And here's one of them.
We're starting to see the same attacks against Donald Trump that we first saw all the way back in 2016.
And even when these attacks make absolutely no sense eight years later, after we saw him in office, They're still trotting them back out.
You might remember that in 2016 the big concern about Donald Trump, one of them anyway, was that, aside from him, according to the left, being a racist and a transphobe and a sexist and all the phobes and ists and everything else, but one of the big ones that they brought up a lot was that Donald Trump would have control over the nuclear codes.
And we had to worry about this because there's no telling what he would do with the nuclear codes.
And he might just, you know, launch a nuclear attack against a country because he's having a bad day.
He might launch a nuclear attack against his own country.
Who knows?
Well, that's what they said.
And needless to say, just to review recent history, he got into office and he didn't launch any nukes, actually.
None at all.
Zero nukes were launched.
And now Donald Trump is back on the ballot, and because his political opponents aren't terribly creative, we're once again hearing a slightly warmed-over version of the old hits.
You're not hearing about the nuclear codes quite as often now, but we are hearing something similar to that.
And this time around, instead of warning about nukes, They're going with something a little bit more generalized, you know, a little more vague.
And that's where the left loves to live.
They love to live in an area that's vague and abstract and can be interpreted any number of ways.
So now they're saying that if Donald Trump wins in November, then he's going to do some non-specific but also very bad things with the military.
Could that involve launching a nuclear attack?
It could, but it could be anything.
Just something bad.
A lot of bad things, actually.
This headline comes to us from NBC News, which, as usual, is laundering the talking points of intel agencies and the Defense Department.
"Fears grow that Trump will use the military in dictatorial ways if he returns to the White
House."
Well, what does that mean?
well, specifically according to NBC News, quote, "Donald Trump is sparking fears among those
who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon that he would convert the nonpartisan US military
into the muscular arm of his political agenda as he makes commitments, or rather comments,
about dictatorship and devalues the checks and balances that underpin the nation's two-century-old democracy."
So just to reiterate, people who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon
are the brain trust behind this article.
Who are those people?
Well, it's not really clear who they are.
It could mean Pentagon officials.
It could be retired Pentagon officials.
It could be current Pentagon officials.
Maybe it's just people who think about the Pentagon a lot.
We don't know.
They're people who understand the inner workings.
That's all you need to know.
But that makes them experts.
And NBC News says that we should trust these anonymous experts when they predict that Donald Trump will convert the nonpartisan U.S.
military into the muscular arm of his political agenda.
We should just trust them.
There's a lot to think about here.
And for one thing, really the first thing that comes to mind when you hear about this fear that Donald Trump will take the nonpartisan military and make it partisan, first thing that comes to mind is that, well, the nonpartisan military doesn't exist.
So even if Trump wanted to do that, he couldn't, because there is no nonpartisan military to work with.
The military is not nonpartisan anymore.
And that's why they can't recruit anyone.
That's one of the reasons, anyway.
They've spent so long demonizing the left's enemies, white males specifically, for political reasons, that they can't even meet their recruiting goals.
And so it's not nonpartisan, but despite all that, NBC News and the Pentagon, well, no, not the Pentagon, but people who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon, want you to believe that the military is functioning perfectly right now.
And it's Donald Trump who's going to come along and make the military political and dysfunctional.
And he's going to do that, we're told, by converting the military into an arm of his political agenda.
And this, of course, is another attack that would have been fit right in to the 2016 narrative.
Might have been even effective in 2016.
But anyone who's been alive for the past decade knows that it just doesn't make any sense now.
And that's because almost every president in modern history has used the military to advance their political agenda.
Perhaps greatest achievement by far is that he didn't carry on with that tradition.
He didn't turn Libya into an open-air slave market so that Hillary Clinton could feel like a strong and independent woman.
He didn't invade Iraq on some phony intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.
He didn't pull a Clinton and bomb Sudan to distract from a domestic scandal.
So, I mean, really, you can make the case, really strong case, that Donald Trump was the single most restrained president in modern history when it comes to the use of the military.
In all four years, the only time Democrats really became upset about Trump and his use of the military is when he visited the bombed-out church just outside the White House during the BLM riots.
And that's the best hit they had.
They said Mark Milley shouldn't have been in Trump's entourage or something like that.
And for about five news cycles, they pretended to be really outraged by that.
Of course, they didn't care about the BLM rioters torching the church or injuring dozens of police officers and Secret Service agents.
They didn't care about that.
They were laser focused on this one incident because it's the only example they could think of to make the case that Donald Trump had somehow co-opted the military to serve his own political ends.
But, again, there are many real cases of recent presidents in this country, in fact, every single recent president, doing exactly that.
Donald Trump was the one guy who didn't.
But they have to lie about this, just like they lied about the nuclear codes in 2016, and the reason for the lie is the same.
Just like in 2016, the point of the slander is to delegitimize the Trump administration and lay the groundwork for undermining it from within.
Eight years ago, all the warnings about Trump's instability and nuclear codes and so on gave the FBI an important pretext to launch an indefinite investigation into his campaign, and we know how that turned out.
If you convince millions of Americans that Donald Trump wants to be a dictator, a willing servant of Putin, Then it's a lot easier to justify illegal wiretaps of his campaign and everything else they did.
The only difference is that back in 2016, nobody admitted any of this out loud.
Like, nobody came out and said that they were actively working to undermine his authority, and now they're just coming out and saying it.
Quoting from the NBC News article, "Now bracing for Trump's potential return, a loose-knit network
of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to
expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political
needs." Now, if you're wondering what an insurrection or a coup looks like, well, it looks exactly like
that.
I mean, and the media is openly bragging about it.
They're openly bragging about a deep state plot to usurp the president's authority.
The article goes on to explain that, quote, those taking part in the effort told NBC News that they are studying Trump's past actions and 2024 policy positions so that they will be ready if he wins in November.
That involves preparing to take legal action and send letters to Trump appointees spelling out consequences they'd face if they undermine constitutional norms.
Because, you know, there's nothing these people care more about than constitutional norms, of course.
So a bunch of left-wing activist groups are going to threaten Trump and threaten Trump appointees if they undermine quote-unquote constitutional norms, which are, you know, what are the norms?
Well, those are the norms as they are defined by these left-wing activist groups.
The left-wing activist groups will tell us what is constitutionally normal, and if you venture outside of that, then you should be in prison.
That's the general approach.
What would be interesting to know is how many of these activist groups ever threatened the Biden administration.
When the White House nationalized the rental properties or tried to force millions of people to take the COVID shot or tried to implement a mask mandate on airplanes, even though all available science said it was ridiculous, did any of these defenders of constitutional norms have any issue with that?
No, of course they didn't.
Now, in this article, NBC News is careful not to admit too much.
You know, they're saying that the deep state is just going to file lawsuits and send letters.
But, I mean, everyone knows that's not all they're going to do.
At multiple points during the Trump administration, career officials in the Defense Department and intelligence agencies openly defied the President and subverted his authority.
As Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu reported for Axios, quote, once in office, Trump's ambitions to withdraw from Afghanistan and other countries were subdued, slow-rolled, and detoured by military leaders.
Now, to give one example, in the case of Syria, officials routinely lied to Donald Trump about the number of troops in the country, which is something much more serious and direct than sending letters and filing lawsuits.
Jim Jeffrey, the former U.S.
envoy to Syria, stated in an interview that, quote, we were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there.
And he said that in reality, the U.S.
had a lot more than the 200 troops in northern Syria, which Trump had agreed to.
And they lied to him.
And that's like a direct quote.
It's a Trump administration official admitting that they all just lied to the commander-in-chief about troop levels in Syria because they wanted to undermine his actual constitutional authority.
Now keep in mind, Donald Trump publicly ordered a full pullout from northern Syria.
There were a bunch of articles documenting this, but Jeffrey and the Pentagon just ignored it.
As Jeffrey put it, quote, what's Syria withdrawal?
There was never a Syria withdrawal.
Because they were just going to ignore him.
Now call it the deep state, call it whatever you want.
These people conspired to prevent Donald Trump from governing.
And then they gloated about it, and this happened again and again.
At one point, the New York Times played up this, you may remember, this op-ed from an anonymous Trump official saying that there's a, quote, resistance movement against Trump that was operating within the federal government.
That's where the whole, you started hearing all this cringey stuff about the resistance, and that's where it came from.
Except it came from someone who was supposedly inside the White House.
Quote, like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations, according to the official.
And leftists absolutely love that.
They also loved it when Mark Milley pledged to warn the Chinese government if Donald Trump ever ordered an attack that would affect Chinese interests, which last I checked is treason.
I mean, it's among the most obvious cases of treason that you can imagine.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tipping off an adversary about possible U.S.
military action.
I mean, that's... You literally don't get more treasonous than that.
But again, the media and Democrats celebrated it.
So, what these career operatives did is far more akin to dictatorship, I mean, far more, than anything Trump ever did.
Because for one thing, Americans elected Trump.
Nobody elected these people.
No one gave them the authority to keep U.S.
troops in countries when the president wanted them gone.
Nobody gave them authority to thwart everything Donald Trump attempted to do.
And when he was acting on the agenda that he ran on, so this is what the voters wanted, and you're supposed to care about that if you care about democracy, they just went ahead and sabotaged him again and again.
They kept subverting the will of the democratically elected president.
It's what happened when Trump cut off weapons shipments to Ukraine, which naturally angered the weapons manufacturers.
There was testimony at Trump's first impeachment hearing that the defense industry began flooding the Pentagon with phone calls shortly after the Trump administration suggested it would cut off these weapons shipments.
And what do you know?
Within weeks, the CIA operative in the White House, whose name you were never allowed to know, leaked a classified call to Adam Schiff and kick-started an impeachment.
And that's the phone call where Trump made the mistake of mentioning the Biden family's corruption in Ukraine.
And yet again, none of these defenders of democracy who are so upset about a second Trump term said a word about any of this.
And that's because they're planning to do it again.
And that's why the media will again paint Trump as a dictator, so that they can prevent him from governing.
Last night as the Iowa caucus results came in, there were many media members who were on TV pushing this narrative against.
Rachel Maddow was one of them.
Watch.
The big picture takeaway from that, and I don't mean to be, again, too dark, as you said, on this, but it is not, if we are worried about the rise of authoritarianism in this country, we are worried about potential rise of fascism in this country.
We're worried about our democracy falling to an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government.
The leader who is trying to do that is part of that equation.
But people wanting that is a much bigger part of that equation.
And the American electorate is made up of two major parties.
One of those parties has been flirting with extremism on the ultra-right for a very long time.
They've brought them in in a way that they haven't been central to Republican electoral politics ever before, and I know because I've been studying this.
But once you have radicalized one major party so that those are the preferences of the people who adhere to your party, the leader is interchangeable.
As a side note, that clip is interesting.
It's one of the rare instances of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes being spotted in the same room at the same time.
And sometimes it's not clear if Chris Hayes is just Rachel Maddow in drag or vice versa.
We really don't know.
But anyway, they're there together.
And as for what Rachel Maddow said, of course, she's just further advancing the corporate messaging of NBC News.
She wants NBC viewers to think that authoritarianism is coming.
And so to prevent it, we need to imprison Donald Trump and kick him off the ballot.
Because if you're worried about authoritarianism, the best way to prevent that is to imprison the top political rival Of course, this was never a compelling argument, but it's especially unconvincing after Trump has already served as president for a whole term.
And during that term, As Ron DeSantis has correctly noted, as I've said many times, far from being a dictator, Trump's problem when he was in office was exactly the opposite of that.
It was exactly the opposite of being authoritarian.
Trump, in fact, was as far on the other end of that scale as you can be.
He was way too far on that end of it.
Because, if anything, Donald Trump was reluctant To use his power.
He didn't wield his authority in situations where it was necessary and would have been perfectly legal to do so.
He didn't even fire Tony Fauci for completely botching the COVID response.
And if you ask him why he didn't fire him, he'll tell you that it's because he didn't want the media to be mad at him.
So that's not what a dictator says.
That's not how a dictator behaves.
And that's how non-dictatorial he was to his detriment.
Now, at some level, it's clear that these propagandists are aware of how flimsy their case is.
That's why last night, for the most part, they didn't allow their viewers to see or hear Donald Trump's victory speech.
I mean, this is the presidential frontrunner who just won the Iowa caucuses.
You're a news channel.
No matter how you feel about it, this is news.
It's the biggest thing happening in politics right now.
But CNN cut away from Trump's speech the moment he began talking about the southern border.
MSNBC made a big show of hiding the footage from their viewers.
Watch.
At this point in the evening, the projected winner of the Iowa caucuses has just started giving his victory speech.
We will keep an eye on that as it happens.
We will let you know if there's any news made in that speech, if there's anything noteworthy, something substantive and important.
The reason I'm saying this is Of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by former President Trump.
It is not out of spite.
It is not a decision that we relish.
It is a decision that we regularly revisit.
And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision, but there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.
That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.
And so his remarks tonight will not air here live.
We will monitor them and let you know about any news that he makes.
You notice that she can't even mention Donald Trump's name at first, right?
It's the whole Voldemort thing.
She refers to him as the winner of the Iowa caucuses.
And then she lectures her viewers about how important it is to muzzle him.
She appears to claim with a straight face that MSNBC might be sued if they air the victory speech of the presidential frontrunner.
And by the way, if that's true, which it's not, any real journalist would welcome that lawsuit.
I mean, you'll win that lawsuit in 45 seconds.
But nobody at NBC is pretending that they're real journalists anymore.
And again, this is all right out in the open now.
So it's pretty clear after last night that the corporate press and their allies and intelligence agencies aren't going to change their strategy.
But it's also clear by extension that if Donald Trump wants any chance of actually governing this country, he's going to have to change his strategy and his approach.
He's going to have to command the military instead of allowing the military to command him.
He's going to have to get rid of the prosecutors and the bureaucrats who spent the last four years trying to imprison his supporters and do things even worse than that.
He's going to have to stop making any effort to try to get these people to like him, whether these are the people of New York Times or NBC or anywhere else.
He's going to have to embrace being hated by them.
It should be hard to do because you have no choice anyway.
If Donald Trump becomes president after last night's result in Iowa, it's looking more and more likely, then he only has one option.
Not that he should become a dictator, but that he should actually wield his lawful power and do it effectively and ruthlessly to advance the agenda that he's running on.
And that if he's elected, he will be elected to advance.
Which means that, in that way, this time around, he's going to have to give these fear mongers precisely what they fear.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
According to Forbes, January is the hottest month for hiring.
And business owners and hiring managers are on the hunt for top talent,
which is no easy task if you're currently hiring.
You can probably relate.
It's challenging to find qualified candidates these days, and that's why you need ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology finds the right people for your roles fast.
And right now, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com immediately after you post your job.
ZipRecruiter's smart technology starts showing you candidates whose skills and experience match it.
To encourage top candidates to respond to your job post even sooner, ZipRecruiter lets you send them a personal invite to apply.
As your rate candidate, ZipRecruiter sends you more of the ones you like from the thousands of new job seekers who join the site.
This month, find the talent you need to fill all of your roles with ZipRecruiter.
See for yourself why 4 out of 5 employees who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free.
ZipRecruiter.com.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com.
The smartest way to hire.
OK, so Iowa caucuses, as mentioned, reading from the Delaware Report, just some of the numbers here anyway.
Former President Donald Trump has won the Iowa caucuses.
Trump led the field, sitting at 51%, with around 90% of the vote counted Monday night, according to Decision Desk headquarters.
DeSantis was sitting in second with 21.3%, and Haley was in third with 19%.
percent and Haley was in third with 19 percent.
Vikram Swami was in fourth at seven point seven percent.
And the race was called with an unusually low percentage of the vote counted as multiple outlets including Fox News CNN
NBC News and Associated Press all called the race for Trump
with just one percent of the vote counted.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
With that 1% of the vote in, Trump stood at 53.6%.
DeSantis was in second place at 20%.
Nikki Haley was in third at 17%.
place at 20 percent.
Nikki Haley was in third at 17 percent.
OK, so Trump wins by huge margins and the results basically tracked with the polling.
And that led to Vivek dropping out and endorsing Trump, which he did very quickly after the results came in.
DeSantis is still in the race.
Nikki Haley is also still in the race.
Not only is, by the way, Nikki Haley still in the race, but she basically declared victory yesterday.
Listen to this.
I can safely say Tonight, Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race.
So it's a two-person race, she says.
And it's a two-person race, I guess, presumably with her and Trump being the two people.
But she came in third.
OK, so she's delusional and she's staying in.
What's my take on the caucuses in general?
My take is not very interesting because it's what most people are saying.
The primary is effectively over.
It was always a very long shot that anybody would beat Trump in the primary, as of course, you know, I said the whole time, most people said, of course, it's a long shot.
I personally think, I still think, DeSantis will make an excellent president.
But he didn't really compete in Iowa in terms of the results.
No, he competed, he tried to compete, he focused most of his primary campaign on that state, but the results tracked with the polling, and the polling also has Trump winning almost everywhere.
So, you know, it's over, it just is.
Trump is essentially the incumbent of this race, you know, he has more name recognition He doesn't just have more name recognition than the other candidates.
Of course he has a lot more, but he has more name recognition than probably anyone else alive on Earth.
I think if you were to list the most famous people on the planet today, alive, Trump is at least in the top three.
I think he's probably number one.
I don't know who you put ahead of him.
And he's got, of course, a very committed, built-in base of support.
So it would take some kind of genius, historically innovative, Massively brilliant campaign, the likes of which we've never seen before, to even have a chance of knocking him out in the primary.
The deck is stacked against you so much that it's not like it was impossible.
Nothing is impossible, especially in politics.
You never know exactly what's going to happen.
But that's the kind of campaign you'd have to run, and nobody ran that kind of campaign.
You know?
And there's been a lot of criticism of the way that DeSantis ran his campaign.
And I've echoed some of that criticism.
But also, I think we should acknowledge, it's kind of hard to blame them for not being historic political geniuses.
Which, again, is what they would have to be.
I'm not a historic political genius either.
So, you know, I don't really have a lot of room to talk.
Most people don't.
I guess you can really come down hard on DeSantis and his campaign.
If you yourself knew how to beat Trump and you could have done it, then maybe you have some room to talk.
But then I would say, well, why weren't you running then?
If you could be president, why didn't you run?
So now we're left with the general election, and even as the primaries play themselves out in mostly symbolic fashion at this point, and what we know, and I long ago, because I'm not a historic political genius, I long ago got out of the business of making any political predictions whatsoever.
So I won't make any, except this one.
This is one that I will make, which is that one way or another, We know that something unprecedented is going to happen in this election.
And that's because the Democrats know that they only have two ways to give themselves a good shot of beating Trump.
And one of them is to put him in prison, although even then he could still win.
But that would certainly be an incredibly historic moment in the history of American politics in all of the wrong ways.
And the other thing that they could do is to swap out Biden for someone who is not a decrepit vegetable.
And also someone who, by the way, can wipe their hands clean of the disaster that has been the last, you know, three years.
So they could try to do that.
Or they could do both of those things.
Now, under normal circumstances, you would say that neither of those things are going to happen, because things like that just don't happen in this country.
Like, an incumbent president running for re-election getting swapped out, you know, less than a year before the votes are cast, that just doesn't happen.
A presidential candidate, a leading presidential candidate in a general election going to jail also, of course, just doesn't happen.
But it seems like if the Democrats want to give themselves a shot, they're going to have to do one of those things.
Or both of them.
Because the third option for the Democrats is to just watch as Trump beats an incumbent Democrat president and waltzes into the White House.
And one thing that we know, like we just covered in the opening monologue, they are simply not prepared to do that.
I guess there is another option for them.
In fact, which is what we talked about in the opening monologue, which is to say, OK, he's going to win and then do everything you can and then stage what they are planning, which is essentially a coup while he's in office to undermine him and destroy him from within.
So, you know, to actually win the election, there's those two options.
I guess there are some offshoots, but even then, no matter what, we are entering into unprecedented and very dangerous waters as well.
Because we're dealing with an enemy that does not abide by, as much as they talk about standards and norms, they don't abide by any whatsoever.
The only standard that matters is power, is gaining power and holding on to it.
That's the only standard they care about.
All right, the Postmillennial has this report.
The United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, who went viral for championing DEI measures for pilots at the company, is also a drag queen in his spare time.
In photos revealed by Libs of TikTok, Kirby is seen dressed in drag and other events sponsored by the company had queens, drag queens attending.
The bombshell comes as a video of Kirby in an interview with Axios talking about DEI measures the company has been implementing, has gone viral.
We played that yesterday.
So now we have these photos that were posted by Libs of TikTok, reportedly images of the United CEO dressed in drag.
Now look, just because, just because a man dresses in drag, just because he cross-dresses in his spare time, just because he has a thing apparently for presenting himself as a woman, does that necessarily mean that he's unfit to be the CEO of an airline?
Yes.
Okay, that's exactly what it means.
Yes, indeed.
It means that.
And this is one of the most absurd fictions that many otherwise reasonable people have come to believe, is that you can't judge a man for what he does in his private life.
So you hear this all the time, now you hear from people on the right also, that, well, you do that in the private, we can't judge someone based on that.
Whatever you do in your private life is your business.
But not only can you judge someone for what they do in their private life, and that is to say when I say judge them, I say what I mean is we can make judgments about them.
That's what I mean by judging.
So there's the sort of Spiritual sense of judging where we are judging what's inside someone's soul and heart and what their intentions are and that sort of thing.
And we say that only God can judge.
Well, it's only God can judge in that sense because only God can see inside your heart and make judgments based on that.
But we can make judgments about people based on their behavior.
Based on the things that they say, based on how they carry them, so based on a whole bunch of things, we can make judgments about them.
And so, not only can, in that sense, can you judge a man based on his private life, but that is the main thing that you can judge him based on.
Like, what he does in his private life is the most revealing thing.
It tells you a lot more About him, you know, it tells you the most about his character and competence, or lack thereof.
So we need to normalize, once again, judging people for their private lives.
Especially considering that, for most people, everything you do is part of your quote-unquote private life, in the sense that if you're a private citizen, your whole life, you could argue, is your private life.
So if you can't make judgments about someone based on their private life, that means you can't make any judgments about them at all.
It means that we're walking around like we're all brain dead, like Joe Biden, unable to draw any conclusions at all about other human beings around us, which is, of course, absurd.
So what judgments can we make about a guy who dresses in drag?
Well, we can know that this is someone who is unbalanced, who is disturbed, who is, this is a bizarre sort of person.
A bunch of other descriptions that you certainly don't want applied to the guy who runs one of the largest airlines in the world.
You know, if you had to choose between having an airline run by a cross-dresser or not, then you're going to take not.
Because the cross-dressing carries all of that additional baggage.
And that's a judgment that can be made.
It's also, by the way, a judgment that, before we talk about whether or not you can make, it's like almost everyone does make that judgment.
The question is whether they say it out loud.
That's the other point about all this conversation about judging.
Well, should you judge someone based on... We are all judging each other all the time anyway.
That's part of being a human being.
It's part of having discernment.
Is that we're all making judgments about other people all the time for better or worse?
So if you're talking about not judging, what you're really saying is, well, don't say any of that out loud.
But why shouldn't we say it out loud?
That's my question.
All right, this is from Daily Wire.
Florida realtor explained how hard it has become for today's younger generation to live a middle-class lifestyle, declaring that the old American dream no longer exists.
Freddie Smith, an Orlando realtor with a popular TikTok account where he posts about the financial struggles of millennials and Generation Z to his 422,000 followers, said young people need a much higher salary than their parents did to live the same lifestyle.
Smith told Fox News this week, a lot of us grew up in the middle class and we watched what middle class was in the 80s and 90s as millennials.
And nowadays, what has moved the goalposts more than anything is the housing market.
Smith explained that younger Americans trying to start their lives are often priced out of the housing market.
I think most of us in America would define the middle class as someone who can work a 40-hour week career and can have the income to purchase the average home in America.
And he says that, you know, young people today don't have that.
So, you know, there's kind of this debate that goes on.
And you've got one side that says that today's Gen Z and millennials are whiny and weak and unable to deal with normal challenges and hardships.
Then you got the other side that says, Well, economically anyway, Gen Z millennials actually do have it harder than previous generations, especially baby boomers.
Well, what's the answer?
Who's right about that?
Well, it's kind of the worst of all worlds because both sides are basically right.
And focusing on the latter for a moment, it's true that today's young adults are in a significantly worse spot.
than their parents were. Everything you see about the things that younger people,
that people my age, and if I can call myself a young adult at this point,
but the things that people, millennials and Gen Z complain about here, it's true.
It used to be that you could have a single income household on a salary under $100,000 a year
and still own a nice house with three or four bedrooms, two and a half baths, a little piece
piece of property in a safe neighborhood.
Plus, you could have your two cars.
You could have the one car it takes to work and then a minivan.
And that was normal.
For a lot of people under 40 today, that just doesn't exist.
And so the baby boomers had it very easy in that respect.
But I think what we're missing in the conversation is that the boomers are probably historical outliers.
You know, modern industrial society itself is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.
And I always like, anytime we're talking about things like this, I always like to take, you know, you try to take a wider view of the situation first before you can kind of narrow and focus in.
And when you do that, you see that, well, certainly before modern industrial society, and for thousands of years before that, if you were not extremely wealthy, then you would have lived what would seem to us to be an unthinkably difficult life.
One that, for us, would just be unimaginable drudgery and hardship.
For thousands of years, the people who were not the absolute richest of the rich, everybody else, by our standards today, lived just suffering that we can't even imagine.
Now, for them, a lot of that was just everyday life.
But for us, in the comforts that we're used to, we would consider it to be like torturous suffering.
And that was the case for millennia.
The way that we all live started to change with the Industrial Revolution.
A few generations into it, the baby boomers got to have their single family homes with a half acre of property, one income under six figures.
They could do things like go to the grocery store and buy groceries for a week for the family and it wouldn't bankrupt them.
They could afford to buy all the groceries and it was okay.
And they had, as a generation, probably the easiest life that any generation of humans have ever enjoyed in the whole history of human existence.
You know, the baby boomers, like, that's right in that window right there.
That was kind of the sweet spot.
And that is the easiest life.
It's like, that's it.
That's for any generation of humans.
They got the easiest.
They got the best.
They pulled the best card.
But they didn't really make any effort to maintain that for future generations.
In fact, they have actively squandered it.
And now here we are.
I'm speaking collectively here.
This doesn't apply to all of them, of course.
Anytime you're talking about generations, you're speaking collectively.
And so collectively speaking, the baby boomers had a very easy life that was passed down to them.
They squandered it.
And they're primarily interested in holding onto it for themselves until they kick the bucket.
There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interest in making sure that future generations can prosper financially.
And so what happens to the rest of us?
We're kind of headed back down towards the version of the sort of life that most humans have lived.
The fun times and prosperity didn't last because the people who enjoyed it Didn't care at all about preserving that experience for anyone but themselves and and That's how I understand all of this So that that's where we are.
I don't this isn't leading to like a solution.
I'm just saying that this This is a situation that we're in one of the thing I wanted to mention.
Okay, this is Why not I'm just gonna make everyone hate me again because I apparently Enjoy it.
I don't know This is a New York Post.
An Ohio Humane Society put pet owners on blast last week in a viral social media post as it struggles to keep up with the number of callers asking to abandon their dogs at the shelter.
The Fulton County Humane Society issued a biting rant in a recent Facebook post where it urged pet owners to get their act together and be better humans to their four-legged friends.
Now this post has gone very viral.
Apparently posts on Facebook still go viral.
Honestly, I'm not trying to be funny.
I didn't even know that existed.
I haven't heard about a viral post on Facebook in a very long time.
But this one did, I guess, and it got some coverage and people were cheering it on.
Here's a little bit of what it says from this animal shelter from the Humane Society in Fulton County.
We are long overdue to address some things with the community.
The number of messages we're getting every week from people wanting to surrender their dogs because they don't have time for it anymore, or it killed our cat, or it bit my child, or I can't have it where I live is out of control.
The dog you chose to get and now don't find so darling because it isn't a puppy anymore is not our problem.
A dog that bit a child can't be placed with another family, and just hope for the best, you need to contact your veterinarian, not us.
Be responsible pet owners.
Dogs are a commitment.
If you think you won't have time for it in a year, don't get one.
If you know your landlord says you can't have a dog and yet you get one anyway, then expect us to take it.
When you're getting evicted, think again.
Some dogs require hiring a trainer.
Be financially prepared to do so.
Owning a dog means having the time, money, and patience for it.
We can't take dogs with a bite history.
We can't take dogs with major behavioral issues because we will not irresponsibly place them with someone else.
Research your breeds, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, and then they go on lecturing, lecturing.
I just have two quick points.
First of all, this is kind of, no pun intended, but it's kind of a pet peeve.
Like, this thing where people get a job doing something and then they just complain about being asked to do the job they signed up to do.
So, for this animal shelter, like, calm down a little bit.
It's perfectly reasonable.
For people to call a shelter because their dog killed the cat, or bit a child, or they're moving and the new place doesn't allow animals.
Like, that's... OK, this thing, surrendering an animal, or giving up, it's like the worst thing.
How could you do it?
It's like giving up a child.
No, it's not.
It's not.
And that's perfectly reasonable.
I would think, if I was in any of those situations, the first thing I would think to do is call a shelter.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable first move to make.
And if you don't want to deal with those calls, then you shouldn't be working at an animal shelter.
You're working at an animal shelter.
People are going to call you.
They have an animal.
They don't know exactly what to do.
And they call you.
And then you have an attitude about it.
Like, this is your job.
So I always love these people in whatever job they work where, again, they get angry and indignant if they're required to do the job they signed up for.
It's like a waiter who gets annoyed when someone has a complaint about the food.
And I'm not somebody who complains about the food very often, but, you know, that's your job to deal with that kind of stuff.
It's what you're there for.
You punch the clock, so just deal with it.
We don't need to hear your whining.
Or the Starbucks baristas who complain about I think we've talked about this before.
The Starbucks baristas, they'll even go on social media or TikTok, because the Starbucks baristas, they're not doing Facebook, so they're on TikTok.
But they do the same thing, like giving rules to the customers.
Hey, attention!
Don't give these complicated drink orders.
No, you know what?
Shut up.
This is what you're hired to do.
You're there anyway.
What, do you not want to not do anything?
So someone has a complicated drink order.
Just do it.
This is what you're paid to do.
It's like everything you're asked to do is not going to be, you know, it's like, yes, you're going to be asked to do tedious things.
That's part of the job.
You do tedious things over and over again.
And so if you work at an animal shelter, part of your job is to deal with the public and answer questions like this.
Stop bitching about it.
Get another job if you don't like it.
And by the way, let's be honest about the other options, okay?
If you have a dog who attacked a child, what are the options?
Look, I can tell you this.
If I had a dog that attacked one of my kids, that dog is gone.
I mean, one way or another, that dog is gone.
It's gone today, and that's it.
Nothing to talk about, nothing to think about.
My kids are a million times a priority over any animal, so that I don't even have to think about it.
It's not even a sad thing.
It's just, okay, well, that animal's gone.
Attacked my child, you're gone.
And, you know, probably if I was in that spot, the first thing I would do is call a shelter.
Silly me.
I would probably think that's the first... I mean, I haven't been in that situation, but I would probably think that I should do that, not knowing that these animal shelters are going to get an attitude about it.
What are you calling us for?
What do you think we are?
Some kind of place that shelters animals?
So, anyway, if you can't give the dog to the animal shelter, then what's your other option?
You're not going to keep the animal with a, you know, a dangerous animal that's shown aggression to your child.
Can't give it to an animal shelter.
Doesn't leave a lot of options.
And so, you know, unless we're talking about euthanasia, you should at least be honest that that's what you're actually advocating for.
And anyway, all that said, it is true that way too many people are in fact getting pets these days.
And so that's really what they're complaining about.
And you hear this complaint a lot about people getting pets and they don't want to take care of them.
And then they get bored of them, you know.
I get a lot of grief for being anti-pet and anti-animal, which I'm not really.
I am anti-pet, but I'm not anti-animal.
I've got nothing against animals.
But I have a realistic view of these things.
Animals require care and attention.
You have to take care of the thing every day.
And the only way that that Care is not a burden as if you love the animal.
Like, I take care of my kids every day.
I'm happy to do it because I love them.
And so, yes, it can be a stress sometimes, but it's a burden you're willing to bear.
Now, if I was some kind of sociopath and I didn't love my kids, then the amount of care they require would absolutely be a crushing burden.
But I don't love animals the way I love kids, which means that I don't want to live my life taking care of an animal.
We do have pets in the house, but I don't take care of them.
They're my kids' pets, and they take care of them, and it's fine.
Realistically, I do end up taking care of them a lot, but even when I'm doing that, I'm doing it for my kids.
The love that I have for my kids is what makes that somewhat tolerable for me.
The point is that people should have a realistic view of pets and animals and what caring for an animal entails.
The amount of hostility I get for my attitude towards pets only shows how unrealistic most people are because my attitude that I don't want to care for an animal, I don't love animals like I love my children, I'm definitely not alone.
It's like most people actually share that view when it comes down to it.
But they aren't realistic about it, so they go get the pets anyway, and then they get bored of them because they realize that, oh, actually, I don't want to, you know, you know what, really, yeah, the pet is cute, but, like, I don't want to live, I don't want to have to take, every day, I got to take care of this animal that's not contributing anything to the house.
I don't want to have to do that.
And then you end up with a situation the animal shelter is complaining about.
So this is a long way of saying that I'm right in the end.
That's how it all works out.
This year is going to be one for the history books, and no one can predict what's going to happen, but you don't want to miss out on a minute of the coverage from the voices you trust.
Download the free Daily Wire Plus app now to keep up with all the latest in all the shows, up-to-minute news coverage, and a whole host of entertainment.
When you need a little break, don't wait.
Download Daily Wire Plus now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, today for our daily cancellation, I will tell you that I very nearly had to cancel my wife again.
She is, I think, like a six-time returning champion of the Daily Cancellation segment, and she almost earned a seventh for her latest infraction.
Now, as viewers of the video podcast can see, I am once again today in my home office.
After the mega winter vortex snow apocalypse dropped like five inches of snow in Nashville and shut down all the roads for the next 17 days, at least.
And nobody plows and nobody treats the roads around here because they always say that, well, we don't have to plow and treat because we never get snow.
And I've been hearing that every winter for the last four years that I've been here and every winter we've gotten snow.
So I'm starting to think that we get snow.
Maybe you should learn how to treat.
Anyway.
So we're stuck here.
None of that is my wife's fault.
That's not what I'm blaming her for.
What is her fault is that she apparently put a... Well, we were just talking about pets, and she apparently... I don't know if you can see this, but this is a framed picture of the cat.
It's not my cat.
This is my daughter's cat.
This is her pet, just to be clear.
But this is the framed picture.
It's a nice frame.
It's not on the bookshelf anymore.
She apparently put that on the bookshelf behind me, right in the shot, yesterday.
And I didn't notice it until after I'd finished recording the show.
So any eagle-eyed viewer on Monday could have watched the show and mistakenly come to the conclusion That I'm the sort of man who keeps a framed picture of the cat on his bookshelf.
I think the glare from the light might have saved me, so I'm not even sure how visible.
So I might just be outing myself for this in a way that I didn't need to.
But if someone had seen that, they might have come to the conclusion that I live some sort of double life, like publicly pretending to be relatively normal, while privately I'm some sort of cat-obsessed freak.
And her plot is made all the more sinister by the fact that, as she well knows, You know, I pay absolutely no attention to any of the decor in any room that I'm sitting in.
I mean, she could have removed the bookshelves behind me entirely and replaced them with like a 900-pound giant cat sculpture, and I probably would not have noticed.
Like, it would have taken me a few minutes at least.
It's only by the grace of God that I caught the cat picture, though I did so a day late.
And all that said, as devastated as I am, And as worried as I am about getting an unfair reputation as a cat person, I have to admit, it's a pretty decent prank.
I mean, it will require some retaliation, of course.
I respect it all the same.
And for that reason, I'm not going to cancel her today.
Also because another group of much, much, much more worthy candidates have revealed themselves.
And when I say reveal themselves, I mean it literally.
They have, in fact, revealed far too much of themselves.
A few days ago, Valley Metro, the public transit agency in Phoenix, played willing host to something called No Pants Light Rail Day.
Now, as the name would seem to indicate, No Pants Light Rail Day is a day when people ride the light rail.
In Phoenix, without any pants.
The Phoenix New Times advertised the event last week.
You can see a screenshot of their article, which I want you to see so that you can make note of the very clear LGBT branding that they're giving this thing, because of course they are.
Because of course, if there's an event where, you know, people are running around without their clothes on in public, you automatically know that there's some LGBT attachment to this thing.
And sure enough, there it is.
So here's what the article says.
After a four-year wait, Valley residents have an excuse to take their pants off in public again.
Phoenix's No Pants Light Rail Ride returns this weekend for the first time since 2020.
As the name of the event implies, it involves locals hopping aboard Valley Metro Rail without any pants, skirts, or shorts.
Participants are dressed in underwear, tops, and shoes, though.
The infamous event, equal-part flash mob and urban prank, It's scheduled for Sunday.
It's one of Phoenix's unique and cheeky events, earning its underwear-clad participants stares, glares, and smiles from onlookers or fellow light rail passengers.
During its original run, it was also quite popular.
Phoenix's no-pants light rail ride dates back to 2009.
And then there were spin-offs in other cities, and they stopped doing it during the pandemic.
So, that was at least one positive from that whole experience, and now they're back to it.
So, and this is something that apparently happens in cities across the country.
Baltimore had its own pantless public transit day on Sunday.
So, if you were already concerned that the seats on public transportation were covered in a thick coating of the most putrid and potentially infectious germs imaginable, well, this should pretty much confirm those suspicions.
But it's all just a prank, we're told.
It's a prank, a silly prank.
You know, indecent exposure is okay as long as it's done under the guise of a prank, we're supposed to believe.
But if you look at the images from this event, you will see that this does not appear to be a band of merry pranksters, but rather a group of exhibitionists and fetishists.
As you might expect.
You know, there were people taking part in this who were in furry costumes, people in fetish gear.
People there clearly not as a prank, but because they enjoy exposing themselves in public.
Exposing themselves to who?
Well, I can tell you that there were children in attendance.
And when I say in attendance, at the very least, they were on public transportation that day, presumably with their parents.
Whether their parents brought them for this event, I don't know.
But there were children there, as you can see here.
At least two young children were on the light rail car, standing next to a guy with no pants, wearing high heels and leather underwear with the word FETISH written on the front.
And this was allowed to happen out in the open on public transportation while the city of Phoenix, to my knowledge, has never said a word against it or made any attempt to stop people from taking off their pants in front of toddlers on the light rail.
It's not like they didn't know it was happening.
Like, it's announced and advertised ahead of time.
You could speak up and say, no, you're not allowed to ride public transportation without pants on.
You could have said that, and they didn't.
Now, needless to say, in a sane country, all of the adults involved would be in jail for, at a minimum, indecent exposure.
But just as needless to say, we don't live in a sane country, so none of these adults will face any consequences for this disgusting degeneracy at all.
And perhaps worst of all, even if they will not experience any legal penalty, as they should, They also will not feel shame.
And that is the big takeaway from really everything that happens in our culture these days, but especially from a nationwide event that involves fetishists riding public transportation in their underwear.
Not to be mistaken with like cracked out homeless people that ride in their underwear every day for other reasons, or maybe for the same reasons, I don't know.
The big takeaway is that this can only happen, and will inevitably happen, in a culture without shame.
And we've worked very hard to remove shame from our society.
We have declared that shaming is a universal evil.
It's the worst thing you can do is to shame someone.
We've decided that being unashamed is a universal good.
And all of that is very wrong, because shame serves a critical role for human beings.
It's not very dissimilar from the role of the pain receptors in your brain.
Without the ability to feel pain, you'd be able to keep your hand on a hot stove without knowing that you're burning yourself.
And this would be very bad, because although you don't feel any pain from the burn, you are still being burned.
Your body is being damaged.
The pain is meant to alert you to that fact, so that you can protect yourself.
Pain is unpleasant to feel, But the alternative is much worse.
It's just like it's unpleasant to hear smoke detectors blaring.
Nobody wants to hear that.
But it's even worse and even more unpleasant to not know that a fire has started in your kitchen until it's too late.
So shame is the same idea.
It is the unpleasant feeling you get when you have behaved in a way that is disgraceful and embarrassing and gross and otherwise loathsome.
If you don't have the capacity to feel shame, or if you have trained yourself to ignore the feelings when they come, then you may be spared the immediate unpleasantness of the shameful feelings, but you will be doomed to disgrace and to debase yourself repeatedly until you have obliterated every semblance of your own dignity and self-respect.
You may not feel the burn, but you are disfigured by it all the same.
Only it's even worse In this case, because your disfigurement also contributes to the disfigurement of society.
Your shamelessness is like a disease.
It spreads.
And we're all dragged into it.
And before you know it, you're standing pantless on the subway while the rest of us recoil in horror.
An eventuality that could have been avoided if you had been shamed in the past and made to feel that shame.
But shame itself has been shamed out of society, and now we have a whole lot of shameful behavior without any of the shameful feelings that should go with it.
So then it is up to me to say to the pantless writers in Phoenix and everywhere else in the country, you are all cancelled.
