Ep. 1303 - Representative Ilhan Omar Must Be Expelled From Congress And Deported
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Ilhan Omar, a United States congresswoman, just delivered a speech entirely in a foreign language where she pledged her loyalty and fidelity to a foreign nation. She should be kicked out of office and deported. We'll talk about it. Also, the Biden campaign is preparing to enlist Taylor Swift to help get out the vote. Climate activists try to desecrate another priceless work of art, this time it's the Mona Lisa. And in our Daily Cancelation, it's been a long time coming but it's finally time to cancel moon landing deniers.
Ep.1303
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the BRAND NEW series The Divided States of Biden on DW+ : https://bit.ly/4999W1e
Get 20% off your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Helix - Get 25% off + 2 free pillows with promo code HelixPartner25 at https://helixsleep.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 Walsh Show, Ilhan Omar, a United States Congresswoman, just delivered a speech entirely in a foreign language where she pledged her loyalty and fidelity to a foreign nation.
She should be kicked out of office and deported at a minimum, obviously.
We'll talk about that.
Also, the Biden campaign is preparing to enlist Taylor Swift to help get out the vote.
Climate activists try to desecrate another priceless work of art.
This time it's the Mona Lisa.
And in our daily cancellation, it's been a long time coming, but it's finally time to cancel moon landing deniers.
There's all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns this year?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents.
In these challenging times, your best defense is to use Tax Network USA.
Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay-up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.
These guys are not your friends.
Do not waive your rights and speak with these agents on your own without backup.
Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over a billion dollars in back taxes for their clients and they can help you secure the best deal possible.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.
Whether it's businesses or personal taxes, whether you have the means to pay or you're on a fixed income, Tax Network can help finally resolve your tax burden once and for all.
Seize control of your financial futures now Don't let tax issue overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and also expert guidance.
But you got to call 1-800-245-6000.
That's 1-800-245-6000.
1-800-245-6000.
That's 1-800-245-6000.
Or visit tnusa.com/walsh.
You know, it used to be that when a member of Congress delivered a fiery political speech in an election year,
there were a few things you could take for granted.
For one thing, you could assume that the speech related in some way to the United States and its citizens.
You could also bet that the people listening to the speech and clapping at all the applause lines were invested in some way in the future of America.
You might disagree with them or even think their policies are really, really bad for the country, but there was never any doubt that American politicians understood that their job was to address America's problems.
In theory, at least.
That was the bare minimum that you would expect.
Now, somewhere along the line, though, our leaders managed to sell the theory that rescuing third-world refugees and importing them into the United States would solve a lot of our problems.
A generation or so later, that lie is the reason that nearly 100,000 residents of the state of Minnesota speak Somali.
And it's also the reason that Ilhan Omar, instead of being stuck in the single poorest place on the planet, is now a sitting member of Congress.
Now whether she really married her brother or committed tax fraud isn't even relevant to the champions of diversity who welcomed her across our borders.
Neither is the question of whether Ilhan Omar likes this country or anybody living in it.
Instead, she and many of her constituents were allowed into the United States supposedly on the theory that they'd assimilate and enrich our quality of life and contribute to our culture and our economy.
That was never going to be the outcome, though.
And this weekend, Ilhan Omar made that very clear in the form of a fiery election year speech in a hotel somewhere in Minneapolis.
Now, this speech had nothing to do with America's interests.
It was not about Ilhan Omar's plans to improve the life of a single American citizen in Minnesota or otherwise.
In fact, this speech wasn't even delivered in English.
Now, I'm not going to play large clips of the speech to spare our audio listeners who, for the most part, probably don't speak Somali.
But for those watching the video podcast, I want to give you just about 45 seconds of this so that you can see some of the subtitles.
And it is in a foreign language, but the subtitles are the important thing here.
and here it is.
Congress. Congress. Congress.
Now, I don't speak Somali. I'm I'm.
I must have skipped that class in grade school, so I can't vouch for the translation that's been accompanying that clip on social media, which you can see if you're watching the video.
And if you aren't, the gist of the translation is that Ilhan Omar is telling this crowd of Somali-Americans that they're all Somalis first and Muslims second, and they need to come to the aid of other Somalis and other Muslims.
She doesn't even mention the word American at all.
Somalis first, Muslims second, and Americans not at all, apparently.
She goes on to criticize people living in Somaliland, which borders Somalia, and she suggests that those people are not real Somalis.
And then she briefly talks about the recent memorandum of understanding between Somaliland and Ethiopia, in which Ethiopia gained access to the sea in exchange for recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state.
Now, you probably never heard about any of this.
Because it's not relevant to your life at all, and the geopolitical disputes between Somalia and Ethiopia, and this other place that you may not have known even existed, has no bearing on the United States or its legitimate interests.
Nonetheless, Ilhan Omar is very invested in this issue because, like a lot of progressives, she's a hardcore nationalist when it comes to countries she actually cares about.
She's not worried if America is overrun with foreigners, but she desperately doesn't want Somaliland to have any kind of recognition because that would undermine Somalia's national identity.
And therefore, Omar promises to do her best to prevent this agreement with Ethiopia from being finalized.
She says that Americans will do whatever Somalians want.
Presumably because we're so weak and naive, I guess.
And to that end, Omar declares in no uncertain terms that she's working to protect Somali interests in Congress as opposed to American interests.
Quoting from the translation, the U.S.
government will do what we Somalians in the U.S.
tell them to do.
They will do what we want and nothing else.
That is how we will safeguard the interests of Somalia.
I'm here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S.
system.
I'm working day and night to protect your interests.
Together we will protect the interests of Somalia.
Now it should go without saying that if the translation is even remotely accurate, then obviously Ilhan Omar needs to be expelled from Congress and deported immediately, if not imprisoned for treason.
We are a complete joke of a country if we allow people like this to serve in public office.
She's openly admitting to working as a foreign agent against America's interests.
She's openly admitting to have the interests of another country as a priority, as her top priority.
Now, some of Omar's defenders apparently realized how bad this looks and they sprang into action.
So shortly after the translation began circulating on social media, somebody named Colin Robinson posted a response to it saying, quote, this interpretation is slanted.
Omar says she is representing the interests of Somalis in the United States, which is a legitimate task as a congresswoman in any democratic system.
So to be clear.
This guy's not talking about the translation of Omar's remarks, per se, but rather the interpretation.
And then Ilhan Omar posted a reply to Colin Robinson.
She said, quote, it's not only slanted but completely off, but I wouldn't expect more from these propagandists.
I pray for them and for their sanity.
No nation state can survive if its states start to get involved in and lease negotiations with other countries without the consent of the federal government.
Somalis in Somalia and in the diaspora are united in that effort, and I stand in solidarity with them.
No amount of harassment and lies will ever change that.
You'll notice that nowhere in Omar's reply does she dispute the literal accuracy of any part of the translation.
She's instead stating that the interpretation of her remarks is both slanted and completely off, without explaining further.
She was as vague as she possibly could have been, and that's why last night I asked Omar directly, quote, are you denying the literal accuracy of the translation?
Saying that the interpretation is slanted is not the same as saying the translation is inaccurate.
Now, you would think that if she was really being misquoted in a great degree, Omar would have replied to my question or thousands of other people asking the same question last night, but she didn't.
She ignored everybody.
But not everybody was silent.
A woman named Rhoda J. Almy, who identified herself as the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Somaliland, confirmed the accuracy of the translation on social media.
She wrote, quote, The language she employed was regrettably unbecoming of both the office she holds and the constituents she represents.
Her use of ethno-racist rhetoric didn't escape attention and left many with a deep sense of disappointment.
We hope the House leadership and her caucus will take note of her public conduct, unbecoming a United States Congresswoman nor representative of the Now, to be fair, this ambassador is hostile to Ilhan Omar.
So are the various publications in Somaliland that are publicizing her speech, including something called the Somaliland Chronicle.
They are not the most impartial sources on this topic, because Ilhan Omar doesn't even want them recognized as a country.
So they kind of hold that against her.
But when I checked a handful of other translations online from various sources, I didn't see anything that was much different.
Instead, I heard repeatedly that The initial social media translation was accurate in the broad sense, meaning that while the words may or may not be precisely right, the meaning is correct.
So, none of these details really matter for a simple reason.
It's not the job of any American citizen to have to decode what a sitting U.S.
Congresswoman is saying in a political speech in this country.
So if there's any confusion about the translation or what exactly she said about Somaliland, then that's on her.
I mean, for one thing, she shouldn't have delivered a speech about a foreign country in a foreign language so that no native English speaker could understand a word she was saying.
We're so worried these days about inclusion and accessibility.
We have many laws on the books to enforce these concepts.
Well, maybe this is another accessibility law that we need now.
We shouldn't need the law at all, but I guess we do.
If you are an elected representative of the United States of America, you should not be allowed to give speeches in any language but English, because everything you say publicly must be accessible and inclusive to American citizens.
But it's worse than that, because once she made that mistake, she should have immediately clarified exactly what she meant.
Instead, she just said that it's off and then ran away.
The burden of proof is on Ilhan Omar.
She's supposed to work for us.
And she's repeatedly made dual loyalty accusations of her own in the past, so she should understand the criticism and how to respond to it.
Instead, she's off giving speeches about her position on Somaliland, which not a single American citizen cares about, or should care about.
File this under things that should not need to be said.
There should not be anyone serving this country in Congress who has any allegiance that comes before or even exists on the same level as their allegiance to this country.
The fact that Omar has created that doubt through her own conduct repeatedly is grounds to kick her out of Congress at a minimum.
At least one lawmaker is already on board with that.
Last night, Georgia Congressman Mike Collins wrote, quote, "What if Ilhan fought for Somalia from Somalia?
Might be time to discuss expelling another member of Congress."
Collins makes a great point.
Because it was just a few weeks ago that George Santos was kicked out of Congress for lying a lot,
and, I don't know, being too sassy or something.
But there was never any suggestion that George Santos is loyal to some foreign nation or hates this country.
He never gave a speech in a foreign language about subverting the will of the American people.
He also never downplayed 9-11 as some people doing something, quote-unquote.
So why is he gone and why is Omar still there?
That question needs to be answered, along with questions of why Ilhan Omar was ever in this country in the first place.
I mean, Somalia is a failed state that exports nothing to the world but piracy and terrorism.
Somalia as a country contributes nothing, it accomplishes nothing, it has achieved nothing.
You'd have to go back thousands of years to find a time when Somalia had any real significance on the global stage, and yet, Omar professes deep pride in it and pledges her undying loyalty to this failed state.
And that's why, you know, there's an important lesson we could all learn from these Somalians.
Even Somalians like Ilhan Omar, who don't live in Somalia because her family fled the country for their own safety, still they have a fierce loyalty to Somalia and they speak about it with love and admiration.
In fact, a couple of years ago, Ilhan Omar said that she had it better in a refugee camp in East Africa than migrant kids do in the U.S.
Watch.
When I arrived at the age of eight at the border of Kenya, you know, I was processed and given an opportunity to be sheltered.
And, you know, throughout those four years, I waited for a process to eventually have a better opportunity here in the United
States. And, you know, the conditions I lived in were not acceptable as well, but they certainly
did not resemble anything like the conditions that kids are living at our border here in the
United States of America.
Now, this is something of a recurring theme for Omar.
At every opportunity, she goes out of her way to talk up Somalia.
That same year, for example, she said that Minneapolis is more violent than the refugee camp she lived in in Africa.
Of course, that didn't stop her from calling for the dismantling of the police department or for the importation of even more Somali gangs.
That's because she didn't make the comment to improve Minneapolis in any way.
She made it to degrade Minneapolis using her old homeland as a proxy.
Now what's amusing about Omar's approach is that she's apparently been taking things too far, even for the Somalians living in Minneapolis.
And that's why she was booed at a Somali music festival in her own district back in 2022, because apparently they don't like being compared to Minneapolis in any way.
Watch.
Please.
No, please.
Okay.
So it turns out that Somalis living in Minneapolis don't want you to bash America
so much that you end up indirectly bashing their African homeland in the process.
No matter how corrupt and dangerous East Africa is, its refugees still have some fondness for it.
This is how all people outside of the modern Western world think about and talk about their countries.
Even if their countries are objectively hellholes.
Even if they have left their countries and come here seeking refuge.
They still often prefer the country they left to the one that took them in.
By contrast, to our great detriment, we've convinced ourselves that we shouldn't talk about our own country this way, or have the same level of pride in our own nation.
A nation that is, by every conceivable metric, vastly superior to Somalia, which is a low bar granted.
And that's a point that even the Somalians themselves seem to agree with, which is why they can't wait to escape their homeland and adopt this one instead.
A Somali news outlet called Garroway Online quoted this line from Omar in their article about her speech, quote, Somalia is Somali.
Somalia is one.
We are brothers.
Our land will not be divided.
Now, this line alone, as translated by a Somali news agency, is enough reason to expel Ilhan Omar and send her back where she came from, to deport her from the country.
She is declaring, we are one, we are brothers, our land will not be divided, and she's saying this about a foreign country.
Okay, so for Ilhan Omar, who's supposed to be representing the United States, our land is not the United States.
It is Somalia.
Now, you'll never hear Omar speak with this kind of fire and passion about the country she's supposed to be representing in Congress.
You certainly will never and have never heard her defend our sovereignty.
Like, when was the last time you ever heard her say anything about American sovereignty?
In a positive way.
If she uses the phrase, our sovereignty, you know automatically she's talking about another country entirely.
And yet the tragic truth is that almost nobody in Congress, even the ones who were born here, would talk about America the way that Ilhan Omar talks about Somalia, a country where the average yearly income is $600 and the average life expectancy is 55.
So there's not a whole lot to be proud of when it comes to Somalia, yet Somalians are proud of Somalia against all odds.
Meanwhile, almost none of our representatives have that passion and fire for our country.
And if they did talk about America that way, declaring that we are one, we're brothers, our national sovereignty will not be infringed upon, they'd be condemned as xenophobic and ethnocentric.
Because only non-white people from non-white parts of the world are allowed to say these kinds of things.
And those from America or Western Europe are supposed to cheer, not for the defense of our national sovereignty, but for its erasure.
Now whatever else Ilhan Omar said specifically in her speech this weekend, it's abundantly clear which constituency she really represents.
She represents a very prideful, increasingly powerful foreign population that has no regard for the United States or its citizens.
Doesn't even really consider themselves to be Americans.
And if there's anything encouraging about any of that, if we're looking for any kind of silver lining, it's the fact that You know, Americans could just as easily become zealots for this country and its interests.
And if we're able to do that, even for a moment, then we'll know it, because people like Ilhan Omar won't be in this country anymore.
We're not going to import people who hate everything about us, as Ilhan Omar clearly does.
And then, when our elected representatives deliver fiery election year speeches, we might be able to actually understand them.
Which is a low bar, admittedly.
But if they can clear it in Somalia, we should be able to clear it here as well.
Let's get to our five headlines.
They're dedicated to making education fit into your busy schedule, which is why they offer 270 of their academic programs online.
From scholarships to academic support, GCU's graduation team provides you with the personal support you need to obtain your goals.
GCU's online programs offer you the freedom to earn your degree on your own time from wherever you are.
GCU is praised for its culture of community giving and impact.
They integrate the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview into all of their academic programs.
Achieve your goals with a personalized plan and a supportive team behind you.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
All right, I'm trying to emotionally recover today.
My Baltimore Ravens choked again in the playoffs.
They lost the conference championship game.
Which is actually what I predicted, because I'm a great football prognosticator.
I tweeted a prediction ahead of the game, and I said that the Chiefs would win 17-10, and that's exactly what happened.
Of course, technically, what my tweet actually said is that the Ravens would win 38-14, but as I explained later, that was actually a typo.
It was kind of an autocorrect sort of thing.
I meant to say Chiefs 17-10, and that's a bit of a miscommunication there.
But anyway, the point is the Ravens lost it, and worst of all, that means that Groundhog Day will keep repeating, and we have two more weeks.
of Taylor Swift, God help us all, which a lot more than two weeks actually, just two
weeks of football season, two weeks of this intersection of Taylor Swift and this unholy
intersection of Taylor Swift and football.
But then it will go beyond that.
If the Democrats have anything to say about it.
As Forbes reports this morning, President Joe Biden's campaign is gearing up for November's general election by putting former President Donald Trump, the all-but-assured-to-be-GOP nominee, in its crosshairs and planning a re-election bid dominated by abortion rights with the help of influencers and, it hopes, potentially Taylor Swift.
According to the New York Times, the Biden campaign aims to make attacking Trump a central part of its re-election strategy.
Oh, wow.
Does that even need to be included, that line?
You know, the Biden campaign plans to attack their political opponent.
That's an odd sort of innovative strategy they're going to try out this time around.
We'll see.
And attacking Trump, of all people.
I mean, we've never seen this before.
I don't know.
We've never seen Democrats attack Trump, so we'll have to see how this works out.
Anyway, but they're going to bring in some people to help with this.
One of them is going to be, they hope, Taylor Swift.
The Times reports noting applicants to the social media role for the campaign were advised not to describe their Taylor Swift strategy, given how many suggestions there have already been within the campaign about how to garner her support.
One of those ideas, which the Times noted was a bit in jest, is even to send Biden to a stop on Swift's Eras tour.
And whether they do that or not, which I don't even think that's in jest.
I mean, they probably will do that or something like it.
They want to recruit Taylor Swift.
Now, you may be wondering how much impact would a Taylor Swift endorsement actually have?
Well, according to the polls anyway, the answer is a lot, a lot of impact.
The Daily Mail reports today, quote, Taylor Swift could heavily influence the way that Americans vote in the presidential election with a fifth A voter saying they're likely to back a candidate that she endorses.
The pop star's stratospheric influence on popular culture may sway the race to the White House, especially as new Gen Z voters join the electorate this year.
In a poll conducted by Redfield and Wilton Strategies for Newsweek, 18% of voters say they're more likely or significantly more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Taylor Swift.
Her sway was more visible with voters under the age of 35.
No big surprise there.
The election will see 8 million new voters in the U.S.
electorate and a total of 41 million Gen Z voters.
However, 17% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate backed by Swift, which could bode badly for Democrat Joe Biden.
Okay, now some caveats here.
First of all, the 18% figure has to be inaccurate.
I mean, there's Maybe this is just Cope on my part.
Maybe I'm saying this for my own sanity, so that I can sleep easy at night.
But there's no way 18% of Americans are going to tie their vote to a Taylor Swift endorsement.
That's like 60 million people, if you extrapolate out.
And it just can't be that high.
Again, for my own sanity, I cannot believe that it's that high.
But what we do know is that the number of Swift voters is not zero.
Like it's probably significantly above zero.
And now, sure, you've got the 17% who say that they'll vote against Taylor Swift, but I'm not going to hang my hat on that.
A certain portion of the electorate doesn't like Taylor Swift.
I don't think anyone's going to be motivated to go out to the polls to vote against Taylor Swift's endorsement.
On election day, you look at the polling data, the exit polls, I don't think anyone's going to say, yeah, I'm just here to vote against Taylor Swift.
That's all I care about.
That's probably not going to happen.
I think it is more likely that you'll have, especially young voters, especially young female voters, who are Motivated in large part to go out to the polls because Taylor Swift told them to and told them what to do when they get there.
So what do we make of that?
Well, I think obviously it's just more confirmation of the point that I've been making forever.
A point that has been proven time and now it's proven very unpopular, but it's also been confirmed time and time again and I think more people are coming around to it.
Which is that universal voting rights are a mistake.
Now, it's still an unpopular view.
Not surprisingly.
And I'm not saying it's a good political strategy to talk about this, but I'm not a politician.
So I'm not worried about that.
I'm just saying what is... The only thing I'm interested in is just saying what happens to be true and let the chips fall where they may.
Universal voting rights, obviously a mistake.
And like, maybe right now we can't, but eventually we do have to have this conversation, because if we don't, it's just the end of the country.
So, we can avoid having an awkward discussion about voting rights and what they really should be.
And that's fine, we can keep avoiding it, but then it'll just be the end.
The country's just going to be over.
So, those are the choices that we have.
There's a reason why the people who established this country never intended for it to work this way.
Not everybody should have an equal say in how the country is run.
Not everyone is fit to have a say.
The sorts of people who would be persuaded to vote because Taylor Swift said so, don't deserve to have voting rights.
Obviously.
And I don't say that ironically, or as a joke, or whatever, maybe as some people do.
I really mean it.
I mean, the idea that we have some sort of sacred obligation Which has been written in the heavens somewhere to allow the dumbest morons on earth to vote our country into extinction.
I mean, that idea is, it's just, it's ludicrous.
It's suicidal.
It's a suicidally stupid idea.
There's a reason why, if you go back through history, you're really not going to find any intelligent person Go back thousands of years, right, to the dawn of democracy.
You're not going to find any intelligent person who thought that democracy should work like this.
Nobody thought this.
And I'm not saying that now because I'm mad about Taylor Swift.
You all know I've been saying this for years and years and years.
And if Taylor Swift tips an election, which she very well may, It will just be the final confirmation of my point.
So the fact is very simple here.
Not everybody is fit to have a say in how the country is run and who its leaders are.
Obviously not everybody is fit.
And the way that you know that is that you wouldn't run anything else like this, right?
Would you?
You wouldn't want anything else to be run like this.
A restaurant isn't going to take a poll of the public every month and then decide on what its menu is going to be based on what a majority of people say they want.
Because when you go to a nice restaurant, you don't want a meal that's decided, much less prepared, based on a Democratic vote.
Nobody does.
The Democratic restaurant is not one that anyone would go to.
Right?
And this is the case in all areas of life.
All areas.
I mean, if I take my car to the mechanic, I don't want him to conduct a random poll of the people sitting in the waiting room to see what fixes they should make to my engine.
Because it's like, they're not going to arrive at the right conclusion just because more people said it.
You know, I don't want the mechanic to come in and say, Well, here's what we're doing with the engine.
You know, the 15 people, they all agreed.
Well, who are the 15 people?
Why would they know anything about this?
Why should I trust what they're saying?
Why would they have a say in this?
You wouldn't go to a mechanic that worked that way.
You wouldn't go to a doctor that worked that way.
Nothing in life works this way.
Or should work this way.
My own home doesn't work like this, and hopefully yours doesn't either.
When I make a decision, I don't pull my kids and give them all equal weight in the decision.
That's a recipe for dysfunction.
And worse.
So, in no area of life do any of us want important decisions to be made based on the majority consensus of a bunch of people who are not remotely qualified to be involved in the first place.
In every other area, we all agree on that.
And yet our entire country itself is run like that.
Which is, again, something that every great thinker since the dawn of democracy has seen.
Like, you can't, it just can't work.
You can't do it like that.
There are different ways of doing it.
There are different ways of deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't.
But no one thought everybody, obviously not everyone can vote.
That's crazy.
Why?
Well, because you've got a bunch of morons who will actually go vote based on what Taylor Swift tells them to do.
You just can't allow that.
If you value your country and the future of your nation that you are living in and that your family and your children live in, you can't just allow that.
And the only argument for it is, yeah, but it's what they want.
Who gives a damn what they want?
Is that what we're doing?
Just going to watch the collapse and suicide of our country?
Because, well, that's what a lot of people wanted.
Okay, well.
It's like if you're on a train and there's a majority vote on the train that they want to just, they want it to go over a cliff.
Are you going to sit there like, well, okay, well, you know, if that's what everybody wants, I guess, uh, well, all right then.
I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to infringe on the democratic rights of everybody else.
Yeah, I got my kids here, but we'll just go over the cliff.
Sure.
Yeah.
It's fine.
It's fine.
It's for democracy after all.
It's crazy.
Eventually, we need to be able to talk about this.
We just do.
All right.
Speaking of crazy, NBC News has this.
Climate activists battled weekend crowds at the Louvre Museum in Paris on Sunday to splash the iconic Mona Lisa with canned soup.
Video shows two women throwing a red liquid at the painting before crossing the wooden barrier, protecting it from crowds.
One of the women removes her jacket to reveal she's a food sustainability activist.
And so this is, they're climate activists, but their thing is food sustainability.
So they were not able to make the temperature of the Earth, the average global temperature, go down by throwing paint and soup on paintings.
And so now they're going to try, well, we can't do that, but maybe we can make food sustainable by defacing famous paintings.
Anyway, of course, as always, this is all on video, and let's watch the video.
Here it is.
What is important?
What is more important?
The right to a healthy and sustainable food supply.
Our agricultural system is sick.
We are all sick of our work.
A Frenchman like you doesn't make all his meals for himself.
Please, we will ask you to evacuate.
We put food stamps on them and we demand the right to a sustainable food supply.
[laughter]
So this ties directly into the opening monologue.
The lack of pride, the lack of passion for our heritage and history is just disgrace.
I mean, it's the most depressing thing that you can see.
Watching a video like that, it should infuriate you.
It's also deeply, deeply depressing.
The Mona Lisa is a 500-year-old painting by one of the great masters, one of the great artistic geniuses in human history.
And we have a lot of great geniuses in the history of the West.
And anybody who tries to destroy it or desecrate it should provoke fury and rage.
Now, yeah, they failed to damage the painting.
That doesn't matter.
They tried to damage it, and they're using it for a political stunt.
And so there should be a mob of people with the museum's security at the front, swarming to tackle these scumbags and drag them out of the museum by their hair.
And at that point, they should be arrested and thrown in prison.
And instead, nothing happens.
In fact, it's worse than nothing.
That's why I wanted you to see that video, because the museum staff It shows up and they put up barriers to block the protesters.
That's their response, is to put up these black, like, curtains.
And the fact that they have these curtains ready to go means that, like, that's their policy.
This is their official strategy.
Rather than dragging these dirtbags out, they just stand in front of them.
It's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
In fact, I would rather... I wish that the video cut off and I never saw that, the curtain thing.
That's more depressing than if just nobody showed up to stop them.
At least then I can imagine that maybe if nobody shows up I can just imagine in my head that there's one fat security guard that fell asleep on the job or something.
I don't know, I'd prefer that over this.
Which is that they are ready to respond, the museum is, and that's their response.
And again, it ties into the opening monologue, like, one thing I can tell you for sure, that we know, you ain't doing this in a Muslim country, right?
This is not happening in a Muslim country.
What do you think happens if you show up at an art museum in Saudi Arabia with a can of soup to throw in a centuries-old piece of art?
What do you think happens?
Well, first of all, you're not going to get past security with the can of soup.
Because they're going to see you have a can of soup, and they're going to say, why are you bringing soup into the museum?
What is that?
I just wanted some Campbell's.
I thought I'd grab some Campbell's on the way to go look at some paintings.
No.
You're not coming in here with that.
I don't know how you sneak soup into anywhere that has any form of security whatsoever.
But they do, if they're even sneaking it in.
I've never seen the first part.
We only see the videos Right before or right after they've desecrated the painting.
I would love to see what it looks like when they're... I want to see the whole process, starting from when they get out of their cars, or they're probably not driving cars because they're climate activists, or no, they probably are because they're climate activists and they're hypocrites.
But anyway, from when they're walking up the steps into the museum, holding their soups, they've got a camera guy ready to go, what does that whole scene look like?
Because it's pretty apparent that the security sees this and knows exactly what's going to happen, and they make no attempt to stop it whatsoever.
But if you, again, if you, Saudi Arabia let's say, and if you managed, managed to sneak the soup in, and then you did exactly that with some iconic piece of art in a museum in Saudi Arabia, It would be the last time anybody ever saw you.
You would just be done living at that point.
And that would just be it.
Life is over now.
Congratulations, that's the end of your life now, and you will not be living anymore after doing that.
And I don't say that in a disapproving way.
I don't mean in a, oh, those Saudi Arabians are so barbaric.
No, they have the right idea in this regard.
They take their heritage and history and culture seriously, as they should.
They're not going to prioritize the ego of one individual who wants to have a temper tantrum over their people's culture and heritage, nor should they.
And that's what this is about.
Are we going to take our culture seriously or not?
The question's already been answered.
I mean, if we're going to let people If we're gonna let people mess with the freaking Mona Lisa Okay, the most famous piece of artwork ever produced in the history of Western civilization Or certainly top five in that regard Then then it's just it's game over.
We've chosen suicide.
We've lost the will to live culturally at that point and the fact this even needs to be explained is a It tells you everything you need to know.
I mean, I've always said that I would be in favor of using lethal force to protect great pieces of art.
And it boggles my mind every time this comes up and I hear from otherwise intelligent people who disagree.
They disagree with that.
They say we should not use lethal force.
They say, well, is the artwork really worth somebody's life?
Yes.
Obviously it is.
Definitely it's worth somebody's life.
Like, if the Mona Lisa didn't have bulletproof glass in front of it, which it didn't up until, I think, the early 2000s, and it didn't have bulletproof glass, and if you ran up and tried to throw tomato soup on it, and I was standing there with a gun, I would not hesitate to kill you.
I wouldn't even, I wouldn't hesitate.
In fact, I would kill you to stop you from doing that, and I would sleep like a baby at night.
I wouldn't even have any remorse over it.
Just no hesitation, and I would sleep great.
In fact, I'd sleep better.
I'd sleep great at night knowing that I protected the Mona Lisa.
Because the moment you try to damage and desecrate the Mona Lisa, your life becomes less important than the Mona Lisa itself.
Like, if I need to make a choice, if you put people in a position where they gotta make a choice, They can either preserve the most iconic piece of artwork in history and make sure that it's here for humanity for years to come, or they can preserve you and make sure that you are here for years to come.
Well, like, we're taking the painting.
And you've made the choice, or you've made us make the choice, and you lose that contest every time.
Or you should, at least.
Now, I know that people will say, That, you know, a human life has more value than a painting.
But that's not necessarily true.
You know, so we're doing a lot of hard truth today on the show, apparently.
So, universal voting rights, mistake.
That's one hard truth.
Not every human life is worth more than a painting, necessarily, in every context.
Like, it's just not.
And when the context is that you are a person trying to destroy the piece of art, well then, Your life is less of a priority than the preservation of the art you're trying to destroy.
This is one of those things.
I always go back to this, but I think it's an important point.
For almost all of human history, this would not have even been controversial.
It just would have been intuitively understood.
Of course!
Of course you run in and try to desecrate this great, beautiful piece of art that's been here for centuries.
Of course you should be killed to stop that from happening.
Again, what is there even to think about?
The thing we have to remember is that the painting derives its value from human life.
So this is not an inanimate object versus a human life.
It's not the material itself that we are valuing.
It's the meaning of the art.
It's cultural and historic significance.
It's the pride and joy that beautiful art brings to people.
Art is one of the things that makes life Worth living in the first place.
And so the Mona Lisa, and I'm just using that as an example again and again, because that happens to be the painting they were trying to desecrate, but the Mona Lisa has the value that humanity has collectively given it.
And when I say humanity, I really mean specifically Western culture.
It has the value of Western culture.
And so that's what it is.
Like, when you try to destroy the painting, it's not you versus the painting, it's you versus Western culture.
And is your life worth more than Western culture?
No.
It's not.
It's just not.
And we have a right to cultural self-defense.
We have a right to defend our culture with lethal force.
Which is something that, once again, every other culture intuitively Just down to their bones, they viscerally understand this.
We are the only ones who are confused about some of the most basic common sense things that all come down to self-preservation.
It's like, it's only here, in the modern West, that we have to spend time debating about, do we have a right to preserve ourselves and our sovereignty and our culture?
Should we value these things?
Do we have a right to?
Is this right?
Is this okay?
Is this too mean?
We're the only ones.
The whole rest of the world's looking at us like, what the hell?
What are you debating here, exactly?
I'm not debating anything.
I don't think there's anything to debate, really.
All right, well, that was two headlines instead of five, but we got close enough.
Let's get to, uh, was Walsh wrong?
I've been talking about my Helix mattress for years.
Helix is the gift that keeps on giving.
Every night when I go to bed, I am reminded of how great these mattresses are.
Helix is now introducing their newest, most high-end collection, Helix Elite.
Helix Elite harnesses years of extensive mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
This collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, well, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
Because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and find the perfect mattress for your body type and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to your door for free.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
You will. Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's
sleep is never far away. Helix is offering 25% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, go to helixsleep.com/walsh and use code helixpartner25. This is their best offer
yet, and it won't last long. That's helixsleep.com/walsh.
Use code helixpartner25. With Helix, better sleep starts now. So we talked on Friday
about child labor.
And there are some laws in, uh, we're just going down the list today.
No universal voting rights.
It's okay to kill people to protect paintings.
Child labor.
You know, we're going to hit them all.
We're going to throw all my least popular views into one.
And the daily cancellation is going to keep that trend going in a big way.
Okay.
So we talked about child labor.
There are some laws in Florida looking to moderately relax some of the child labor laws so that high school kids can work longer hours if they want to.
Despite the way that these laws are reported, it's not a law that is, like, conscripting kids into the workforce or forcing them, like, forced labor at McDonald's.
Like, that's not it.
It's just, especially high school kids, if they want to work longer hours, make some more money, they can.
That's the idea of the law.
And there was also a viral video of a kid working the cash register at Burger King, and it went viral because people were upset that he was a victim of child labor.
And I pointed out that the kid was doing a great job, that it's not abusive or a violation of human rights to let a 14-year-old kid, 14 or 15 or whatever he is, work a cash register.
Like, that's a perfectly acceptable activity for a 14 or 15-year-old kid, is to stand behind a cash register and push buttons and hand a bag of food to somebody.
There's nothing about that where any reasonable person should look at that and say, well, kids can't do that.
No way.
Although, I wasn't sure who took the video of him or why they took it, so that was my only question about that.
So let's go to a few comments.
First one, I still don't think kids should work most fast food jobs.
Cashier, fine, just make sure they know how to handle food without... know not to handle food without washing their hands.
But there's equipment that could cause serious injuries if not handled correctly, not to mention concerns for cross-contamination.
Another comment says, school kids should not be working past 10 on a school night, nor should they be working full-time, lest they fall behind in school.
DeSantis just wants to use American kids like employees who use immigrant labor.
No.
Finally, I'm the mom.
I took the video to mess with him.
He loves his job.
It's amazingly polite young man and hard worker.
Thank you for your kind words.
We know he's going places for sure.
Okay.
So that explains who took the video.
And you should be proud of your son.
Looks like he has a great attitude, is doing a fine job.
And in jobs like that, customer service at that, you know, very entry-level sort of customer service, minimum wage type jobs, attitude is really, it's the most important thing.
And you could say that in life, but, but, you know, There are many jobs where there are things more important than the attitude you have while you do them, but customer service is really like 90%.
It's just you have a good attitude.
And if you do, then you're great at your job and your son does have a great attitude.
Now, as for the other comments, if a 15 or 16 year old kid doesn't know to wash his hands, And can't be taught how to use a stove or a deep fryer, then that 15 or 16 year old kid has serious issues and probably severe mental delays.
And I don't say that to be mean.
I mean, I'm saying it 100% seriously.
But most teenagers should be perfectly capable of doing these kinds of jobs and have been doing them since forever.
And if we never expect that of them, if we never put them in a position of some responsibility, if we never give them any real tasks to complete, if they're never dependent on to do anything, then they will likely grow up to be incompetent and irresponsible adults.
And you increase the likelihood of that happening, or at least you increase the likelihood of there being a really difficult learning curve.
If your kid never even has any professional responsibilities, any work responsibilities, until he's already an adult.
Okay?
Like we talked about last week, it's just, it's crazy that we've got probably millions of young adults who the first job they ever get is when they're already an adult.
Not just already an adult, but like a few years into adulthood.
And it's their first experience ever doing any kind of work.
Uh, that's, it's nuts.
It's just crazy.
It's a recipe for, and it's not good.
For the kids, and it's not good for them when they become young adults.
You know, my oldest daughter is 10 years old, and she can function basically independently in the kitchen.
She uses the oven, she uses the stove, she chops things with sharp knives.
Like, the other day she was in the kitchen, walked in the kitchen, she was making herself an omelette.
You know, she did a pretty good job.
She makes a better omelette than I do, actually.
She makes cookies and desserts for the family, probably too often, you know, because I've probably gained About 13 pounds since she started doing that.
She and her brother made dinner for the family on Saturday.
They wanted to make dinner.
And she's 10 and she can do all this.
And so when I hear people talking about their 15 and 16-year-olds and say, well, I don't think they can.
Really?
My 10-year-olds can do this and your high school-aged kids can't do these basic things?
That is not a reflection of them being kids.
And it might not be a reflection of them being mentally delayed.
But more than likely, actually, it's a reflection of poor parenting on your part.
Like, if you can't trust your 15 or 16-year-old to make a meal, if you can't trust them to, you know, if you wouldn't want them working in the kitchen somewhere, because you can't trust them, well, that is a reflection.
You have done a bad job of being a parent.
You have not introduced these responsibilities, which you already should have, like, years before that.
And, and finally to the idea that DeSantis wants to use American kids instead of immigrant labor.
I don't like the word use there.
Okay.
I would say use, I wouldn't, that's not the right word, but American kids instead of immigrant labor.
Yes.
Like, yeah, of course.
Of course we should be giving American kids these entry-level, minimum-wage type jobs instead of people from foreign countries.
Yet another thing that should not be controversial.
A thousand percent.
Working behind a cash register at a fast food restaurant, first of all, it's not supposed to be a career.
It's not something that 28-year-olds should be doing in the first place unless they're in management.
These are jobs that are for teenagers.
And yes, I would prefer American kids over foreigners getting these jobs in America.
Call me crazy.
America is currently experiencing an unprecedented invasion, with millions of illegal immigrants flooding our border under the Biden administration's watch.
As Texas shoulders the fight against the surge, Arizona's governor remains eerily silent as Biden pursues his perverse agenda.
Ben Shapiro traveled to America's southern border to uncover the shocking truth and the real depths of the crisis.
What he discovered is absolutely shocking and criminal, and it's our duty at The Daily Wire to share the truth that others are unwilling to reveal.
Take a look at Invasion on the Southern Border.
America is currently experiencing an invasion.
A lot of people coming in from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
Is there a fair bit of gang affiliation among them?
Always.
These people are just crossing the border illegally, waving their hands in the air at our cameras, saying, hey, here I am, come get me.
We're no longer the Border Patrol.
We're the Welcome Patrol.
The number one site in America for fentanyl trafficking across the border.
And if Joe Biden remains in office, it's only going to get worse.
I'm Ben Shapiro, and this is the divided states of Biden.
Invasion on the southern border.
Watch now on Daily Wire Plus.
Our southern border is wide open and the blame rests squarely on Joe Biden.
Join Ben Shapiro on the ground as he brings you the real-world consequences of one of the most destructive presidencies in American history.
Watch Invasion on the Border, streaming now on Daily Wire+.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
All right, today is a long time coming.
We're going to cancel moon landing deniers, those who subscribe to the theory that the moon landing was fake.
I am finally addressing this subject on the show because I was provoked, and it's very easy to do, baited into this conversation over the weekend.
I happen to mention on Twitter that I watched and very much enjoyed, for the second time, the movie First Man, which is actually, we watched it with the older kids who really liked it as well.
The excellent biopic about Neil Armstrong starring Ryan Gosling.
And I wasn't trying to start a fight, actually.
I just like the movie and I just wanted to say that.
But this brought out the moon landing deniers, perhaps predictably, and I responded to one of them saying simply that I hate the moon landing conspiracy theory because it's not only baseless, but it also seeks to undermine the greatest achievement in American history.
And that post got hundreds of responses, and much to my chagrin, though it should not have been to my surprise, the vast majority of the comments were from people who deny that the moon landing exists.
In fact, I basically got ratioed on Twitter for saying that the moon landing happened.
That's how bad things have gotten.
Now, I'd like to think that my Twitter comments are not representative of the general public, but polling says otherwise.
The most recent survey I've seen conducted in 2019 found that only about 60% of the public strongly disagrees With the theory that the moon landing was fake and that
leaves about 40 who do not strongly disagree With the theory that the moon landing is fake five percent
strongly agree with the theory another six or seven percent agree with it
Less strongly and the rest are at least to some degree Apparently open to the idea that the moon landing never
happened and was all set up on a sound stage somewhere in hollywood
I guess now
The very first thing that you should ask yourself When evaluating any conspiracy theory
Because there are plenty of conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true, right?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
That doesn't mean that they're all true, though.
Reflexively dismissing every conspiracy theory is very low IQ, but reflexively believing all of them is also low IQ, and so we want to be critical thinkers, and we want to take them on a case-by-case basis, which I think most people do.
So, looking at a conspiracy theory, very first thing you should ask yourself, is how many people would need to be involved for it to work.
And if the answer is that a relatively small number of high-level, powerful people would have to be involved, then your theory at least has a chance of passing the initial smell test.
But if the answer is that the conspiracy would necessitate the close cooperation and secrecy of thousands of people across multiple agencies and institutions, then you're going to have to meet a very, very high evidentiary bar to make your theory even slightly credible.
The one thing we know about human beings in general, and human beings in government especially, is that they are very bad at keeping secrets.
And the chance of the secret being kept drops exponentially as you add more people to it.
We all understand this.
I mean, you tell one person a secret, it's very hard to get them to keep it.
Tell ten people, and it's extremely difficult to get them to keep it.
A thousand is basically impossible.
So, what about the fake moon landing?
Well, this would require the coordination and absolute secrecy of the astronauts who
are on these fake missions and also everybody at mission control.
It would also have to either involve everybody at NASA or a portion of people at NASA, and
the latter is even more incredible because that would mean that the secret was being
kept from a bunch of people at NASA by other people at NASA.
No matter what, that's a very dubious proposition, but it goes beyond that.
Of course, knowledge of this conspiracy would have to go up the ranks in government.
Not everybody in the Pentagon and White House had to know, but some of them would have had to know.
And already we have multiple governmental entities working together on this and keeping the secret for decades without a single leak.
But it's not contained just to government.
If this was filmed on a sound stage, then the film crew, sound engineers, the guys who built the props, The studio or company that owned whatever soundstage they used and so on, all these people would either have to be in on it or would have to be involved without knowing that they're in on it, which is even less likely.
So, now we have multiple government agencies and dozens if not hundreds of bureaucrats all working together seamlessly alongside multiple civilians, some of whom work in the film industry.
These are the two gossipy, least tight-lipped worlds in existence, Hollywood and government.
And yet, after six decades, nobody in either world has ever breathed a single word about this.
Ever.
But it's even more fantastical than that.
You may be aware that the moon landing occurred, or was fake supposedly, in the middle of the Cold War.
And that's largely why it was faked, according to the theory.
But the Soviets were monitoring our space program just as closely as we were monitoring theirs.
It's inconceivable that we could have planned, set up, and executed a fake moon landing and pulled this ruse over on the public without the Soviets being fully aware of what we'd done.
And yet, they never accused us of faking the landing.
The Soviet Union never denied the legitimacy of the landing one time.
In fact, at this point, there are over 70 space agencies around the globe.
Many of them have their own satellites, their own probes and telescopes and so on.
If the most famous space-related achievement in history was completely fake, then it would seem nearly certain that at least some of the people and at least some of those other global space agencies would know it, or at least suspect it.
Yet, no accusations have ever been made by anybody who would be in a position to actually know anything about this.
Which means either That many dozens or hundreds of conspirators in NASA, the White House, the Pentagon, and Hollywood were so brilliant and devious that they tricked even the Soviet spies who were monitoring them, along with every other global space agency, or these other agencies are in on it.
Which brings the conspiracy to thousands of people across dozens of countries and six decades.
Now this is all complicated by the fact that, according to the conspiracy theorists, the plot actually wasn't well executed at all.
According to them, NASA did a shoddy job of pulling it off.
Made a number of extremely obvious mistakes.
Mistakes that were so boneheaded that a bunch of people on Twitter can easily spot them just by a cursory glance at the photos.
So this was a brilliant scheme pulled off by the most powerful entities in human history.
That anyone on Twitter could look at the photo for five seconds and go, but that was fake.
Yep, totally fake.
Now, we'll get to those alleged mistakes in a moment, but you see the problem here, I hope.
In order for this theory to work, the conspiracy would need to be the most brilliant and well-coordinated and devious hoax of all time, and also the dumbest and clumsiest and most obvious.
It would need to be both of those things simultaneously, which it can't be.
And all of this means that before we even look at the supposed evidence, we already have a fake moon landing that is far more complicated and difficult and implausible than actually just landing on the moon.
We have an alternative theory that is by far and away more convoluted and far-fetched than the official narrative that it seeks to debunk.
So, Occam, with his razor, is spinning in his grave right now.
What is the evidence that can overcome this enormous logical deficit?
What proof is there that the moon landing was fake?
Well, let's take a look at the three big pieces of evidence that the deniers offer and that have been all over my mentions on Twitter all weekend long.
So first, Moon landing deniers point to what they consider to be anomalies in the photographs taken on the moon.
And they point out how you can't see any stars in the sky, right?
And you should be able to because they were in space.
They say that the shadows are coming in at weird angles rather than straight and parallel as they should be if all the shadows are cast by a single light source, which would be the sun.
They point to the picture of the American flag appearing to wave as it stands planted in the lunar surface.
They say that this makes no sense because there wouldn't have been any wind on the moon to cause the flag to wave.
And finally, they say that footage of the lunar module taking off from the moon's surface is clearly fake because there wouldn't have been any cameraman left behind to take the footage.
Now, of course, all of these points are very easily explained.
The flag was not waving.
There was a horizontal bar at the top of the flag.
So there's a flagpole and then a horizontal bar with the flag unfurling underneath it.
And you can see this in the picture if you look at it.
The stars aren't visible in the sky because they landed during the lunar daytime.
And the moon does have day and night time.
You might not have known that.
It does.
And that's when the sun's light reflects brightly off the surface, making it so that you can't see the stars in the photo.
And as for the shadows, there is absolutely nothing strange about the fact that they come in at different angles.
Go outside on a sunny day.
And take a picture, and you will see exactly the same phenomena.
The uneven surface, the angle of the lens, the perspective from where you take the picture, all will cause the shadows to appear that way.
Again, anyone could go outside, right at this very moment, and confirm this point yourself.
And how did they get the footage of the lunar module taking off?
Well, that footage is from Apollo 17, not Apollo 11.
They left behind a camera that was controlled remotely from Earth, and the reason why we didn't get that footage until Apollo 17 is because they tried it on two or three other moon missions and it didn't work, because it's sort of difficult to pull off a remote-controlled selfie on the moon.
These are the easy, common-sense, accurate explanations for what you see in the photographs, and these explanations make significantly more sense than the alternative theory.
If they were going to go through all this trouble to fake the pictures, why would they neglect to add stars to the sky?
Like, wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do if you were faking a picture of outer space?
Why would they pretend the moon has wind?
Like, the moon landing deniers are the ones who bring up these supposed anomalies in the photos, except that their theory makes less sense of the anomalies than the story they're trying to refute.
Because the anomalies are not anomalies.
They are very easily explained, and there is nothing mysterious or strange about them.
The second bit of evidence presented by moon landing deniers is the existence of something called the Van Allen Belt, which is a zone surrounding the planet inside the Earth's magnetic field that contains high levels of radiation.
And the deniers say that astronauts would be killed if they tried to pass through it.
Now, this certainly would be a devastating point if it was true, but it isn't.
The Van Allen Belt does exist.
There is radiation.
But the spacecraft passes through it very quickly.
It's going very fast.
And that minimizes the radiation exposure.
And ultimately, the amount of radiation they're exposed to isn't much more than a couple of chest X-rays.
So it's, you know, you can be exposed to radiation without being killed on the spot.
It's just if the radiation is mitigated and minimized.
Third and perhaps most commonly cited piece of evidence to support moon landing denialism is that we haven't gone back.
As many people have argued to me over the weekend, if we really landed on the moon, then why haven't we ever gone back?
Well, the first answer is that we did.
We went back five additional times.
So, if you deny that we've landed on the moon, You are actually claiming six moon hoaxes.
You are saying that this whole vast conspiracy was spun up and planned and executed six times in a row.
So why didn't we keep going to the moon in reality?
Well, how many times do you think we should have gone?
I mean, would you find the story more credible if we went 10 times?
20 times?
If you deny the first six times, will you suddenly believe it if we go another six times?
Like, it's completely arbitrary.
Well, we only went six times.
How many times should we have gone?
I don't know.
Seventeen.
The real reason we stopped going to the moon is that it's expensive, and it's complicated, and it's dangerous.
Now, it's not as complicated as pulling off a moon landing hoax six times, but still, it's complicated.
People died to get the Apollo program off the ground.
Space travel is fraught with risk.
And as a country, we have lost the will to endure the cost and take the risk.
It's true that, you know, if you were alive in 1970, you probably would have assumed that by the year 2024, we'd be landing humans on the moons of Jupiter right by now.
But just watch any scientific or any science fiction film from the 60s and 70s to get an idea of where people thought we'd be by the 2000s.
We didn't get there.
Why?
Well, because we lost interest.
And we slipped into decadence and boredom.
And now, to top it all off, IQ scores are declining and people are generally becoming less competent and less skilled.
In 1970, we were sending rockets to the moon.
That's true.
Do you know what else we were doing?
We were flying commercial supersonic passenger jets that could make it from New York to London in three hours.
And if you were on one of those jets 50 years ago, you would have assumed that by 2024, we'd have the technology to go from New York to London in three minutes, right?
Instead, we went the other way.
The fastest passenger jet today that's operational will get you there in about seven hours.
Okay?
Our technology seems to have regressed.
Is that proof that the Concorde never existed?
Does that mean that supersonic air travel was a hoax?
No, it just means that the supersonic air travel was, again, expensive and difficult and cumbersome, and it came with extra risks.
One crash of a Concorde jet, which eventually happened, was all it took, and the whole supersonic air travel industry was thrown on the scrap pile, and that is where it has stayed up until now.
We did not build off of it.
We didn't continue in that direction.
We just went backwards.
It's a sad story.
It's a story of societal paralysis and decay.
But it is not evidence that one of the most well-documented events in human history never happened.
In fact, there is no evidence that the moon landing never happened.
There is, again, zero evidence of this elaborate cinematic hoax.
I said that I was responding to their evidence, but what you may have noticed about their evidence is that it is not evidence.
What the denialists have is a few easily debunked qualms with the generally accepted narrative.
They have absolutely no positive evidence for their own narrative.
Not one single piece of evidence.
Not one witness.
Not one whistleblower with direct knowledge of the conspiracy.
Not one photo or video of this hoax being staged.
Nothing.
They found some holes in the moon landing story, holes that are totally imaginary it turns out, and inside those holes they have stuffed this whole story that they invented out of thin air.
Which is a problem because the moon landing hoax theory is not just a denial of something that didn't, of something that happened, right?
I'm not asking that you prove a negative.
I'm not asking you to prove we never went to the moon.
No, no.
The moon landing hoax is an assertion of an entirely different event That they claim did happen.
And so what I'm saying is, where is your evidence that any of that happened?
You have no evidence.
None at all.
Zero.
Now, the moon landing, on the other hand, has reams and reams and reams of evidence.
There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of photos and videos from the surface, interviews with the astronauts who went there, footage from other lunar probes that have gone to the moon or orbited it.
There's even a laser reflector that was left on the surface.
You can bounce a laser off of it today.
This is a real experiment that could be conducted right now, today, to confirm that the reflector was left there.
That'll take much more sophisticated equipment than the average person has laying around, but many people with the equipment have done the experiment, because it measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon at any given time, and have confirmed this.
Are they all in on it too?
Has the conspiracy grown even larger now?
Now, if all of this is not enough to believe that we landed on the Moon, then fine.
But that means you also have to deny pretty much every historical event that has ever occurred.
There is more direct evidence of the Moon landing than there is of almost any event that happened prior to the mid-20th century.
We have more direct evidence of the moon landing than we do that George Washington existed.
And yet, if I claim that George Washington's existence was a hoax, you would expect me to present extremely compelling, direct, positive evidence of the hoax.
And if I had none at all, you would laugh in my face, and deservedly so.
Skepticism is healthy, but flatly denying a historical event in favor of a pet theory that has infinitely less evidence to support it than the event you're denying is not skepticism.
It is dogmatism, which is the opposite of skepticism.
And that's why there is no evidence of the moon landing that will ever convince the deniers.
No matter what you show them, they can explain it away with some totally ad hoc, arbitrary wave of the hand.
Photos won't convince them.
Video won't convince them.
First-hand testimony won't convince them.
Eyewitnesses won't convince them.
Lasers bouncing off of freaking reflectors planted on the moon's surface won't convince them.
Nothing will.
They have chosen to deny everything ahead of time.
And in this case, what's being denied is one of the greatest achievements in human history.
An achievement claimed by Americans for America.
The history of the West is constantly being rewritten by bored, spoiled people so as to diminish the accomplishments of our ancestors and deny their many incredible contributions to mankind.
And in the end, this is all part of that agenda.
If there's any conspiracy going on here, there it is.
And that is why the moon landing deniers are, with a great vengeance, cancelled.
