Ep. 1316 - We're Living Under A Tyranny Of Mediocre Morons
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the DA prosecuting Trump in Georgia has been exposed as an absurdly corrupt political opportunist. She's also an incredible moron. Also, John Oliver's latest hilarious comedy bit involves openly bribing a federal official. Speaking of bribes, congress wants to solve the military recruiting crisis by paying illegal immigrants to join. A comedian caves to the woke mob after his George Floyd jokes go viral. And in our Daily Cancellation, there are no winners and no heroes when a feud between a father and daughter goes viral on TikTok, with the internet peanut gallery taking sides.
Ep.1316
- - -
DailyWire+:
DON’T MISS OUT! Get 30% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/3wco7nQ
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Renewal by Andersen - Exclusive discount for my listeners! Text WALSH to 200-300
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.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, the DA prosecuting Trump in Georgia has been exposed as an absurdly corrupt political opportunist.
She's also an incredible moron.
Also, John Oliver's latest hilarious comedy bit involves openly bribing a federal official.
Speaking of bribes, Congress wants to solve the military recruiting crisis by paying illegal immigrants to join.
A comedian caves to the woke mob after his George Floyd jokes go viral.
In our daily cancellation, there are no winners and no heroes when a feud between a father and a daughter goes viral on TikTok with the internet.
Taking sides we talked about all that more today on the Matt Wall show
Have you ever browsed an incognito mode?
Well, it's probably not as incognito as you think.
And why would it be?
In the first place, big tech has made its fortune by tracking your movements online.
There's even a $5 billion class action lawsuit against a company in California that's been accused of secretly collecting user data.
Their defense?
Well, they say incognito does not mean invisible.
So how do you actually make yourself invisible online?
Well, you got to use ExpressVPN like I do.
It turns out that even in incognito mode, big tech is still tracking your online activity and data brokers still buy and sell your data.
One of these data points is your IP address, which data harvesters use to uniquely identify you and your location.
But With ExpressVPN, your connection gets rerouted through an encrypted server and your IP address is masked, making it harder for third parties to identify you or harvest your data.
Best of all, ExpressVPN is super easy to use.
No matter what device you're on, phone, laptop, smart TV, all you got to do is tap one button for instant protection.
If you really want to go incognito and protect your privacy, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh and get three extra months for free.
That's exprssvpn.com slash Walsh.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
If your house is feeling chilly right now, you may need to consider window replacement.
I get it.
For most homeowners, window replacement isn't something they've ever done before.
It could be an intimidating prospect.
Luckily, there's a company that will do the work for you.
Renewal by Anderson is your one-stop shop for window design, manufacture, and installation.
Windows play a crucial role in regulating indoor temperatures.
If you notice a spike in your heating or cooling bills, it may be due to inefficient windows.
Don't put it off any longer.
Renewal by Anderson offers limited, fully transferable, and best-in-the-nation warranty coverage.
Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home consultation on quality, energy efficient, affordable windows or patio doors with special financing options.
Text WALSH to 200-300 for a free consultation to save.
$375 off every window and $775 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Texting Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates may apply.
Reply STOP topped out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
You might think that it would be difficult to cause any kind of serious problem in a Wendy's drive-thru.
The concept is pretty simple.
You sit in the car, and then when it's your turn, you drive up and you get your order, and then you drive off.
In an orderly society, it's a pretty straightforward, foolproof system.
But in the days after George Floyd was canonized, of course, all rules were suspended.
Things started breaking down.
Accordingly, on June 12th of that year, a 27-year-old man named Rayshard Brooks decided to treat the Wendy's drive-thru like a motel room.
He got drunk out of his mind, passed out in his car as he waited to get his hamburger and his Frosty or whatever.
And then, when two police officers arrived in an attempt to keep the drive-thru moving, Brooks started fighting with one of the officers.
He stole his taser and began running away.
And a few seconds later, Brooks turned around, pointed the stolen taser at the officers, at which point he was shot and killed.
It was not only a justified police shooting, but perhaps one of the most justified police shootings we've ever seen on film.
Nevertheless, just a few days later, the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, a guy named Paul Howard, decided to charge both officers on the scene with a variety of crimes.
And one of the officers was hit with aggravated assault charges.
The other cop, the officer who shot Brooks, was charged with capital murder.
In other words, Howard tried to put a cop to death for the crime of simply doing his job.
And it's all because, as Howard argued, they didn't seem afraid after they had shot Rayshard Brooks and neutralized the threat that he presented.
That he was concerned they didn't seem afraid after the fact.
As if they should have been cowering behind their cruiser until backup arrived, or something.
That was the actual argument Howard made.
That makes no sense whatsoever, of course, which is why a couple of years later, after these officers' careers and lives were destroyed, a special prosecutor dropped the charges.
And then Howard was voted out of office.
So this obviously incompetent, politically motivated, frankly evil DA was gone.
He lost the ability to bring frivolous charges against anyone who he felt like.
Unfortunately for the people of Atlanta and the rest of the country, Howard's replacement though was a woman named Fannie Willis.
And over the past few days, it's become clear that Willis is somehow an even less dignified, more incompetent, And somehow more corrupt version of the man that she replaced.
Willis is not simply trying to prosecute two police officers to appease the mob, as unforgivable as that is.
Willis is, of course, instead trying to imprison the leading candidate in the U.S.
presidential election.
And she's doing it, apparently, to enrich herself and her boyfriend, a guy named Nathan Wade.
Last week, Willis had to answer questions under oath in a hearing About her relationship with Wade.
And that's because Willis has told the court that the relationship began only after she named Wade, a family lawyer with no experience prosecuting RICO cases, as a key lawyer overseeing the Trump RICO prosecution.
But Willis' claim was contradicted in the hearing by a former co-worker in Willis' office who said the relationship actually began all the way back in 2019.
Watch.
What personal and romantic is later.
When I ask you personal, do you take that to mean romantic?
Yes.
And do you understand it that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her?
Yes.
Now this is obviously a big problem for Fannie Willis and for Nathan Wade and for the entire Trump prosecution.
If they lied to the court, which it seems they did, they can be disqualified or even disbarred on that basis alone.
But in context, the reason for the lie is even more important.
Fannie Willis, by hiring Wade, was able to direct hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars into his bank account, and then the two apparently used that money to fund a lavish lifestyle for themselves, which means that the RICO prosecutors might be guilty of a little RICO themselves.
You've probably heard this analysis from other pundits already, so I'm not going to belabor the point.
What I will emphasize, because a lot of people are too polite to say it out loud, though, Is that above and beyond her obvious corruption, which is just immense, she's an immensely corrupt person, Fannie Willis is also a complete moron.
I mean, put aside the fact that she's trying to sabotage the upcoming election in a flagrant act of election interference, Fannie Willis, the chief law enforcement officer in Fulton County, Georgia, is not even remotely close to being a bright person.
And this hearing has made that very clear.
And the implications of that fact could not be any more significant.
There are too many clips to show you to sort of prove this point, but here are just a couple.
Watch.
But I always have cash at the house.
That has been, I don't know, all my life.
If you're a woman and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 in your pocket.
So if that man acts up, you can go where you want to go.
So I keep cash in my house.
And I don't keep cash as good in my purse like I used to.
I don't go on many dates, but when you go on a date, you should have cash in your pocket.
So my question was, where did that cash originally come from?
If it came out of the bank?
Cash is fungible.
I had cash for years in my house.
So for me to tell you the source of where it comes from, when you go to Publix and you buy something, you get $50, you throw it in there.
It's been my whole life.
When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.
I just have cash in my house.
I don't have as much today as I would normally have.
I think we... I very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness.
I very much want to be here.
Not so much that you're hostile, Ms.
Wills.
You'd be an adverse witness.
Your interests are opposed to Ms.
Merchants.
Ms.
Merchants' interests are contrary to democracy, Your Honor.
Not to mine.
Okay, so in that first clip there, of course the context there is obvious.
They're trying to trace the source of the cash, because they're getting to the bottom of these corruption claims.
And she's saying, well, I don't know where my cash comes from.
The cash could come from anywhere.
I just have cash around.
She stumbles on the word fungible.
She's very proud of herself for that.
Now, we're going to leave aside the fact that what she's saying It's like the worst advice I've ever heard.
That if you're a woman, you should always have cash on you if you're going out with a man.
I think the opposite is probably true.
If you're worried about the guy, you know, if you're a woman and you're worried that a guy might, you know, if you're worried about his character, you should always have $200 in cash on you.
What?
And in that second clip, you just saw Fannie Willis says that she's not a hostile witness because she wants to testify.
But the designation of hostile witness has nothing to do with wanting to testify or not.
I mean, I know this just from watching Law & Order.
It means that the witness has adverse interest to the party questioning her, which is the normal situation on cross-examination, but an unusual situation on direct examination.
So being a hostile witness basically means that the lawyers can ask the witness more aggressive, leading questions on direct examination, as if it's a cross-examination.
Now, you would think that Willis would know this as the district attorney, but apparently not.
Fannie Willis also apparently doesn't understand the legal implications of other claims she made during her testimony.
For example, in the first clip you just saw, Willis states, quote, when I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.
Now, I'm not a campaign finance expert, but that seems like the kind of statement that you don't want to make under oath.
Using campaign funds for personal expenses is generally frowned upon.
Now, to be fair, elsewhere in the hearing, Willis does say that she took money out of her retirement account to fund her campaign for a local judge before she ran for DA.
So, it's possible that she's referring to her own money here.
Maybe.
But it's not clear whether she told donors to her DA campaign about this arrangement.
That would certainly be, you know, the honest, professional thing to do.
But after watching Fannie Wills' other testimony, we have reason to doubt her honesty and professionalism, to put it mildly.
Watch.
And then he tells me how much it is, and I give him the money back.
I don't, just like you're asking me about the money with Robin, I don't do my friends like that.
So if you tell me it's a G, then you're gonna get $1,000.
Whatever it is, I didn't ever make him produce receipts to me.
Whatever he told me it was, I gave him the money back.
I bought him, he likes wine.
I don't really like wine, to be honest with you.
I like Grey Goose.
I bought him a bottle of wine while we were there, and the sippings that you do.
Now, it used to be that prosecutors displayed some level of respect for the office that they held.
These are people with the power to use the force of law to imprison and bankrupt pretty much anyone in the state.
They're elected supposedly to uphold fundamental principles of fairness and justice, without which we don't have the rule of law.
When DAs start acting like sassy waitresses or trashy pop stars, then people understandably lose all faith in the judicial system.
If they have no integrity, then the system itself has no integrity.
It doesn't help matters that Fannie Willis was reportedly wearing her dress backwards and her flag pin sideways.
Now, for the record, that is not confirmed.
Fashion experts on the internet have identified two dresses that are similar to the one Fannie Willis was wearing, one with a zipper in the back and one with a zipper in front.
Just as Fannie Willis is wearing it.
So here's a side-by-side of the two dresses in question if you want to know.
If you're more inclined to pursue this question than I am, you can compare those images to the picture of Fannie Willis testifying and come to your own conclusions on whether she's wearing the dress properly.
But the point is, given everything else about Willis's testimony, it's completely believable that she doesn't know how to dress herself.
If she doesn't know anything about the law, even though she's a lawyer, then putting clothes on could also present challenges.
This is the level of faith that people have in Fannie Willis, and deservedly so.
As a result, right now, it looks like Willis stands a real chance of getting booted off the case.
Her performance was that bad, to say nothing of the fact that she apparently lied to the court.
But even if she and Nathan Wade are ultimately disqualified from continuing this prosecution, the reality is that there are many more equally incompetent prosecutors waiting to take their place in the state of Georgia.
So take this footage from a couple of months ago, for example.
It's from the prosecutor's closing arguments in the case of Hannah Payne.
Now, for some background, Hannah Payne witnessed an impaired driver run a red light and cause a traffic accident.
And then flee the scene.
Payne realized that no one had the guy's license plate, so she gave chase and she pulled in front of the guy.
And then she says the man grabbed her wrist through the window of the car and her gun went off, killing him.
Now, whether you think Hannah Payne is guilty of murder or not, based on those facts, you have to concede it's a complex case.
Hannah Payne's life is on the line.
And it's clear she's not a malicious person who goes around shooting people at random.
She's not some kind of serial killer.
Plus, she had no reason to worry that this impaired driver was going to cause more accidents.
She had reason to worry that the driver might cause more accidents.
So, given that background, you might assume that the prosecutor in this case would be a serious person, well-versed in the law, who's able to communicate professionally to the jury.
Instead, here's the prosecutor who was assigned to Hannah Payne's case.
Watch.
You can't poke a bear And then when the bear turns around and attacks you, you want to claim self-defense.
It doesn't work that way.
She should have minded her own business.
[Subscribe to the channel!]
Profound.
She should have minded her own business, says the prosecutor.
And then she pauses for a while just to let that sink in.
This was her Clarence Darrow moment.
You know, you can tell she's proud of it.
The rest of us are wondering whether there are any prosecutors in Georgia who don't act like Fannie Willis.
Is there a single prosecutor in the state who's capable of speaking and acting like an actual lawyer?
Again, this is the major crimes division.
This is a homicide case.
And this is the best they can offer.
The problem isn't just confined to Georgia, of course, although it appears to be especially acute there.
We're living under a tyranny of mediocre morons, and this is happening all across the country.
These morons are representing the government in court, where they can send you to prison for the rest of your life.
In some cases, they're also enforcing the law on the street as police officers, and they have the complete and total backing of the government.
There's no effort underway to restore competence to any of these positions.
What you see is what you get.
In fact, the government is seemingly encouraging these people to act as dumb as they possibly can just to erode the public trust as much as possible.
That's the only explanation for why the NYPD just sent out its dance team.
Yes, its dance team, because apparently police departments have dance teams now.
And they sent out the dance team to perform on television a few days ago.
Watch.
Now, you know, people have found different ways to find some silver lining here.
You know, one common refrain is that, well, at least they're getting some exercise in.
You might also say that, hey, they're just trying to give the female cop something to do.
Although they can't even do that right?
Like, they can't even- I mean, I could dance as well as that.
But really, there's only one bit of good news in all this, especially when you look at the case of Fannie Willis, which is that the mediocre morons who have power over us are extremely easy to expose.
That's certainly what's happened with Fannie Willis.
She's so obvious in her corruption that it all came crashing down pretty quickly.
And they all, you know, happily go on television and reveal how incompetent and corrupt they are.
They just can't help themselves.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that there's an endless supply of these amoral halfwits out there waiting to replace their bosses when they're gone.
And in some cases, they're even worse somehow than the failures they replace.
So get rid of Paul Howard and you get Fannie Willis.
This is the pattern.
What happens when you get rid of Fannie Willis?
Well, very soon, for better or worse, we'll probably find out.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[Music]
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
You know, when you're running a business, time is money, and that's why I'm so excited to introduce you to RAMP.
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 a 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.
You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
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 so easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000.
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.
This is from The Hill.
Comedian and last week tonight host John Oliver is urging Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign, offering a million dollars a year to do so.
Oliver railed against the conservative justice during the 11th season premiere of his weekly show on Sunday, saying Thomas has made the lives of Americans demonstrably worse and promising him a brand new luxury recreational vehicle if he agrees to step down from the high court.
We have this clip of this Comedy bit, I suppose it's supposed to be.
Here it is, watch.
Now from stripping away women's rights to which six cases you definitely shouldn't be hearing to potentially helping roll back decades of federal regulations and you deserve a break you know away from the meanness of Washington so you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you've made demonstrably worse for decades now and the good news is I think we can help you there because since your favorite mode of travel might be in need of an upgrade we are excited to offer you This brand-new, top-of-the-line Prevost Marathon motor coach.
Look at this beauty, Clarence!
It's worth 2.4 million dollars, and it's got a full bedroom.
Yes, that is a king bed.
One and a half baths, a f***ing fireplace, four TVs, a washer-dryer, and, and I quote, a residential-sized fridge.
And if you're thinking, what will my friends say if I take this offer?
Will they judge me as they sit in their boardrooms and megayachts and Hitler shrines?
Will they still treat me to luxury vacations and sing songs about me off their phones?
Well, that's the beauty of friendship, Clarence.
If they're real friends, they'll love you no matter what your job is.
So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.
So that's the offer.
A million dollars a year, Clarence, and a brand new condo on wheels.
And all you have to do in return is sign the contract and get the f*** off the Supreme Court.
You know, I have to say, I actually despise John Oliver maybe more than I despise anybody in media.
And I understand that's quite a statement, because I have nothing but seething contempt for all of them.
And, you know, and you might say, well, John Oliver, yeah, he's a smarmy, sniveling little British douchebag.
Sure, he looks and sounds like an overgrown weasel.
Sure, he's the personification of the term skinny fat.
Sure, you know, he's like Harry Potter, if Harry Potter's superpower was being extremely unfunny.
Sure, all of that is true, but there are still plenty of other soulless, blood-sucking leeches in the media in Hollywood who are worse than him.
I mean, you might say all that to yourself, and that's true.
For me personally, John Oliver is especially obnoxious, and I think it's that while being a dim-witted hack like all the rest of them, he also pretends to be a comedian.
That's the part that offends me on a personal level.
It's only that part.
Don't call yourself a comedian.
Keep all the rest the same, and don't call yourself a comedian, and then you'll just be as bad as everybody else in media.
But he pretends to be a comedian, and yet he's never told a joke in his life.
His idea of telling a joke is to rant and whine, but use the F-word while he's ranting and whining, and that's the whole joke.
So here's basically the, and I'll tell you the secret, the John Oliver secret.
This is the formula.
A normal left-wing pundit on CNN or something might say this, they'll say, Donald Trump is terrible.
He's a fascist.
Right?
Now, that's your run-of-the-mill average kind of left-wing commentary.
And nobody would claim that that is a hilarious stand-up set.
Even if you agree with it.
You're not going to say, you're not going to pretend that it's funny.
It's like, okay, that's, you're criticizing Donald Trump.
John Oliver, though, what he'll do is he'll put a twist on it.
And he'll say, Donald Trump is terrible.
He's an effing fascist.
And then it's hilarious, and then it's the funniest thing you've ever heard in your life.
The audience is, they're breathless.
They are breathless, they're doubled over laughing because he put the F word in there.
That's the John Oliver secret.
That's how you take run-of-the-mill, CNN-tier commentary, and you turn it into, apparently, hilarious, uproarious, Comedic brilliance and you should win 57 Emmys for it That's what we're supposed to believe anyway, but I don't believe it and it annoys me that people on the left pretend to believe it and and as for the substance of this latest this latest comedy bit from John Oliver You know it It goes without saying of course that
If any white person did exactly this same thing, but directed it at a black liberal instead, then they would be condemned as racist by the entire media and everybody on the left.
And, you know, they would be trying to put them in jail probably for it.
And, you know, because obviously, right?
You got a white guy trying to buy off a black public official.
Openly saying, this guy is for sale.
I'm buying you.
As a black public, I'm going to buy you.
In any other context, it would be considered to be just insanely racist.
But those rules are suspended, of course, because it's Clarence Thomas, and they despise him.
And they despise him, in fact, significantly more than they despise any white person who has the same ideas, or even any other...
Why are they so hung up on Clarence Thomas?
There are other conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Not enough, in my opinion.
Not enough reliable ones.
But why all this special vitriol for Clarence Thomas?
And the answer is that because he's black.
And so they consider his conservatism to be sort of a betrayal.
John Oliver believes that he owns Clarence Thomas.
He believes that Thomas, being a black man, belongs to him ideologically.
And the fact that he isn't cooperating, the fact that he is his own man, with his own point of view, sends guys like John Oliver into a rage.
The amount of undisguised contempt that they have for this guy.
I mean, starting with the fact that he's calling Clarence Thomas by his first name, you know, not using his proper title, spitting in his face, basically, calling into question his basic integrity as a man.
And he feels absolutely entitled to do all of that because Thomas has betrayed him by not being a Marxist ghoul.
Now, you know that I'm not one to do the whole Dems are the real racist bit.
You know, that's not my thing.
You know how I feel about that generally.
But in this case, you really just can't help but notice that John Oliver literally treats the guy like an escaped slave.
That is actually how he treats him.
He's trying to buy him back.
That's what he's doing.
And he's doing all this while being painfully unfunny on top of it, which is the real, which again, that is the real offense here.
Because even all this, even everything else, you put aside how morally objectionable it is, if he was actually able to do it in a funny way, then you could at least give him credit.
I could say, well, I disagree with it.
I might even have moral qualms with it.
But it is funny.
I'll give him that.
But you can't say that because there's no joke here.
Which is why, and I made this offer on Twitter yesterday, and I'll just reiterate it here, that we have the offer being made to Clarence Thomas.
I'll make my own deal to John Oliver.
Which is, John, I will give you a million dollars in cash, unmarked bills, if you can tell one funny joke.
Just one is all we need.
And, you know, and I don't, it shouldn't be hard to do.
I'll even let you go and Google it.
You could Google funny jokes.
And I just want to hear you tell one.
That's it.
I want to hear you tell one funny... But let me explain.
A joke is that there's the structure to the joke, which means that you've got a setup, right?
And you've got the punchline of the joke.
And very often, your jokes, there's no punchline at all.
Except that you're mad.
And you're sad.
And your tummy hurts because someone is conservative in your presence.
Like, that's not a punchline.
Well, you yourself are a punchline, but that doesn't really count.
So you yourself being a joke of a person, you yourself being a clown, is not a punchline in and of itself.
So what I need is the setup and the punchline.
Sometimes you have the setup, you never have the punchline.
A lot of times you don't even have the setup.
So I need you to put both of those things together, and then I'll give you a million dollars.
A million dollars.
I will get to you.
And, you know, by the way, it should also be said that, yes, that whole segment was a federal crime.
You know, just that small little detail.
So bribing, openly bribing a federal official, a Supreme Court judge, justice is a crime.
I mean, that's punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
And I would love to see, I mean, if Trump wins in 2024, he should really go after John Oliver and try to put him in prison for bribing a federal official.
100% he should do it.
All right.
Here's the new big idea from Congress.
It's called—speaking of bribes, actually—it's called the Courage to Serve Act.
And let's hear about it.
The new proposal in Washington that would help migrants get an expedited path to citizenship, it would require them to first serve in the U.S.
military.
Fox News Morgan McKay joins us with details of the bill which lawmakers say could help solve two problems at once.
There is no higher honor than serving your country in uniform.
And that honor could be extended to migrants under a new bill introduced by Hudson Valley Congressman Pat Ryan.
Called the Courage to Serve Act, this bill would offer qualified and vetted migrants an expedited path to citizenship if they serve in the military.
According to Ryan, last year the military services collectively missed recruiting goals by roughly 41,000 recruits, leaving some crucial positions unfilled.
If there are folks with the courage to raise their right hand, take an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, and put their lives on the line for this country, then they sure as hell deserve the opportunity to be citizens in the United States of America.
This bill comes days after a bipartisan border security package negotiated by the Senate fell apart amid Republican opposition.
Staten Island Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis argued that the Senate bill did not go far enough when it comes to securing the border and said there is more President Joe Biden can do in the interim.
He can end catch and release.
He can adjust the asylum.
He could end the parole program that he started.
So that is the Courage to Serve Act.
So we're going to offer illegal citizenship in exchange for serving in the military.
The idea supposedly is to solve the recruiting crisis, as you just heard.
Except this doesn't solve the recruiting crisis at all.
Because the recruiting crisis, like what is the recruiting crisis?
The recruiting crisis is happening because the military is having trouble enticing American citizens, American men specifically, to join the military and serve their country.
Why are they having trouble doing that?
Well, in large part, because most Americans have lost total faith in their government and in their institutions, including the military, which means that they're not going to sign their lives over to it.
Everybody knows that when you sign up for the military, you are giving your life over, perhaps in a very literal sense, it may turn out, in a sort of ultimate sense, it may turn out, you're giving your life over to this institution.
And so you need to have Some kind of faith in that institution to respect you, to respect the commitment and the sacrifice that you're making.
You have to have faith in the institution, and people don't.
And so that is the reason why the recruiting crisis is happening.
The military has become ideologically captured by the left, as we know, which repels almost all of the men who, in decades and centuries past, would have been the ones signing up.
In other words, there's a certain type of man that has always been the backbone of the military.
In fact, has always been the military.
Not just the backbone, but the military itself has always been comprised.
And when I say always, I mean going back thousands of years, for as long as there has been human civilization and therefore militaries.
So, a certain type of man has always been what comprises the military.
And yet, the government has done everything in its power to alienate those men specifically.
And it's not even like they're just alienating everybody, although they sort of are.
It's that they've identified that one particular type of man, and they've said, we want to chase him out.
We want to make this environment as unwelcoming to him specifically as we possibly can.
And they've succeeded, and that's the crisis.
Their solution is to bribe illegals to take their place, but that doesn't solve the crisis at all.
This is not some brilliant scheme.
Of course you can always get disloyal mercenaries to sign up and go off and kill whoever you tell them to kill, if you're paying them.
You can always do that.
If you have enough money, there's always that option.
You know, you can always have a military full of just mercenaries.
So in that sense, the American military will always have manpower.
Like, there really is no chance that we're going to get to a point where there's just nobody in the military at all.
Because they can always, when it comes down to it, they can just staff it with mercenaries if they need to.
But that's the problem.
The military will become a mercenary force rather than a volunteer force.
It will be something when people are in there and they're just going and doing what they're told for money, not because of any sense of patriotism or pride or anything like that.
And that's what's going to happen here.
Will the illegal immigrants make good soldiers?
Well, of course they won't.
Of course they will not.
Because they have no loyalty to this country.
Now, will they make sufficient cannon fodder for the bureaucrats that send them off on foreign adventures?
Maybe.
But will they make actual soldiers?
No.
You know, you heard the guy say that, well, the military is all about defending the Constitution.
You think illegals give the slightest damn about the Constitution?
Why would they?
They're not even from here.
You think they're down in Mexico or Guatemala or whatever, and they have this deep abiding love for the American Constitution, and they want to go off and protect it with their lives?
Of course not!
I wouldn't even expect them to.
They're not from here.
They don't live here.
This is not their home.
They don't care about this country.
They don't care about its people.
So you're going to be staffing the military with people that have no loyalty to the country or the people they're supposed to be ostensibly defending.
But from the perspective of our corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that's exactly what makes them great candidates.
That's exactly why they love this idea of getting illegals involved.
Because what the corrupt bureaucrats and politicians want to do is they want to go off across the world fighting wars that have nothing to do with America or its people.
And so in fact, from their perspective, it's better to have people in the military who have no interest in defending America because they have no attachment to it.
If that's the case, if you're taking these people that are just there on a mercenary basis, they have no attachment to the country, then yeah, you just have them go do whatever you tell them to do.
And you don't have to worry about, you know, having to justify it.
And that's obviously what this is about.
All right.
So I'm late to this, but I do want to say something about it.
The comedian David Lucas went viral a couple weeks ago when he basically cleared out the room at a stand-up set when he was telling jokes about George Floyd.
And the audience was very unhappy, and this clip went viral.
We'll play just a little bit of it.
Here it is.
You want to show them the reason George Floyd got his neck nailed off?
Don't ooh at that joke.
It's just a joke, man.
I would've never kneeled on George Floyd's neck.
I would've shot that n***a. That was... It's called comedy, n***a. How many more black fans I gotta hit that might leave?
Oh, good.
You know you still know to be funny, don't you?
It's called comedy.
How many more black fans I got to hit that might leave?
Oh good, man, I got, I got.
(audience laughing)
I was just warming up with that George Floyd.
(audience laughing)
[crowd noise]
You ready to go?
Alright, baby.
Okay.
Alright, you offended too, baby, with the braids?
You offended too?
Goddamn, man.
Y'all good?
Are y'all about to?
Oh.
So everyone is leaving.
They're all leaving and by the end he's standing in an empty room.
There are no tables or chairs.
They bring the tables and chairs with them.
Or, you know, that's basically the idea.
So this led to, as you can imagine, lots of anger and outrage and how dare you besmirch the most holy, sacred name of George Floyd and all the rest of it.
Lucas said, David Lucas, the comedian there, said that he wasn't going to apologize.
And he said that when it first went viral.
And that resolution lasted about 48 hours, I think.
And two days later, after it went viral, he posted this.
Hi, this is comedian David Lucas.
You know me from Kill Tony and other various roast shows.
I'm an edgy.
Uh, push the boundary comedian.
And, uh, my job as a comedian is to bring humor in dire situations.
With that being said, there's a clip that is circulating around social media.
And, um, since that clip has came out, I have spoken to a lot of George Floyd's family.
I spoke to Cal Wayne, Traitor Truth, Steven Jackson.
And, uh, my intention was to never cause harm to his family or make them revisit a moment that happened a few years ago. I'm a father, so I get it. I
understand how his kids feel.
I've spoken to his whole family, and we've came to an understanding as to how to move
forward from this. And I just wanna apologize to his kids and everybody who was close to him.
Now, first of all, I've heard people defend this groveling apology
from David Lucas on the basis that, well, he never apologized for the joke.
I've actually seen that multiple places, that he didn't really apologize for the joke.
He just apologized to the family and anybody who was offended, but he didn't apologize for the joke.
Yeah, yeah, that's apologizing for the joke, okay?
That's what the hell do you think an apology for a joke sounds like?
It sounds exactly like that.
That's precisely what it is.
What you just heard is literally a cut-and-paste version of every public apology that's ever been offered to the left-wing mob.
It's the same script, right?
It's always the same script.
Okay, it's always—before you even hear it, you know exactly what you're going to hear, because it's always, well, you know, I said this, and in the days since, I've had a lot of very valuable conversations with the people, and we've talked, and we've come to an understanding, and they've let me know their perspectives, and they've let me know how hurt they were by the things that I said.
I just, if I caused any pain, I want to apologize.
It's like, you didn't even need to listen.
You knew exactly what he was going to say.
And it is grotesque every single time.
I have no sympathy for people who apologize.
You're dead to me when you apologize.
And I'll tell you why.
If you don't want to deal with the backlash from stomping on one of the left's sacred cows, Then don't stomp on the sacred cow, okay?
Leave it alone.
Don't say anything.
But if you go there, if you decide to tread in that water, you have a moral responsibility to remain firm.
Apologizing in a situation like this, it's not just, oh, that's unfortunate.
It's like, that is a moral failing.
It is a betrayal, really, in a lot of ways.
Once you've done that, I mean, once you've thrown the gauntlet down, no one told you you had to do that.
You decided to do it.
No one told you you had to go and make fun of George Floyd.
But if you're going to do it, stand by your words.
You have to.
I mean, the whole value of making crass jokes about George Floyd, the value of it, and I think there is a lot of value in it.
When I first saw that clip, now I didn't, I don't even think I retweeted it or anything.
Maybe I did, but I didn't say much about it.
And I didn't praise this guy.
For this reason, because I knew exactly what was going to happen.
I just have no faith in anybody anymore.
And I knew it.
I'm like, yeah, he's going to apologize.
I hope I'm wrong.
I said, let me give it a few days.
If he doesn't apologize a few days from now, then we'll play the clip and we'll talk about it.
I'll talk about he's a brave comedian.
And he apologized.
So, of course.
Um, and I'm tired of it.
That's the other problem, is that when you do something and the cancel mob's coming after you, and then you cave, all of the people who rallied around you and defended you and celebrated you, you make them look stupid on top of it.
Now, I've learned that lesson, so I'm not even gonna, like, I'm gonna wait.
Okay, once you get the cancel mob coming after you, I'm gonna...
I'm not going to be left holding the bag again, so you need to prove that you're going to stand up for yourself, and then once you've done that, then I will come to your defense.
But I'm not defending you if you're not going to defend yourself.
That's not the way this is going to work.
It happens way too much.
But, you know, the value in making jokes about George Floyd.
Is that you are challenging the profane, ridiculous idols of our culture.
The culture has made an idol out of this criminal drug addict.
Okay, this good-for-nothing, you know, drain on humanity, this violent scumbag is what he was.
And they've made an idol out of him.
And so, in the original clip, what David Lucas was doing is he was desecrating the idol.
And why was he desecrating it?
Really, just for the sake of it.
He was making a mockery of it just to do it.
And I think that there's a lot of value in that.
I would say that it's a moral act.
I see it as no different than Cortez and the Conquistadors marching up the steps of the Aztec temples and toppling their satanic idols to their hideous demon gods.
It's a good thing to do.
It is a good moral thing to do.
And because your culture, if you've made an idol out of this, this should not be an idol.
Being has no right to be an idol.
It does not deserve that place.
And so I'm going to tear him down.
And I'm going to make you mad.
And I'm going to do it on purpose.
It's a great thing to do.
It's the right thing to do.
And if comedians, if we have brave comedians, In society, they would be the ones sort of like at the forefront of this fight.
We don't have actual conquistadors anymore in the shining armor and all that marching up steps.
So now it's like, yeah, it's like a comedian needs to be the one to do something like that.
But if you're going to do it, you have to withstand what comes next.
Because obviously, if you do that, you're going to catch hell for it.
You're going to be attacked and defamed and demeaned and insulted.
You're going to get death threats.
I've heard from other people that he got, that he said he, I didn't hear him say he got death threats, but I don't know if that's true or not.
That's what I, that's what some people are saying.
It doesn't surprise me.
I'm sure he did.
Like based on my own experience of upsetting these various left-wing groups, I'm sure he did.
But does that justify an apology?
No, it doesn't.
I have no sympathy for it.
I don't apologize.
Yeah, I know what you're going through.
I've been through it many times.
But that's why I have no sympathy if you apologize.
I don't want to hear the excuse.
Well, I had to.
I felt unsafe.
Well, you know what?
You've got to just deal with it.
Deal with feeling unsafe.
Because if you apologize in the face of that, then what was the point?
What did you open the can of worms in the first place?
Okay, I'm not going to lose respect for a comedian for not joking about George Floyd.
It's not like you have to.
Okay, if I'm listening to a stand-up set and there's a comedian up there and they're funny, and I'm not going to sit there and say, well, why didn't he tell any jokes about George Floyd?
Now, if he tells a George Floyd joke, as far as I'm concerned, that's great.
I'm glad he did.
But you don't have to.
No one is forcing you to.
When you decide to, then you have decided to open that door.
And I just don't get these people that they say something, they do something that obviously is going to send the hounds of hell after you.
Obviously it will.
And then it happens and you cave?
Were you actually surprised?
What do you think is going to happen?
And the thing is, once you do that, and you cave, then you are way worse.
Then all the comedians who would never have told the joke in the first place because they're too afraid.
Okay?
It's like you could have just stayed silent because you were afraid and that's one thing.
To speak up and then back down is a lot worse.
You don't get an A for effort in this case.
You fail.
You get a failing grade.
And in this case, you know, on top of everything he says that Oh, the family of George Floyd, they have to revisit this terrible trauma that occurred.
I don't want to hear about it.
I don't want to hear about resurfaced trauma or reopened wounds or whatever of the George Floyd family.
I don't want to hear about it.
Oh, now?
Now they don't want to hear about George Floyd anymore?
Now it's painful to hear about George Floyd, really?
I mean, they were right there from the beginning, pushing his death into the national spotlight.
They're one of the reasons why George Floyd was the only thing we heard about for like six months.
Okay?
It wasn't painful then, was it?
Exploited it, they profited off of it.
They're multi-millionaires now because of all this.
And now, and now it's, oh, we don't want to, we just want to move on.
We don't want to talk about it anymore.
I don't give a damn if you don't want to talk about it anymore.
You don't get to decide that.
And as I've said all along, you know, the families of these BLM martyrs, hey, maybe try being a real family before the guy dies.
Maybe try being a real parent before that.
A real brother.
Whatever.
A real support system.
Like, just attempt to do even a basic job of being there for your family, supporting, guiding them, offering some moral guidance.
You didn't do any of that.
So, you in fact are like the last people who should have a say in what we're allowed to talk about when it comes to George Floyd.
Okay, so everyone loses.
loss all around.
Right now is your chance to get 30% off Daily Wire Plus annual memberships during our President's
Day sale when you use code DW30 at checkout.
Your Daily Wire Plus membership is your backstage pass to conversations with the smartest and
most trusted talent in America.
It's your front row seat to the Daily Wire's upcoming hit movies and series like The Pendragon
Cycle, Mr. Birchum, Snow White and the Evil Queen and more.
It's your inside access to ad-free, uncensored news and opinions that matter to you.
You get it all and so much more with your Daily Wire Plus membership.
And right now it's 30% off during our President's Day sale.
So go to dailywire.com/subscribe and use code DW30 at checkout.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So today will be one of those daily cancellations, perhaps the most common variety where there
is no good guy.
No one to defend, no one's side to take.
In fact, I wouldn't be talking about this issue at all if not for the fact that I have a segment on this show called The Daily Cancellation.
This story is made for such a segment.
And so here we are.
It begins with a young woman named Maddie Hart, who is, of course, a TikTok influencer.
And if you have a very sharp memory, you may actually remember Maddie.
She went viral several weeks ago after telling a story about the feminism, quote, leaving her body after going on a date.
With a guy who paid for the meal.
And if your memory is even sharper than that, you may recall that I expressed some skepticism about her anti-feminism conversion.
I wasn't quite sure this was totally sincere.
We don't need to rehash all that.
I will say that I was, of course, correct.
She posted a follow-up video where she said that she was just kidding.
Don't worry, she's a feminist.
She still has purple hair, etc.
Purple hair in spirit, anyway.
Her hair isn't actually purple, but it might as well be.
Anyway, Maddie is back now, this time with a funny story about her dad who, she says, abandoned the family when she was a child.
But she's got a funny story to relate about that.
Here's part of it.
What's a piece of trauma that you have that's funny?
It has to actually be funny.
I'll go first.
My dad abandoned my family when I was five years old.
That is, um, a wife and four kids.
He abandoned us and then pursued amateur breakdancing.
And he got really good.
He, like, blew up.
Like, he became, like, a D-list celebrity status, like, viral breakdancer.
He became, like, the oldest actively competing breakdancer in the world.
Then he got on Good Morning America, and talk shows, and Washington Post wrote about him, and he went super viral, and he did all these interviews, and he danced with Paula Abdul.
Here, I'll show you.
Take a look at this 60-year-old breakdancer.
The worst part?
Damn it, he's good.
He should not be able to move his body like that.
It's, like, impossible.
It's beautiful.
Hey, Dad.
Like, there was no split custody or anything, like, he just, like, left four kids to do that!
He may not have paid for some of my medical bills growing up, but he did give me this breakdancing merchandise.
So that's him, he's on his head, Benny Hanna is his b-boy name, because his name is Ben Hart.
You know, I'll get texts like this, happy birthday question mark, and then, like, links to his- to his breakdancing videos.
Now, I, like many millions of other people, would not have known about this video, or this story, if not for the dad in question, who responded to his daughter's TikTok with a viral video of his own.
Ben Hart is apparently a wealthy advertising executive, and here he is, in his Bitcoin shirt, responding to his daughter, who he says is a Hollywood screenwriter, by the way.
I guess an advertising versus Hollywood blood feud playing out via viral videos.
It's like the most modern and most annoying version of Hatfield and McCoy that you can imagine.
So here's Ben with his clapback.
First, I can see that as a five-year-old, Maddie would see her dad as having abandoned the family.
One day I was living there, the next day I wasn't.
And that will look like abandonment to a child.
But married couples do get divorced about half the time in America.
And I was just living a mile or so down the street in LaGrange, Illinois.
We just weren't living under the same roof.
Now, about not paying medical bills, that's just not correct.
Here was the financial arrangement of the divorce.
Maddie's mom, my ex-wife, got $2 million at the get-go.
Out of the gate.
A lump sum payment.
Plus, I was paying her $18,000 per month in child support and alimony.
This was later reduced to $12,000 per month.
And, of course, I paid health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs.
I also put $600,000 into the kids' college fund.
In all, I paid out about $5 million to my ex-wife to cover costs for her and the kids.
And this is in 2005 dollars.
So add 50% to account for inflation.
In other words, I was not a deadbeat dad at all.
And by the way, Maddie did not say that in her video.
But a lot of the comments assume that and say that.
Now, of course, there was no way for Maddie to know how much I was paying because she was a kid.
This wasn't something I talked about.
Also, remember that I was living one mile down the road from the kids in LaGrange, Illinois.
Sidewalks all the way.
An easy walk or bike ride.
I saw the kids all the time.
No abandonment, just a divorce.
Was I at fault in the divorce?
Yeah, I would say it was about 70% at fault.
I own that.
Maddie's mom and I were really not compatible in many ways.
We were compatible in some ways, but not in other ways.
Okay, now it continues on like this.
His response video is 10 minutes long, and the crux of his point, as you heard, is that he didn't abandon the family.
He just got divorced.
He gave the kids lots of money, and he still saw them all the time.
It was a big part of their life.
The video also went viral.
That video did.
Getting millions of views.
And while Maddie's video brought out hundreds of negative comments about the dad, this one rallied the troops against the daughter.
And many of the comments, some from big-name right-wing accounts, in fact, praised the dad for setting the record straight and putting his spoiled brat daughter in her place and so on.
They took his side and they insisted that claims of abandonment were unfair, untrue.
Many comments called Ben's video wholesome.
Because, of course, there's nothing more wholesome than a father and daughter squabbling on the internet in front of an audience of millions.
That's wholesome family content.
Honestly, I find the wholesome description totally baffling.
Some of the ways people have reacted to that last video, it boggles my mind.
I'm like, what video are you watching?
All these really supportive, oh, this was a great video, this was wonderful.
What?
Do you understand what's happening here?
I can only assume that these people are impressed with his tone of voice, which is supposed to sound measured and cheerful, but which, to anyone with even the slightest bit of experience dealing with narcissistic phonies, comes off as gratingly smug and artificial.
But this was not the end of it.
So Maddie had more to say.
She responded to her dad's response and said that, in fact, he's the one not telling the full truth.
Watch.
I know my dad posted like a 10 minute video or whatever being like, you know, my daughter's lying.
We have a great relationship.
I have a great relationship with all my kids.
That's just objectively not true.
Like guys, we're all freaking out about this in my family group chat right now.
We're being like, he's so unhinged and delusional.
We don't know if he actually believes his own narrative or if he's lying on purpose, but he's just like a weird guy.
He said he lived down the street from us.
That's not true.
Or like if he did, it was only for a few months maybe, but actually for most of my childhood, he lived in Florida with His new wife like basically like I don't want to get into this like again like my video was basically like Sanitizing the situation and like poking fun at the lightest parts of that childhood trauma, but obviously in real life It was a lot more like complicated and traumatic and it was really hard.
He left us immediately married another woman We didn't hear from him for years and then he would visit every few months and we go out to dinner But like he truly had no hand in raising us at all.
We don't speak with any sort of regularity He doesn't know when my birthday is like as you guys saw in the video I posted he got it wrong He gave us some money growing up I like I honestly don't know the nitty-gritty of the financial situation I really really don't but I do know that several times I've asked him for financial help with medical expenses like especially like in college and he wouldn't help me so that's what I was referring to in my video when I was like he wouldn't pay some of my medical bills.
So, Maddie says that her dad did leave the family, he moved to another state, started a new family, at least a new marriage, and they have basically no relationship at all, and never have.
Her dad claims otherwise.
People on the internet, meanwhile, have gone to their battle stations and have taken one side or the other, and that's the way these things generally go.
Now, for my part, I can only say that everyone is wrong, everyone is stupid, everything is terrible, and the internet is the worst mistake mankind has ever made.
Or at least if we have to come to a sweeping conclusion that lacks any semblance of nuance, I think that's the safest one to draw.
But if we're going to take the time to analyze this in greater depth, then there are some things to consider.
So first of all, Ben dismisses Maddie's claims of abandonment as the immature perspective of a small child, but in the process he only shows that he is the one with the immature perspective, and that the small child in this case has more honesty and insight than he does.
Because if you leave your family and you start a new one, you have abandoned them.
Okay?
If your kids live in a house, and you leave, and you go somewhere else, Especially to a whole other state, although the state doesn't even matter.
But, yes, you've left them.
How else do you want to put it?
It doesn't matter if you give them money.
Five dollars, five million dollars, five billion dollars.
A father is more than a checkbook.
You cannot replace your paternal role by sending cash.
Which is a point that really shouldn't need to be explained or defended, but judging by the comments, it seems that it does.
And this, again, is a lot of conservatives who apparently don't understand this, that are saying, well, he gave him a lot of money.
Is that what we're doing now?
As conservatives, we're saying that a father can be replaced with money?
Oh yeah, because we know that, you know, everyone knows that rich kids, they always turn out perfectly well, right?
You never have dysfunctional rich families with kids that are totally destroyed and end up being dysfunctional, miserable people.
That never happens, right?
Now it is true that not every divorced man is guilty of abandoning his family.
So I'm not saying that just because there was a divorce that the father abandoned the family.
It's possible that the wife could be the one who destroys the family and rips the home apart and then leaves you and takes the kids against your will and all that kind of stuff.
If that's the case, then you certainly do not deserve the deadbeat label as it has been stuck unfairly on so many men.
That does not at all appear to be the case here.
In fact, Ben admits that he's mostly to blame for the divorce.
I don't know what the case is or not.
I can only take his word for it.
He said it was mostly his fault.
So, I guess it was.
He apparently left the state and got married to a new woman.
His daughter says that he made no effort to maintain any kind of real fatherly relationship.
This is something that, you know, when your children are children, when they're actually kids, That is entirely on you, as the parent, to do.
So if there is no relationship with your kids, then that is your fault.
Because the burden is 100% yours to form and maintain that relationship.
Or the responsibility, let's say.
I wouldn't call it a burden.
But it's on you.
And if you don't do it, your kids will grow to resent you.
And that will be 100% entirely, with no equivocation, your own fault.
It's true that Ben disputes some of this.
He says that he lived close by, he says that he has a great relationship with his kids, but there's plenty of reason to doubt his version of events.
I mean, the first reason is that he still, decades later, denies that leaving the state and starting a new family counts as abandoning your kids.
He still, even now, apparently believes that money is a sufficient substitute for being an attentive father.
His daughter paints him as an oblivious narcissist who's more focused on himself and his own needs, and everything about his response seems to lend credence to that claim.
Also, we know his story about being close to his children is obviously a lie, because if you're close to your child, she isn't going to make a video like this about you in the first place.
So when your daughter's making this kind of video about you as a father, and you're saying, well, I'm really close with my daughter.
No, you're not.
That's not going to happen if you are.
You also probably aren't going to be texting her on her birthday, on a day that isn't her birthday, with a message that says, happy birthday with a question mark.
And look, I'll be the first to say that men, I give more leeway in forgetting dates and all that.
Our brains just aren't wired that way.
But yeah, you just saw from the screenshot of the text.
Is the text, happy birthday, question mark?
That is not exactly a hallmark of a close fatherly bond, okay?
Now Ben, with his 1990s radio disc jockey cadence, says that he got divorced because he was not compatible with Maddie's mom.
They were compatible in some ways, he explains, but not in all ways.
So this is a man in his 60s, looking back on his life.
Reflecting on choices that profoundly altered the lives of his four children, and this is what he comes up with.
They were not compatible.
As if the marriage was some kind of software program.
As if somebody accidentally poured the wrong kind of oil into the engine or something.
Being incompatible with another person, that's just another way of saying that the other person is another person.
Okay, that the person isn't you.
The person has their own personality traits, and ideas, and priorities, and desires, and so on.
Incompatible doesn't mean anything in this context.
It's just an excuse that you make when you give up.
It's another way of saying that you're too lazy and too selfish to do the basic work that marriage, that any meaningful relationship requires.
And the idea that, you know, you would put your kids through the nightmare of a divorce, that you would rip their universe in half because of incompatibility is just, it's just reprehensible.
It just is.
Now on the other hand, the daughter is an adult now, and while I can certainly see why she doesn't like her dad and doesn't want anything to do with him, and that she's perfectly entitled to have that point of view, obviously.
And again, you know, now it's possible that your kids could grow older and they could become adults and become estranged from you through no fault of your own.
That kind of thing can happen.
It does happen.
It's tragic.
But most of the time, if your kid is an adult and they don't want anything to do with you, Most of the time, it's because you were a terrible parent.
And you might not want to tell yourself that.
You might still be telling yourself stories.
I mean, we have all encountered plenty of adults like this, who maybe are older, maybe around Ben's age, and their kids don't like them and don't want anything to do with them.
And they still are telling themselves that they have this version of their history and of their kid's childhood that's complete fantasy.
And they refuse to, it's like, why do you think your kids feel this way about you?
It's, what do you think, do you think the whole world's against you?
Or could it be that you just did a terrible job as a parent?
You formed no relationship with them when they were kids, and so now there's nothing there.
There's no, there's, what are they gonna try to rekindle?
There's nothing to rekindle, there's nothing there.
So all of that is totally valid on Maddie's part, but the problem is that she's the one who chose to make all this public.
You know, you might have very legitimate reasons to resent your dad or your mom or anyone else in your family, but there's no legitimate reason to announce that fact to millions of strangers on the internet.
Your familial strife does not need to be, and never should be, mere content for people on TikTok or Twitter to consume.
Nothing good comes from it.
It will never make anything you're dealing with any better.
It will only make everything worse, guaranteed, every time.
Okay, Maddie is, she's not being melodramatic when she calls her parents divorced traumatic.
TikTokers abuse the hell out of that term, trauma, as we know.
But in this case, it's been used appropriately.
She has experienced trauma.
But she isn't going to heal that trauma by converting it into 10 million views on TikTok.
That's not how it works.
So, in conclusion, don't air your family drama publicly.
Don't get divorced.
Don't leave your family and go start a new one.
Don't wear a Bitcoin shirt.
Don't do anything that these people have done, or are doing, because they are, today, cancelled.
