Ep. 1320 - The Unabashed Demonization Of Poor White Americans
Today on the Matt Walsh show, the media launches an all out assault on the true enemies of democracy: poor white people. Also, the Biden Administration struggles to evade questions and accountability as yet another American citizen is murdered by an illegal alien. A school in Oklahoma holds a fundraising event featuring a display so revolting and grotesque that I don't even want to describe it. And a large group of scientists are asked whether sex is binary. The answer should have been yes from 100 percent of respondents. But that's not what happened.
Ep.1320
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.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 media launches an all-out assault on the true enemies of democracy, they say, poor white Americans.
Also, the Biden administration struggles to evade questions and accountability as yet another American citizen is murdered by an illegal alien.
A school in Oklahoma holds a fundraising event featuring a display so revolting and grotesque that I don't even want to describe it, but we'll play the video for you.
And a large group of scientists are asked whether sex is binary.
The answer should have been yes from 100% of respondents, but that's not what happened.
We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
This episode is brought to you by Preborn.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
A lot of the discussion you'll hear about identity politics focuses on how immoral and destructive it is, and for good reason.
Judging people on the basis of characteristics they can't control is wrong.
Decent people understand that.
But a lesser-known side effect of identity politics is that it leaves the people who believe in it The daytime anchors of MSNBC, for example, completely bewildered by major political events.
Identity politics makes its adherence significantly dumber, basically.
There's no other way to put it.
That's what it does.
So take the election of Donald Trump in 2016, for example.
This was eight years ago, and by now most of us have a pretty good idea why it happened.
Trump, unlike Hillary Clinton, did not tell coal miners that he was going to put them out of business.
He didn't describe half the country as deplorable or extol the virtues of free trade and towns where all the good jobs have moved overseas.
Instead, Trump's message—not his skin color, his gender, or any other aspect of his identity—resonated with tens of millions of Americans.
Whether you disagree with his message or you agree with it, that's just it.
It should be obvious.
But somehow it's not obvious to MSNBC.
As of this week, in the year 2024, they're still very much unsure why Donald Trump won in 2016 and why he's leading in every major presidential poll today.
Watch.
And as we barrel toward a likely rematch of the 2020 election, one candidate continues to have a hold over white rural voters.
But it's not Joe Biden, seen here as a boy on the right side of your screen who went to public school, is the son of a used car salesman, and was born to a middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Instead, It is Trump here on the left side.
A private school educated son of a New York City real estate tycoon who became a millionaire at eight years old and didn't have to serve because he claimed he had bone spurs in his little feet.
So why is it that Trump appeals so much to a group he couldn't be more different from?
I do like when they show the childhood photos because it looks like they were both taken in the Civil War era, which I don't think is what they meant to highlight, but they did.
Anyway, the premise of this intro is that by default, you'd expect Joe Biden to be dominating the vote among white rural voters because unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden's dad was a used car salesman and his family was middle class growing up.
This is how MSNBC anchors and their viewers see the world.
They vote on the basis of identity, that is, characteristics the candidates can't control.
And because the essence of modern liberalism is projection, they think that everyone else must vote the same way, too.
Or that they should, anyway.
It doesn't matter to them that Biden devoted his entire professional life to representing
the interests of banks and credit card issuers in the Senate to the point that a bank hired
Biden's son just as Biden was pushing major legislation that would benefit that same bank.
They don't care that Biden somehow owns multiple mansions despite the fact that he's supposedly
been earning a politician's salary his whole life.
They don't even care about anything that Trump campaigned on or delivered in office.
All they can process is the respective identities of the two candidates, which were determined
at birth.
So at this point, one of two options is possible.
Either the left can renounce identity politics and they can start debating ideas, or they can double down on identity politics, which inevitably means declaring war against the identities that they see as the enemy.
Now, as this MSNBC segment went on, it became very clear which option they're obviously going to choose.
Mika Brzezinski introduces two authors who just wrote a book entitled White Rural Rage, The Threat to American Democracy.
I want you to watch as the authors describe the supposed threat that these dastardly voters pose to America.
Watch.
Joining us now, professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Tom Schaller, and journalist and opinion writer Paul Waldman.
Their new book out tomorrow is entitled White Rural Rage, the Threat to American Democracy.
And Tom, we'll start with you.
Why are white rural voters a threat to democracy at this point?
You would think, as we pointed out, looking at Joe Biden's background and Donald Trump's, that the opposite would be true.
I mean, we lay out the fourfold interconnected threat that white rural voters pose to the country.
First of all, and we show 30 polls and national studies to demonstrate this, so we provide the receipts in Chapter 6.
They're the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant and anti-gay geodemographic group in the country.
Second, they're the most conspiracist group.
QAnon support and subscribers, election denialism, COVID denialism and scientific skepticism, Obama birtherism.
Yeah, why not?
I mean, you want to demonize an entire group of people, so the two guys you should bring in are two guys who have never even driven through the country.
These guys have never even seen a cow in their lives.
And they're the ones we're going to bring in to be the experts on white rural voters.
And we'll even leave aside the whole idea that a group of voters could be a threat to democracy simply by participating in it.
Be that as it may, and we'll play the rest of the answer in a second, but we need to stop to make a few points.
First is this, it needs to be said that when they use the term white rural voter, They really just mean, of course, white poor voter.
Now, throughout the book, these white rural voters are described as being beleaguered, having stagnant incomes, having high rates of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness.
They just as easily could have titled their book, White Poor Rage, if they wanted to.
That's pretty obvious, of course, but it's notable that they still feel the need to cloak their elitism in this little bit of euphemism.
Presumably, they realize that if they start complaining about the behavior of poor white people, then it'd be pretty easy to point to the behavior of poor black people in this country, which doesn't compare particularly well by any objective metric, including, most notably, rates of violent crime.
In fact, both poor black males and wealthy black males have a greater chance of committing a felony in their lifetimes than white males of any income level.
Which is a very interesting statistic.
But these are the kinds of comparisons you can avoid when you use euphemisms like poor or rather white rural Americans instead of poor white Americans.
You also have some plausible deniability when people accuse you of just being, you know, an elitist snob who finds lower income people repugnant, which is obviously the case here.
But they can deny it because it's not lower income people they're mad at after all, it's just those pesky rural whites that they don't like.
Let's put the euphemism aside for a second and get into the substance of what you just heard.
According to the author of this book, which is really more like an anti-white screed,
quote, "We show 30 polls in National Studies and we provide the receipts in Chapter 6."
Now supposedly these receipts, call them receipts because everybody talks like they're posting on
Twitter now, quote, "We show 30 polls in National Studies and we provide the receipts in Chapter 6."
Clearly demonstrate that white rural voters are a threat to the country, he says.
And for example, according to the writers, quote, they're the most conspiracist group, QAnon supporters and subscribers, and COVID denialism.
Well, that sounds pretty bad.
COVID denialism.
But what exactly is QAnon support and COVID denialism?
Those terms are never defined in that interview, so I got a copy of the book and I looked through it, as painful as that was, and somewhere in Chapter 6 I found this.
Quote, 85% of QAnon believers say the COVID-19 virus was human-made in a foreign lab, and QAnon believers are one and a half times more likely to live in rural than in urban areas.
So as you catch that, in other words, these white poor voters are supposedly nuts because they believe in the crazy QAnon theory that COVID was made in a foreign lab.
In case you're keeping track at home, this happens to be the same unhinged QAnon conspiracy theory that the FBI director has publicly stated is likely to be true.
More importantly, it's the same theory that any reasonable person would concede and has conceded all along is very plausible at a minimum.
We've all listened as the virologists on Tony Fauci's payroll changed their stories about the origins of COVID.
We've seen the warnings before the pandemic about the lax security of the Wuhan lab.
We followed the funding going from the NIH to Wuhan for gain-of-function experiments.
We've all noticed that the outbreak began practically down the street from the Wuhan lab.
In fact, these white rural Americans apparently noticed that very early on.
They noticed it before people like this noticed it.
But noticing these facts does not make you a threat to democracy, despite what they may say, even if you happen to be white or poor or you live out in the country.
And you get a sense that the authors of this book know that, because in this interview, they're very careful to avoid specifying the details of the conspiracy theories that they're complaining about.
Instead, they just call it COVID denialism, and then they just hope you won't check.
Along the same lines, the authors claim that It's a lunatic conspiracy theory to suggest that global elites are pedophiles who participate in a sex trafficking operation.
Which, you know, I guess would seem crazy if you haven't heard the name Jeffrey Epstein at any point in the past decade.
And of course, as you've probably guessed, there's also the implication in this book that anyone who believes that the 2020 election wasn't completely on the up-and-up, anybody who has any issue with mail-in ballots or ballot harvesting, or Biden getting 10 million more votes than Barack Obama by campaigning from his basement, must be lunatics.
These are the conspiracy theories and the threats to democracy that these authors are referencing in this segment.
And as unbelievable as all this is, it gets worse somehow.
I interrupted, rudely, this guy's answer in the MSNBC interview, so let's hear the rest of it.
Third, anti-democratic sentiments.
They don't believe in an independent press, free speech.
They're most likely to say the president should be able to act unilaterally without any checks from Congress or the courts or the bureaucracy.
They're also the most strongly white nationalists and white Christian nationalists.
And fourth, they are most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.
So, you mentioned a lot of negative factors about this demographic.
Yeah, he can barely contain himself.
He's practically frothing at the mouth to accuse poor white people of doing exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing for the last several years.
It's kind of astonishing to watch.
He claims that it's poor white voters who are the enemies of the freedom of speech, as if every power center in the Biden administration hasn't united to destroy Elon Musk for committing the crime of allowing people to talk on the internet.
As if every major university in this country won't punish students for stating out loud that they believe in, you know, things like biological reality.
As if affirming the basic truth that all lives matter won't get you fired from every major corporation on the planet right now.
No, it's the poor white voters who are at war with the independent press and the freedom of speech, we're told.
That's what MSNBC would have you believe anyway.
And the fact they can say with a straight face is the most revealing part.
That's how committed they are to this fantasy.
The whole answer you just saw was one absurdity after another.
It's poor white voters, we're told, who supposedly want the president to act unilaterally without any checks from Congress or, you know, from the all-important unelected bureaucracy in Washington, according to these authors.
And, again, that might be a compelling argument if you were not alive to see Barack Obama in the Rose Garden announcing a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in an election year.
It might be a compelling argument if you were literally born yesterday and therefore didn't notice when Biden decided to ignore the Supreme Court and nationalize this country's rental properties and forgive quote-unquote billions of dollars in student loan debt, which is to offload it to taxpayers.
And in fact, to brag about the fact that he's doing it on his own without any permission from anyone, to brag about it frequently, including as recently as a week ago.
It might be a compelling argument if you somehow missed the bombs that every administration in modern history has dropped without bothering to consult with Congress, much less seek their approval.
So, they're lying to your face again and again.
And they're doing it for a reason.
It's the same reason that the authors claim it's poor white people who excuse or justify violence as alternatives to peaceful public discourse.
And to believe this, you would have had to miss the torching of churches and police stations and small businesses during the George Floyd riots.
You'd have to ignore the fact that, as people were being murdered in the name of civil rights, Kamala Harris was raising bail money for violent thugs.
You have to focus entirely on January 6th as the singular act of so-called political violence, quote-unquote, in the past decade, even though it's the one act of, quote, political violence in which only one person was killed and it was a protester.
You would have to subscribe without reservation to an alternate reality, all in the name of demonizing white, poor, predominantly Christian voters who don't want to support Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, that humble child born into a middle-class family who turned out to be as corrupt a politician as the state of Delaware has ever seen, which, if you know Delaware, is really saying something.
Now there's one more clip from this interview that I want to show you because it underscores how little these people care about poor white people, even when they're dying by the tens of thousands.
So watch this.
Here it is.
Reverend Algise has a question for you.
Rev?
Tom, wouldn't you also say that it is in the interest of those like Donald Trump to put the blame on people who are likely to be going through the same kinds of challenges in maybe a different part of the country, like blacks, like browns, like migrants.
And he channels this rage that they rightfully have in rural areas toward the wrong people.
And those that could do something about it escape without having to make change, because if those rural whites and blacks and migrants and browns came together, they could really force real change.
Isn't it a diversion to the wrong people based on their inherent racism and xenophobia?
Absolutely, Reverend Allen.
As you probably know, 24% of rural America is non-white now.
And we have had eight years since Trump came down the escalator in June 2015 of focusing on rural whites, the heartland flyover people, and what their economic anxieties are.
But with the exception of two things that we can find, opioid deaths and gun deaths, on every other measure in rural America, rural Latinos, rural African Americans, and rural Native Americans, the most rural population in America, are doing worse.
And nobody cares about their economic anxieties.
I know it's not really the point, but I did enjoy Al Sharpton referring to blacks and browns.
You know, you don't hear that very often.
Yeah, you got the blacks, the browns.
Apparently you can say that now.
Okay, fine.
But it's really an incredible statement there.
It basically amounts to this.
If you discount the fact that poor white people are killing themselves far more often than any other demographic group, and if you ignore the fact that they're overdosing on fentanyl far more than any other demographic group, basically if you ignore the two leading causes of death among young people, Then poor white people have it pretty good.
That's basically what he just said.
This is the level of visceral disdain that the corporate press and the mainstream left has for white Americans.
The point of going through all this is not to just rip apart the dumb arguments in some stupid book.
The point is to ask, why exactly do the authors go to these lengths to lie about a very specific racial demographic?
And why did one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet decide to promote their lies and their overt racial disdain?
And the truth is that, in spite of the euphemisms about rural whites that these authors use, they're actually being very direct in their dehumanization and villainization of a class that they see as undesirable.
The corporate media has always hated poor whites, of course, but now they're almost coming out and saying it.
This is as close to just coming out and saying it as we've seen.
This MSNBC segment is as clear a declaration as we've ever seen, clearer even than Barack Obama's demonization of Pennsylvania voters clinging to guns and religion, clearer than Hillary Clinton's complaints about deplorables, that the left now stands for the unabashed hatred of poor white Americans, who already have been stripped of status, who have been discriminated against at every turn, who've lost their economic security at the altar of globalization, But it's still not enough.
Still not enough demoralization, I guess.
And you know that's why they see it, because no publisher would ever sell a book titled Black Ghetto Rage or something similar.
Like, that book could not exist.
There would be no shelf that it could sit on.
Instead of addressing that topic, they're more likely to excuse black crime and violence as a symptom of late-stage capitalism.
In fact, that's precisely what the Washington Post just did.
Around the same time this segment is airing, they published this image of the CVS in Columbia Heights of Washington, D.C.
And here's how the story begins in the Washington Post.
It says, quote, there's almost nothing left to steal at the CVS in Columbia Heights.
And that gives you an idea of which items have actual value.
Blank CDs, for example, the thieves don't even bother with them.
The greeting card section has been left alone.
Everything else that remains in the store in Northwest DC, which is not much, is under plexiglass.
It's been like this since at least October, when the legend of the empty CVS of Washington began to spread beyond the district's borders.
It became a horror story of late capitalism.
Okay, so when poor white people point out that COVID came from a lab, they're the enemies of democracy.
When poor black people steal so much from a local CBS that toothpaste has to go behind plexiglass, then the issue is late capitalism.
Now obviously where this all leads is racial resentment and ultimately racial violence.
And for all their projection, that's what they want.
They're not really afraid of poor white voters.
That's not what they're afraid of.
They're afraid that in less than a year, for the first time in several years, somebody in power might actually care what all these poor white people have to say.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Financial experts thought we were in the clear.
While experts anticipated rate cuts, inflation in the United States is still a significant economic concern.
Think about it, the U.S.
is in the hole by $34 trillion, and yet we keep printing money, which pushes the prices you pay every day even higher.
So you can bury your head in the sand or you can do something about it.
Diversify a portion of your savings into gold with Birch Gold Group.
Gold is your hedge against inflation and Birch Gold makes it easy to own.
They'll help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold and you won't pay a penny out of pocket.
Make gold part of your saving strategy and buy it from Birch Gold.
They've been the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for over seven years now, literally
helping thousands of listeners.
And they can help you too.
Text Walsh to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold and talk to a precious metal specialist
about protecting your savings from persistent inflation with gold.
Text Walsh to 989898 now.
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.
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 USA can help finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all.
Seize control of your financial future now and don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
That's TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
Daily Wire has a report.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called out over the weekend after he rejected the notion that the federal government bore responsibility for the murder of a student in Georgia last month who was allegedly killed by an illegal alien.
Police arrested 26-year-old Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan national, late last month for allegedly murdering 22-year-old Augusta University nursing student Lakin Riley.
He was on Face the Nation on CBS, was my orcas, and he was asked about this and we'll just go right to the clip here.
Well, we can't really call this an answer, but here's how it went down.
Let's watch.
But I wanna ask you about a criminal case that has become a political rallying point.
You heard Donald Trump use this phrase, migrant crime.
A 22-year-old nursing student, I know you've been following this, Lakin Riley, in the state of Georgia, was murdered allegedly by an undocumented Venezuelan migrant.
The suspect had been detained by Porter Patrol upon crossing, released with temporary permission to stay in the country.
He then went on, allegedly, to commit crimes.
Twice, once in New York for driving a scooter without a license and once in connection with a shoplifting case in Georgia.
Did those states and their law enforcement communicate to the federal government that this had happened?
Should this man have been deported?
A few thoughts.
First, Margaret, first and foremost, an absolute tragedy, and our hearts break for and our prayers are with the family, number one.
Number two, and importantly, as a prosecutor, having prosecuted violent crime and other crimes for 12 years, one individual is responsible for the murder, and that is the murderer.
And we work very closely with state and local law enforcement to ensure that individuals who pose a threat to public safety are indeed our highest priority for detention and removal.
Let's just pause it there for a second.
We're going to keep playing it because there's more to see, but take a note of a few things.
And this is perhaps, you know, neither here nor there, but Mayorkas is the perfect bureaucrat.
He really is.
He's like... And by that, I mean the very manifestation of the federal bureaucracy.
If you want to know what a federal bureaucrat is, then just watch this guy and listen to him speak for 10 seconds.
And that's what it is.
This smarmy, shriveled little worm of a man.
I mean, he looks a little bit like...
What is it from The Little Mermaid when Ursula puts a curse on the people and turns them into like those sea worm things?
I think I have this right.
It looks like little, like one of those, like those little shriveled worm.
And so when I say he's the perfect bureaucrat, I mean it that way, not as a compliment.
Not as a compliment.
And the point is that he's this sniveling, snide, pretentious, spineless little Nothing of a person.
If you were to look up the word impressive in the dictionary, there'd be a picture of him, and the caption would say, the opposite of this guy.
And yet, these are the kinds of people, that's why I say he's the perfect representation, it's not just him, our entire government is run by these kinds of people.
So it's not, it's no surprise that this is how he's answering the question, and he's answering the question by not answering it.
Because the question he was asked was very simple.
This illegal alien killer had already been arrested for committing multiple crimes in this country, in multiple jurisdictions, and the question was before he murdered Lakin Riley, and the question was whether the federal government had been notified about this.
It's actually very, it's like a yes or no question.
Either they were or they weren't.
Did they know that he was in the country?
Did they know he was committing multiple crimes?
Did they, were they aware of him but decided not to deport him for some reason?
That was the question.
A simple question, good question.
But he doesn't answer it.
And even, you notice how he talks about the murder.
He says that it's a tragedy.
But he can't even bring himself to say Lake and Riley's name.
He says his heart goes out to the family.
He doesn't say Lake and Riley's family.
He doesn't say the Riley family.
He just says, my heart goes out to the family.
And I think some people have speculated it's because he doesn't want to say her name.
He doesn't want to acknowledge her existence to that extent.
And that could easily be the case.
I also think it might be true that he doesn't even remember.
He doesn't care.
In that moment, he didn't even remember the person's name.
Because it doesn't matter to him.
He doesn't care.
And then he says that the murder is only the fault of the murderer.
And that's not true.
Now, the murderer is 100% to blame for what they've done.
So they get 100%.
They get all of the blame that they could possibly hold, which is 100% of it.
But the great thing about blame is that you don't have to stop at 100% actually.
You can keep going.
Because the murderer can be 100% responsible for his own actions, while at the same time we can acknowledge that other entities, other individuals were also to blame.
Because there were other individuals that if they had done their job, this never would have happened.
So they are also 100% to blame.
Alejandro Mayorkas.
He himself is to blame.
He's 100% to blame.
100%.
He may as well have murdered her himself.
That's how much of the blame he has.
Because if you do your job, this doesn't happen.
You decide not to do your job, knowing this sort of thing will happen, and it happens, so you're to blame.
In a different country, in a different universe, he'd be on trial right now.
We would start trying these people for murder.
For mass murder.
When you've got government officials who obviously are aware that there are violent, illegal criminals that are coming into the country, and they choose not to deport these people, then really they should be held legally responsible for everything that happens after.
So they should be charged with whatever it is.
Charged with a thousand counts of murder.
Just add it up.
And that's what they should be charged with.
But again, he still hasn't answered the question.
So, will he answer it?
Let's keep listening and find out.
Are you saying there that the federal government had been informed about this individual and the alleged crimes he had committed in those states?
Because he could have been deported if that was the case.
Was there a breakdown in the system?
So, Margaret, there are a number of cities around the country that have varying degrees of cooperation with the immigration authorities.
We firmly believe that- New York did not?
We firmly believe that if a city is aware of an individual who poses a threat to public safety, then we would request that they provide us with that information so that we can ensure that that individual is detained if the facts so warrant.
And it sounds like they were not coordinating.
Well, different cities have different levels of cooperation.
We were not notified in this instance.
Well, Margaret, so you see, Margaret, there are different situations and occurrences and different things happen and different happenstances that happen, and well, Margaret, Uh, he finally gets around to saying at the end, after two minutes of ducking and dodging, he finally gets around to claiming that the federal government was not notified about this guy.
But we know that's not true, because if it was true, you would state that from the beginning.
Like, if the federal government was never told that this guy was in the country, If he's committing multiple crimes and it was never reported, it never went up the chain, then the very first thing you would do is say, no, we were not told.
And if we were told, he would have been out of here.
Now, that wouldn't be true, but at least there's no way of disproving it.
Like, it's, you know, you're talking about a hypothetical.
So that's what you would say.
But it takes him two minutes because it's not the case.
Because we can know for a fact, based on his response, that the federal government was aware and they decided not to do anything.
And that's how incompetent, again, this douchebag is.
That he tries to evade the question instead of just outright lying.
Because he could have done that too.
He could have just said no.
From the very beginning, he could have lied.
But he tries to evade the question, because maybe he doesn't want to outright lie, not because he has any ethical qualms, but just because it's safer to not outright lie.
And he evades, but then he ends up just telling the lie anyway, after two minutes, after doing so much equivocating that it's obvious that he's lying.
And we ultimately end up with the truth, which is that, again, of course they knew, and of course they don't care.
And, you know, when we talk about the Great Replacement, I think it must be said that this is part of the replacement.
Now, often we talk about that in terms of voters, where they're, as we know, they're importing all of these third world voters.
And then giving them, you know, putting them on the taxpayer dole and using that to, you know, essentially buying their votes.
And that's, and they're trying to drown out the votes of actual American citizens, of those poor whites or those rural whites that they're so afraid of, the threat to democracy.
Well, what do you do about that when you've got, when you've got millions of Americans Who are just living their lives and have committed the crime of living out in the country.
Like they've committed the crime of not living in a city and being white, which automatically makes them an enemy.
And now the elites are coming out and just saying that directly.
But what do you do about them?
How do you stop them?
Can you just round them up and send them to a camp somewhere?
I'm sure they'd like to.
These people would like to do that, but they're not at a point yet where they can quite do that.
So what do you do?
Well, you drown out their votes with all of these third world immigrants.
That, when we talk about the replacement, that is often what we mean, replacing the votes.
But there's also this very, there's a much more violent and sort of physical replacement that's happening.
And this is obviously far from the first case of it.
When you have the dregs of humanity who are allowed into this country and then prove themselves
to be the dregs of humanity by how they conduct themselves and they're allowed to stay here.
And eventually they victimize some American citizen, someone who's like just a normal,
you know, a productive member of society, law abiding, and they kill them.
So what we've done is we've swapped.
And when I say we, I don't mean we, I mean they.
People like my orcas.
There's been a swap.
It's like, okay, rather than Lake and Riley, we're gonna have this guy.
What's his name again?
Jose Antonio Ibarra.
There's a swap.
We swapped Lake and Riley for Jose Antonio Ibarra.
Because she's dead now, and now we have him.
That is very much a part of the replacement that's happening.
Alright, let's move to this.
If you thought the Mayorkas story was the most disgusting and disturbing sight you would have to see on the show today, I have bad news for you because here's a report from Fox 25 in Oklahoma that I hope you're not eating right now, but if you are, fair warning.
Here it is.
The event at Deer Creek High School.
Fox 25's David Chazanoff has reaction from the district and its parents tonight.
David, what are you hearing?
Adam Buwendy, a parent whose child attended the event, calls it deeply disturbing.
And we do want to warn you the video you're about to see may be graphic to some viewers.
This video shows Deer Creek High School students licking toes at a fundraising event Thursday.
We have blurred their faces to hide their identity.
It was surprising.
I didn't think they were going to do all that.
I was just shocked.
I didn't really have a feeling.
I was kind of disgusted, and kind of glad I wasn't over there.
He is devouring them!
Whatever she told me yesterday that was happening, I had to ask her, like, wait, what?
They're licking peanut bu The Deer Creek School Dis video with Fox 25 saying t and challenges to help ra their philanthropy week.
with Fox 25 saying the st challenges to help raise
philanthropy week. I am a and all four really fun a
that right there just see Oh dear Creek schools say
participated signed up fo ahead of time and that no
were involved during the They note that the fundraising week helped raise more than $152,000.
It's really great that they raised a lot of money.
I feel like maybe they could have done a little bit more accountability and ownership in that statement for, hey, you know, maybe we didn't fully think this thing through here.
So just to review here, this school, Deer Creek High School, decided to have a fundraising event.
And so far, so good.
Fundraising event.
Nothing wrong with that.
When I was a kid, we did fundraisers all the time in school.
You know, we sold candy bars, we did walk-a-thons, we had bake sales, we did car washes, that sort of thing.
Where it all goes off the rails is that they decided for their fundraising activity that they were going to have students lick, apparently lick peanut butter off of each other's feet in front of an entire gymnasium.
It's really, if you're a normal person you can't wrap your mind around it exactly because this was an idea that someone at the school had And proposed, right?
And then it was organized.
It's like multiple people are involved here.
I don't know how many, but the involvement, it goes beyond just one person.
And they're organizing this, and at no point, before or during, did anybody stop and say, You know, I don't know if we should do the toe-licking thing.
I don't know if that, maybe we shouldn't.
That might, that might be, might actually, that might make us look like sicko pedophiles with foot fetishes if we do that.
So maybe we shouldn't.
Nobody said that apparently.
And they just charged right ahead.
And then, when the video of this event goes viral, as it was destined to, the school district doesn't apologize.
They don't accept any responsibility at all.
Don't hold themselves accountable.
They don't even admit that it was probably a bad idea.
So that's what you have to understand.
The school district is standing behind this.
They're standing behind the toe-sucking video.
They will not acknowledge, even in hindsight, they won't acknowledge that there was anything wrong with it.
This is from, so they read a little bit of the statement, but it's just, it's so incredible that, let me read the statement to you.
This afternoon, Deer Creek High School announced a grand total of $152,830 raised for Not Your Average Joe Coffee, an organization created to inspire our community by including students and adults with intellectual, developmental, and physical disabilities, according to their website.
This total was raised through a week of events and activities at both Deer Creek High School and Deer Creek Middle School, all designed to bring our community together for an extremely impactful organization.
On Thursday, February 29th, Deer Creek High School hosted an assembly called the Clash of Classes for students who paid to attend.
During this assembly, 9th through 12th grade students volunteered to participate in various student organized class competitions in the spirit of raising money for NYAJ.
All participants in the assembly were students who signed up for the game that they played ahead of time.
No Deer Creek faculty or staff participated in any of the games during this Clash of Classes assembly.
Many dedicated students gave generously of their personal time To achieve this momentous accomplishment, which will serve communities beyond the boundaries of Deer Creek.
That's it.
There's no apology there.
Nothing.
They are not convinced yet that the foot fetish festival was a miscalculation.
In fact, they defend it on the basis that it raised a lot of money.
This momentous accomplishment of licking peanut butter off of toes was a great achievement.
And they also say, you know, they also defended by saying that the students weren't, were not, they volunteered for it, so they were not held at gunpoint.
Okay, well that's good news, I guess.
And they have to stipulate that there were no teachers involved.
So it was not teachers having their toes sucked by students.
This was a student, these were all students.
And if that makes this any better, it makes it better by about an inch.
However, we're still approximately 95 billion miles away from anything that could be considered appropriate or worthwhile for a school activity.
And you know, most people will hear about this story and they'll immediately start projectile vomiting, which is the right reaction.
Fortunately, I got this out of my system.
I saw this story earlier in the morning, so I got it out of my system already.
And the next thing most normal people will do is focus on the sort of degenerate, perverse nature of this.
Activity.
And again, that's the right thing to focus on.
Our schools are infested with perverts.
We have to face that.
I've been warning you about that for many years.
Schools have become hotbeds for sexual deviance.
That was the case all the way back in 2004, when the Department of Education released their report, commissioned their own report.
And in their own report, they found that at that time in 2004, 20 years ago,
5 million students in the school system at that time had been the victims of
sexual abuse or sexual harassment by an educator.
Five million, according to the Department of Education, 20 years ago.
Now, do we think it's gotten any better since then?
No, we know that it hasn't.
If anything, of course, it's gotten worse.
But even still, we don't talk about that.
We just don't talk about it.
It's not an issue that anyone seems to care that much about.
But that is the case.
So all that's a major problem.
When you see stuff like this and you think, what kind of perverts were behind this?
And you assume that there's some sort of perversion.
Well, of course you would.
That's a very safe assumption, given the nature of the event, but also the fact that we know there are perverts all over the school system.
But it's also worth thinking about just the total lack of judgment on display here.
Even if we can somehow move past, again, the perversion and degeneracy on display, which we can't, but if we do, just for a moment, we can marvel at how none of the adults in charge at this school have any common sense or any ability to exercise basic judgment.
Because look, do I think that the entire staff of this school are a bunch of pervert foot fetishists?
Probably not.
I mean, statistically that seems unlikely.
It seems like some of them are.
But probably not all.
So that means that most likely there were staff members who don't get any sick thrill out of this and yet knew about it and said nothing.
And even the parents, you know, I'm watching that video and I'm thinking, you got these interviews, but it's like the parents, and the parents are speaking anonymously, and we're changing their voices, like they're informants on the mob, like they're coming out and giving us secrets about how the mob works.
Because you're a parent, why are you afraid to, like you're afraid to put your name behind it?
As a parent, you're afraid to stand up and say, yeah, I'm a parent of this school.
I think that's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.
Every adult involved should be fired.
Yes, here's my face and my name.
I'm not embarrassed to say that.
So even the parents who are speaking out are afraid to do it publicly?
You're afraid to publicly say that you're opposed to events where the students lick each other's feet?
You won't even say that publicly?
That's how afraid you are?
Well, that's one of the ways that the school system has become just a disaster, is that this is symptomatic of the general problem, which is that not only do you have a total lack of judgment among the adults running these schools, not only do you have a lot of sexual perverts in the schools, but then also, and again, this is not the case with all, this is not a universal statement, but it is a general statement, that generally parents are not nearly As involved as they should be, and they don't care nearly as much as they should when things like this happen.
And so often they're afraid.
Like at every school, anytime you have something like this that happens, you have some parents who will speak out forcefully, vocally, they're not afraid, and they're going to speak up.
It's just like, you know, anytime there's a, there's a boy, you know, racing against the girls or whatever, you know, volleyball, whatever the event is, swimming, you have some, a few parents who will speak up and they're going to, but, but then, uh, as always, it's like the majority of parents either say nothing or if they say anything, it's like anonymously, they're whispering.
They don't want to come out and say it publicly.
And to have that kind of cowardice on this is like mind boggling.
How is it that they could do that report and they couldn't find a single parent who was willing to say publicly that they oppose it?
It's, uh... Again, mind-boggling is the only word that comes to mind.
Alright.
We'll mention this quickly.
This is from the Daily Mail.
Taxpayer-funded guaranteed income programs that hand struggling families up to $36,000 with no strings attached are being rolled out across the country, according to the Daily Mail.
The schemes, whose total value exceeds $125 million, have emerged in popularity since the — have surged in popularity, rather, since the pandemic as progressive leaders embrace cash handouts to support Americans below the poverty line.
But the radical projects have been criticized after it emerged that one mother of three in Washington, D.C.
spent more than half of a $10,800 lump-sum payment on a luxury holiday to Miami, along with a new wardrobe for her children and a glow-up for herself.
Kennethia Miller, 27, spent $6,000 on the vacation for herself, her partner, and their three children, purchased 15 new outfits for the children, and spent $180 on a haircut.
She was given the money through the first project in the country to offer money as a lump sum rather than monthly payments.
Similar programs in cities from Los Angeles to New York offer payments of up to $1,000 per month for three years with no conditions on how the cash is spent.
Um, ongoing projects will deliver more than $125 million to nearly 10,000 Americans nationwide across more than 30 programs.
Um, and again, these are all, so we know that there are plenty of welfare programs out there, but these are no strings attached cash payments where we're just given the cash and saying, do whatever you want with it.
And obviously it's a terrible idea.
Um, well, It's terrible if your goal is to actually lift people out of poverty and to make the country a better and more prosperous place, and so on.
If that's your goal, then this is the worst possible thing you could do in pursuit of that goal.
But if your goal is to demoralize the population and make people even more helpless and dependent and vulnerable and utterly incapable of caring for themselves than they already are, then this is a fantastic way of achieving that objective.
And as we know, for the politicians who come up with these schemes, their goal is very much the latter.
And there are two basic reasons why this sort of idea is terrible.
Terrible, again, if you care about the future of the country and you want to make people's lives better.
The first is that obviously giving someone a $10,000 check with no strings attached It is only going to help them in the long term if they have a lot of discipline, and if they budget smartly, and if they save or invest a large portion of the check while using the rest on essential items that they need for themselves or their children.
So, you know, something like this could be a big help to somebody if they take it and they go, okay, well, so I got $10,000.
Lump sum from the taxpayers.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to take $8,000 and I'm going to save it right away.
I'm going to put that away.
I'm going to save it.
And then I'm going to use $1,000 and I'm going to buy a whole bunch of non-perishable food items.
Okay, so I'll build like a stockpile of food so we have extra food.
And then I'm going to take the rest and I'm going to pay off some overdue bills.
Uh, maybe credit card debt, whatever.
I'm gonna try to get myself out of whatever hole I'm in right now.
So, let's say people do something like that.
Well, if that's how it's spent, then in that individual case, we could say that the money has really helped that person.
And they're now in a better long-term spot today than they were before the money was given to them.
The problem is that not everyone is going to use the money that way.
In fact, it's highly unlikely that even a majority will use it that way.
And I find it hard to believe that a significant minority will use it that way.
Like, if you give $10,000 to 10,000 of the lowest earning people in any given area, I would be shocked if even 1,000 of them were to use the money that way, in a way that's like planning for the future, in a way where we're not just blowing it all right off the bat.
I'd be shocked if 1,000 did.
This has nothing to do with the fact that they're poor.
If you gave $10,000 in, quote, free money to 10,000 people, regardless of their income level, if you just choose totally at random, and so you've got poor people and rich people and people in between, and you just give them all $10,000, say, here you go.
You still are going to get only a very small minority who use the money in a smart way, according to a wise long-term plan.
And why is that?
Well, because human nature is what it is.
And we also happen to live in a consumerist culture where people are wired to spend money.
In this economy, we're also required to spend money more than we want to.
But regardless of the state of the economy, we're always looking for ways to spend what we have.
And we're surrounded all the time by messaging, you know, it's like everywhere you go, everything you look at, it's always buy this, buy that, buy this.
So it's constant.
And so it takes an extraordinary amount of self-discipline to not basically spend everything you have the moment you get it.
And most people don't have that kind of self-discipline.
Because that's just, if self-discipline was like, If self-discipline was in, if we had a surplus of self-discipline in this culture, we'd live in a utopia.
But we don't.
So the point is, we act like the woman who blows it on a vacation is an outlier or she's abusing the system or whatever, but she's actually not.
That's what the system wants her to do.
Take it, spend it, keep nothing, save nothing, and have a nice couple of weeks.
And then revert right back to the state of dependency that you were in before the money was given to you.
That's exactly what they want.
That's how it is designed.
Which is also, by the way, why they offer a lump-sum payment in the first place.
I mean, the whole idea is terrible, but if you're gonna do it, why would you even have a lump-sum option?
If somebody wants a lump-sum payment, it's clear right away that they just want to have all that money and they want to spend it.
And second, aside from how the money is spent, aside from the fact that almost everyone just blows through free money when you give it to them, the greater point is that, of course, the free money is not free money.
It didn't fall out of the sky.
It did not appear out of thin air.
It was taken.
It was taken from American families and it was given to other people.
And that is theft.
And I don't care who does it.
I don't care what the supposed reason is for it.
I wouldn't even care if the politicians who came up with these schemes were really driven by their deep desire to help the less fortunate.
They're not.
But I wouldn't care if they were.
Because you have no right to take this money.
You have no right to take it and give it away like it's a wheel of fortune.
Okay, there's just a difference between the, you know, Taking tax money and, in theory, using it to build roads and that sort of thing, and using it for things that everybody, in theory, could benefit from.
That's a legitimate form of taxation.
But taking money from an individual and just giving it to another individual, to the detriment of the one individual, And the benefit of the other individual doing that is theft.
And I would say every form of that is theft.
I don't know how else to look at it.
It's an indirect form of theft.
At least for the person who's benefiting from it.
It's indirect.
They're not just reaching into your pocket.
They're going through politicians to do it, but it is theft.
And it's wrong every single time.
I'm here today because my mother chose life, and you're here today because your mother chose life, too.
The miracle of life is a gift everyone deserves because every life is precious.
That's why we've partnered with Preborn's network of clinics.
Preborn introduces unborn babies to their mothers through ultrasound.
After hearing her baby's heartbeat and seeing her precious baby, she could be twice as likely to choose life.
Through love, compassion, and free ultrasounds, Preborn has rescued over 280,000 unborn babies, and every day their clinics rescue 200 unborn babies.
Now that is a miracle.
One ultrasound is just $28, the cost of a dinner, or you can sponsor five ultrasounds for $140, helping to rescue five unborn babies' lives.
Any amount will help.
All gifts are tax deductible, and 100% of your donation will save babies.
To donate securely, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
That's pound 250 and say the keyword baby.
Or go to preborn.com slash Matt.
That's preborn.com slash Matt.
One year ago, Hershey's announced that a man would be leading their Women's Day campaign.
As everybody rolled their eyes, thinking they would have to buy from yet another company that believes men can be women, we had a different idea.
In 24 hours, we launched Jeremy's Chocolate, because you should be able to buy delicious chocolate from a company that shares your values.
And now Jeremy's Chocolate is turning one year old today.
To celebrate, make sure to get yourself some Jeremy's Chocolate.
We have He-Him with nuts and She-Her nutless chocolate bars, also in microaggression size.
Get yours at jeremyschocolate.com today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now, to be clear, it would be bad advice at any time, in any era.
In fact, any time your trust is demanded, you should be all the more skeptical of the thing you're supposed to be trusting.
Trustworthy things never have to tell you to trust them.
Right?
And that goes for people, too.
If your girlfriend won't let you look at her phone because, according to her, you should trust her, that's all the confirmation you need, that you should not be trusting her, which means you shouldn't be dating her.
But this logic applies to institutions as much as it applies to individuals in relationships.
The most trustworthy people in institutions are those that are the least defensive in the face of skepticism.
Now, granted, science is not a person, nor is it an institution.
Science is a process.
It's a method used to better understand the physical world.
That's exactly the problem.
When someone talks about the science, they aren't referring to a method or a process.
They're referring to an institution.
They're treating science like it's some sort of organization, like it's a thing, like it's an entity.
And they're saying that we should trust this entity rather than question it.
But science is all about questions.
And real scientists, the ones who, you know, you can actually trust, though they would never tell you, they never demand that you trust them, real scientists, they invite and welcome questions.
The problem is that there's a shortage of real scientists, though no shortage of people calling themselves scientists.
And that brings us to one of the most depressing, though revealing and emblematic headlines you'll probably read in your lifetime.
The Telegraph reports this, quote, Sex is binary, say majority of scientists polled.
Now, the problem with this headline may not be immediately apparent.
Indeed, many conservatives have shared the news, this headline on social media, and they've celebrated it as a win for the cause of sanity and common sense.
They say, you know, a majority of scientists have affirmed a basic biological reality.
A majority!
Hooray, the truth prevails!
Another crushing blow for the gender ideologue, supposedly.
And maybe it could be, except that the word majority is rather broad.
Anything that falls between 51% and 100% is a majority.
That's a window of 49 percentage points.
So, it's a good start.
A majority of scientists agreeing with a basic, indisputable scientific fact is certainly better than a majority disagreeing with that fact.
But now we have to ask, How large is this majority?
It should be 100%.
Anything less than 100% is troubling.
Although, sure, maybe we could accept 99%.
Even 98% we could maybe accept.
97% would be the absolute lowest that we could go before we have to start asking serious questions about the scientific field as a whole.
And if we're landing under 90%, then we have a problem on our hands.
Under 80% is a crisis, under 70% is unthinkable.
Or should be.
So, how do these numbers actually break down?
Well, let's go to the article and find out.
Quote, sex is binary, according to the majority of British scientists in a poll.
The difference between sex and gender has become an increasingly incendiary topic, as activist scientists and politicians all debate the terms and implications they have for policy.
But a survey of almost 200 scientists at British universities, conducted by The Telegraph and CensusWide, found 58% of respondents think sex is binary, except in rare cases such as intersex individuals.
Oh, dear God.
58%.
That is barely a majority.
Only 58% of scientists employed in the British university system could bring themselves to acknowledge one of the most rudimentary of all biological facts.
I mean, this is really no different.
It's no different than 58% of mathematicians agreeing that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Okay, and if you heard that poll, you wouldn't celebrate and say, well, a majority!
A majority got it right!
Yes, it's a majority, but we should be looking at something far greater than a mere majority.
This should be universal agreement.
And even a portion of the 58%, in this case, are wrong.
Some of them seem to think that intersex people are an exception to the idea that sex is binary.
They aren't.
Intersex people still exist within the sex binary.
It's just that their place in the binary can be, in some very rare circumstances, more difficult to determine because of their physical deformities.
But they're still in the binary.
So, only 58% got the answer right, but it turns out that even some of the 58% who got the answer right didn't get the answer right.
Let's keep reading.
Less than a third, 29%, agreed with the statement, sex is not binary.
Well, one in eight people, 13%, had no views or preferred not to answer.
Now, the only difficulty here is deciding which of these two groups is more depressing and pathetic.
On the one hand, we have 29% of alleged scientists who definitively state that sex is not binary.
That is, they actively affirm an outlandish scientific falsehood.
This is like if 29% of scientists said that when caterpillars go into their cocoons, they turn into hot dogs.
Although, that example is, of course, far less crazy.
Because there is a greater chance of hot dogs emerging from cocoons than there is that a third human sex will be discovered.
But I still somehow find this 29% contingent less pitiful than the 13% who profess to have no view on the subject, or at least no view they're willing to say out loud.
Even in spite of the fact that this was, it would appear, an anonymous survey.
So, it's one thing for a scientist to be a brain-dead zombie whose mind has been eaten alive by leftism.
That's obviously bad enough.
It's another thing for a scientist to still have a functioning brain and yet be too afraid to use it.
It's terrible to be insane, especially when you're supposed to be a scientist.
It's even worse to be so cowardly that you present yourself as insane when you actually aren't.
Now, unsurprisingly, the waters get even more muddied and confused when these alleged scientists are asked about gender as opposed to sex.
The Telegraph says, "However, almost two-thirds of scientists, 64%, said gender was fluid,
while 22% said gender is binary, and 14% gave no answer."
Now, as we know, gender is an amorphous, intentionally ambiguous, fundamentally useless concept.
It's fluid only in the sense that all nonsense is fluid.
Gibberish can mean pretty much anything because it doesn't mean anything.
Human beings have a sex.
We don't have a gender.
Your sex is male or female and that's it.
Your perception of yourself, your personal sense of style, your way of expressing yourself, your whatever, none of that is relevant.
We don't need a separate category of gender to account for any of that.
We already have the concept of personality, which covers all of that anyway.
And besides, even if we agreed that gender is a meaningful concept, and that it's somehow distinct from sex, still, actually, it would only be a binary.
A person can say that they feel like a man, or they feel like a woman, which is what gender is supposed to be.
Or they can say that they feel like neither, or they feel like both.
Now, as we know, this feels-like concept is nonsensical.
You can't feel like something that you aren't, because if you aren't that thing, then you have no idea what it feels like to be that thing, and you have no frame of reference.
But even if we ignore this glaring logical problem, still, you notice that even in this ambiguous, arbitrary world of gender, you're still stuck with the two basic categories of man and woman.
The gender ideologues may have come up with a bunch of other names and labels in order to build out this artifice of 98 genders or whatever we're up to now, but they still haven't come up with, even conceptually, a distinct and coherent third gender.
So as a matter of pure fantasy, as fiction, they can't create a third gender.
All they can do is mix and match from the only two that exist, and have ever existed, or will ever exist.
Now, do these scientists not understand the points I'm making right now?
Are they actually confused?
Do they need me to educate them?
Or again, are they such pathetic, spineless, weak little cowards that they're pretending to be ignorant of these basic scientific and logical concepts?
I suppose there's no way to know for sure.
All we can say, and can know, is that the scientific community has totally discredited itself.
The entire field has become a sham.
So, trust the science?
How can we?
These people are lunatics.
Or at least, they're acting that way.
Which is just as bad, if not worse.
And in either case, the scientific community is today cancelled.
