Ep. 1321 - Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the left has a glorious meltdown as the Supreme Court unanimously declares that Colorado cannot kick Trump off the ballot. Keith Olberman was so upset about the ruling that he even peed on his own face. We'll investigate. Also, the leftist hordes turn on AOC. The executive director of LGBT affairs in Philadelphia gets arrested during a traffic stop. A viral video shows a young mother being confronted for bringing her child to a bar. Who's in the wrong? And San Francisco will not be giving five million dollar reparations checks to its black residents. But it did issue a heartfelt apology for slavery. Will that be enough to satisfy the race hustlers? The answer will not remotely surprise you.
Ep.1321
- - -
DailyWire+:
Tune in on 3.7.24 at 8:30 PM ET for another Daily Wire Backstage exclusively on DailyWire+
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get a FREE Samsung 5G smartphone. https://www.puretalkusa.com/Walsh
Good Ranchers - FREE Easter Ham + $25 off your box! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. https://www.goodranchers.com
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the left has a glorious meltdown as the Supreme Court unanimously declares that Colorado cannot kick Trump off the ballot.
Keith Olbermann was so upset about the ruling that he even peed on his own face.
We'll investigate.
Also, the leftist hordes turn on AOC.
The executive director of LGBT Affairs in Philadelphia gets arrested during a traffic stop.
A viral video shows a young mother being confronted for bringing her child to a bar.
Who's in the wrong on that one?
And San Francisco will not be giving $5 million reparations checks to its black residents, but it did issue a heartfelt apology for slavery.
Will that be enough to satisfy the race hustlers?
The answer will not remotely surprise you.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
We say something is free.
It should mean precisely that.
No strings attached, no hidden costs, no fine print to decipher.
When you switch to PureTalk today, you'll get a free Samsung 5G smartphone.
There's no four-line requirement, no activation fee, just a free Samsung that's built to last with a rugged screen, quick charging battery, and top-tier data security.
Qualifying plans start at just $35 monthly for unlimited talk text, 15 gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot.
PureTalk gives you phenomenal coverage on America's most dependable 5G network.
It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys, Pure Talk saves the average family almost $1,000 a year.
Plus, with Pure Talk, you know you're spending your hard-earned money with a company that aligns with your values.
Let Pure Talk's expert U.S.
customer service team help you make the switch today.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to claim eligibility for your free, brand-new Samsung 5G smartphone and start saving on wireless today.
Again, go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to switch to my cell phone company, Pure Talk.
From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be overturned.
As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws with the opinion, it was difficult to know exactly where to begin.
The decision ignored Donald Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th.
It accused him of speaking in violent, coded language because he was mean to some random protesters at his rallies.
And then it concluded that a single Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy.
Now, it's not worth rehashing all the details.
This was a decision that any reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
Now, unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed.
Instead, They're told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple states.
They're bombarded with junk analysis, like CNN's assessment that the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong, they claimed.
And they're fed think pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe, who calls the Colorado Supreme Court's decision unassailable.
Unassailable.
And just think about that for a second, that last part, because you can get a more accurate assessment of constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an allegedly esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in constitutional law.
With as far as Harvard has fallen in the past decade or so, that may not be very surprising, but it's worth pointing out because of the implications for the rest of the country.
Millions of people listen to con artists with very fancy titles who lie to them as a matter of course.
And even when these con artists are exposed as they were yesterday, they make it very clear that they're not backing down.
And we saw that again and again in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision yesterday, striking down the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.
I'll begin with Keith Olbermann, who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face, which is not an exaggeration, although I and everyone else who happened to be using Twitter yesterday very much wishes it were.
I mean, this really happened.
So here's how Keith's day began.
He tweeted, "The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy.
Its members, including Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, have proved themselves inept at
reading comprehension.
And collectively, the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
It must be dissolved."
So we're not packing the court anymore.
We're just going to get rid of the whole thing, according to Keith Olbermann.
How does that work?
Like, what are the implications of that?
What are the repercussions?
How does that, I mean, this is part of, this is like a pillar of our whole system of government.
But we're just going to get rid of it.
Now, in response, someone helpfully pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous.
Here was the reply, quote, cry more.
Nine to zero.
And Olbermann reading this announced, quote, those aren't tears fascist, they're urine.
I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it.
Now at best, this is, I mean, honestly, it's the worst comeback that I've ever heard in
I don't think I've ever heard a worse comeback than that.
And at worst, it's an admission of exactly the kind of deviant behavior you'd expect Keith Olbermann would engage in all the time.
Now, you know, we can't be sure to be fair.
So, Olbermann seems to have admitted that he has pee on his face.
But we don't know the source of the pee, so let's just be clear about that.
Did he pee on his own face?
Is this someone else's pee on his face?
There are many details that are left obscured here, probably for the best.
But we do know, one way or another, that Keith Olbermann has pee all over his face.
And as distressing as that thought may be, the truth is that Keith Olbermann is not alone on the left.
In response to yesterday's decision, Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold, the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown off the ballot, also began attacking the Supreme Court.
Of course, watch.
Do you think this court is partisan?
I think this court has had, obviously, some pretty big issues.
Whether it has been Clarence Thomas's wife's role, gifts that have gone unreported.
And there are some pretty big decisions that have come out of the court
that I highly disagree with.
And I think strip Americans of our basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Sorry, I was just distracted because I was just thinking that now that we know
that the leftist tears are urine, it does make me a little bit less excited
about the leftist tears.
I think we should put that to the side.
Anyway, I wasn't paying attention to what she just said there, but just to restate how absurd all this is, the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous.
It was a 9-0 vote.
Overturning what this Secretary of State did.
And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer and the woman with the crazy eyes, Griswold, pretend as though this was a partisan decision.
That's how the question was framed.
That's how Griswold responds.
She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas from there.
Uses the exact same talking points they used back when Dobbs, the Dobbs decision came out.
And there's a reason they're doing this, that I'll get to in a moment, but for now, it's important to highlight some of the more unhinged responses to the Supreme Court's ruling, because you have to understand how truly, profoundly, Donald Trump has broken these people.
So elsewhere at MSNBC, for example, a Slate columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme Court's decision, in case you're not familiar with this process, because you're a normal person.
Here's what this columnist wrote on Twitter, quote, "If you double click where it says JJ at the top,
then copy and paste it, that line reads Sotomayor J, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
And if you do a Control F search for Sotomayor J, concurring in part and dissenting in part,
it highlights that same line."
In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion,
you'll find some evidence in the metadata that previously before this opinion was published,
Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting opinion instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion.
This is a discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting development.
It could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at some point in the deliberations, which also would not really be an interesting development.
But in any event, Slate and MSNBC found this to be a highly interesting development.
So I want you to watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings that he found deep in the metadata of the Court's Opinion Watch.
Why did it read like a dissent?
Because it seems it originally was a dissent.
After this opinion came down, I checked the metadata, and that separate opinion that was presented as a concurrence by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, that was originally styled as a partial dissent by Justice Sotomayor alone.
At some point very late in the process, the court switched the words on the page to say that it was a concurrence in the judgment, no longer a partial dissent, And added Justices Kagan and Jackson, but that is not how it read in the metadata and probably not how it read until the last minute.
Now if you listen carefully to what this late guy is saying, you'll notice that he has no proof whatsoever for any of it.
He doesn't actually know that this change in the opinion was made late in the process.
He doesn't really know why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting.
It's just speculation.
And the point of it is to avoid informing the viewers that actually all of the experts you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to you.
Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Kentonji Brown-Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett agree with him.
And that's the last thing they want you to think about.
New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason.
They published an op-ed claiming the Supreme Court had just erased part of the Constitution.
They find it easier to make embarrassing emotional claims than to address, in any way, all of the BS they've been peddling about this case.
For people who pretend to care so much about misinformation, it's pretty striking.
The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure tells us a lot about what they're planning.
Just like we saw during Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their mistakes.
They're not going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate from the ballot, all in the name of defending democracy, supposedly.
Instead, their plan is to simply adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of millions of American voters.
It's important to emphasize here that four justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Amy Coney Barrett, tried their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling.
They all suggested that while states can't bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the federal government to do it without an act of Congress.
Now, what does that mean exactly?
That's not clear.
Amy Coney Barrett won't tell us.
Maybe soon enough we'll find out.
Until then, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act of Congress.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling which held that only Congress rather than states can disqualify federal officeholders for insurrection, Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot.
Watch.
I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it.
So the House has already pronounced upon that.
And by the way, this is obviously an obvious conclusion, but you can tell just how uncertain they are in Joe Biden and his ability to get elected.
Because the thing is, if they actually thought that Joe Biden could win the election on his own, they wouldn't be doing any of this.
There'd be no reason to do any of it.
In fact, they would much prefer.
Now, they know that it would be better for them in every way if Joe Biden just beat Donald Trump.
They didn't disqualify him, they just got beat.
But they are not confident at all in Biden's ability to do that, which is why they are going to these increasingly extreme lengths.
This is the same threat the Democrats made after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The thought of giving up never crosses their minds.
The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own decisions, whether it's about abortion or presidential candidates, never crosses their minds.
If you page through the Washington Post comment section, you'll see that very clearly.
Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
And they have some very high-level support.
As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the other day, left-wing dark money groups like Fix the Court are focused on packing the court, and their former director now works for the Biden campaign.
So you see how high up this goes.
And what this means is that as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's actually not an outlier on the left.
He's popular among them because he's willing to say what they're thinking.
He's the face of all their worst impulses and ideas.
And they are so committed to winning, so committed to preventing you from voting, they truly don't care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Did you know that mRNA vaccines are approved for use in pigs in the US?
Not to mention 85% of the beef sold in your local grocery store is imported.
In fact, over 5 billion pounds of meat was imported just last year.
The mystery continues to grow in the meat industry, and every day I'm more thankful for my Good Ranchers subscription.
I don't have to worry about imported meat or unknown vaccines in the food that I feed to my family every day.
During their Say No to mRNA sale, Good Ranchers is offering you a free 10-pound Easter ham with any subscription.
Their ham is fantastic, and unlike the pork at the store, It's guaranteed to be free from the mRNA vaccines.
This is a $119 value that you'll get for free with my code WALSH at GoodRanchers.com.
What I really love about Good Ranchers is their commitment to transparency.
They believe you have the right to know exactly what's in your food and are not afraid to show you.
They're amazing supporters of my show, so you should go support them today.
Go to GoodRanchers.com, use my code WALSH to get your free Easter ham today.
Every subscription will come with a free heritage ham, $25 off, and Good Ranchers lifetime quality commitment.
GoodRanchers.com, code WALSH, Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
So we begin with a heartwarming video.
Here we have representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being chased out of a movie theater by a group of left-wing activists who apparently are upset that she won't say that Israel is perpetrating a genocide.
And I feel like I've heard AOC say that or, you know, words to that effect already, but protesters haven't heard it or they haven't heard it often enough.
And they're not happy about that.
So let's watch.
You refuse to call it a genocide.
I need you to understand that this is not okay.
It's not okay that there's a genocide happening.
You're not actively against it.
You're lying.
I'm lying?
You went on TV and avoided talking about it.
You can't say it's a genocide or what you're describing in political ways.
We're not lying.
It's insane.
You haven't been calling it a genocide.
I've seen them in interviews, it's insane.
You haven't been calling it a genocide.
Those are your minds.
When to say it's a genocide.
Just say it.
Over 30,000 people are dead AOC.
You can't just say it for once?
Just say the word.
That's it.
That's all we want you to say.
Or are you not angry about people confronting the public when you can't call it genocide over 30,000 people have died?
Stop.
Okay?
Stop.
Stop.
We're not doing anything.
We're just talking to an elected public official.
That's all we're doing.
That's it.
You're going to cut it, and you're going to cut this, and you're going to clip this so that it's completely out of context.
I already said that it was, and y'all are just going to pretend that it wasn't over and over again.
It's f***ed up, man.
You're not helping these people, and you're not helping them.
You refused to.
You're not helping them.
It's effed up, man.
It's effed up.
Spoken with all the eloquence and class we've come to expect from AOC and from our politicians in general.
And what makes this so great, of course, is that AOC has been a huge proponent of protesters harassing her political opponents.
She was fully on board, obviously, when they were outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices.
So if it's effed up, man, to accost somebody at a movie theater, you would think It'd be all the more effed up to do it at their home, where their families are and where their children are.
But AOC was fine with that.
In fact, she said in the past that protests should make powerful people uncomfortable.
She said that's what it's all about, is making people uncomfortable.
Well, she's powerful.
She's one of the most prominent members of Congress.
And she's obviously uncomfortable here.
So, you know, they've done exactly what she wants.
Except she didn't mean her, obviously.
She meant to say, make powerful people uncomfortable, except for me.
Not me, the other ones.
Make all the rest of them uncomfortable.
And this is how it goes.
Eventually, the radicals, the left-wing radicals, are not radical enough.
I mean, AOC is, you would think, as far to the left on every issue that you can possibly get.
She finds the most left-wing extreme on every position, and that's the ground that she stakes out.
So, I can't think of an issue where she has publicly taken a position that leaves room to her left.
I can't think of one.
And not only that, but for the most part, This is probably sincere on her part.
I mean, in the sense that she's not pretending to be radically left-wing.
I mean, there's a lot of pretending and a lot of performance that she does in general, but these are actually her views, which is what you would expect from a 34-year-old woman from Brooklyn or wherever she's from.
So she's fully on the same side as, and the same page as, the people who are going after her now.
And yet they go after her anyway.
Because the truth is, you can never really be left-wing enough.
It's impossible.
And that's what's happening here.
And there's something else, too, that I think is happening.
They're chasing her down, and they're demanding that she say the word genocide.
You heard that person say, just say the word, AOC!
Just say genocide!
And it's a silly thing, obviously.
Why do you need to hear her say that word?
Okay, genocide.
What does that accomplish?
So you pressure someone, and you hector them and harass them until they say a word that you want them to say, and then, okay, they've said it.
What does that mean?
How does that help you?
Even if she says it, if she says it on command, because you told her to bark like a dog, and she did, what does that accomplish?
How does that help your cause?
Whatever exactly your cause is.
But this is a unique feature of leftism.
There are always words, there are always slogans, mantras that they demand you repeat.
And the mantras change over time.
That's part of the game.
That's how they know that you're in the club, is that the passwords and the mantras change.
And it's just like with your email.
For security, you're supposed to change your password every few weeks or every few months.
And it's the same on the left.
Every so often there's another mantra, another slogan that you need to say, and you just need to say it to say it.
You have to stay up to date on the new passwords and say them constantly.
And if they notice that you're not saying them, then they become suspicious.
They become suspicious that you have defected, that you're insufficiently loyal.
So that's what's happening here.
Genocide is just, it's one of the new mantras.
They need her to say it.
Why does she need to say it?
Well, because she's supposed to be in the club.
And it's one of the passwords now to reaffirm your membership in the club.
And she didn't say it.
And of course, even if she did, like the fact that this is happening to her, Clearly shows that she has been perceived now to be part of the problem.
Which is also, you know, anyone who's on the left and gets to a position of power, eventually, just because they're there, will become, in the minds of these people, an enemy, you know, part of the problem.
And that's what she's dealing with.
A lot of fun to watch, let's be honest.
Okay, NBC Philadelphia has this.
A video circulating on social media on Saturday shows a Pennsylvania state trooper working to arrest a person who's on the ground on the shoulder of a highway.
That person, NBC10 has learned, was Darius McLean, the husband of Selena Morrison, the city's executive director of the Office of LGBT Affairs.
Both Morrison and McLean were arrested in the incident.
According to the police, the incident was caught on camera and happened a little after 9 a.m.
on Saturday morning.
There's controversy over it now.
In fact, I think we have the news report with the video of this arrest and some of the reaction from the community, especially the LGBT community, who are very troubled by this.
Let's watch the report.
Yeah, I can tell you the tense traffic stop and the arrest is now under investigation and the officer involved in that arrest, he's been placed on administrative duty while that investigation continues.
Meanwhile, leaders of LGBTQ groups here in Philadelphia, they're asking for transparency during that investigation.
That is my husband!
This viral video showing a tense traffic stop along the Vine Street Expressway Saturday morning has LGBTQ community leaders alarmed and looking for answers.
We're marshalling all our resources to be supportive of Selena and Darius, but also to make sure that through investigation, we make sure that accountability resolves from this situation.
In the video, we see a state trooper standing over Morrison's husband, who's handcuffed on the ground.
We also hear the voice of Selena Morrison, Philadelphia's Director of LGBT Affairs.
She pleads with the officer to stop and identifies herself as working for the mayor.
Shocked to see that when someone's pleading and naming themselves and announcing themselves and announcing the scenario that it would have continued to escalate at that moment.
Let's see what led up to the altercation.
According to state police, a trooper pulled a driver believed to be Morrison over just after 9 a.m.
After observing, her infinity had expired and suspended registration, headlights that weren't illuminated and was following too closely.
But before the trooper had a chance to approach her, a man in a green Dodge parked behind the patrol car.
State police say the trooper went to him and he didn't cooperate with multiple orders, so the trooper tried to arrest him and Morrison interfered.
Many are asking for changes, of course.
So, there's a lot going on here.
We have the Executive Director of the Office of LGBT Affairs getting arrested in a traffic stop.
We don't know what led up to it exactly, as we heard.
charges at this time.
As the investigation continues, many are asking for changes.
Many are asking for changes, of course.
So there's a lot going on here.
We have the executive director of the office of LGBT affairs getting arrested in a traffic stop.
We don't know what led up to it exactly as we heard.
Police say that they were being uncooperative and obstructionist and belligerent.
And having not seen that part of the interaction, and maybe eventually we will see it,
I'm sure we probably will, they'll release the body cam footage.
But having not seen that at this point, I'm gonna go ahead and say that I believe
the cops' version of events.
100%.
And I believe them because, for the simple fact that in nearly every single video of this type that we have seen for the past, like, 15 years or longer, it has almost always turned out that the supposed victim was going out of his way, or her way, or both of their ways in this case, to be as difficult and aggressive and uncooperative as possible.
We've seen this movie a thousand times, and it always goes the same way.
It's just, it almost, almost always goes the same way.
There are exceptions to every rule, but almost always.
You know, first we see the video of the person on the ground, and they're getting arrested, and we're told they didn't do anything.
This is, this doesn't make any sense.
They just, they got pulled over.
Next thing you know, they're getting ripped out of the car and thrown on the ground, and they didn't do anything.
And then you see the whole video, and you're like, okay, you're just being, you're like, at best, you're being as obnoxious as you could possibly be.
Just shut up for a second.
And none of this would have happened.
You know, I can tell you I have been pulled over because a taillight.
I think for them it was a taillight, a brake light or something.
I've been pulled over for that.
Not recently, but I've been pulled over.
I've had to expire registration years ago because I was too lazy to go to DMV.
Got pulled over.
I did not end up face down on the pavement with handcuffs on.
And why is that?
Is it because I'm white?
I guess I'll be told it's because I'm white.
It's like they pulled me over and the cop got on the radio and said, hey, it's OK, he's white.
Never mind.
Never mind.
White guy.
We've got a white guy here.
Yeah, we don't give traffic tickets to white guys.
Never happens.
Never, ever happens.
We never do it.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe that's what happened.
I didn't hear that part of the conversation.
If that did happen, I didn't hear the conversation.
But I think, more likely, it's because they pulled me over and they said, you know, you know why I'm stopping you?
And I said, no.
And they said, you got a brake light, it's out.
And I said, oh, okay.
And then they took license and registration and went back to the police cruiser.
They came back, gave me a citation, and I said, okay.
And that was it, and then I just went about my day.
And that was all, like, that's all you have to do.
Like, literally, just say, oh, okay, yeah, all right.
Oh, man, that sucks.
And then move on, and nothing happens.
And if you do that way, if you respond that way, pretty much 100% of the time, it will be fine.
And you'll have to pay the ticket, but nothing else will happen.
There have been times when I've been pulled over for reasons that I thought were a little bit unfair.
I remember I was pulled over years ago And I think I was going like 62 in a 50.
And yeah, I was speeding.
I was speeding, but it's 12 miles over the limit.
And it's like a straightaway, you know, it's like a straight, basically a straight road.
It's a little bit later.
There's no cars on the road.
And, you know, come on.
I mean, that was my argument to the guy.
That would have been my argument to the cop.
It's like, come on, officer.
I know technically speeding, but come on.
Except I didn't make that argument to the cop because when he handed me the ticket, the decision was already made.
And I knew that if he handed me the ticket and I looked at it and said, come on, really?
What are we doing here?
I could have said that, but it's very unlikely that he would have said, oh, you're right, never mind.
Well, I hadn't thought of it that way, sir.
Let me take that ticket back for you.
That wasn't going to happen.
So I just took the ticket, went to court, and pleaded my case there.
And my case in court was basically that.
That was basically my whole case.
Like, yeah, it's 12 miles over the limit, but, you know, what's the big deal?
And in that case, it was successful.
And actually, the cop got a little bit of a talking to from the judge because the
judge was like in a bad mood and just didn't want to be bothered.
It wasn't important enough for him to be bothered.
And that was great.
It didn't always work out that way.
Usually it hasn't for me historically in traffic court.
But in that case, it did.
The point is that at no point in all of that did I say to myself,
you know what the best way to get what I want here?
The best way to get what I want is to be as annoying, obnoxious, and belligerent as I can possibly be.
At no point did I say that to myself.
And at any point in all of that, whether talking to the cop or the judge, if I had decided to go that route, there's a 100% chance that it would have made the situation worse for me.
So, there's a 0% chance, when you're dealing with a cop or a judge, a 0% chance that by being obnoxious, you will make things better for yourself.
Now, you may get lucky, and it won't make things much worse, because maybe you're dealing with a cop who doesn't want to become the next Derek Chauvin, and so he's a little bit shy, and decides to just put up with you being an a-hole.
For that reason alone, you may end up with a cop like that.
I wouldn't count on it.
You might.
But even in that case, It's not going to make the situation better.
It's just the best you could hope for is that it doesn't make it much worse.
But more than likely, it will make it worse and considerably worse.
And so it's and that's always the case.
And that's why I have no sympathy for people who act like a-holes to the cops and then pay the consequences.
I just don't have any sympathy.
There's only so much sympathy a human being can have.
There's a lot of tragedies that happen in the world every day, a lot of terrible things, a lot of people that are in need, a lot of people that are suffering.
We're human beings, okay?
I'm not God.
I don't have an eternal capacity for sympathy and compassion.
I just don't.
And nobody does.
And so there are really whole categories of people that I have to just kind of wall off Like, those people don't get any of my sympathy.
I don't have enough to go around.
And if you're someone who acts like an a-hole when the cops are dealing with you, and then things go wrong, I just don't have sympathy.
Like, pretty much no matter what happens from there, I don't... There are too many other people out here deserving of sympathy.
You're not one of them.
It's like...
You know, it's like if you see a video of someone doing parkour on the top of a 50-story building and they trip and fall and end up with pancakes on the sidewalk.
It's sad.
I'm not happy that it happened.
I don't watch those videos and want the person to fall.
I don't want them to.
But if they do, I don't spend a lot of time grieving it.
I don't spend a lot of time mourning it.
In fact, I don't spend any time at all mourning it.
Because it's like you went out of your way to do the stupidest thing you could possibly do.
And then one of the most obvious consequences of that stupid behavior happened to occur.
And so, that's it.
That's all I really need to know.
And that applies in general to these kinds of situations, but this is even worse because apparently the executive of LGBT Affairs tried to use that to get out of the ticket.
And we heard from the one guy who said that it was unconscionable, you know, that it went this way because she announced herself, she announced herself and announced, and that was supposed to be it, I guess.
I don't know if she pulled out her badge and said, officer, it's okay.
I'm the Executive of LGBT Affairs.
Everything's fine.
I just saw the bat signal.
I just saw the LGBT signal.
I saw the giant drag queen in the sky.
I had to respond.
Someone's being misgendered, you know, across town.
I gotta get there in time.
I don't know if that's what happened.
I don't know if that's what she did.
But, however it unfolded, the fact that she's the Executive Director of the Office of LGBT Affairs apparently didn't help her in this case.
Nor should it.
Especially because the Office of LGBT Affairs obviously should not exist.
What does the Executive Director of the Office of LGBT Affairs do on a daily basis?
What does her 9-to-5 look like?
And I know that I'm being very optimistic and thinking that there even is a 9-to-5 for somebody like this.
And I also know that we're used to this sort of thing.
We're used to, you know, bureaucrats having positions like this that are totally meaningless.
But still, you got to stop and think about I mean, think about this.
Think about the fact that the city of Philadelphia has an office dedicated to people who enjoy certain types of sex.
There's an entire office dedicated to the affairs of people who like having homosexual sex or have other sexual proclivities that are underneath the umbrella.
And this is a nine to five job for a government bureaucrat.
And they spend, again, I don't know what they do on a daily basis, but they spend every day with that.
And she's not even LGBT herself, apparently.
She has a husband.
So, I don't know, I mean, how does that work with representation?
Isn't that a, shouldn't that be the real scandal here?
That's what people should be upset about.
This is a cisgendered woman with a husband?
A woman with a husband?
And she's the executive director of LGBT Affairs?
You at least need a trans person in that role, I would think.
At least.
At least just trans.
But really, to be the executive director, you'd think trans, bisexual, demi, whatever, you know, a few.
You need to cross a few off the list.
She has none.
So that's the real scandal.
She should be arrested for that, actually.
She should have been arrested for that alone.
When she said that she was the Executive Director of the Office of LGBT Affairs, the cops should have said, oh yeah, what are you?
What are you?
Are you a lesbian?
No, I have a husband.
Okay, well, you're under arrest.
This is misrepresentation.
You're taking jobs away from LGBT people.
How dare you?
Alright, now that we have that settled, Here's another controversy, the likes of which we have encountered in the past, and I don't know if it's the most important thing happening in the world today, but it's important to me.
So, this is the latest iteration of this controversy.
I want to show you, this is a viral video that has sparked quite a heated debate.
It's a video of a young mother at a bar being confronted for bringing her baby into the bar.
And so there's a lot here that has people talking, but let's watch this video.
I mean, you're 22, get out.
I'm 27.
Get your baby out of a box.
We are, we are leaving right now. We're just waiting for our bill.
You guys are idiots. Why would you do that?
Why would you do that?
Why would you do that?
He's having fun.
No, he's not having fun.
You're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
Get out of the bar.
Jamie, is that your name?
$9,000.00. Did your baby get out of the bar? Jamie, is that your name? No, it's not. Did your baby get out of the bar?
You have a baby in a bar.
She's telling you that I'm actually gonna call the police.
Then you're bothering him.
You're bothering him.
You're harassing him.
They have children.
Why are you harassing him?
Okay.
Now, my favorite thing about that video probably is all the details that she's making up about this woman as she goes.
You're Jamie, right?
No, it's not my name.
You're 22?
No, I'm 27.
She's making up, but she's drunk, you know, and she's this is this is like she looks like she's in her 50s.
This is classic obnoxious 55 year old woman drunk because she's she's angry and yelling but smiling at the same time.
So you got you got all that going on and and yet many on the internet have sided with the drunk older woman in this dispute.
And I saw where this video was posted, and you know, millions of views.
This is the kind of thing we talk about on the internet.
But you go through the comments, and it's at least 50-50, if not 60-40, in favor of this woman.
And I have to say, if you're one of those people, then...
I don't know, you have the IQ and the moral sense of a Komodo dragon or something.
You could not be more wrong about this.
You would have to be a serial killer.
You are automatically a suspected serial killer if you watch that video and your first reaction is that You're on the side of the obnoxious 55-year-old drunk woman screaming obscenities at the young mother with a child.
From a visceral reaction standpoint, you should not be on her side.
And first of all, whether she's right or wrong on the merits, when you talk to somebody like that in that situation, you're automatically wrong.
You don't speak to people that way.
Okay, we need to get back to a place in society where people realize that you just don't talk to somebody that way.
You deserve to get smacked if you talk to somebody that way.
I'm not saying I would do it.
I don't hit women.
I'm not advocating that anybody would do it.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone should do it.
And I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that if the younger woman had walked over to the older woman and smacked her across
the face, just one time, Will Smith style, one time, and said, "Hey, watch your mouth. Hey, watch your
mouth." If she had done that, she would have been morally justified. Not advocating it? I'm
glad it didn't happen, frankly, because I don't advocate violence.
But if she did, she would have been justified completely morally.
And I'm not talking about a beatdown with 15 people.
I'm not talking about weapons being used, okay?
One slap across the face.
You used to be able to do that in this country.
Back when we were a real country, when this was America, you could walk up to someone and smack them in the face because they're, you know, they're getting out of hand, they're talking, they're being disrespectful.
One smack across the face and that's it.
Simple, elegant solution to the problem.
And at the very least, if she had got a beer, you know, tossed in her face, again, would have been totally deserved.
You absolutely deserve that response.
When you treat people like that in public.
You have no right to treat people that way.
And if you do, what it tells me is that, you know, you have never gotten the kind of response you deserve.
And that's why you go around treating people that way.
So she's wildly in the wrong for how she's speaking to a stranger here.
But she's also wrong on the merits.
Because even if she wasn't a vulgar, gross woman, even if she was polite about it, she would still be wrong.
And this is where We hear from all the people who, and I got into this argument again on Twitter yesterday, and you hear from all the people that say, well, you think it's okay to bring a baby to a bar?
You would bring kids to a bar?
Are you serious?
Yes, I do think it's okay.
In fact, I've done it many times.
I did it recently, okay?
I had four of my kids at a bar like three weeks ago.
And you know what?
It was fine.
It was normal.
This is a thing that normal people do.
If you're a normal person who lives in the world, this is something that people do.
And listen, bars come in different forms, obviously.
I'm not saying it's okay to bring your kids to any bar.
Of course not.
There are different, there are dive bars back where I used to live.
We had a dive, like an actual dive, not a, not a, you know, not a trendy bar in the city that they call a dive bar, but the beers, you know, it's like, it still costs you $27 to buy a drink.
That's not a dive bar.
I'm talking about an actual dive bar.
Had one down the street.
The kind of place where, you know, you go, there's always, like, at least one motorcycle in the parking lot.
The rest are pickup trucks.
You walk in, and no matter what time of day you walk in, there's always at least one guy who's, like, in his 60s, and he's just sloppy drunk, sitting by himself at the bar.
You go in at 2 p.m., and there's at least one guy who's just sitting there.
He's not bothering anybody, but he was completely drunk.
And not only that, but he's getting drunk on light beer.
So this is a guy who's 4% alcohol type drinks, and he's drinking gallons of them.
Rarely gets up to use the bathroom.
He can sit there for four hours drinking 60 gallons of beer, never get up one time.
I don't know how he does it.
But I'm talking about that kind of bar.
People are smoking cigarettes inside.
It's probably against state law, but they do it anyway.
I thought it was a great, huge, I was a huge fan of the place.
I love that place.
And I wouldn't bring my kids there.
Obviously, I wouldn't.
You wouldn't bring your kids to like a college bar, you know, where the building capacity is 175 people, but they've got 400 people crammed in there, and everyone's, you have no room to even move your arms, and it's 140 degrees inside, and it's so loud you feel like you're sitting in a jet engine.
And, would you bring your kids to that place?
Obviously not.
But most bars are not like either of those.
Most bars are Applebee's, okay?
That's what most, they are Applebee's or places similar.
In most parts of the country, when someone goes to the bar, that's where they're going.
They're going to Applebee's.
They're going to TGI Fridays.
They're going to Buffalo Wild Wings.
And not only are those places perfectly acceptable for kids, but they're great places to bring kids.
They are the best places to bring kids to eat.
If I'm bringing my kids out for a meal, I'm looking for a place that says sports bar.
It needs to say bar on it somewhere, or I'm not bringing my kids in.
Then you know it's a little bit louder, there are larger groups there, there are TVs, there's stuff going on, and so your kid can be a kid and can be a little talkative, a little bit louder, and it's not going to disrupt other people.
So those are great places to bring kids.
And when I hear people that Disagree with that.
Like, what do you think?
Do you think that families should just never go out to eat?
Is that what you think?
You think when you're a family and you have young kids you should just stay in your home for 18 years?
Never emerge?
You know, never go to like a normal place that people go?
Families are part of society, okay?
Kids are part of society.
They're allowed to be seen.
They're allowed to be a part of it.
They should be.
And that's kind of the bigger point here, is that we should be as welcoming of kids as possible.
It doesn't mean that we welcome them in every scenario, but we should be a lot more welcoming of them than we are.
And that's why it's also bizarre to me when I hear As I have seen from the conversation around this video that you see these people that say, I just want to go somewhere where there aren't a bunch of kids.
Everywhere I go, there's a bunch of kids.
I don't need to see kids when I'm at the bar.
What are you talking about?
Like, why are you acting like we live in a country with big, young families everywhere?
Why are you acting like everywhere you go there's just kids all over the place?
That's not the case.
Unless you happen to live, there are small pockets of the country where, and usually it's like if you go to a place where there are a lot of very conservative Catholics, or a lot of very orthodox Jews, or a lot of very religious Mormons.
If you go to one of those small pockets, okay, a place like that, you're gonna see a lot of big families.
You go to a place like, if anyone's familiar with Front Royal, Virginia.
Okay, you go there, yeah, anywhere you go, every family has 14 kids, at a minimum.
But outside of that, I don't know what people are talking about.
Most places you go, there's not a lot of kids, and the reason is that the average family You know, we are below replacement level.
We are an old country, and we are getting older.
And that's part of the reason why, far from kids being included too much, our problem is the opposite.
You know, we make most things adult-oriented when they shouldn't be.
We're actually, it's not that we're including kids too much, we're taking things away from kids that should be theirs.
We've got generations of adults now who are clinging on to the things of childhood that should belong to kids, but they're clinging and they won't let go of them, and they drag them with them into middle age.
I'll never forget the time when someone complained, not to me, but in my presence, that they were at, I don't remember what it was, some superhero movie, maybe Captain America or something, And they complained that there were too many kids in the movie.
And it's like, it's a superhero movie.
It's for kids.
You nerd.
That's what it's for.
It exists for kids.
You're the one who's intruding, if anything.
I'm just waiting for the day when I hear someone leaving a Chuck E. Cheese and going, man, fun place, but way too many kids.
I mean, can't a fella just play in the ball pit without kids all over the place?
Can't a guy slide down the plastic slide with a juice box without kids being all over the place?
That's what you all sound like, because it's just as absurd to complain about kids at a bar and restaurant.
These are classic family places, and you're complaining about it.
Because I guess you don't want to see any families.
I think some of you watched Children of Men and thought that it was an instruction manual.
You watched Children of Men and didn't realize that it's supposed to be a horrifying dystopia.
So you saw it exactly the opposite, right?
That was a world where no one's having kids anymore, and at the end there's like one girl who's pregnant and, you know, they protect her from the bad guys and she has a kid.
You watched that movie and you thought it had a sad ending.
You thought it was like a happy movie that's sad at the very end.
But that's not the case.
You should not be excited for a future like that, where there are no kids and no families and everybody is old and depressed and dying.
That's not good.
We don't want that.
Although, yeah, I guess in a world like that, you can go to Applebee's and you're not going to have any kids bothering you.
So maybe that's the positive.
Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially with all the rain we've been getting here in Nashville.
But that's why I am grateful to have my Windshield WOW.
Windshield WOW is an innovative windshield cleaning device that uses two magnetic cleaning paddles, one on the outside, one on the inside of your car, to clean both sides of your windshield, all from the outside.
Being able to clean both the front and the inside window at the same time is a game changer.
Wish I had one of these years ago.
Windshield WOW applies firm cleaning pressure.
It's super thin to get into those tight dashboard areas.
Seriously, all you got to do is push around the outside paddle and the inside falls automatically Leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
What's awesome about Windshield WOW is how easy it is to throw these in the back of your car.
Think about how much we're in our cars from daily commutes, road trips, bird droppings, tree sap, and more.
Windshield WOW is always here to save the day.
Washing your car windshield enhances visibility, driving safety, and helps preserve the integrity of your vehicle's glass and paintwork.
It's a simple yet essential aspect of car maintenance that should not be overlooked.
What are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com.
Use code WALSH at checkout for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com.
Use code Walsh.
Thursday night, join the Daily Wire backstage as Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan,
the God King himself, Jeremy Boring, and myself watch and react to the 2024 State of the Union
live on Daily Wire+. I'm so excited. I could not wait to watch and talk about the State of the Union.
I have so many things to say about it.
We'll be breaking down the State of the Union as it happens, and of course, answering your questions.
An experience you won't find anywhere else.
Watch it all live, Thursday night at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern on the Daily Wire app and dailywire.com.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
By the way, before we get into the Daily Cancellation, we do have a fact check.
A fact check.
In fact, it's a good thing, though.
We were talking about the director of LGBT Affairs, who was arrested for being, you know, an a-hole to the cops.
And I was wondering, this was supposedly a woman with a husband, and I thought, well, that's, this is distressing.
This is not representative at all.
This is someone who's not in the LGBT community, who's the head of LGBT Affairs.
Well, turns out, I've now been informed, this news has come across my desk, the news has come across my desk, that Selena Morrison, the LGBT Affairs Director, is trans, is actually, is a man, right?
Selena Morrison is a man who's pretending to be a woman.
And so, if you were concerned about that, as I was, That the Office of LGBT Affairs in Philadelphia is not representative.
You don't have to be concerned about that.
That is all fine, and we can all go about our days.
All right.
We've talked about reparations quite a few times on this show, and very often during this particular segment of the show.
And I wish there was a subject that we could move past, but the race hustlers, of course, will not allow it.
That is, you might say, that the single objective of the race hustlers is to make sure that we never move past anything.
And so, to that end, New York is the latest state to take up the cause of reparations.
A few days ago, the governor, Kathy Hochul, announced her appointments to the so-called Community Commission on Reparations Remedies.
The announcement came in a press release, which said the following, quote, The Commission, formed through legislation signed in December 2023, acknowledges the horrific injustice of slavery and is tasked with examining the legacy of slavery, subsequent discrimination against people of African descent, and the impact these forces continue to have in the present day.
As Americans, we have a solemn responsibility to reckon with our history, and that includes understanding the painful legacy of slavery in New York, Governor Hockel said.
We've assembled an extraordinary group of high-quality individuals to serve on the new commission and will review their final recommendations.
Today's announcement is an important step toward addressing the legacy of slavery and its impact on present-day realities, according to Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado.
Through the work of this commission, our state can lead in what should be a national conversation about the truth of our past and the healing work required to create a more just future.
Yes, well that's what we need most of all, isn't it?
A national conversation about all the bad things that happened in this country hundreds of years ago.
Now you might think that...
We've already had that conversation.
You might think that we've been having that conversation for years.
You might think that we talk about our historical sins more than any country in the world or history has ever talked about their historical sins.
You might think that our national self-esteem has sunk into subterranean levels and there's absolutely nothing to be gained by continuing to talk incessantly and exclusively about all of the terrible atrocities, whether real or imagined, that our ancestors inflicted on one another.
You might think that Our problem isn't our lack of focus on our flaws, but rather that we don't focus on anything but our flaws.
You might think of all that, but that's because you are a normal, emotionally stable, psychologically well-adjusted person.
Unfortunately, our country is not run by people like you.
It's run by sadomasochistic lunatics, and that's how you end up with reparations commissions.
And the good news, as we covered a few weeks ago, is that These commissions rarely lead to anything real or substantive.
For example, in San Francisco, the African American Reparations Advisory Committee had their own powwow, a term that would no doubt offend them deeply, which is why I used it.
And as a result, they recommended, if you recall, Cash payments to black residents of the city, but so far those payments have not materialized That's probably because they demanded five million dollars apiece in addition to a six-figure yearly income to every black person in San Francisco and The total cost of that measure would be about a hundred billion dollars Which is nearly ten times the city's annual budget in order to pay for it you assume they would have to 10x their tax revenue which would of course
Bankrupt every resident who isn't already homeless and living in a tent on the sidewalk.
Now personally, I would probably enjoy seeing this proposal put into practice in San Francisco.
Just let them put themselves out of their misery and embrace the final ruination of their city and community through this crazy brain, you know, harebrained scheme.
But the mayor isn't quite insane enough to go along with it, so it hasn't happened.
And instead, in lieu of making every black person in the city an instant Powerball winner, the city voted last week instead to just issue an apology.
Watch.
Well, we all know how powerful an apology can be.
Today, San Francisco supervisors may take another step towards formally apologizing to the city's African-American people for policies that hurt them or held them back.
NBC Bay Area's Chris Sanchez joins us with the vote the supervisors will take up.
Laura, this has been in the works for a while now, and the recommendation from the Reparations Committee is unanimous.
We expect that the supervisors will approve and move forward with that formal apology, which as it's written, reads in part, On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors offers its deepest apologies to all African Americans and their descendants who came to San Francisco and were victims of systemic and structural discrimination, institutionalized racism, targeted acts of violence, and atrocities.
And be it further resolved that the City and County of San Francisco commit to non-repetition of the policies and practices which caused these harms, commit to the restoration for the ways that racism has caused insult to black humanity and manifested in both visible and invisible trauma through the means of compensation restoration and rehabilitation and commit to making substantial ongoing systemic and programmatic investments in black communities to address historical and present harms
Well, that ought to do it.
Now we can all move on.
I have to say, although this apology is pointless and stupid, I do deeply appreciate the humor of it.
The race hustlers wanted $5 million a piece, and instead they got a two-paragraph apology.
It's like promising your wife a trip to a tropical island for your anniversary, but instead you just give her a postcard with a picture of a tropical island on it.
And, you know, I don't know, they say it's the thought that counts, but in practice, That rarely turns out to be the case, which is why, as you might expect, this apology has not been entirely well-received.
Reading now from Fox News, quote, A reparations expert says that San Francisco's apology to black residents won't mean anything if it's not backed with actions.
Reparations are the redemptive act that makes the rhetoric of an apology meaningful.
Reparations scholar Roy Brooks, a law professor at the University of San Diego, told USA Today, You can't just sit, say you're sorry, and walk away, Brooks added, telling USA Today that, quote, an apology alone was not sufficient.
San Francisco voted Tuesday to formally apologize to black residents after decades of institutional racism.
All 11 of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors signed on as sponsors of the resolution to apologize for the city's complicity in systemic and structural discrimination.
Although the city officials voted unanimously to formalize an apology, some slammed the measure before it passed as insufficient due to other reparations being put on hold due to budget issues.
Reverend Amos C. Brown, a member of the San Francisco Reparations Advisory Committee and the official who proposed for the city to formally pass the apology, also said it's not enough.
An apology is just cotton candy rhetoric, Brown said.
What we need is concrete actions.
Concrete actions, says the Reverend.
Namely, one specific concrete action, and that is the action of putting cold, hard cash into the Reverend's pocket.
This is how you know that someone has been sincerely and genuinely harmed.
You know, when you apologize to them and they say, no, it's not enough, nothing will ever heal my wounds, nothing but a briefcase with $5 million in cash.
So, there's one thing that can heal my wounds, it turns out, but it has to be exactly $5 million, not $3 million or $4 million.
I will accept more than $5 million, however, if you want.
Yes, these are the words of a truly aggrieved and traumatized people.
And speaking of which, as New York and San Francisco figure out the reparations puzzle, another viral video on the subject attempts to debunk objections to the reparations scheme.
And let's see how well this person does.
Watch.
Here's how most white people respond to the idea of reparations for African Americans.
No one alive today was ever enslaved, and no one alive today was ever a slave owner.
This is ridiculous.
We're not giving away free money just based on race.
Every culture has some form of slavery.
But every white person who is alive today is still benefiting from the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery, and every black person who is alive today is still being negatively impacted By the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery.
It's not giving away free money to people based on their race.
It's an overdue debt that has been owed for hundreds of years that has yet to be paid.
Other cultures did not have chattel slavery where people were born into slavery in perpetuity with no way to get out of it and by no fault of their own and then terrorized.
It's not only about chattel slavery, it's also about the white supremacist domestic terrorism against black people that has been happening for hundreds of years and it's still happening.
It's still happening today.
Reparations are for chattel slavery, yes, and also for the government-sanctioned violence, displacement, dehumanization, criminalization, and marginalization of black people ever since chattel slavery ended.
Period.
Got it?
Good.
She's very proud of herself, you can tell, but she shouldn't be proud of that shirt with the spiky shoulder pads.
It's like something a Star Trek villain would wear.
She should ask for reparations from whoever sold her that shirt.
I'm not equipped to give fashion advice, of course, but it looks like doorknobs on her shoulders.
Why?
I don't get it.
Anyway, as we know, everything she says in the video is false.
It's not true that chattel slavery was unique to the Western world.
This form of slavery existed all over the world, was practiced by non-white cultures for thousands of years.
This is just the kind of thing that if I didn't already have zero faith in the education system, I would find this very troubling.
Anyone could think this, let alone so many people think that chattel slavery was some sort of unique thing in the West.
It wasn't, although arguably the category of chattel slavery as distinct from other kinds of slavery is somewhat incoherent anyway.
I mean, all slaves were chattel by definition.
Chattel is property, and a slave was a person treated as property.
Any form of slavery where the slave was not property Was not slavery.
So if it was slavery, then it was chattel slavery.
And slavery, the use and exploitation of human beings as property, was the norm across the world for millennia.
Africans certainly, without a doubt, practiced chattel slavery.
They practice it against each other.
They practice it against whites and other outsiders.
That's a fact that cannot be denied by any historically literate person, which is why it is so often denied by so many people these days, because historical literacy is at an all-time low.
This is a point we've covered many times, of course.
If we're going to hand out reparations, given the ubiquity of slavery across the world for so many centuries, then we should by all rights have 30 different reparations programs to cover everyone whose ancestors were negatively impacted by it, which would be basically everyone.
If it's true that people can be owed restitution for the legacy of harm that impacts them in unspecified and unknowable ways today, then again, reparations should come in many forms.
But of course, You know, when you think about it, you realize that, indeed, the reparations mentality does come in many forms.
The basic idea behind reparations is that a person is owed something from society because of the theoretical disadvantages that they experience.
Slavery reparations is just one manifestation of that spiritual sickness.
There are many other manifestations of it.
Indeed, our culture and our politics is driven by this mentality.
So, just yesterday we talked about programs in cities across the country that give no-strings-attached cash payments to disadvantaged people.
Cash payments that, as we read, are often used on spa treatments and fancy vacations and that sort of thing.
And this was not, you know, framed as slavery reparations, but it's basically a form of reparations.
We're giving people money that they didn't earn because, for some reason, in some way that no one can explain, they are owed it.
Again, this is pervasive.
You might say that so-called student loan forgiveness is a kind of reparations for college students.
The same logic applies.
Money is taken from those who earned it, given to those who did not, on the logic that the recipients are owed restitution, that they deserve it, because of how deeply they've suffered from, in this case, their own reckless financial decisions.
And it's this same kind of logic that lies behind all of the special laws and special protections afforded to certain demographic groups and not others.
These are all the poison fruits that grow from the same root system.
This is a general psychosis that infects the entire country.
People are obsessed with what they think they are owed.
They walk around keeping tally of all the disadvantages they experience.
Disadvantages that prove to be imaginary most of the time, and then they demand that those disadvantages be rectified.
Now, if you go up to a person like this, And you ask them to tell you about their goals, about their ambitions, about their deepest longings.
And if you ask them that, they probably wouldn't be able to answer the question.
They wouldn't be able to tell you what their goals are, what they want to accomplish.
But if you ask them to list all of the ways that their lives are unfair, well, they'll provide a detailed accounting.
I mean, they'll talk your ear off.
Then it's like, how much time do you have?
You know, I could tell you for six hours about that.
That's because they are motivated almost entirely by these resentments, by these feelings of personal injury.
It's what drives them.
Drives them in circles, to be specific.
And this is the worst thing about reparations in all of its forms.
It's not that the schemes are always economically suicidal, though they are.
It's rather that they feed and encourage a mentality that dooms people to lives of discontentment and envy.
It leads to a passive life.
A life spent waiting for someone else to come along and give you what you think you are owed.
When in reality, you're not owed anything at all.
Nobody is in debt to you simply because you exist.
And they exist.
Society doesn't owe you anything.
The universe doesn't owe you, or care about you, or know you exist.
Reality itself is indifferent to you.
Your feelings of being owed are just that, they're feelings.
They have no relevance outside of your own silly little head.
Now, all that to say, Does that mean that you haven't been negatively impacted by things that have happened to you, and even things that happened to your ancestors generations ago?
No, it doesn't mean that.
Indeed, bad things have happened to you.
If you're a person, there have been bad things that have happened to you.
And bad things happened to your ancestors, whoever you are, and whoever your ancestors were.
And some of those bad things may even reverberate today.
I don't deny that.
I don't deny that if something terrible happened to your ancestor 150 years ago, it's quite possible that that set off a chain of events and that you are still in some way experiencing the repercussions of that.
That could be the case.
If your great-great-grandfather was a wealthy tycoon instead of a slave, it's possible you'd be in a better place today than you currently are.
Or not.
I mean, it's impossible to know.
But regardless, your history is what it is, or was what it was, we should say.
If things were different, you could be in a better place, you could be in a worse place.
As we've covered before, you could not even exist at all.
It's just a thought exercise, and it's not a very helpful or useful one.
And when this thought exercise becomes the animating force of your entire life, when this idea that you could have it better if only this and that thing hadn't happened in the past, then it becomes incredibly harmful.
Because it's preventing you from living actively and proactively.
If you want to make your life better, then go make it better.
Stop waiting for someone else to do it for you.
That's the only productive way to live.
And it's why reparations, in all of its many diverse forms, is today cancelled.
