Ep. 1336 - NYC Locks Good Samaritans In Prison, Then Wonders Where All The Good Samaritans Have Gone
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, women are being randomly assaulted by scumbags in New York City. Now city leaders are wondering why good Samaritans aren't stepping up to defend these victims. Well that's probably because those same leaders had the good samaritans sent to prison. Also, Glenn Youngkin vetoes a bill that would have allowed the retail sale of marijuana in Virginia. This was the right call and I'll explain why. Also, one of the hens on the View calls a black guest a "charlatan" for saying that society should be colorblind. And in our Daily Cancellation, governor Gregg Abbott signs an executive order calling for punishment of "antisemitic rhetoric" on college campuses. I'll explain why that is a horrible, un-American idea.
Ep.1336
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Episode 2 of The Divided States of Biden on DW+ : https://bit.ly/4aqs6fn
Shop Jeremy’s Razors deals here: https://bit.ly/3vl8c6M
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Windshield WOW - Exclusive Discount for my Listeners! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. http://www.WindshieldWOW.com
BetOnline - Use code "Walsh" to receive a 50% instant deposit bonus of up to $1,000 at http://www.betonline.ag
PragerU - Have your donation TRIPLED at http://www.PragerU.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, women are being randomly assaulted by scumbags in New York City.
Now city leaders are wondering why Good Samaritans aren't stepping up to defend these victims.
Well, that's probably because those same leaders had the Good Samaritans thrown in prison.
Also, Glenn Youngkin vetoes a bill that would have allowed the retail sale of marijuana in Virginia.
This was the right call.
I'll explain why.
Also, one of the hens on the view calls a black guest a charlatan for saying that society should be colorblind.
And in our daily cancellation, Governor Greg Abbott signs an executive order calling for punishment of anti-Semitic rhetoric on college campuses.
I'll explain why that is a horrible, not to mention un-American, idea.
all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Keeping windshields clean is always a pain, especially with all the rain we get
That's why I'm so grateful to have 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 a 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, And it's super thin to get into all those tight dashboard areas.
All you got to do is push around the outside paddle and the inside follows automatically, leaving your windshield squeaky clean.
Washing your car windshield not only helps to keep you safe on the road, but also helps preserve the integrity of your vehicle's glass and paintwork.
It's a simple yet essential aspect of car maintenance that shouldn't be overlooked.
What are you waiting for?
Go to windshieldwow.com, use code WALSH to check out for a special discount.
That's windshieldwow.com, code WALSH.
One of the big milestones in a child's development is when he learns the principle of cause and effect.
And if you're a parent, you probably know that this typically happens at around 8 months.
So, for example, a child might splash his hands in water and realize that, as a result of that decision, he now has water all over his face.
And then, based on that result, he might decide to continue splashing water or to stop doing it, depending on how entertaining he finds the idea of splashing water everywhere.
Now, this is not exactly higher-order thinking.
You don't get to put a gifted and talented bumper sticker on your car when this happens.
It comes naturally to all of us at a very young age.
And all that makes the curious case of Amanda Farias both fascinating and highly confusing at the same time.
Amanda Farias is a majority leader of the New York City Council.
She's a relatively powerful person in the largest city in the United States, and at 34 years old, She is not an infant.
She's an adult woman whose brain stopped growing a long time ago.
And that means, to all outward appearances, Amanda should have no problem understanding the idea that actions have consequences.
But yesterday, Amanda made it clear that, in fact, she struggles very mightily with this basic concept.
In response to the news that many women are now getting attacked in broad daylight in New York City, Amanda posted this on social media.
She wrote, quote, Where are the men calling this out?
So she's totally bewildered, she's confused.
How is it possible Amanda Farias wants to know that women are getting sucker punched all over New York and no men are standing up to protect them?
Why aren't there any men chasing down these deranged attackers and, oh, I don't know, subduing them by pinning them to the ground?
Where have all the good Samaritans gone to apprehend these dangerous and unhinged vagrants with extensive criminal records?
Now that might not be a totally unreasonable question.
Except that less than one year ago, Amanda publicly called for the criminal prosecution of one such Good Samaritan, a man who defended an entire subway car against a dangerous and unhinged vagrant with an extensive criminal record.
And that Good Samaritan's name, you probably recall, was Daniel Penny.
And here's what Amanda Farias said about that case at the time, and again, that was just a year ago.
She wrote, quote, I continue to be heartbroken and outraged by the death of Jordan Neely and the lack of justice.
The NYC Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus stands together to demand justice for Jordan and to pay attention to the systems that failed him so we do not lose any more Black New Yorkers to senseless violence.
Now, of course, Amanda got her wish after that statement.
In fact, precisely one day after she called for Daniel Penney to face justice for defending that subway car, he was arrested on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide.
If you wanted to discourage all men in the city of New York from ever standing up to a violent thug ever again, it's hard to think of a better way to do it.
So now, because of the principle of cause and effect, there are apparently very few men in New York City who are standing up for women who are getting punched in the face.
Now, Amanda can't see the connection, but it's pretty clear, I think, to those of us with functioning brain cells.
And just for good measure, it's worth noting that Amanda has also called for defunding the police.
So, she wants a much smaller police force that prioritizes arresting people who exercise the right of self-defense, basically.
How's that working out?
Well, here's a snapshot of what's happening right now in New York as a result of this.
You guys, I was literally just walking and a man came up and punched me in the face!
Oh my god, it hurts so bad.
I can't even talk.
Literally I fell to the ground and now this giant goose egg is forming and I'm like... Just got punched in the face walking home.
I was literally like leaving class.
I turned the corner and I was looking down and I was looking at my phone and like texting and then out of nowhere this man just came up And hit me in the face?
I literally just got punched by some man on the sidewalk.
He goes, sorry, and then punches me in the head.
As I was crossing the street, a man looked at me and within a split second pointed two fingers at me in a gun symbol and then slammed a bag, plastic bag, full of God knows what down on my face from about a foot away and I fell into the ground.
Now, one of the women that you just saw was allegedly attacked in Manhattan around 10 a.m.
by a 40-year-old man who goes by the name Skiboki Stora, who has since been arrested.
We don't know who attacked the other women.
According to the NYPD, this is the third time that Stora has been arrested in just the past six months.
And all of those times, he was released on the streets almost immediately.
Now, that's not because Stora was a Marine and an upstanding member of the community like Daniel Penny.
Instead, for years, Storra has been posting videos complaining about white people and harassing everybody he sees.
And mostly, he seems to go after women in public.
So here's just a handful of Storra's recent videos, which somehow didn't result in his permanent incarceration, even though he posted all of them publicly.
Watch.
Slow down.
What you in a rush for?
What you in a rush for?
Pay attention so you won't walk into people.
Can you stop?
Look, hell no.
Look at this.
Look at her hair.
Look at this.
This is the only type of black people that the white people don't like to hang with.
It's black girls that don't do their hair.
That's the only way that these white people speak to them.
That's the only way they deals with them when they don't do their hair.
I'm running for governor.
I know that's right.
Okay?
Keep it up.
I don't feel safe right now.
I went all the way on the other side.
Democrats.
He followed me and started recording me.
Democrats.
I pushed the camera out of my face and that's when he started hitting me.
You crazy.
And he hit multiple times.
Yeah, okay.
And by the way, not only was he not arrested and taken off the streets completely, but
apparently he wasn't even banned from social media, despite posting video after video of
him harassing people, that didn't get him even banned.
As you can see, Stora has a lot in common with Jordan Neely.
He has a long and well-documented history of disregarding social norms and harassing people in public.
And nobody did anything about it, even after he committed several crimes.
But Stora isn't the only person attacking women with impunity, of course.
This is now a common occurrence in New York.
I mean, getting punched in the face by random vagrants is now part of the New York experience, basically.
Watch.
It is a random, unprovoked, vicious attack on a 57-year-old woman in Brooklyn.
Watch as the suspect ignores another man walking nearby, then punches the woman in her face, causing her to stumble backwards.
What happened?
Why are you hitting me?
Why are you hitting me?
I was bleeding a lot.
I'm so scared, I'm so afraid.
Dulce Pichardo was on the receiving end of that punch.
Her mouth now wired shut, her face fractured in several places, drinking food out of a straw for six weeks, permanent damage to her lower lip, three teeth knocked out, and she might need surgery.
In this Eyewitness News exclusive, Pichardo says he didn't say a word, just stared at her, then broke her jaw.
He hit me very, very strong over here.
And he break everything here.
Everything's break.
It happened yesterday around 5 p.m.
on Grand Avenue near Dean Street.
Pichardo is a school bus aide and was returning from work, just steps away from home when she was slugged.
Her brother owns a restaurant across the street from where she lives.
He and this employee chased the suspect down.
Johan Flores says he was still standing there.
When they confronted him, he denied attacking Pichardo.
Cold and emotionless.
They followed him for several blocks and stopped him from fleeing until police arrived.
Cops arrested 33-year-old Franz Judy.
The suspect was charged with misdemeanor assault, meaning he's not bail eligible.
He'll be released back onto the street.
Released back onto the street, of course.
So, in this case, a man did step up to help the woman because he was related to her.
Otherwise, presumably, this guy would have never been caught.
By the way, in case you missed it, there was a Black Lives Matter mural in the background of that report, right where the attack took place.
This is a movement that led to these so-called bail reforms that let this attacker out of jail seven times so he could assault this woman and then get right back out of jail.
Because somehow that's a misdemeanor, to break a woman's jaw.
So this is a movement that's caused a lot of death and destruction in this country, particularly in black communities.
And so it's fitting that BLM was right, you know, in the shot there.
In any event, once again, it's a heinous crime that only an animal would commit, but the Democratic Party, with the help of George Soros, has no problem putting these animals back on the streets so they can commit more heinous crimes.
And sometimes these crimes are more serious than assault, as serious as assault is.
Guy Rivera, the ex-con who allegedly gunned down an NYPD officer this week, was also a repeat offender.
Actually, that's an understatement.
According to the New York Post, he had 21 prior arrests and was found to have a shiv stored in his rectum during the shooting in an apparent anticipation of being sent to jail again.
But instead of being thrown in prison for the rest of his life a long time ago, Guy Rivera was released and released and released and released until he killed a police officer.
So getting back to the cause and effect, the solution here is actually pretty simple.
There aren't that many people committing these crimes.
It's a small number of criminals who are constantly committing crimes.
Because they are incapable of living anywhere outside of a prison.
They are incapable of being functioning members of society.
They have communicated that message to society over and over and over again.
This week, the NYPD's chief of transit put the numbers in context.
He wrote, quote, In calendar year 2023, NYPD cops made over 13,600 arrests in the subway system.
Of these 13,600 arrests, 124 people were arrested five or more times in the subway system in 2023 alone.
When looking further, these 124 people have been arrested over 7,500 times in their lifetimes.
So in case you're curious what your cops are doing, well, they've arrested these people over 7,500 times.
So to restate, of the 13,600 arrests on the NYC subway last year, 124 of the people arrested have been arrested 7,500 other times.
So you could drastically cut down on the crime in New York City if you just sentenced those 124 people to life imprisonment.
The subway would become much faster overnight, that's for sure.
And by the way, these statistics hold up outside of the subway too.
According to the NYPD Police Commissioner, as reported by OutKick, nearly one-third of the city's shoplifting arrests last year involved just 327 people.
Collectively, these same 327 people were arrested, released, and re-arrested more than 6,000 times.
That is more than 18 arrests per person in a single year.
I mean, these are staggering figures.
They boggle the mind.
Now, in a city where the leaders understood cause and effect, the solution is clear.
All you have to do is punish these people, these habitual lawmakers, you put them in prison, and you don't let them out.
That was the point of the three strikes laws, before everybody pretended that they were some grave human rights abuse.
Oh no, we get three strikes, it's a terrible thing.
You know, to put someone away in prison, only allowing people to commit crimes three times, that is cruel and unusual.
We have to let them commit 15 crimes before we put them in jail, and even then we shouldn't.
By the way, that was conservatives, so-called conservatives, who made that same argument as well.
What Soros DAs are doing is giving criminals unlimited strikes.
They're free to re-offend and terrorize the population as much as they want.
Instead of putting these career criminals in prison, the leaders of the city of New York have decided instead to turn their entire city into a prison.
Because, you know, you could put the criminals in prison, or you could make the city itself a prison, and they've decided to go with the latter here.
So they've opted to treat all 8 million residents of New York City as felons.
And to that end, the mayor has just announced that body scanners are coming to the subway.
Watch.
So, Mike has a backpack on.
He has cell phones, wallet, and other electronics in there.
It did not go off.
Alright?
Mike, go through one more time.
Vlad.
Vlad has two cell phones, and he also has a loaded gun, which is a bright gun.
These are the guns that we train with when we practice at the academy.
Go ahead, Mike, or Phil.
That's a real gun, but it doesn't have the firing pin in it.
Scott?
Is that it?
Is that all?
And like Commissioner Gerber said, we're only allowed to search this area.
He had a gun on his right side, a box there.
A box there.
And we were gonna- And like Commissioner Gerber said, we're only allowed to search this area,
investigate this area where the murder took place.
So this is what happens when you can't admit that a small number of people are
committing the crimes.
You have to pretend that an old white office worker from Midtown has the same likelihood of pushing a woman in front of the subway tracks or sucker punching a grandmother or opening fire as anybody else.
But that's not true.
These attacks against women, as they're being called, that are taking place in Manhattan and Brooklyn are not being carried out simply by men, right?
That's what the councilwoman, the media... Men are attacking women, is the way that they put it.
Which is true, but you could be more specific than that.
Because they're actually being carried out, overwhelmingly, by black men.
Nearly 9 out of every 10 assaults in New York City are committed by a black or Hispanic perpetrator, according to IO, which is an account on Twitter that studies crime statistics.
Black men have a per capita homicide rate that's more than 15 times the rate for white men.
Even more than that, for white women, according to statistics pulled by the account Data Hazard.
And these are statistics that, outside of Twitter, mainstream publications don't report on, and that's why I'm citing social media accounts.
But really, you don't need these citations, because anyone looking at these videos can tell the truth.
Black men are committing a wildly disproportionate amount of these violent crimes.
And in particular, it's the same black men, over and over and over again, who are not being put in prison.
Now because this is one group you're not allowed to criticize, New Yorkers are supposed to pretend that everyone in the entire city is equally guilty.
That anybody at all walking down the street might assault you.
There's no way to tell who's more likely than anybody else.
And as they walk through the body scanners and women get punched in the face on the sidewalk, they're supposed to pretend that their real problem is that quote-unquote good men are reluctant to step up.
But Daniel Penny proves why good men are reluctant to step up.
The powers that be are doing everything they can to demoralize and punish the good men.
And then they wonder why there aren't any around anymore.
And it reminds me of the C.S.
Lewis line, we make men without chess and expect of them virtue and enterprise.
We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
Well, politicians like Amanda Farias have spent the last year not only laughing at honor, but punishing it.
And now, predictably, the traitors are in our midst.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
The winner will receive $50,000.
The best part about BetOnline's Bracket Challenge is that even if your bracket is among the top 1,000 winners, you still get to take home some cash.
Experience the thrill of sports betting during March Madness with BetOnline.
Imagine the excitement of watching your favorite team or athlete compete with the added thrill of having a stake in the outcome.
It's a whole new level of exhilaration.
So, while you're watching your favorite team, why not spice things up with a friendly wager?
You might just find that it takes your love of sports to a whole new level.
Go to betonline.ag to place your bets today.
Use promo code WALSH for a 50% instant deposit bonus of up to $1,000.
That's betonline.ag and use promo code WALSH.
BetOnline.
The options are endless.
Okay, so the Daily Wire has the support of Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, vetoed two bills on Thursday that were largely backed by Democrats in the state.
Youngkin released a statement explaining his decision to veto a bill that would allow the retail sale of cannabis, along with a bill that would gradually raise the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour.
The Republican governor cited dangers to Virginians' health and safety, especially for children, as the main reason for vetoing the marijuana bill.
Proposed legislation of retail marijuana in the Commonwealth endangers Virginia's health and safety.
States following this path have seen adverse effects on children's and adolescents' health and safety, increased gang activity and violent crime, significant deterioration in mental health, decreased road safety, and significant costs associated with retail marijuana that far exceed tax revenue.
That was according to Youngkin in a statement.
He spoke with a local news station, further explaining his reasoning, and let's watch a little bit of that.
Today I have vetoed the bill to create a commercial retail market for cannabis.
Cannabis is bad for Virginia.
And in all the other states that have had an extensive retail market, what you see is first, it's terrible for children and adolescents' health and safety.
Massive increases in child poisonings.
Massive increases in adolescent usage.
And of course, when you combine that with the fact that the potency of cannabis today is dangerous.
It drives mental health challenges and mental health sickness to the point of psychosis.
There's also been a systematic increase in these states in violent crime.
Of course, the black market doesn't go away.
I mean, in California, the legal retail market only accounts for 10% of the entire cannabis market, and therefore gang activity escalates and violent crime increases.
And that's on top of the fact that you see traffic accidents and fatalities increase over 70% in marijuana-related accidents.
And then finally, you couple this with the reality that the overall costs through the system in order to address the social requirements of this retail market far outweigh the tax receipts.
And in fact, a study in Colorado So the governor is exactly correct, even if he is standing in front of an oddly fake looking green screen.
I don't know what the thought process was there.
But he's absolutely right.
That about sums it up.
Marijuana is bad for Virginia.
It's bad for any state.
It's bad for every state that's legalized or decriminalized it.
And this is the point with marijuana.
It is harmful.
And the pothead activists who've gone around shouting for years that pot doesn't have any negative health effects were lying.
They were lying the whole time.
Or they were just high and they didn't realize that what they were saying wasn't true.
Maybe it's some combination of the two.
But it's a lie.
Of course it has negative effects.
There's tons of research out there now.
And the research in particular About its link with psychosis is especially interesting and especially terrifying.
And that's the kind of thing that potheads used to scoff at.
I mean, they still do, but nobody takes it seriously anymore.
But you used to be laughed off the stage if you were to say anything about the link between people smoking marijuana and actually losing their minds.
But now it's just a fact.
The link between weed and schizophrenia is especially well established.
So we know about that.
We know about the bad health effects.
We know about the dangers of people being under the influence, you know.
We know about all those things.
But, mostly, we now know from experience what happens in society, in a community, when weed becomes legal, acceptable, and accessible everywhere.
And what happens, first of all, is that a whole lot more people start smoking it.
Right?
So, there's always been this claim that Well, even if you make it illegal, everyone who wants to smoke it's gonna smoke it anyway.
Which, by the way, if that was true, then why do you care so much about making it legal?
Like, if the law has no effect on people's behavior, if you cannot stop people at all from smoking weed by making it illegal, then why were you so desperate to make it legal?
Apparently it doesn't matter anyway.
But no, it turns out that of course, of course when you make something legal, And therefore, at the same time, more accessible, and you take away the penalties, of course more people are going to do it.
I mean, you're always going to have a certain portion of people who will do something anyway, regardless of the consequences, who are especially motivated to go out and, you know, even if it's less accessible, they'll find a way to access it.
That's always been the case.
But the more accessible you make it, the more people do it, and the more you take away legal consequences, the more people do it.
Obviously.
Obviously.
And so that's what's happened.
And we know that as people do it more often and they do it more openly, this precipitates a rise in crime rates, a decline in the quality of life for everybody in the community.
And we've all seen this.
We don't have to speculate anymore.
We don't have to talk about what we think will happen.
We've seen it happen.
This is why I always go back to the question, has the legalization of weed in any city Made that city better.
And I know you might ask, well, what do you mean by better?
That's a, that's kind of a subjective.
More livable.
Like a better place to live for anybody.
Has it solved any problem?
Has it helped anything?
Like give me a thing that has been helped.
Give me a, show me a city where they've legalized weed and something about that city, something tangible, improved.
Show me that you can't, because it has not made anywhere a better place to live.
There's no example of that.
And because it always works the other way.
It works the opposite way.
And we all know it.
Like, having everybody walk around stoned all the time has made everything worse.
It has improved nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
It has created problems and solved none, so it's bad.
It's a bad idea.
If you're going to do something that is guaranteed to make nothing better while making a lot of things worse, then you shouldn't do it.
It's really that simple.
What else is there to even say about it?
And this, by the way, is why I changed my mind on it personally.
I was debating this yesterday on Twitter, as you know, where all the very fruitful debates happen.
And somebody pulled the, you know, one of my favorite moves where they go and they dig through, they say, let me see, this is what you're saying on this topic now, but let me see if you've always said this exact thing.
And someone went and they scandalously discovered that back in 2018, I sent a tweet out where I was advocating for legalizing marijuana.
And the thing is, you didn't have to go search through my tweet.
You could just ask me and I'll tell you that, yeah, that used to be my position.
I've said that on the show.
I used to be in favor of legalizing marijuana.
I did.
I was.
I was wrong.
I changed my mind.
You're allowed to do that.
You know, just because you don't have to, if you say something now, you don't have to say exactly that same thing forever until you die.
Not only are you allowed To process new information and change your opinion.
But you should!
You should be open to new information and your opinion should be open to change depending on that new information.
And so that's what happened with legalizing marijuana.
I was kind of, you know, I was never like militant about it.
And it's not something that I personally want to engage in.
But I was generally persuaded by, you know, the arguments people made in favor of it.
And what changed my mind?
Well, it was really no argument that anybody made on the other side.
It's that I saw in practice what happens.
So I heard all the arguments from the weed advocates saying, you know, we can legalize it and here's what's going to be the result.
Foolishly, I believe that argument, and then we did legalize it, and then I look and say, oh, well, none of that happened.
In fact, everything that the prohibitionists said would happen did happen, and none of the positive results that the advocates promised panned out.
And so of course I changed my position.
Everybody should.
It's not even a valid position anymore to be in favor of weed legalization, because we've all seen it in front of our faces, what happens.
Um, and, and there's really nothing else to say about it, which is why you'll then get a bunch of cliched slogans shouted at you by the potheads.
Um, and just using this as an example, you know, mentioning the debate, uh, I was having yesterday and someone tweeted this.
I mean, this, I'm just using this again because this is, this is like, this is, It's like running down all of the most cliched arguments.
Somebody said bad call alcohol and cigarettes are far worse.
God created it being weed It hasn't killed anybody veterans need it for ptsd, etc
Democrat made it illegal decades ago. Joe biden is against it and thinks it's a gateway drug prohibition is unconstitutional.
Okay Now i'm using this as an example because this is the
classic rundown of pro-weed arguments that you hear all the time
And it's pretty much always, like, every tweet that anyone puts out or posts or anything in favor of weed legalization, it's always that.
It's like some variation, they might mix it around a little bit, but it's always just that.
And what are the problems with these arguments?
Well, first of all, there are many substances that exist in the natural world that you're
not supposed to put in your body, okay?
So this God created it stuff, it's the dumbest.
Even back when I found the pro weed argument, legalization argument persuasive, I was never
persuaded by that because it's so stupid.
Like that doesn't, but God created it, so therefore it's automatically a good idea to
light it on fire and inhale it.
There are a whole lot of things God has created that you should not light on fire and inhale.
There are a lot of things God has created that you should not consume in any form.
Okay?
If you're lost in the woods one day and you're starving, okay, it would not be a good idea to just stumble, without any prior knowledge, to stumble across some kind of a bush with berries and say, well, God created these berries so they must be okay.
God created it.
You know, that's an assumption that if you make that assumption enough times, you will definitely die.
Because God has created a lot of poison berries.
He's created a lot of poisonous things in the world that you're not supposed to consume.
So, the God created line is, it's true, like God did create, well, I mean, he created the plant, right, that is used to create this drug, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to consume.
As for alcohol and cigarettes, even if alcohol and cigarettes are worse, that still doesn't mean that weed should be legal, because all you've done by that logic is add to the problem And saying that it hasn't killed anyone is just false.
It ignores, for one thing, the deaths caused by people under the influence.
It, again, ignores all the volumes of research about all the negative health side effects and everything else.
And there's one other point that I want to make that came up last night on this thing about alcohol and tobacco products.
Again, even if I agree that alcohol and tobacco products are just as bad or worse, that's not an argument for legalizing yet another bad thing.
It's sort of like, you know, if I was morbidly obese, But I didn't drink alcohol.
And then you said, well, you're already obese, you might as well be a binge drinker too.
Well, that logic doesn't make any sense.
That only makes sense in a kind of defeatist, suicidal sense.
That's a, I mean, quite literally a suicidal argument when you're saying, well, these other bad things are happening, so let's just add another bad thing.
Let's give up, basically.
That doesn't make sense, but also alcohol and tobacco are part of American culture.
Okay, going back to the beginning of this country, that's one of the reasons why any effort to totally ban them has not been successful.
Because it's just, it's an ingrained part of American culture.
Tobacco in particular has helped to build this country from the very beginning.
And so did alcohol.
Now I'm not saying that this is a definitive reason to not ban them, but it is a reason to not ban them.
And it's a pretty good one, actually.
Tradition matters.
History matters.
Those are part of our culture.
Marijuana historically is not.
Now somebody brought up that Native Americans smoked, and so it is part of American heritage.
And, you know, I think it's true that Indian tribes had marijuana.
Now, I could be wrong, I haven't done a lot of research on this because I don't care that much, but I think that it was introduced, I don't think that they had it, you know, prior to contact with the new world.
As far as I'm aware, marijuana was introduced to the native tribes in the 15th and 16th centuries.
But even if it wasn't marijuana, you know, the Native tribes, they smoked peyote.
They had other kinds of drugs with hallucinogenic properties.
The shamans, the witch doctors, they were always tripping on something, right?
So it is probably true that the, even if it wasn't exactly marijuana, it's probably true that the drug habits of Native American tribes are closer to the drug habits of Americans today.
Like, there's a similarity.
But think about that for a second.
Because native tribes were 5,000 years behind the civilized world.
These people were stuck in the Stone Age.
Literally.
Literally in the Stone Age.
Many of them.
They didn't have the wheel.
They didn't have written language.
Many of them were nomadic.
Not all of them, but many of them were nomadic tribes, hunter-gatherers.
They were extremely primitive, even by 16th century standards.
So the fact that they were also high all the time perhaps should tell us something.
You know, I mean, here's the fact.
We know, we know that a society where people smoke tobacco constantly and drink whiskey from morning to night can also be a highly functional, highly successful society.
We know that.
And we know that because that was our society.
Okay, that was our society in the 20th century when we accomplished all of the things that we accomplished.
We were landing on the moon and winning world wars and doing everything else.
And going from like horse and buggy to the moon landing and beyond.
Well, not beyond, unfortunately, but at least to the moon landing.
So we know that.
The greatest civilizations on Earth, in the history of the Earth, have at least had booze, and lots of it.
The greatest civilizations in the history of the world had booze and people were drunk constantly.
Our own civilization, when it was great, again, had tobacco and booze, and lots of both.
Now, I'm not saying that tobacco and booze made us great exactly, but it did not prevent our greatness.
Like, there is no evidence on a societal scale that having easy access to legal tobacco and booze will precipitate a societal collapse.
There's no evidence of that, because we've seen a society that is like drowning in both of those things, and also caffeine.
Like, nicotine, caffeine, and booze.
America has run on those things, even more than, you know, run on Dunkin's, but also the booze and the tobacco.
So we've seen that.
But, so we know that.
What about a society full of stoners and druggies?
Can that kind of society thrive?
There's no evidence of that.
There has never been a society of people who are drugged out of their mind, stoned.
There's never been a society like that that has thrived.
There are plenty of societies that have engaged, you know, in large part in those sorts of
activities and They live in mud huts. Okay. It's like they struggle to
invent. They don't invent the wheel. Okay, that's what that kind of society looks like
And if we want to end up back there if we want to just decline all the way and take this thing full circle
Then then that's what's gonna happen All right, dailywire has a support
A prominent independent writer was accused on ABC's The View this week of being a pawn for the political right because of his views on race in America.
Coleman Hughes, an author and podcast host, joined the left-wing show on Wednesday to discuss his book, The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America.
Co-host Sonny Hostin said that Hughes' belief that everyone should treat people without regard to race was fundamentally flawed.
All right, so Coleman Hughes was arguing with the hens of the view, and as mentioned, his position is basically that we should have laws and policies that exist and are enforced without reference to race, which is correct.
You know, it's not that we individuals can be colorblind, quote-unquote.
We notice race.
Race is a real thing.
It exists.
We aren't going to pretend it doesn't exist.
We shouldn't.
It's real.
It's a thing.
Why should we pretend we don't see it?
But legally, we're all supposed to be equal under the law, and that's the way it's supposed to work.
No special protections, no special punishments to anyone based on their race, that's the way it's supposed to work.
But Sonny of The View didn't like that, and here's what she said to Coleman Hughes.
Your argument for colorblindness, I think, is something that the right has co-opted.
And so many in the black community, if I'm being honest with you, because I want to be, Believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right, and that you're a charlatan of sorts.
He's not a Republican.
Who am I voting for?
You've said that you're a conservative.
No.
No, you did.
You actually said that in a podcast that you did two weeks ago.
I said I was a conservative?
Yes, you did.
But my question to you, my question to you is, how do you respond to those critics?
Okay, let's give him a little answer.
First thing I want to, I think it's very important.
The quote that you just pointed out about doing something special for the Negro, that's from the book Why We Can't Wait that I just mentioned.
A couple paragraphs later, he lays out exactly what that something special was, and it was the Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, a broad class-based policy.
But he also says you must include race.
No, he didn't he says yes, he does.
Okay.
Well everyone can go everyone should go read the book why we can't wait Let's not get sidetracked by that.
Yeah I'm I don't think I've been co-opted by anyone.
I've only voted twice both for Democrats.
Although I'm an independent I would vote for a Republican probably a non Trump Republican if they were compelling I don't think there's any evidence I've been co-opted by anyone and I think that that's that's an ad hominem tactic people use to not address really the important conversations we're having here and I think it's better and it would be It's better for everyone if we stuck to the topics, rather than make it about me.
It's not about you, but I want to give you the opportunity to respond to the criticism.
That's very nice of her.
I was just giving you the opportunity.
A lot of people say that you're a fraud and a charlatan.
What do you say to that?
I'm just giving you the opportunity.
I thought you would love the opportunity to respond to that charge.
Colman Hughes, very gracious, responded, I think, quite intelligently.
Now if that were me, my response would be, oh yeah, well a lot of people say that you're a dumb bimbo.
How do you respond to that charge?
Sonny, I want to give you the opportunity.
I'm a gracious person.
I want to give you the opportunity to respond to the charge that you are a dumb bimbo with a single-digit IQ.
That's what people are saying, and I've heard people say it.
So what do you say to that?
That would have been my response.
Probably Coleman handled it better.
Before we get into the point about race, I just want to say that I find this style of
argument, this strategy to be incredibly lame and frustrating.
Where someone doesn't engage, does not engage with your ideas, as he points out at the end
there.
But instead dismisses your ideas on the basis that according to them, you're only saying
it because you've been paid off or you're a charlatan or you're a grifter.
This is the laziest kind of argument.
It's not an argument at all.
It is the avoidance of an argument.
And I find this more annoying and even lamer, really, than dismissing someone by calling
them a bigot or a racist or whatever.
And that's very lame and stupid.
You know how I feel about that.
But I think I prefer that over this.
Right?
Because... And maybe this is because it's become so common these days that I find it particularly frustrating.
She uses the term charlatan.
Usually it's grifter that people throw around.
And there are plenty of grifters out there, but it's just everything now is a grift.
You know, the moment you say anything that somebody disagrees with, you're automatically a grifter.
Grifter just means that someone disagrees with you.
Any opinion you have, well, that's a grift.
It's like people are living in a world where not only do they, it's not that they disagree with you, they deny that it's even possible that anyone could have an opinion other than their own.
So therefore, if you have an opinion other than their own, then it must be that you actually agree with them, but you won't say it because you're on some sort of, you're a grift.
You're on the take in some way.
You know, of course, I get this all the time.
I'm accused of being a grifter, no matter what my opinion is about anything.
Like, whatever the issue, whatever I say about any issue, I'm automatically a grifter for saying it.
Even if the opinion is about something totally obscure and unimportant.
Unimportant to most people, but important to me.
Of course, everything I say is important, but... I mean, I've tweeted the most random sorts of opinions about things.
And people will accuse me of... I could say...
You know, as I've said before, my wife has too many throw pillows.
She buys too many throw pillows for the house.
And somebody will go, oh, here you go again with your grift.
There you are on the grift again.
Who paid you to say this?
How much are they paying you over there to say that, Walsh?
No matter what the opinion is, it doesn't matter.
So this is a really stupid approach because it's lazy and just dumb, but also because it's totally irrelevant.
It's beside the point.
Like, anytime you respond to an argument by impugning the motivations and character of the person making the argument, rather than by refuting the argument itself, you've already lost.
Anytime somebody makes a point and your response begins with the words, oh, you're only saying that because, you lost.
Because it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter why they're saying it.
What matters is what they're saying.
Even if the person is a total charlatan fraud, that doesn't make them wrong.
That doesn't make the argument incorrect.
And if the argument is incorrect, then just say that instead.
So back to Coleman Hughes.
Let's say that he's on the take.
Let's say that he's a charlatan grifter.
Let's say that the evil white people all get together for their evil white people meeting, and they call Coleman in.
And they throw a bag of money at his feet, and they tell him that, well, here's your opinion that you're going to have today.
Here it is.
This is your opinion.
Take your bag and get out of here.
Okay, well, let's say that's happening.
So what?
Is he wrong?
Are the opinions wrong?
Are they right or wrong?
That's all that matters.
The weatherman only tells me that it's raining because he's paid to tell me that.
Does that mean that it isn't raining?
I mean, he could be wrong.
Weathermen are wrong all the time.
But is he?
Is he necessarily wrong because he was paid to tell me that?
And in this case, Coleman Hughes is not wrong, obviously.
And there's a reason why Sonny can't explain why he's wrong.
She can't explain her point because she doesn't have one.
He's only saying that we shouldn't give preferential treatment to people based on race.
She's flailing around for a reason to disagree, but it's like, are you saying that we should give preferential treatment to people based on race?
Are you saying that we should be doing that?
Are you saying that we should be intentionally creating disadvantages in the system for people of certain races?
Well, yes, that is what she's saying.
We know that's what she's saying.
But she doesn't want to say that exactly.
So she dances around, as usual.
And the point that Hughes is making in this interview is that when it comes to helping disadvantaged groups, which we should do, we should help people.
Nobody's against helping people.
Now, we shouldn't do it by giving them preferential treatment.
We shouldn't do it by making them more than equal in the eyes of the law.
We shouldn't do it with affirmative action and those sorts of things.
But we should help people by helping them.
Helping people is good.
But the key factor in determining Like, who needs the help the most is socioeconomic.
That's all you really need for that conversation.
A poor white person is just as disadvantaged as a poor black person.
In fact, he's more disadvantaged these days because there are no programs specifically and specially for the poor white guy.
And so you're taking disadvantage and you're creating more of it, in fact, which we should not be doing.
That's his only point.
It's a point that is so obviously correct that in another world at another time, you know, he'd write a book about this and it would sell zero copies because everyone's like, well, of course.
Now, in this case, it's an argument that needs to be made.
Books need to be written about it.
But, you know, it's like so many other things.
I did a whole documentary on a subject that, at a different time and a different day and age, nobody should have to even watch it because it's so obvious what we're talking about and the reality of what we're talking about.
But this is the world we live in now, unfortunately.
Is the future of America doomed?
A majority of Gen Z supports left-wing policies like open borders and socialism.
If we don't reach them and change their minds, the country we know and love will be lost forever.
PragerU is the leading nonprofit when it comes to influencing young people.
Their educational, entertaining, pro-American videos meet young people where they are and open their minds to the truth.
But they need our help.
Go to PragerU.com, make a tax-deductible donation.
Whatever you give right now will be tripled and have three times the impact.
Donate $10, it triples to $30.
Give $100, it triples to $100.
$300.
PragerU is 100% free to everybody with no fees or subscriptions.
They don't rely on ads or clickbait headlines.
Contrary to what the left says, PragerU isn't funded by a handful of billionaires.
It's funded by people just like you.
So to keep making great content, reaching millions and changing minds, PragerU needs our help.
Go to PragerU.com to donate today.
The Divided States of Biden, with Ben Shapiro, has its second episode out, focused on how fentanyl has become America's silent epidemic.
Many know what fentanyl is, but do you know that it's the number one killer of adults age 18 to 49, claiming an average of 295 lives per day?
And the Biden administration is completely silent in the face of this.
In fact, Biden's policies make it easier for fentanyl to be distributed and sold across the country, allowing it to fall into the hands of any American, many of them very young.
Ben Shapiro uncovers the fentanyl crisis in one of the cities most affected in the latest episode of the Divided States of Biden.
Watch The Divided States of Biden Fentanyl America's Silent Epidemic now exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Today we must cancel Governor Greg Abbott of Texas.
Abbott has been impressive recently in his mission to defend the southern border, despite the Biden administration's efforts to prevent him from doing so.
And so I am loathe to cancel him in the midst of that fight, but he has left me no choice.
Here's the report from the ABC affiliate in Austin.
Watch.
The Israel-Hamas war has sparked protests around the world and in Austin.
It's chants like these.
And other incidents at public universities that led Governor Greg Abbott to issue an executive order to fight anti-Semitism on college campuses.
It requires universities to review and update free speech policies, include the definition of anti-Semitism in those policies, and enforce those policies, which could include expulsion.
A move members of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas say could set off a wave of problems.
When the government starts to infringe on protected speech, and when the government starts to practice viewpoint discrimination, that has a trickle-down effect to all sorts of populations.
The governor pointed to a rise in anti-Semitic acts and took aim at two student organizations, including UT's Palestine Solidarity Committee, which has led several protests.
So, the governor naming two specific student-founded organizations As organizations that are practicing hate speech or that are in violation of his order is viewpoint discrimination in a really explicit way.
So, Governor Greg Abbott here has committed the ultimate sin.
He has forced me to agree with a woman from the ACLU with pronouns next to her name.
The ACLU is rarely correct about anything these days, and people with pronouns next to their name are correct even less often than that.
But in this case, they happen to have stumbled on the truth, as Abbott signs an executive order to fight anti-Semitism on college campuses.
And what does fighting anti-Semitism mean?
Well, here's the statement that the governor's office put out this week.
Governor Greg Abbott today issued an executive order to fight the increase in access to anti-Semitism at colleges and universities in Texas and ensure a safe learning environment for Jewish students and all Texans.
Quote, Anti-Semitism is never acceptable in Texas and we will do everything we can to fight it, said Greg Governor Abbott.
The state of Texas stands with Israel and the Jewish community and we must escalate our efforts to protect against anti-Semitism at Texas colleges and universities and across our state.
Across the country, acts of anti-Semitism have grown in number, size, and danger to the Jewish community since Hamas' deadly attack on October 7th.
Texas took immediate action to protect Jewish schools, synagogues, and other key locations.
Many Texas colleges and universities have also acted quickly to condemn anti-Semitism.
But some radical organizations on our campuses engage in acts that have no place in Texas.
Now we must work to ensure that our college campuses are safe spaces for members of the Jewish community.
The Governor's Executive Order requires that all higher education institutions in Texas review their free speech policies to establish appropriate punishments for anti-Semitic rhetoric on college and university campuses, ensure that policies that address the sharp rise of anti-Semitic acts are enforced, and include the definition of anti-Semitism in free speech policies.
So, this is an executive order targeting what he describes as anti-Semitic acts and rhetoric.
In fact, he is ordering colleges in the state to establish appropriate punishments for this rhetoric, which he deems anti-Semitic, and he says explicitly that these offensive statements must be shut down so that college campuses are safe spaces for Jewish people.
Now, I seem to remember Republicans spending the past, I don't know, 10 years complaining about the safe space mentality on college campuses.
And now here we have the Republican governor of Texas issuing an executive order commanding college campuses to be safe spaces.
So we seem to have lost the plot here somewhere along the line.
There are a lot of reasons why governors should not be issuing executive orders to combat anti-Semitism or any other form of bigotry, but I'll focus on just three of those reasons.
First of all, violence, vandalism, threats, and deliberate incitement are already illegal.
Now, some have defended this executive order by arguing that its real intent is to crack down on these, you know, sorts of crimes that are committed against Jewish people.
But again, these are crimes.
They're already illegal.
If they're happening anywhere in Texas, whether on a college campus or not, the state already has all of the authority it needs to arrest and prosecute the culprits.
You don't need to make an illegal thing even more illegal.
You don't need an executive order making it extra illegal.
Just enforce the laws that are already on the books.
So, If, say, somebody is vandalizing a synagogue or assaulting a Jewish person or explicitly calling for violence against Jews, they can already be arrested.
This order will do nothing to stop or punish those crimes because they already have the laws in place to stop or punish those crimes.
And if somehow they didn't have the laws in place, if, let's say, Texas had forgotten to make vandalism or assault illegal, well, the solution would be to pass a law making those violent acts illegal.
But even then, this executive order would be the wrong way to do it.
One, because it's an executive order, not a law.
And two, because it seeks to protect one particular group instead of all groups.
So, vandalism, assault, etc.
They are wrong no matter who they target.
They are equally wrong no matter who they target.
They should be prosecuted with equal vigor regardless of the demographics of the victim.
We do not need laws protecting Jewish people.
We need laws protecting people to include Jews, obviously, and everybody else.
And if we already have those laws, which we do, then we don't need a second law or order making these crimes extra-specially illegal if you commit them against a certain group.
But the real point here has nothing to do with physical crimes.
The real point is the bit about anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Which brings us to the second problem related to the issue that I just raised in the first.
Let's pretend for a moment That we all agreed that so-called hate speech should be banned from universities.
Let's pretend that hateful rhetoric really had no place in Texas or anywhere else, as the governor would say.
Now, I don't agree with this idea, as I'll explain in a moment, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.
Well then, why wouldn't the executive order establish appropriate punishments, quote-unquote, for hateful rhetoric against anyone of any group?
And if, for whatever reason, it was decided that we needed to actually, specifically outline every single group that you cannot say hateful things about, then why are certain groups conspicuously left off the list?
It is rather hard to imagine Greg Abbott ever issuing an executive order calling for punishments for anti-white rhetoric on college campuses, in spite of the fact that anti-whiteism is not only incredibly pervasive on every major university campus in the country, But it's also part of the curriculum.
Students are forced to listen to anti-white screens in the classroom from their professors.
Every hateful thing imaginable has been said on college campuses about white people by staff, by administrators, by professors, let alone also, of course, the students.
Yet, to my knowledge, Greg Abbott has never issued an executive order addressing that.
Why is that?
You could, again, easily kill all these birds with one stone if you just banned all hateful statements against all people, but he doesn't do that.
That doesn't happen anywhere.
Instead, certain groups are singled out for protections, while certain groups are given no special protections at all.
Third, I make that last point, as I said, for the sake of argument.
My actual position is that there should not be any hate speech laws or policies at all.
I reject hate speech as a concept, as a category.
Hate speech, if it's anything, is simply speech that expresses hate.
And some speech does express hate.
But what I reject is the idea that any governmental authority should ever be in the business of trying to read the mind of a speaker and determine whether there was hatred behind it, and then punish the statement based on their own interpretation of the emotional state of the person who made the statement.
I reject that completely.
I also reject the idea that any form of rhetoric At all should be banned or punished on college campuses.
Threats and incitements are already illegal, as we've established.
So putting those aside, we are left with opinions, claims, ideas, exhortations, declarations.
And as for those, even if they're wrong, even if they're baseless, even if they're offensive, even if they are, yes, hateful, they should not be banned or punished, and they certainly should not be the subject of an executive order from the governor's office.
We cannot pretend to care in the slightest bit about free speech if we are banning speech on the basis that it's hateful towards protected groups.
This is not just an infringement on free speech, it is the total eradication of free speech.
Because, after all, The only kind of speech that really needs legal protection in the first place is the speech that is deemed hateful and inappropriate by the powers that be.
Speech that is pleasant and uncontroversial and friendly and gentle.
That doesn't need to be protected.
I mean, you could live in a country with no free speech.
You could live in North Korea.
You could be locked up in a communist prison camp and you'd still be able to say all those sorts of things.
So when a person in power says, you have free speech, unless it's speech that I find to be really inappropriate personally, that's another way of saying that you don't have free speech.
And this point, I would think, is obvious.
Now, I don't know exactly what sort of speech the governor considers anti-Semitic.
That's a big part of the problem here, because what we know is that any popularly used label for any particular form of bigotry is in a constant state of expansion.
So bigotry labels, they're like the universe.
Their boundaries expand and expand and expand until they become as broad and all-encompassing as the universe itself.
That's reason enough why you can't ban speech on this basis.
Any speech At all.
Could be included in the label because the labels are so broad and so subjective.
But let's narrow the scope here just for a moment.
Because in reality, to be anti-semitic is to hate Jewish people because they are Jews.
That's what anti-semitism is.
Everything that is not that is not anti-semitism.
You could say a lot of other things about Jewish people that you could make a lot of other statements that are incorrect.
You could even say things that are offensive.
But unless they express that you hate Jewish people for being Jews, they're not anti-Semitic.
Just like being racist against a particular race means that you hate the members of that race because they are members of that race.
And again, you could say a lot of other things about people of a certain race that maybe are incorrect.
You could even engage in stereotypes.
You could have misapprehensions.
You could have misunderstandings.
You could say a lot of things.
But unless you're expressing that you hate these people because they're members of that race, it is not racist.
Now, I realize this is the narrowest, most limited definition of these terms, and it's also the only coherent and clearly delineated definition.
If you expand it beyond these boundaries, you will quickly find that now there are no real boundaries, and anything can be included.
So, What if somebody says something that is really clearly anti-Semitic?
What if they stand up and they say, this will be the clearest version of all, I hate Jews.
What if they said that?
Well, there's no denying that such a statement is anti-Semitic.
There's no denying that likely statements like that have been made on college campuses.
Should there be an executive order or law prescribing punishments for such expressions?
No, of course not.
If a person hates Jews, they should be allowed to say so, without any legal repercussions.
If they hate black people, if they hate Asians, if they hate gay people, if they hate Christians, if they hate white people, if they hate me, if they hate you, if they hate anyone, for any reason, they should be allowed to say it.
And they are allowed to say it about some of those groups.
They should be allowed to say it about any of them.
Because you know what?
People can feel how they feel, and they can say how they feel.
And if free speech doesn't mean that at least, then it doesn't mean anything.
So, how should we respond to somebody who says such things?
How should we answer a true expression of hate?
Well, through speech.
Fight speech with speech.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
On a college campus, we should be teaching students how to communicate their disagreement and disgust and revulsion through speech of their own.
They shouldn't need a quote-unquote safe space to retreat to.
They shouldn't need the governor to come save them.
If they don't like something that somebody has said, they can say so, and they can explain why.
Now, that's not going to stop the other person from saying it, but that's the way it works in life, or how it should work.
You don't get to control what other people think.
And you don't get to control what other people say.
Unless you're Greg Abbott, apparently, which is why he is today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a blessed Good Friday and a very happy Easter.
