Ep. 1351 - Students Protest As Their School Becomes Infested By Furries
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, students in Utah walked out of class in protest after their school became overrun by furries. The media has been denying that any of this is really happening. But it's real, and the full story is even more bizarre than you think. Also, Joe Biden invented a story about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. Unsurprisingly, he's now being accused of cultural insensitivity for it. And Republicans want to send billions more to Ukraine. We must do this, says the Speaker, because otherwise Putin will march on Europe. And African migrants in New York attend a hearing to complain about the unsatisfactory accommodations.
Ep.1351
- - -
DailyWire+:
Upgrade to your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://bit.ly/3VPYOTo
Watch my new series, Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+ : https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month when you make the switch! https://www.puretalk.com/Walsh
The Ballad of Davy Crockett - Watch The Ballad of Davy Crockett today! https://vmiworldwide.biz/3Tux2dM
Constitution Wealth - Go to http://www.ConstitutionWealth.com/Matt and sign up for a FREE consultation today!
- - -
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, students in Utah walked out of class in protest after their school became overrun by furries.
The media has been denying that any of this is really happening, but it's real and the full story is even more bizarre than you think.
Also, Joe Biden invented a story about his uncle being eaten by cannibals.
Unsurprisingly, he's now being accused of cultural insensitivity for making this story up.
And Republicans want to send billions more to Ukraine.
We must do this, says the speaker, because otherwise Putin will march on Europe.
And African migrants in New York attend a hearing to complain about the unsatisfactory accommodations.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
$20 barely gets you anything these days, but do you know what 20 bucks will get you?
From the cell phone company I use, PureTalk.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
You can switch to Pure Talk and keep the phone and phone number that you currently use, or you can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their U.S.
customer service team can help you join Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes.
Choose to spend your hard-earned money with a wireless company that shares your values, supports our military and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on fake news networks.
Stop spending ridiculous amounts of your on-your-phone plan.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Right now, our listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Let's try to follow the winding contours of this rather bizarre story.
It begins earlier this week with students at Mount Nebo Middle School in Utah staging a walkout in protest of all the furries that administrators have allowed to infest the school.
It began with a petition, which gained over 500 signatures in a few days, calling for the school to start enforcing its dress codes and stop allowing students to come to class dressed in their furry costumes.
And then came the walkout.
Adam Bartholomew is a local commentator in Utah, captured footage of the event and of the kids outside the school, talked to them and asked them what their complaints were.
And let's watch a little bit of that.
So are they wearing a mask every day?
Yes!
But every time they go, they're always just wearing a mask.
But the principal finally stood up and banned those stuff.
But they still wear them every day.
And they don't get in trouble.
The principal doesn't make them get in trouble.
All the principal says is just be kind, be nice.
What's the point of dressing up like a furry?
I don't know.
I think they're so cool that they want attention.
I think they want attention.
So people can come at them and just look at them and think that they're so cool.
Okay.
Are you guys going to be in trouble for walking out of school today?
No.
If we go back on school grounds, we will get in trouble.
As long as we can go on school grounds.
Hopefully not.
We're standing for our rights.
Do your parents know you guys are out here?
Yes!
They attack us!
If they bite us and we just kick them, we get in trouble!
They attack us!
They attack us and we get in trouble.
How else do they attack you guys?
They either bite us, they scratch us, they murder us.
They pounce on us!
They run on all fours and pounce on people.
So, the furries have gone feral, it seems.
They're biting and scratching and pouncing on people.
Some of the students have had enough of this behavior.
They want to go to school at a school, not at a petting zoo, and that's why they walked out.
So that's the story, but then the fact checkers leapt into action to throw cold water on this whole story, or to try to do that at least.
Here's the Salt Lake Tribune fact check.
Nebo School District responds to claims about student protests over furries.
A district spokesperson said the protests seemed to be organized after a message sent to families was misinterpreted.
Now, what kind of misinterpretation can lead these students to think that there are a bunch of furries in school when there really aren't, supposedly?
And what could you have said in an email that people would mistranslate as a reference to furries?
Well, let's keep reading.
Quote, video of middle schoolers walking out of a Nebo school district school in Payson on Wednesday quickly spread in conservative social media circles with posts claiming the students were protesting because the district was allowing student furries to terrorize other students.
Nebo school district spokesperson Seth Sorensen said that claim was false.
He also said that students at the middle school are not wearing full-body animal costumes to class as furries, part of a subculture of people who sometimes dress up like animal characters but act like humans, are known to do.
Dismissing the claim, Sorensen said, Wednesday protests seemed to be organized after a message
the school sent to families last week was misinterpreted.
The message was sent after a group of students had been targeting another group of students,
saying things that were overheard by others that the administrators felt were inappropriate and shouldn't be
said.
Sorenson said, the group of students being targeted, he added, were students who sometimes come to school wearing headbands that may have ears on them.
He said he doesn't think the targeted students necessarily refer to themselves as furries.
So, the spokesman says that there are no furries.
I guess the kids are lying or somehow confused.
There aren't any furries, but there might be some kids wearing animal ears to class for whatever reason.
And those kids, he says, may or may not identify as furries.
It's all a big misunderstanding.
But then he goes on to admit that there have been altercations over people dressing differently, quote-unquote.
Back to the article, it says, in one specific instance, the targeted students were sitting in a corner of the lunchroom, eating as a group of friends, when others began calling them names and throwing food at them because they were dressed differently, Sorenson told the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday, providing more details about the situation.
After word of the altercation spread, the school sent an initial message to families last Friday, stating, quote, We expect all students to be respectful towards each other while we are here at the school.
We hope you will treat others how you would like to be treated.
The message stated, Outstanding behavior might demonstrate curiosity, understanding, patience, and tolerance.
But Sorensen said that he thinks some parents misinterpreted the note, incorrectly taking it as a message that the school was taking the side of a single group, saying, we want you to be this kind of group, but they don't have to be kind to anybody else.
Nobody was taking the side of one group or another.
He said, what we were saying is everyone needs to treat everyone else with respect.
Wait a second here.
He says that the school isn't taking the side of a single group, quote unquote.
But what group are you talking about?
I thought that he said that there weren't any furries at the school.
Which group is he referring to?
I thought the group in question doesn't exist at the school.
So, what's the fact check here?
Is he saying that there are furries at the school, but he's not taking their side?
Because that's a different kind of fact check.
Is he confirming that there are indeed kids coming to school dressed like animals?
This fact check, and the dozens of others published by various outlets over the last couple of days, who have claimed this is all some right-wing conspiracy totally invented, they've made it seem like the reports of furries were pure, unfounded rumor, but that's not quite what you get from the spokesman's own words.
And then there's this, quote, "On Tuesday, the school sent another message to parents trying
to clarify its original note. We have had several parents reach out to us over the past few days
regarding rumors that are being spread about behaviors of a small group of students at our
school. We hope our efforts to clarify misconceptions should be sufficient,
but it seems we still have some misunderstandings."
The note went on to quote the Friday message, and concluded with an acknowledgment of rumored plans of a walkout protest on Wednesday.
Well, there's again a reference to this group of students who, according to the fact-checkers, doesn't exist.
So how can a non-existent group of furries exhibit any behaviors at all, given that they don't exist?
Or do they?
And if they don't exist, then why do we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears kids from that school on camera saying explicitly that their classmates are being permitted to come to class dressed like animals and act like animals too?
Here's a video from a guy named Eric Moutsis with more insight from people who work at the school.
Listen to what he says.
Problem is a substitute teacher from Mount Nebo Middle School contacted me and said, this has been happening for over a year.
And this one is actually really sad and this person needs to be reprimanded.
Rebecca Hunsaker Barney said, this is the school I work at.
I'm embarrassed for the parents that just believed everything their kids told them.
Then staged a protest without even contacting the school to find out what is really happening.
The truth is that a few kids dressed as pets stay to themselves.
They do not do any of these things these kids are reporting.
However, they are constantly picked on and bullied.
So the kids stay to themselves, but what about the video I just got from a concerned parent where this girl acting
like a dog is going after these students?
[Girls screaming]
This gets even better.
Honestly, we had the most wonderful, peaceful day yesterday because most of the troublemakers were out protesting a lie.
Really?
Because that doesn't look like a lie.
The halls were quiet and actually cleaner without them there.
This is a teacher at the school.
This teacher is supposed to look at these kids in the eye, unbiased, and give them grades.
Okay, well that confirms it then.
You know, the furries being in school is not a rumor.
It's not misinformation.
And the left has been denying that this sort of thing is happening for years.
They've claimed that this is all the claims of furries at school and kids coming to school dressed as animals.
They've been saying for years that this is a total right-wing myth, completely made up.
But here you have a teacher who is on the side of the furries, a teacher who doesn't like the kids who were protesting, admitting publicly that, quote, a few kids dress as pets.
And she says that like it's completely normal.
Like she sees no problem with it.
As if it's normal childhood behavior.
I don't know about you, but when I went to school, we had precisely zero kids dressing as pets at school.
What?
Well, she acts like she doesn't have a problem with it, and she doesn't, and that is the problem.
Now, look, we can have debates over dress codes and how strict they could be or should be, but any halfway sane person should agree that the dress code should at least require that every student dress like a human at a minimum.
Dressing as a pet is not something that a child of any age should be doing on a regular basis.
Okay, if my four-year-old at home was dressing like an animal every day, I'd be a little concerned even about that.
That's an unhealthy fixation for a child of any age.
But a middle school-aged child during school hours?
By the way, the same guy, Eric Moutsis, has also obtained these photos of kids at this school dressed in their animal costumes, which you can see here.
So, we've got some kind of velociraptor-lion hybrid thing, and then a bunch of variations of cats, I guess.
I think I see another lizard or maybe there's a dinosaur back there.
Kids are dressing like this at school!
Coming to school in a full-on mask and just walking around the school?
Their parents are letting them leave the house in animal masks?
Well, this is happening.
It has not been debunked.
It is real.
It's a real thing.
But we have not yet gotten to the weirdest part of this story, somehow.
The local ABC affiliate decided to provide context By interviewing a furry in costume and referring to the woman as her fictional character's name during this interview.
Watch.
This is Strudel, a member of the furry fandom.
Though they've been a furry for over a decade, they have their own opinions.
It's crazy that it's escalated to this point where these kids are being so distracting to their peers that their peers want to stage a walkout.
To have the next generation kind of muddy our name and not represent it very well, it is kind of disappointing.
Strudel believes there should be some limits.
Continue doing things you like, continue dressing up, continue making art, but maybe let's keep it outside of school hours.
Yeah, she doesn't want these kids to muddy the name of furries.
They must not sully the reputation of the furries.
They shouldn't do anything that gives the public the impression that people who walk around in animal costumes are, I don't know, weird, bizarre, deranged, mentally unbalanced.
That's according to Strudel, who the reporter refers to as Strudel, while also respecting the non-binary pronouns of the fictional character that the woman in the costume is pretending to be.
Now, you may like to think that this, what you just saw there, is the media's low point.
That's as low as, it cannot get worse than that.
It has finally hit rock bottom.
It cannot possibly get any more embarrassing than that.
But unfortunately, you're wrong.
I mean, there is no bottom, I'm afraid.
Searching for the media's lowest point is like searching for the end of a black hole.
It just keeps going and going, and it gets darker and darker all the while.
Now this, as many of us have warned for years, what you're seeing in this particular school, and it's not the only school by the way, is the result of emphasizing tolerance and acceptance above all.
In fact, you heard it even in that email the school sent home.
The problem as far as they're concerned is not that kids are coming to school dressed as animals, but that other kids are not sufficiently tolerant of it.
And this is the result of that.
And I don't say it's the end result.
It's not the final result.
As I said, there is no end.
There is no finality.
It can always get weirder and more disturbing.
But this is a result.
This is an inevitable stop along the way once you board the crazy train.
And when you start telling people, kids especially, that they can be whatever they want to be, and they can identify as whatever they want to identify as, of course some of them choose to be animals.
Obviously.
And since you've elevated tolerance and personal expression, quote-unquote, as the highest virtues, you now have no way of telling these kids not to behave this way.
I mean, how can you?
They're expressing themselves.
They're being who they feel they are deep inside.
The school can't put a stop to this without backtracking on the entire WOKE program.
That's clearly how they see it.
And they're right.
There's an interesting segment from that ABC Affiliate's written report on this same issue, and the article also quotes Strudel, by the way, and calls her that in the report.
But then it says this.
According to WebMD, a furry is someone who has an interest in animals with human qualities and who sometimes dresses up as a cartoon-like version of an animal.
Quote, I really like the idea of animals that walk and talk, so I'm going to dress up as one as kind of a fun sort of cosplay thing, Strudel said.
WebMD said people are often interested in becoming furries to find a sense of community, though some of the drawbacks they may face are negative stereotypes and social stigmas.
Now, I have no idea why WebMD is being consulted for furry information, but in any event, it implies that the negative stereotypes and social stigmas against this quote-unquote community are wrong.
But they aren't.
I mean, there should be a social stigma attached to walking around in a ridiculous costume.
It is normal for a person to treat such behavior as bizarre and antisocial, because it is bizarre and antisocial behavior.
A lot of what we now refer to as bullying among children, some of it is actually bullying, but a lot of it is really just children acting normal and responding to weird, unhealthy things in a way that conveys that the things are weird and unhealthy.
The schools want to condition children out of that natural, normal response.
They want your child to treat the furry as normal.
And then after treating the furry as normal, eventually to actually see this sort of behavior as normal, and then eventually to become one himself, or something just as or more bizarre.
That is the process.
That's the agenda.
And it's playing out at schools all across the country right now.
Let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
You know, here at The Daily Wire, we are big fans of entertainment content that isn't trying to push a woke
agenda into your living room.
That's why you need to go check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett, a pro-America, pro-family, pro-God, PG-13 action-adventure that fathers and sons can watch together.
In historical fiction from the imagination of writer and director Derek Eslin Purvis, the film explores some of the many myths that helped to create the legend of Davy Crockett.
The story begins in 1815 when Crockett's wife falls deathly ill, leaving his young children to survive on their own.
The American legend must fight his way Back to them across the many perils found in the savage lands of the wild frontier.
This film examines the complex 200-year history of European settlers and Native Americans living side by side as neighbors, long before Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act.
It stands in direct opposition to the genocidal colonization story that Hollywood loves to tell, instead exposing the truth that these two groups traded with each other, intermarried, and yes, sometimes fought, As humans do.
The Ballad of Davy Crockett is in select theaters and available to buy or rent everywhere you buy movies.
If you want to support films that are decent, family-friendly, and push back against Hollywood's anti-American agenda, please support this small independent film.
Click the link in the description and go to check out The Ballad of Davy Crockett now.
Okay, so I was waiting for this.
Yesterday we heard Biden's story that his uncle was eaten by cannibals in Papua New Guinea after being shot down during World War II.
Great story.
Great story.
Completely made up, you know.
Almost certainly false, but like everything else Biden says, false, but also a good story.
I was waiting for the inevitable follow-up where we hear from people who are very troubled by this racist claim about cannibalism.
That's the part we knew was coming, and now we have it.
This is from the Daily Mail.
Outraged Papua New Guinea academics have slammed President Joe Biden for his unacceptable suggestion that his uncle was eaten by cannibals in the country after his plane was shot down during World War II.
Biden implied on two occasions Wednesday that his maternal uncle was eaten by cannibals in Papua New Guinea.
Okay.
Historically, cannibalism has been reported in Papua New Guinea, the Pacific nation that occupies the eastern half of the island of New Guinea.
But local academics say that Biden's categorization of the act is very offensive.
So they're not taking issue with, like, yes, there was cannibalism, but he's portraying the cannibalism in a negative light.
He's making it sound bad, like it's bad to eat people, and that's the problem.
Michael Kabouni, a political science lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea, told The Guardian, cannibalism was previously practiced by some communities in very specific contexts, and that locals, quote, wouldn't just eat any white man that fell from the sky.
Other analysts branded Biden's claims as unsubstantiated and poorly judged, especially during a time in which the U.S.
has been trying to strengthen its ties with Papua New Guinea.
Outraged academics have slammed President Joe Biden, saying it's unacceptable.
Kibuni argued that the Melanesian people, which includes those from Papua New Guinea, are very proud and would be offended by Biden's generalization of cannibalism.
He explained how cannibalism was not practiced due to a lack of food, but instead as a sign of respect In very specific context, such as eating a deceased relative's body to prevent it from decomposing.
So I guess what we're getting from this is if you ever go to Papua New Guinea, make sure they don't respect you.
Because this is bad news.
If you're in Papua New Guinea and anyone ever says to you, no, I really respect you, that's bad.
Get out of there quick.
And I love this because you think at first, That the Papua New Guinea academics are going to deny that people from Papua New Guinea would ever engage in cannibalism, but instead they're saying, well, this is outrageous.
We aren't cannibals all the time.
We won't eat just anyone who falls out of the sky.
We wouldn't have eaten Joe Biden's uncle.
Gross.
We have a much more discerning palate than that.
We're very select.
We don't eat anyone who falls out of the sky.
We eat some of the people who fall out of the sky, but we, you know, we're selective about it.
We cannibalize because we love, is what they're saying.
And I love the, I also love the suggestion that, and in fact you hear this a lot when this issue of cannibalism and primitive tribes comes up.
What you'll hear is that, well, it was totally different because they weren't doing it out of hunger.
But hold on a second, doesn't that make it worse?
If they were staving off starvation and they turned to cannibalism, I would still be opposed to that.
But isn't that, ethically speaking, arguably more justifiable than doing it when you're not even hungry?
Just doing it ritualistically?
So this is not, what is it, the plane crash in the Andes with a soccer team in the 70s that resorted to cannibalism because they were starving to death.
I would think when you have that situation compared to a situation where primitive tribesmen are eating people and they're not even hungry, like there's plenty of other, they've got fish in the sea, they've got plenty of fruits and vegetables, I would think that the latter case is worse, ethically speaking.
But this is a very awkward conversation for these academics, and they don't like it when it comes up, because one thing you notice when you study the history of first contact, when you read the stories of Westerners encountering primitive tribes around the world, And I've read a lot of these kinds of stories from whether it's a North American continent, South American, somewhere in the Pacific Islands, Africa, whatever.
One thing you notice is that cannibalism was actually extremely common in these cultures.
Now, I know for me growing up in school, this is this, you know, the reality of These native cultures wasn't we didn't go into they didn't go into much detail But they certainly made it sound like this sort of thing was very very uncommon.
It almost never happened But but then you read about you realize that no, it's like it was really common cannibalism a very common thing human sacrifice very very common And Western explorers were running into this sort of barbarism all the time Everywhere they went they were running into it And that's very awkward for left-wing academics and leftists in general.
It's a very awkward thing.
And it's awkward for a few reasons.
One is that it makes it a little bit harder to mourn the loss of some of these cultures, to mourn the fact that so many of them were conquered.
It's a little bit harder to mourn that when you look at it and you realize that this was total barbarism that was going on.
But also, since we're talking about context, and you know, when we discuss these historical events and historical people, and especially the interactions between Westerners and these primitive tribes, the academics will always tell us, well, context is key.
We need context.
We need to have context.
We have to have context for the cannibalism that they were engaging in, the human sacrifice.
If they were sacrificing a child, murdering a child, and ripping his heart out, and then eating it, we need context to understand it.
Well, they want context for that, but they never want context for the other side.
They never want any context for the Europeans, the Westerners, and their behavior, and their responses.
We're not supposed to have any context for that.
But what you see is that there is really important context, because Even when Europeans committed atrocities, which sometimes they did, not often, but sometimes they did, even in those circumstances, you see that they were dealing with truly savage and shocking and horrifying behavior.
I mean, they were dealing with things just out of a nightmare, like hellish sights these people were seeing, that you can't even imagine what that must be like.
And that not only made them angry, but it also led them to the conclusion that these people were not exactly equal to them as Europeans.
And it's very, again, very easy for us in the modern day to say, well, that's unacceptable.
The universal equality of man is obvious.
Everyone should see it.
Actually, it's not obvious.
You've been raised with that doctrine, so it's obvious to you.
But it is a doctrine, and it's a relatively modern one.
Not relatively, it's a very modern doctrine.
And for most of human history, it was not obvious to anyone.
In fact, it never even occurred to anyone for thousands of years that all people are equal in some sort of spiritual sense.
It just didn't occur to anyone from any culture.
They never would have said that.
And so you've got these Europeans who, they don't have that, right?
They don't have that framework that we all have.
We're all born and we're told from birth everyone's equal.
Well, these Europeans were not, they were not told that.
They didn't have that framework any more than these other cultures did.
And so they're going around the world and they pull up, they land on some foreign shore and they see naked people run out of the forest engaging in ritualistic cannibalism and human sacrifice.
Is it really hard to understand from their perspective 200 years ago or 300 years ago or longer?
Is it really hard to understand why they might have had trouble recognizing the universal equality of man in those circumstances?
Is it really that difficult in context?
And if we can give context to actual cannibalistic acts and acts of pure savagery and butchery, if we can give context to that, then why can't we give context to this?
Has always been my question.
Anyway, but still, Joe Biden made all that up, so that was originally the topic I ventured away from a little bit.
Okay, CBS News reports, Washington, House Republicans' leadership on Wednesday unveiled a legislative text for three bills that are part of a complicated plan by Speaker Mike Johnson to get aid to U.S.
allies while addressing concerns from conservatives.
The three bills would provide $26.4 billion to support Israel, $60.8 billion to bolster Ukraine, and $8.1 billion to counter China in the Indo-Pacific, including billions for Taiwan.
The Israel bill also includes more than 9.1 billion dollars to address humanitarian needs,
which Democrats said was necessary for their support.
So this is the the the aid package that they've come up with.
And do you remember back when Republicans kicked Kevin McCarthy to the curb?
And I said at the time on the show that this was probably now when it was initially announced, I didn't know anything about Mike Johnson.
Most people didn't.
And then but but very quickly, you start learning about him.
And once I learned a little bit about him, I said that, well, this is probably at best a lateral move.
And there's no reason to think that this guy is any better.
And, well, here you go.
I mean, Exhibit A. Actually, this is not Exhibit A. There have been many other exhibits.
There were exhibits back before he even became Speaker.
Way before.
As I showed you at the time, Mike Johnson was going around on left-wing outlets back in 2020 during the Floyd riots.
He was going around on left-wing outlets crying about how Floyd was murdered, okay?
And that's all we really need to know about him right there.
That told us the whole story.
And as for the particulars here of this foreign aid package, well, you already know that I oppose foreign aid.
That's always been my view.
It certainly still is, totally and completely.
And the idea that we'd even be having a conversation about foreign aid while our own border is wide open, and our people are being murdered by criminals coming across our border, like the idea that we would be talking about foreign aid at all is just repugnant.
And as far as Ukraine, I mean, I have the same questions I've always had, which is what do we get out of this?
Why are we still doing this?
What actual interest do we have in this conflict?
At this point, two years in, what do we gain from this?
Why don't we just back away and let things work out however they're going to work out?
What's the worst case scenario for us?
Well, Speaker Johnson was on CNN with Jake Tapper, and he tried to explain that.
Let's listen.
I understand what you're doing, breaking up these foreign aid packages, Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, letting the House work its will, and then sending over to the Senate into one bill, whatever passes.
Why didn't you do this months ago?
I mean, Ukraine is desperate for aid.
Yeah, they are.
Well, it takes a long time to socialize and build consensus when you have the smallest majority in U.S.
history, so that's part of it, and it's very practical politics here.
But also, we've had other big lifts in this Congress.
As you know, we had to get the government appropriations bills done, and then we had
to do the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and some pretty heavy measures,
and it was a lot to handle at one time.
Look, we know what the timetable is.
We know the urgency in Ukraine and in Israel, and we are going to stand by Israel, our close
ally and dear friend, and we're going to stand for freedom and make sure that Vladimir Putin
doesn't march through Europe.
These are important responsibilities.
A strong America is good for the entire world.
That's World War II, really, really, the responsibility for the free world has been shifted onto our
shoulders and we accept that role.
We're an exceptional nation.
We're the greatest nation on the planet, and we have to act like it.
We have to project to Putin and Xi and Iran and North Korea and anybody else that we will defend freedom.
It doesn't mean boots on the ground.
We're not the world's policemen, but we're going to do it.
Wow.
Well, good job, Republicans.
Good job again.
I can't say it enough.
Good job, you damned morons.
You brainless jackasses.
You feckless dimwits.
Good job.
You made a big show of kicking out the old speaker, and you end up with this.
At best, at absolute best, it's the same exact thing you had before.
And I think you can make an argument that he's worse.
So what the hell was the point?
What was the point of getting rid of Kevin McCarthy just to end up with this?
And this is, like, everything wrong with the Republican Party, and really the conservative movement more broadly, can be captured in this story, where you had You know, it's just like, we're just doing things.
There's no strategic grand vision.
We're just doing things and trying to capture the headlines for a single news cycle with no concern for how it might play out down the road and what it will lead to and whether this will actually advance what should be our agenda.
And a perfect example of that is, well, let's just kick Kevin McCarthy out.
And the people who ask, well, who are we replacing him with?
Do we know that this person's gonna be better?
Doesn't matter.
We need to get rid of him.
That doesn't matter.
What are you, some kind of lib?
Do you even ask that question?
No, just get rid of him.
Just get rid of him and, okay, what's the plan next?
Well, we don't have a plan.
We'll just get rid of him and see what happens.
The ability to be strategic in the long term is almost non-existent.
I mean, you could probably count on one hand the number of people on the right.
On the right, generally.
I mean, people publicly on the right.
It's easy enough to blame the Republican Party.
I mean, on the right, generally.
The number of people who have shown any capacity to engage in long-term strategy.
It's very few.
And that's of all the public figures, I mean.
And what you normally get from Republican politicians and from the conservative influencers and hosts and media figures and so on, what you usually get is just, let's capture the news cycle for one news cycle.
Let's get a lot of attention.
And that's with no plan beyond that.
And this is how we end up with this.
The word frustrating does not even begin to describe it.
And there are two things that I think that Mike Johnson said there that are just aggressively asinine.
One is that we have to stand for freedom.
America does.
Now, we're used to hearing that, right?
We've been hearing that for 30 years or longer, really.
Stand for freedom.
Well, what does that mean?
In fact, he says it's our burden.
It's our burden to bear.
The responsibility for the freedom, for freedom generally across the globe, is on us as Americans.
Well, what does that mean?
Like, what does that actually mean?
Let's just start with Well, what do you mean freedom?
Like, in what sense?
Okay, we act like that word alone has some clear, objective meaning, when it simply doesn't.
There are plenty of words that we pretend are subjective and ambiguous, but aren't.
But then there are words that really are subjective and pretty ambiguous, and one of them is free, freedom.
Freedom?
In what sense?
Freedom from who?
Freedom to do what?
Freedom to do what, exactly?
So, what does that mean?
Why is that our job?
How have we inherited that?
And let me ask you this, Mike Johnson, how many people in the world right now would you categorize as free By your standard, whatever the hell your standard is.
What are your standards?
Maybe you could tell us that.
You probably can't.
How many people in the world right now are free?
There are 8 billion people on the Earth.
How many are free?
Whatever that means for you.
Are there even a billion?
Are there even 1 billion people who are free out of the 8?
I doubt it.
Let's be very, let's even be generous.
Let's be way too generous and say that, let's say that by some definition of the word freedom, there are 2 billion people on earth who are experiencing it right now.
Again, I think that's totally not true, but that still leaves 6 billion unfree people.
Are we supposed to go to war to free them all?
Are we supposed to be in a constant state of warfare or funding wars all the time, every single day, forever, for eternity?
Until everyone in the world is free?
Even though nobody can even explain what that even means?
Is that the plan?
Are we supposed to be just in a constant state of freeing everybody from everything all the time?
Well, yeah, that is the plan, I guess.
And how has that worked out?
How has that worked out so far?
We've been in the Middle East defending freedom for 25 years.
How many of the countries that we have spread freedom to are actually free right now?
By any reasonable definition of the term.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
That bastion of freedom in Syria, is that what you're talking about?
How did our freedom campaign work out in those countries, huh?
Like, it turns out that if people want to be free, according to whatever definition they use for that term, if they want to be free, they need to fight for it and maintain it themselves.
And if they can't, then they won't be.
And the truth really is that every culture And again, there are plenty of times when this argument of, well, every culture has their own definition, plenty of instances where that argument doesn't apply.
But in this case, it does.
Because every culture really does have their own idea of what freedom even is.
And by the way, there are plenty of cultures that don't value that in the first place.
If you were to talk about freedom, there are plenty of cultures, especially historically, if you were to go, so how much do you value freedom?
They would look at you, they wouldn't even understand the question.
It just, that's not part of their language.
It's not a priority.
Now that might be confusing for us, but that's just, that's, that's our priorities.
And anyway, it doesn't matter.
If that's somebody's priority, then they have to fight for it.
And then Johnson also says that we have to ensure that Putin doesn't march through Europe.
Like he's going to invade all of Europe, and it's going to be... Because, you know, at any time I've expressed skepticism over that claim, and that was the claim they were making two years ago.
The fact that they're still making that claim two years later is just ridiculous.
But it was ridiculous at the time.
It was ridiculous two years ago.
Now it's just even more so.
Of course, anytime I've expressed skepticism about that, I'm always told, well, that's what people said about Hitler.
World War II and Hitler.
Can I just tell you something?
For any moron out there who doesn't understand this, not everything in the world is World War II, okay?
World War II was a particular historical event.
Adolf Hitler was a particular historical figure in a certain historical context.
Not everything that happens is analogous to that.
Just because it's the only historical event that you are vaguely familiar with, it doesn't mean that everything that happens is an analogy to that, okay?
Vladimir Putin is not Hitler.
There's basically no comparison between the people individually, between the historical circumstances, nothing.
And the idea that he's just going to march on Europe at some point, and what, take over so that all of Europe, Western Europe, is going to be Russia?
Is that really?
Really?
What are the chances of that actually happening?
Give me a percentage point.
Let's say the United States pulls out completely.
We pull our money out.
We pull everything out.
We're not involved.
What do you think the percentage chance is that at some point in the near or even distant future, Europe is... You look at a map and it just all says Russia across all of Europe.
What are the chances of that?
I think there are people out there stupid enough to say, oh, it's probably like a 75% chance.
How about like a .00000000001% chance?
Like, put it right around there somewhere?
I mean, the chances of that, I mean, the only reason I can't say it's 0% chance is because, like, there's a chance anything could happen, and there's a chance the moon could explode tomorrow.
Our gaseous moon that's actually a planet, according to Sheila Jackson, could explode tomorrow.
So anything could happen, but the chances of that are exceedingly low.
And even if there is some sort of way vanishingly small chance of that happening, can Europe not defend itself?
Can these countries, are they that impotent that they can't even defend themselves?
We were hearing for years that Putin is dying, he's got cancer, he's old and frail, and that's what they were all saying, that's what the media was saying.
What, and you can't handle this old, frail guy dying of cancer according to you?
You can't handle him?
They can't even make up their minds.
Like, one minute Putin is a threat to the safety and security of the entire globe, the next minute he's an old, shriveled old clown that we can laugh at.
They can't even make up their mind about which piece of propaganda they're going with, so they vacillate between the two.
I find it all quite repulsive.
All right.
Finally, I'll briefly mention this.
Daily Beast has this report.
Things got physical when a group of climate protesters clashed with other event goers at a gala hosted by Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, on Thursday.
Several activists were pushed off stage and fell on top of one another while resisting attempts by the event attendees to remove them.
Mikowski was giving a speech at the Bryce Harlow Foundation's awards ceremony when she was suddenly interrupted by about 10 to 12 climate protesters who rushed the stage and took over, according to a source.
Climate Defiance is the group, and they were the ones who posted a video of the scuffle on social media.
Here's the video.
Okay, and that's climate defiance, and they posted this caption.
Okay, and that's climate defiance and they posted this caption, says breaking.
We just shut down a gala honoring USA.
Senator Lisa Murkowski.
Murkowski is a murderer.
She incinerates us to enrich her cronies.
As Chevron's top lobbyists gave her an award, we stepped in and stopped the ceremony.
Respect us or expect us.
Look, not a lot to say here.
Other than incinerates us, okay?
Lisa Murkowski.
Lisa Murkowski is incinerating them.
Now, imagine walking around every day believing that you're being incinerated.
You walk outside on a sunny day, it's a little bit warm, and most people are saying, oh wow, it's beautiful out there today.
But you're screaming in pain, I'm being incinerated!
Like, dude, it's 78 degrees, okay?
Calm down.
I mean, you know, I get a little uncomfortable with the hot weather too, but just, let's just turn it down a few notches here.
And, you know, I kind of go back and forth on this.
When I see these climate alarmists and you listen to their, you see their antics and you listen to their screeching and their propaganda, and you ask yourself, is this all performance on their part?
Is this all part of the sort of theater kid contagion?
Where you've got a bunch of just nerds who like to, for fun, they lead lives that are so easy and so comfortable and so, you know, devoid, really, of any kind of struggle or obstacle.
Everything is provided for them and has been their whole lives that they just need to pretend.
They need to pretend like they're in some sort of great drama, like their lives are being threatened.
So is it that?
Is it a performance?
Or do these people really believe that they are currently being slowly roasted to death, as you might be if your plane landed in Papua New Guinea?
Are they being slowly roasted to death by the climate?
A climate that we have somehow caused, and that we can cool down by passing some laws and some policies.
Do they really believe that?
And that's the question.
And I think there probably isn't one answer, and the answer probably changes, and it's probably on a spectrum, as these same people would probably like to say.
But I generally come back to the conclusion that yes, I think this is sincere.
There is some melodrama, there is some performance involved, but the more startling and disturbing Possibility is the one that I think is probably true, which is that they really do think this.
They walk around every day thinking that they are being, that they're being cooked to death by the climate.
They're going to die at any moment.
Which isn't that shocking when you think that this is, you know, this is what kids are told from a very young age.
And they believe it.
And then they act like this.
Well, it's 2024, and if you're still spending your money with woke companies, cut it out.
There are a lot of great companies out there that aren't shoving diversity and inclusion initiatives down the throats of their employees or their customers.
Maybe you're already doing business with some of these, and that's great.
Maybe you're boycotting companies who have made headlines by acquiring the latest trans influencer as their spokesperson.
That's even better.
Have you given much thought to where your money is currently invested?
A lot of big wealth management companies make billions of dollars investing your money however they want, wherever they want, even if that means investing in businesses who don't care about your values.
Align your portfolio with your principles today with my friends at Constitution Wealth.
Constitution Wealth, is the Patriots choice in wealth management.
They'll help you build a solid investment plan while reducing your investments in the ESGs and DEIs, companies that care more about global warming and diversity ratios than they do about the return on your investment.
And with Constitution Wealth, you can start using your shareholder votes to support conservative action.
Fight the culture war with your most valuable weapon, your investments.
Help build the parallel economy by working with an investment firm composed of professionals who are patriots
like you.
If you have $250,000 or more of stock and bond investments and would like to reduce your exposure to woke companies,
go to constitutionwealth.com/mat. That's constitutionwealth.com/mat.
Now it's been two years of fighting the left and building the future with great products, and we're only getting
better.
Jeremy's second-generation razors are here.
Same mission, better razors.
You'll immediately notice the total reconstructed ergonomic handle for superior durability and improved coated stainless steel blades that last longer.
Plus, enjoy more flexibility for a close shave without nicks or cuts.
For those who meticulously craft their masculine look, introducing Jeremy's new Precision 5 razor, completely transformed with a precision trimmer and enhanced comfort thanks to the improved lubrication strip.
Experience an exceptionally smooth and close shave with added durability to withstand those accidental drops.
And if shaving feels more like a chore, meet the brand new Sprint 3 with open blade geometry for a swift, clean shave, allowing you to get back to your manly pursuits in no time.
Razors not made in China.
Razors made right.
Progress that isn't progressive.
Head on over to jeremysrazors.com to upgrade to your new second generation razor today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
In December of 2021, the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul issued what she called a message to the world.
And this was somewhat unusual, because as the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul's job is to deliver messages to New Yorkers.
But on this occasion, she decided to speak to a much larger audience.
And here's what she said.
After reading the poem from the Statue of Liberty, quote, Well, that's what she said, and what followed is exactly what you would expect.
comfort that we could demonstrate as New Yorkers with big hearts and open arms and will provide a safe haven.
We want people to come here despite where they came from.
We'll not only house you, but we will protect you."
Well, that's what she said, and what followed is exactly what you would expect.
More than 10,000 illegals started pouring into New York City every month,
looking for the cloak of comfort that Kathy Hochul offered them.
They took her up on that offer.
And now, as I mentioned before, they're being housed in schools and airports and furniture stores because the shelters, including government-subsidized hotels, are overrun.
Now, there's a very well-rehearsed deflection that you'll hear from Hochul if you bring any of this up.
And this is a reply that local news stations in New York will parrot at every opportunity since, effectively, they work for Kathy Hochul.
Watch.
Governor, I want to ask you about one of the many issues that New Yorkers are facing, and the whole country is, the issue around immigration.
So governors across, mayors across the country, I should say, are pleading for more federal government assistance.
New York alone had 178,000 migrants who came into the state, and there's been issues around housing, schooling, medicine for these people, and it's
draining billions from city budgets.
Now, Mayor Adams has raised the idea of changing sanctuary city laws so that migrants aren't
flocking to major cities.
Do you support this?
And what do you think needs to be done to fix this influx of migration?
Well, first of all, let's just say we are a nation of immigrants.
I'm sitting here because my grandparents were teenagers in Ireland leaving great poverty.
Grandpa started as a migrant farm worker himself in South Dakota in the wheat fields.
They were domestic servants in Chicago until they heard about the promised land of Buffalo, New York.
You could make steel with your hands and get a good-paying union job.
And that's what changed my whole family's history.
Those jobs are here in the state of New York.
Before we ask you some really important questions, I want to know if you would like to do a dentist commercial since you are a governor of New York State, maybe in South Dakota.
The implication here is that America is a nation of immigrants who work hard, like Kathy Hochul's Irish grandparents.
And whatever we do, we shouldn't demonize people who come here and want to work hard.
We shouldn't point out that we're importing the dregs of society into our country right now.
If you speak in platitudes instead, then you'll get applauded by the audience of The View, and you can keep your job running New York into the ground.
What's left unsaid here is that there is, in fact, a very definite difference between the immigrants of old and the new variety that we're importing.
Aside from the fact that these new entrants are all breaking the law in the most flagrant fashion imaginable, but on top of that, immigrants in the old days would come here with a spirit of gratitude and humility, hoping to build a life And in the process, they helped to build the country because they were coming here at a time when the country was not itself completely built.
They did what Kathy Hochul's grandparents did, which is work hard.
But immigrants now are coming to a country already completely settled and built.
These are not pioneers, you know, going out west into the wilderness to establish settlements.
They're coming into something that's already been made, and they're very clearly hoping to benefit from it without necessarily contributing anything to it.
And that's one of the key differences between the old immigrants and the people entering the country right now.
And that difference was on full display this week at New York City's City Hall, which for some reason held a hearing on the experiences of African migrants in the city.
Essentially, this was a hearing on the plight of black illegals who come into the city.
According to city council member Alex Aviles, who organized the hearing, it's important to understand, quote, the experiences of black immigrants and to uproot the anti-blackness that plagues our system of care, And this work requires a city willing to fund our short, mid, and long-term needs.
Over a thousand people showed up, most of them recent arrivals from West Africa.
Many of them were apparently looking for work permits, which they thought would be handed out.
And that's pretty funny when you think about it.
These people come to this country with absolutely no regard for the law.
And the first thing they hear is that Democrats are holding a hearing.
And they immediately assume that they're going to get free stuff at the hearing.
That's the automatic assumption right now for these arrivals.
And they were shocked to learn that actually, in this one instance, they would not be getting free stuff.
Instead, they'd be getting a chance to complain and whine for hours on end.
So, that's what they did.
Here's a representative complaint from one of these people.
Listen.
But at the shelter, the food, my kids cannot eat the food at the shelter.
And on Ramadan time, we couldn't eat because when you come back for the breaks, the food is no good at all.
And on Ramadan time we couldn't eat because when you come back for the breaks, the food
is no good at all.
Food's no good at all.
Wow, what a shame.
She goes on to complain about a bunch of other things besides the food for Ramadan.
She complains that she can't find a school for her kid, as well as the fact that she apparently had to leave a shelter after two months and find another one.
Now it's hard to listen to any of it because the total lack of gratitude and humility is frankly appalling.
These people are demanding everything and not necessarily offering anything in return.
There was not a single moment during this hearing where these West Africans told New York City how they were excited to contribute to the local economy.
They never said how grateful they were to leave a country where the GDP is about 70 times lower than it is in the United States.
Instead, they're complaining about the free cuisine provided by the government.
They're upset about the housing that they're not paying for.
This is a city where many young people, American citizens, okay, cannot afford housing.
But New York City's City Council is not concerned about them.
So instead, we're treated to even more whining.
At one point, these foreigners complained about the lack of adequate translation services.
They also berated New York for being a racist hellhole because the government isn't providing them a translator who understands every dialect that they speak.
They never explained why they traveled thousands of miles to live in this racist hellhole in the first place.
But they did make it clear that they're not happy here and it's not up to their standards.
Watch.
This is a shameful time in New York history.
This city is not friendly for all people.
It is anti-African and xenophobic.
Only in the Congo you have like more than 500 languages.
Swahili is being spoken in Burundi, so I can speak with somebody from Burundi, but I cannot speak Swahili with somebody from Mauritania.
You understand?
In Europe, a Turkish don't talk for a French.
A French don't talk for a Spanish.
So why it is that you would put everybody in Africa in the same bag and thinking that because they speak Asanian, because they speak Puerto, everybody will understand.
You see?
I told you Hakuna Matata, you couldn't understand anything.
You see?
So that's what we need.
We need people that speak the native language to teach to those people.
That's what we're asking the city, and the city refuses to accommodate.
Okay, so leave.
So just, so leave.
This place is xenophobic, it's racist, it's horrible for us.
Okay, we'll leave.
Nobody asked you to come here.
No one invited you, no one asked you to come.
Certainly no one put a gun to your head and told you to come here.
We didn't force you to come.
So, so just leave then.
It's a pretty simple solution.
If you hate it so much, if it's so terrible to you, why are you here?
It's like someone barging into your house and then sitting on your couch and complaining that the couch isn't comfortable.
I don't like this.
This is not my favorite couch.
Okay.
Well, you weren't invited, so you can leave.
This is my couch, not yours.
Go get your own couch.
I don't know.
Yes, how dare New York City not provide 500 different translators for every dialect spoken in just one African country?
You know, in all, there are something like 7,000 languages spoken in the whole world.
And apparently, New York is supposed to have a translator for every single one of them.
If not, they're xenophobic.
This is the level of entitlement that we're dealing with.
And we're getting it from people who are coming from third-world hellholes.
They come here from the third world and then immediately inherit a first-world sense of entitlement.
It's pretty extraordinary, really.
Now, it goes without saying that the Irish immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century did not try to pull any of this.
They didn't have an opportunity to, even if they wanted to.
No one would have indulged any of this nonsense, so they got to work.
They made the economic contributions that Kathy Hochul loves to brag about.
What's uncomfortable for people like Kathy Hochul is that the Irish endured a lot of discrimination along the way, and leftists will claim that they're determined to avoid a similar situation unfolding again.
But no discrimination is necessary to fix what's happening in New York.
All that's necessary is to tell every single person who comes to this country, regardless of their immutable characteristics, that they need to do it legally or get the hell out.
And no matter how they get here, there's no excuse for whining for hours to the city council about all the perks they want to have.
The moment they do that, they should be put on a boat back to where they came from.
If that's discrimination, it's discrimination that's based on behavior, which any functioning society must embrace if it wants to survive.
Now, as far as I can tell, Vicky Palladino was one of the only council members at this hearing who spoke up in any way against this insanity.
At the same time, she didn't really say anything close to what was necessary.
Because what was necessary, what someone needed to say was exactly what I just said, which is, if you don't like it, leave.
Okay, how about a thank you?
How about the first words out of your mouth if you're going to sit there, in our country, at this hearing, and we're inviting you to come and speak.
First words out of your mouth should be, thank you.
Thank you for allowing me to be here.
Thank you for providing all the things that you have provided.
So I would have loved for someone to say that.
Of course, that wasn't going to happen.
Instead, we got this, watch.
But I'd like to say this.
In listening to everybody speak and making demands on New York City to do more, more, more, how much more are we supposed to do?
How much more are we capable of doing?
This system is so overworked and overburdened We don't have the resources that you need to get what you need.
I mean, your testimonies move me tremendously.
I don't want to see anybody mistreated in any sort of way.
But I have to ask you, what motivated you to come here thinking the streets are paved with gold?
They're not.
They're absolutely not.
And you're living through that.
Now, the answer to the question of what made you come here is pretty obvious.
The governor of the state begged them to come.
The federal government suspended the enforcement of immigration law and promised them all kinds of benefits, including work permits and indefinite asylum.
And their country is incredibly poor.
So, I mean, why wouldn't they come here?
That's the thing.
I don't, as annoyed as I am by the entitlement, by the lack of gratitude, by how self-serving it is, I understand self-serving.
I get it.
Any person understands that.
In fact, you know, coming here is a rational choice.
You could argue they're the only rational actors in this whole scenario.
They have every incentive to continue complaining because so far it's worked out pretty well for them.
If they complain, they get what they want.
What's needed now is for New York's leaders to tell these West Africans that they're getting nothing, and then deport them if they're here illegally.
But of course, that will never happen.
Kathy Hochul will never tell the audience of The View that these immigrants are nothing like her grandfather, you know, and that it's an entirely different situation, and that people who come here illegally are, you know, all that.
The audience would not clap like seals if she did that, so she's not going to say that.
So instead, they'll continue to enjoy Kathy Hochul's cloak of comfort, as she calls it, which simply means indefinite access to New York's ever-dwindling treasury.
American citizens will continue to flee New York, and eventually, when New York's Treasury can't afford to give these people anything more, they'll spread out throughout the country.
That's already happening, of course, but it will accelerate in a major way once New York and the rest of the country falls apart.
Because there's one basic common-sense truth here.
If you import the third world en masse, you become the third world.
And once that happens, You won't be in a position to take care of the third world anymore.
And much more importantly, you won't be in a position to take care of yourself.
And that's why the migrants complaining about their accommodations at that hearing are today cancelled.
