Ep. 1360 - Trump Announces Plan To Combat Anti-Whiteism. Anti-White Leftists Panic.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Donald Trump plans to combat anti-white policies in his second term. This is news that has been met with rage on the Left, where anti-whiteism is a forbidden topic. Also, police finally move in and tear down the UCLA protester encampment. This came after the protesters made a list of demands, including meals that are vegan-friendly and gluten-free. Kristi Noem continues to defend herself against charges of puppy murder. And Democrats and Republicans come together in a bipartisan way to craft one of the worst pieces of legislation we've ever seen.
Ep.1360
- - -
DailyWire+:
Introducing Emerson - A Premium Multivitamin for Men: https://bit.ly/3WlNWgs
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
BJU Press - Learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities at http://www.HomeSchoolHelp.com/Walsh
Envita Health - Learn more about their treatment options at http://www.EnvitaHealth.com or http://www.Envita.com
BÆRSkin Hoodie - Get 60% off your BÆRSkin hoodie at http://www.baerskinhoodie.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Donald Trump plans to combat anti-white policies in his second term.
This is news that has been met with rage on the left, where anti-whiteism is a forbidden topic, of course.
Also, police finally move in and tear down the UCLA protester encampment.
This came after the protesters made a list of demands, including meals that are vegan-friendly and gluten-free.
Kristi Noem continues to defend herself against charges of puppy murder.
And Democrats and Republicans come together in a bipartisan way to craft one of the worst pieces of legislation we have ever seen. All of that and more today on the Matt
Wall Show.
I want my kids to be prepared for the future and for them to have the skills
and knowledge to seize the opportunities before them.
Education is a key component of that preparation, which is why my family homeschools and why many other families are choosing to homeschool as well.
If you're currently homeschooling or thinking about homeschooling your kids, I encourage you to check out BJU Press.
BJU Press is dedicated to providing families with educational resources and tools that train students to analyze and think critically about real-world problems.
That's not all.
Their textbooks and resources are rooted in a biblical foundation, bringing all subjects under the ultimate authority of God's Word.
BJU Press not only provides a robust curriculum that is both biblical and academically sound, but also fosters a sense of community.
BJU Press offers a complete line of K-12 textbooks and teacher-supported materials, many of which are available electronically.
Visit homeschoolhelp.com to learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities.
homeschoolhelp.com.
That's homeschoolhelp.com.
One of the biggest questions surrounding a potential second Trump presidency is how exactly it would differ from the first one.
Now, normally presidents don't have to address this question in quite the same way when they're running for a second term.
They can just promise more of the same.
But for Trump, he's obviously been out of office for a few years.
He's one of a handful of presidents in American history seeking a non-consecutive term.
And quite a bit has changed since 2020.
And as even Trump's most devoted supporters would admit, he wasn't able to achieve all of his promises.
In his first four years in office.
So it stands to reason that accomplishing those goals the second time around might require something of a new approach in certain areas.
And on Tuesday we got one of the clearest signs yet that Donald Trump will indeed be taking a new approach concerning one of the biggest problems that this country faces.
And one which directly impacts more than 200 million Americans at every stage of their life.
From schooling to the workplace, to government assistance, healthcare.
I'm talking about anti-whiteism.
Now, this is a word that's more or less verboten, even in conservative circles, unlike, say, anti-Semitism.
But in an interview with Time Magazine this week, Trump confirmed that combating anti-white racism by name
will be one of the key goals of his administration if he wins re-election.
Trump was responding to a question about polls showing that most of his supporters believe correctly
that anti-white racism is a much bigger problem in this country right now than anti-black racism.
And to that, Trump said, quote, "Oh, I think there is a lot to be said about that.
"If you look at the Biden administration, "they're sort of against anybody depending on certain views."
They're against Catholics.
They're against a lot of different people.
They actually don't even know what they're against, but they're against a lot.
But no, I think there's a definite anti-white feeling in this country, and that can't be allowed either.
If you look right now, there's absolutely a bias against white, and that's a problem.
Unfortunately, I can't do a Trump impression or that quote would have been much better.
But you get the point.
And, you know, this really shouldn't have been a significant moment in the presidential race.
It should have had all the significance of a candidate affirming that the sky is blue.
And Trump doesn't even say in that quote that anti-white racism is more prevalent than any other type of racism, though it is.
He doesn't even say that.
Instead, he just says that there is some amount of anti-white sentiment in the country, and that that is also bad.
Like, it's bad to hate everybody for their skin color, including white people.
That's Trump's position.
perfectly rational, reasonable position, should be the position that everybody has.
And there shouldn't be anything notable about it.
But it was a surprising moment, even for Trump supporters, because in his first term, Trump
rarely if ever mentioned the concept of anti-whiteism so explicitly.
I went back and couldn't find any examples of it.
But a couple of years ago, Trump pointed out that the Biden administration was giving preferential
medical treatment to non-white Americans.
And in the past several months, former Trump advisor Stephen Miller has been targeting
anti-white institutions with lawsuits.
And now Trump himself is recognizing the broader problem with anti-whiteism in our culture, which is a very good thing.
Him recognizing it, not the problem that is.
You can tell this moment caught the left by surprise because the mere acknowledgment that anti-whiteism exists was enough to reduce some commentators practically to tears.
Here, for example, was the reaction from Whoopi Goldberg.
Watch.
This is my favorite.
Yeah.
And I'm going to tell you before I say it that it enraged me.
There is a definite anti-white feeling in the country right now.
Oh, please.
That's what he said.
You know, sir.
Sir?
Yeah, sir.
Nobody in your family was hung.
Nobody in your family was chased because of the color of their skin.
How dare you?
There's no anti-white issue here.
You are perpetrating anti-humanist issues here.
Enraged.
She was enraged by the mere mention.
The mere mention that there might be some people who don't like white people and that's not a good thing enraged her.
Nobody in your family was hung, Whoopi Goldberg barks at Donald Trump.
And, you know, by the way, I don't want to get too graphic, but that's one of the few cases where the difference between the words hanged and hung Is actually pretty important, unless Whoopi Goldberg has some kind of intimate knowledge of Trump's family that I'm not aware of.
But anyway, she also claims that Donald Trump is anti-humanist, which makes it clear that she doesn't know what humanism is.
And from context, though, it seems like Whoopi is saying that because no one in Donald Trump's family was lynched, that means, therefore, anti-whiteism can't possibly exist today.
Or maybe she's also implying that white people in general were never lynched, and then she's using that false premise to somehow conclude that anti-whiteism can't possibly exist today.
Whatever your interpretation, it doesn't work.
It doesn't make sense.
Because for one thing, the biggest mass lynching in this country, in this country's history, targeted Italians, who Whoopi Goldberg would presumably classify as white.
White people were not immune from lynchings, in fact.
In fact, according to a document on the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law's website,
tracking lynchings by race from the years 1882 to 1968, there were 1,297 lynchings of
white people during that time.
Now that's fewer than the 3,445 black lynchings, but the point is that you certainly can't
assume that any white person alive today doesn't have a lynching victim in their ancestral
But even if you pretend that that's not true, even if you pretend that lynching has only ever involved black people, it still doesn't remotely address the fact that anti-whiteism is a much bigger problem right now than anti-black racism.
You notice, and this is the way it always goes, she's responding to a comment referring
to what's happening now, and her response automatically goes to the past.
We're not talking about the past, Whoopi, if you can believe it.
We're actually talking about what's happening right now.
So her entire argument is a non-sequitur.
But it's notable that Whoopi Goldberg was so fired up about this, and indeed, many Democrats
Earlier this month, Congressman Cedric Richmond, a co-chair of Biden's campaign, warned that Trump is, quote, making it clear that if he wins in November, he'll turn his racist record into official government policy, gutting programs that give communities of color economic opportunities, and making the lives of black and brown folks harder.
Richmond made those comments in response to an Axios report last month entitled, Trump Allies Plot Anti-Racism Protections for White People.
Imagine that.
Specifically, a new Trump administration would shut down various programs designed to benefit only certain demographic groups.
That includes programs like the $29 billion pandemic-era program that would have awarded money only to women in minority-owned restaurants.
Stephen Miller's group, America First Legal, successfully sued to stop that one.
But there are many more programs like that which a Trump DOJ would shut down.
Hopefully.
That's what he's saying he'll do.
That includes the NFL's Rooney Rule, which mandates interviews with minority coaches, for example, but has no such mandates for white coaches, much less for white players, certainly.
And presumably a second Trump administration would also end the absurd lawsuit against Sheetz for daring to use criminal background checks, which allege that any employer using background checks is automatically racist.
And this potential return to a race-blind government that respects the Constitution And, you know, actually treats everybody equally under the law, regardless of race, which is what is supposed to happen.
That potential greatly infuriates the left, and it greatly infuriated a woman named Jasmine Harris, who directs black media for the Biden-Harris campaign.
Because, yes, they apparently have a segregated media department at the Biden campaign, and they deal with black media, you know, separately.
But here's what she said, quote, This Axios report, in addition to all of the recent examples of shameless racism by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans, serves as a warning to black America.
Donald Trump is a selfish and vindictive man who doesn't give a damn about black people.
He will make our lives worse by using the very laws that the pioneers of the civil rights movement fought for against us.
Now, there's actually an interesting admission buried in that quote, the Biden black media director.
Isn't alleging that Donald Trump is going to do anything illegal.
Instead, she's complaining that he's going to enforce existing civil rights laws, which were supposedly intended to ensure racial equality.
He's going to enforce them equally.
And this is a totally foreign concept to the Biden campaign.
They're essentially admitting that they're discriminating against whites in violation of civil rights laws.
But they're saying those laws just shouldn't be enforced to protect white people who they see, obviously, as second class citizens.
Yesterday afternoon, we saw yet another sign of this attitude.
The Biden campaign's official rapid response page tweeted this clip of Donald Trump, apparently in an effort to make him look bad.
We can assume, I mean, because it's coming from the Biden campaign.
But they just tweeted the clip.
But the clip itself is actually more of an advertisement for the Trump campaign, which we can assume is not how it was intended.
But here it is, watch.
Look at Paris.
Look at London.
They're no longer recognizable.
And I'm going to get myself into a lot of trouble with the folks in Paris and the folks in London, but you know what?
That's the fact.
They are no longer recognizable, and we can't let that happen to our country.
We have incredible culture, tradition.
Nothing wrong with their culture, their tradition.
We can't let that happen here, and I'll never let it happen to the United States of America.
Now, the Biden campaign didn't even comment on that video.
They just posted it, quoting every word Trump said.
And that's because they know everything Trump said is true.
Pretty much all of the population growth in the UK going forward is going to be driven by migration.
That's been the case for the last several years, too.
The unstated result is that fewer white people will live in the UK, which the Biden administration assumes you'll think is a good thing.
That's because, in their view, it's not racist to deliberately diminish white populations.
It's also not racist to violate the civil rights of white people.
In fact, they don't believe that it's possible to be racist against whites in the first place.
This is what underlies all of this, is the assumption, the belief that, well, none of this is racist against whites, because it's not possible to be racist against whites.
I mean, you could put a law in place mandating that all white people be rounded up and killed, and it would not be racist against white people.
That's what they actually believe.
This is an idea that originated in the bowels of left-wing academia and critical race theory, and it's since metastasized to politics.
Here's how one professor in the UK named Pragya Argawal puts it, and see if you can spot the massive flaw in this reasoning.
It's pretty, you know, it's not hard to spot.
Quote, white people can indeed face stereotypical assumptions based on their skin color and hence encounter racial prejudice.
This cannot be called racism because of the inherent systemic imbalance of power between those with lighter skin color and people of color.
Racial prejudice can affect people of an individual level, but it would not have the same effect on a larger social and cultural level because it is only when stereotypes are bolstered by power that it creates systemic and structural racism.
In other words, she's saying that white people You can't be the victims of racism because racism involves power and systemic imbalance, and white people have all the power.
Now, it takes about two seconds to realize that, even on its own terms, this argument makes precisely no sense whatsoever.
The Fortune 500 companies that award preferential treatment to non-white applicants have far more power than their white applicants do, and so do the universities that award black applicants a 500-point boost on their SAT scores.
And the federal government agencies that award financial assistance to various demographic groups on the basis of their race.
In all of these cases, there is prejudice backed by power.
Extraordinary power, actually.
We're talking about academia, the Fortune 500 companies, and the federal government.
Like, what's more powerful than all of those institutions combined?
Or any one of the institutions by themselves?
Well, there's really no point in engaging with critical race theory on the merits, though, because it's not actually meant to convince anyone of anything.
It's intended to be a thin, allegedly scholarly veneer that justifies overt discrimination against millions of Americans.
And the appropriate response to this kind of thinking is not to treat it with any kind of legitimacy whatsoever.
It's to call it what it is.
Anti-white racism.
Or anti-whitism.
That's what Donald Trump has just done.
It's what every Republican should be doing right now.
Talking about anti-whiteism infuriates Democrats because it's been an unstated core part of their policy agenda for several years.
And now, for the first time since Biden took office, it looks like it could be very soon coming to an end.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
For the last 25 years, Envita Medical Centers have been pioneering personalized, cutting-edge treatment programs for patients all over the world.
Envita has been the leader for patients looking for advanced immunotherapy and genetically targeted therapies, all while focusing on fewer side effects and better patient outcomes.
As a global leader in oncology care, Envita is committed to healthcare freedom for all.
Spearheaded a revolution in employer health insurance options, empowering companies to provide their employees with access to not only top doctors, hospitals, and technologists, but also first-of-its-kind nationwide personalized medicine coverage.
Invita is doing all this, plus offering significant tax and cost savings, full transparency, and liberation from the grip of commercial insurance carriers.
Whether you're a patient in need or a company looking to break free of monopolized healthcare insurance, Invita could have the solution for you.
To learn more about their treatment options, visit invita.com or Visit EnvitaHealth.com to learn more about their company insurance programs.
That's Envita spelled E-N-V-I-T-A dot com for treatment options or EnvitaHealth.com to learn more about the company insurance programs.
Okay, back to the campus chaos.
Police finally cleared out the illegal encampment at UCLA last night.
But before that happened, UCLA, like the students at Columbia had the day before, made demands.
Daily Wire has a report, pro-Hamas protesters at UCLA released a list of needs this week as they isolate themselves while living in an encampment that authorities have deemed to be unlawful.
The needs were written in a Google document posted online by the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
We will not leave, said the protesters, in the so-called UCLA Palestine Solidarity Camp.
We will remain here until our demands are met.
Fox News correspondent Bill Mulligan obtained the online document on Wednesday and posted it on X. Included in the list of urgent needs were items that are often used by rioters like Antifa, including airsoft goggles, gas mask respirators, skater helmets, shields, wood for barriers, knee and elbow pads, Rain ponchos, canopies, utility gloves of various sizes, super bright flashlights with strobe, and umbrellas.
But the protesters also demanded medical supplies, including EpiPens, non-steroid inhalers, headlamps, and organizational bins.
And for food, the protesters demanded, quote, hot food for lunch, vegan food, gluten-free food, ice, no packaged food, no coffee, no bagels, no bananas, and no nuts.
Under logistic needs, the agitator said they needed sleeping pads, AA, AAA, C and D batteries, rope, zip ties, electric solar panel, generators, lotion, aquaphor, but no sunscreen.
No sunscreen.
They specifically don't want sunscreen.
I'm not sure I understand that.
Once again, this is all fake.
I mean, these people are incredibly fake.
They posture as revolutionaries and militants conducting some kind of occupation, yet they require hot food.
Hot food with plenty of dietary options for vegans and those with gluten sensitivities.
Along with requiring, of course, lotion, zip ties, knee pads.
Wait a second.
Lotion, zip ties, knee pads.
I don't even want to know.
I don't want to know what they're getting up to.
We can only speculate.
I don't want to speculate.
But this is what they're asking for.
And of course, if these people showed any willingness to experience any actual suffering, any actual deprivation, if they showed any willingness to make any kind of sacrifices whatsoever, then maybe I would at least believe that they are serious and sincere, if also still wrong.
Like, they'd still be wrong.
But I wish that they were at least serious and sincere in their wrongness, okay?
Because it's not the worst thing for a young person to be radically wrong, to just throw themselves totally into something and believe in it completely and be willing to make major sacrifices for it, and yet it turns out that that thing is foolhardy and incorrect.
Young people have been doing that since the dawn of time.
That's not the worst thing.
And in fact I would say if you're a young person, you know, as you get older you want to be able to practice moderation and you start to see, hopefully you start to practice discernment a little bit better.
When you're young and you have ideals and you have principles and you just say, like, I'm going to radically live by these.
And I think that's not a bad thing.
But the problem is, it's like the worst of all worlds for these particular, I'm not going to say every person in Gen Z, because that's not the case, but for the ones like this, it's the worst of all worlds because they're totally wrong.
And on top of that, they're not even bold and honest enough to be authentically radical.
So as we talked about yesterday, it's all this performance.
So they're wrong in a performative way, rather than being wrong in an authentic and truly radical way.
I would prefer that they weren't wrong at all, but if you're going to be wrong in one way or another, then at least be authentic.
And again, if you're willing, I say the same thing with these climate, you know, the climate types, the climate alarmists.
It's like, okay, if you're going to say that the world's coming to an end, that we're killing the planet, all these sorts of things, and then you decide, like, hey, I really believe this, and so I'm going to live according to this, and I'm going to swear off all modern technology, I'm not going to use any modern technology, I'm not going to use electricity, I don't want to contribute to the warming of the planet.
I'm going to live in the woods, I'm going to go live in a cave somewhere, I don't know, and eat berries, and live like John the Baptist, eating locusts and berries.
Now, I think that you're totally wrong, you don't need to go do all that, but I can at least respect that you're being authentic, and you're living according to your principles, and you're totally invested in it, and you're fully bought in, and I can respect that.
But instead, like with the climate activists, they'll go stand in the middle of the street, they'll hold signs, but then they'll just go and live their lives, and do the same things that all of us do, and avail themselves of all the modern technology, and contribute, and they'll have a quote-unquote carbon footprint that's just the same size as the rest of us.
So it's all fake.
It's all completely fake.
These people are total phonies and frauds.
But they were able to continue this performance for a week until finally the police moved in.
BBC has a report about that.
Dozens of protesters were detained and loaded onto buses as police dismantled their week-long protest.
The total arrests were, okay, well, that was 1,000 total arrests for U.S.
campus protests across the country.
I don't think we know exactly how many people were arrested at UCLA.
But they did finally move in.
Again, after a week, after a week, they finally moved in.
And here's what that looked like when they did.
Get back!
[crowd shouting]
-Free the bar! -Bunkeylemon!
-Hey, circle around. -Get back!
-Get back. Get back! -Get back.
-Get back! -Stop it, sorry.
-Get back. Get back! -(police shouting)
-Get back. Get back! -Get back!
-Get back. -Get back!
Get back!
[indistinct shouting]
-Hey, pull the wall!
[indistinct shouting]
-So, you see the dorks standing there with their umbrellas and bicycle helmets.
I mean, just to show you how fake all this is, this is their fortification.
They're defending themselves with bicycle helmets and umbrellas, okay?
And as the police moved in and they cleared the place out and it took not that long.
They could have done it even quicker.
They could have done it within the first 30 minutes of a tent being set up.
And we also know that they could stop any of this from ever happening again, just like
they could stop the climate alarmists from standing in the middle of the road or vandalizing
priceless piece of artwork at an art museum.
They could stop all of that completely just by taking one of those people and throwing them in prison for 10 years.
Like, take one of the people.
Now, I'd like you to see them throw the book at all of the lawbreakers.
But just take one of them.
Take one of them and charge them with every single crime that you legally can, and go for the absolute max, and they get 10, 15 years in prison, and all of this stops.
Forever.
Like, it doesn't happen again.
None of these people, none of these dorks with their umbrellas and bicycle helmets would ever consider risking real prison time for this.
They wouldn't even think about it.
But they operate under the assumption that There won't be any actual consequences, and it turns out that their assumption is usually correct.
So the police cleared it out.
The fortifications didn't hold.
I don't know if you could see it in that video, but these protesters had fortified their encampment with plywood, which they had stacked against pallets.
This was their fortification.
Which, by the way, Again, where did all that stuff come from?
Okay, plywood is not cheap.
Like, they constructed these flimsy walls with plywood and pallets, and each piece of plywood costs, what, 30 bucks or something?
And then the pallets as well?
So, who's paying for that?
Where are they getting it?
Who's shipping it in?
How does this work exactly?
Those are the questions that, you know, it would be nice for someone to ask, but nobody does.
Okay.
Cricket gate or dog gate continues.
Christy Noem was on with Sean Hannity last night responding to all the outrage over her putting her dog down 20 years ago because this is something that people are still talking about and Christy Noem is still talking about.
And so here's what she, this was her way of defending herself again and her decision to kill her dog 20 years ago.
Here's what she said.
Well, Shawn, you know how the fake news works.
They leave out some or most of the facts of a story.
They put the worst spin on it, and that's what's happened in this case.
I hope people really do buy this book and they find out the truth of this story, because the truth of this story is that this was a working dog, and it was not a puppy.
It was a dog that was extremely dangerous.
It had come to us from a family who had found her way too aggressive.
We were her second chance and the day she was put down was a day that she massacred livestock
that were part of our neighbors.
She attacked me and it was a hard decision.
And the reason it's in the book is 'cause this book is filled with tough, challenging decisions
that I've had to make throughout my life.
And I hope that people understand from this that what the point of this story is
is that most politicians, they will run from the truth.
They will shy away and hide from making tough decisions.
I don't do either of those.
I tell the truth and I make tough decisions.
People attacked me during COVID for keeping my state open.
They called me wrong and attacked me night after night on TV for not doing mandates and not forcing people to get vaccines or wear masks.
They're doing it again now with this.
I just hope people will read the book, find out the truth, because this was a dangerous animal.
And I had a choice between keeping my small children and other people safe.
You know, I was shocked when we learned that Joe Biden, and he has a German Shepherd, that when all was said and done, 24 Secret Service agents were bitten by a German Shepherd, by a big dog.
You gotta love Sean Hannity.
I mean, maybe not love him, but I don't.
But I appreciate that he always pivots back to attacking Biden.
I do appreciate it.
He stays on message.
Now, the message is pretty, like, boomer, boomer-con, milquetoast.
It's pretty boomer-con, milquetoast message, but he does stay on it, so he pivots that back to Biden.
You know, the real question is, why hasn't Joe Biden killed his dogs?
That's the question we should be asking.
Which, by the way, it's actually true that if the, what did he say, 24?
Is that what, it was only half paying attention.
Like dozens of Secret Service agents have been bitten by one of the dogs?
I don't think I knew that.
And yes, like, that's a dog that should be put down.
So the whole thing remains the most unnecessary random act of political self-immolation by Kristi Noem that we've ever seen.
And now she's on her book tour talking about the ethics of killing dogs?
Okay, this is, you have major political aspirations, you're on a book tour, and this is what you're discussing?
Because you brought it up.
Now, it would be totally different.
It would be completely different if this is one of those things where she didn't bring it up, but the media went digging, and they talked to some, you know, aggrieved people from her past, and this story came out.
You know, through the media, and now they're attacking her, because, well, you know what Kristi Noem did 20 years ago?
She killed a dog.
If that had happened, then it would completely, politically, of course, it completely changes it entirely.
And then she actually does look good, because she's trying to govern the state, and she's worried about what's important, and she's being bothered by this ridiculous story from 20 years ago.
Then I think she does come out on top but but the problem is if you're defending something you did 20 years ago that you brought up and you told people about Then you don't You don't get to fall back on this is all a big distraction I don't want to talk about this like you don't get to fall back on that because we're only talking about it Because you told us you didn't have to tell us And you told us because it because it was a political calculation you thought it would you thought for some Unknown reason you thought that this would, you thought that American society in the year 2024
Would hear that you killed a dog and would react with anything but pure abject horror.
That's what you thought because you don't understand what time it is and where we're at in society.
Now that said, the version of the story that she's telling in this interview now, if that's the first version of the story that I had heard, Then I would say that it was totally justified to put the dog down, of course.
Now, still very stupid to bring it up politically, you know, but doing it, the act itself would be justified.
Because in this story, she's saying that it was an already aggressive dog that killed not only livestock but attacked her.
She said that she was also concerned, she had reason to be concerned for the safety of her children.
The story in the book, at least as it's being reported by the media, makes it sound like the dog just got a little out of control, got a little rambunctious, let loose on some chickens, and then sort of snipped at her in the midst of the chaos.
And that's one thing.
But this version makes it sound like, based on what she's saying, like this is a much more aggressive animal with a history of aggression, and it attacked her, and her kids were unsafe, and it was killing livestock.
And if that's true, then yeah, well, of course you put it down.
Of course you do.
If you have a dangerous dog that attacks anybody in the family... If my dog attacked anyone in my family, goodbye.
It's done.
An animal attacks somebody in the family, makes someone in the family unsafe, I'm choosing my family member over the animal.
Obviously.
And anyone who has a problem with that is a lunatic whose opinion is worth less than nothing.
So obviously you should put down aggressive, dangerous dogs.
It's just that the original story didn't make it seem like a legitimately aggressive and dangerous dog.
And that might also be because it was misrepresented by the media reporting on it.
But that still is your fault!
Like if you're a politician putting a book out and you're sending excerpts out to the media, You already know.
You're a Republican.
You know they're going to look for any way they can to twist something out of proportion or to misrepresent it.
So you have to know that ahead of time and think about that while you're deciding what to put in your book.
And this is the kind of story that even if they were twisting it, it's your fault they're twisting it because you gave it to them to twist.
What did you think they were going to do with a story like that?
Of course they're going to twist it if it was twisted.
We're left with who cares.
Nobody should care.
It shouldn't matter.
It shouldn't be something we're talking about.
But Kristi Noem decided that she wants to talk about it.
And look, I mean, the truth is that her political career is over because of this.
It really is just done.
Now, that's ridiculous.
Even if it was unjustified, even if euthanizing the dog, let's just say, for the sake of argument, was unjustified, the idea that that would be the end of her political career is insane.
But, again, that is the country we live in.
That's the reality.
And this is going to brand her forever.
And she'll never be able to do an interview ever again without it coming up.
If she was the VP nominee, And there was a vice presidential debate.
This is like the first thing they're going to talk about at the debate.
And it's what the debate, it's, it's, they might move on to other subjects, but in the media, that's going to be what the debate was about.
It's going to be the only clip that circulates.
It's the only thing anybody cares about.
Um, and so for that reason, uh, she, their political career is over and it's, uh, it, it, it's tragic in a certain way that, that You know, this would be the end of her political career when, again, it's something that she offered up and it was so unnecessary and didn't need to be done.
All right.
Daily Wire has this report quickly I want to mention.
Britney Spears' mental health and finances made headlines on Monday when conflicting reports surfaced, one claiming that she's completely dysfunctional and in danger of going broke, and another claiming that the singer's not about to be broke.
A TMZ report sources close to the 42-year-old singer claim that she's burning through all her money with lavish, pricey trips to Hawaii and French Polynesia and is in danger of going broke.
Just two plus years after being released from her 13 plus year conservatorship held by her father, Jamie Spears.
She cannot afford this.
One source says she's had $60 million when the conservatorship ended and she's now where the conservatorship started.
She's in danger of going broke.
However, sources who spoke to Page Six blasted the grossly exaggerated TMZ.
One insider said she has no concept of money for over a decade.
Other people were in charge of her bank accounts, and every purchase had to be reported to the court, even if it was just a pack of gum.
But now she's on her own.
She's not broke, but she definitely could benefit from being more careful with her cash.
So even her defenders are basically their defenses.
Well, she's not going bankrupt that quickly.
So you've got some saying she's going bankrupt and others saying, eh, maybe soon, but not right now.
First of all, it is, like, to blow through $60 million in the span of a couple of years is insane.
You know, you hear people say sometimes, oh, a million dollars isn't what it used to be.
And that's true.
Like, a million dollars compared to if you had a million dollars in 1940, it's not what it used to be.
It's still a lot of money.
It's still a lot of money.
Needless to say.
Going through $60 million in a couple of years is... I mean, you have to try.
You have to try to blow that much money.
If she could relegate herself...
Let's just say, spend $150,000.
Can you stick to spending $150,000 a month?
Just that.
$150,000 a month.
Can you spend, like, three times the national income average a month?
Can you just stick with that?
Because if you do that and you get $60 million, and you're already in your 40s, you'll be set for life.
But even that turns out to be too much.
The main reason I bring this up, though, of course, You know how much I, well I can't say I hate to say it, but in this case I do hate to say it, which is I told you so.
And I hate to say it in this case because Britney Spears, like she's not going to be alive in five years.
Unless something drastically changes.
You know, miracles happen.
People change.
It's possible.
I can't say it's not possible.
But I would...
If I was a betting man, and I was a very crass, morbid betting man, I would put my money on her no longer being with us by the time she turns 45 or 46.
It seems almost certain.
I think everyone sees that.
And this is what, as you may recall, this is what I said at the time when the whole Free Britney movement was very popular, and even people who I thought we're reasonable, rational people.
We're sort of jumping on the bandwagon.
Hashtag Free Britney.
And I said at the time, like, OK, go ahead and free her and she'll be dead.
She is going to die.
She's going to kill herself either directly or through a drug overdose or something, because there's a look.
This is what you have, and I'm as cynical about the court system as anybody is, but even so, the court, they don't put conservatorships on people for no reason.
It takes quite a lot to get a conservatorship.
And also keep in mind that before that, she lost custody of her children, and she's a woman, and she's a celebrity, and she's in the Los Angeles court system.
So, to lose custody of your children as a rich woman in Los Angeles is very difficult.
I mean, you have to be egregiously terrible as a person and a mother to pull that.
You have to be a terrible, awful, dangerous person for the court to go to that extent.
And then on top of that, you're put under a conservatorship where you've been declared unfit to manage your own life.
Again, like those two things, those two things individually, but certainly together, not knowing anything about her or anything, not having any insight into her personal life.
Uh, all I needed to know was that.
That was it.
Oh, she lost custody of her kids and she's like, okay, well, she's crazy.
She's a crazy person and she's dangerous, obviously, because she wouldn't be in that spot.
Without it.
You'll notice there are a lot of people trying to turn this into patriarchy and sexism and all of this.
Well, there are a lot of rich celebrity women out there.
Plenty of them.
And a lot of really kooky ones, too.
And they're not under conservatorships and they haven't lost custody of their children.
So, there's obviously something more going on here.
It's not a patriarchal conspiracy.
There's something more going on.
That when you don't have access, when you can't see behind the scenes, you don't know what's going on in somebody's life, then you have to make assumptions based on what you can see.
And so either you can make assumptions based on what you see from some hashtag campaign that was spurred on by whatever it was, a Netflix documentary or some dumb propaganda documentary.
So you can use that as evidence and draw conclusions.
Or you can use your own brain and look at some of the basic facts of the case.
And you could say, well, OK, it's possible.
It's possible that she's a victim and that she shouldn't be under the conservatorship.
But probably, probably there's a good reason.
And it's probable enough that I wouldn't want to be part of the mob that contributed to her being released to the conservatorship, because when she inevitably dies, I don't want to have to say that I played a part in that.
And unfortunately, it's just the reality that if you were a part of the Free Britney movement, When she ends up dead in a few years, like, you share a little bit of the guilt for that.
You do.
Not being melodramatic about it, but the only reason why she was quote-unquote freed is because of this, because of the outcry from the public.
We all know that.
Without that, it wouldn't have happened.
And so, everybody who was a part of that outcry, you play a part in that.
So, just something to keep in mind.
New York Post has this, says Jeff Goldblum is ready for his kids to get jobs.
The actor, 71, revealed that his children, Charlie, 8, and River, 6, will have to support themselves when they get older.
The Jurassic Park star shares his sons with wife Emily Livingston, 41.
He told iHeart podcast Table for Two with Bruce Boese, quote, hey, you know, you've got to row your own boat.
It's an important thing to teach kids.
I'm not going to do it for you, and you're not going to want me to do it for you.
You've got to figure out how to find out what's wanted and needed and where that intersects with your love and passion and what you can do.
And even if it doesn't, you might have to do it anyway.
So he's saying he's not going to leave his money to his kids.
Goldblum isn't alone with not wanting to leave his fortune to his kids.
Over the years, Guy Fieri, Marie Osmond, and Mick Jagger have publicly said that their money will stay with them.
Rolling Stone musician told the Wall Street Journal in September, the children don't need $500 million to live well.
Come on.
You maybe do some good in the world with his money instead, I think is what he's saying.
One month later, Osmond exclusively told the Post that leaving her children with her inheritance would be harmful.
Okay, so, you know, you hear this kind of thing a lot these days, usually from rich boomers who like to say this and they like to announce this to the world that they're not leaving anything for their kids.
And I have to say that I find it pretty mystifying.
Like, for me, a big part of what drives me is the desire to accrue wealth that I can pass down to my children and grandchildren.
That's a big part of what drives me.
I want my descendants to be secure.
I want them to be wealthy.
You know, if I can see to it that my descendants, who I never even meet, are wealthy because of work that I did, well, that's a great victory.
Like, I won.
That's one of the major ways to win at life, is to leave behind a legacy like that.
That's what you should want to do.
And for most people who've ever lived, that is what they've wanted.
This rich, liberal, boomer mentality of wanting your kids to be more poor than you are is totally backwards.
You should not want your kids to be more poor than you are.
Your kids should not be more poor than you are.
That's not the way it should work.
And it's totally backwards and it would be completely foreign to most people from most cultures in most time periods.
Because historically, there was a great emphasis put on ensuring that your descendants are in a better spot than you, not worse.
Like, if anything, you should want your kids to be richer than you.
That's what you should want.
Now, I'll be the first to preach about the value of hard work and all of that, but if you happen to succeed in life and accrue enough wealth to see to your family's financial security for future generations, well, that's a good thing.
And then you find other ways to introduce work and discipline into their lives.
You don't need to artificially create poverty for your children to be taught that lesson.
And obviously, I know that Jeff Goldblum's kids are not going to be impoverished, but you get the point.
Passing down wealth to your children is what you're supposed to do, if you can.
Dying and giving your money to some nonsense charity, where five cents to every dollar is going to go to someone else's kids, and the rest of it's going to go to the salaries of the executives of the non-profit.
I mean, that is ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
It's a waste.
And here's the other thing.
This is my main problem with it.
If you want to teach your children the value of living a modest life and living a humble life and a simple life, that's great.
So why don't you do that while they're still alive, while you're still alive?
Why don't you do that by living that way yourself?
Why don't you do that?
You're living with your kids, hopefully.
You raised them.
So live that way with them while still having your financial security.
Live in a simple, non-materialistic, humble way.
And they can experience it that way.
And they also see you.
They get the example of you.
As someone who, even though you were wealthy and you had means, you still chose to live in a simple and humble way.
And that is a great lesson.
So then you've taught the lesson.
Now, they could still go on to be rich snobs, and they could still become entitled, elitist, whatever.
Whatever you're worried about them becoming, that could still happen.
But then you've done your job, you know?
But that's not what these rich boomers do.
What they do is they live materialistically.
They live in a self-centered way.
They live luxurious lives.
And then they kind of schedule it so that the lesson in modesty and simplicity starts when they're dead.
So they're going to use all the money that they want, and they're going to blow through it as much as they want for themselves.
But then once they're dead, and it doesn't matter to them anymore, well then, yes, that junior is when the lesson in modesty will start.
Right when I'm, the moment I'm no longer here.
And so, as long as I don't have to take part in the sacrifice, then yes, I think it's a great idea.
That's basically the message, and I think it's, again, completely backwards.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
Whether I'm out on a camping trip or fishing with my family, I'm prepared for anything with my Bearskin Tactical Hoodie.
Unlike most hoodies that are ill-fitting, bulky, uninspiring, and boring, the Bearskin Hoodie is a breath of fresh air.
It's not just about comfort and style.
It's about durability that stands up to anything.
When you drape a Bearskin Hoodie over your shoulders, you'll instantly understand why it's earned its name.
The Bearskin Hoodie is fully adjustable.
You can adjust the waist, arms, and hood to lock in warmth and customize your fit.
Plus, it has 12 pockets, perfect for outdoor activities from when it's a little cold to a full-blown snowstorm.
The hoodie will see you through all four seasons and all the worst weather, while still making you feel comfortably at home anywhere you go.
So go on, discover your bearskin today.
Right now, my listeners will get 60% off their first Bearskin Tactical Hoodie.
About the porn stuff, this law makes watching porn anonymously impossible, so you would have to tell every site who you really are.
If you don't think that's an issue, set all of your videos on age verification and see how many viewers you have left just saying.
I don't know what your point is in this comment.
I wouldn't set age verification on all my videos because I don't produce pornography.
Much to everybody's relief, I don't produce pornography, so no, I would not.
Like, I think AIG verification is a good thing for pornography.
I don't think it's a good thing for every single piece of content that exists on the Internet.
Okay?
I think you should have to verify who you are specifically if you consume porn.
I don't think you should have to verify who you are in order to do anything on the Internet.
So, because not everything is the same.
Okay?
Things are different.
We treat things differently.
Again, just as we do with any other adult-oriented product.
For any other adult-oriented product, there are different rules for obtaining that product than there are if you were obtaining something else.
Okay?
So, if you go to the gas station and you buy a pack of gum, nobody's going to ask for your ID.
And I don't think they should.
I think it would be crazy for there to be a law passed saying that if you want to buy a pack of gum, you've got to show your ID.
That's crazy.
But if you buy a six-pack from the gas station, then you do have to show an ID.
And what you're basically saying is, well, you have to show your ID for one, so why not both?
Well, because they're different things.
That's why.
One is gum and the other is porn.
All right?
Now, to your point about porn, if you age verify, then it won't just keep kids out.
It will also, you know, they'll see a decrease in viewership across the board.
I agree with you there.
He says that, regarding the porn industry, they know that many of their normal customers, not minors, will not want to disclose their personal info to porn sites to be able to watch, purely based on the fact that it's a fairly personal experience.
I figured that was obvious.
Yes, you're right.
That will also happen.
If you have age verification, it will become, these porn sites are going to see, it's going to hit their bottom line.
Number one, because they're losing their child customers.
And they know that they are, right now, catering to those customers, even though it's illegal.
But then they're also going to lose, yeah, there's a certain portion of the audience that will not consume porn, or at least they'll consume it maybe a little bit less often, because they have to give their ID, they have to prove who they are, and it's embarrassing.
But that's not an argument against age verification, that is another bonus!
That is another good thing about it!
Unless you care deeply about smut peddlers making as much money as they can.
Unless that really upsets you.
The idea that, oh jeez, the executives at Pornhub will make a few... Instead of being very, very wealthy, they'll just be very wealthy.
That's terrible.
Is that supposed to be upsetting to us?
Yeah, you know what?
Porn, you call it a personal experience.
That's one way of putting it.
It's a shameful, gross, dirty thing.
It's voyeurism where you're sitting behind a screen and you're watching other people have sex.
It's a gross, dirty, weird thing to do.
Just like it would be to do it in person, right?
And it's not really different substantively.
It's just the fact that the screen is there mediating the experience, it's still the same idea.
And so if you feel sort of embarrassed doing it, well then you should.
That's how you should feel.
And before the invention of internet porn, yeah, there was still pornography.
And you could obtain it if you were an adult.
But it would have been embarrassing.
And you had to be the kind of person who was willing to endure that kind of shame.
And the fact is, before internet porn, like, yeah, you could go, they have an adult shop on the corner, adult shop, and you could go in there and get this kind of material, but most people didn't want to do that, because, you know, it's like, it's gross.
It's emasculating, as a man, to walk into a place like that.
And most people don't want to.
With internet porn, we have artificially sort of numbed that shame instinct, that embarrassment and guilt that people naturally feel.
But here's the thing, if you need to do something anonymously and you simply would not be able to do it with your name attached to it because you'd be far too embarrassed, well that's a pretty good indication that whatever you're doing is shameful.
So, I see all that.
The fact that it hurts the bottom line is a bonus.
The fact that it makes people, it gives people second thought, gives them pause before consuming it, that's a bonus.
The fact that it's embarrassing for people that use porn, all that is, that's all good.
It's all, it's all very good.
Speaking of people stinking, this goes back a couple days, I can't, I can't watch any historical movie without thinking about how badly people must have smelled back then.
What does that relate to?
Oh, we were talking about it a couple days ago.
The experts who say you shouldn't take showers.
Yeah, I have the exact same experience.
This is the whole reason why, if I ever had a time machine, I think I wouldn't use it.
It would be really anti-climatic if anybody ever gave me access to a time machine because I would end up just not using it because I don't want to go in the future.
I don't want to go to the future and see how this all turns out.
I don't want to speed this up.
That's the last thing I want to do.
But I also wouldn't want, as much as I would like to see what happens in the past, I wouldn't want to really go there because primarily for this reason that you bring up is the overwhelming stench.
I wouldn't, I don't want to experience that.
I don't think we quite understand just how bad things must have smelled If you go not that far back in the past, I was thinking about this the other day when I was reading a book, another book, about Cortes and the conquistadors, the Spanish conquerors who vanquished the Aztecs and the Incas.
But the thought occurred to me, because these guys were wearing armor for months on end, marching through jungles and fighting and sweating and bleeding.
Never bathing.
Not once.
For months on end.
Wearing all the armor and everything.
The stench must have just been unthinkable.
So that's a very important point.
Thank you for bringing that up.
Men's health products suck.
They're either too woke, too bro, or were made for your grandpa.
What you need is the new Emerson Multivitamin from Responsible Man.
Responsible Man is a new company from Daily Wire Ventures dedicated to bringing you the best, high-quality men's health products.
Your modern diet is often deficient in key vitamins and minerals, leaving you weakened and diminished, unable to reach your full potential.
That's why we created the Emerson Multivitamin.
The Emerson Multivitam is a physician-formulated, robust supplement made up of 33 key premium ingredients that helps fill nutrient gaps to support your immune system, maintain energy production, sharpen brain cognition, and support the health of your heart and muscles.
Emerson comes in an exceptional matte black aluminum tin.
The manly green vitamin capsules are smooth, easy to take.
Best part, they're mint-essenced for a great smell and taste.
As a man, you have people relying on you, and the world conspires to see you fail.
With so much chaos and uncertainty, it's crucial to take charge of your life and responsibilities, and that starts with the Emerson Multivitamin.
A simple daily discipline to make the most of yourself, live up to your responsibilities, and exceed the expectations of others.
As part of this exclusive Daily Wire launch, you can save 30% off by visiting ResponsibleMan.com.
Emerson Multivitamin is currently in stock.
Ships immediately.
There's a limited number available, so take advantage today and save 30%.
That's ResponsibleMan.com to take responsibility today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Yesterday we discussed at some length the so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
And after that conversation, the bill passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 320.
It won approval from both parties by wide margins, and now it heads over to the Senate, where prominent voices like Tim Scott have already voiced their support for it.
Scott called it a momentous step towards rooting out anti-Semitic hate.
And there was a lot of that sort of celebrating over at the House as well.
Republican Representative Elise Stefanik said that the legislation is an incredibly important step to ensure that Jewish students and community members at American universities feel safe.
One of the Republican sponsors of the bill, Mike Lawler of New York, proclaimed that his bill is a key step in calling out anti-Semitism where it is.
Here is Lawler in Congress explaining why this law is so necessary, allegedly.
Watch.
I rise in support of my bill, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey, for his courage in leading on this issue.
In every generation, the Jewish people have been scapegoated, harassed, evicted from their homeland, and murdered.
Many of us remember the Holocaust as the most recent large-scale instance of this, but it was hardly the first in the Jewish people's long history of persecution.
Prior to October 7th, it may have seemed like we were making progress in fighting anti-Semitism, especially in the United States.
A prime example?
Jewish students weren't afraid to attend classes on their college campuses.
And yet today, we hear calls for intifada ring out on school grounds.
We see Jewish students being physically prevented from going to class.
Rioters chanting, death to Israel, and death to America, and so much more.
In the U.S., Jews account for only 2.4% of the population.
And globally, they make up 0.2% of the world's population.
The Jewish people need our support now.
Now, Mike Lawler's point here is that anti-Semitism is bad.
All the other Republicans and Democrats who supported this bill offered similar justifications.
Democrat co-sponsor Josh Gottheimer covered this same territory during his speech on the floor of the House.
Listen.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, the Antisemitism Awareness Act,
to ensure that we're standing up to the Jew hatred that's spreading like
wildfire on campuses across our country. I'm proud to lead this legislation with
my friend and fellow Problem Solver Caucus member, Congressman Mike Lawler from New York. As we are voting
today, in real time, our country's universities are experiencing a tidal wave of
antisemitism.
Protesters have targeted Jewish students, haranguing them with awful Jew-hating insults and cheering on Hamas, a barbaric foreign terrorist organization that murdered Americans on October 7th, and still hold five living Americans hostage, including my constituent, Idan Alexander.
I met with hostage families just this morning.
I saw these protests up close, like many Americans did, at Columbia earlier this month.
I've heard the sickening, Jew-hating, anti-Semitic comments comparing Zionists to Nazis, promising a redux of October 7th a thousand times over, and calling for resistance, I quote, by any means necessary, and intifada revolution.
So, once again, antisemitism is bad, he's saying, and indeed it is bad.
But what we aren't hearing from the defenders of the bill, or even its sponsors, is why this particular bill is necessary, or good, or wise, or ethical, or constitutional.
That's because it is none of those things.
In fact, it is, without exaggeration, one of the worst pieces of legislation we have ever seen in our lifetimes.
I already explained some of my objections to this proposed law yesterday, but let's go over this again now that I've had some more time to investigate it further, and then I have two additional thoughts to offer.
But first, to review.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that just passed the House mandates that when the Department of Education enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, it does so according to a definition of anti-Semitism provided by something called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
So the legislation is mandating a certain definition of unlawful anti-Semitism But it has farmed that definition out to this other group.
Insanely, the bill itself never gives a definition.
It only says that the definition is whatever the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance says it is.
The bill adds that the examples of antisemitism provided by the same group shall henceforth also be a part of the legal definition of antisemitism.
But of course, the bill doesn't tell you what those examples are either.
Now, when we talked about this yesterday, I didn't know what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance was.
All I knew, all that any of us really need to know, is that it is not a legislative body of the United States government.
Whatever it is, it certainly is not an organization that should have any ability to dictate legislation or define the terms in our laws.
But the truth is even worse than it first appears.
The IHRA is not just some random activist group.
It is, as the I for international suggests, an international and intergovernmental organization founded by the Prime Minister of Sweden in 1998.
It's comprised of international partners, quote-unquote, like the UN and the EU, And then also 35 member countries, including the United States, the UK, and of course Israel.
Now, what this means is that our legislation is being farmed out specifically to foreign powers.
Should this bill become law, it will mean that a group of foreign governments have had a say in developing speech restrictions that govern American citizens.
Now, that is more than enough reason to oppose the bill absolutely and unequivocally.
I would want to take this legislation and shoot it into the sun based solely on the fact that it gives foreign governments any power at all over our own people.
Even if I otherwise agreed with the text of the bill, I would still oppose it on that basis alone.
But I don't agree.
No freedom-loving, self-respecting American should agree.
As we talked about yesterday, if you go to the IHRA website to find out what their definition of antisemitism is, The first glance won't be very shocking.
According to its definition, anti-Semitism is basically hatred of Jews.
That makes sense.
The trouble really starts, however, when you scroll down the page a bit and you get to examples of anti-Semitism that this cadre of foreign governments has provided.
And there you'll find a number of examples, examples which will have the force of law under this bill, including the following.
Quote.
These are all examples of anti-Semitism.
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g.
by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, e.g.
claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel, to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
There are a number of very serious problems here.
The first is that most of these examples of anti-Semitism, statements that the bill would legally classify as hate speech against Jews, are actually criticisms of the Israeli government.
And whether you think the criticisms are fair or not, whether you think they're true or not, It should go without saying that American citizens have the right in any and all contexts to criticize foreign governments in whatever way and using whatever language they want.
You should be able to say anything you want about a foreign government, including it's evil, it's terrible, it should exist, it should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Now, I'm not saying it's right to say that.
Of course you should have the right, have the right to say that about a foreign government as an American citizen.
Are you kidding me?
We have the right to criticize foreign governments.
We have the right to criticize our own government.
So we must certainly then have the right to criticize the governments of other nations.
Now keep in mind, it's not just one or two opinions about the Israeli government that you're not allowed to have under this bill.
That would be bad enough.
Dictating the viewpoints that Americans can have or express about a foreign country is pure madness.
It is evil, no matter how limited the rules might be.
But these rules are actually incredibly wide in their scope.
After all, it says that applying double standards to the state of Israel is anti-Semitic.
Well, there are hundreds of opinions you might have about Israel that could be classified as double standards.
And who determines which opinions are double standards and therefore forbidden?
Well, apparently the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance gets to decide.
You may recall that Israel is a member country in this alliance, which means that Israel has a hand in deciding which opinions about itself are lawful for Americans to express.
When I said that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation we've ever seen, I wasn't exaggerating.
Now there's another example on the list that's gotten some attention.
It's that it's anti-Semitic to claim that Jews killed Jesus.
That's what the IHRA says.
You know, that is not a claim invented by anti-Semites.
That's in the Gospel.
According to every Gospel account of Christ's passion, the Romans carried out the execution of Jesus at the insistence and behest of the Jewish authorities that handed him over to be killed and the mob that called for his death.
Now, that's what the Gospel says.
It may be true that some actual anti-Semites, as in those who hate Jews, have used these biblical passages as a justification for their hatred.
But that does not make the passages themselves false, or evil, or anti-Semitic.
And it certainly doesn't give Congress the right to tell Christians that they cannot believe or repeat what is in those passages.
It is an incredibly dangerous precedent to put anything into law, anywhere, for any reason, declaring aspects of the Bible hate speech.
So, this bill is dangerous and unconstitutional and wrong on every level.
But even that doesn't fully capture the insanity, because on top of all these problems, it also won't do the thing that it's supposedly meant to do, which is combat anti-Semitism.
In fact, it will only make anti-Semitism worse.
And this is a point so obvious that I didn't even bring it up in the past, because it's obvious to everyone except for the morons who came up with this bill.
Everyone else can see, right, that telling Americans that they can't believe or say certain things about certain groups of people will not actually stop anyone from believing or saying those things.
Certainly won't stop them from believing it.
The most you can hope is to stop them from saying it, but you won't stop them from believing it.
Instead, if it achieves anything, it will only cause people to be resentful towards and suspicious of the group you're allegedly trying to protect.
Now, as for putting an end to the lawlessness and chaos on college campuses right now, this bill will not accomplish that either.
Because we didn't need any new law to address that problem.
Simply enforcing existing laws, laws against vandalism, burglary, trespassing, violence, incitement, and so on, will be more than enough.
As always, the cause of the chaos is not that we lack certain laws that we need, but that the laws that we already have and need are not being enforced.
Enforce the law, don't write new ones to solve a problem caused by the lack of enforcement of the existing ones.
That's all that needs to be done.
And from a political perspective, That's all that Republicans in particular need to say.
The campus protests are a problem primarily for Democrats.
These are leftist radicals protesting the leftist administrators at their schools and the leftist political leaders who are not doing everything that the radicals want.
It is a problem on the left and for the left.
All the Republicans need to do in order to win politically is call for the enforcement of existing laws and then move on and stay out of it.
It is the easiest win in the world.
And so, of course, Republicans, who have never met a situation they can't screw up, have found a way, as always, to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rather than sit back and let the Democrats deal with the Frankenstein they created, Republicans have pushed themselves to the front so that the eggs being chucked at the Democrats can land squarely on their own faces instead.
Rather than calling for the enforcement of existing laws and then getting out of the way, they're coming up with new hate speech laws.
Laws that grant profound new powers to the government, which will be used against conservatives and Christians as soon as they are passed.
That's what we get from our elected Republicans, who are nothing if not useless frauds and morons all the time.
And that is why The useless, fraudulent Republicans responsible for this are the ones who are today cancelled.
