Ep. 1366 - The 'Experts' Push Bird Flu As The Next Pandemic — Just In Time For The Election
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, our disgraced public health authorities are gearing up for the next big pandemic, right in time for the presidential election. This time, the media warns that the coming plague could be "100 times worse" than COVID. Also, migrants in Denver have issued a list of demands which include fresh, culturally appropriate food ingredients -- provided by the taxpayers, of course. Apple has to apologize for an iPad ad that was accidentally way too honest. And in our Daily Cancellation, a man claims he was accosted with a racial slur by a Pizza Hut delivery guy. The whole incident was caught on camera. Is it all another hoax? Stay tuned and find out. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1366
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the premiere of our new animated sitcom Mr. Birchum this Sunday, May 12th at 9 PM ET on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
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:
Relief Band - Get 25% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order of Fruits & Veggies + $10 Off Every Additional Set. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, our disgraced public health authorities are gearing up for the next big pandemic right in time for the presidential election.
This time, the media warns that the coming plague could be a hundred times worse than COVID.
Yeah, right?
Also, migrants in Denver have issued a list of demands which include fresh, culturally appropriate food ingredients provided by the taxpayers, of course.
Apple has to apologize for an iPad ad that was accidentally way too honest.
And in our daily cancellation, a man claims that he was accosted with a racial slur by a Pizza Hut delivery guy.
The whole incident was caught on camera.
Is it all another hoax?
Stay tuned and find out.
I mean, yes, it is.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
There are a few things I love in life and fishing is pretty close to the top.
There's nothing worse than being on a fishing boat where someone is sick and throwing up.
It's disgusting.
Nobody wants to see that, especially when you could have just been prepared with my friends at Reliefband.
Reliefband is a one-of-a-kind wearable device that both prevents and treats nausea using patented technology.
It's not every day you're on a boat and get seasick.
Reliefband treats more than that.
For example, the sick kid in the backseat, parents suffering from motion sickness at the amusement park, chemotherapy patients, and more.
Better to have a relief band and not need it than to need it and not have it.
So join the hundreds of thousands of customers who have experienced life-changing relief from Relief Band.
Right now, I've got an exclusive limited-time offer just for my listeners.
Visit reliefband.com and use promo code WALSH.
You'll receive 25% off plus free shipping.
That's R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D.com and use promo code WALSH.
Reliefband.com, promo code WALSH.
From the perspective of the people running the government and the various public health authorities, one of the absolute worst things you can possibly do is remember what they told you five minutes ago.
Especially if you keep track of the most alarming things they say, then it's very easy to realize that pretty much none of it is true and you can't take any of it seriously.
Just four years ago, for instance, as you probably recall, we were told repeatedly that COVID-19 was a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
The United Nations still has an article on its website right now that makes that exact declaration.
It's called, All Hands on Deck to Fight a Once-in-a-Lifetime Pandemic.
And it wasn't written by some intern or whatever.
The author was the UN Secretary General.
And he wasn't the only one saying that.
Various peer-reviewed papers promoted by the NIH made the same claim.
So did the White House, where Jen Psaki insisted during a press briefing that COVID was a, quote, once-in-a-century pandemic.
Now, all those pronouncements didn't last long.
We're now less than six months away from another presidential election, and just in time, what do you know?
There is a new, once-in-a-lifetime pandemic on the horizon.
Along with nationwide civil disorder, we're getting another pathogen.
And in fact, we're told that this pandemic is going to be potentially much deadlier than the last one.
So all the old predictions were way off.
It turns out COVID was a twice-in-a-lifetime pandemic, I guess, or maybe eventually a three times-in-a-lifetime, five times-in-a-lifetime.
Here's the New York Post to explain.
The flu pandemic, with the potential to be 100 times worse than COVID, may be on the horizon after a rare human case was discovered in Texas.
The H5N1 avian flu has spread rapidly since a new strain was detected in 2020, affecting wild birds in every state as well as commercial poultry and backyard flocks.
It has now also been detected in mammals, with cattle herds across four states becoming infected in recent weeks.
And on Monday, federal health officials announced that a dairy worker in Texas caught the virus.
Dr. Suresh Kuchipudi, a bird flu researcher in Pittsburgh, said we are now, quote, getting dangerously close to this virus potentially causing a pandemic.
He noted that H5N1 has already been detected in species across the world and said, quote, I think this is a virus that has the greatest pandemic threat that is playing out in plain sight and globally present.
The World Health Organization estimates that about 52% of humans who have contacted the H5N1 since 2003 have died.
For comparison, COVID currently kills only about 0.1% of those it infects.
Okay, so the bird flu, and there's been many, many headlines about the bird flu as we gear up for the election.
We knew it would be something, and so bird flu is what they're going with.
The reporter from the New York Post, as you just heard, opens her report by saying that the bird flu could be 100 times worse than COVID.
But she doesn't explain how she's coming up with that number exactly.
Later on in the video, she says that 52% of humans who have contracted bird flu since 2003 have died, while COVID only kills 0.1% of people that it infects.
And that makes the bird flu sound, in fact, even more serious than 100 times more dangerous.
But it's also using very old data.
So the question remains, where exactly is the idea that bird flu could be 100 times worse than COVID coming from?
Now, if you dig around that New York Post article, you'll find this explanation, quote, John Fulton, a pharmaceutical industry consultant for vaccines and the founder of Canada-based BioNiagara, also expressed his concerns.
This appears to be 100 times worse than COVID, or it could be if it mutates and maintains its high case fatality rate, he said.
Once it's mutated to infect humans, we can only hope that the fatality rate drops.
This is worse, or it could be.
This is something, well actually it's not that thing, but it could be.
Now, the post is quoting from a Daily Mail interview, which Fulton also says, quote,
this discovery is very concerning and government should take immediate action by seeking out
and mobilizing all high potential production capacity for vaccines and therapeutics for
the prevention and treatment of avian influenza H5N1.
We need to sound the bells to wake up our government to the fact that there is a virus
that is undergoing mutations that would/could eventually allow it to become highly transmissible
in human mammals.
Would/could.
Okay so a guy named John Fulton says that if the bird flu mutates to spread easily among
humans and if it maintains a high fatality rate, then it could be 100 times worse than
And he says this is all very disturbing and we need the government to help create and presumably fund more, quote, vaccines and therapeutics.
So the next time you get your COVID booster, if you're one of the four people still doing that, you should maybe make room on your arm for the bird flu vaccine.
Vax when that is ready to go. That's the idea. And because of this quote, various news outlets,
including The Post, have said that experts are warning about the existential threat posed by
bird flu. And this guy, as far as I could tell, seems to be the primary source of that claim.
But John Fulton is not an expert in anything.
According to his LinkedIn, he's got a degree in corporate communications from something called Brock University in Canada.
And he lists, I'm not making this up, social media as one of his professional skills.
So, his qualifications are that he can use Instagram and Facebook.
Essentially, he's a salesman, a marketer.
And he currently consults on the side for something called Pop Biotechnologies, which says on its website that it, quote, develops revolutionary therapies that expand treatment possibilities in cancer care and infectious disease prevention.
Where have we seen this before?
When have we seen fake experts pretending to know what they're talking about as they raise the alarm about some catastrophic public health emergency without disclosing their obvious conflicts of interest?
It's actually hard to believe that the media is being this flagrant about the narrative this time around.
They're not even getting a scientist to scare everyone.
If you wanted to deliberately undermine people's trust in public health, to whatever extent any trust still exists, then it's hard to think of what you'd do differently, exactly.
You'd do exactly what the media is doing now.
You'd find some social media expert and get him to say something outrageous and supposedly terrifying, and then you'd pretend that he knows what he's talking about.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that bird flu or H5N1 definitely isn't or couldn't be potentially in the future a threat.
I'm not an expert on the topic any more than John Fulton is.
We're both guys giving our opinion.
Unlike John Fulton, I'm happy to admit that.
What I am saying is that right now, according to all of the available evidence we have, there's no sign that the bird flu is any kind of significant threat to the public, or worthy of any real concern, or any of the blaring headlines that it's getting.
There's no evidence that it's spreading between humans.
There's one farm worker somewhere who's supposedly currently infected, and that's it.
Right now.
The commercial milk and dairy supply is safe, according to a recent analysis of hundreds of random samples, and this tracks with how the bird flu has behaved for decades.
It typically doesn't infect people at all, so there are no real signs that that's changing, so nothing really to worry about.
Of course, like, anything could happen in the future.
There's an infinite number of possible terrible things that could happen at any time.
Do you sit around worrying about those things?
Well, you shouldn't.
But here's the key point.
If that does change, let's just say, hypothetically, if bird flu suddenly becomes infectious and starts killing humans, which could theoretically happen, just like anything could theoretically happen, then there is no doubt about one thing.
But in that hypothetical universe, the bird flu will be far deadlier than it would have been if the public health establishment hadn't lied to us for years about COVID.
Public health authorities proved with COVID that we can't trust anything they say.
So, if there is a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, an actual real one this time, we'll have no choice but to ignore them, or at best, take them with a massive grain of salt.
And of course, in turn, that will provide them with the pretense to use even more force than last time.
So, in a way, their own flagrant untrustworthiness becomes a benefit to them.
It guarantees that we will defy them, because what other choice do we have, which gives them the excuse to be authoritarians.
A year ago, the head of the World Health Organization delivered a speech about the next pandemic, which he said was inevitable.
And he made it clear that he understands very well that people will be hesitant to ever obey public health officials again.
So to counteract that hesitancy and to ensure equity, he says, the head of the WHO insisted on changes that, quote, must be made.
Watch.
We cannot kick this can down the road.
If we do not make the changes that must be made, then who will?
And if we do not make them now, then when?
When the next pandemic comes knocking, and it will, We must be ready to answer decisively, collectively and equitably.
And for enhanced international cooperation, the pandemic accord, a generational commitment that we will not go back to the old cycle of panic and neglect that left our world vulnerable.
But move forward with a shared commitment to meet shared threats with a shared response.
That's why we say the pandemic accord is a generational agreement.
A commitment from this generation is important because it's this generation that experiences how awful a small virus could be.
So he says, quote, when the next pandemic comes knocking, and it will, we must be ready to answer decisively, collectively and equitably.
And for enhanced international cooperation, he says there needs to be a pandemic accord to ensure that the old cycle of panic and neglect Never happens again.
The panic that, you know, the so-called public health authorities intentionally stoked, you know, that panic that's like all their fault, must never happen again.
And instead, he says, we need a shared response directed, of course, by the WHO.
Now, if you go and look up the pandemic accord on the WHO's website, you'll find that it's intended to, quote, support global coordination through a stronger WHO.
Additionally, quote, At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics, including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information expertise, and access to healthcare for all people.
And we know what that means.
We know what equity and access, we know what these things mean.
It means that if you're a white guy, It's always bad news, especially if the extremely unlikely scenario really does play out where the bird flu somehow mutates and starts infecting people's lungs.
And if they ever did then develop any treatment that actually works and won't make you even sicker.
So there's a whole bunch of big, big ifs here.
But if all that happens, then if you're a white guy, I guess, you know, you're going to be last on the list.
Now, in any event, there's no point in fretting about whether there will be another COVID-style pandemic.
The World Health Organization is saying there will be.
It's inevitable.
This is a very far cry from the old lines we heard about how COVID was a once-in-a-century or once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.
The moment they realized COVID was over, the public health establishment stopped pretending that it was a rare event.
It's not rare anymore.
Now it's like it's inevitable.
It's gonna happen again.
Anytime.
So they immediately got to work on preparing for the next pandemic.
And already, with another presidential election rapidly approaching, some of the least impartial and least qualified people in the country desperately want us to believe that it's about to arrive.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
They use an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables into whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants.
The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetic pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in Balance of Nature's Fruits and Veggies capsules are fruits and veggies.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
Sounds miserable, sounds time-consuming.
Well, with Balance of Nature, there's never been an easier way to ensure that you get your daily dose of fruits and vegetables.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies and an additional $10 off every additional set that you buy.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
New York Post reports migrants in Denver on Monday submitted a list of 13 demands that they say the city must meet before they leave their packed encampment and head into shelters.
The group refused to budge until their extensive list, which includes access to a free immigration lawyer and fresh cooking ingredients, is met as they battle with the Denver Human Services.
The migrants consisted of families living under a bridge and near train tracks, issued their demands after Democratic Mayor Mike Johnson petitioned to have the group removed.
The group's top demand was that they cook their own food with fresh, culturally appropriate ingredients.
Provided by the city, instead of pre-made meals, rice, chicken, flour, oil, butter, tomatoes, onions, etc.
Also, people will not be punished for bringing in and eating outside food.
That's just one of the demands.
Well, let's just go.
So we have the 13 demands that these migrants who've come to our country illegally, And do not legally belong here.
These are the demands that they're making.
These are demands, by the way, that all Denver is trying to do is say, well, don't live on the street.
We'll provide you with actual physical shelter.
So Denver is doing way more than they should be doing, because what they should be doing, or way less, I suppose, is another way of looking at it, depending on how you look at it, because what they should be doing is putting these illegal immigrants on buses and sending them back to their own countries.
Of course, Denver's not doing that.
Instead, they're just saying, well, why don't you come inside?
It's nice and warm here.
And these entitled, illegal immigrants are saying, well, no, we will not take you up on that kindness until you have done all of these other things that we demand.
So, here are some of the demands.
As we just heard, migrants will cook their own food with fresh, culturally appropriate ingredients.
That's how you know that these people are starving, right?
They're starving and desperate.
They're seeking asylum.
They're fleeing persecution.
That's how you know.
Because people that are desperate in a position like that, they're always worried about culturally appropriate ingredients.
This is what we're supposed to believe, that these are starving people who desperately need our help.
And they're being provided food, and they're saying, excuse me, these ingredients aren't culturally appropriate.
They're not fresh enough for my taste.
I can't eat them.
It's not fresh.
I need fresh.
Oh, look at that tomato.
That tomato's not fresh.
Take it back.
Get it away from me.
They are demanding to eat better than the average American citizen does.
Like the average American citizen does not eat around the clock with fresh ingredients, unfortunately.
And these illegal immigrants are saying, I want, no, I don't just want what everyone else has who's a legal citizen.
I want more than they have.
I want to live better than they do.
And I'm not going to earn it.
I'm not going to work for it.
I need you to just give it to me.
Number two, shower access will be available without time limits and can be accessed whenever.
We are not in the military.
We're civilians.
You're civilians, but you're not citizens, are you?
Medical professional visits will happen regularly and referrals connections for specialty care will be made as needed.
All will receive the same housing support that has been offered to others.
There needs to be a clear, just process before exiting someone for any reason.
All shelters will receive connection to employment support.
And then they want lawyers and a bunch of other things too.
Okay.
These are the demands they're making.
Before we talk about this, let's go to a local news report that interviewed someone to explain a little bit more about these immigrant demands.
Let's watch.
The camp as a collective came up with a list of demands.
That came after a petition by city officials for migrants to move from this encampment near train tracks under a bridge to indoor shelters funded by the city.
This morning they sent buses to take people over without presenting that document and without having any kind of signature for accountability.
That's what migrant advocate V. Reeves says the city responded with instead of meeting the migrants' demands.
We've been offering time and shelter, basically just trying to get families to leave that camp and come inside.
John Ewing with Denver Human Services says shelter comes with its perks, namely getting out of these conditions outdoors.
It comes with, you know, three square meals a day.
You can cook your own if you'd like to.
That is one of the main demands by these migrants who have had their grievances in the past about the food provided by the city.
There have been so many complaints about the food being spoiled or not being enough and malnutrition amongst children.
Migrants who do stay in shelters are often put on a path toward a work permit.
Reeves says these folks haven't received the same benefits.
They're not receiving any kind of official housing or immigration.
I can't even listen.
It makes me sick.
It makes me sick.
I can't even laugh about it.
It just makes me sick that we're allowing this in our country.
You know, on second thought, years ago when Trump made the left so angry by saying that some worrying percentage of illegal immigrants are criminals and drug dealers, rapists and so on, as we recall, all the outrage over that statement, he really did make a mistake because he should not have said that.
I mean, he shouldn't have said just that.
You should have also mentioned that a lot of them are whiny little babies, and that is an even more pervasive problem.
There appears to be much more of that, as we have discovered.
You know, many of, certainly the people that we just saw, and that have created these demands, these are self-entitled egomaniacs.
I mean, imagine doing this.
Imagine doing this.
You can't imagine it.
If you're a normal, decent person, you cannot imagine this.
You cannot imagine going to another country and breaking their law by sneaking in, literally setting up camp inside one of their cities, and then angrily denouncing them for not providing you with room service, essentially.
You would never do that.
Right?
You would never even think about doing that.
You would never show up in someone else's country, in someone else's home, and go, listen up.
Here's what I need from you.
I mean, think about doing that in someone's actual house.
Think about barging in to someone's actual house and going, OK, here are my ground rules that you need to obey while I'm in your house.
If you want me to be in your house, here's what you need to do.
Well, I don't want you to be in my house.
Well, never mind.
I'm staying.
Here's what I need you to do.
It's insane.
It's insane that we allow this.
It's insane that these people are not being rounded up and shipped back to where they came from.
And we have invited this kind of attitude.
You know what I would love?
I would love to see just once, just once, just once, I'd love to see an interview with an illegal immigrant who says, who says, you know, hey man, I'm just really happy to be here, and I love America.
I'm grateful to be in this country.
I'm grateful to be here.
I love this country.
I've always admired America, even before I lived here, and I'm so grateful to be here, and I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to contribute, and I'm sorry.
I'm sorry for breaking the law, coming here.
I am, but I did it for my family.
You know, my old country is a terrible place, and I'm so happy to be gone from it.
And I want to be a part of American culture, and I'm so grateful, and I want to thank America for having me.
I would love to hear that.
We never do.
I mean, we're told.
We're always told that all of these immigrants who come here have that kind of attitude, that go-get-'em attitude.
We don't see it.
We don't hear it.
Where is that interview?
Now, granted...
Even if one of these people did say that, I would still deport them.
If it were up to me, my response would be, I appreciate that.
I really do.
Thank you for that.
You've got a wonderful attitude.
I'll shake your hand.
Great attitude, sir.
Now leave.
So I would still, one way or another, no hard feelings.
We have laws here, and they have to be obeyed.
And you're not exempt from them, even with a good attitude.
Even so, at a minimum, we should demand that.
So my question is, all these people who come here, making all these demands, are we allowed to expect anything at all in return?
Can we say to them, Like, just anything.
At a minimum, could we say, okay, you're here, you're here in this country, you broke our laws.
Have a good attitude.
That's the only thing we want from you.
That's it.
That's all you have to give us.
Now again, for me, if I was making the rules, and I was, well, the rules are already made, if I was in charge of enforcing them, you know, good attitude would not be enough, I'd still deport you.
But can we start there?
Like, can we at least that much and say, hey, if you're going to be here, have a good attitude while you're in our home.
But apparently we can't even expect that.
And I made this point before, of course, but I really don't, I really don't want to hear anyone ever again, ever draw any comparisons.
Between these modern immigrants and the ones who came to this country a hundred years ago, or especially settlers who came here 200 years ago or 300 or 400 years ago, we always hear these comparisons made.
There's just no comparison.
I mean, we know for a fact That the immigrants of old and the settlers of old before them did not have this kind of attitude.
They couldn't have had this kind of attitude.
They would have died.
This country would not exist if it was initially being settled and set up by people who have this sort of attitude.
So we know that they didn't.
And that alone is a major difference between them.
Alright, RFK Jr.
was interviewed by Sage Steele on her, I guess her podcast, and the topic of abortion came up, and I want you to listen to what he said.
Here it is.
So in other words, keeping it as is with Roe v. Wade having been overturned and leaving it up to the states to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion?
No, I wouldn't leave it to the states.
You wouldn't?
Right.
No, I would.
You would say completely, it's up to the woman?
My belief is we should leave it to the woman.
We shouldn't have government involved.
Even if it's full term?
Even if it's full term.
Okay.
Okay, so full-term, he says, he's in favor of killing full-term babies.
And just to make sure that we're clear about what that means exactly, I'm sure you know what it means, but full-term baby is a newborn.
That's an infant, a child.
Now, I want to be careful here because I don't want to seem to imply that aborting babies who are full-term is somehow substantively worse than aborting babies a week earlier or a month earlier or whatever.
It's not, you know, a baby is a baby and a person is a person, but the difference with a full-term abortion is that there's no hiding from what you're doing.
The clump of cells stuff is just absurd.
I mean, even more absurd than usual when you're talking about a full-term baby.
I think even most radical pro-abortion people, like, they would not be able to look at an infant and say, oh, it's a clump of cells.
And also, all of the excuses that are normally used for abortion no longer apply when you're talking about a full-term baby.
Because a full-term baby is quote-unquote viable outside the womb.
As with any late-term abortion, and the thing that makes late-term abortions so especially horrible, I mean, the main thing that makes a late-term abortion sort of different is that the baby has to be delivered either way.
Like, there's no way of ending a late-term pregnancy without a delivery of the baby.
You have to deliver the baby.
There's going to be a delivery.
But with late-term abortion, there is an extra step added where the baby is killed before the child is delivered.
That's the way that it's done.
But the delivery was going to happen anyway.
So why do you need to kill the baby first?
Deliver the baby.
You have to anyway.
And then if you don't want the child, put the child up for adoption.
And guess what?
There is a waiting list.
Okay, there's a waiting list so long it could stretch to the freaking moon of people who are waiting to adopt infants.
I don't want to hear any of this nonsense of, well, you put the baby in the system, the baby will be in the system their whole life.
Like, even if that was true, so what, death is better?
Well, that's not your choice to make, first of all.
Or it shouldn't be.
But it's not true.
There's thousands and thousands of people who, right now, are waiting, who want to adopt a baby.
So why would you?
It doesn't even... All of the excuses, they're non-starters.
They don't even come close to getting off the ground.
Even the My Body, My Choice stuff doesn't work.
Now again, it doesn't work for abortion at any stage.
It's a bad argument.
It's a false narrative, fundamentally.
But with late-term abortion, it's so obviously ludicrous.
There's another body inside your body.
That body has to come out of your body one way or another.
Why do you have to kill the child first?
Even if I bought the argument that, you know, you have the moral right to end your pregnancy whenever you want, but if we're talking late term, like, okay, then end it.
Deliver the child.
Pregnancy's over.
Why kill the child?
And what is the difference between killing the child a second before delivery, or during delivery, or a second after delivery, or a day after?
I mean, what is the moral difference?
There isn't one.
What's the practical, physical difference?
There isn't one.
What's the scientific difference?
There isn't one.
Yet this is what RFK Jr.
supports.
Don't give me the nonsense.
I've already heard the arguments from RFK Jr.
fans, and I'm sure there will be some in the comments after this episode.
Who say that, well, yeah, no, you're lying.
This is not what he said.
This is a false narrative.
He didn't say this.
I always love that when we play a clip of someone saying something and then we get all the comments.
He didn't say the thing that we're all listening to him say right now.
What they'll point out is that right before that clip that we just played, he made it clear that he doesn't personally like the idea of killing babies full term.
He doesn't think it's something that any woman would do lightly.
And he even said that he thinks there are valid arguments against abortion at that stage and in favor of protecting quote-unquote fetuses at full term.
And yet, that doesn't matter because he still comes down on the side of killing the babies.
With his moral reservations, he still says, yes, women should be allowed to kill them.
We should trust the woman, he says over and over again.
Which doesn't make sense.
Like, trust them to do what?
Trust them how?
What do you mean, trust women?
Trust women?
I mean, first of all, I don't trust anyone.
Like, there's no broad demographic group of people who I just trust.
You have to earn my trust.
I'm not going to trust you just because you're a woman.
Why would I?
Trusting women doesn't make any sense.
It's also got nothing to do with this.
So if a baby is being killed by a woman, you're saying, no, no, no.
It's okay.
Trust her.
Trust her.
Trust her on this one.
What do you mean trust her?
How would our trust in this individual change the moral equation?
Either it's wrong to kill babies or it's not wrong.
And if it's wrong, then anyone who does it is doing something wrong and trust has nothing to do with it.
You know, it's like if somebody was punching you in the face and you say, hey, you're punching me in the face, will you please stop?
And they say, don't you trust me?
Oh, you're saying you don't trust me anymore?
What?
What do you mean trust you?
I mean, I guess not.
You're like, you're actively punching me in the face.
I guess I don't trust you.
So I don't think trust has anything to do with this one way or another, but as far as trust goes, no, I don't trust people who kill babies.
There are many ways to lose my trust personally, and that's, like, top of the list.
I mean, that's probably number one.
Kill a baby and I don't trust you anymore.
I don't trust baby killers.
I don't.
So this is a horrifying thing from RFK Jr.
It should be the end of his political career, but it won't be.
And think about this, to return to this point briefly, Kristi Noem's political career was destroyed for talking about killing a dog 20 years ago.
And yes, she brought that on herself, you know how I feel about that.
She imploded, she self-immolated.
But shouldn't the outrage over a politician endorsing the murder of fully developed children be much greater?
Shouldn't this be a much greater scandal?
Shouldn't RFK Jr.' 's name now be indelibly linked with this position, just like Christina?
Like, from now on, any time you hear Christina, you're going to think about killing dogs.
That's just what she did to herself.
So, shouldn't it be the same thing here?
Every time you hear RFK Jr., you think, oh, that's the guy who thinks it's okay to kill full-term babies.
And yet, um... And yet, that's not the case.
Because the really sad reality is that for a lot of people in this country, whether they'll say it out loud or not, and in fact plenty of them will say it out loud, they really truly are more outraged by the notion of killing a dog than killing a newborn child.
And if that's the case, then there's nothing that I can do for you.
There's nothing I can say.
I can't argue you out of that position.
You are broken.
You are, and you should know this, like if you're listening to me right now and you're saying to yourself, yeah, that's kind of how I feel.
Killing a dog just makes me more angry than killing a baby.
Well, then you are a broken, you are a bad person and a broken person.
There's something deeply, deeply wrong with you, and you are just not a good person at all.
I don't care what else you've done in your life.
I don't care.
You are a bad, broken person.
And I'm not going to say you're beyond redemption.
Nobody is.
But that's a fact.
It shouldn't take any effort.
In order to perceive the child as having infinitely more worth than the dog, that shouldn't take any effort.
You shouldn't need to be presented arguments.
It should be automatic.
You should automatically recognize that.
And if you don't, again, you really are broken.
You are a broken person.
Apple has gotten a lot of attention this week for an ad that it put out for the new iPad.
Bad attention, I should say.
The wrong kind of attention, which is the only kind of attention that any new Apple product ever gets now.
That's probably because Apple hasn't put out anything new or innovative in, like, 17 years.
I mean, basically since the iPhone was first invented.
I mean, there was the iPhone, the iPad, the iPod.
all within a few years. I don't know what the exact time frame was.
The iPod went away and got absorbed by the iPhone, basically. And then there was the iPhone and the
iPad. And that's all they've done. I mean, every new innovation is just another version of those
things. And yeah, there's the Apple Watch. And I think they have one of the goggle things that
But that's just an iPhone you can wear.
They're all really just versions.
An iPad is a flattened version of an iPhone.
So that's all they have.
You have the iPhone, you have the flattened iPhone, you have the iPhone taped to your wrist, the iPhone you wear on your eyes.
It's all it is.
It's all the same thing.
They aren't innovating anymore, and they haven't in many years, and they aren't even innovative with their marketing.
Their marketing can't even successfully make it seem as though the products are new or interesting.
Instead, the marketing, at least in this case of this ad, is causing repulsion.
Like, it's actively repulsing people.
The reaction to this ad was quite negative and let's watch it
Sometimes when I'm down and all alone, all I ever need is you. When the winters come and they go, and we watch the
snow fall.
Sometimes when I'm down and all alone, all I ever need is you. When the winters come and they go, and we watch the
snow fall.
Sometimes when I'm down and all alone, all I ever need is you. When the winters come and they go, and we watch the
snow fall.
Sometimes when I'm down and all alone, all I ever need is you. When the winters come and they go, and we watch the
snow fall.
And we watch the melting snow. So I'll never follow spring or the fall.
All right, so that's the ad.
It's a giant hydraulic press crushing various musical instruments and artwork and sculptures and other things.
It's destroying.
It's an ad showing destruction.
And then it reveals the new iPad, which we are proudly told is the thinnest iPad yet.
Which, first of all, so what?
Really, that is your only selling point?
The thinnest yet?
Why does it need to be so thin?
I don't understand.
Is it not thin enough already?
This is like some weird tech version of bulimia or something.
It's like our technology has body dysmorphia obsessively trying to get skinnier and skinnier.
Why, though?
Well, we get fatter and fatter, by the way.
So the people are getting fatter and fatter.
The technology is getting—I'm not the first person to point this out.
You know, people get fatter and dumber.
Technology gets skinnier and smarter.
Not exactly a good trend.
I honestly don't get it.
I don't understand why.
Does anyone actually want it to be that thin?
Did anyone get the last iPad and think, wow, this thing is, oh man, this thing is too, I can barely lift it.
This thing is way too heavy.
Look how fat it is.
Look at this fat iPad, this fat, gross iPad.
Did anyone say that with the last iPad?
Do you want it to feel as thin as a piece of paper?
You feel like you're going to break it.
You don't want it to be too bulky, but you don't want to feel like you're going to break it when you hold it.
I don't get why that is even desirable, but more to the point, Why are you actually providing a visual of your technology literally crushing human ingenuity and creativity?
Why would you do that?
Now, I know what you're going for.
The idea is that all of that stuff is stuffed inside of this little thin box.
But even that is depressing, right?
You know, the fact that you stuff it inside there by destroying it, like, why not, why not do the reverse?
Why not have, uh, uh, you start the ad.
I mean, I'll work, look, pay, pay me $5 million a year.
I'll be, I'll do marketing for Apple.
I could come up with something better than this.
You start the ad with the iPad, this little thin, tiny thing.
And then you have someone like opens it, right?
Like it's a box.
And then out of that little thin box, all of these things spring out.
The piano and the sculptures and the music and everything comes out, right?
So just reverse it.
Rather than us watching you destroy all of these beautiful things, how about it's a magical box and all of those things spring out of it?
Isn't that a much better visual?
Did no one suggest that during the marketing meetings of this thing?
Was there no one in the marketing meeting who said, hey guys, there's a positive version of this that we could easily do?
Why are we doing this?
Do we want our product to be visually associated with the destruction of things that people love?
So, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but...
And people didn't react well to it, and that's why Apple has now apologized, according to The Verge, quote, Apple has apologized after a commercial meant to showcase its brand new iPad Pro drew widespread criticism.
Let's see, someone, a spokesperson, I guess, said, creativity is in our DNA at Apple, and it's incredibly important to us to design products that empower creatives all over the world.
Our goal is to always celebrate the myriad of ways The Myriad of Ways.
The Myriad of Ways is all you don't need the of in there.
The Myriad of Ways users express themselves and bring their ideas to life through iPad.
We missed the mark with this video and we're sorry.
So they have apologized for the ad.
But what are they apologizing for?
Like they're actually apologizing for being honest.
That's what happened.
They all looked at the ad and the reaction and they said, oh crap, this was way too on the nose.
We have revealed way too much.
Because in fact, of course, and what makes it such a terrible ad is that it highlights, not only is the visual very disturbing and not exactly what you want, way too dark to be associated with a consumer electronic, but at the same time, it's also kind of true, metaphorically, All of that is happening because of all this technology, right?
Fewer people are playing instruments.
There's less people playing the piano.
Fewer people are reading.
Fewer people are doing any of these sorts of things.
And all of life and art and experience and creativity and music and everything is now inside these little boxes.
And I think people look at an ad like that and it makes them think like, is that Are we actually better for that?
Is that better?
Is it better to have your piano in the little thin box?
What's wrong with actually having a piano?
Wouldn't you rather just have a piano?
A physical thing that you can see and you can learn how to use?
I think we were better off.
I think we were better off with having all of those things out in the world rather than in the little box.
I'd say that's the conclusion to draw here.
Let's get to the daily cancellation.
Catch the series premiere of Mr. Bircham this Sunday, nine o'clock, eight central, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
Episode one is streaming for free, so no excuses, people.
Mr. Bircham is decades in the making, and now it's showtime.
Let me be clear.
Like me, Wood doesn't care about your feelings.
If you hurt Wood, Wood will hurt you back.
Wood doesn't discriminate.
Wood's only true enemy is the donkey.
Bentley!
Can I go to the bathroom?
Pee before class, donkey.
Remember Mr. Burcham's series premiere this Sunday, nine o'clock, eight central.
Stream it free only on Daily Wire Plus.
(upbeat music)
For our daily cancellation today, we have the shocking story first reported
by Action News 5 out of Memphis of a Pizza Hut delivery driver
who allegedly called a black customer the N-word.
The man, whose name is Jamarius Archie, is now suing over the incident, which happened last summer in Oxford, Mississippi.
As the story goes, the delivery driver knocked on Archie's door, called him the N-word, and handed him a pizza.
A press release on the website of Archie's attorney, Carlos Moore, says this.
The Carlos Moore Law Group filed a lawsuit against Pizza Hut on behalf of Mr. Jamarius Archie for a disturbing incident of racial discrimination that occurred on June 25, 2023 in Oxford, Mississippi.
Mr. Archie, an African-American, was subjected to a racial slur by a Pizza Hut delivery driver captured on the Archie family's Ring doorbell camera.
This unacceptable behavior has caused Mr. Archie emotional distress and harm.
Attorney Cosmore stated, "The racial discrimination experienced by Mr. Archie is reprehensible.
This lawsuit aims to hold Pizza Hut accountable for the actions of their employees and to
ensure that racial bias has no place in our society.
Cosmore Law Group is dedicated to seeking justice for Mr.
Archie and he demands that the Pizza Hut take responsibility and implement changes to
prevent future incidents."
Now, I don't want to spoil the twist ending here and ruin all the fun, but if you're
already assuming out of the gate that this must be a hoax, if you've already dismissed
this claim out of hand without any further investigation whatsoever, well, you're right,
of course.
Obviously, obviously, a Pizza Hut delivery guy didn't randomly drop the N-word on a black customer while delivering pizzas.
Like, pretty much every story of this kind that we have heard over the past 30 years has turned out to be completely made up, and this one is no different.
And in fact, this is one of the rare cases where we actually have video of the incident not happening.
This is video that the victim, quote-unquote, who is now seeking to profit off of this non-event has eagerly provided.
So there is ring camera footage, as mentioned, of the interaction between Jamarius Archie and the driver.
And a few days ago, Archie's attorney, Carlos Moore, appeared on Roland Martin's YouTube channel and brought the footage along with him.
Let's watch.
A Mississippi man says he got more than a pizza from his Oxford Pizza Hut delivery driver on June 25th, 2023.
Jamarius Archie opened his door to receive his order when the white driver called him a racial slur.
Take a listen.
Pizza Hut.
How you doing, man?
Good, man.
Here we go.
Appreciate you.
Let me just grab a signature if you don't mind.
I'll pay you up.
In case you missed it, we will play it again.
Pizza Hut.
(knocking)
Pizza Hut, how you doing, man?
All right.
Here we go, appreciate you.
Let me just grab a signature if you don't mind.
I'll pay you up.
In case we missed it, he played it again.
And we did miss it.
We all missed it because the it, in this case, didn't happen.
It's totally imaginary.
The ring camera audio isn't the best audio, obviously, so the delivery guy's words at the end of that clip are garbled.
But it's very clear, simply from the tone of the interaction, that he didn't say the N-word.
Like, if you were tempted to believe that maybe it happened before listening to it, you would assume that, okay, well, Maybe something like that could have happened if there was some sort of argument.
If he was angry, if they were yelling at each other, the pizza was late, and the guy yells at him, and he cusses him out, and they cuss, and then he drops like... But no, that's not what happened.
It's totally normal and friendly interaction.
In fact, he was far friendlier than the average customer service worker is these days.
Just simply by offering a greeting and not being outwardly hostile and surly to the paying customer, he has already set himself apart from the baseline customer service standard.
If I ran the Pizza Hut in Oxford, Mississippi, I would give that guy, I'd make him Employee of the Month, just based on that interaction, because it's like, well, that's, it's, I mean, look, it's, the standards are as low as they can get.
I mean, the bar is pretty low, but at least he's being friendly.
And we're supposed to believe that Somehow the N-word was dropped at the very end of that clip, which would mean that the delivery driver said, this is what he would have said as he was handing over the pizza.
Here we go, appreciate ya.
Let me just grab a signature if you don't mind, N-word.
The claim, I guess, is that this Pizza Hut delivery guy just casually uses the N-word with customers as a greeting.
Because if he actually said it there, he didn't even mean it as an insult.
This is apparently just his way of saying hello.
And if that was true, it would mean that, at worst, he's guilty of using the N-word the same way that many black people use it.
And this is why we have to be careful here.
It's important to point out that the claim is a lie.
Even if it's difficult to hear precisely what word or phrase he uses at the end of the clip, he obviously didn't say the N-word.
But even as we call out this hoax for what it is, we should make sure that we aren't tacitly supporting the premise that if the delivery driver had said that word in that context, he would be guilty of some great moral crime.
Now to say that word would be professionally and perhaps even literally suicidal, would
be a self destructive, extremely ill advised thing to do.
He would be guilty of creating huge problems for himself and getting himself fired.
But no white person actually has any moral obligation to observe the insane, totally
indefensible, ridiculous rule that decrees that this word is acceptable to be used in
any and every context by one race, but in no context at all by another race.
I mean, the idea that the pigmentation of your skin should determine whether you're allowed to utter certain syllables in a particular combination is totally absurd.
And as far as I know, without precedent in the history of the world, I can't think of any other example ever, anywhere in the world, where one single word has been imbued with this kind of mystical power.
So if he did say it in a friendly way, he would only be doing what millions of people in this country do every day, and it's never considered a problem.
But obviously, obviously, he didn't say it.
A white delivery driver who is in the habit of saying the N-word, you know, casually, would not be employed for very long.
Like, this would not be the first time we were hearing about this.
And he probably wouldn't be alive for very long.
And that's why a much more sensible translation of that clip is this.
Here we go, appreciate you.
Let me just grab a signature if you don't mind, will you?
You know, it also is possible that he said there at the end.
So let me grab a signature if you don't mind there.
Whatever he said, there are several possible translations that are far more sensible and far more likely than the N word.
And of course, one way to clear this up would have been for the customer to ask him in the moment, like if he actually, if he really thought that the guy said that word to him.
Why would he say, I'm sorry, what did you say?
And if he did say the N-word that openly and casually, then he would have no problem repeating it.
He would probably, like apparently, if he said it in that context, it means he thinks that there's no issue.
He somehow is living in the year 2024 and thinks that it's never, no one's ever told him that there's a problem with saying the word.
So he would just repeat it.
But the customer didn't handle it that way.
Instead, he said nothing in the moment, and he pulled the ring camera footage later that day, sent it to a lawyer, and filed a lawsuit.
And speaking of the lawyer, he appeared on this YouTube show to talk about the severe emotional and psychological damage that his client has endured due to this friendly five-second exchange with a pizza delivery guy.
Watch.
Let's start with what in the world?
I almost wanted to play it a third time.
Can you please tell us and help us process what we just saw?
Was that real?
It was real.
And like you, I could not believe my ears.
I mean, this happened in 2023 in Oxford, Mississippi.
This young African-American man ordered a pizza in a nice neighborhood, and it was just a normal day.
And he never could have expected to be called the N-word just for ordering a pizza.
And what was, you know, we read the statement that you posted, but, you know, knowing your client, what was his reaction after the fact?
Because it seems like such a natural transaction, but it just seems like kind of after the fact, it seems like, whoa, wait a minute, what just happened?
Like, how did he process what he experienced?
Yes, it was very difficult to process.
He's undergoing counseling now for what he endured.
But it caught him off guard.
I mean, most people, had they had any kind of forewarning, knew exactly what he said when he said it and processed it immediately, they probably would have stolen the piece of driver.
But, I mean, he was so shocked, he ran to his video surveillance to run it back.
He had to run it back again to make sure he had heard what he heard.
He showed it to his wife, and they agreed there was nothing wrong with his ears.
He had been called inward.
Yeah, I had to double check my ears a couple of times as well.
Well, maybe you should check them a third time, then.
There's one of the clips I wanted to play for you, and we've already heard that he's in counseling and all that, but this is the best part.
Listen.
I want to bring my panel in shortly, but has there been a response from Pizza Hut about how they're looking at handling the situation to date, since this happened last summer?
Evidently, Pizza Hut has ratified this comment.
The man is still a delivery driver in Oxford, Mississippi.
And he is still free to roam the streets and deliver pizzas and coffee, but inward at will.
And so this is very disappointing.
Wow.
That was not something I was expecting to hear.
Did he say... I'm actually having more trouble understanding what the lawyer is saying than the delivery guy.
Did he say that Pizza Hut ratified the comment?
Did I hear that correctly?
Pizza Hut ratified...
Pizza Hut ratified the n-word?
What does that mean?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
I don't think that Pizza Hut has the authority to ratify anything, but especially not the n-word, whatever that would mean.
Anyway, the delivery driver is still out there.
He's wandering the streets, giving out pizzas and calling people the n-word.
Which I guess is better than just calling them the N-word.
Like, at least there's a pizza in the deal.
I mean, I don't know.
If there was someone wandering around giving out pizzas and, you know, insulting you, like, I'll take the insult along with the pizza.
But that's just me.
The community in Oxford, Mississippi doesn't feel that way.
The community is not safe.
They're all locked in their homes, huddled together.
Trembling and afraid.
Every time there's a knock at the door, they scream out in fear.
It's him again.
He's back.
With more pizzas and more racial slurs.
It's like the lamest horror movie of all time.
Now, we don't need to, you know, continue analyzing this breaking news story.
The guy didn't say the n-word.
No honest person could interpret the exchange that way.
This customer and his lawyer are grifters, hoping that Pizza Hut just throws some money at them so they go away.
That's all that's happening here, clearly.
But I do want you to notice just how perfunctory and unconvincing this whole performance is.
The lawyer claims that the customer is in counseling over this interaction with a pizza delivery guy.
But he can barely take himself seriously as he says it.
In fact, the host is practically laughing through the whole thing.
And he stopped smiling for one moment when the lawyer mentions the guy's in counseling.
And the host, that's the only time he stops grinning, Because he knows he has to pretend, oh, in counseling, sure.
That's, well, of course.
Of course he's in counseling, who wouldn't be?
Sure, he has PTSD over this.
And then later on, they bring in some distinguished panelists to join in the conversation.
They also have barely disguised smirks on their faces the whole time.
The racial grievance schtick has become boring and stale, even for the people who engage in it.
So boring and stale that Pizza Hut, which knows something about boring and stale things, as far as I can tell, has completely ignored this so far.
They have not even responded.
And I think that will be a sign that the race hustle is really over.
If you can't even extort a few hundred thousand bucks out of Pizza Hut by falsely accusing an employee of saying a racial slur, that's a very bad sign for the Grifters.
It will mean that the world is finally taking their BS as seriously as they take it, which is not at all.
