All Episodes
May 21, 2024 - The Matt Walsh Show
52:10
Ep. 1372 - Democrats Solemnly Commemorate The Sacred Birthday Of Saint Michael Brown

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, yesterday, the Left celebrated the sacred holiday of Michael Brown's birthday. Ten years later, they are still pushing their narrative about the Michael Brown case, regardless of how thoroughly it has been proven false. Plus, a major scandal surrounding Justice Samuel Alito. I've read about the scandal and I'm still not sure what the scandal is supposed to be, exactly. We'll try to get to the bottom of it. CNN invites a random rapper on air to talk about the Sean Combs case. Hilarity ensues. And my feud with the nation of Australia has now reached a boiling point. Is war on the horizon? Ep.1372 - - -  DailyWire+: Tune in on 5.22.24 at 7 PM ET for another Daily Wire Backstage exclusively on DailyWire+! Watch the latest episode of Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj  - - -  Today’s Sponsors: Constitution Wealth - Go to http://www.ConstitutionWealth.com/Matt and sign up for a FREE consultation today! Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/ Roman - For treatment that works fast and lasts long, grab the moment. Learn more at http://www.Ro.co/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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, yesterday the left celebrated the sacred holiday of Michael Brown's birthday.
Ten years later, they're still pushing their narrative about the Michael Brown case, regardless of how thoroughly it has been proven false.
Plus, a major scandal surrounding Justice Samuel Alito.
I've read about the scandal.
I'm still not sure exactly what it's supposed to be.
We'll try to get to the bottom of it.
CNN invites a random rapper on air to talk about the Sean Combs case.
Hilarity ensues.
And my feud with the nation of Australia has now reached a boiling point.
Is war on the horizon?
and all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
Well, it's 2024 and if you're still spending your money with woke companies, cut it out.
There are a lot of great companies out there that aren't shoving diversity and inclusion initiatives down the throats of their employees or their customers.
Maybe you're already doing business with some of these, that's great.
Maybe you're boycotting companies who have made headlines by acquiring the latest trans influencer as their spokesperson.
Even better, but have you given much thought to where your money is currently invested?
A lot of big wealth management companies make billions of dollars investing your money however they want, wherever they want.
Even if that means investing in businesses who don't care about your values, you can align your portfolio with your principles today with my friends at Constitution Wealth.
Constitution Wealth is the Patriots' choice in wealth management.
They'll help you build a solid investment plan while reducing your investment in the ESGs and DEIs, companies that care more about global warming and diversity ratios than they do about the return on your investment.
And with Constitution Wealth, you can start using your shareholder votes to support conservative action today.
Fight the culture war with your most valuable weapon, your investments.
Help build the parallel economy by working with an investment firm composed of professionals who are patriots like you.
Go to constitutionwealth.com slash matt and sign up for a free consultation today.
That's constitutionwealth.com slash matt.
By now we're all painfully aware of how LGBT activists insist on having about 500 days on the calendar to celebrate themselves, from International Pronouns Day, to Pride Month, to the Transgender Day of Remembrance, to my personal favorite, Gay Uncles Day.
There's clearly something pathological about all of this, but it's also strategic at the same time.
Leftists understand that to win, they have to completely flood the zone with their propaganda.
They don't want anyone to have any kind of reprieve from it, even for a single day.
Because if you get a single day reprieve, then you might start thinking clearly, and they don't want that.
Unfortunately, as mind-numbing as this tactic is, it's also effective, which is why it was never going to stop with the gender cult.
And indeed, predictably, now the BLM movement is getting in on the action.
They're demanding that the death of Michael Brown, the criminal who attacked a store clerk, then charged at a police officer, punched him and tried to take his gun, be memorialized on multiple days every single year.
This was the martyr at the center of the Hands Up, Don't Shoot hoax, who kick-started the rise of BLM, of course, and they want him to have multiple days every year where he's being celebrated.
It was less than a year ago, back in August, That I discussed all the different memorials for Michael Brown.
Everybody from the city of St.
Louis to the Biden administration decided to eulogize Brown on August 9th, which was the ninth anniversary of his death.
That's the big Michael Brown day, during which we're all supposed to pretend that Michael Brown was a useful, contributing, productive member of society.
We're also supposed to pretend that a white supremacist police officer shot him in broad daylight, in cold blood, etc.
But as of yesterday, August 9th is no longer the only Michael Brown day on the calendar.
This week we saw a renewed effort to mark the occasion of Michael Brown's birthday, which apparently falls on May 20th.
The NAACP, for example, tweeted, Michael Brown should be celebrating his 28th birthday today.
We will continue to say his name and fight for justice and accountability, sending love to his family and friends.
NAACP President Derek Johnson posted a similar message, quote, Black people deserve to grow old, he wrote.
Now, these messages, as detached from reality as they are, were echoed all over social media yesterday.
Veena Dubal, a professor of law at UC Irvine, wrote, Rest in power, Michael Brown.
This is someone who allegedly teaches the law, celebrating someone who brutally attacked a law enforcement officer.
And for its part, the non-profit called Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, led by Kerry Kennedy, tweeted,
"Michael Brown should be celebrating his 28th birthday.
Today we honor his life and legacy."
As for what that life and legacy entailed, that part was left unstated for obvious reason.
But Congresswoman and BLM activist Cori Bush was a little more forthcoming.
She uploaded this video to honor Michael Brown.
Watch.
Michael Brown should have turned 28 years old.
The last birthday he celebrated and will ever get to celebrate was his 18th.
Just 81 days after his 18th birthday, a Ferguson police officer killed him.
In a just world, Mike Brown would be with his loved ones right now, celebrating another year, dreaming of his future as he blows out the candles on his birthday cake.
But instead, we are only left with the memories of who he was.
Michael Brown's life was taken.
It was taken from his mom, his dad, his friends, his siblings, his classmates, and from every person who knew and loved him.
They were all left to live through the trauma police violence leaves in its wake.
Sort of a side note here, but you notice with these BLM martyrs, of course, as we all know, they always use the graduation photo, which we've talked about this before.
That is not normal.
They don't do that with anybody else.
Anyone else who makes the news, you don't see their graduation photo.
Why would you?
But we know why they do that with the BLM martyrs, but sort of the funny thing here is that, and this is what they do with Michael Brown, but even in his graduation photo, like, he looks somewhat menacing.
I mean, he looks like he wants to beat you up in the graduation photo, which is kind of funny.
Some people would think it's funny.
Anyway, we're only left with the memories of who he was, says Cori Bush.
And it's supposed to be a sad line, I guess, even though all it does is remind us of the fact that Michael Brown roughed up a store clerk on camera and then attacked a cop.
And for several years now, Cori Bush has simply ignored those inconvenient details.
She's been trying to make Brown's birthday into a national day of mourning since before she was elected to Congress.
In fact, Michael Brown is one of the main reasons that she's in Congress, as she'll readily admit.
But this week's effort to promote a new Michael Brown Day was especially embarrassing for a few reasons.
For one thing, it's hard not to notice how carefully worded Cori Bush's statement is.
She knows she has to steer clear of saying that Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown, actually did anything wrong.
Even Barack Obama's DOJ cleared Wilson, so in all likelihood, she'd get sued if she tried to defame him in that way.
So as a result, Cori Bush and her team of lawyers, we can assume, decided on the term police violence instead of murder.
And they probably figured that the term police violence gives them the wiggle room they need to insinuate that Darren Wilson is a murderer without coming out and saying that directly.
After all, the act of self-defense can definitely qualify as violent, even though it's completely justified, and he was a police officer, so police violence.
That's the level of word games and games and manipulation that we're seeing from BLM activists in Congress right now.
They're choosing their words very carefully to elicit the reaction they want, but somehow that wording about police violence was not, in the end, the most deceptive portion of Cori Bush's video.
Let's listen on and get to that.
Here it is.
Police killings of unarmed Black people are responsible for more than 50 million additional days of poor mental health days per year.
It's devastating our communities, and it must be addressed.
That's why, in Mike Brown's honor, alongside Mike's mother, Leslie McSpadden, I am reintroducing the Helping Families Heal Act, also known as the Mike Brown Bill.
Now this is one of those statistics that when you hear it, you immediately know it's fake, if you have a brain in your head anyway.
You don't need to use Google.
You can just recognize it intuitively.
She says that police killings of unarmed black people are directly responsible for, quote, 50 million additional days of poor mental health days per year.
But she doesn't define poor mental health days or explain how she's concluding that police shootings are causing these poor mental health days.
Or explain how we distinguish regular poor mental health days from the additional ones.
Like additional compared to what?
And that's because the whole point of statistics like this is to shock you with big numbers so that you don't stop to think about what they're saying, which, you know, it turns out that what they're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If you look into them, even for a second, you'll realize they're completely made up.
This particular statistic has been cited all over the place, including Howard University Law School, and as best I can tell, it originates from a 2018 article in The Lancet entitled, Police Killings and Their Spillover Effects on the Mental Health of Black Americans, a Population-Based Quasi-Experimental Study.
Now, right away, that title is something of a red flag.
We're talking about a quasi-experimental study, which doesn't seem nearly as definitive as Cori Bush made it sound.
Like, generally, you don't want the word quasi in the title of a study at all.
And, indeed, if you read on, you'll find that As you continue to read that the researchers who apparently took money from a foundation specializing in health equity aren't certain of their findings at all.
Quoting from the summary of the Lancet article, police kill more than 300 black Americans, at least a quarter of them unarmed, each year in the USA.
These events might have spillover effects on the mental health of people not directly affected.
So I'll read that again.
These events might have spillover effects on the mental health of people not directly affected.
So that's quite a hedge, and if you look at the methodology, you'll understand exactly why they're hedging.
Apparently, the researchers just looked at two existing data sources.
First, they analyzed the U.S.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which is just a telephone survey system that asks people if they're feeling okay.
And then the researchers looked at the dates of police shootings of unarmed black people, without regard to whether those black people, like Michael Brown, were attacking police officers when they died.
Okay, so they don't even factor in whether the police shooting was justified or not.
And then the researchers checked to see how many people reported feeling sad within three months of a police shooting of an unarmed black person.
They say they noticed a correlation where only black people seemed upset in the one to two months after these shootings, while white people didn't care.
Okay, so just to review.
They're looking at a police shooting and they're looking at a separate survey to find out how many black people were sad within several weeks of that shooting and coming up with this statistic.
I mean, this is a methodology so absurd and arbitrary that, I mean, if a fourth grader used it for a science fair project, he should get a failing grade and be expelled from school.
The second part might be a little overkill, but certainly a failing grade.
Now, it's not even worth going into detail about correlation and causation because everyone understands that this data is garbage.
For one thing, you'd expect white liberals to be quite shaken up by the death of an unarmed black person also, but that doesn't show up in the data at all.
But more importantly, there's about a million other explanations for why these respondents might be unhappy, including, like, all the things that are happening in their own lives that have not been factored in at all.
Like, you could have a black person who was just diagnosed with cancer a week before he took the survey, and this study is linking his sadness more to Michael Brown dying than to the fact that he has cancer.
And even these researchers concede that point, which is why they hedge their findings in the summary.
So this paper only serves one purpose, which is to give Democrats like Cori Bush a talking point and a bogus justification to waste more taxpayer money.
And in this case, she's asking for $50 million to redistribute in the service of mental health equity, which inevitably will mean allocating resources along racial lines, of course.
Cori Bush and activists like her aren't the only ones benefiting from these lies.
Outfits like BET, which claim to be, quote, where black culture lives, are also promoting the narrative.
BET put out its own video for Michael Brown's birthday, describing him as courageous and saying that, quote, quote, black boys should be able to grow up, to grow into black men in peace, regardless of whether they attack other people, apparently.
Watch.
You go from here, you gotta change the strategy.
You see what I'm saying?
If you want a different result, you gotta change the way you approach that problem.
At the root of this situation, a lot of our support should have been...
Directed and only directed to the Brown family and support because at the end of the day, they lost a son.
Yeah, how we were able to organize and come together.
We're able to take our voices and put them online and somebody in China can hear what we're saying.
And I think it's big now opposed to 20, 30 years ago when if something happened in your town, you could cover it up.
But now we can take pictures.
We're the paparazzi.
We can put it out there when there's injustice being done.
I wanted to ask you, you know, what type of person was he before all this?
He was my baby.
Firstborn.
Courageous.
Outgoing.
He just loved people, loved animals.
Soft-spoken.
He just made people draw to him and want to be around him.
Yeah, he says that more money should have been sent to the Brown family.
We need to give them more money.
We know that's how it goes with the BLM martyrs' families.
We just have to give them money and money.
When, in fact, if anything, it should be the opposite.
Accountability to the family, that's what we should be requiring of them.
We should be going to the family and saying, Why did you raise a son who acts this way?
Like you raised a son who went in and randomly robbed a convenience store for no reason.
He wasn't stealing bread because he was hungry, okay?
He just went in just for fun and then a police officer tries to stop him because he broke the law and he attacks the police officer.
How did you raise a young man like that?
You have failed as a mother spectacularly.
You remember those, the two parents, white parents of course, who We're just sent to prison because they raised a son who turned into a school shooter.
So when it's a white family, in that case, we send the parents to prison because we blame them for how the kid turned out.
And when it comes to the BLM martyrs, it's the other way around.
You raised someone who turned into a violent criminal, and rather than any sort of accountability, we actually give you money for it.
as like a prize. Now as with the Cori Bush video you'll notice that they don't want to talk about
how Michael Brown actually died. It's all about how activists organized and spread their message
online. It's about what type of person Michael Brown was according to his mother. Now all these
activists and organizations from the UC Irvine law professor to Cori Bush to BET understand exactly
why Michael Brown died.
They know he didn't die in service of any higher purpose.
He wasn't a martyr or even a foot soldier.
He was a violent criminal who somehow made a living, who made living in Ferguson for everybody else even more dangerous and miserable than it already was.
But all these activists also understand that the Michael Brown hoax gave rise to the BLM era.
That's a mythology they cannot revise or reject at this point, nor would they want to revise or reject it because it's given them so much power and influence and money.
And therefore, the perpetrators of the hoax are sticking to the script no matter what.
They're simply ignoring all evidence that clearly contradicts their claims.
This is what you have to do if you desperately want to build a movement around a false narrative.
You can never admit that the narrative was false.
You just have to keep repeating the lie over and over again at every opportunity.
They won't stop celebrating Michael Brown, you know, until we're celebrating him all 365 days of the year.
And they're betting that eventually, the history books will reflect their manufactured version of what happened in Ferguson.
That's clearly their goal.
And unless conservatives start telling the truth about that day, and until they start defending Darren Wilson anywhere near as much as the left worships Michael Brown, then eventually, through sheer repetition, activists like Cori Bush will get exactly what they want.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Let's start with a major scandal, supposedly a major scandal anyway.
CNBC reports Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sold shares of beer giant Anheuser-Busch InBev as conservatives were ditching the Bud Light brew over its partnership with a transgender social media influencer.
On the same day that Alito sold Anheuser-Busch, he then bought the same amount of stock in Molson Coors, a company with a history of facing political boycotts of its own.
The filing shows the transactions have bred fresh accusations that Alito, one of the High Court's six conservatives, is engaging in or aligning with partisan politics, despite a recently adopted code of conduct that directs the justices to refrain from political activity.
And then it goes on, you can keep reading the article, and you'll read several paragraphs, you'll read the whole thing, and you'll never make it to the part where they tell you what the scandal is exactly.
I guess this is the scandal.
He sold Bud Light stock when Bud Light embarrassed itself and sustained massive brand damage by promoting gender ideology.
And this tells us, supposedly, according to CNBC and many other media outlets that have reported this, in big, like, blaring headlines, Samuel Ito sold Anheuser-Busch stock.
It's supposed to call into question his impartiality.
But what does that mean exactly?
Like, you know, I'm not even trying to be funny here.
I genuinely don't understand what the scandal is even supposed to be.
This is where we are now, when the media tries to manufacture scandals about people on the right.
You know, it used to be that they'd make up a scandal, and they're lying, but at least you understand what the scandal is supposed to be.
And they still do that.
But sometimes now it's like, I don't, what?
Okay?
What are you even trying to imply here?
I don't get it.
So as an investor, he's, what, he's supposed to be impartial to the value and the financial health of the companies he's investing in?
Is that the kind of impartiality you think he's required to maintain?
Maybe next they'll have a breaking news report about how, you know, Alito's impartiality was questioned because he went to a steakhouse and got a New York Strip medium rare.
And he should be impartial to how the steak is cooked.
He shouldn't care.
When they say, how do you want it cooked, you should say, I have no opinion.
I'm impartial.
I have no opinions whatsoever about that.
In fact, I don't even know if I want a steak.
Give me anything.
Just give me food.
In fact, I don't even know if I want food.
Just give me a plate.
Do anything you want at all.
I have no opinions of any kind about anything.
Maybe that's what they want, you know?
Because, you know, there is partiality there.
I mean, I bet that Samuel Alito, he even has multiple outfits in his closet.
And he goes into his closet and quite partially chooses one particular outfit to wear every day.
I bet that's the case.
And that's a scandal, because he should walk into his closet blindfolded and randomly pull anything off the hanger and put it on.
I mean, that's the level of impartiality that we should demand of our Supreme Court justices.
In fact, when he drives down the street, he should not be partial about where he's going, or what his destination is, or if he's on the road or the sidewalk.
He should just randomly drive.
And then stop at some point and turn around and come home, or not home.
I mean, not to his home, to anyone's home, because he's not partial about where he goes or where his home is.
It just shows you how desperate the media is to find a scandal for the conservatives on the Supreme Court.
We know they've been doing this to Clarence Thomas for decades, and every time they have a new, you'll never guess, you'll never believe what they did this time.
And then you listen to the story, you're like, okay, is that really the best you got?
I continue to be incredibly impressed by how ethical these conservative Supreme Court justices really are.
I mean, they're way beyond, I mean, you would expect just because they're people to have like a little bit, a little smidgen of, you know, ethical problems here and there.
Like, no one's perfect.
But apparently, These people are, I don't know, that's what I'm getting.
Because like, you're looking, you're trying to find any scandal you can find on these people.
You're obviously not cutting them any slack.
You're digging, you're digging.
We know that every major media outlet has people working on this around the clock.
Find scandals on these people.
And this is the best they can do.
It's amazing.
And Alito has been the target, actually, over the past couple of weeks.
They've kind of—well, they haven't moved on from Clarence Thomas, but they've briefly taken a break from smearing Clarence Thomas 24-7, and they've moved over to Alito.
And it started several days ago when the media freaked out over reports that Alito's house allegedly briefly had an upside-down flag hanging outside of it.
And this, again, major news.
Major breaking news.
Headline news that Justice Alito had an upside-down flag.
And we're told that the upside-down flag is a symbol of election denialism.
The upside-down flag means that Alito denies the 2020 election, they tell us.
Because this is what the media does.
They just invent symbolism out of thin air.
They say, oh, you know, this random thing or gesture?
We'll tell you what it really means.
And meanwhile, none of us have ever heard that before.
Like, all of us hear that, and we say, since when does it mean that?
What are you talking about?
Upside-down flag means that you deny the—what?
Where are you getting this?
I am a conservative.
I'm on the right.
And that's just not a thing.
I don't know what you're talking about.
It's QAnon-level absurdity from the media, constantly.
Now, of course, the upside-down flag has been a universal sign of distress for centuries.
And that's what it generally means when someone hangs it upside down.
It's like a symbolic sign of some kind of distress.
Could mean anything.
Like, what is it?
Who knows?
We don't know.
What did it indicate at the Alito household?
I'd have no idea.
Apparently, according to Alito, I think it had something to do with a dispute with a neighbor or something, and the wife hung it upside down.
It doesn't matter.
What does that have to do with anything?
What does that have to do with his ability to adjudicate these cases?
Of course, it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, but again, this is how desperate they are.
They're now checking the decorations outside of his home.
Maybe next they'll tell us that Samuel Alito had one of those garden gnomes and it was lying on its back.
He had a tipped over garden gnome in his garden.
What does that mean?
Well, that could mean anything.
That's his symbol that he's planning a coup.
He's planning an insurrection.
That's a, the tipped over garden gnome.
That's a symbol among all the insurrectionists.
There's a plot of insurrectionists in the country and they all have garden gnomes, they tip it over.
And that's, no, no, no, I'll tell you what it is.
It means that he's signaling to the other people, the underground insurrectionists, that the meeting is at his house tonight.
So he tipped over the garden gnome and they all know that it's at his house, the meeting is, to plan the insurrection.
Seven o'clock.
Bring your own BYOB.
Okay, so this is fun.
Here's CNN embarrassing itself as usual.
Last night they brought the rapper Cam'ron on air to talk about the Sean Combs situation, the video of him brutally assaulting his girlfriend.
And they brought on this guy who's a rapper.
Why him?
Is it just because he's a rapper like Sean Combs?
Is a rapper, sort of.
Does he still rap?
I don't know.
He's a rapper, so... Oh, he brought on this other rapper to talk about this rapper beating up his girlfriend.
You would think that if they're bringing on Cameron, that he must have some sort of involvement, some sort of link to this, that he could provide some insight.
It turns out not.
In fact, he had less than nothing to say, and hilarity ensued.
Let's watch.
First, when you saw that video of Diddy, Cassie, in that hotel, did you recognize that Sean Combs from your experiences?
I don't know him like that.
What do you mean, do I recognize him?
I've seen him.
What do you mean my experiences?
I've seen him and I thought it was disgusting.
I didn't do a zoom in to see if it was really him or nothing, but he admitted it was him, so.
Yeah, it was him.
What did you think about the apology that he gave in that other video?
The apology ain't for me to decide.
It's for Cassie.
What I think about it don't matter.
It ain't do nothing to me.
Cassie need to ask Cassie if she accept the apology.
Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
I mean, is there something known in the industry about how Diddy treated his artists?
So I'm going to get some cheeks after this horsepower drink.
I'm just going over what Mase said.
Mase took me to Biggie.
I don't really know Puffers like Mase know Puff.
So I appreciate what Mase said.
And of course, that's my brother.
So if he felt that way, then he felt that way.
I can't really tell you how Puff moves or anything like that.
Mase may know better than me because he was signed to Puff.
I wasn't.
But my show does come on at 8 a.m.
Eastern on YouTube.
It's called It Is What It Is, and y'all make sure y'all check it out.
Who the talent agent for this joint?
Like, you think I'd be sitting around watching what Diddy do and all this?
I didn't know this was a Diddy joint that y'all invited me to.
Y'all, who booked me for this joint?
I'm violent.
I don't be sitting around watching Diddy and all that.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you for your time.
Very informative interview.
I mean, it is the most interesting interview that CNN has done maybe ever.
And, you know, he says in there that he'll be getting some cheeks after this.
I don't know what that means exactly.
I don't, I can only, I can only assume that he means that he's going to a restaurant and getting some, some beef cheeks, beef cheeks meal, maybe a beef cheek served in a delicious red wine sauce.
Maybe he's going to a Mexican place and getting some barbacoa, and barbacoa, I think, is made of beef cheeks or a cow's head or something or other.
That's how they make most Mexican stuff, with the heads of various animals, I think.
Anyway, stellar job by CNN, as always.
You booked a guy to discuss a news item, even though he has no interest in discussing that, and apparently has no insight of any kind to offer on the subject.
And not only that, but he showed up to the interview in a bucket hat and sunglasses, and rather than cancelling it, cancelling the interview, as you should have, you went through with it and put him live on the air.
Just a note, okay, a note to, and this doesn't come up very often, but a note to cable news producers.
Nobody has ever given a productive interview in a bucket hat.
I mean, that's a universal sign.
If someone comes to the interview in a bucket hat, universal sign.
Where the person is saying, I am here to mess up this hit and embarrass you live on television.
Like, they might as well have that written on a t-shirt, because that's what they're saying.
In fact, nobody's ever done anything productive in any context in a bucket hat.
Nothing of value has ever been achieved by anyone ever when they're wearing a hat like that.
It's never happened one time, I'm telling you.
But, This is the problem with cable news.
You have to fill 24 hours of a day with content related to the news, even though there just isn't enough news.
There isn't enough relevant news.
I'm sorry, the world is not that exciting.
I mean, there are interesting things happening, but the world's not so exciting that there's 24 hours worth of stuff to talk about every single day.
And even if there is an interesting news, there's only so many things to say about it.
And when it comes to this story of Sean Combs, It's like, yeah, he's a terrible guy.
He beat up his girlfriend.
He should be in prison.
He's probably done a lot of other terrible stuff.
What else is there to say about it?
I mean, he's bad.
He's a bad guy.
So, did you need Cameron to come on and tell you that?
So, what you end up doing, if you're on cable news, is you just bring on anyone to fill the airtime.
I mean, I'm not saying anything you don't know, but this is the way it works.
You have to fill the airtime.
That's it.
You have to fill the airtime.
It doesn't matter with who.
I can remember this back from when I used to do cable news hits frequently, and I would get asked sometimes to come on air and discuss some subject that I don't care about at all and have no insight into and have never even talked about publicly.
And I'm asked to talk about it, and so I would sometimes turn down interview requests on that basis.
Because every once in a while you have a producer that, you know, reaches out and says, hey, can you come on for the C-block tonight?
And you say, okay, what's the topic?
And they say, oh, the stock market took a big hit today.
We want to get your take on that.
You want my take on that?
Why do you want my take on that?
Here's my take.
It's bad.
It's bad.
I wish it hadn't happened with the stock market.
That sucks.
It really sucks, okay?
That's my take.
And now I will admit that early in my career, I didn't feel like I could turn down those kinds of opportunities.
So I would end up on air chiming in on some topic that's way outside of my wheelhouse.
So, you know, you'd have the host come on and say, tensions are rising in Syria tonight.
Here to weigh in is this random guy with a blog who's never said anything about this and has no information to give us.
What do you have to say, Matt?
Well, I think tensions are bad.
I wish that there weren't tensions, but there are.
And I'm anti-tensions.
I'd prefer if there were no tensions, frankly.
All right.
Speaking of tensions, New York Post has this headline.
Half of Americans think climate change will destroy the planet in their lifetime.
So this is half of Americans, allegedly, So, destroy the planet.
They think the apocalypse is going to happen.
Here's the article.
Half of Americans believe climate change will devastate the Earth during their lifetime, according to research.
The survey of 5,000 Americans split evenly by state revealed that 48% of all respondents believe they'll live to see climate change destroy the planet.
Respondents in Hawaii were the most likely to agree, with Vermont and New Mexico rounding out the top three states most concerned about the effects of climate change in their lifetime.
Washington and Minnesota were fourth and fifth, respectively.
Then it's just giving us a bunch of states and how concerned they are.
I don't know who cares about that.
Where's Tennessee on this list?
No, I just have to know because I live here.
Okay, well, so Tennessee, we're 44.
We're the 44th least concerned about climate change, but we're still coming at 41%.
Indiana is the least concerned of all.
Now, needless to say, all polls, polls are at least somewhat fake.
Every single poll that's ever been done is at least somewhat fake.
Many of them are entirely fake.
And this one may be towards the latter end of that spectrum.
But then again, there obviously has been a relentless propaganda campaign to convince Americans, starting basically from birth, that we're on the verge of a planetary climate change apocalypse.
So it makes sense that half of the people subjected to that propaganda, if not more, would be gullible enough to fall for it.
So maybe the poll results are accurate.
Like, you know, maybe half of Americans really do think That the planet will soon be actually destroyed.
And by destroyed, we could only... Wait, what does destroyed mean?
It must mean that it's like an unlivable hellscape.
Otherwise, it's not destroyed.
So, let's assume that for a moment, okay?
Let's assume for a moment that 50% is the right figure.
The weirdest thing here, aside from the fact that it's false, okay?
The planet is not going to be destroyed.
We're fine, okay?
We're fine.
I mean, we're not fine.
We're not fine.
None of us are fine, and we are gonna all die sooner rather than later, but not from climate change.
Okay, climate change will not be the thing that kills you.
Something will kill you.
Something will kill you, and when it kills you, it will be scary and probably painful and miserable.
And, you know, you'll be lucky if you die quickly.
Most people don't.
For most people, it's drawn out, and you die slowly, and it's just an absolute horror.
An unimaginable horror awakes you, for sure.
But, my only point is, it won't be climate change, so cheer up a little bit.
But that's not the weird part.
The weird part is that, again, assuming the poll results reflect generally the views of the American public, the weird part is that this fear of Armageddon is not at all reflected in how people actually act in real life.
And I don't just mean that they still drive their cars and they still go on airplanes and they burn electricity like it's going out of style.
I don't just mean that You know, they're refusing to make any personal sacrifices at all in their own lives to avert this catastrophe that they claim is looming.
Although, obviously, that is true.
I mean, on an emotional level, nobody acts like they really think the world is coming to an end.
Because people are still going about their lives, they're scrolling social media, they're watching TV, they're wasting a lot of time, they're worrying about the most petty bullcrap imaginable.
They're getting caught up in the most insignificant controversies and outrages and everything else.
And you'd almost hope that there could be some positive that comes from so many people being fooled into believing in this apocalyptic prophecy.
You'd hope that there'd be some positive.
You'd hope that at least, at least it makes people a little bit more serious-minded, gives them a seriousness of purpose, helps them to focus on what actually matters in life.
But it's not having that effect at all.
At all.
Like, how is it that everyone thinks we're about to die, but we've become more superficial and pettier in response to that?
It doesn't make any sense to me.
So we get all the negatives of people thinking they're about to die.
We get the fear and paranoia and that.
But we get none of the positives that should come with that.
I mean, I'm almost at the point where I don't even want to convince people that the world isn't ending.
It's pointless anyway.
So what I want to say is, sure, yeah, it's ending.
Yeah, the world's ending.
I mean, sure, okay, fine.
Fine, the world's coming to an end.
Okay, have it your way.
The world's coming to an end.
So put the phone down.
Go outside.
Go live your life.
Go do something meaningful.
Right?
Love your family.
Love the people closest to you.
Do something that matters.
You have so little time.
Make use of it.
The world's coming to an end.
I don't know if that would be a more effective response, but I do wonder.
Okay, my feud with the—well, yeah, we have to cover this.
My feud with the nation of Australia continues to escalate, and we're now at the precipice of an all-out war.
I, you know, we're getting very close to that.
It's not what I wanted.
I guess I did say that I wanted that, but even so, here's where we are.
So here's the headline from the Daily Mail in response to the segment I did yesterday.
American launches another extraordinary attack on Australia.
U.S.
right-winger slams Aussies for being woke.
Now suggests the country should be, quote, invaded.
I did suggest that.
I didn't suggest it.
I called for it.
I'm actively calling for it.
And listen, I'm not even going to read this article.
I've had enough of this.
All I'm going to say is this to Australia.
Watch your mouth.
I'm tired of your attitude.
Frankly, I'm tired of the backtalk.
I've told you what your problems are.
And I'm not going to take any more mouth, any more lip from you, okay?
I've tried to be diplomatic.
I've offered a way to calm these tensions by invading your country and subjugating your citizens.
That was my solution.
At least I'm coming up with solutions.
You have no solutions.
I offered that.
And you apparently don't want my peace offering.
I don't know.
But you need to back off.
Don't make me come down there.
Don't make me come down there.
Don't make me come down there and assume your genders.
I will do it.
I swear to you, I will do it.
I will walk around that country assuming everyone's gender.
You don't want that.
Alright?
It's your final warning, Australia.
Men, have you heard of Rose Sparks?
This dual-action prescription merges the powerhouse ingredients found in generic Viagra and Cialis, Sildenafil, and Tadalafil into one formidable treatment.
But it's not merely about what's inside them.
It's about their mode of delivery.
Rose Sparks leverages the benefits of sublingual administration, meaning the tablet dissolves under your tongue.
This method allows for fast absorption directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the gene digestive system.
The result?
Quicker onset of action, reducing the wait time, typically associated with traditional pills.
Moreover, Tadalfil stays in your system for up to 36 hours.
With RoSparks, spontaneity is back on the table.
Connect with a provider at ro.co.walsh to see if RoSparks is right for you.
ro.co.walsh.
Again, that's ro.co.walsh.
Compounded drugs are permitted to be described under federal law but are not FDA approved and do not undergo FDA safety, effectiveness, or manufacturing review.
Only available if prescribed after an online consultation with the provider.
Get ready for something special tomorrow night.
Join me along with Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boring backstage at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central, streaming live and free on DailyWirePlus.
We're taking you behind the scenes and beyond the headlines at The Daily Wire, and we're being told Jeremy Boring has a special announcement that you'll hear first during backstage.
We've been busy, and it's been way too long since we've all been together.
There's a ton to discuss, and this is your chance to hear all about it.
Don't miss out.
Watch live and free on DailyWirePlus tomorrow night at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
According to the person who posted the video to TikTok, the woman, who was seated in an exit row, refused to agree to comply with the requirements for sitting in an exit row.
Reportedly, she said she didn't want to help save anyone in the case of emergency.
This led to a long argument with the flight attendant, which ended with the passenger getting arrested and the entire plane forced to deboard.
Watch.
Yes, she's talking to me.
What is the problem?
because she don't want to tell us her name.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[CROSSTALK]
What's the problem?
We ain't got no problem with that.
We understand we gotta help people get off the plane and help Betty White get something out of it.
What's the problem?
We agree.
You wasting your breath.
They gonna take this plane off the ground.
That's my damn face.
Did you ask her to agree?
You ain't doing your job.
I ain't got no nonsense going on.
You want to get at my face is what you need to do, Betty.
You ain't got to worry about two damn things.
Yeah.
I'm going to ask you one more time tonight, you're going to get off the flight, we're going to deboard the plane, and that's where you are.
But I'm calling my attorney, because we didn't do anything wrong.
The lady asked us to agree, and we did.
We got a whole staff, we got a whole crew.
But we'll talk about it outside.
But what are we getting deboarded?
My grandson is in Texas getting out of school at 3 o'clock.
That's fine ma'am, I understand everything, but we have to step outside the air traffic control.
Sir.
She's calling her attorney, which I assume means her cousin or something, who read one page of a law book.
I always think it's funny when people like this, in these kinds of altercations, Well, I'm calling my lawyer.
Like, you really have a lawyer, honestly?
What, you have a lawyer on retainer?
Really?
I tend to doubt that.
Anyway, the altercation continues for several minutes after this point, and eventually the pilot comes back and pleads with her to get off the plane.
She refuses to comply with anyone until she's finally perp-walked off the aircraft by police.
And you can hear her in the video repeatedly insist that she did agree with the exit row instructions, but according to the witness who posted the video, She initially refused, and then, as we can see in the footage, she became belligerent with the flight crew who were trying to deal with the situation that she had decided to create.
Now, to be clear, there's nothing wrong in my mind with declining the exit rail requirements.
Anybody with any experience flying knows how this works.
If you're sitting in an exit row, the flight attendant will come back before takeoff and ask you if you're willing and able to assist in case of an emergency.
And they then tell you that they need a verbal yes.
And this process repeats on every flight, thousands of times every day.
And there's no reason for it to become a problem.
If it becomes a problem for you, it's because you've decided to make it into a problem.
And if you don't want to assist, you can say no.
And the flight attendant will move you to a different seat.
Only once in my life have I ever witnessed an exit row passenger say that they're not willing to assist in case of emergency.
And in that case, the woman got up from the seat as instructed, she moved to a different seat, swapped with another passenger who was more than happy to take the exit row, and the whole thing only delayed the boarding process by like 30 seconds.
That's fine.
In fact, I understand why she said no.
The rest of us always say yes, even though none of us really have any idea what we're agreeing to.
We don't know what we're agreeing to.
Nobody knows!
No one has any idea, actually.
No one does.
I don't think it's even written down anywhere.
At least, I've never looked.
Probably is written down, but I haven't looked.
So, we're signing on to assist if the plane crashes without any clear indication of what kind of commitment we're actually making.
You know, assisting probably just means that we have to be the ones to open the door and then leave.
That's probably all it means.
But, Is there more to it than that?
Do we have to get off the plane last, even while it's in flames and about to explode?
Do we have to stand there and help everybody down the slide thing?
And the plane's on fire?
But we've signed on, we've signed in blood that we have to stand there and go down with the ship, basically?
Now, if that's the case, shouldn't there be a discount for sitting in the exit row, not an additional fee?
Now, in any case, most of us don't worry much about whether the exit row requirements mean burning to death in the inferno.
We just want the legroom, and we're willing to pay the price with our lives if necessary.
If you are worried about it, you can say no, and then you can get up and move to another seat.
That's fine.
This woman apparently said no, but was unwilling to get up and move, which is what set off the chain of events that ended with her arrested, the flight significantly delayed, and dozens of people unnecessarily inconvenienced.
Now, part of the problem here is that, of course, that it's Frontier Airlines.
And this is what you get when you fly a budget airline.
You get belligerent, low-class idiots looking to make your flying experience as cumbersome and frustrating as possible.
This is on top of the airline itself, which is also determined to give you that sort of experience.
So the airline and the a-holes conspire against you, and you can do nothing but simply endure whatever torments they choose to inflict on you.
This is how flying works in general these days, but that's especially the case on a budget airline.
Insult is only added to injury because the worst thing about a budget airline is that it isn't really a budget airline.
The budget in budget airlines just means that they charge you slightly less upfront for the ticket, but then they recoup that money with additional fees downstream.
So you might pay 20% less for the ticket, but that's before they hit you with the baggage fee and the carry-on fee and the fee to select a seat and the fee that, you know, if you want a cup of water, the fee if you want legroom, the fee if you want a seat inside the plane instead of being strapped to the top like a luggage rack on a minivan.
Unfortunately, there is no fee to insulate you from the needlessly antagonistic jerks on the plane who might decide to delay your flight by 90 minutes just because they want to have a random showdown with the flight attendant.
It all adds up to the reason why I would never fly a budget airline under any circumstances.
Like, I wouldn't fly it if you paid me to.
Driving is preferable.
And if the destination is too far to drive to, and you can't spring for a ticket on a real airline, then you don't need to go wherever you were planning to go.
So if you're saying, like, well, the only way I can get there is by Frontier Spirit.
I can't, you know, it's too far.
I can't drive it.
Well, then my answer is you don't need to go there.
I don't care what it is.
Oh, it's my brother's wedding.
Well, you know.
Everybody else would be there at the wedding.
What are you really bringing to the table?
Let's be honest.
But, as many of my listeners will eagerly point out, it's not like the real airlines are much better.
They are also looking to nickel and dime you every step of the way, and the passengers on those planes can also tend to be obnoxious and almost as low-class as the Frontier and Spirit crowd.
This is not a problem you can escape entirely unless you, like, fly private.
And as basically everyone who flies has noticed, the whole experience has deteriorated in quality in just about every way.
And there are a lot of reasons for that, and many of the reasons can be blamed on the airlines themselves.
But you can't really blame the airlines for the rude, aggressively unpleasant passengers like the one in the video.
Who just go out of their way to create irritating drama that all of the other people trapped in the metal tube 30,000 feet in the sky are forced to endure.
And there are a lot of these kinds of unruly passengers on airplanes these days.
That's not just our anecdotal observation.
The FAA keeps track of this kind of thing, and they report that unruly passenger incidents have steadily climbed over recent years.
Why is that happening?
Some of it, again, goes back to the airlines.
When you treat people like cattle, you try to bilk every last dollar you can out of them, you create an automatically frustrating, intense, and stressful situation.
But it can't all be blamed on the airlines.
The flight crew in this case didn't seem to do anything wrong.
This case is a reflection of a deeper problem, which is that we live in a low-trust society where we can no longer depend on each other to be even minimally decent, honest, and cooperative.
You know, there used to be a general cultural understanding that when you're on a plane, you have to be polite, and reasonable, and compliant, and even present yourself, dress well, present yourself well.
That understanding is no longer shared by everyone.
Many people are impervious to the shame that breaking this social contract would cause.
They feel no obligation to behave in a decent way and no embarrassment about it.
They have no sense of personal honor, which means that they feel no discomfort with acting dishonorably.
They fundamentally reject the idea that they have any obligation to comport their behavior in any way with any set of rules or standards.
If you say to this type of person, well, you shouldn't act this way because it's disrespectful and disruptive to those around you, they will respond by asking, why should I care about the people around me?
And that's not a rhetorical question for them.
They sincerely don't understand why any other human in existence should matter to them in the slightest.
This is why flying is miserable.
It's also why doing anything in our culture can be miserable.
It's why it's miserable to live anywhere with a high concentration of people.
It doesn't have to be this way.
It wasn't always this way.
I mean, we've never lived in a paradise, but there was a time when basic standards of personal conduct were observed by most people most of the time.
That's no longer the case.
And disputes over the exit row on a frontier flight are the least of our problems because of it.
But that is the manifestation of this underlying problem that we're discussing today, and it's why the woman on that flight is today cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Export Selection