Ep. 1416 - People Have Finally Had Enough Of The Illegal Immigrant Takeover
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, years of unchecked illegal third-world immigration into the UK has led to unrest in the country. People have finally had enough of it. Also, Kamala Harris announces her VP pick, and he's even more radically left-wing than she is. The Biden Administration knows what to do in the face of a stock market crash, a failing economy, and war overseas: ban plastic kitchen utensils. And the Second Gentleman, Kamala's husband, is on a crusade against "toxic masculinity." It's an odd pitch coming from a guy who, according to a report this weekend, cheated on his wife with the nanny.
Ep.1416
- - -
DailyWire+:
From us white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes my next question: “Am I Racist?” | In theaters September 13: https://www.amiracist.com
Get tickets to Backstage LIVE at the Ryman, August 14! https://bit.ly/46igytS
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, years of unchecked illegal third-world immigration into the UK has led to unrest in the country.
People have finally had enough of it.
Also, Kamala Harris announces her VP pick, and he's even more radically left-wing than she is, somehow.
The Biden administration knows what to do in the face of a stock market crash, a failing economy, war overseas.
Ban plastic kitchen utensils.
That's what they're focused on.
And the second gentleman, Kamala's husband, is on a crusade against toxic masculinity.
Kind of an odd pitch coming from a guy who, according to a report this weekend, cheated on his wife with the nanny.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Tell you why our Plus members have unlimited on-demand access to our uncensored, ad-free
daily shows, real-time breaking news, and investigative journalism.
Don't be left in the dark.
Join us and join the fight now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Security is top of mind for many Americans during these crazy times.
Security for our country, security for our leaders, security for our families.
But you're not financially secure if all of your eggs are in one basket.
Consider diversifying at least some of your savings today with the help of Birch Gold Group.
Gold and silver are an excellent way to diversify your savings.
They're a hedge against inflation, a physical asset that's in high demand globally.
Through my friends at Birch Gold Group, you can own physical gold and silver at a tax-sheltered retirement account.
That's right, you can diversify an old IRA or 401k for no money out of pocket into an IRA in gold and silver.
This is just one thing you can do today to secure your family's savings.
Text Walsh to 989898 and receive a free no-obligation info kit to learn the role that precious metals play in your overall savings strategy.
Again, text Walsh to 989898 with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Thousands of happy customers.
You can trust Birch Gold to help diversify your savings and secure your family's financial future.
Text Walsh to 989898 today.
Southport is a seaside town in the northwest of England that looks quite a bit different than it did 20 years ago.
There used to be a lot of young people living there for one thing, and back in 2001, only around 4% of the population of Southport said they were born outside the UK.
It was a pretty homogenous place.
Well, 20 years later, a lot has changed, and for the most part, it has not changed for the better.
As a long-time Southport politician named John Pugh put it recently, Southport as an entity is struggling.
Southport's now much older, mainly because young Britons no longer see much opportunity there.
They've been replaced, in many cases, by foreigners.
One in ten residents now voluntarily report that they were born outside the UK.
And many of them are bringing their religious beliefs with them, as you would expect.
Mosques, which were once found exclusively in large British cities like London and Birmingham, began popping up in Southport.
As the UK added more than a million Muslims to its population in under a decade.
All of these changes have been accompanied by various indignities along the way.
Last year, for example, British officials floated the idea of housing illegal migrants
in Southport's Holiday Park because it would be cheaper than paying for hotels.
Illegal aliens had already taken over five hotels in the Liverpool area,
only to complain that they were being mistreated.
And rather than kick these ungrateful foreigners out of the country, Britain's government attempted to offer them Southport's Holiday Park as an accommodation as well.
That episode was a pretty clear indication that Southport's decline is not accidental.
It is deliberate.
That's why the British government doesn't see a flood of illegal immigrants as a problem.
They see it as an opportunity to shut down the local park.
Every catastrophe is just more evidence that their plan is working.
It's yet another opportunity to degrade the lives of British citizens even further.
That's true even after the massacre that took place on July 29th.
Police say that a 17-year-old man entered a dance studio in Southport that was hosting a Taylor Swift-themed workshop for young children.
Armed with a knife, he allegedly murdered three girls, ages 6, 7, and 9, and seriously injured 10 others, including eight children.
Organizers apparently tried to shield the children.
At least one was critically injured in the attempt.
When a police officer finally arrived, he waited before entering the studio because he only had a baton.
And ultimately, after more than a dozen victims have been stabbed, the police went in and arrested the killer.
The killer, who police have identified as Axel Rudakubana, was born in Britain to Rwandan parents who migrated to the UK roughly about 20 years ago.
Police haven't provided any more information than that.
Now following this deliberate and premeditated attack on children, fed-up residents of Southport and towns all across the UK began engaging in varying degrees of civil disobedience.
In Southport, locals threw objects at police officers, apparently lit a police vehicle on fire last week as well.
Watch.
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[Whistle]
[Cheering]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, so that's some of the scene there.
And 100 miles away in another town, locals reportedly stormed a taxpayer-funded shelter for so-called asylum seekers, which of course is a euphemism for illegal aliens who are looking to abuse the asylum system.
And here's what that looked like.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[NOISE]
All right, so competent leaders, people who care about the future of
their country would look at scenes of civil disorder like this and
ask themselves why exactly it's happening.
It's not enough to shake your fist and say that committing crimes during mass protests is a bad thing, although generally it is a bad thing.
That doesn't address the problem.
To do that, it's important to figure out why people are so upset that they're willing to commit crimes like this in broad daylight.
Is it because they've bought into years of lies about so-called police violence against black people, culminating in false narratives about lifelong criminals like George Floyd and Jacob Blake and many others?
That was the impetus for BLM, as we all know.
Or is it because, as was the case with January 6th, people didn't buy into government lies about lockdowns and mail-in voting and Russian collusion, culminating in an election in which Joe Biden somehow won millions more votes than Barack Obama did in 2008?
Or is it because, as is the case in Southport, people are tired of the decades-long government effort to re-engineer the demographics of their entire country?
Maybe these people are wondering how the alleged killers' Rwandan parents arrived in Britain in the first place.
Were they granted citizenship?
If so, on what basis?
And if not, why are they still in the country?
Those are reasonable questions.
But Britain's government is not answering any questions.
Instead, Britain's new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has announced a crackdown on the people who are on the internet saying things that he doesn't like.
Watch.
I can announce today that following this meeting, we will establish a national capability across police forces to tackle violent disorder.
These thugs are mobile, they move from community to community, and we must have a policing response that can do the same.
Shared intelligence, wider deployment of facial recognition technology, and preventative action, criminal behaviour orders, to restrict their movements, before they can even board a train.
In just the same way that we do with football hooligans.
And let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them, violent disorder clearly whipped up online, that is also a crime.
It's happening on your premises.
And the law must be upheld everywhere.
That is the single most important duty of government.
Service rests on security.
And we will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.
So Britain is establishing a plan to tackle violent disorder and to shut down the quote-unquote thugs.
Sounds a lot like he's going to use these protests as a pretext to establish a surveillance state.
This plan will include shared intelligence and facial recognition technology.
It'll even include preventative action to prevent people from committing crimes in the first place, like something out of the Minority Report.
And then, for good measure, he threatens social media companies with criminal prosecution if they don't stop people from saying the things he doesn't like.
Now, through all this, Keir Starmer claims that he's not motivated in any way by the prospect of shutting down criticism of his country's open borders policies.
Instead, he says that he's really upset about civil disorder in general.
Anytime protests turn to arson or violence, Keir Starmer says he's opposed to it.
And he's been explicit about that.
Listen.
There is policing without fear or favour.
Exactly as it should be.
Exactly what I would expect and require.
So that is a non-issue.
The focus here is not on the apparent motivation of anybody involved in this.
This is not protest.
This is violence.
It's violence on our streets being inflicted and targeted on communities and we're not going to tolerate that in this country.
So it's a non-issue to say that there's a two-tier system of justice, says Britain's new Prime Minister.
It doesn't matter what your motivation is.
If you commit acts of violence on the street, then your behavior won't be tolerated.
This is the kind of claim that might be effective if video cameras and the internet had never been invented.
But as it stands, people can go back four years ago and see exactly what this guy said about the BLM riots, which caused more than a billion dollars in property damage and resulted in the deaths of at least two dozen people.
So if you pull that footage, you'll notice that Keir Starmer does not condemn the violent thugs a single time.
Certainly doesn't call them thugs.
He doesn't mention the fact that they torched a police station in Minneapolis or a church outside the White House.
Instead, he condemns anyone who tries to criticize them, much less arrest them.
Watch.
Like you, I was shocked and angered at the killing of George Floyd.
And the response of President Trump and the U.S.
authorities to the peaceful protests, to people rightly demanding justice, has been an affront to humanity.
The last week has shone a spotlight on the racism, discrimination and injustice experienced by those from black and minority ethnic communities in the US.
But we must also reflect on the injustices in our own country.
We must address the reality and the impact of anti-black racism which has been highlighted Okay, so you get the idea.
You get the idea.
movement. Now, more than ever, it's incumbent upon us all to ensure that this is a turning
point. We must face up to and understand and address the systemic racial discrimination
that exists in our own communities.
The Labour Party stands— Okay, so you get the idea. You get the idea. Just very
different, but slightly different Can we agree on that?
Maybe a slightly different tone between the two riots?
Starmer was talking like this several days after BLM protests in London resulted in injuries to more than two dozen police officers.
And this was after the BLM violence that I mentioned in the United States.
The message was clear.
Violence for state-approved purposes is fine.
But dissent that humiliates the state and that exposes its failures will be crushed.
Its proponents will be labeled as sources of disinformation and as thugs, and they will be silenced.
Even allegedly conservative media in this country, to some extent, are buying into this framing.
Fox News, for example, reported that, quote, riots erupt in UK after stabbing spree falsely blamed on asylum seeker.
Various other outlets have run similar stories.
The idea is that because this killer reportedly was born in Britain to Rwandan parents, the protest must be illegitimate.
Now, pause for a moment to consider the extraordinary degree of irony here.
The same people who tell white Britons and white Americans that they're colonizers and oppressors, people living on land that their ancestors conquered hundreds if not thousands of years ago.
Are now telling these same white Britons and Americans that they have no right to be upset about the flood of third world migrants colonizing their country.
Only this is a very different kind of colonization.
It's not the straightforward act of a stronger and more civilized society coming in and conquering a place, as has happened historically.
And that's the kind of colonization that's demonized now.
That's the bad kind, we're told.
But what we have now is a colonization by subversion.
It's a subversive colonization.
Colonization orchestrated by the elites of the country that is being colonized.
It's a kind of self-imposed colonization done not for the purposes of spreading civilization, which is why the Europeans colonized, but done for the purpose of destroying civilization.
European colonizers, for hundreds of years, brought civilization to uncivilized lands.
In this case, uncivilized people are bringing chaos, poverty, and lawlessness to previously civilized societies.
Very different kind.
And there's the first kind of colonization, which very often can be not only morally justified, but should be celebrated.
And then there's a second kind, which is never good.
Which is always bad.
Now leftists, of course, would disagree with this characterization.
In fact, they say that if you stop this unchecked tidal wave of immigration, then you're losing civilization.
There's a lot of commentary like this, just as an example, this is from an activist named Bushra Shaikh, and she posted this.
Quote, take away the curries and kebabs, take away the tea, the coffee, take away the doctors and nurses, the Ubers and buses, take away the night workers, take away the clothes, take away the cleaners, take it all away.
It's all foreign.
These racists don't understand.
They'll be left with very little.
Now, I'll say, first of all, I'm a huge fan of curry myself.
If I had to give it up in order to have law and order and civilization again, I would, I mean, I wouldn't be happy giving up the curry, but I would take that trade.
It's not a tough trade.
But she goes further.
She says that even clothes and technology and transportation would be gone without foreign migration.
We'll be left with, quote, very little.
That's an odd claim, isn't it?
I mean, after all, if all of the good things in life are brought to Western countries by foreigners, then why are they coming in the first place?
If they're bringing everything here, then why bring it?
So is this really just an act of generosity?
Is that why we have this flood of illegal immigrants all over the West?
Because they're doing it for our sake?
Because they have so many gifts to bring us?
You'd have to be very stupid to buy that line of thought.
So we're left again with the question.
Why not just stay where you are?
If you have everything and we have nothing, basically, what are you coming here for?
If Western countries need these immigrants in order to thrive, then why aren't their own countries thriving?
That's strange, you must admit.
Apparently the West is gifted prosperity by third world immigrants, and yet these immigrants have not given this gift of prosperity to their own countries.
How does that work?
Now in any case, the left is telling Britons that the son of newly arrived Rwandan immigrants has every right to live in their country, and how dare you say otherwise?
The moment you're born on British soil, you're British, and no one can ask a single question about anything, including how your parents got there.
These are the rules now.
And as usual, they only benefit people who are not white.
Now, the residents of Southport have had enough of it.
The riots we're seeing across Britain right now are an inevitable reaction to years of unchecked immigration.
Now, it doesn't make the riots a smart strategic response.
Strategically, it's clear that it will backfire, and already is, but the frustration and anger is understandable.
And no, the same logic does not apply to BLM.
Reasonable people are capable of distinguishing between the BLM riots And the civil disorder taking place in the UK.
The BLM riots occurred because the rioters didn't like the fact that laws were being enforced.
That's why they wanted to fund the police.
That's why they created dozens of race hoaxes involving police officers.
What's happening in the UK has the opposite explanation.
People are revolting against a government that refuses to enforce the law.
They want the government to fulfill its most basic responsibility, which is to secure the border from foreign invasion.
Follow the law.
Enforce the law.
That's why no amount of social media censorship or pro-crime investigations or finger-wagging from Keir Starmer can change the fact that he now has two options as Prime Minister.
He can commit to ending unrestricted illegal migration into Britain and deporting illegal aliens currently living in the country.
Or he can continue to demonize his own citizens and turn the rest of the UK into Southport.
At this point it's clear that both options will lead to some level of unrest and even violence in Britain.
The only question now is whether there will be a Britain at the end of it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions in back taxes regardless of the size of
your tax issue. Their expertise is your advantage. Tax Network USA offers three key services
protection, compliance, and settlement.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order
ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures
are halted. If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing
records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate
the risk of IRS enforcement.
Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000.
Or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000.
Or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
Okay, so big political news.
Kamala Harris has picked the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, as her running mate.
A lot of people expected her to go with Shapiro in Pennsylvania, but ultimately her campaign decided against it.
And the speculation, I think the totally correct speculation, is that—you can barely even call it speculation, it's pretty obvious—that they decided against Shapiro because they need to win Michigan, and Michigan has a heavy Muslim population, and Shapiro You know, well, Shapiro is named Shapiro.
So, it's Walls, and what does Walls bring to the ticket?
You know, mostly he's an old, bald, white guy.
That's the main thing for Kamala.
Other than that, you know, not much.
Now, I will say that I've always thought that the VP pick doesn't really matter that much.
Certainly doesn't matter as much as everyone makes it out to matter.
You know, and I know that I've always been in the minority among pundits.
I've nonetheless been skeptical that anyone really votes or doesn't vote for a presidential candidate based on who's at the bottom of the ticket.
It's probably hyperbole to say that nobody has ever voted along those lines, but I highly doubt that up to this point any kind of sizable number of people have factored the VP into their considerations that heavily, which is why very often, with notable exception, but very often you hardly even remember who the VP is.
I follow politics pretty closely, as you know.
I didn't remember off the top of my head who Hillary Clinton's VP pick was.
I had to go look it up, and it was Tim Kaine.
And I think I'm probably in the majority on that.
So the VP stuff recently has mostly just been a storyline for cable news.
Most people don't care that much, and when it comes time to cast a ballot, Especially in this election, all the reasons you could ever possibly need to not vote for Kamala can be found in Kamala herself.
I know, in my case, I'm not voting for Kamala because of Kamala.
And if Kamala had picked someone who is not a left-wing Looney Tune, which Walz is, we'll talk about that in a second.
I still wouldn't have voted for her.
I mean, she could have gone insane and picked a right-winger as her VP.
She could have picked, I don't know, Tucker Carlson to be her vice presidential candidate.
And I still would be just as likely to vote for her, and the likelihood would be 0%.
So it's 0% either way.
Now, of course, I'm a right-wing crazy radical.
I'm not representative of the average voter.
I understand that.
I get that.
But when it comes down to it, people are voting for Kamala either because they like her or because they hate Trump.
Or, or maybe they're not crazy about either of them, but they prefer the Democratic platform.
Those are kind of like the three reasons why someone's going to vote for Kamala.
And does the VP, where does the VP figure into that?
I would think not much.
Now, I have, all that said, I have been convinced that this might be an election that is the exception to this rule.
And because, for various reasons, namely because this election will probably be decided by razor-thin margins in a few key states.
And so you could see, potentially, it's the kind of scenario where the VP pick could push it over the edge one way or another.
The question is whether Walls is likely to push it over the edge in favor of Kamala or against her.
So let's talk about who Tim Walz is.
All you really need to know is that he's a far-left radical.
He's a true believer.
At least he presents himself that way.
I don't know what he actually believes, but this is how he presents himself.
And it's not hard to see what the strategy is.
The thinking behind it is easy to see.
Yeah, he's an old white guy from the Midwest, so there's a demographic play there.
But the main point for the Kamala campaign is that he's far left, and Kamala herself is absurdly trying to position herself more towards the middle.
She's trying to reinvent herself as a bit of a moderate on at least some key issues.
She's running to the right on things like crime and immigration, which again is completely bogus and ridiculous, but that's the move.
And they bring in Walls, who's as far to the left as you can go, hoping to shore up their left plank and mobilize the base.
And I think that's the basic idea.
This is going to be a base election.
You could argue that every election is, but this one may be more than most.
Whoever mobilizes their base the best will win.
At least that's the thinking.
And judging by the VP picks on both sides, it seems that both campaigns are sort of thinking along those lines.
So, what do we know about him, about Walls?
Well, he's a terrible leader.
Let's start with that.
I mean, after all, this is the man who gave us this image, and as they say, let's put this image up on the screen, this is, as they say, a thousand words and all that, so this is an image that We'll live forever in American history in all the worst ways.
It's a mob of thugs burning down a police station in the middle of Minneapolis.
It's one of the most shameful moments in American history.
And Walls presided over it.
He allowed it to happen.
Now, we know that it wasn't just police stations.
He allowed mobs to rampage through the city for days and weeks on end.
Rampage through the state, multiple cities.
But I think all of that, you know, and there are a lot of terrible images that came out of that period of time, but the fact that they were able to invade a police station and burn it to the ground and nobody stopped them, that kind of tells you everything.
And not only did he allow it to happen, but he justified it and he defended the mobs the whole time.
In fact, he said that it's the fault of society For not emphasizing diversity and inclusion enough.
That's what he said at the time.
Let's listen to that.
A society that does not put equity and inclusion at the center of it is certainly going to eventually come to the places where we're at.
This is a moment of inflection.
It's a moment of real change.
It's a moment that those folks who are out there demanding this are not going to take a commission or a report.
They're going to want fundamental change.
And that is what I think that's one of the exciting things in the midst of all this.
You can feel a sense of optimism coming back.
Exciting and optimistic, that's what he says.
The police station was just burned to the ground, city blocks burned to the ground, and he finds it exciting and optimistic.
Why?
Because of all those violent thugs, they were burning buildings and looting stores and destroying their own communities because they wanted diversity and inclusion.
That was just their way of expressing their support for DEI, is what he said.
Now, of course, we could sit here all day and play examples of crazy stuff that Tim Walz has said.
And the Trump campaign, rightly so, is busy.
They were obviously ready for this.
And that's one of the problems.
I don't know why.
I mean, Trump sort of did the same thing, dragging out the Who's it going to be?
Who are we going to choose?
Nature of the VP pick.
Trump also dragged it out, kind of to the very last minute.
But it was less clear for Trump who the candidates were.
We kind of had an idea of five or six people, and it could be someone else entirely.
And then he made the choice for J.D.
Vance.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, it was very clear for days and probably weeks that it
was really down to like two people, maybe three.
And so all you're doing is you're giving your opposition the chance to just get all of the
oppo together that they can on those people.
And then as soon as you announce it, they're going to hit the ground running with all of
it.
And it is important to hit the ground running because you have to define this person.
I just saw a poll that something like 70% of Americans don't know who Tim Walz is, which means that they don't know, and so it's up to one campaign or the other to define him.
And it's not very hard to define Tim Walz as what he is, which is a far-left radical.
Here's a quick compilation that I think this was posted by Senator Mike Lee of Tim Walz saying crazy left-wing stuff.
Let's watch that.
But we can get out there.
Reach out.
Make the case.
And for one thing, don't ever shy away from our progressive values.
One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness.
Should Minnesota be a sanctuary state?
If the definition of that is that the federal government enforces immigration law and local law enforcement enforces local law, then yes.
Should cities be allowed to be sanctuary cities?
Yes, local control.
Number two, it seems like elected officials are always surrounded by lots of people.
Staff, other lawmakers.
What is the last thing that you did truly out in the public, truly by yourself?
I went to Menards and bought an air filter for my furnace.
Not sure why that last clip is in there.
I mean, that's pretty normal, right?
That's a normal thing to say.
I don't know why it's in there.
More to the point, one person's socialism is another person's neighborliness.
And by the way, if you're watching the clip, you saw the white dudes for Harris.
He just said that.
This isn't like something that he said 10 years ago.
He just said that, like, last week.
That socialism is neighborliness.
So there you go.
That kind of says it all.
And this is a guy who has signed a bill giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
I mean, pretty much every crazy left-wing idea, he's either spoken in favor of it or passed legislation mandating it.
And as I said, the Trump camp was ready to go with this.
So here was an ad put out this morning focusing on some of those radical positions.
Let's watch this.
What could be weirder than signing a bill into law that requires schools to stock tampons in boys' bathrooms?
Or weirder than signing legislation allowing minors to receive sex change operations?
Try electing the man who signed those bills, Vice President of the United States.
Enter Chief Weirdo Tim Walz.
As Governor of Minnesota, Walz supported legislation that endangers minors, hurts women, and puts radical ideology ahead of common sense.
Now Kamala wants Walz to enforce those laws on a national scale.
Tim Walz.
Too Weird.
Too Radical.
I gotta tell you, I love this ad, and obviously I'm biased here, to put it mildly.
I'm always going to love it when Republicans hit Democrats, hit them at all.
If you hit the Democrats hard, I'm always gonna love it.
If you hit them on this issue in particular, I'm gonna love that.
But even putting my own bias to the side, I think this is a great ad because of the tone.
This is exactly the right tone.
This is exactly the right way to talk about this issue.
There's a lot you can say about somebody like Tim Walz, who supports sex changes for minors, chemically castrating minors, wants to put tampons in the boys' bathroom, all that kind of stuff.
There's a lot you can say about that.
It's so crazy, it's so insane, it's so disgusting.
You're almost at a disadvantage in a way because there are so many different ways you can attack it, it's hard to know where to start.
It's like paralysis by analysis.
Where do I even begin in explaining why this is so terrible?
Well, I think this is the right way to start.
That supporting this stuff, chemical castration of miners, sterilizing miners, it is weird, it is bizarre, it's gross.
It's evil.
That's how you talk about it.
That's how you brand it.
Hopefully, on the right, we have long since moved past the idea that we need to have a serious debate about these issues.
Should we chemically castrate minors?
Let's sit down and have a serious discussion.
This is a controversial issue that people could have different views on it.
We should sit down and have a conversation about it.
That's the kind of thing you would have heard from Republicans in the not-too-distant past.
But as I've always said, there are issues out there that we can talk about and debate, and there are two sides to it.
There are issues like that in the world, for sure.
This, not one of them.
There's no conversation to be had.
The other side has no argument.
None.
This is the kind of thing, the moment someone suggests it, you just shut them down right away.
We're not even going to have a conversation.
What kind of person are you that you would even entertain doing this to kids?
That's disgusting.
What's wrong with you?
That's exactly the right tone.
So, keep it up.
Alright, Fox News.
As this, the Biden administration announced a plan to target plastic pollution, dedicating particular focus to phase out single-use plastics such as kitchen cutlery, cups, and straws across federal departments.
President Biden announced the order taking aim at the climate crisis in July, which would require an all-hands-on-deck response from every federal agency.
The White House said the President is committed to taking ambitious actions to end plastic pollution and is calling upon the global community to do the same with the goal to reduce the global production and consumption of virgin plastics.
As part of this plan, the White House announced a phase-out of single-use plastics, which include plastic in food and beverage containers, bottles, straws, cups, cutlery, and disposable plastic bags.
I mean, we've got the stock market crashing, we have war overseas, multiple wars, economies in shambles, borders in shambles, multiple crises on multiple fronts, and the Biden administration is busying itself with the pressing issue of plastic forks.
If it dealt with the plastic straws, Which, by the way, made everything worse, as studies have proven.
But now they're moving on to utensils.
And let me just say, first of all, I know that this is right now is focused on federal employees.
The plastic fork ban will not include private citizens at this point.
For now, it always starts that way.
And then eventually, you know, in a few years, it's banned for everybody.
And let me just say, when that time comes, you can pry these plastic forks out of my cold, dead hands.
I am a I am a huge I will fight to the death for plastic utensils.
I'm a huge fan of plastic utensils.
I'm in the fan club, because as a father with a bunch of kids, it's so much easier to use plastic utensils and paper plates.
Eat dinner, throw it away, so much easier.
No dishes to do.
Not that I'd be doing the dishes anyway, but still, it's very convenient.
And, you know, the thing is, when you become a parent, you don't realize how many things and how many types of things will start to go missing in your home.
I never would have thought, for example, that losing silverware would be an issue.
But it is, because our silverware goes missing constantly.
I mean, if you aren't a parent, you probably bought a box of, like, forks and spoons and knives and stuff 20 years ago, and you're still using the same ones.
Like, you never have to go out and buy new ones, ever.
You just, you have them, and you use the same one for years.
Not with kids, I don't know, at least in our experience.
It's just, stuff goes missing.
And it's not like the kids are stealing the silverware and go pawning it somewhere.
They're not bringing it to a pawn shop.
They're not quite old enough for that.
But I don't know what happens.
The other day, I went to go set the table.
We had like three forks left in the house.
I called all my kids in and said, where are the forks?
What did you do with the forks?
Why don't we have forks?
And my four-year-old runs out of the room and then comes back a minute later with a whole armful of forks or silverware.
And I said, what were you doing with this?
He said, I don't know.
Were you playing house or something?
The make-believe?
No?
Okay then.
The point is, plastic forks are much more convenient.
And let me say one other thing about this.
When it comes to pollution, plastic pollution, any kind of pollution, littering, I agree that it's a problem.
I actually agree with that.
I agree that pollution is a problem.
I hate pollution.
I probably hate pollution more than your average environmentalist does.
I'd like to see harsher penalties for it, actually.
And I know that there are some conservatives who think that giving fines for littering, for example, is like a nanny state thing.
And I disagree.
Or at least if it is nanny state, then I guess that's one form of nanny state that I actually support, because I'd like to see harsher penalties for it.
The other day I was out fishing and there was a McDonald's cup floating in the lake.
And I'm like, who just throws a cup into the lake?
What kind of person are you?
I'd give that person a month in jail.
A month in jail, $10,000 fine, not a joke.
I would do that.
Littering is gross.
It's uncivilized.
It's not just an attack on nature.
It's an attack on civilization.
This is not what we do in civilization.
You don't do this.
It's wrong to do this to other people.
Now I have to look at your garbage.
But the problem is that on a global scale, we are not the ones who are doing the littering and polluting.
In fact, the whole reason that the McDonald's cup in the lake stood out to me is that by and large when I go to lakes, and I've been to lakes all over the country in like dozens of different states, and by and large they're very clean.
You know, we as Americans are usually not the ones throwing our garbage into the waterways.
Outside of the homeless camps in major cities, we're not the ones doing all the littering and polluting.
As I pointed out before, nearly all of the pollution and the litter and the trash that makes its way out into the ocean is coming from Africa and Asia.
Third world countries are just dumping their trash directly into their waterways, and that is pretty much the whole problem.
It's got basically nothing to do with the fact that you use plastic straws and plastic forks and the fact that we use plastic forks all the time in my house.
It's got nothing to do with that.
Almost nothing.
So banning plastic, and you could ban it for everybody, and it would accomplish almost nothing.
It's like if, as an analogy, imagine that you live in a neighborhood and your neighbor knocks on your door and yells at you because you left a Like a rake and a football sitting in your front yard.
And he yells at you and says that, well, your yard's all junky and it's going to bring down the property values in the whole neighborhood.
But then imagine that you look right across the street.
Hey, someone who lives right across the street and you see there's a hoarder living there with like 15 broken down vehicles and bags of trash and old tarps and like roadkill and three rusty charcoal grills that haven't been used in ages and all this stuff cluttering up their yard and their sidewalk.
Well, if you saw that, you'd say, okay, yeah, I can pick up my rake.
But as long as that godforsaken asshole stays there across the street, property values will remain in the toilet.
There's actually almost nothing I can do myself about the property value problem because of that.
Like, that guy right there is using his whole yard as a garbage dump.
That's the whole problem in this neighborhood when it comes to this issue.
It's right there.
But you won't talk to him because, in this analogy, that guy is, you know, African.
And that's the situation on a global scale, where you've got these countries, these societies, where they just don't, there's simply no effort made to dispose of garbage in a healthy and sanitary way.
And it's not like they can't, it's not like it's impossible.
I mean, in Western societies, we've figured out a way to do it.
It's a little bit of effort and ingenuity and organization and you can get rid of your garbage, but if you go to these other third world countries, they just don't care.
When we were in Kenya and driving down to meet the Maasai tribe and going through cities and towns and that sort of thing for a while, hours, And this is what you see.
You see just like towns where they just huge piles of garbage just sitting in the middle of the town.
No one has made any effort to get rid of it.
You could get rid of it, but they just don't.
And so that's the problem.
That is pretty much the whole problem when it comes to littering and pollution.
And if we're not going to talk about that or deal with that, then no point talking about it at all at that point.
I also wanted to mention this briefly.
NBC News reports, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has a suggestion for parents who don't believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public, or rather in public school classrooms throughout the state.
He told reporters, tell your child not to look at them.
The Republican governor defended the controversial legislation during a news conference, announcing how Louisiana intends to fend off a lawsuit that argues that it's unconstitutional to hang the Ten Commandments in state-funded schools and college classrooms.
Landry first signed the GOP-backed legislation in June, making Louisiana the first state in the nation to require schools to exhibit posters of a religious text, which was revealed to Moses in the Bible and remains revered by followers of the Christian faith.
But the move prompted, and it's actually not just revered by followers of the Christian faith, not only them, but the move prompted a coalition of parents, Jewish, Christian, Unitarian, Universalists, and non-religious to sue the state days later in federal court.
They argue that the legislation substantially interferes with and burdens their First Amendment right to raise their children with whatever religious doctrine they want.
So we've talked about this law, which I think is a great law.
I think it should be in place in every state.
And it is not a First Amendment issue.
We knew, of course, that the godless left would try to make it into a First Amendment issue.
But all the First Amendment, when it comes to restrictions on religion, in fact, it does not restrict religion at all.
The only restriction is that Congress cannot make a law respecting the establishment of religion.
In other words, you cannot impose a state religion on the people.
And I agree that that would be unconstitutional and I would not be in favor of it, even if I am a theocratic fascist, as I've been so often accused.
But displaying the Ten Commandments in a classroom is not that.
It is not Congress.
It's not any governing body establishing a state religion.
Now, if the kids were told, here's the Ten Commandments, you must follow them and be a good Christian, your baptism is next Wednesday, get ready for it.
Like, if the school said that, then I would agree that, yeah, okay, now we've got a First Amendment problem.
But that's not what's happening.
Simply displaying them is not a violation of the First Amendment.
And, in fact, it's not just that it's not a violation of the First Amendment, it is It is actively helpful towards a child's education.
A child cannot be basically literate and have a basic understanding of world history and especially Western civilization without knowing about the Ten Commandments and understanding what they are.
So that's what this is about.
It's about basic literacy.
It's about basic historical knowledge.
So we've already established all that.
The reason I'm really reading this is that I just like the governor's response.
And that response has gotten a lot of headlines, and the left's very upset about it.
The media's very upset that he said, tell your child not to look at them if they're upset.
But that's the right response.
And I like it because that's also what the left says all the time.
Right?
That's what they always say.
When they're doing things that are actually objectionable and harmful to kids, okay, when they're doing something like parading a drag queen around, and then you object to it, they say, well, you don't have to look.
It's none of your business.
Just look away.
Now, of course, they say just look away, but at the same time, they're throwing a parade right in front of your face and screaming and shouting and doing everything they can to get your attention and to get your children's attention.
But this is a little bit of a dose of their own medicine.
Okay, you don't have to like it.
You don't have to like the Ten Commandments.
We already know you people don't like it.
And your kids don't have to look.
Just don't look if you don't like it.
Pretty simple solution.
I agree.
The Daily Wire is about to make history with its first ever theatrical film, and it's going to be a hilariously rude awakening for the mob, the woke mob, that is, from the same white guys that brought you What Is A Woman comes America's Next Great Question, Am I Racist?
coming to theaters on September 13th, went undercover into the heart of the DEI madness surrounded by professional race baiters and diversity grifters.
Pretty dark place to be, but also hilarious in a lot of ways.
What I witnessed was shocking, absurd.
Many of the descriptions you'll have after you watch this film.
Now here's what you need to know, most importantly.
Pre-sale tickets go on sale August 15th, so make sure to mark that date on your calendar.
I will keep reminding you, but August 15th is when they go on sale.
Watch the official trailer now at www.amiracist.com and get a taste of a comedy to DEI for.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Today for our daily cancellation, we cancel Doug Emhoff.
Now, if you don't know who Doug Emhoff is, he is the second gentleman.
And if you don't know what the second gentleman is, that's the name we apparently use for the vice president's husband.
It is, frankly, kind of an embarrassing title for a man to hold, but then Doug Emhoff is an embarrassing man.
Over the weekend, it was revealed that Emhoff, who has been married to Kamala Harris for about 10 years, had an affair.
Uh, that ended his first marriage, his previous marriage.
Fox News reports, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, admitted Saturday to having an extramarital affair during his first marriage after a bombshell report by the Daily Mail reported he got his children's nanny pregnant.
During my first marriage, Kirsten and I went through some tough times on account of my actions, he said in a statement to CNN.
I took responsibility, and in the years since, we worked through things as a family and have come out stronger on the other side.
Emhoff did not return Fox News Digital's request for comment, but gave the statement to the Harris Friendly News Network hours after the Daily Mail story broke.
The affair ended the marriage, according to the Daily Mail, which reported the nanny was also a teacher at Emhoff's children's school.
The report said the woman, who Fox News Digital is not naming, did not keep the baby, though it is unclear what happened to the baby or if Emhoff has ever been involved in the child's life.
Now, first of all, can I just say, you did not come out stronger on the other end?
Like the idea that, well, you had an affair and it made your family stronger.
No, you're not married anymore.
It tore your family apart.
Your family's not stronger now.
And there's, in general, affairs do not make a marriage stronger.
Hopefully a marriage will survive it.
It's not going to make it stronger, though.
You've actually permanently weakened your marriage.
Permanently.
In any case, I've read reports elsewhere that the nanny mistress may have had a miscarriage.
I don't know.
I mean, is that the case?
Or did they employ more proactive means of ending the pregnancy?
Or was the child born?
And if so, has he been neglected and banished the same way that Joe Biden has shunned the granddaughter that his son Hunter had out of wedlock?
There's no way for us to know for sure.
We just don't know.
Now, I would normally say that The marital affairs of the second gentleman are not relevant to voters.
And I would still say that here, there are countless reasons to not vote for Kamala Harris.
The fact that her husband got the nanny pregnant 15 years ago doesn't even make the top 50 on the list.
But even if this has no electoral significance, it still matters.
And it matters for one reason above all.
That Doug Emhoff, the guy who ruined his first marriage by sleeping with and impregnating the nanny, is now on a crusade against so-called toxic masculinity.
Indeed, a headline in the Washington Post tells us that Emhoff himself is, quote, the antidote to toxic masculinity.
But what is toxic masculinity and why does it need an antidote, at least according to Emhoff?
Well, here he is in an interview with CNN in 2022 explaining.
There is still a bit of a stigma.
With the notion of men taking a step back and being openly supportive of a woman who has a bigger role and a bigger job than the man does.
Are you trying to intentionally destigmatize that?
Definitely, definitely.
You think about it?
I do.
Not at the beginning, because this was a no-brainer, but now that I'm in the role, and you really see, like, not all men naturally would do this and would push back.
And then there's this toxicity, this masculine idea of what a man is that's out there that is just not correct.
Now he's right, by the way, at least about the first part.
Not all men would be willing to play first lady or second lady, even worse, to their wives and become a stay-at-home husband.
I wouldn't be a stay-at-home husband.
Providing for my family is my fundamental purpose on Earth, and I would never give that up.
Now, fortunately, I have a wife who certainly would never want me to, but that makes me toxically masculine, according to Emhoff, who continued to speak out about this subject in an interview with MSNBC the following year.
Here's what he said then.
Can we just talk about masculinity for a moment?
Has being second gentleman changed your own view of perceived gender roles or what it means to be a man?
This is something I've thought about a lot and something I've spoken about a lot.
There's too much of toxicity, masculine toxicity out there.
We've kind of confused what it means to be a man, what it means to be masculine, where you've got this trope out there that you've got to be tough and angry and lash out to be strong.
It's just the opposite.
You know, strength is how you show your love for people.
Strength is how you are for people, and how you have their back, and how you stick up for other people, and pushing up, pushing out against bullies.
And that's what I believe it is.
So every time I can speak against this toxicity, we're seeing it with our younger people, we're seeing it in our discourse, in our politics, in the media, you're seeing it as it relates To so many of the issues that we're pushing back on.
So I think it's a problem and I'm going to continue to use this platform every time I get to speak out against this toxic masculinity that's out there.
Now we know that first ladies historically are given some little project to go out and do so that they can feel important.
For Michelle Obama, it was lecturing us about our bad nutrition.
Jill Biden, for her part, has mostly been given the task of changing her husband's diapers.
And now we know what first lady Doug Emhoff will be focused on should Kamala win in November.
He'll be sent to the front lines to lead the war against toxic masculinity.
Kamala may be a childless cat lady, but she's not a single childless cat lady, which means she has a husband that she can parade around as a mascot for male feminism.
The fight against toxic masculinity will go into overdrive if we have a female president with a hen-pecked husband like Emhoff, so things are going to get very cringey very fast.
But, I can't deny it, Emhoff is the perfect spokesman for this issue.
After all, the only truly toxic form of masculinity is emasculated masculinity.
In other words, toxic masculinity is non-masculinity.
A man is toxic if he is not masculine.
Now, this is not how the term is used, of course, by people like Emhoff.
For them, masculinity is toxic when there's too much of it, and too much emphasis on it.
You heard him say, this idea that men are supposed to be tough is, to him, toxic.
He lives in a delusional fantasy world where our culture's greatest problem is its overemphasis on toughness and strength.
That couldn't be further from the mark.
Like so much else that we hear from Democrats, it's the opposite of the truth.
This is the problem with the term toxic masculinity.
In practice, it seems that toxic masculinity can either refer to traditionally masculine traits that are now wrongly regarded as harmful, Or, actually harmful traits that are wrongly associated with men exclusively.
So, if it's used in the first sense, it's obviously degrading and damaging because it tells men that their natural masculine dispositions are somehow disordered.
There's nothing wrong with telling them to be strong or encouraging them to exercise control over their emotions.
Obviously, these messages can be delivered the wrong way, but the fundamental point is good and important.
The problem in our culture isn't that boys are being thrown in a box or forced to conform to some strict notion of masculinity.
Again, it's the opposite.
In fact, with how men are raised from childhood, too many boys are given no instruction on how to be men, no example to follow, no guidance on how to grow and mature in their masculinity.
As the left likes to remind us all the time, we're not living in the 1940s.
We aren't.
And that means that the era of the strong and stoic man ended a long time ago.
We're now living in the era of drag queens and feminism and gender fluidity and fatherless homes.
Most boys these days have no clue how to be men.
No idea what to do with their masculine energy because nobody's ever told them or shown them.
And if anyone does come along and says, well this is what masculinity is all about, you know, in order to be masculine you should do this, they're condemned by people like Doug Emhoff.
Now if toxic masculinity is being used in the second sense, used to describe actually harmful behavior, well then it unfairly blames masculinity for bullying or narcissistic tendencies that have no gender.
Right, then you're just taking, I mean, there could be like bad things that a man does that are actually bad, but then if you come in and say, oh, he's being toxically masculine.
Well, now you're just like slandering all of masculinity because of the actions of this one guy.
And if you don't understand why men might take issue with that approach, all you have to do is imagine how almost any woman would react if I said that, you know, gossipy, materialistic bimbos have toxic femininity.
That would be, at the very least, an unnecessarily inflammatory way of addressing the problem of materialistic bimbos.
But worse than that, it would suggest that femininity taken to an extreme results in dumb bimbos who spend their husband's money on shoes and purses.
So it seems to say, well, it's okay to be a woman, but don't be too womanly.
Now, of course, nobody ever does talk about toxic femininity, and the reason we don't talk about it is because we recognize how insulting and demeaning that concept is.
We also recognize that it's not possible for a woman to be too much of a woman.
There's not a problem of women being too feminine.
But with men, that's the kind of message.
Now, as I said, the real toxicity, to use Doug's term, is when men reject masculinity and when women reject femininity.
Doug Emhoff knows something about that.
Cheating on your wife and fathering a child with a nanny is, in fact, it is toxic behavior.
It's not toxically masculine behavior.
It's toxically unmasculine.
Because a man's job is to protect, provide for, and remain loyal to his family.
Emhoff failed in that regard.
And now he wants to lecture other men about how they should behave.
Now, I'm certainly not above listening to the wisdom of other men, especially men older than myself, who have something worthwhile to say about what it means to be a man.
But this guy has no wisdom on that issue, or any other issue.
He's obviously struggling mightily in his own life with what it means to be a man.
We don't need to hear him pontificating on the subject.
He should save those lectures for when he's looking in the mirror.
And that is why Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, 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.
Godspeed.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
If I'm gonna sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certification.
And what you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
This is more for you and less for you.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging.
Do you want to rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument?
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently?
Yeah.
This country is a piece of s***.
White.
Folks.
White.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
